Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[Riverside]

It still seems that there is a very simple workaround to your proposed solution:

1. C'log
2. Add Cmdr you just c'logged on to block list
3. Log in and return to the same mode as before, but in a different instance

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In both directions you are no longer instanced with the CLogging player. I don't think this is a bad thing

The Blocklist, along with the mode select (open/group/solo) is there to allow players to filter who they play with. A CLogging griefer (my main motivation in this thread) probably already has a well populated blocklist, I don't think this makes the situation much worse. And if they block their attacker (who is still in the game, maybe in SC waiting for them) they are blocked from instancing with those the attacker is instanced with.

It's worth bearing in mind that the blocklist is the lowest priority filter too - mode select is top, then your friendlist, then the blocklist. It is a loophole as you say, but imo not a massive one. The ones that don't face their fate cannot do as much more damage. If they keep blocking players they will end up alone in their own instance, provided other players fill the policing role.

 

[Riverside]

I can understand all combat loggers. If you are a casual player or value your personal time (for whatever reason) you simply don't want to invest much more time than necessary or loose too much progress as it is not rewarding. Personally, I would also like to be the "king of the merceneries" but in ED I'am damned to be just another medicore mercenery pilot It's not a big problem for me, but it might help the hardcore / competive players to understand why not everyone wants to play this way. I think it's mainly time and fun in my freetime reasons.

Its a shame that there is no virtual test-drive for the ships (yes workaround participate in beta so i heard)
And many things of the game that you wanna do have a long list of prerequisites that have to be fulfilled painfully.
I play at my pace but I noticed already since I restarted the game how much time I sank into it.

I'm not personally concerned about players CLogging against NPCs, although I'm aware many are. If you are not prepared to lose your ship (to another player) it's easy to avoid by playing in solo, a PvE group or just by avoiding half a dozen hotspots at busy times. I play in Open & rarely get shot at, and haven't even had to escape an attack in probably 2+ years. But then I don't do many CGs

I understand why players do it, but it is cheating, it's not playing the game (it's refusing to play). I'd prefer players to make that decision not to play with the ruffians before they meet them rather than after.

But as I mentioned above, my main motivation is to capture the CLogging griefer - the one that attacks then CLogs if they are losing.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

The basic idea of having the ship remain is one that would work, and is used by many other games. It would require a considerable amount of changes to the way networking and instances are implemented in the game. It's a popular suggestion though, and worth taking the time to go back through the thread for explanations from better informed posters that me

Yes, many other Client-Server model games.

Elite uses Peer-to-Peer.

What Works in Client-Server does not apply to P2P.

Here's what you get when you try:

Peer 1 Disconnects on you.
You see an "after-image" of Peer 1's ship, and continue to blow it up with all your heroic might.
Peer 2 reconnects, but is alive and well.
As you gloat, Peer 2 interdicts you, opens fire, and you perish, as you were close to death before Peer 1 disconnected.

You flood the forums with "Why does this happen? I killed this guy! Waaaah! threads.

The rest of us point and laugh because you wanted an implementation that works in a C/S environment, not a P2P environment, and we all go "I told you so."

In the future, leaving what other games do out the entire thought process will be far more productive. Combine that with accepting that this is an ultimately unfixable problem, one entirely unique to PvP, and we're making some solid gains here.

 

[Riverside]

Yes, many other Client-Server model games.

Elite uses Peer-to-Peer.

What Works in Client-Server does not apply to P2P.

Here's what you get when you try:

Peer 1 Disconnects on you.
You see an "after-image" of Peer 1's ship, and continue to blow it up with all your heroic might.
Peer 2 reconnects, but is alive and well.
As you gloat, Peer 2 interdicts you, opens fire, and you perish, as you were close to death before Peer 1 disconnected.

You flood the forums with "Why does this happen? I killed this guy! Waaaah! threads.

The rest of us point and laugh because you wanted an implementation that works in a C/S environment, not a P2P environment, and we all go "I told you so."

In the future, leaving what other games do out the entire thought process will be far more productive. Combine that with accepting that this is an ultimately unfixable problem, one entirely unique to PvP, and we're making some solid gains here.

Follow Wheatons Law Indigowyrd. Poe's law probably applies too.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

In both directions you are no longer instanced with the CLogging player. I don't think this is a bad thing

The Blocklist, along with the mode select (open/group/solo) is there to allow players to filter who they play with. A CLogging griefer (my main motivation in this thread) probably already has a well populated blocklist, I don't think this makes the situation much worse. And if they block their attacker (who is still in the game, maybe in SC waiting for them) they are blocked from instancing with those the attacker is instanced with.

It's worth bearing in mind that the blocklist is the lowest priority filter too - mode select is top, then your friendlist, then the blocklist. It is a loophole as you say, but imo not a massive one. The ones that don't face their fate cannot do as much more damage. If they keep blocking players they will end up alone in their own instance, provided other players fill the policing role.

A C'Logger is a C'Logger, and any solution which only addresses one aspect (C'Logging griefers, in your case) isn't any solution at all.
The trader who C'Logs on a PvP player (even a griefer) should face the same punishment. The blocklist is the perfect mechanism for them to C'Log without consequence.

 

[Hedgehobbit]

Here's what you get when you try:

Peer 1 Disconnects on you.
You see an "after-image" of Peer 1's ship, and continue to blow it up with all your heroic might.
Peer 2 reconnects, but is alive and well.
As you gloat, Peer 2 interdicts you, opens fire, and you perish, as you were close to death before Peer 1 disconnected.

You flood the forums with "Why does this happen? I killed this guy! Waaaah! threads.

Elite currently has the ability to let you play in Open but never actually see anyone else (or them see you). They do this for new players and they do this when you leave a detention station.

So, an easy fix to this whole mess if whenever a player disconnects from Open, he is not instanced with anyone else for a short time (15 min or so). Also, when a disconnected ship is replaced with an NPC ship, that NPC will automatically start the process to high wake away. Thus when the real player finally connects with other players, his original ship will have either left or been destroyed.

 

[Hedgehobbit]

It still seems that there is a very simple workaround to your proposed solution:

1. C'log
2. Add Cmdr you just c'logged on to block list
3. Log in and return to the same mode as before, but in a different instance

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Block lists don't work on the PS4. So it's not universal. (on the PS4, all blocking does is prevent them from sending you friend requests or PSN messages)

 

[ScooterMcFudden]

So I said this on my on post all alone but I’ll add to the pile here.

Look... we all know you can’t add a “disconnect” delay because that would lead to people flying into stations/planets/suns from buzz crashes. The same with “tags to the save file.” In many parts of the world, the internet isn’t as reliable. So, yeah if you get kicked and get right back on, it could put you right back into the instance with the pilot you logged on, but what if it takes you hours? Days? Weeks? What if in the 15 minutes it takes you to reboot that pilot has been destroyed? So I get it’s a tough fix, but here’s your fix. If someone combat logs, we should be able to contact FDev and say the person logged. You should be able to look at the time and the account to see if they did log off. This requires no extra software, no fixes, no updates... just a quick log file. Even better if we recorded the vanishing act. If the evidence presented shows they did combat log, FDev can take appropriate actions, whatever that might be. (I.E. Bans, fines, make their ship look like a chicken for a week.) Also, don’t leave us in the dark. Drop us a note: “We found that player did combat log. It appears to be their first offense so they’ve been given a stern warning.” Or “This is their 37th offense... we are sending assassins to their house to murder their house plants!”

 

[Riverside]

So I said this on my on post all alone but I’ll add to the pile here.

Look... we all know you can’t add a “disconnect” delay because that would lead to people flying into stations/planets/suns from buzz crashes. The same with “tags to the save file.” In many parts of the world, the internet isn’t as reliable. So, yeah if you get kicked and get right back on, it could put you right back into the instance with the pilot you logged on, but what if it takes you hours? Days? Weeks? What if in the 15 minutes it takes you to reboot that pilot has been destroyed? So I get it’s a tough fix, but here’s your fix. If someone combat logs, we should be able to contact FDev and say the person logged. You should be able to look at the time and the account to see if they did log off. This requires no extra software, no fixes, no updates... just a quick log file. Even better if we recorded the vanishing act. If the evidence presented shows they did combat log, FDev can take appropriate actions, whatever that might be. (I.E. Bans, fines, make their ship look like a chicken for a week.) Also, don’t leave us in the dark. Drop us a note: “We found that player did combat log. It appears to be their first offense so they’ve been given a stern warning.” Or “This is their 37th offense... we are sending assassins to their house to murder their house plants!”

ScooterMcFudden's thread:

Combat Logging Fix Suggestion

 

[UFO Reality]

Personally, I think combat logging is a complete non-issue. By logging, your opponent has admitted that they have lost. Whether they had to spend any rebuy is irrelevant given how easy it is to exploit credits in places like Quince.

I don't need to see pixels explode to know I have won a fight.

Good point. Best one IMO. That is a win if someone combat logs. Otherwise it should display their ping during PvP to see if its legit or fair. I have bad broadband speed so even wing combat becomes weird for me. The ships fly around with frames skipping/missing.

 

[Riverside]

Good point. Best one IMO. That is a win if someone combat logs. Otherwise it should display their ping during PvP to see if its legit or fair. I have bad broadband speed so even wing combat becomes weird for me. The ships fly around with frames skipping/missing.

Griefers CLog too though.

 

[Exeider]

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?

LOL, yeah considering the matchmaking for this game is STILL broken as hell, and often times when I get attacked by another CMDR, I'm the one that gets disconnected not because I have bad internet, or even the other CMDR, because the game itself can't get us into an instance together so we can fight properly, thus causing disconnects to one or both of us.

So I don't *bleep*ing think so buddy.

 

[Riverside]

LOL, yeah considering the matchmaking for this game is STILL broken as hell, and often times when I get attacked by another CMDR, I'm the one that gets disconnected not because I have bad internet, or even the other CMDR, because the game itself can't get us into an instance together so we can fight properly, thus causing disconnects to one or both of us.

So I don't *bleep*ing think so buddy.

You have snipped the alternate proposal from Cmdr CosmicSpaceHead, what do you think of their idea? My original one was shot to pieces over the first few pages for similar reasons to those you give

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

You have snipped the alternate proposal from Cmdr CosmicSpaceHead, what do you think of their idea? My original one was shot to pieces over the first few pages for similar reasons to those you give

I'm starting to think people come here just to shoot your idea down some more.

 

[Exeider]

You have snipped the alternate proposal from Cmdr CosmicSpaceHead, what do you think of their idea? My original one was shot to pieces over the first few pages for similar reasons to those you give

the problem with commander spacehead's idea is again, a case of match making. After I get disconnected I jump right back on to find myself sitting sub light in a space instance, and even when I jump BACK up to supercruise, there is no gaurentee, infact it's VERY unlikely that the commander in question will be in the same instance as I am.

So his suggestion is rendered moot. I would be able to log back in, in sublight, the game detects I'm "NOT IN DANGER" and then I can log out again and clear the tag, then log back in and go about my business.

Fdev needs to fix the damn netcode and matchmaking system for the game before any combat logging fix can be implemented. period.

Because any "fix" for combat logging would require persistance of player states for them to work. and that seems to be a limitation with the game apparently since Fdev can't even keep the *bleepin'* chat system persistant.

 

[Riverside]

the problem with commander spacehead's idea is again, a case of match making. After I get disconnected I jump right back on to find myself sitting sub light in a space instance, and even when I jump BACK up to supercruise, there is no gaurentee, infact it's VERY unlikely that the commander in question will be in the same instance as I am.

So his suggestion is rendered moot. I would be able to log back in, in sublight, the game detects I'm "NOT IN DANGER" and then I can log out again and clear the tag, then log back in and go about my business.

Fdev needs to fix the damn netcode and matchmaking system for the game before any combat logging fix can be implemented. period.

Because any "fix" for combat logging would require persistance of player states for them to work. and that seems to be a limitation with the game apparently since Fdev can't even keep the *bleepin'* chat system persistant.

The question of instancing has been raised before, it's worth having a read through the thread if you have the time. There are links to what I consider particularly helpful posts in the OP, I wrote an analysis of the mode restricting proposal in posts #267 & #268.

Essentially the point is that this mode restricting proposal could help immediately reduce the benefit of CLogging without requiring other work to be done first, not that it will be a catch-all for every loophole.

I think there is a large difference between a suggestion not fixing every player disconnect/reconnect issue and one that is moot, but I do appreciate your taking the time to make your feelings clear, thank you

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Follow Wheatons Law Indigowyrd. Poe's law probably applies too.

Wheaton's Law: "Shut up, Wesley."
Poe's Law: "Once upon a midnight dreary..."

The rest of these "Internet Laws" are also garbage.

Aside from it having been stated quite clearly that no server exists that could maintain the illusion of a player's ship still connected, there is a very painful truth that has to be accepted:

Regardless of what is logged, there are very simple means available to terminate a session ungracefully that would appear to be completely innocent "software or driver" issues.
The injection of a little bit of bad data into a register will cause a driver fault (BSoD) that would be virtually impossible to disprove, rendering a defense of "I Didn't Combat Log, my Computer Crashed" a completely viable and supportable defense, as system event logs and memory dump files would be created to support this.

The other and more painful truth of the matter is: Combat Logging is not now, nor has it ever been an "Elite" problem. It is a People Problem.
People who are going to do this sort of thing, and I do not condone it at all, are going to find ways to do it, regardless, and Frontier cannot fix People.

If they could, we wouldn't have Griefing at all. Combat Logging would be unthinkable, and Exploits would never be found or fixed, as no one would ever use them.

But Frontier can't fix people, so all these things are going to continue to happen, regardless. The painful part of this: PvP players are simply going to have to suck it up and get over themselves. They have to "git gud" at being better People.

 

[Riverside]

This is/was (I thought it was closed) a proposal thread to see if a way could be found to handle CLogging, not to debate whether CLogging is an issue or not. If it's not an issue for an individual as long as a particular proposal doesn't adversely affect their play I don't really see any benefit in arguing that it doesn't matter. Clear it matters to some, it is cheating after all. If it doesn't matter you, that doesn't mean it's not an issue for others.

 

[Simplystyc]

@Riverside You know my suggestion in the other thread. I think it would be a good idea and could work. I will repost it here.

Someone Logs, They experience an Open play cooldown. Their actions from that session are reversed and null. No credits were gained etc.

Repeated Logs would increase the delay/cooldown before they could re access open play with other players.

3 Logs? Ban to Solo.

Harsh? Nah. Cheaters Justice.

 

[gorankar]

It would be great if we could prove someone c-logged or, disprove it was a legitimate pc/console/network issue. Since we can't do that, skipping ahead to the punishment phase is a waste of time.
Someone can reach over and unplug their router, and you would have absolutely zero way to prove it.