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

[Powderpanic]

This thread is now more pointless than NPC's are ducks in a barrel.

Is anyone actually under the illusion that FDEV are even reading this post?

Not after the generic response on day one. But 107 pages.. WOW

 

[Agony_Aunt]

This thread is now more pointless than NPC's are ducks in a barrel.

Is anyone actually under the illusion that FDEV are even reading this post?

Not after the generic response on day one. But 107 pages.. WOW

It gives people something to do

 

[Powderpanic]

It gives people something to do

I actually agree with you for once. It is definitely more interesting than playing ED at the moment.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I actually agree with you for once. It is definitely more interesting than playing ED at the moment.

Or any game for that matter!

Forum PvP, best PvP.

 

[Riverside]

I actually agree with you for once. It is definitely more interesting than playing ED at the moment.

Martian Successor said earlier in the thread that some good had come out of this, because it had shown them that there are solutions available.

The origins of the thread, at face value bring attention to the fact that some of the community consider cheating to be a problem that should be addressed (I agree with this) but offered no solution, only a reminder that some consider the problem to still exist - that any mechanism that has been implemented is not sensitive enough to capture what are considered significant instances of cheating (no disagreement here either).

Hopefully some of the complainants eyes have been opened (as Martians' have) to why this is not as easily solved a problem as other examples of cheating, but that there are multiple layers of actions which in combination can handle this. It is not an unsolveable problem, but it's not a straightforward one.

I hope it's also much more clear to anyone who has read through this thread why any effort should be directed towards pushing for a solution rather than just highlighting that the problem still exists.

This has been an extremely inefficient way to gather opinions on a solution, and there is still too little data to come close to seeing a consensus or any real pattern emerge, but hopefully more people now have a better understanding of how to give helpful feedback (rather than just complaining and expecting others to come up with solutions).

The problem is understood, there are proposals for workable solutions that don't fall between two stools. Any proposal (eg insta-death on disconnect) that significantly impacts on players for whom CLogging is not currently an issue (eg any explorer) isn't going to be well received, one that takes into consideration more scenarios has a better chance of success.

Personally, I see this as the most important, most urgent issue with the game, even though it's not a problem that directly impacts my gameplay at all. I'd like to see it handled, and I have expressed my opinion on how I think it should be done (by supporting someone else's idea) and tested it against many hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate that it's a workable solution.

Try to do the same.

 

[Martian Successor]

In a game sold with an offline mode they pulled before release zero.

That arguement doesn't make sense. Firstly, ever since it officially launched ED has never been sold nor advertised as a game with an offline mode. Everyone that bought ED after it was officially released knew they were buying an online only game. The only people that were sold on an offline mode were the kickstarter backers and they had the choice to refund their purchase when they knew offline wasn't going to be a thing anymore. Anyone that continued on without refunding pretty much gave up any claim that they were sold on a different game - you agreed to keep your purchase of this game after offline mode was cancelled therefore you agreed that the game you were being sold was an online-only game.

Secondly, even if the game shipped with an optional offline mode that's no excuse to not maintain the online portion of the game. In fact it would actually be easier for FD to deny a player access to the online portion of their game as a form of punishment in that case.

 

[Riverside]

That arguement doesn't make sense. Firstly, ever since it officially launched ED has never been sold nor advertised as a game with an offline mode. Everyone that bought ED after it was officially released knew they were buying an online only game. The only people that were sold on an offline mode were the kickstarter backers and they had the choice to refund their purchase when they knew offline wasn't going to be a thing anymore. Anyone that continued on without refunding pretty much gave up any claim that they were sold on a different game - you agreed to keep your purchase of this game after offline mode was cancelled therefore you agreed that the game you were being sold was an online-only game.

Secondly, even if the game shipped with an optional offline mode that's no excuse to not maintain the online portion of the game. In fact it would actually be easier for FD to deny a player access to the online portion of their game as a form of punishment in that case.

I agree offline-gate is a weak argument, but network problems will always exist, and is often not something either the player or FDev can control. I once lost connection sporadically for several hours, my broadband stayed up but DNS queries failed intermittently & ED kept losing it's connection to the servers. I called my ISP & it turned out to be a fire in a building 75 miles from my location, which one of the main pipes ran beneath, the infrastructure was damaged & could not be fixed until the firefighters made the building safe.

Nothing I could do about it but wait. Browsing was mostly fine, if a page didn't load first time I'd just refresh, but the continual connection wasn't good enough to keep me permanently in the game. Stuff happens, you have to account for the possibility that even the most stable connection will occasionally fail.

 

[Stigbob]

That arguement doesn't make sense. Firstly, ever since it officially launched ED has never been sold nor advertised as a game with an offline mode. Everyone that bought ED after it was officially released knew they were buying an online only game. The only people that were sold on an offline mode were the kickstarter backers and they had the choice to refund their purchase when they knew offline wasn't going to be a thing anymore. Anyone that continued on without refunding pretty much gave up any claim that they were sold on a different game - you agreed to keep your purchase of this game after offline mode was cancelled therefore you agreed that the game you were being sold was an online-only game.

I backed before offline was dropped. I didn't refund because I checked what FDEV said about online solo replacing it, they set absolutely no speed/stability requirements for the connection beyond simply saying broadband and they reassured us we would be able to access game content.

They still have not set any speed/stability requirements in the minimum specs, so nobody who has bought it so far can be penalized for their connection.

A change could in theory be made for future customers, but it would not be retrospective.

Secondly, even if the game shipped with an optional offline mode that's no excuse to not maintain the online portion of the game. In fact it would actually be easier for FD to deny a player access to the online portion of their game as a form of punishment in that case.

Nobodies arguing against maintaining the online portion of the game, I'm arguing against trying to punish people for their connections.

 

[Martian Successor]

I agree offline-gate is a weak argument, but network problems will always exist, and is often not something either the player or FDev can control. I once lost connection sporadically for several hours, my broadband stayed up but DNS queries failed intermittently & ED kept losing it's connection to the servers. I called my ISP & it turned out to be a fire in a building 75 miles from my location, which one of the main pipes ran beneath, the infrastructure was damaged & could not be fixed until the firefighters made the building safe.

Nothing I could do about it but wait. Browsing was mostly fine, if a page didn't load first time I'd just refresh, but the continual connection wasn't good enough to keep me permanently in the game. Stuff happens, you have to account for the possibility that even the most stable connection will occasionally fail.

Yes, which is why Cosmicspacehead's proposal is the best starting point for a solution that I've read so far. It doesn't penalise anyone undully, it simply puts them back into the same mode and instance upon logging back in if they were in combat. It's quite fair across the board whether PvP, PvE, unexpected connection loss or malicious plug pull. And it has a built in form of light punishment in that it forces the player back into the same mode and same spot where their opponent will be waiting for them to reappear.

 

[Martian Successor]

I backed before offline was dropped. I didn't refund because I checked what FDEV said about online solo replacing it, they set absolutely no speed/stability requirements for the connection beyond simply saying broadband and they reassured us we would be able to access game content.

They still have not set any speed/stability requirements in the minimum specs, so nobody who has bought it so far can be penalized for their connection.

A change could in theory be made for future customers, but it would not be retrospective.



Nobodies arguing against maintaining the online portion of the game, I'm arguing against trying to punish people for their connections.

Players with such shockingly horrible connections on such a frequent basis should really stick to Solo or Mobius where no other player will be directly negatively affected by your poor connection. Playing in Open with such a choppy connection is just asking for trouble and players that do so will have only themselves to blame if they receive a warning from FD.

 

[Riverside]

Players with such shockingly horrible connections on such a frequent basis should really stick to Solo or Mobius where no other player will be directly negatively affected by your poor connection. Playing in Open with such a choppy connection is just asking for trouble and players that do so will have only themselves to blame if they receive a warning from FD.

In the same way that no player can be prevented from Clogging (ie FDev can't prevent Alt-f4 or physically disconnecting from a network) only discourage it, no player can be forced to self-restrict if they don't want to, however sensible it might be. Some players, as we know, are just selfish.

I suppose it's a relative issue though, there probably is a point at which a connection would be so bad (yet the player continues to try to connect) that it's laggy as hell but still playable where the instancing system would fail to find a match. It could arguably be made more sensitive.

However if this is set too high (significantly higher than it already is) it might quickly reach the point where very few players are able to instance together at all.

 

[Stigbob]

Players with such shockingly horrible connections on such a frequent basis should really stick to Solo or Mobius where no other player will be directly negatively affected by your poor connection. Playing in Open with such a choppy connection is just asking for trouble and players that do so will have only themselves to blame if they receive a warning from FD.

The only person directly effected by my connection is me, I'm also the only person with input into my mode choices.

FDEV don't even ban proven cheats do you really think they'll start handing out warnings to people with shonky connections ?, realistically I can't see it happening.

 

[Martian Successor]

In the same way that no player can be prevented from Clogging (ie FDev can't prevent Alt-f4 or physically disconnecting from a network) only discourage it, no player can be forced to self-restrict if they don't want to, however sensible it might be. Some players, as we know, are just selfish.

I suppose it's a relative issue though, there probably is a point at which a connection would be so bad (yet the player continues to try to connect) that it's laggy as hell but still playable where the instancing system would fail to find a match. It could arguably be made more sensitive.

However if this is set too high (significantly higher than it already is) it might quickly reach the point where very few players are able to instance together at all.

Nothing really can prevent a person from doing what they are set on doing. The goal is and always has been to hold players to account for their actions, to provide adequate consequences for their choice of actions.

 

[Martian Successor]

The only person directly effected by my connection is me, I'm also the only person with input into my mode choices.

FDEV don't even ban proven cheats do you really think they'll start handing out warnings to people with shonky connections ?, realistically I can't see it happening.

1) If you are in combat with another player your connection affects their game experience as well.

2) You have the choice to play whichever mode you like. Other players have that same choice to block or report you for your shoddy connection if it interferes with their experience. If you're reported enough times FD then has the right to send you a warning and issue a punishment if you continue on past the warning.

3) That's up to FD. Realistically all we can do is provide them with feedback and urge them to improve their approach.

 

[Stigbob]

1) If you are in combat with another player your connection affects their game experience as well.

I bought the game, and I expect to be able to play it. The chances of us happening to be playing at the same time, happening to be in the same system, then happening to interact and my connection happening to go wobbly at that moment are extremely slim. Don't worry about it, I don't.

2) You have the choice to play whichever mode you like. Other players have that same choice to block or report you for your shoddy connection if it interferes with their experience. If you're reported enough times FD then has the right to send you a warning and issue a punishment if you continue on past the warning.

False reports have no effect (see the OP), and since a shoddy connection isn't against the TOS/EULA or any of the games rules it's not very likely to happen.

3) That's up to FD. Realistically all we can do is provide them with feedback and urge them to improve their approach.

C&P improvements are on the way, that could solve some issues. It won't effect connections though obviously.

 

[Martian Successor]

I bought the game, and I expect to be able to play it. The chances of us happening to be playing at the same time, happening to be in the same system, then happening to interact and my connection happening to go wobbly at that moment are extremely slim. Don't worry about it, I don't.

You're the one who brought up wonky plonky internet connections as an excuse for not punishing logs made of combat so why should I be worrying about it? Your reply here does not compute.

False reports have no effect (see the OP), and since a shoddy connection isn't against the TOS/EULA or any of the games rules it's not very likely to happen.

"False" reports is a rather subjective term in this context. If you're frequently engaging players in combat and then dropping out then they have every right to report you, nothing false about it from their end. It's your own problem entirely if you continue to fight players in Open while knowing that your connection cannot handle the strain. That's called being held accountable for your choices. If you get warnings from FD because of it then that's your own fault.

If FD has a way to tell the difference between a combat log and wonky internet then you're good, nothing to worry about. If they don't and start sending you warnings because their logs confirm that your connection is dropping too frequently in combat, well then you can petition for FD to get a better system that can differentiate between bad internet and naughty plug pulls. Or play in another mode where your connection stability does not negatively affect other players.

There's nothing in the ToS/EULA or game rules that says FD cannot send you warnings and/or subtract a rebuy or two from your credit pool if they so choose. It's perfectly possible for them to do that. Probably not likely to happen though so no need to worry about it I guess.

C&P improvements are on the way, that could solve some issues. It won't effect connections though obviously.

Oh I'm pretty sure the enhanced NPC security response proposal will have an effect on connections if it makes it to live. A lotta people's Internet connections will suddenly become a lot less stable all of a sudden

 

[Stigbob]

You're the one who brought up wonky plonky internet connections as an excuse for not punishing logs made of combat so why should I be worrying about it? Your reply here does not compute.

It's simple if FDEV start banning cheats I'll applaud them, if they start punishing people who didn't cheat I'll condemn them.

"False" reports is a rather subjective term in this context. If you're frequently engaging players in combat and then dropping out then they have every right to report you, nothing false about it from their end. It's your own problem entirely if you continue to fight players in Open while knowing that your connection cannot handle the strain. That's called being held accountable for your choices. If you get warnings from FD because of it then that's your own fault.

You said people could report me for having a shoddy connection, I answered that.

If you want to move the goal posts feel free but I don't have to come with you.

If FD has a way to tell the difference between a combat log and wonky internet then you're good, nothing to worry about. If they don't and start sending you warnings because their logs confirm that your connection is dropping too frequently in combat, well then you can petition for FD to get a better system that can differentiate between bad internet and naughty plug pulls. Or play in another mode where your connection stability does not negatively affect other players.

They apparently don't send warning out to cloggers that's the whole point of this thread, so this is purely hypothetical. They already know about my connection from my support tickets, so hypothetically speaking nope won't happen.

There's nothing in the ToS/EULA or game rules that says FD cannot send you warnings and/or subtract a rebuy or two from your credit pool if they so choose. It's perfectly possible for them to do that. Probably not likely to happen though so no need to worry about it I guess.

That's not how customer relations work.

Oh I'm pretty sure the enhanced NPC security response proposal will have an affect on connections if it makes it to live. A lotta people's Internet connections will suddenly become a lot less stable all of a sudden

Yep cheats are gonna cheat, and then lie about it the trouble FDEV have is identifying them (except the 5-1'ers they know who they are).

 

[Martian Successor]

It's simple if FDEV start banning cheats I'll applaud them, if they start punishing people who didn't cheat I'll condemn them.

If FD start punishing all cheats equally I might just die of shock right there tbh.

You said people could report me for having a shoddy connection, I answered that.

If you want to move the goal posts feel free but I don't have to come with you.

What goal posts am I moving? Try to be specific when you falsley accuse someone, it helps cut the bull poop. You're becoming a little abrasive here and I don't see a reason why.

They apparently don't send warning out to cloggers that's the whole point of this thread, so this is purely hypothetical. They already know about my connection from my support tickets, so hypothetically speaking nope won't happen.

Nothing to worry about then. Although I'd be concerned if FD's procedure really is to ignore all reports of clogging as long as the account named has filed support tickets for connection issues. It becomes like a get out of jail free card, which is no gouda.

That's not how customer relations work.

Neither are FD entirely at the mercy of someone who might think they can do anything as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the legalise. Just look at what happened to the 5-1 cheats and with FD's foot stamp on stream sniping. The whole point of the legalise is to help FD out when they need it, not to act as cover for the cheekier customers.

Yep cheats are gonna cheat, and then lie about it the trouble FDEV have is identifying them (except the 5-1'ers they know who they are).

Aye. Or making their method of cheating end up costing them more than it's worth ala the 5-1'ers. CMDR Cosmicspacehead's proposal has the potential to do that.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ent-Proposal?p=5643210&viewfull=1#post5643210

 

[Asp Explorer]

If FD has a way to tell the difference between a combat log and wonky internet then you're good, nothing to worry about. If they don't and start sending you warnings because their logs confirm that your connection is dropping too frequently in combat, well then you can petition for FD to get a better system that can differentiate between bad internet and naughty plug pulls.

IF FD had a way to flawlessly detect and determine such instances - they'd give up game development in an instant and become absolutely filthy rich licensing the tech out to every government, bank, and three-letter agency in the world

 

[nathdixon92]

Rather convenient that the majority of "disconnects" happen to players under attack though no?

Over on Xbox, you tend not to disconnect in normal space but rather you get a buzz crash or lose connection either trying to drop down or jump up.