So What can be done about combat logging;-
It's in open PVP where the main issue lies and we all know that the Pier 2 Pier model is susceptible to this, so what can be done?
The obvious answer to myself has been that if you are in combat / interdiction situation with another player and the connection is lost then, whoever has lost the connection is deemed to be at fault and the burden of proof has to be on them to prove they didn't combat log. Quit-exit in a combat situation against another player and managing to log out should also be counted as a combat log. The main issue with this approach is detecting if it was a combat log.
The impression I've had is that the if the Matchmaking servery fails that's normally when the instance is created or if another player joins the instance, so that can be discounted if either player suffers from a forced log out at that point. However, once the matchmaking server is set up, the central server disengages and the instance continues between the two (or more clients). The main issue is to decide who terminated the connection. (This is probably a big ask for the networking team, so don't expect any quick fix on that)
Once its been established who cut the connection, what should be the sanction? Well, personally I would like the offending commander to be presented with the rebuy screen, with an appeal option. If they click on the appeal, the client sends the relevant logs to frontier for them to evaluate and if it's a valid network outage, so sanction is wiped. It will mean that an innocent Cmdr could be presented with the rebuy screen and have to wait for an investigation. The reaction to this could be horrendous, if you get more of these innocent network drops than combat logs.
I think that would satisfy the PVP brigade; However it has to made clear to players that if they fly in the open servers, they are at risk from player picary / griefing and killing for the lolz. I'd have to underline that players that manage to high wake out or drop out of super cruise before you can interdict them should not be considered for any sanction. The drop out can be for valid reasons the other player can't see and if a player knows they can get out with a high wake, you should have targeted their FSD. The monitoring should only start once the interdiction has started and should end once one ship leaves the instance without a CL.
However, this also means Crime and Punishment will have to be tweaked with regards to piracy / ganking against other players. My personal opinion has always been that interdicting and attacking other players in a system that has a security rating should mean the Pilot's Federation puts out a bounty on the offending player. Anarchy/Lawless systems don't count; this has to be highlighted to players, you get interdicted, pirated or griefed in a lawless system? Tough!
These PF bounties remain in place for a certain length of time (at least a week) regardless if the Cmdr looses their ship or not. I don't think there should be a way to pay off a PF bounty and the Cmdr remains wanted in all high and medium security systems until the bounty expires. The idea being that, AI police would help keep the Medium / High security systems safer for Traders. If a wanted ship continues to attacks another player vessels, that PF Bounty increases and the time for increased bounty is reset to a week. In addition, there should also be a police response in real space when an interdiction is complete. (say 2 minutes for low security, 1 minute for medium security and thirty seconds for High security). You can get in with the new Hatchbreakers, scoop some cargo and get out before the police arrive if you're a pirate.
The final point that I would like to make is that the bounty be small, just enough to interest the AI police and not big enough for players in the same wing/faction to exploit. I'd love a way to track players with these kind of bounties (maybe something on the galaxy map), but that's a discussion for another day.
The big questions a lot of pirate groups forget are
1) How long will it take to code up?
2) How much will it cost?
It has been suggested that there are only 200 to 300 players who use this play style as opposed to several thousand who don't. If the cost of implementing this is quite high, would you accept an even longer delay for 2.3, just to keep a small (but loud) part of the community happy?
I do disagree with the tactics that were used; they wanted a response otherwise they'd publish to the press. They got a response and published anyway, with some reddit posters claiming they wouldn't believe anything Frontier say. That doesn't help the case for work against combat logging, it just turns the majority of the community against people who want to pirate.
Anyway, guess what the next main discussion point for Next Weeks Lave Radio is going to be. (Again!)
It's in open PVP where the main issue lies and we all know that the Pier 2 Pier model is susceptible to this, so what can be done?
The obvious answer to myself has been that if you are in combat / interdiction situation with another player and the connection is lost then, whoever has lost the connection is deemed to be at fault and the burden of proof has to be on them to prove they didn't combat log. Quit-exit in a combat situation against another player and managing to log out should also be counted as a combat log. The main issue with this approach is detecting if it was a combat log.
The impression I've had is that the if the Matchmaking servery fails that's normally when the instance is created or if another player joins the instance, so that can be discounted if either player suffers from a forced log out at that point. However, once the matchmaking server is set up, the central server disengages and the instance continues between the two (or more clients). The main issue is to decide who terminated the connection. (This is probably a big ask for the networking team, so don't expect any quick fix on that)
Once its been established who cut the connection, what should be the sanction? Well, personally I would like the offending commander to be presented with the rebuy screen, with an appeal option. If they click on the appeal, the client sends the relevant logs to frontier for them to evaluate and if it's a valid network outage, so sanction is wiped. It will mean that an innocent Cmdr could be presented with the rebuy screen and have to wait for an investigation. The reaction to this could be horrendous, if you get more of these innocent network drops than combat logs.
I think that would satisfy the PVP brigade; However it has to made clear to players that if they fly in the open servers, they are at risk from player picary / griefing and killing for the lolz. I'd have to underline that players that manage to high wake out or drop out of super cruise before you can interdict them should not be considered for any sanction. The drop out can be for valid reasons the other player can't see and if a player knows they can get out with a high wake, you should have targeted their FSD. The monitoring should only start once the interdiction has started and should end once one ship leaves the instance without a CL.
However, this also means Crime and Punishment will have to be tweaked with regards to piracy / ganking against other players. My personal opinion has always been that interdicting and attacking other players in a system that has a security rating should mean the Pilot's Federation puts out a bounty on the offending player. Anarchy/Lawless systems don't count; this has to be highlighted to players, you get interdicted, pirated or griefed in a lawless system? Tough!
These PF bounties remain in place for a certain length of time (at least a week) regardless if the Cmdr looses their ship or not. I don't think there should be a way to pay off a PF bounty and the Cmdr remains wanted in all high and medium security systems until the bounty expires. The idea being that, AI police would help keep the Medium / High security systems safer for Traders. If a wanted ship continues to attacks another player vessels, that PF Bounty increases and the time for increased bounty is reset to a week. In addition, there should also be a police response in real space when an interdiction is complete. (say 2 minutes for low security, 1 minute for medium security and thirty seconds for High security). You can get in with the new Hatchbreakers, scoop some cargo and get out before the police arrive if you're a pirate.
The final point that I would like to make is that the bounty be small, just enough to interest the AI police and not big enough for players in the same wing/faction to exploit. I'd love a way to track players with these kind of bounties (maybe something on the galaxy map), but that's a discussion for another day.
The big questions a lot of pirate groups forget are
1) How long will it take to code up?
2) How much will it cost?
It has been suggested that there are only 200 to 300 players who use this play style as opposed to several thousand who don't. If the cost of implementing this is quite high, would you accept an even longer delay for 2.3, just to keep a small (but loud) part of the community happy?
I do disagree with the tactics that were used; they wanted a response otherwise they'd publish to the press. They got a response and published anyway, with some reddit posters claiming they wouldn't believe anything Frontier say. That doesn't help the case for work against combat logging, it just turns the majority of the community against people who want to pirate.
Anyway, guess what the next main discussion point for Next Weeks Lave Radio is going to be. (Again!)
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
