PvP An Investigation Into Frontier's Actions on Combat Logging, Part 2

[CMDR M. Lehman]

self snip

 

[DukeIronHand]

I see the non-sensical axe grinding continues and the PvP "community" continues with their persecution-complex posting that makes them sound ridiculous. And you wonder why you're all so easy to dismiss.

 

[lokvette]

Ahh this thread has gone to where threads go to die, shame it was a fun read. I have the pvp section on ignore only found it was here due to reading the start of a closed thread.

Oh hum first world problems and all that, but the way some people post in this thread you would think this is what this is. Yes, Yes im going nothing more to add now this has been moved to a sub section I dont see, which is odd as the subject at hand even though its been discused to death and its not going anywhere, effects all players who care about it not just a sub section of the community. Thing is why not just block anyone who CL , then people wont have to suffer the horror of someone cheating. Yeah I know FD lied blah de blah. as someone said up the thread it is what it is live with it or move on.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

..snip..

FDev's unfortunate lack of consistent enforcement of their rules doesn't give me licence to ignore them, nor does it mean I'll give up hope that they'll eventually recognize the magnitude of the issue and get around to doing something about it.



SDC doesn't need any credibility for the argument they present to stand on it's own merits.

That's the thing about the good points...it doesn't matter one whit who is making them.

The discussion should be about Frontier's enforcement, or lack thereof, of their own rules; not SDC's credentials.

I'm certainly not a defendant of CL, but to state that SDC have presented a argument with merit is to my mind laughable. Their investigation was 'junk' with a sample size of 1 performing 5 instances of CL over 5 months: this certainly does not pass science 101.

To cite this as 'evidence' is risible and the whole thing feels more to do with self-publicizing propaganda and stirring up controversy that any real attempt at a robust investigation.

 

[DukeIronHand]

I'm certainly not a defendant of CL, but to state that SDC have presented a argument with merit is to my mind laughable. Their investigation was 'junk' with a sample size of 1 performing 5 instances of CL over 5 months: this certainly does not pass science 101.

To cite this as 'evidence' is risible and the whole thing feels more to do with self-publicizing propaganda and stirring up controversy that any real attempt at a robust investigation.

Stop!
You're ruining the PvP'er pity party. Can't you see it's a vast FDev and Carebear conspiracy to keep them from their righteous and valid style of play? And all to protect the weaker and cheating Cmdr's? Open your eyes man!

 

[Morbad]

I'm certainly not a defendant of CL, but to state that SDC have presented a argument with merit is to my mind laughable. Their investigation was 'junk' with a sample size of 1 performing 5 instances of CL over 5 months: this certainly does not pass science 101.

To cite this as 'evidence' is risible and the whole thing feels more to do with self-publicizing propaganda and stirring up controversy that any real attempt at a robust investigation.

The thread has grown far beyond the initial (and not at all rigorous) testing in the opening posts, but we still have people dismissing the issue of lack of enforcement as SDC propaganda. The argument has merit, in spite/because of most of the supporting evidence having nothing to do with SDC.

Frontier rarely punishes deliberate disconnections, explicitly made to avoid legitimate asset loss, and when they do, the punishment lacks the teeth to be a deterrent. That is the argument, that is the issue, and there is more than enough evidence in this and other threads to back this assertion up.

 

[Devari]

SDC doesn't need any credibility for the argument they present to stand on it's own merits.

Except that their argument doesn't stand on its own merits.

First, the frequency of combat logging that they "tested" was extremely low. I often have multiple crashes in a single gaming session, many of which require me to task-kill the client. They would need to do their "testing" much better than they actually did for it to mean anything.

Second, that is exactly why you always want to know why any given group is making an argument. They clearly have an agenda to promote and have many reasons to bias their "testing". Taking their "evidence" at face value would just be naïve.

Third, they have admitted to breaking rules in the past when it suited them. That is not "speculation" that is by their own admission. It's a matter of public record on the forums how SDC has behaved in the past and how the group has conducted themselves. Now I'm supposed to suddenly believe that "evidence" presented by SDC is fair and honest? Sorry, but once you lose credibility, you don't get it back.

That's the thing about the good points...it doesn't matter one whit who is making them.

The discussion should be about Frontier's enforcement, or lack thereof, of their own rules; not SDC's credentials.

Except that SDC is not making the argument coherently. They're already starting from the premise that FD "isn't doing anything" about combat logging and acting as if they have "proof" of what FD is or isn't doing. They don't actually know what FD is or isn't doing to address actual systematic combat logging by players. All they know is that their own limited, biased and completely inadequate "testing" didn't produce the results they wanted.

It's obvious that a very low frequency of artificial combat logging is not going to be identified, analyzed or handled the same as someone who systematically and repeatedly engages in such behavior. The did the exact opposite of a "fair" assessment. They started with a conclusion and tried to manufacture "evidence" to "prove" something they already believed to be true and they did it in such a manner that it ended up proving nothing.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

The thread has grown far beyond the initial (and not at all rigorous) testing in the opening posts, but we still have people dismissing the issue of lack of enforcement as SDC propaganda. The argument has merit, in spite/because of most of the supporting evidence having nothing to do with SDC.

Frontier rarely punishes deliberate disconnections, explicitly made to avoid legitimate asset loss, and when they do, the punishment lacks the teeth to be a deterrent. That is the argument, that is the issue, and there is more than enough evidence in this and other threads to back this assertion up.

Now that's fair enough as long as were not taking SDC as gospel. However while I agree that it needs tackling, FD have said that they DO act against CL when they feel they have enough evidence, are you suggesting this is a deliberate lie?

As for the other 'evidence' I will accept a certain amount of 'word of mouth' evidence as fair but the problem FD or any-one else has with the video 'evidence' is that from a video it is almost impossible to tell if they combat-logged or 15-sec menu logged; which 'cheating' wise are two different things.

So in the end I hope they do detect and punish Cl, but would rather leave that to FD to sort out the best method than some form of forum witch hunt.

 

[JosiahD]

Except that their argument doesn't stand on its own merits.

First, the frequency of combat logging that they "tested" was extremely low. I often have multiple crashes in a single gaming session, many of which require me to task-kill the client. They would need to do their "testing" much better than they actually did for it to mean anything.

Second, that is exactly why you always want to know why any given group is making an argument. They clearly have an agenda to promote and have many reasons to bias their "testing". Taking their "evidence" at face value would just be naïve.

Third, they have admitted to breaking rules in the past when it suited them. That is not "speculation" that is by their own admission. It's a matter of public record on the forums how SDC has behaved in the past and how the group has conducted themselves. Now I'm supposed to suddenly believe that "evidence" presented by SDC is fair and honest? Sorry, but once you lose credibility, you don't get it back.



Except that SDC is not making the argument coherently. They're already starting from the premise that FD "isn't doing anything" about combat logging and acting as if they have "proof" of what FD is or isn't doing. They don't actually know what FD is or isn't doing to address actual systematic combat logging by players. All they know is that their own limited, biased and completely inadequate "testing" didn't produce the results they wanted.

It's obvious that a very low frequency of artificial combat logging is not going to be identified, analyzed or handled the same as someone who systematically and repeatedly engages in such behavior. The did the exact opposite of a "fair" assessment. They started with a conclusion and tried to manufacture "evidence" to "prove" something they already believed to be true and they did it in such a manner that it ended up proving nothing.

Agreed.

Something that might have assisted SDC's argument would be if they actually compiled a dataset of PvP interactions over a period of time, capturing what proportion resulted in supposed combat logs and which did not. For example, a sample of say 500 individual PvP events, document how many saw disconnects of one party....but even that would not PROVE those disconnects to be combat logging - further analysis of individual player behaviours would need to be included in that analysis. That might require several thousand discrete PvP events to be recorded over a long period just to capture patterns of specific players. I'd expect to see something like 'We recorded 2,546 discrete PvP encounters over a two month period and observed potential combat log behaviour in 250 of those. Of those 250 instances, 35 involved 7 players who were repetitively observed to experience a disconnect during the encounter.' The problem for SDC, and the reason I suspect they have not collected nor presented such data, is that such statistics would likely demonstrate just how small a problem combat logging is (in proportion to the entire playerbase). If, for example, such data showed that potential combat logging behaviour occurred in only 5% (or less) of total PvP encounters, and not all of those could be proven combat logging (ie many might be legitimate disconnects), similar to my example above, it wouldn't very well support their argument. On the other hand, if the data showed that potential combat logging behaviour was observed in 50% of encounters, that may well support their case in terms of just how significant a problem it is.....if we could be sure the dataset had not been cherrypicked to present a biased argument of course. Independent verification of the data and analysis would be required. Instead, it suits SDC's purposes to present a very small dataset and seek to inflate the significance (and, let's face it, is easier to prepare than an in depth statistical exercise). And when that purpose is potentially just to bait Frontier? A proper statistical analysis would be interesting to see though, whichever way the result went. And the dataset would need to be an accurate representation of the playerbase rather than just SDC-related PvP encounters.

 

[DukeIronHand]

You gentlemen need to stop making sense.
This is "Seek and ye shall find research" in its finest form.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

self snip

Ouch, Bear Grylls style. That takes balls.

And a foreskin, obviously.

 

[Morbad]

Except that their argument doesn't stand on its own merits.

It's not just their argument, it's an argument that has been going on forever that some of them attempted to bring to the forefront again.

Second, that is exactly why you always want to know why any given group is making an argument. They clearly have an agenda to promote and have many reasons to bias their "testing". Taking their "evidence" at face value would just be naïve.

Third, they have admitted to breaking rules in the past when it suited them. That is not "speculation" that is by their own admission. It's a matter of public record on the forums how SDC has behaved in the past and how the group has conducted themselves. Now I'm supposed to suddenly believe that "evidence" presented by SDC is fair and honest? Sorry, but once you lose credibility, you don't get it back.

Their agenda, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and you don't need to even look at their evidence to see the core assertion has real merit.

Except that SDC is not making the argument coherently. They're already starting from the premise that FD "isn't doing anything" about combat logging and acting as if they have "proof" of what FD is or isn't doing. They don't actually know what FD is or isn't doing to address actual systematic combat logging by players. All they know is that their own limited, biased and completely inadequate "testing" didn't produce the results they wanted.

It's obvious that a very low frequency of artificial combat logging is not going to be identified, analyzed or handled the same as someone who systematically and repeatedly engages in such behavior. The did the exact opposite of a "fair" assessment. They started with a conclusion and tried to manufacture "evidence" to "prove" something they already believed to be true and they did it in such a manner that it ended up proving nothing.

All good counter arguments to SDC's tests, but being able to dismiss their test doesn't invalidate the core conclusion any more than a flawed demonstration of Newton's laws of motion by a third party would invalidate Newton.

My issue isn't with people picking apart the glaring flaws in SDC's testing. My issue is with those who dismiss the whole issue because it was SDC doing this particular test.

Though I only record a small fraction of my encounters, and only retain a small fraction of my videos, I can personally provide video evidence of more than one CMDR deliberately disconnecting without use of the menu timer, multiple times in very short periods. I can also show that these CMDRs either didn't get punished, or that their punishment allowed them to return to Open and continue such behavior in very short order. Other people have similar examples, some of which have been posted in this very thread.

I'd expect to see something like 'We recorded 2,546 discrete PvP encounters over a two month period and observed potential combat log behaviour in 250 of those. Of those 250 instances, 35 involved 7 players who were repetitively observed to experience a disconnect during the encounter.

Whatever SDC's agenda, setting the standard of proof so impossibly high that no one has the resources or wherewithal to meet them is at least as disingenuous.

Without help from Frontier's telemetry and logs, the best you are going to get is widely disparate reports, most of them anecdotes, with the rare coherent video that can be tied to an admission of guilt by the accused.

 

[Riverside]

When I started reading the OP in this thread I assumed it would be multiple clogs per day, attempting to establish that FDev do not take any action under even extreme circumstances (I would be disappointed, but not surprised if this was the case). Then if a datapoint is established beyond which FDev do take notice, try again less frequently to determine the point where FDev ignore it. That would have been interesting to learn. This is just a cynical attempt to make FDev look bad by pointing out a known issue in as salty a way as possible imo.

From only 8 pages back Morbad, you are a little late to this particular party.

 

[Stigbob]

It's not just their argument, it's an argument that has been going on forever that some of them attempted to bring to the forefront again.

Their agenda, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and you don't need to even look at their evidence to see the core assertion has real merit.

All good counter arguments to SDC's tests, but being able to dismiss their test doesn't invalidate the core conclusion any more than a flawed demonstration of Newton's laws of motion by a third party would invalidate Newton.

My issue isn't with people picking apart the glaring flaws in SDC's testing. My issue is with those who dismiss the whole issue because it was SDC doing this particular test.

Though I only record a small fraction of my encounters, and only retain a small fraction of my videos, I can personally provide video evidence of more than one CMDR deliberately disconnecting without use of the menu timer, multiple times in very short periods. I can also show that these CMDRs either didn't get punished, or that their punishment allowed them to return to Open and continue such behavior in very short order. Other people have similar examples, some of which have been posted in this very thread.

Whatever SDC's agenda, setting the standard of proof so impossibly high that no one has the resources or wherewithal to meet them is at least as disingenuous.

Without help from Frontier's telemetry and logs, the best you are going to get is widely disparate reports, most of them anecdotes, with the rare coherent video that can be tied to an admission of guilt by the accused.

Or you could just laugh at the cloggers for forfeiting in a lame way, and get on with the game.

 

[Devari]

It's not just their argument, it's an argument that has been going on forever that some of them attempted to bring to the forefront again.

Where did the argument actually come from in the first place? Oh, right, it was because SDC decided it was a "problem" so they went about "proving" it with inadequate "testing".

Their agenda, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and you don't need to even look at their evidence to see the core assertion has real merit.

Sorry, that's not how evidence actually works. Reliable evidence needs to be unbiased rather than being conveniently manufactured for a specific purpose. You very much need to assess someone's reason for presenting "evidence" in order to know what it actually represents.

All good counter arguments to SDC's tests, but being able to dismiss their test doesn't invalidate the core conclusion any more than a flawed demonstration of Newton's laws of motion by a third party would invalidate Newton.

Except SDC isn't describing Newtonian physics. They aren't doing actual science. They aren't even doing actual testing that means anything. They're simply cherry-picking examples of FD's response to a very low frequency of artificially created combat logging "events" and making assumptions about what FD is or isn't doing in general regarding combat logging.

SDC can't possibly know this. Support probably doesn't even know this for that matter as it is likely a very technical issue handled by a small number of devs. The only people who know what FD is doing about combat logging are FD's devs and they've told us that they are addressing it.

My issue isn't with people picking apart the glaring flaws in SDC's testing. My issue is with those who dismiss the whole issue because it was SDC doing this particular test.

Why does that surprise you? If Lance Armstrong did a study on steroid use in sports don't you think that his past behavior would affect his credibility on the issue?

Why exactly do you think that scientists are so careful to honestly and accurately represent their data and to openly identify any possibly conflicts of interest that might bias their results?

Credibility is everything when you're trying to make an argument based on evidence when you are expecting people to take your "evidence" at face value.

Though I only record a small fraction of my encounters, and only retain a small fraction of my videos, I can personally provide video evidence of more than one CMDR deliberately disconnecting without use of the menu timer, multiple times in very short periods. I can also show that these CMDRs either didn't get punished, or that their punishment allowed them to return to Open and continue such behavior in very short order. Other people have similar examples, some of which have been posted in this very thread.

There's no question that combat logging happens. The question here is what FD is doing about it.

SDC is trying to argue their "testing" proves that FD isn't doing anything. It doesn't accomplish this or even get anywhere close to the "proving" this sort of claim.

You have two options here. You can believe FD here or you can believe SDC. I have no reason to believe that FD is not being honest. I have every reason to believe that SDC is biased and lacks credibility and I've identified several flaws in both their "testing" methods and the conclusions they've attempted to draw from them.

Keep in mind here that I have no problem criticising gameplay issues or FD's business decisions or any other problems I might have with the game on these forums. It's not like I would hold back if I felt there was a valid criticism here. I'm choosing to believe that FD can identify and address the most blatant cases of combat logging. Considering how FD was able to identify and remove the Engineering exploit I have quite a bit of respect for their ability to monitor and test the internal state of the game and I have far more faith in their metrics and methods than anything I've seen from SDC on this issue.

 

[Arguendo]

Now that's fair enough as long as were not taking SDC as gospel. However while I agree that it needs tackling, FD have said that they DO act against CL when they feel they have enough evidence, are you suggesting this is a deliberate lie?

Yes.

If you pay attention outside of these forums, all evidence shows that they haven't done anything since around March last year (which strangely coincided with Part 1 of this thread) and then it was merely "stern warnings" via emails. Serial loggers are reported repeatedly, but you still see them in the game week in and week out.

FDev doesn't do anything about it, or the aforementioned serial loggers wouldn't be able to play every week. So, their claim of action is clearly a lie.

 

[DukeIronHand]

Yes.

If you pay attention outside of these forums, all evidence shows that they haven't done anything since around March last year (which strangely coincided with Part 1 of this thread) and then it was merely "stern warnings" via emails. Serial loggers are reported repeatedly, but you still see them in the game week in and week out.

FDev doesn't do anything about it, or the aforementioned serial loggers wouldn't be able to play every week. So, their claim of action is clearly a lie.

Except, again, we are supposed to take your word on this?
i feel like a dog chasing his tail at this point. Circles and circles and getting nowhere.

 

[Arguendo]

Or you could just laugh at the cloggers for forfeiting in a lame way, and get on with the game.

Some of these loggers are the very "griefers" you block Stigbob. Check out the description of my player group and what we do. Our members have had other players combatlog on them. Pray tell, which type of players do you think those were?

 

[Devari]

Yes.

If you pay attention outside of these forums, all evidence shows that they haven't done anything since around March last year (which strangely coincided with Part 1 of this thread) and then it was merely "stern warnings" via emails. Serial loggers are reported repeatedly, but you still see them in the game week in and week out.

FDev doesn't do anything about it, or the aforementioned serial loggers wouldn't be able to play every week. So, their claim of action is clearly a lie.

I have a bit of an issue with these claims. If someone is engaging a specific individual in PVP frequently enough to see them combat log that often then wouldn't they be guilty of griefing that individual? Presumably the individual is being prevented from making progress in the game if someone is specifically targeting them over and over and witnessing combat logging that frequently? Wouldn't FD need to punish both the griefer AND the combat logger in order to properly enforce their rules?

It's quite possible that griefing is just as big an issue as combat logging in these cases. There's obviously another side to this issue that isn't being addressed or acknowledged. It doesn't justify combat logging per se but it does mean that there are more punishments to go around then some players might realize if the entire situation were addressed.

 

[Arguendo]

Except, again, we are supposed to take your word on this?
i feel like a dog chasing his tail at this point. Circles and circles and getting nowhere.

There was a post in this thread providing around 10 videos of the same guy combatlogging whenever he was about to lose. He still played the game week in and week out after that. There is even a subreddit dedicated to combatloggers, and some of the ones there even admit to doing it in the discussion of their own video. They still play the game week in and week out.

Just because you don't want to accept anything coming from SDC does not mean it's not an actual problem in the game.

All mention of combatlogging is in fact buried in this forum, which would make it appear to be a non-problem. Reddit and numerous Discords tell a different story however. If you never venture outside of this forum to discuss the game, I can understand that it does not appear to be a big issue, but that appearance is unfortunately false.