Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[Riverside]

Hey there. New to this forum. I think I have an idea to prevent combat logging.
Okay, logging is cheating. I first played in Open a couple of days ago (not counting once in then past when I accidentally left in open after taking a mission from Sothis/Ceos and got killed). I was fine in Solo but I thought I'd see how it is to be in Open. I had no idea how much different combat is. I didn't know the difference the engineering would make. So I lost my Anaconda once and logged the second time. I wanted to see what I did wrong but after talking with a couple of CMDRs I understood that I had no chance. Simply because I don't devote enough time to upgrade my ship and I'm just not as hardcore a gamer as others. I won't practice as much as others. I don't care to do so cause I don't want to think seriously about anything other than my real-life worries. Then I tested my Fer-de-Lance and since I knew what I was getting into, I stayed and got blasted.

So it's like I stand no chance if I play in Open. But still I think we (simple gamers) have the right for it. We bought the same game after all.

I think that creating certain player levels outside the game (not the competent, elit, dangerous thing) can help prevent combat logging. Like 5 "leagues". We all start in No3. If my win/loss ratio in PvP is 45-55% I stay in the same league. If I win more than 55% I go to league No4 whereas when I get less than 45% I go to No2.
This way, after some cycles, I'll get to play in Open with CMDRs of the same level as me, more or less.
The different "leagues" could also effect the PowerPlay respectively, like level 3 is the base, level 4 = x1.5, level 5 = x2, level 1= x0.5, level 2 = x0.75. So if I'm a rookie and play on the safe side, my deeds won't have the same consequences with a top class player.
Still, a top class trader can be at the same level with a top class pirate, if his ship is engineered to cool down fsd faster and by having stronger shields etc, so it won't end like "traders in level1 and pirates in level5"

That's a general idea, the numbers are just examples but I think that this way, the game would be less frustrating for everyone.
Rookies have the right to play with others without being sure they'll be killed more "sooner" than later and experts can feel more sure their enemy won't log, since they won't be so easy to kill anyway...

Sorry for the lost post after all

We have something like this in the game already (albeit with NPCs), your combat rank determines the difficulty of those that go after you. Broadly speaking the playerbase takes your combat rank into account when choosing to interact, aside from the ship you're flying & where you are it's the only thing a stranger knows about your experience level, and when you get to the higher levels it's not a good indicator of PvP experience at all.

In an openworld game like ED any player could come across another, it's up to the player to decide how the interaction goes down. Your proposal would cut down on ganking but would equally cut down on the help experienced players can give to novices.

I started another thread on PvP Piracy vs Karma that covers topics similar to your idea, could be worth a read

 

[Kraael]

Thanks for the piece of info and about the other post. While you're right about cutting down the interaction between amateur and experienced players it doesn't stop it though. An amateur could be able to play on a higher level if he/she chooses to do so and anyway, some players would eventually level-up, so they will meet other more experienced players, others will level down etc etc
I don't pretend my idea to be perfect of course. And anyway, it's not up to me!
I'll copy-paste my previous post at your other thread if you don't mind. I also read 5 pages but I noticed that there are 58 pages or something, which is impossible for me to read. But there are some interesting ideas there too indeed.

 

[Riverside]

Thanks for the piece of info and about the other post. While you're right about cutting down the interaction between amateur and experienced players it doesn't stop it though. An amateur could be able to play on a higher level if he/she chooses to do so and anyway, some players would eventually level-up, so they will meet other more experienced players, others will level down etc etc
I don't pretend my idea to be perfect of course. And anyway, it's not up to me!
I'll copy-paste my previous post at your other thread if you don't mind. I also read 5 pages but I noticed that there are 58 pages or something, which is impossible for me to read. But there are some interesting ideas there too indeed.

I saw that you posted in the other thread too, fundamentally I guess you are talking about reducing the perceived causes of CLogging, the thread I linked to discusses the difference between 'ganking' (use of needlessly excessive force to overwhelm an opponent), griefing (where the intent is purely to childishly frustrate other players) and piracy, a commonly accepted form of PvP.

There is some difference of opinion on whether CLogging is a result of being ganked/griefed (I'll just refer to both concepts as ganking since intent is often difficult to establish), or whether ganking is the result of frustration from players CLogging. It's a chicken & egg debate & clearly both are bad so I don't really care which came first.

However ganking uses in-game mechanics & as you say boils down to more experienced players attacking less experienced (or simply unwilling) opponents, CLogging is using an out-of game mechanic to deal with the consequences of poor in-game decisions (or maybe just bad luck).

So logically the use of an out of game mechanism is the one that should be given higher priority IMO, particularly when you consider that reportedly many gankers also CLog. If they can no longer CLog without consequence I believe the community will stand a better chance of policing itself without relying on heavy handed 'god-like' intervention from the developers (the proposed karma system which will track trends over time).

Any solution is likely to be imperfect, it will have downsides as well as benefits. I think your proposal has merit (restricting combat to opponents of more similar experience) but would also fragment the playerbase, which I think is a significant downside for an already diverse playerbase.

So a good solution needs to have mostly benefits, with as few downsides as possible. You proposal would probably work well for a game with a large, concentrated playerbase and might work well enough in heavy traffic systems in ED to reduce the number of hapless victims for a ganker to instance with but outside of those few high traffic systems would severely restrict who a novice Cmdr might meet, and potentially learn from or become friendly with.

 

[Kraael]

You've put things in a very good order. Just wanted to add something. Ganking no matter how frustrating it is, it's a part of the game. No matter how much I disagree with it, if anyone wants to be a bully (talking about in-game) they have the right to. What would help the in-game rules in this case, is giving the option to the player being attacked for an SOS signal, or in general, have stricter security for any wanted CMDR in the system. In this case a ganker would be chased out of system immediately since spotted. But the same should happen to an Enemy tagged ship in a powerplay scenario. Also another option would be an "Open (no aggression)" option in the menu for those who just don't want to combat (because they also have the right to play the game as they like, unless Frontier say otherwise...)
Then about CLogging, one thing would be to simply lose the battle if you log during PvP. If it's connection problems... Well, that's bad indeed but that's what would happen if the game was played on a server like EVE anyway... But isn't it obvious (for frontier) if someone kills the task or he has a poor connection?
And lastly about fragmenting the playerbase. Just thought that, players from different levels could be at the same instance, so they could interact but only a lower level player would be able to challenge/engage/interdict a higher level one. So this removes the fragmentation, keeps the interaction between players of all the levels, doesn't prevent combat between them if the lower challenges the higher but prevents the gankers from being such...
I hope what I wrote above makes sense cause I'm almost sleeping in the chair as I'm writting

 

[Riverside]

What would help the in-game rules in this case, is giving the option to the player being attacked for an SOS signal, or in general, have stricter security for any wanted CMDR in the system. In this case a ganker would be chased out of system immediately since spotted. But the same should happen to an Enemy tagged ship in a powerplay scenario.

We already have this with the 'report crimes' function, which is on by default. While the speed and scale of the response currently is arguably not a strong enough deterrent, operating on the wrong side of the law is legitimate & popular gameplay so the response can't really be scaled up too much. It potentially could be scaled up for PvP encounters only, which I understand is part of the proposed karma system. It will be complex to implement a system using police NPCs to deter ganking without being too punishing for the novice 'baddie' player

Also another option would be an "Open (no aggression)" option in the menu for those who just don't want to combat (because they also have the right to play the game as they like, unless Frontier say otherwise...)

This is a popular proposal, but open to abuse. There have been several massive threads on this topic, essentially it creates more issues than it solves. I'd be in favour of encouraging more people to use Open with a blacklist than the heavy handed whitelist of a group though, leaving community managed PvE groups for those that genuinely want no PvP encounters at all. I suspect a significant number of the Mobius membership would be happy with a certain amount of existential threat, just without the players that many consider to take it too far. Even the blacklist isn't a great solution though.

Then about CLogging, one thing would be to simply lose the battle if you log during PvP. If it's connection problems... Well, that's bad indeed but that's what would happen if the game was played on a server like EVE anyway... But isn't it obvious (for frontier) if someone kills the task or he has a poor connection?

This has been a fairly popular suggestion too, but is extremely punishing for accidental disconnects. It's worth bearing in mind too that Eve and many other PvP focused games use a client-server model, whereas ED uses peer-to-peer (p2p) making mechanisms from other games difficult or impossible to integrate. Needless to say, intent cannot be established reliably for a single event, so any punishment needs to be one that is immaterial to a player that accidentally disconnects, which is what the proposal I support in posts #267 and #268 achieves.

And lastly about fragmenting the playerbase. Just thought that, players from different levels could be at the same instance, so they could interact but only a lower level player would be able to challenge/engage/interdict a higher level one. So this removes the fragmentation, keeps the interaction between players of all the levels, doesn't prevent combat between them if the lower challenges the higher but prevents the gankers from being such...

While I'm not sure how easy or hard it would be to put a system like this into the game would be, I agree it could work well. There would be the challenge of determining honestly how experienced in PvP a player is (CQC rank could play a part here, it's a more accurate indicator of PvP skill than the Combat Rank). I think it could work well for more normal freeform PvP such as piracy but still would not solve the determined ganker (eg they could simply reset their save or use a second account with low rank to attack newbies).




How should the game best determine a players PvP skill?

 

[Teh Smoo]

How should the game best determine a players PvP skill?

Attempt to estimate skill? Waste of time. Better to track a players PVP actions. Between players who take the time to RP and go for cargo, across the spectrum to players who attack on sight, for no reason whatsoever. To those who play station games to exploit game mechanics just to get people killed.

Seems to me, the same people who suicide sidewinders to get people killed at stations, are the same types who want people to be PUNISHED until they stick around as they are killed by PVP-specialized players.

Have the game treat people the way they treat their fellow players.

 

[Kraael]

Skill cannot be determined accurately IMO but your win/loss ratio is countable. Surely it won't show exactly my skill but if my ratio is above, say, 60% then the game says sth like 'hey, try now with better players'.
Now, if someone clears his save, then there goes his gear. And the gear is also very important I think. When I got blasted it was bcause of gear, my opponents didn't have to show skill even if they were skilled. As for the multiple accounts... Wil someone pay extra just to be able to be a bully? I mean this is beyond normal. A simple ban could do the job. And anyway a new account means starting from 0 gear.

 

[Nitross]

20 pages was a lot to scan through so forgive me if I missed a similar suggestion but, instead of trying to figure out if the disconnect was a "combat log" or a connection problem, why not have a system that gives a fair chance to everyone :

If you lose connection in combat, your ship will attempt to high wake out of the zone using an AI of your skill level.

If you come back online before it succeeds, you can cancel it and keep fighting.

But when you dont come back fast enough, your next login would be dropping from supercruise in the area you were in (or it could be at the closest star's navigation beacon to be consistent with the high wake) or the rebuy screen if the escape failed.

If you were really trying to save your skin with a combat log, it was probably too late for you to run. Much less having an AI do it. You'll most likely end up losing your ship anyways as your opponent has a chance to finish you off for any bounty on your head, if not for the satisfaction of fighting to the end.

For those with a legitimate connection issue, the AI should have no problem preserving your ship if the combat was light or just starting. If you were in a tight spot and it's unable to escape, there was a likely chance you would have died anyways whether you fought or ran yourself.

Sure, it gives your opponent the impression you turned tail and ran, and you may have had better chances at survival if you kept fighting yourself. But, at least, you do not get a ban or a timeout for something that is out of your control like a poor connection and there is a chance of not having to pay the rebuy (instead of an instant rebuy like some people suggest).

I think it could be a good middle ground and a way it could be automated without needing policing from moderators or systems for ban appeals by players with crappy connections.

 

[Morbad]

Arguments relating to skill, fairness, sportsmanship, etc...all completely and utterly irrelevant distractions from the issue of willful disconnections to prevent in-game asset loss being blatantly against the rules. Disconnecting against an NPC assassin, against a wing of CMDRs defending themselves from a "seal clubber", or a harmless trader in an Adder disconnecting to save their ship from a ten-ship gank fleet of ultra engineered FDLs...all just as against the rules, all harmful, and all deserving of the same punishment, whatever that may be.

Also, any suggestion that involves keeping a CMDR in instance after they disconnect is a technical impossibility given the nature of the game.

Disconnects happen, for a variety of reasons, and punishment for something out of player control is not acceptable, in my view. An hour ban per instance would make the game virtually unplayable for many rule abiding CMDRs. Two of the last three combat logs I've seen were due to technical issues, not willful disconnections.

I maintain that the only solution to this form of cheating is detailed telemetry collection and robust analysis to detect patterns of willful disconnections...followed by very harsh punishments for those found to be doing so. A week shadowban as a warning, a save clear on the second offense, and a permanent ban on the third.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Important note, FDev have said they will be monitoring this thread, if you think you have a good alternative proposal, or like one of the ones in this thread please do join the discussion.
___________



From the feedback over the last day or so it seems clear that there are lots of things in the game that some people consider to be exploits, but one that stands out as fairly universally accepted to be a 'cheat' is Combat Logging.

There are lots of innocent reasons why a client may disconnect ungracefully, and unlike the recent Engineers cheat it's much harder to determine whether a CLogger did so deliberately or not.

I'd like to propose a simple 1hr ban from the game following any disconnect*, no matter what the reason.


*whilst the ship is in danger.

If a client is having connection difficulties, waiting a while before trying to reconnect is probably a good idea anyway, if they are genuinely trying to diagnose why the game crashed or their internet connection dropped, pinging the server & other stuff can be done in this time anyway.

If the client CLogs to avoid being ganked the gankers 'win' by preventing the CLogger from reaching the station (for an hour) etc, adding something to the gameplay rather than simply avoiding it.

If the client CLogs to avoid punishment (eg spawncamper being attacked by the AA) then the newbies have been given some breathing space where the ganker cannot simply relog & carry on popping sidewinders.


Would this be a reasonable compromise all round?





For an excellent alternative proposal from CMDR_Cosmicspacehead, please go to Post #34.

For a comprehensive breakdown of the problem from Red Anders, please go to post #61.


Edited 24/6/17: Clarified that proposal is only whilst the ship is in danger. Added useful links.
Edited 26/6/17: Amended formatting for clarity.

Since i experience at a regular base disconnects in combat zones, an one hour ban would make me stop playing the game in general.
If i have only around 4 hours for a game session and get blocked 1 hour just because i was half an hour in a CZ, than i wouldn't even try it at all.

I still think that not only the disconnect itself but also a report from other players should be an indicator for 'real' combat logging. Only if both happens, there should be taken actions.

I would like to propose to set combat loggers to solo/PG but without power to have any impact on PP/BGS (which should be a thing in general)

 

[cmdr sava01]

Some cmdrs make a joyful day of playing by ruining others fun, example...i had a pirate that pulled me out of cruise 4 times in one system, in the end i combat logged and don't apologize either, oh and i had no cargo onboard, so maybe not a pirate but a simple murderer or griefer

 

[Riverside]

There's a revised proposal taking on board feedback from the productive discussion in this thread in post #267.

I've added the link to the OP too.

 

[Teh Smoo]

Skill cannot be determined accurately IMO but your win/loss ratio is countable. Surely it won't show exactly my skill but if my ratio is above, say, 60% then the game says sth like 'hey, try now with better players'.
Now, if someone clears his save, then there goes his gear. And the gear is also very important I think. When I got blasted it was bcause of gear, my opponents didn't have to show skill even if they were skilled. As for the multiple accounts... Wil someone pay extra just to be able to be a bully? I mean this is beyond normal. A simple ban could do the job. And anyway a new account means starting from 0 gear.

Pay extra to bully? People pay GOOD MONEY for multiplayer cheats, there's definitely quite a few paid cheating sites, for MMOs, and other online games. And they'll put in the time, as well, since there's no meaningful mechanic that prevents them from doing whatever they want.

Like the guy who poked into a HazRes near the current CG- a pack of WANTED commanders, sitting there waiting for people to arrive.


Punishing combat loggers, karma systems, it's all SYMPTOMS. The victims don't want to lose rebuy, and the would-be killers want people to pay rebuy. If PVP rebuy was removed, it would solve both issues.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...y-C-logging-punishment-and-griefing?p=5771086

 

[Robbotech]

When the usb cord to my MS Elite controller gets knocked it sometimes disconnects - whatever game I'm playing I need to exit the game then it initializes & works again...
Hasn't happened during PvP yet, but I'm worried it will.
I need to look up the keyboard bindings to see how to send a message ... just in case.
Keep in mind that these kind of things happen & there's no need to get annoyed about it.
cheers

 

[Truesilver]

When the usb cord to my MS Elite controller gets knocked it sometimes disconnects - whatever game I'm playing I need to exit the game then it initializes & works again...
Hasn't happened during PvP yet, but I'm worried it will.
I need to look up the keyboard bindings to see how to send a message ... just in case.
Keep in mind that these kind of things happen & there's no need to get annoyed about it.
cheers

It's never happened to me but I would be horrified if I suffered a genuine unilateral disconnect during PvP, particularly if, horror of horrors, I was close to destruction at the time. (I have had bilaterals.)

Fortunately in my case I have recording software enabled, so might have some (though not conclusive) evidence of what happened.

However, I doubt it would be required. Using the History section of the 2 Panel, as soon as I was back in game I'd immediately message my adversary with a profuse apology and explanation and, if desired, offer to let him blow my ship up. In those circumstances, I have no doubt that you'd be taken at your word.

 

[Imo]

When you request a combat logging punishment you must also request a false blaming punishment. If Frontier can not proove the reported combat log and someone continues to blame a cmdr being a combat logger, the blamer gets a blamers warning ticket.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Guys, check out some of the links in the OP. It's no longer a harsh punishment.

 

[Riverside]

Frontier said they would be monitoring this thread (see link in the OP), it's been left fallow long enough that comment will not interfere with the discussion.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Frontier said they would be monitoring this thread (see link in the OP), it's been left fallow long enough that comment will not interfere with the discussion.

Awesome.

I wonder if my proposal is even possible....?
I'd love to know. Because I'm nosey..

My Combat Logging Solution has its own thread now. Mostly so I'm able to quickly find it for when someone else brings up CLogging. (and I temporarily lost this thread)
It's more or less identical to my post on this thread, somewhere around post #34 I think.

Combat Logging Solution.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[kingbankai]

Sadly a game of this magnitude gets more attention on the "PVP" then having more content. Honestly they should just suspend them from open play (JUST OPEN PLAY) like how War Thunder does suspensions. Private group is obviously up to the moderator. Other than that most people combat log when they are being grief'd. Newb's get spooked and lose a ship (they foolishly couldn't afford the rebuy) and return the game. Some days i believe the "elite" part of the game is its Achilles heel. But ho-hum.