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

[Powderpanic]

I think you are asking too basic a question here, Morbad gets it.

Obviously cheating is not okay, but you have to detect it, and CLogging is hard to detect amongst the background noise of network problems, overheating GPUs, game crashes etc. With a shield hack intent is known, if you can spot it you can act on that (a pointed look, maybe a sternly raised eyebrow etc). But you can't do that with a single CLog, you need a pattern of behaviour before you can start to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the player is acting cynically.

So how many Powderpanic? At what point do you give a pointed look, at what point do you say 'enough is enough, I think you are cheating' & shoot them in the face?

Honestly 3 Strike before reaction, time not dependent... This is based on Reports .. not FDEV's internal magic box, which could be triggered by any number of ED "issues" and there must be so many of them that true cheats would get lost in the noise.
It also assumes that FDEV watch the logging videos they say to create and that they investigate the disconnect log.

3rd Report is investigated, generates a warning email.

You would assume that support would watch the video, investigate the disconnect vs their net logs vs the historic connectivity of the logger.

They now have a piratey black spot against their name.

3 more reports and they get forced into Solo for 2 weeks.

They can still play their game but they can no longer combat log on other players.

The two week of Solo time for personal reflection allows them back into Open.

The reporting steps up from there and on the next log it is 2 months in Solo.

Then 4 months... 8 months and so on and so forth.

Eventually they will either learn its wrong to do or wont be able to cheat other players in Open because they will be terminally in Solo.

Another thing would be to add to the launcher explaining the number of player placed on the naughty step. To reinforce that cheating is wrong.

 

[Stigbob]

I'm asking the ones who seem to think that 5 bouts of cheating, not being enough to count as a single cheat.

No it's about 5 logs over 5 months not being enough to be reliably identified as cheating, not counting as cheating implies it was decided to be legit which isn't what happened.

 

[Powderpanic]

No it's about 5 logs over 5 months not being enough to be reliably identified as cheating, not counting as cheating implies it was decided to be legit which isn't what happened.

Nope.. its about establishing a pattern of a player combat logging.... WHICH 5 Logs by task kill WHILE in PVP is a pattern. Watch

() @ () @ () @ () @ () @ <-- A pattern

If you are concerned that you will be tarred with this brush because of your personal bad internet. That's a you issue.

Think bigger!

 

[Stigbob]

Nope.. its about establishing a pattern of a player combat logging.... WHICH 5 Logs by task kill WHILE in PVP is a pattern. Watch

() @ () @ () @ () @ () @ <-- A pattern

If you are concerned that you will be tarred with this brush because of your personal bad internet. That's a you issue.

Think bigger!

What does my internet connection have to do with it ?.

 

[Powderpanic]

What does my internet connection have to do with it ?.

Apparently a great deal.

The fear you have of a disconnect because of your bad internet while in PVP, can be the only reason you are so pro cheating.

 

[Martian Successor]

Nope.. its about establishing a pattern of a player combat logging.... WHICH 5 Logs by task kill WHILE in PVP is a pattern. Watch

() @ () @ () @ () @ () @ <-- A pattern

If you are concerned that you will be tarred with this brush because of your personal bad internet. That's a you issue.

Think bigger!

Realistically speaking a log a month is infrequent enough so as to allow FD to give that account the benefit of the doubt ala spotty internet. Now FD should absolutely be taking video evidence into consideration so I don't know what their process regarding that is. But like I've said before, a follow up investigation whereby the account combat logs twice every 2 weeks for 4-5 months would be a much better test of FD's intentions to tackle clogging. If they don't even send an email warning after that then damn.

 

[Riverside]

Honestly 3 Strike before reaction, time not dependent... This is based on Reports .. not FDEV's internal magic box, which could be triggered by any number of ED "issues" and there must be so many of them that true cheats would get lost in the noise.
It also assumes that FDEV watch the logging videos they say to create and that they investigate the disconnect log.

3rd Report is investigated, generates a warning email.

You would assume that support would watch the video, investigate the disconnect vs their net logs vs the historic connectivity of the logger.

They now have a piratey black spot against their name.

3 more reports and they get forced into Solo for 2 weeks.

They can still play their game but they can no longer combat log on other players.

The two week of Solo time for personal reflection allows them back into Open.

The reporting steps up from there and on the next log it is 2 months in Solo.

Then 4 months... 8 months and so on and so forth.

Eventually they will either learn its wrong to do or wont be able to cheat other players in Open because they will be terminally in Solo.

Another thing would be to add to the launcher explaining the number of player placed on the naughty step. To reinforce that cheating is wrong.

As with Arguendo's suggestion, this is pretty reasonable IMO, having a report on the number of CLoggers currently on the naughty step (without naming names) is a good idea too.

Both of your suggested solutions employ a highly manual process of acting on reported incidents, and reviewing the footage rather than a more automated process. This implies you are not concerned about CLogs where another Cmdr is not involved. Given the current rate of development I would guess FDev would prefer a more automated system for capturing events, with reports from Cmdrs being used only as corroborating evidence where cheating is already suspected. This would potentially capture a wider variety of cheats, and reduce the 'boy who cried wolf' situation where excessively sensitive Cmdrs over-report.

What do you think about Arguendo's suggestion that requires multiple sources?

 

[Stigbob]

Apparently a great deal.

The fear you have of a disconnect because of your bad internet while in PVP, can be the only reason you are so pro cheating.

Really ?, I thought I was pro banning cheats.

 

[Powderpanic]

As with Arguendo's suggestion, this is pretty reasonable IMO, having a report on the number of CLoggers currently on the naughty step (without naming names) is a good idea too.

Both of your suggested solutions employ a highly manual process of acting on reported incidents, and reviewing the footage rather than a more automated process. This implies you are not concerned about CLogs where another Cmdr is not involved. Given the current rate of development I would guess FDev would prefer a more automated system for capturing events, with reports from Cmdrs being used only as corroborating evidence where cheating is already suspected. This would potentially capture a wider variety of cheats, and reduce the 'boy who cried wolf' situation where excessively sensitive Cmdrs over-report.

What do you think about Arguendo's suggestion that requires multiple sources?

I am talking baby steps. Combat logging against PVE is just sad but lets tackle where the complaints are coming from first.. PVP

It would only take a few cheats crying on this forum and reddit about how they were forced into solo, for the community as a whole to actually believe that FDEV do take combat logging seriously.

Once people know that Combat logging WILL result in you banishment to Solo. People will be less inclined to do it. Its a simple thing.

That is the reason you do not see many shield hackers in ED anymore. The community as a whole know you will get a ban.

Education is the key!

Followed up by the cain.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Really ?, I thought I was pro banning cheats.

Indeed - and this cannot be stressed enough.

Problem is - on an unsecure, public, ever-changing and unreliable concatenate of networks - problems will happen.

 

[Riverside]

It would only take a few cheats crying on this forum and reddit about how they were forced into solo, for the community as a whole to actually believe that FDEV do take combat logging seriously.

I think you hit the nail on the head here Powderpanic, the 'community' wants to be reassured that something is being done. It's a common theme throughout many of the threads I read on this forum & elsewhere. Not only would it help to reduce the number of Cmdrs making poor mode choices (selecting Open because it's 'cool' but CLogging when they realise they are not the badass they thought they were) but it would help to reduce the impotent rage of those who feel cheated, which is my main goal.

 

[Powderpanic]

I think you hit the nail on the head here Powderpanic, the 'community' wants to be reassured that something is being done. It's a common theme throughout many of the threads I read on this forum & elsewhere. Not only would it help to reduce the number of Cmdrs making poor mode choices (selecting Open because it's 'cool' but CLogging when they realise they are not the badass they thought they were) but it would help to reduce the impotent rage of those who feel cheated, which is my main goal.

Yep currently the community as whole know that nothing is going to happen, even if you combat log consistently.

There are commanders making a MOCKEry of FDEV's inaction on logging.

 

[Arguendo]

There are commanders making a MOCKEry of FDEV's inaction on logging.

I see what you did there

 

[Shackram]

Maybe SDC should do a third test where they spam the support with hundreds of reports daily to see if they can get an account banned. [haha]

I would wager they already do flood support with reports of questionable accuracy and support/FD are probably sick of of it, boy who cried wolf and all.

 

[Goose4291]

I would wager they already do flood support with reports of questionable accuracy and support/FD are probably sick of of it, boy who cried wolf and all.

 

[Morbad]

I would wager they already do flood support with reports of questionable accuracy and support/FD are probably sick of of it, boy who cried wolf and all.

They have to expect that 95% of reports are nonsense (mostly people who don't know how the game works, interspersed with some bugs, unintentional disconnections, legal menu logs, malicious false reports, and the occasional bit of actual cheating) and that wouldn't be any excuse to ignore them.

 

[ryan_m]

I would wager they already do flood support with reports of questionable accuracy and support/FD are probably sick of of it, boy who cried wolf and all.

I know what a combat log looks like, so every single report that I send is a combat log. It's not difficult to tell when you see hundreds a year.

Did they go in a straight line for 15 seconds while taking damage the whole time, then vanish into nothing? Menu log, not a combat log.

Did they stop taking damage for around 20 seconds before vanishing? Combat log.

Did they instantly disappear while still clearly making control inputs on their ship? Combat log.

It's not tough.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It's not tough.

You may want to improve your methodology

 

[Marra Morgan]

I still lmao at ppl that call combat logging cheating, unsportsmanlike yes, cheating no, since neither side loses or gains anything.

The devs have called it out as an exploit, so yes, it is cheating.

 

[Asp Explorer]

The devs have called it out as an exploit, so yes, it is cheating.

So what happens when a group of players firewall out someone they don't like, record the disconnect, and report it as cheating?

It's absolutely, definitely, and provably happened.