Can Combat Logging be fixed please?

[Zelos1983]

Please do educate me on how combat logging its an essential mechanism for bug mitigation?

No.. I really want to know, honestly...

If a bug happens and causes your destruction to be imminent (e.g. loss of user input when coming out of hyperspace, landing permit revoked when entering the space dock, ..), then kill -9 ing the E client can often save your ship, and, more important, your cargo.
Usually you would just reload your last save, or use the console to mitigate some bugs (especially in Bethesda games).

Maybe FD can have a "three strikes" combat log policy when someone actually does this in combat, and place them in a different shadow universe, so the honest PvPlers can stay amond themselves. Just an idea.

No it is not as FD already said that combat logging in a fight whether in open or solo is an exploit and allowing any exploit is not for the greater good of the player base

Combat logging as a mitigations strategy is usually not necessary in a fight. I haven't encountered significant bugs in fighting (yet).

That said: I don't care what FD says. The original KS announcement included a single player offline mode, that implies savegames of course (as Frontier - Elite II had!). If FD does not find themselves in a position where they can actually implement that, then they just have to accept that the community developes and implements mitigation strategies. In the end, it is our game that we paid for and we would like to play it as it pleases us.

 

[InMemoriamSirocco]

It can't be fixed

This. Stop asking for it. P2P = Combat logging. End of story. Move on.

 

[AlexRyder]

My experience is combat logging happens because of an unfair fight.... there's very little honour in the Elite universe. Most of the time I'm attacked or interdicted is when I'm out numbered or the person clearly has a much better ship than me. Combat Logging can easily be fixed all Frontier have to do is setup the game so when I log out, crash to desktop or end process your still in game for 1 minute.

Why would anyone deliberately seek a fair fight?

 

[dsagent]

Combat logging is being used as a "feature" of the game. Some people set up macros bound to a hotkey to log out faster.

 

[Nauht]

This. Stop asking for it. P2P = Combat logging. End of story. Move on.

And nothing's being done on FD's end to deter combat loggers either... so just do it yourself, save the repair bill.

 

[WiseDuck]

Sorry OP, you'll have to find another game where PvP is relevant and meaningful.

 

[Andromalius]

No it is not as FD already said that combat logging in a fight whether in open or solo is an exploit and allowing any exploit is not for the greater good of the player base

There is absolutely no way to distinguish a disconnect from another. All FD sees is the player not being connected any longer. They can't make a difference between voluntary disconnect, ISP issue, cat-bumping-the-router issue, etc.
So they won't ban anyone for that, the reports are just trashed. (that's not a rant against them, every game company does that, you can't ban people for disconnecting)

 

[marktay]

I think that if there was an ISP Issue, cat bumping issue etc. (say) 3 times by 1 CMDR and it coincides with combat and reporting by the other player, maybe FD would have grounds for assuming the player was a combat logger.

 

[Asp Explorer]

There is absolutely no way to distinguish a disconnect from another. All FD sees is the player not being connected any longer.

That's not strictly true. On gracious exit, the client sends disconnect data to FD so the matchmaking server can pass on island ownership, so they at least know when someone exits the game "properly".

When you hit the reset switch, cable plug, blank your IP, hamster eats your router, PC explodes etc, they have no way of knowing what goes on unless watchdog.exe uploads a log next time it's able to connect. Even then they cannot determine exactly what went on.

 

[nedeaalex]

No it cant . But hey enjoy the game

 

[Iain M Norman]

There is absolutely no way to distinguish a disconnect from another. All FD sees is the player not being connected any longer. They can't make a difference between voluntary disconnect, ISP issue, cat-bumping-the-router issue, etc.
So they won't ban anyone for that, the reports are just trashed. (that's not a rant against them, every game company does that, you can't ban people for disconnecting)

FD are counting various types of disconnect situations, which are distinguishable. As Adndromalius points out, the reason for the disconnect is not determinable, but by recording when someone disconnects a pattern of behaviour can emerge.

If you look at the counter names you can see how a pattern of habitual combat disconnects would look different to someone with a dodgy connection or annoying cat.

Here's an example of the counters in the companion app data.

    "vanishCounters": {
      "amongPeers": 2,
      "noPeers": 2,
      "inDanger": 0,
      "notInDanger": 4,
      "inDangerWithPeers": 0,
      "isNotDying": 4
    },

Last we heard from Sandro he said telemetry was being collected and people would be dealt with at a later time, after the data had been gathered for a while.

He even stressed that if one was to continue to combat log you could expect to be caught up with, or something to that end. I can't find the post right now.

He said that to us all quite some time ago. I have no idea if any of that data has been used to ban anyone, as a community mod I only have the same public info everyone else has.

Iain

 

[excalibus]

If a bug happens and causes your destruction to be imminent (e.g. loss of user input when coming out of hyperspace, landing permit revoked when entering the space dock, ..), then kill -9 ing the E client can often save your ship, and, more important, your cargo.
Usually you would just reload your last save, or use the console to mitigate some bugs (especially in Bethesda games).

Maybe FD can have a "three strikes" combat log policy when someone actually does this in combat, and place them in a different shadow universe, so the honest PvPlers can stay amond themselves. Just an idea.



Combat logging as a mitigations strategy is usually not necessary in a fight. I haven't encountered significant bugs in fighting (yet).

That said: I don't care what FD says. The original KS announcement included a single player offline mode, that implies savegames of course (as Frontier - Elite II had!). If FD does not find themselves in a position where they can actually implement that, then they just have to accept that the community developes and implements mitigation strategies. In the end, it is our game that we paid for and we would like to play it as it pleases us.

actually coming out of hyperspace and losing controls (this has happened to me a couple of times) and end tasking is not combat logging is it... so please educate me how 'combat logging' can be used to mittigate bugs and is not an exploit?

As for the 'station revoking permission' that only happens now if you are wanted in that jurisdiction and get scanned on your way in so, in that sense, end tasking is actually exploiting the system because you are using an external method to exiting the game versus logging out using the in game menu system. To add to that, this game is not made by 'Bethesda'

Ergo that part of your educating lesson of using 'combat logging' to mitigate bugs is moot...

Actually I think there are better ways to profile someone who habitually combat logs and then shadow ban them but that is not what this discussion is about is it... As for your last bit about some sort of entitelment excuse to use exploits because of 'offline mode' not being implemented by FD does not float... It speaks volumes about you but that is also not something for this discussion either...

As a beta backer myself, and the same can and should be said for ALL backers of the game weather kickstarter backers or what not, we do not have any claims of 'ownership' to frontiers product... What we gave money for was so that the game could be developed not for the rights to use exploits because our noses get put out of joint. FDev have always said they are making they game they want to make and have stuck with that view for as long as I have been involved with the project...

I am still waiting to be educated...

 

[Andromalius]

You can't ban someone for disconnecting, whatever the disconnect pattern is. A disconnect is the start of not playing the game, and you can't action an account for that, at least if you want to stay in the boundaries of various consumer protection rules that are in effect in my home country. (I do work for a video game company and that kind of stuff is something I deal with routinely)
You can, of course, just ban people and wait to see what happens, but not when you're a high profile company sticking to business standards.

As a rule, actions that allow for account bans are, precisely, actions. Disconnecting is not an action, it is a cessation of activity. The only recourse is disconnect timers.

 

[Zelos1983]

actually coming out of hyperspace and losing controls (this has happened to me a couple of times) and end tasking is not combat logging is it...

Combat logging: Community term for sending SIGKILL (not SIGTERM!) to the E client process.

As for the 'station revoking permission' that only happens now if you are wanted in that jurisdiction and get scanned on your way in so, in that sense, end tasking is actually exploiting the system because you are using an external method to exiting the game versus logging out using the in game menu system.

It doesn't have to do with "wanted" status. It is a bug. Currently, I haven't experienced it anymore, but in Jan/Feb it was quite common.
As I said: The proper way would be to quit to main menu and then reload the savegame. However, it is not implemented, so doing the next best thing is quite reasonable. Besides, why do you want to tell others how to play their game, by which you are not affected? The argument "I want to enforce my way of playing the game on to strangers" sounds a bit childish to me, to be honest.

To add to that, this game is not made by 'Bethesda'

Unfortunately not. But that's an OT discussion.

Regarding the rest of your post: Please stick to the topic and try to understand the arguments others make before replying with a wall of text.