Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[Riverside]

I read Dale's post earlier (and Yaffle's reposts) pointing to this thread, and stating that FD would be watching it.

It would be nice to think there was some way the respondents in this thread can be cross-referenced against any CLogging statistics available from the game.

It would also be helpful if any broad stats could be made public such as a ratio of all ungraceful disconnects (or game crashes) compared to those where the ship is in danger.

My feeling from personal experience is that while the game may occasionally crash or my connection may occasionally drop, the times this happens when my ship is actually in danger are vanishingly rare.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Hmmm, considering the disconnect that I and my wingmate had during a PvE encounter, I rescind my automatic rebuy screen statements.... that would have cost him 55M for a CTD.

 

[Ozram]

Hmmm, considering the disconnect that I and my wingmate had during a PvE encounter, I rescind my automatic rebuy screen statements.... that would have cost him 55M for a CTD.

That's part of the trouble isn't it. It becomes kicking people when they're down. On the other hand, where there's enough to show some one is, in fact, combat logging, then I think increasingly longer periods of solo only would be appropriate. They can still play the game, just not with others (which is the point).

 

[EddyRockSteady]

They still don't absolve themselves from the rule by doing it, which is what the player I was addressing was arguing - that the rules just don't apply to him because he's special. It just means he's breaking them. It's his refusal to accept that they a) exist and b) apply to him that I find bizarre.

Perhaps you should read my post again.......

I was referring specifically and exclusively to PvP in my statement. I would have thought that obvious if you have regard to the text quoted.

I'll reiterate again: Nobody, least of all FD, will dictate to me how to play AS IT RELATES TO PVP, ie me logging on to Open is not consenting to PvP.

As i mentioned in a previous post regarding task-killing, my stance on the issue is that punishment can only reasonably follow after FD actually take proactive steps to address the cause.

I sure as hell don't know where you get the idea that I am breaking rules out of all that, unless a pathological hatred of pew-pew in the context of Elite Dangerous qualifies all of a sudden lol

I hope that clarifies things.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

They can still play the game, just not with others (which is the point).

That's just it:

How does it affect others? What is the loss/damage sustained that is so great that it deserves the punishment of a ban or the like?

I have seldom, if ever, heard this question answered satisfactorily.

 

[Ozram]

That's just it:

How does it affect others? What is the loss/damage sustained that is so great that it deserves the punishment of a ban or the like?

I have seldom, if ever, heard this question answered satisfactorily.

Like any other game, it has a set of rules and by combat logging you sidestep the consequences (one of the few negative consequences) of the risk of playing in Open. Like any other cheat, it's not playing by the rules. One wants the benefits without any of the risks. It's an insult to those who play in ernest. Just like sidestepping the mechanics of engineering gained some players an unfair advantage over others, sidestepping the risks of Open means you no longer have to consider anything else that everyone playing by the rules have to consider.
You won't need shields on that trade ship because you can just exit out if interdicted. You won't need to look at your minimap or have any situational awareness in a crowded CG. You won't have to weigh up risks versus profits when outfitting a ship. Really, one could go on at silly length about the number of ways in which combat logging affects gameplay in a shared environment. In short it's no different than the engineering exploit or some of the bugged mechanics allowing one to scan a beacon numerous times so they can make a pile of money on passenger tours without actually doing the entire tour. It's like we have a bunch of people playing the same game, sharing the same space and going by entirely different sets of rules based on what they personally feel matters with no regard for the actual rules of the game. In single player, it doesn't matter. In multiplayer, it does.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

Like any other game, it has a set of rules and by combat logging you sidestep the consequences (one of the few negative consequences) of the risk of playing in Open. Like any other cheat, it's not playing by the rules. One wants the benefits without any of the risks. It's an insult to those who play in ernest. Just like sidestepping the mechanics of engineering gained some players an unfair advantage over others, sidestepping the risks of Open means you no longer have to consider anything else that everyone playing by the rules have to consider.
You won't need shields on that trade ship because you can just exit out if interdicted. You won't need to look at your minimap or have any situational awareness in a crowded CG. You won't have to weigh up risks versus profits when outfitting a ship. Really, one could go on at silly length about the number of ways in which combat logging affects gameplay in a shared environment. In short it's no different than the engineering exploit or some of the bugged mechanics allowing one to scan a beacon numerous times so they can make a pile of money on passenger tours without actually doing the entire tour. It's like we have a bunch of people playing the same game, sharing the same space and going by entirely different sets of rules based on what they personally feel matters with no regard for the actual rules of the game. In single player, it doesn't matter. In multiplayer, it does.

Yeah I understand all that. The point I am trying to make is that the gravity of the consequences of the 'offence' MUST equal, or at least come very close to, the gravity of the punishment.

In the case of Elite Dangerous this is not apparent at all. There seems to be too great a divide between the proffered punishment proposals vs the actual harm done to whomever/whatever at the end of the day.

 

[Ozram]

Yeah I understand all that. The point I am trying to make is that the gravity of the consequences of the 'offence' MUST equal, or at least come very close to, the gravity of the punishment.

In the case of Elite Dangerous this is not apparent at all. There seems to be too great a divide between the proffered punishment proposals vs the actual harm done to whomever/whatever at the end of the day.

I suppose that's what we're here to discuss. What would you propose?

 

[Captain Willard]

There should never be a punishment for loggers. They lose a rebuy, you lose a few minutes time, nebbee 100 exp points and a kill. So you lose nothing when they log, they lose a rebuy Cry me a river. After I hed a hauler and was put back in a sidey with starter money, I left open forever. Ye brought it on ya selves. Start playing the game

 

[EddyRockSteady]

I suppose that's what we're here to discuss. What would you propose?

I am still trying to figure out the true extent of the gravity of the consequences of the offence as it pertains to anybody.

I suppose we have to take it step by step and a good start would be to address the vocal crowd, ie task-killing whilst in combat/Player A vs Player B scenario:

Player A engages Player B in non-consensual piracy/combat.

Player B task-kills to avoid confrontation.

What meaningful consequences has Player A suffered at the hands of Player B?

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

The main reason I keep pushing my idea, is because it's my idea.

But the other reason is that it does not punish anyone who is playing normally.
I've had to combat log on NPCs a couple of times due to crashes. Once I even got stuck in my vehicle hangar while under fire. Lol. And of course the odd CTD during combat, especially with that particularly nasty Anaconda CTD we had some time ago.
Using most of the ideas posted here, I would have either;
•Not been able to play the game from no fault of my own for several hours.
•Had to contact support to reimburse me for being destroyed for Combat Logging, from no fault of my own.

Imagine that times however many times that happens on a daily basis to the entire player base! Support would be completely overwhelmed.

My idea isn't a perfect solution, but with the sheer number of false positive from network, or stability issues, you can't just carpet punish everyone who may be a combat logger.
The system I suggested can be used to track logging, and gradually increase the punishment if it's happening too often.
Anyone just getting caught out by a crash or network error get to continue as normal, with the exception of being locked in to their previous mode for a limited time.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Atuarre]

Re:

Hmmm, considering the disconnect that I and my wingmate had during a PvE encounter, I rescind my automatic rebuy screen statements.... that would have cost him 55M for a CTD.

Yeah..., You were all gungho about it until it affected you or some one you knew. Not so fun now is it? Most of my friends live in reality rural areas where they have one choice for internet on neglected DSL. They get dropped at least five or six times an hour when we play. That's not counting any drops caused on Frontiers end.

Why should they be punished?

I don't agree with nor do I support any measure of punishment without a system in place that can determine with 100% certainty that the disconnect was deliberate on the part of the player. It would be extremely detrimental to implement a punishment that will only push more people away from playing the game.

 

[Ozram]

I am still trying to figure out the true extent of the gravity of the consequences of the offence as it pertains to anybody.

I suppose we have to take it step by step and a good start would be to address the vocal crowd, ie task-killing whilst in combat/Player A vs Player B scenario:

Player A engages Player B in non-consensual piracy/combat.

Player B task-kills to avoid confrontation.

What meaningful consequences has Player A suffered at the hands of Player B?

I think it's fair to say that if one is in Open, the pvp is consensual. As for who uses of the combat log, unfortunately it can often be the agressor who logs when the tables are turned. I've been attacked a couple of times in Open and had the aggressor log soon as their shields were dropped. Not allowing logging also keeps certain ships useful in the game. What I mean by this is that in a risky part of space, you might want to scout out a sector first in something that's either highly evasive, tough or cheap (or some combination thereof) before heading in with your most expensive ship. I don't often take my Conda (though fitted for combat) into Res sites because I know if I get ambushed I won't likely be able to break mass lock before my shields are out against a dedicated gank squad. More likely in that situation, you'll see me in the FAS or fdl. Occasionally I'll braves it in my FGS but that's riskier. With the option of the combat log, the most effective pve only build is all I'll have to consider at which point, why would I be in Open to begin with?
Everyone should be subject to and play by the same set of rules, whether it be in how one enters and exits the game, makes their credits or acquires their equipment.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

I think it's fair to say that if one is in Open, the pvp is consensual.....

See, I would completely disagree

Nowhere is it stipulated by FD that Open Play is tantamount to Consensual PvP in an adversarial context. Yes, Open is obviously player-interaction, which is the drawing card of the mode. It is however NOT consent to combat-orientated gameplay. That said, there is obviously always the chance that that specific aspect of gameplay will be forced on an individual not wanting any part of said gameplay, which in certain instances leads to task-killing......

Which brings us back to the original question: Yes, the rules have been broken. That does however not answer the question as to what the extent of the harm suffered by the 'aggrieved party' was.

Lost his 'easy kill' bragging rights? Boo-hoo.

Any other harm?

 

[Ozram]

See, I would completely disagree

Nowhere is it stipulated by FD that Open Play is tantamount to Consensual PvP in an adversarial context. Yes, Open is obviously player-interaction, which is the drawing card of the mode. It is however NOT consent to combat-orientated gameplay. That said, there is obviously always the chance that that specific aspect of gameplay will be forced on an individual not wanting any part of said gameplay, which in certain instances leads to task-killing......

Which brings us back to the original question: Yes, the rules have been broken. That does however not answer the question as to what the extent of the harm suffered by the 'aggrieved party' was.

Lost his 'easy kill' bragging rights? Boo-hoo.

Any other harm?

Well, agree or not, that's kind of part of being in Open. I'm not discussing ethics or emotions here. Adversarial interactions in Open are a supported aspect of the game with no rules against it whatsoever. Stepping into Open is stepping into all that Open has to offer, warts and pvp included.
Fortunately, if one still desires player interaction but has no intention or desire to face the possibility of player killers, then there is Möbius or some other player groups. Logging, on the other hand, is against the rules and has been stated as such by FD. I'm sure you can see the difference. So in fact, unless you are intending to cheat, exploit or otherwise break the rules of the game, then when you enter into Open you consent to being there and all it has to offer, risks and thrills alike.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

You know what really gets my goat in Open?

When people are flying in Open, and you say "o7 CMDR" on the comms.

And then they immediately log out.

That should be punished. It's pain rude. Lol



CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[EddyRockSteady]

Adversarial interactions in Open are a supported aspect of the game with no rules against it whatsoever. Stepping into Open is stepping into all that Open has to offer, warts and pvp included....

Supported by FD does not equate to consent thereto by a player, especially considering the absolute absence of any type of meaningful crime and consequence system......shocking, really, but a topic for another discussion entirely. Be that as it may, 'Play it Your Way' as endorsed by FD stretches across the three game modes, so if I desire player interaction but have no intention or desire to face the possibility of player killers, I can do so in Open as well as Private Group - nothing saying otherwise.

That said, I am way off-topic here. See below:

Logging, on the other hand, is against the rules and has been stated as such by FD...

Obviously - absolutely no argument here

Again, I am trying to ascertain the consequences of breaking said rules, preferably in short, concise bullet-points

Once that is clarified, only then can one reasonably tailor a punishment that suits the crime.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

You know what really gets my goat in Open?

When people are flying in Open, and you say "o7 CMDR" on the comms.

And then they immediately log out.

That should be punished. It's pain rude. Lol



CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

That's an evil trick played on newcomers......

Noob over Discord: What's the text chat window key-combo? Have this Spaceheaddude hailing me over comms.......want to see what he's on about........maybe a morsel for my plasmas......*evil laugh*

Elite veteran over Discord: Alt-F4 opens chat

Noob: Rgr thank you

 

[varonica]

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

I work hard most days, sometimes I have an hour or so in an evening free to log in and play, the last few weeks for about every second time logging in I have been immediately disconnected for some reason, if I log on again straight away it stays connected. So basically what you are advocating is that my game time be restricted to half of what it is simply because nothing? Not a good result, basically if I am restricted from logging on I will play another game and probably not bother trying to relog into ED, I mean, why bother?

Now there are eight pages in this thread, but nothing anyone has posted in those eight pages is going to make this good or acceptable, so I am not going to bother reading them and just say NO

 

[Ozram]

Supported by FD does not equate to consent thereto by a player, especially considering the absolute absence of any type of meaningful crime and consequence system......shocking, really, but a topic for another discussion entirely. Be that as it may, 'Play it Your Way' as endorsed by FD stretches across the three game modes, so if I desire player interaction but have no intention or desire to face the possibility of player killers, I can do so in Open as well as Private Group - nothing saying otherwise.

That said, I am way off-topic here. See below:



Obviously - absolutely no argument here

Again, I am trying to ascertain the consequences of breaking said rules, preferably in short, concise bullet-points

Once that is clarified, only then can one reasonably tailor a punishment that suits the crime.

You'll get no arguments from me for a need for a decent crime and punishment system. I think that would add much needed depth to the game aside from creating a little bit more needed risk to those who play solely as player killers but as you say, that's another topic.
As to consent. As I stated, there is the option to "play your own way" without cheating by going to player groups. Pvp is a part of Open and stepping into Open is to accept the rules of the mode. This is why I say that consent is given the second you choose the mode. Similarly, consent is given that you will not attack another player when you go into Möbius (unless you are to break the rules of that mode and get a permanent ban from it).
Is it OK that one can be permanently banned from a private group for breaching its rules? At least in my suggestion, the punishment for breaching the rules via a combat log would be far more lenient (unless the offender continues with the behaviour).