Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

If the CLogger doesn't immediately return, their in-game goal is not achieved, and cannot be until they return. If the player remaining in-game chooses to wait there would be something to wait for where currently there is not (currently the CLogger could drop to solo, move position & return to open to avoid their attacker for example). The proposal results in a better situation than we have now and reduces the number of occasions where the habitual CLogger sees more advantage to leaving the game than seeing out the scenario they are in.

Picture an organised 1 on 1 PvP fight with a friend, you are having fun but one of you loses the connection (ie not a deliberate CLog). You immediately return, generally explain what happened, apologise & carry on where you left off. It was frustrating to lose the connection, and you want to just get back to what you were doing. The proposal removes your choice to change mode, but you didn't want to anyway so no problem.

In a second scenario, someone wants to prevent you from delivering goods to a CG, you are doing it in open (or a group that allows PvP) because you think it'll be fun, but you need a plan to successfully get you past the blockade. Your objective is to deliver as many units of cargo as possible in, say an hour.
Mostly you hope to just not get caught, but you need a high wake destination plotted, you need enough defence to survive if you do get caught (and so less room for cargo), you are trading off time per run for success. carry loads of cargo & if you get caught you lose everything on that run, but you don't have to do as many runs to meet your target, or play to survive, each run takes longer & delivers less stuff per run. This is all tactical gameplay. The habitual CLogger doesn't need to worry about any of the nuances of this, if they are caught they CLog, switch to solo (where they probably should have started if they didn't want to risk their ship) & just carry on, but now they have spoiled another players fun. The proposal means they are more likely to either do the whole run in solo, or risk reducing their units per hour stat by having to wait out of game until they think they are safe to return.


So the Proposal makes the habitual CLogger think more carefully about how they want to interact with others, and hopefully fewer players get annoyed. The CLogger doesn't get annoyed by all these pesky other players, the blockaders have a good time with the traders they do catch, everyone is happy, no-one gets quite so annoyed.

I hope this makes more sense. In this thread are several examples like the one I just described, it's worth reading through the whole thing if you get the chance.

I have two issues with scenario #2

Firstly, the idea of 'maximum deliveries per hour' is artificial. Much more likely they're just aiming to get the cash bonus, but even if they're aiming for a higher tier a 15 minute delay is unlikely to significantly impact them, so a timeout is unlikely to bother them too much.
Secondly, the only way the timeout can be effective is if the blockader sits in an empty instance for 15 minutes - which is both boring and unproductive from a blockading perspective.

The blockader is much more likely to go interdict another ship, while the CL'er waits for 5 minutes, logs back in, checks it's safe and carries on playing - which is pretty much what happens now.


People who CL now have already made the assessment that playing in Open and risking having to do the occasional CL is the way they want to play the game. I don't think that this change is likely to affect that assessment significantly.

 

[Riverside]

People who CL now have already made the assessment that playing in Open and risking having to do the occasional CL is the way they want to play the game. I don't think that this change is likely to affect that assessment significantly.

The blockader, on seeing a CLog is currently safe to assume it's not worth waiting in the same spot & will return to supercruise. With the proposal, the blockader knows the CLogger will return to the same mode, and can make a decision whether to wait based on that. If you are frustrated, having no ability to act on that frustration in a useful way adds to the frustration. If you can make a decision, it becomes less pure frustration & more about tactics. I can imagine a habitual CLogger being specifically targeted in order to 'take them out of the game'. The CLogger eventually learns to either stick to solo or up their game longer term.

Waiting out of game for any amount of time is an improvement on the current situation imo, where the Clogger can log back in immediately (to solo) and just carry on. I agree it would not eliminate CLogging completely, but I think it will make the cynical, tactical CLog less likely.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

The blockader, on seeing a CLog is currently safe to assume it's not worth waiting in the same spot & will return to supercruise. With the proposal, the blockader knows the CLogger will return to the same mode, and can make a decision whether to wait based on that. If you are frustrated, having no ability to act on that frustration in a useful way adds to the frustration. If you can make a decision, it becomes less pure frustration & more about tactics. I can imagine a habitual CLogger being specifically targeted in order to 'take them out of the game'. The CLogger eventually learns to either stick to solo or up their game longer term.

Waiting out of game for any amount of time is an improvement on the current situation imo, where the Clogger can log back in immediately (to solo) and just carry on. I agree it would not eliminate CLogging completely, but I think it will make the cynical, tactical CLog less likely.

While it's true that the blockader at least knows their opponent is going to return to the same mode - which is an improvement on the current situation - unfortunately, so does the ganker who's been CL'd on by a trader. Now, whilst combat logging is cheating, whatever your motivation for doing it, I'm not sure we really want to make ganking any easier than it is now.

I think you're simply more optimistic about how this suggestion will affect players' attitudes than I am - which is no bad thing

The only way to really tell if it works is to implement it, which I'd have no objection to.

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

How would you identify who to give an axe to?

I don't think having your save reset by a dodgy connection would be all that popular

it would be easy to differentiate genuine internet disconnection vs "ooo my hulls at 10% & that internet plug looks loose" problems especially for repeat offenders.

but... it would be a herring, not even a frozen one, a limp flaccid floppy one, (i.e. not an axe)... Good luck

P.S

Prison / Judge / jury isnt popular but its still crime & punishment and arguably works,

under my reign it would be worse of course and there would be a massive wall (better than Trumps wall) built around a non descriptive city where inmates would be thrown in to fend for themselves, there would be web cams everywhere to live stream it all like the running man, and Davina McCall would host it like big brother with a gordie narrator saying "daye three in the pit o' terra" , the general public will be allowed to throw tins of dog food at the inmates or just let them starve, they could also ring a hotline to decide what descends into the pit of terror... i mean prison... a heard of tigers, the plague, radioactive slurry, you know these kind of things.

it wont be popular but crime would go down, prison overpopulation and repeat offenders would be a thing of the past too

#McGrew for President

 

[BigF]

Prison / Judge / jury isnt popular but its still crime & punishment and arguably works,

under my reign it would be worse of course and there would be a massive wall (better than Trumps wall) built around a non descriptive city where inmates would be thrown in to fend for themselves, there would be web cams everywhere to live stream it all like the running man, and Davina McCall would host it like big brother with a gordie narrator saying "daye three in the pit o' terra" , the general public will be allowed to throw tins of dog food at the inmates or just let them starve, they could also ring a hotline to decide what descends into the pit of terror... i mean prison... a heard of tigers, the plague, radioactive slurry, you know these kind of things.

it wont be popular but crime would go down, prison overpopulation and repeat offenders would be a thing of the past too

#McGrew for President

That sounds perfect, when exactly and where are you running for paliment?

 

[Maka Gucci]

I think the bans should start lower and increase based on subsequent disconnects.

If we are just talking about a ban from Open then I think an hour at least, up to as much 14.

This allows for the myriad of reasons people might suffer a disconnect and incurs only a small penalty if you are having genuine issues. Just jump in to Solo till you can be confident you won't be disconnecting so sporadically.

It's the type of thing I had to do with Dark Souls after incurring points against me for some disconnects while being phantoms for hosts and helping fight bosses. I wasn't greifing at all but had been punished for effectively abandoning the host. Which is totally reasonable. I played alone until my connection was sorted and came back.

 

[Riverside]

It's the type of thing I had to do with Dark Souls

Dark Souls is an example game that has come up a few times in the various Clogging discussion threads. I've been unable to find anything useful about how it's anti-CLogging mechanism works.

ETA found this:
http://darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com/Way+of+White+Circlet
The discussion in the comments section is kinda funny

As I understand it it's another peer to peer game (like ED) but somehow keeps you in-game & vulnerable after you ungracefully disconnect. I think their token system (white circlets) to give grace on occasional disconnects isn't as good a solution as those put forward in this thread, but any info on how the player's character is treated by the game after disconnecting would be welcome. What do you come back to?

 

[Virandar]

With all respect, being banned from the game for CTD or lost connection is simply stupid. There are days when I loose connection to the server several times during a session (usually due to the router being knocked down). If that means I can't log in to the game afterwards, I'd like FD to refund the price of the game, Horizons and additional purchases as their product becomes non-functional. I have no choice when it comes to my ISP or hardware used and I don't want to be bothered with that. Especially that the only ways I could deal with that would require me spending money on solving the issue and I don't see why I should do that. Unless you want to provide funds.
Also, I play only in Solo or PG, so I have totally and absolutely no interest in whatever people do in Open. Therefore I have no desire for Frontier to make changes in that mode that will in a negative way affect the modes I use. If your game companions dump you in the middle of the game, it is between you and them to solve, don't try to get the whole community become affected by that.

 

[Riverside]

With all respect, being banned from the game for CTD or lost connection is simply stupid. There are days when I loose connection to the server several times during a session (usually due to the router being knocked down). If that means I can't log in to the game afterwards, I'd like FD to refund the price of the game, Horizons and additional purchases as their product becomes non-functional. I have no choice when it comes to my ISP or hardware used and I don't want to be bothered with that. Especially that the only ways I could deal with that would require me spending money on solving the issue and I don't see why I should do that. Unless you want to provide funds.
Also, I play only in Solo or PG, so I have totally and absolutely no interest in whatever people do in Open. Therefore I have no desire for Frontier to make changes in that mode that will in a negative way affect the modes I use. If your game companions dump you in the middle of the game, it is between you and them to solve, don't try to get the whole community become affected by that.

There is a proposal in post #267 and further thoughts in #268 that should address you concerns.

The solution proposed doesn't ban you from the game, only restricts you ability to switch modes. For an unintended disconnect like you describe, you would simply rejoin the mode you were in before, which is the mode you wanted to be in anyway. I get occasional game crashes & disconnects, we probably all do. Diagnosing these is of course a good idea, there are lots of reasons for ungraceful disconnects, only some of which are within the devs control.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

I think the bans should start lower and increase based on subsequent disconnects.

If we are just talking about a ban from Open then I think an hour at least, up to as much 14.

This allows for the myriad of reasons people might suffer a disconnect and incurs only a small penalty if you are having genuine issues. Just jump in to Solo till you can be confident you won't be disconnecting so sporadically.

This kind of happens already. Several times during busy CGs, I've had the game disconnect on me - fortunately not during an interdiction or combat. When the game crashed, there's be at least half a dozen other CMDRs around. But when I logged back in, still in open, the instance was completely empty and would stay that way for a few jumps.

 

[BigF]

Whats the point of fixing Cloggs if there is still a chance of the instance dropping you out.

like the other night, I dragged a 475k Npc conda down to single digits destroyed his drive and shields, I was playing kill the modules, then got that little "flutter" that you some times get when another player gets connected to your instance and great my beams and cannon are not doing any damage and then wait for it....... Server disconnect. So I reconnect and have nothing but low ammo and hull damage to show for it, and the connecting ship provided he/she didnt get disconnected as well gets a conda bounty that they'd be able to finish off in a stock Sidey.

 

[Riverside]

Whats the point of fixing Cloggs if there is still a chance of the instance dropping you out.

What effect would the proposal have on your scenario to make you think it would make any difference at all? Could you expand on this?

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

That sounds perfect, when exactly and where are you running for paliment?

Soon™......

 

[CommanderDarjeeling]

Hi, newish Elite player here (been playing since last month on the Xbox) and I may have an idea for Frontier to consider (at least as a first time offense/guard against people who genuinely get disconnected/crashed out)...institute a Combat Timer that locks the player's ship in that instance if they are in combat/taking damage/in danger. It could be that multiple disconnects within a certain time frame increases the Timer or flags an account as Suspect for FDev to look at.

 

[NeilF]

Hi, newish Elite player here (been playing since last month on the Xbox) and I may have an idea for Frontier to consider (at least as a first time offense/guard against people who genuinely get disconnected/crashed out)...institute a Combat Timer that locks the player's ship in that instance if they are in combat/taking damage/in danger. It could be that multiple disconnects within a certain time frame increases the Timer or flags an account as Suspect for FDev to look at.

This has been discussed in the past. The issue is it might be abused for example. eg: I block traffic from your IP address. My ED client therefore locks you into my instance and I blow you up...

Sound fair?


The only way to track it IMHO is the game to note when you're in a combat/risk situation (it already knows this as it gives you a timer to exit to menu). If you crash/lose connection during one of these moments, when re-entering the game it makes a note of this. If this happens more than X times in period Y it gives a warning. If it then continues to happen you get penalised in some fashion etc...

 

[Zcorruption]

Do what eve did. Have your ship stay in space for up to 15 minutes after you log out. Sounds harsh but it forced people to gain the mentality of getting your ship safe before you log and solves combat logging. Be harsh to be fair

 

[Robert Maynard]

Do what eve did. Have your ship stay in space for up to 15 minutes after you log out. Sounds harsh but it forced people to gain the mentality of getting your ship safe before you log and solves combat logging. Be harsh to be fair

There is no "infallible arbiter" to take over control of the departed player's ship (Sandro has been quite clear that player clients cannot be trusted for this role) - hence there's nothing in place to keep the ship in game.

 

[Zcorruption]

This has been discussed in the past. The issue is it might be abused for example. eg: I block traffic from your IP address. My ED client therefore locks you into my instance and I blow you up...

Sound fair?


The only way to track it IMHO is the game to note when you're in a combat/risk situation (it already knows this as it gives you a timer to exit to menu). If you crash/lose connection during one of these moments, when re-entering the game it makes a note of this. If this happens more than X times in period Y it gives a warning. If it then continues to happen you get penalised in some fashion etc...

Strange how in 15 years of eve ive never come across a player blocking traffic from your specific ip address. If players are able to get this information to do it in the first place then it would be a serious breach of privacy laws.

 

[Zcorruption]

There is no "infallible arbiter" to take over control of the departed player's ship (Sandro has been quite clear that player clients cannot be trusted for this role) - hence there's nothing in place to keep the ship in game.

Well why can eve do it and elite can? If thats the case then we just live with combat logging as far as im concerned. Kills off certain things like pirating but elite has never been very good at player to player interaction so i say they focus on making the player to ai interaction as good as it can be

 

[Robert Maynard]

Strange how in 15 years of eve ive never come across a player blocking traffic from your specific ip address. If players are able to get this information to do it in the first place then it would be a serious breach of privacy laws.

From what I understand of EvE it uses a Client/Server networking architecture rather than the P2P solution adopted by this game. A simple command line command is sufficient to show which IP addresses one's PC is connecting to during a game.