An idea that could fix logging?

[kofeyh]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what difference does it make if a ship remains visible to other players for several seconds after its owner loses connection? They can't destroy it either way.

Because most other multiplayer games don't cause a change between vulnerable and invulnerable in the process, because any that do, have major issues with it being exploited.

The normal status is that a ship is vulnerable. Frontier have decided to stall the disconnect, and push the ship into an invulnerable state whilst doing so. This was a concious decision. This means at any time people can pull the plug or force a quit to avoid consequences.

And it's pretty clear to me with the shear amount of defence of it, that the exploiting of it almost certainly dwarfs genuine instances. The degree to which this is defended, seems to be far beyond the rare disconnect.

Note: there is a period of time when obviously the game client isn't updating (because of the disconnect) so it won't be applying damage. But Frontier extend that period waiting for the client to reconnect.

So what should be a few seconds before disconnect can be upwards of half a minute. Worse, it appears none of the resulting outcome is reported to the universe servers, so when you connect, none of the remaining damage is essentially applied to the ship.

Ergo, you can get down to say 15% or way way less hull, CL and never face rebuy. This, then, is just endlessly abusable. AI. Station. You name it. I'm not cool with that. Because it really is so endlessly abusable.

I don't care that the client obviously can't be updated when it disconnects. But it seems it's not updated when it reconnects either. This is just asking for people to abuse it.

 

[Gunnet]

Because most other multiplayer games don't cause a change between vulnerable and invulnerable in the process, because any that do, have major issues with it being exploited.

The normal status is that a ship is vulnerable. Frontier have decided to stall the disconnect, and push the ship into an invulnerable state whilst doing so. This was a concious decision. This means at any time people can pull the plug or force a quit to avoid consequences.

And it's pretty clear to me with the shear amount of defence of it, that the exploiting of it almost certainly dwarfs genuine instances. The degree to which this is defended, seems to be far beyond the rare disconnect.

Note: there is a period of time when obviously the game client isn't updating (because of the disconnect) so it won't be applying damage. But Frontier extend that period waiting for the client to reconnect.

So what should be a few seconds before disconnect can be upwards of half a minute. Worse, it appears none of the resulting outcome is reported to the universe servers, so when you connect, none of the remaining damage is essentially applied to the ship.

Ergo, you can get down to say 15% or way way less hull, CL and never face rebuy. This, then, is just endlessly abusable. AI. Station. You name it. I'm not cool with that. Because it really is so endlessly abusable.

I don't care that the client obviously can't be updated when it disconnects. But it seems it's not updated when it reconnects either. This is just asking for people to abuse it.

I understand your objection to a disconnect resulting in a ship being unable to be destroyed. But I don't see how it disappearing instantly rather than remaining temporarily visible but invulnerable would change things.

There's no way for the ship to remain vulnerable to damage, since the client responsible for it is no longer connected. The only way it could be done is to blindly take the word of another player's client that it should be destroyed, which would open the floodgates on far worse cheating than currently exists.

 

[kofeyh]

I understand your objection to a disconnect resulting in a ship being unable to be destroyed. But I don't see how it disappearing instantly rather than remaining temporarily visible but invulnerable would change things.

It's not the length of time I really care about, it could be 10 seconds, 15 seconds or the ship could sit there for 5 minutes; it's that the game ignores any resulting damage taken whilst in a disconnected state. You're focusing on the delay. I'm focusing on the consequences. Because it's the latter that's out of whack; it's the latter that rewards player and it's the latter that players abuse.

And it has nothing to do with the client alone; there is data flowing between p2p, and there is data flowing to servers. Some p2p actions are being logged on servers already; this is how we end up with Bounties being recorded and retained against commanders. So are you stating, categorically, that that can't be trusted?

Are we going down the road of "the client cannot be trusted" so what it says doesn't matter, ergo CLing is fine. That's one hell of a long bow to draw, friend. Right now, the game essentially suspends any action and consequence to a disconnected player. It's not a case of whether the client can be trusted, it's that Frontier are providing a simplistic method to escape all consequence!

It's not about forcing a player to be destroyed because I get some sort of perverse pleasure out if it. It's ensuring the consequences are consistent and apply when they should. CL'ing is entirely intended to avoid consequences, and is used against the environment just as much as players. It's used to teleport out of stations. To avoid repercussions of friendly fire. You name it, you can CL to it.

Again, this isn't about wanting people to die endlessly, it's to ensure actions have consequences. Otherwise, what's the damn point? So, to convert that into an actual suggestion? If it's possible to report the damage taken between disconnect and eventual client hangup, this is reported to instance servers so it can be applied during log in.

Something. Anything. But just pretending nothing happened when the client disconnects, because it's not there anymore, for however long the session stays alive before disconnecting, is just asking for abuse; it's encouraging logging.

I don't know how that could be handled; whether the client reports statistics every x seconds to the server, and the last update is used, or whatever is most appropriate. I am aware there are technical hurdles here but the current situation is just pathetic. It suspends consequences; the very thing people are endlessly banging on about needing to be more barbaric.

 

[Gunnet]

It's not the length of time I really care about, it could be 10 seconds, 15 seconds or the ship could sit there for 5 minutes; it's that the game ignores any resulting damage taken whilst in a disconnected state. You're focusing on the delay. I'm focusing on the consequences. Because it's the latter that's out of whack; it's the latter that rewards player and it's the latter that players abuse.

And it has nothing to do with the client alone; there is data flowing between p2p, and there is data flowing to servers. Some p2p actions are being logged on servers already; this is how we end up with Bounties being recorded and retained against commanders. So are you stating, categorically, that that can't be trusted?

Are we going down the road of "the client cannot be trusted" so what it says doesn't matter, ergo CLing is fine. That's one hell of a long bow to draw, friend. Right now, the game essentially suspends any action and consequence to a disconnected player. It's not a case of whether the client can be trusted, it's that Frontier are providing a simplistic method to escape all consequence!

It's not about forcing a player to be destroyed because I get some sort of perverse pleasure out if it. It's ensuring the consequences are consistent and apply when they should. CL'ing is entirely intended to avoid consequences, and is used against the environment just as much as players. It's used to teleport out of stations. To avoid repercussions of friendly fire. You name it, you can CL to it.

Again, this isn't about wanting people to die endlessly, it's to ensure actions have consequences. Otherwise, what's the damn point? So, to convert that into an actual suggestion? If it's possible to report the damage taken between disconnect and eventual client hangup, this is reported to instance servers so it can be applied during log in.

Something. Anything. But just pretending nothing happened when the client disconnects, because it's not there anymore, for however long the session stays alive before disconnecting, is just asking for abuse; it's encouraging logging.

I don't know how that could be handled; whether the client reports statistics every x seconds to the server, and the last update is used, or whatever is most appropriate. I am aware there are technical hurdles here but the current situation is just pathetic. It suspends consequences; the very thing people are endlessly banging on about needing to be more barbaric.

Fair enough, from your earlier posts I got the impression that you thought there was a practical difference between the ship disappearing instantly and sitting there for X seconds taking no damage.

Regardless, the game doesn't ignore anything. It's clear (and very important) that the only client which is able to "report" damage to a player ship is the one being operated by that ship's owner. With that client disconnected, there simply isn't anything to apply damage.

And yes, I am categorically stating that no individual game client can be trusted to accurately report unverifiable data to the server. "Never trust the client" is a core security principle of any online system.

 

[Becks]

Sorry, you cannot detect it under the current architecture.

Task kills can be detected by simply having the launcher sending a report to the server when they notice that the games process was ended the rude way.

For disconnects you'd have to use a mix of reports and statistical evidence to establish whether someone is a logger or not. That's entirely possible even under P2P.

 

[Erasmus Boone]

While I can't speak for all players, I believe it would reduce the amount of "noob-clubbing" we see going on, mainly because as you point out we could police it ourselves like the old days of elite where combat loggers where put into exile and banned from player groups because of the shame it brought to the group. now for players like me a most of SDC we would become less about killing players and more about providing emergent content, the fun that can be had with a player that does not combat log is insane... we complain about the lack of content but that instance right there is where an unlimited amount of content could be created for both sides.

Some example off the top of my head, some have been put into use and provided great fun for both sides.

- Reverse Gank(We blow up instead of them)
- Pretend to be the cops with voice comms performing ship inspections
- Taking cargo from a player
- Making a player drop cargo and scoop it back up before leaving
- Have the player take part in a quiz
- Take a screenshot with the player then they can leave
- My personal favorite, have the player pick one of two CMDRs, the two CMDRs then fight to the death. if the player picked the winner before the fight they live else they die.

There are loads more that could be listed but these spring to mind, the karma system will be abused. there is zero need for it. no automated system will fix PKing, the only way to curb it would be to get to the reason its done in the first place. actual players who intend to upset others are far fewer than people think, unfortunately PVP and Greifers are branded as one.

Can't you see that this is exactly the kind of thing that encourages CLing or avoiding open.
It's all about you and yours getting their jollies by 'dominating' others, it's sad pathetic playground bully kind of nonsense.
Sure occasionally someone might find it funny to be on the otherside, or atleast pretend to to try and reduce your pleasure, but in most casses it will just irritate and fustrate.
Textbook greifing.

However the important part of your post is tucked away at the end.

'the karma system will be abused. there is zero need for it'

As you have consistantly shown that you are not bound by honesty and let's face you are always playing an angle I take this to mean that the karma system will be a very good thing indeed.

Oh and don't complain that people are giving you a hard time in this thread, you choose to be the pantomine villian, don't kick off when the boys and girls boo you.

 

[kofeyh]

Regardless, the game doesn't ignore anything.

But it does. If you disconnect, nothing happens. The person disconnecting has time stop in that respect. No consequences.

It's clear (and very important) that the only client which is able to "report" damage to a player ship is the one being operated by that ship's owner.

Which is being fed data from another client. So if we're going down this road, the server can be the arbiter. As that's wholly Frontier controlled. This is the missing bit; there is no arbiter in a disconnected scenario. And there should be.

If I am about to have a ship loss, due to the station opening fire because I have been very naughty, and I CL, should I lose my ship, or not? Should there be consequences, or not? Pick one.

With that client disconnected, there simply isn't anything to apply damage.

This is true; this is also implicitly saying all consequences are irrelevant on disconnect. This is a flawed concept, as it is implicitly rewarding the avoidance of consequence. There is considerable financial gain involved. More than enough motivation.

And yes, I am categorically stating that no individual game client can be trusted to accurately report unverifiable data to the server. "Never trust the client" is a core security principle of any online system.

Correct, which is why there is usually some form of arbitration, to solve deadlocks between clients, or where there are two competing and opposite results. It's equally a core security and redundancy principle, when you do not trust clients; an arbiter or arbitration methodology is used to solve deadlocks or 'split-brain'. In this instance, the servers should absolutely be tracking some degree of client actions, and they certainly already do.

Again, I am not interested in unnecessarily punishing for disconnects, but I think the massive advantage it offers is fundimentally problematic, and I just can't justify there's sufficient reason for it. We can't really argue that this is fine, and then have a tantrum about people performing a forced mechanics break in engineering to gain massive advantage.

Either it's okay to abuse the client to gain advantage, or it isn't. Again - pick one.

 

[kofeyh]

Can't you see that this is exactly the kind of thing that encourages CLing or avoiding open.

Ends don't justify the means. CLing is the avoidance of consequence; and it's across more than just some folks apparently getting their jollies. It was rampant during smuggling missions. I watched quite a few CMDRs zip out of Sothis/ Ceos and re-appear on the edge of scanner range. It's still rampant to avoid almost all forms of ship destruction, or being scanned by cops, or pretty much anything else you can log against.

I am no fan of PK-ing, but if you are going to demand people be held to a standard, that has to include everyone. Otherwise, it's just a hollow "blame the boogeyman" for all the games ills. And that's not constructive; because you can't fix boxing with shadows.

Bad people are just going to be bad, so either you build the game to understand that that will happen, and ensure consequences are effective, or you feign ignorance and make some offhand comment about 'rare and meaningful' and offer a consequence free out instead. I'm not sure which of the two frontier have done. Arguably they meant well. But it's intentional.

CLing will also allow people to avoid karma consequences; I've been jumped by a couple people who intended to destroy me, and watched them happily CL when the tide turned and they no-longer had the upper hand. So it's not going to get any better for anyone.

If you remove consequence, how do you enforce it? The karma system will be abused, just as the station speed limit was, just as every other conceivable law has. If you want people to be held accountable, then there has to be a way to enforce it. Otherwise, it's pointless. And right now? It's pointless.

I'm no fan of the potter man, but he has a point. We have ample example already.

--

edit: I think I might stop contributing to the debate. I think I'm looking at this from a logic standpoint, when most are coming from a more emotional/ ethics standpoint. Which is fine, but I tend to place logic above either of those, which might be giving the wrong idea. I care about this game. More than I should. And it pains me that logic and consistency and balance are so easily cast aside when convenient.

Fly safe (or bad) all. o7

 

[Erasmus Boone]

Ends don't justify the means. CLing is the avoidance of consequence; and it's across more than just some folks apparently getting their jollies. It was rampant during smuggling missions. It's still rampant to avoid almost all forms of ship destruction. I am no fan of PK-ing, but if you are going to demand people be held to a standard, that has to include everyone.

Otherwise, it's just a hollow "blame the boogeyman" for all the games ills. And that's not constructive; because you can't fix boxing with shadows. CLing will also allow people to avoid karma consequences; I've been jumped by a couple people who intended to destroy me, and watched them happily CL when the tide turned and they no-longer had the upper hand.

If you remove consequence, how do you enforce it? Why do you think frontier haven't increased punishments? What's the point, when they can be avoided.

Not the point I was trying to make, I wasn't being 'pro-CL' I was being 'anti-muppet'.

 

[Gunnet]

But it does. If you disconnect, nothing happens. The person disconnecting has time stop in that respect. No consequences.



Which is being fed data from another client. So if we're going down this road, the server can be the arbiter. As that's wholly Frontier controlled. This is the missing bit; there is no arbiter in a disconnected scenario. And there should be. If I am about to have a ship loss, due to the station opening fire, and I CL, should I lose my ship, or not?



This is true; this is also implicitly saying all consequences are irrelevant on disconnect. This is a flawed concept, as it is implicitly rewarding the avoidance of consequence. There is considerable financial gain involved. More than enough motivation.



Correct, which is why there is usually some form of arbitration, to solve deadlocks between clients, or where there are two competing and opposite results. It's equally a core security and redundancy principle, when you do not trust clients; an arbiter or arbitration methodology is used to solve deadlocks or 'split-brain'. In this instance, the servers should absolutely be tracking some degree of client actions, and they certainly already do.

Again, I am not interested in unnecessarily punishing for disconnects, but I think the massive advantage it offers is fundimentally problematic, and I just can't justify there's sufficient reason for it. We can't really argue that this is fine, and then have a tantrum about people performing a forced mechanics break in engineering to gain massive advantage.

Either it's okay to abuse the client to gain advantage, or it isn't. Pick one.

I haven't been talking about whether or not it's okay to combat log, or indeed to punish players for genuine network/hardware issues.

My (probably flawed) understanding of ED's architecture leads me to believe that effective arbitration is not possible. More importantly, there have been dev statements to the same effect. I'm inclined to think that the mechanics of a disconnect simply will not change, and the only way forward is to resolve the underlying issues that cause people to wish to leave the game at unintended times. After the fact punishments may have limited effectiveness, but they will themselves be subject to abuse by malicious parties.

 

[kofeyh]

Not the point I was trying to make, I wasn't being 'pro-CL' I was being 'anti-muppet'.

I get that, and in order for the game to be "anti-muppet", it has to have enforceable outcomes. Currently? They aren't. To fix one, requires changing the other. Since the one can't or won't change, the other has no teeth.

No offence intended.

 

[kofeyh]

I'm inclined to think that the mechanics of a disconnect simply will not change, and the only way forward is to resolve the underlying issues that cause people to wish to leave the game at unintended times.

You can't stop the underlying causes. They are going to happen anyway. Understand if there were instant and 100% loss inducing consequences of being a bad person, bad people won't stop being bad. The flawed assumption -- that if all the bad people stopped being bad, we'd all be fine -- persists and is deeply entrenched. It's fundimentally ignorant. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just the reality of the situation.

You can't stop people doing things you don't want them to do. You can only apply a counter to reduce the degree, and apply sanction as a consequence. If you can easily avoid the sanction, then it ceases to be effective.

I absolutely respect your POV, as I do for pretty much anyone else. I just disagree on it being "too hard" to solve to a better degree than it is now.

Again, we're back to motive and morals, not logic. And I just want to apply logic. So I'll definitely bow out now. o7

 

[MarkAusten]

Task kills can be detected by simply having the launcher sending a report to the server when they notice that the games process was ended the rude way.

For disconnects you'd have to use a mix of reports and statistical evidence to establish whether someone is a logger or not. That's entirely possible even under P2P.

You are correct that having a secondary monitoring system to check if the games process is still running can detect that it is not but you still cannot determine the intent. Was it deliberate or accidental? You can detect a shutdown request in Windows prior to v10, so this is a possibility, but not the end process command without some major event monitoring and in either case you do not know if this was initiated by the user. All you easily detect is that the game process is no longer running. Determining the reason for that is not possible especially if it was an Windows error. Additionally, the monitoring software can also be shutdown, intentionally or otherwise.

As for any of the other possible disconnects, without monitoring the entire network between the two games computers, the where and how also cannot be determined.

The reports and statistical evidence is deduction not detection and can easily be spoofed so that cannot be considered to be reliable either. An indicator perhaps but not definitive.

However, the main reason that you cannot detect combat logging is because you cannot definitively determine a) the reason for the disconnect and b) the intention of the player. Without those two pieces of information you can only guess which is probably the best definition of statistical determination.

Using a statistical methods you can never be certain about the result. What would you as a user accept as an acceptable level of uncertainty in Combat Log statistical determination?

But more importantly, would you accept your being warned and then banned because you had been "targeted" by unscrupulous players that have repeatedly forced you out of the instance and then reported you for combat logging? The report and statistics would show that you had, over a period of time, combat logged, so you deserve to be penalised, right? The statistics "prove" that you were combat logging by your own argument, even though you had not.

I am a cynic and a pessimist.

 

[Becks]

You are correct that having a secondary monitoring system to check if the games process is still running can detect that it is not but you still cannot determine the intent. Was it deliberate or accidental? You can detect a shutdown request in Windows prior to v10, so this is a possibility, but not the end process command without some major event monitoring and in either case you do not know if this was initiated by the user. All you easily detect is that the game process is no longer running. Determining the reason for that is not possible especially if it was an Windows error. Additionally, the monitoring software can also be shutdown, intentionally or otherwise.

Valid points. The launcher would need to be mandatory open in the background. I assume that most players don't bother to close it anyway.

As for the intent of the shutdown, that's also true. But the only shutdowns we need to filter are those who happen in combat when another player is in the instance. This could be easily achieved by updating one or more flags on the server everytime the player enters an interdiction of another player/an instance with another player/combat with another player. That could be checked against a taskkill with the data from the launcher in real-time then. Task-kills out of PvP-combat don't really matter. PvE combatlogging is shameful, but, as it's handled locally, really not something we can do anything against. At least not in a P2P network model.

Of course there will be some affected by this due to game errors, but there is always the chance of that happening. The only thing you can do then is send a bug report to FDev and open a support ticket.

As for any of the other possible disconnects, without monitoring the entire network between the two games computers, the where and how also cannot be determined.

The reports and statistical evidence is deduction not detection and can easily be spoofed so that cannot be considered to be reliable either. An indicator perhaps but not definitive.

However, the main reason that you cannot detect combat logging is because you cannot definitively determine a) the reason for the disconnect and b) the intention of the player. Without those two pieces of information you can only guess which is probably the best definition of statistical determination.

Using a statistical methods you can never be certain about the result. What would you as a user accept as an acceptable level of uncertainty in Combat Log statistical determination?

Completely right, there's no way to differentiate between a forced and an accidental disconnect.

And a player would report you in both cases as they can't differentiate it.

So when a single account gets reported several times for combatlogging, a 'verbose' logging for their account gets enabled. Combatflags and disconnects to the servers of that account get logged for a certain amount of online time. You could even log the game mode for said player to see if the disconnects happen in Open or not.

If disconnects happen regardless of combatflags and regulary throughout the session, you can safely assume that that person has simply connection issues. If the disconnects happen only or at least for an 90%+ chance during combat situations (here can be monitored from how many combatsituations the player disconnected in comparison to the combatsituation they 'completed' too) the chance is extremely high that the monitored player is actively using combatlogging.

Of course, combatloggers who suffer from regulary disconnects would fall in some cases through the net and it would take quite some time before you could act against a logger who forces disconnects to escape.

But more importantly, would you accept your being warned and then banned because you had been "targeted" by unscrupulous players that have repeatedly forced you out of the instance and then reported you for combat logging? The report and statistics would show that you had, over a period of time, combat logged, so you deserve to be penalised, right? The statistics "prove" that you were combat logging by your own argument, even though you had not.

That's an extremely unlikely scenario and I've not heard of a single case of a player forcing another player out of the instance via technical means. I also doubt that the majority of ED players has the means and knowledge to do this.

In any case, should that happen you wouldn't be punished, as the system wouldn't register a breakdown of the Player-to-player connection as disconnect to the servers unlike the described situation of a CLer pulling the plug of the router/switch or the LAN cable out of the laptop.

I am a cynic and a pessimist.

I'm aware lol.

 

[MarkAusten]

Valid points. The launcher would need to be mandatory open in the background. I assume that most players don't bother to close it anyway.

Most players would not, but we are talking about players that are going to Combat Log, so they probably would.

As for the intent of the shutdown, that's also true. But the only shutdowns we need to filter are those who happen in combat when another player is in the instance. This could be easily achieved by updating one or more flags on the server everytime the player enters an interdiction of another player/an instance with another player/combat with another player. That could be checked against a taskkill with the data from the launcher in real-time then. Task-kills out of PvP-combat don't really matter. PvE combatlogging is shameful, but, as it's handled locally, really not something we can do anything against. At least not in a P2P network model.

Assuming that the motoring software is running, see my first point.

Of course there will be some affected by this due to game errors, but there is always the chance of that happening. The only thing you can do then is send a bug report to FDev and open a support ticket.

Hopefully few and far between.

Completely right, there's no way to differentiate between a forced and an accidental disconnect.

And a player would report you in both cases as they can't differentiate it.

I wonder if FD ever get simultaneous CL reports? say the Internet glitches and both players think the other has combat logged and report it.

So when a single account gets reported several times for combatlogging, a 'verbose' logging for their account gets enabled. Combatflags and disconnects to the servers of that account get logged for a certain amount of online time. You could even log the game mode for said player to see if the disconnects happen in Open or not.

If disconnects happen regardless of combatflags and regulary throughout the session, you can safely assume that that person has simply connection issues. If the disconnects happen only or at least for an 90%+ chance during combat situations (here can be monitored from how many combatsituations the player disconnected in comparison to the combatsituation they 'completed' too) the chance is extremely high that the monitored player is actively using combatlogging.

Of course, combatloggers who suffer from regulary disconnects would fall in some cases through the net and it would take quite some time before you could act against a logger who forces disconnects to escape.

These last two are the ones that are of most concern. A "discerning" combat logger would play this situation to their advantage and this is the sort of thing that I would expect disreputable players to make an application to simulate.

That's an extremely unlikely scenario and I've not heard of a single case of a player forcing another player out of the instance via technical means. I also doubt that the majority of ED players has the means and knowledge to do this.

The information on how to do this is freely available using your favourite search engine, and it is not at all difficult. See also my prior point re: disreputable players.

In any case, should that happen you wouldn't be punished, as the system wouldn't register a breakdown of the Player-to-player connection as disconnect to the servers unlike the described situation of a CLer pulling the plug of the router/switch or the LAN cable out of the laptop.

Except that is it still a combat log situation, just more sophisticated. The result is the same, the P2P connection is broken and the perpetrator reports the victim.

I'm aware lol.

I thought you might be

 

[S3B4ST13N]

@Becks
I would reply to your last post to me, but it was 4 pages ago and I'd likely be reiterating what's already been said prior to, and since then.
So thanks for the chat.

 

[Becks]

Most players would not, but we are talking about players that are going to Combat Log, so they probably would.

That's why it'd be needed for the launcer to stay open mandatory in the background.

Assuming that the motoring software is running, see my first point.

Yes, it's not possible to determine the cause of the shutdown. But if an account keeps doing it continously during combat with other players the chance is high that you're not hitting the wrong one.

Hopefully few and far between.

It's the same with the usual anticheats. There are always cases of false-positives. That's not avoidable, only reducable.

I wonder if FD ever get simultaneous CL reports? say the Internet glitches and both players think the other has combat logged and report it.

Only FDev can answer that one.

These last two are the ones that are of most concern. A "discerning" combat logger would play this situation to their advantage and this is the sort of thing that I would expect disreputable players to make an application to simulate.

The information on how to do this is freely available using your favourite search engine, and it is not at all difficult. See also my prior point re: disreputable players.

That'd require the players to play with the intent to combatlog. It's not something you can learn in the 10 seconds after you've been interdicted. To counter something like this FDev could simply give more information to new players on how the block function works.

Surely there are such disreputable players. And surely you won't come them by with such a measure. But they're a tiny fraction of the combatloggers, as, as I see it, it mostly happens spontaneous and isn't planned.

If they actually go as far as disrupting their own game several times a day, just so they can keep combatlogging then you can still get suspicious by looking onto the amount of PvP situation they disconnected from. Yes, a 'perfect crime combatlog' is possible in this system, but that would be true for every other system in a P2P network, too.

Combatlogging will never be entirely stopped, it can only be reduced. And that's the sole goal of this system.

Except that is it still a combat log situation, just more sophisticated. The result is the same, the P2P connection is broken and the perpetrator reports the victim.

The victim won't be punished though, as this doesn't fulfill the requirements of a combatlog in this system. Yes, it's still a combatlog, but nothing you could detect in any case.

As I've said, I've not heard of a single case of this happening ever.

I thought you might be

I see all

@Becks
I would reply to your last post to me, but it was 4 pages ago and I'd likely be reiterating what's already been said prior to, and since then.
So thanks for the chat.

No problem, I enjoyed our discussion.

If you have anything to say about my recent posts, please do so. Your thoughts are always welcome.

 

[Gunnet]

You can't stop the underlying causes. They are going to happen anyway. Understand if there were instant and 100% loss inducing consequences of being a bad person, bad people won't stop being bad. The flawed assumption -- that if all the bad people stopped being bad, we'd all be fine -- persists and is deeply entrenched. It's fundimentally ignorant. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just the reality of the situation.

You can't stop people doing things you don't want them to do. You can only apply a counter to reduce the degree, and apply sanction as a consequence. If you can easily avoid the sanction, then it ceases to be effective.

I absolutely respect your POV, as I do for pretty much anyone else. I just disagree on it being "too hard" to solve to a better degree than it is now.

Again, we're back to motive and morals, not logic. And I just want to apply logic. So I'll definitely bow out now. o7

And I likewise respect your position. Whatever the outcome of all this ends up being, I hope it will satisfy everyone. o7

 

[besieger]

Bit of a tangent, but I remember the days of PunkBuster, though that was admittedly a different cure. Only thing I can think of and which is coming in 2.4 is persistent MASSIVE galaxy wide fines. I gather sui-sideys have been fixed.

PunkBuster was for hacking.

 

[Asp Explorer]

PunkBuster was for hacking.

And easily stuffed for lulz by IRC or FTP.