Combat loggers on a KoS list. LoL. That's hilarious.
What came first, the KoS list, or the Combat Logger? Combat Loggers are the reason for KoS lists. Come on! Everybody knows that.
An idea that could fix logging?
- Thread starter besieger
- Start date
What came first, the KoS list, or the Combat Logger? Combat Loggers are the reason for KoS lists. Come on! Everybody knows that.
The idea is, with long term tracking, trends will appear. Those trends can be used to infer 'intent'. Commit some unwanted behavior, Cheating on Modifications, Seal Clubbing, and/or Combat Logging, and that will be recorded. Once enough occurrences build up the players intentions become clear enough for FD to attach punishment.
In the case of Engineering Cheats, intent was apparent, so no 'Case Building' was needed. In the case of some other infractions, data over time is required.
and yet it is still a lame excuse.
tell me something, did you buy a multiplayer game, or did you buy a p2p implementation? (hint, look at the 'box').
as a customer and fan i couldn't care less about the implementation. if the game fails and the maker just blames the implementation he personally chose that's as lame as it can get.
wait, it can get better. there can be horde of forum fans repeating the mantra ...
oh, well ...
Last edited:
I bought a galaxy simulator with space ships. I bought a multiplayer game with three modes of access. I bought a game with P2P instancing. And guess what? I knew that before I bought the game. And, to top that off, I don;t expect them to change the basic design of the game because someone can cheat. The implementation was decided upon through a review process carried out between the development team, and those that backed the game. Get a grip.
plus the demands for refunds from militant people whose only 'crime' was their isp decided on a whim to shut down for maintenance unwarned or like it occasionally does to me, change my ip address randomly so elite itself then logs out to the main menu with start greyed out until you quit out entirely and restart the game. if they can prove to consumer protection it was not their fault they will be entitled to compensation.
incidentally seeing an imgur 404 message might confuse combat loggers but otherwise im not sure what it achieves.
Last edited:
then you should be satisfied with the sub par multiplayer experience you got. congrats!
i'm not, not by a long stretch, and i do not buy a bad architecture choice or a faulty implementation as an excuse.
actually, that sounds interesting. i didn't know that. i would like to know more specifics about that discussion and the decision. anyway, do we have to blame the backers now?
That's kind of funny. You did just that. Literally, and figuratively.
It came down to a choice between Sub Fees, or P2P. The rest is history. Stomping around, blaming someone else for a mistaken purchase, isn't going to change the architecture of the game.
no, i didn't. i wrote very clearly 'as a customer and fan i couldn't care less about the implementation'. what i do care about is fully working multiplayer. you said 'can't be fixed cos it's p2p'.
that p2p is not an appropiate approach for competitive multiplayer is something i know for a fact. it's not impossible, i guess it could work if gotten very right. not the case yet.
sounds like a false dichotomy to me, but i'll go dig ... that's the dd forum, right?
dude ...
who knows. probably not but ... 'is it webscale???'
joke. i mean, we have only the bare bones of the game and it's already presenting severe problems. i wouldn't be surprised if this leads to a dead end at some point as content gets added, and then it will be change or die.anyway we know this thread won't change a thing. we're just chatting.
Last edited:
Here's a proposal from another thread.
It's been put together based on feedback from a recent discussion that FDev said they would monitor.
It's been put together based on feedback from a recent discussion that FDev said they would monitor.
I already suggested a pretty fool proof way to curb illegal Combat Logging, but doesn't punish genuine disconnects. It went down quite well.
Good luck finding it though.
Even I don't know which thread it ended up in.
Really need to make my own dedicated thread so I can atleast find the bloody thing again...
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Unfortunately, this is not good enough. It has to be completely foolproof and un-spoofable as well and, to put the icing on the cake, should have a false-positive rate of less than 1 part per 100,000 if not a million.
talking about tags added to save files - where are these save files? they would have to be at frontier im guessing? or else people will make save editors. at first just to remove the tags but then they will reverse engineer the saves so tney can add credits at will or boost shield and hull values of owned ships or whatever else happens to be in a local save.
It is very easy to determine which connection was lost, as the one that wasn't can still maintain a connection to FD's servers. What isn't easy to determine is the cause of the disconnection, and this is the issue. Personally, I believe that combat logging is almost a none-issue, as the only outcome is that a player is unable to kill another one. Just consider that if someone combat logs, you won the battle. There are many more fish in the sea...
Well it's in the post directly above yours. Judge for yourself
I did and it isn't, unfortunately. It still does not address the issue of network disconnects either by Internet failure, or by pulling the cable or by adding a 'cheat' application that spoofs a legitimate network connect. See also the post (#23) above where duckofdeath shows a screen shot of 729 network disconnects where the commander does not c-log. What the system classes as a disconnect is vastly different from that which you or I would consider.
The system also does not prevent or detect in-memory editing to avoid the issue so it can be spoofed.
The proposed system also seems to penalises mode switching which is defined by FD as legitimate.
It is a good start, but a lot more work would need to be done before it would be workable.
Oh, and lots and lots of testing.
No. The lost connection is between the players. A player could genuinely lose the link to his opponent while both maintain their connections to Frontier.
And, as the post below your points out, the other player could trivially spoof such a disconnection.
Yes.
On topic, analysing trends to ... guess, when it comes down to it ... whether a particular player has been disconnecting "suspiciously" basically is what the crime and punishment / karma system Sandro has been talking about actually is. The sanctions won't be a fullscreen message "jokingly" accusing you of cheating but they will be a scaled response to data collection over time.
No. If someone pulls their network connection, or kills the E: D client (the only two methods of combat logging I know of), then the connection to FD's servers will be lost as well.
The only way to maintain a connection to FD's servers but not the P2P clients would be IP/network filtering, and I suspect that the majority of players either couldn't be bothered with that, or wouldn't know how to do this. Yes, there will always be a minority that can and would do this kind of thing, but until a tool was released that did it for you, it would be beyond most people.
This isn't technically viable and I've yet to see a real-time solution that would be.
Disconnecting to avoid consequences at all is beyond most players, certainly all legitimate ones.
Those that habitually cheat are going to adapt their cheats to new barriers. Blocking an IP is not difficult, and if this can be done to combat log on someone without suffering consequences like the ones Cosmos envisions, or to inflict those consequences upon others, it will quickly become popular.