"I'm logging off legally (LOL), goodbye!"
An investigation into Frontier's actions on Combat Logging
- Thread starter ryan_m
- Start date
"I'm logging off legally (LOL), goodbye!"
Brett C
Frontier
I'm aware, and it's a subject that's been debated on these forums and reddit (and to the extent, some discord servers) for quite some time. Myself and many others on the Elite team have been keeping tabs of it all. While I don't have any news regarding if, when, or how we will deal with such a system/revamped system, i can say we're watching, playing our cards close to our chest at this point in time.
Personally, I know that what we have right now could use a fair bit of TLC. At the same time, it's not something that we want to rush to the plate, ship-it haphazardly, with numerous issues accompanied with such.
Yea, but if you don't experiment, the status quo will never change. Is FD okay with a combat logging and consequence-free "griefing" ED or not?
Brett C
Frontier
If your words....(letters?) per minute is slow enough, you might be able to pull that off. [hotas]
It shouldn't be too hard in concept (don't know about implementation), just start putting together all cheaters into their own cheater session kind of thing (where their playing have no effect on the BGS) notify them so they know this is happening and have a chance to "change their ways" so to speak, that way combat loggers can combat log to their heart's content while the rest of the PvP community gets on with their lives.
As for solo players doing power play, that i think FD will have to put their heads together to come up with some sort of technical way to detect when a player is in combat in solo and then, 3mins later is suddenly back in game all honky dory as if nothing was happening before, you'd have to detect where it happens every time a particular player is interdicted to identify repeat offenders and not punish those who have connection or game crashing problems (in which case the above scenario would happen outside combat too), find the actual offenders and erase any contributions made by that player and notify them so they can stop if they wish their actions to matter again.
P2P is the problem here as well. Consider this scenario: You and I are fighting. I disconnect our P2P connection. As far as the copy of Elite running on my computer can tell, you just combat logged. So your ship is now dead in the water or piloted by an AI. I kill it easily, and you get a rebuy screen.
The immediately obvious solution is to make my instance require a "go ahead" from the server to tell it that you have disconnected from it as well as from me. But then you would be able to cut the P2P connection and disappear instantly.
To do that you need a trusted server that has all the information about the instance, including real time combat information. And the game doesn't have it, due to its peer to peer architecture. Worse, due to the low latency requirement of this kind of game, if Frontier were to deploy such servers they would need to have servers on all continents.This is why adopting something like what others games do and artificially keeping that person's ship within the game for several minutes is the ideal soluton. The problem would literally disappear overnight and free CS to actually do CS rather than respond to combat logging report tickets.
Is simulating a 2000ms ping enough to cause a desync?Only n00bs do that
Or making cheese-covered nachos when you are on a wi-fi connection...
Combat logging does not need to be punished. The op was not an argument for it to be punished.
The solution to combat logging WITHIN the existing game infrastructure is as follows:
If your client exits the game while in a combat state, your ship is destroyed and you are welcomed back with a rebuy screen. This solution works within the P2P infrastructure, works for solo mode, and removes the perverse incentive to combat log by treating it as a player death.
You're welcome.
The solution to combat logging WITHIN the existing game infrastructure is as follows:
If your client exits the game while in a combat state, your ship is destroyed and you are welcomed back with a rebuy screen. This solution works within the P2P infrastructure, works for solo mode, and removes the perverse incentive to combat log by treating it as a player death.
You're welcome.
Last edited:
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
The bold part is unfortunately what started this whole debacle.
Not a word on C&P for 9 months, and you are still "watching." Is it then strange that you get a blowback from (parts of) the community? The inaction has led to where we are now, for both sides. Is it going to deteriorate for another 9 months?
Sometimes, a company needs to step up and not let their customers push them around so much.
I work in customer service, and often have to bend over backwards for customers, but if some customer came in and did something like what SDC did. We would kick them off the property.
Some customers are not worth it.
Errr "everyone" isn't designing or implementing the game, there is a company based in Cambridge area that is doing that.
They should develope a full crime and punishment solution. We can whinge about it, but that's as much as we can/should do.
The basis of this has been discussed with Sandro in a long thread that appeared earlier this year, obviously with his trademarked "no etas, no guarantees", but it would appear that this is something that has developement interest.
There appears to be a baseline of crime and punishment in the game already , security ratings of systems, levels of system authority response, fines, bounties. And an interest from player base to see this developed.
There are potentially 3 mini Betas going to occur about, weapons, power play and engineers.
Maybe a follow on would be to demonstrate the developed Frontier Crime and Punishment, look for loopholes and then deploy.
Rather than curing the symptom, address the cause.
Consider making non consensual player death more significant to the murderer, consider rebut penalties, offset costs of victim to the killers account. Maybe offer additional levels of insurance to cover cargo?
Give those people who crave the satisfaction of blowing another player to smithereens the opportunity to do this in Anarchy systems, but implement punishments above and beyond the current rebuy costs for those actions occurring in secure systems.
Allow those players who want a consensual PvP engagement the opportunity to bypass such draconian measures (report crimes against me toggle but with anti grief locks) and get it on.
If you push the anti social PvP enengagements into Anarchy systems, it makes them Anarchies.
If you make secure systems safer, then those who do not want to have a high risk of player created death will reside there.
Combat logging will dwindle from the current nonexistent levels that there are now to a few staid individuals that will be easy to identify and remonstrate with.
All this needs a firm lead from the game developers to put something in place that sets guidelines and gives people something to understand and decide if they want to adhere to it or violate it.
Frontier are the game designers, they develope the game and no-one else does.
I pulled that off on a Cutter with phasing sequence during Walter Waldo CG, escaped basically unscatched (3 or 4% of hull aren't worth mentioning). And I was flying a trade Cutter with C6 shield and E-class boosters, LOL.
As soon as I've logged back, I was interdicted by a sole FDL with incendiary MCs (IIRC), who proceed to shoot me. I low-waked. He interdicted me again, I low-waked... *insert Yakety Sax here* Finally, after 10 or so interdicts, I arrived at the station and was greeted by the FDL, who then proceeded with SDC's trademark "cheater-logger-loser" routine.
Haven't had so much laughs in MONTHS!
Some undoubtedly do. I guess I don't really follow the crowd on that; I've spent less than 1% of my time playing this game in open but it's irrelevant. I am actually amazed at how many people not only think it's perfectly OK to cheat but actually consider it to be an entitlement and attack people who have the audacity to suggest otherwise. Never seen that on a legit game forum before.
For me, I'd say that it's pretty clear FDev didn't design this game to be focused on pvp as the central spine of the game (I mean the overall package here, everything from the instancing method to the fact that winging up wasn't even in the initial release does suggests that) but it's certainly going too far to say it's designed as PVE only. PVE only is actually very easy to do, you just tag player ships for no damage received. It's definitely easier than trying to balance PVP in a game with this many ships, gear options and now engineers, so if they only ever intended for it to be a co-operative play model I'm pretty sure that's what we'd have.
I interpreted Braben's concept of 'meaningful pvp' as being a game that's not just a mindless blaster or 20 minute team tournament fragfest and not one where in a typical day's gameplay you will be running across a PVP fight every 5 minutes, but rather one where engaging another player in combat was supposed to feel significant in some way. I like the idea, to what extent it's been delivered is obviously open to considerable debate though.
It's posts like this that I suspect the above poster was talking about.
The ironic thing here in view of who started the thread is that I've made my views of some of the stuff SDC have got up to perfectly clear on here before and I'm happy to repeat that I think it's lame. Equally, some of it isn't. I doubt any of them will be losing sleep over what some random on the internet thinks either way.
It doesn't change the fact that thinking someone's gameplay is lame doesn't give a player the right to absolve themselves fron the game's rules. Even if another player's behaviour is actually against the rules, it doesn't give you the right to break them yourself. Nothing gives any of us the right to break the rules.
If you're now thinking 'well FDev should make sure they enforce their rules to protect me against another player who breaks them' I would agree completely. Funny thing is, I'm sure OP would too since that was the exact point the thread started with.
Last edited:
I like this a lot. Short and sweet.
Have some rep.
Indeed. Enough talk. Let's get something done.
Last edited:
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
That is actually the current situation. Breaking the TOS, including the re-iteration of the Harassment rule, will lead to a Shadow Ban. That means sitting in Solo for a month without affecting the BGS. And it happens, regardless of what people may believe.
I fear this pretty much rules out any Crime & Punishment changes - and the reduction in frequency of Combat Logging that would result - for update 2.3. A feature that has been necessary since 1.0. Therefore Piracy will remain a dead playstyle, as will Bounty Hunting Wanted CMDRs, and the newbie sector around Eravate will remain a Combat-Logging-griefers' paradise. This is disappointing... hopefully in 2.4 around June...
Cheers for the honest info anyway Brett, it's always appreciated
Sole Hunter
Banned
You can definitely affect the BGS while being in solo or private.
[wacky]
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
NOT when you have been Shadow Banned. There is a difference, and I am surprised that you are not aware of it*.
*NOT saying you have or should be Shadow Banned.