Deleted member 115407
D
Yeah, but for me it's not about winning the fight. Rather it's about knowing that the other player can't escape fair consequence by pulling the plug.
Combat Logging Punishment Proposal
Yeah, but for me it's not about winning the fight. Rather it's about knowing that the other player can't escape fair consequence by pulling the plug.
So, I just looked through 10 pages of history and i can't find my CLogging Fix.
So I'm typing it, again. (This is probably why I can never find it, it's not one of my threads... Lol)
A tagging system.
When you enter any form of danger (anything that requires the 15 second timer to legally exit the game), a "tag" is placed on your save, which contains some information.
When you leave danger, the tag is removed. You'd be none the wiser.
If you illegally combat log, or have a CTD, server error, etc, while in danger, the tag would not be removed.
This tag is then read when loading the game, and using the information it stored, will only allow you to re-enter your previous mode for a limited time.
I particularly like this idea, because if you're just going about your business and suffer a server failure or CTD while in danger, you simply reload the game and continue as normal, in your previous mode, which we all do anyway.
But if you're intentionally combat logging in PvP, your only options are to rejoin the same mode, where your opponent may be waiting. Or don't play at all.
No one is ever barred entirely from the game, and accidental disconnects are not punished.
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Give it a few weeks, and I'll be looking for this post again.
Even better than a timer, +rep
Last edited:
how many people will use that though? would that sort of thing not be detectable anyway, no expert just wondering
Yay for rep.
Thanks. I should add, that the tags would have a timer from the moment it's placed, say an hour.
In that time, you can only ever log in to the mode you was in when it was placed, which would include exact private group details, if needed. Even if you log out and back in after an illegal exit, you'll still only be allowed in your previous mode, until the timer expires.
There is a reason why anything that anyone uses to try to combat this in certain competitive games is fairly delicate and progressive - it has an unfortunate false positive rate, even in more directly competitive PvP client-server mediated games.
It's nigh-on impossible to reliably distinguish between connection failures in or near combat caused by deliberate action; connection failures caused by poor-quality consumer home routers dropping tables sometimes; connection failures caused by random ISP hiccups; connection failures caused by random internet routing hiccups; connection failures caused by Frontier's own bugs (it happens - there's a reason they beta-tested the physics changes in particular!); and connection failures caused by the unreliability of AWS, which even for the premium Amazon charge for flexibility of infrastructure, is not the kind of high-quality latency-sensitive reliable network infrastructure games normally like to host on.
Let's not forget the deliberate action I refer to could just as easily be the opponent launching a DoS attack ("booting") you. Especially as Elite: Dangerous uses peer-to-peer networking for the most part, IPs are identifiable by players and were FD to implement any kind of particularly harsh punishment for combat logging, someone of a particularly evil bent could finish off their griefing of you by inflicting that punishment on you by briefly flooding your connection enough to cause your connection to time out mid-combat. This is a well-known tactic by griefers, and (unlawful as it is—never do it) will be well-known to FD as it has been used by random ats in online games of many stripes for a very long time (for example it has been infamously used in EVE Online with, in some instances, people actually going to people's RL houses to disconnect their phone line!).
So, FD have only two realistic options:
1) Code the client to enforce the timeout client-side using the last known heading prediction even if the connection drops, and code the adjudication server to enforce and respect that timeout too (even if the other client drops). Combat logging faster than that timeout is now impossible, but griefers can DDoS you to flood your connection and destroy your ship, or indeed if your connection is unreliable or Frontier's servers are unreliable, as it most likely is to some degree, your ship may be destroyed when it isn't your fault and all you saw was a disconnect. Result: lots of forum rage from PvPers and PvEers. OR
2) The current status quo, where you are not punished for disconnection, even if that disconnection is deliberate, but DDoS cannot destroy your ship. Result: a little less forum rage from PvPers.
Some MMOs and competitive FPSes/MOBAs choose option 1, but that only works well in a client-server architecture if the servers are extremely high quality i.e. at least as much money as Blizzard pay for WoW server interconnects and a complete netcode redesign from scratch. I don't think Frontier, as an independent studio have the budget, or appetite, for that. I know I wouldn't in their place.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any workable, practical, fair solution to combat logging with current internet architecture, let alone the architecture of this particular game. The reason FD have not done anything significant about combat logging to date, despite their stated distaste of it and the knowledge that some people deliberately abuse it, is because any punitive action they did take would stand such a high risk of false positives, both accidental and deliberately-inflicted-by-griefer, that it itself would become more unfair and more of a griefing tool than combat logging is.
Although, I have to say that CMDR_CosmicSpaceHead's approach, which is basically not a punishment at all in any scenario except someone pulling the plug on a PvP encounter in Open, is probably the most workable practical approach that could be implemented.
It's nigh-on impossible to reliably distinguish between connection failures in or near combat caused by deliberate action; connection failures caused by poor-quality consumer home routers dropping tables sometimes; connection failures caused by random ISP hiccups; connection failures caused by random internet routing hiccups; connection failures caused by Frontier's own bugs (it happens - there's a reason they beta-tested the physics changes in particular!); and connection failures caused by the unreliability of AWS, which even for the premium Amazon charge for flexibility of infrastructure, is not the kind of high-quality latency-sensitive reliable network infrastructure games normally like to host on.
Let's not forget the deliberate action I refer to could just as easily be the opponent launching a DoS attack ("booting") you. Especially as Elite: Dangerous uses peer-to-peer networking for the most part, IPs are identifiable by players and were FD to implement any kind of particularly harsh punishment for combat logging, someone of a particularly evil bent could finish off their griefing of you by inflicting that punishment on you by briefly flooding your connection enough to cause your connection to time out mid-combat. This is a well-known tactic by griefers, and (unlawful as it is—never do it) will be well-known to FD as it has been used by random ats in online games of many stripes for a very long time (for example it has been infamously used in EVE Online with, in some instances, people actually going to people's RL houses to disconnect their phone line!).
So, FD have only two realistic options:
1) Code the client to enforce the timeout client-side using the last known heading prediction even if the connection drops, and code the adjudication server to enforce and respect that timeout too (even if the other client drops). Combat logging faster than that timeout is now impossible, but griefers can DDoS you to flood your connection and destroy your ship, or indeed if your connection is unreliable or Frontier's servers are unreliable, as it most likely is to some degree, your ship may be destroyed when it isn't your fault and all you saw was a disconnect. Result: lots of forum rage from PvPers and PvEers. OR
2) The current status quo, where you are not punished for disconnection, even if that disconnection is deliberate, but DDoS cannot destroy your ship. Result: a little less forum rage from PvPers.
Some MMOs and competitive FPSes/MOBAs choose option 1, but that only works well in a client-server architecture if the servers are extremely high quality i.e. at least as much money as Blizzard pay for WoW server interconnects and a complete netcode redesign from scratch. I don't think Frontier, as an independent studio have the budget, or appetite, for that. I know I wouldn't in their place.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any workable, practical, fair solution to combat logging with current internet architecture, let alone the architecture of this particular game. The reason FD have not done anything significant about combat logging to date, despite their stated distaste of it and the knowledge that some people deliberately abuse it, is because any punitive action they did take would stand such a high risk of false positives, both accidental and deliberately-inflicted-by-griefer, that it itself would become more unfair and more of a griefing tool than combat logging is.
Although, I have to say that CMDR_CosmicSpaceHead's approach, which is basically not a punishment at all in any scenario except someone pulling the plug on a PvP encounter in Open, is probably the most workable practical approach that could be implemented.
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
So, I just looked through 10 pages of history and i can't find my CLogging Fix.
So I'm typing it, again. (This is probably why I can never find it, it's not one of my threads... Lol)
A tagging system.
When you enter any form of danger (anything that requires the 15 second timer to legally exit the game), a "tag" is placed on your save, which contains some information.
When you leave danger, the tag is removed. You'd be none the wiser.
If you illegally combat log, or have a CTD, server error, etc, while in danger, the tag would not be removed.
This tag is then read when loading the game, and using the information it stored, will only allow you to re-enter your previous mode for a limited time.
I particularly like this idea, because if you're just going about your business and suffer a server failure or CTD while in danger, you simply reload the game and continue as normal, in your previous mode, which we all do anyway.
But if you're intentionally combat logging in PvP, your only options are to rejoin the same mode, where your opponent may be waiting. Or don't play at all.
No one is ever barred entirely from the game, and accidental disconnects are not punished.
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Give it a few weeks, and I'll be looking for this post again.
What about players clogging, and then just walking away? Like "Meh, I'll go have a beer and a smoke and come back in 15 minutes". Is anyone going to wait around for 15 minutes for their target to show back up?
No, I say if a player is flagged in danger, and they suffer a disconnect, their next login is at the rebuy screen.
Yay for rep.
I should add, that the tags would have a timer from the moment it's placed, say an hour.
In that time, you can only ever log in to the mode you was in when it was placed, which would include exact private group details, if needed. Even if you log out and back in after an illegal exit, you'll still only be allowed in your previous mode, until the timer expires.
Makes perfect sense, less effect on me and my shoddy internet service than Mrs Stigbob streaming gardeners question time. Yet puts the loggers back where they don't want to be.
No, you're talking about duelling. Many PvP engagements are not duels. Two examples:
1. Powerplay merit hauling freighter.
2. UA bomber hauling UA's.
Either of the above cargo ships gets interdicted by a defending U-boat, then if they log to save their toxic cargo, that which should have been destroyed has been cynically and dishonestly preserved ...
... and a one hour ban doesn't stop it having been cynically and dishonestly preserved.
Last edited:
Street Fighter 5, which also uses p2p networking, was rife with rage-quitters (combat loggers) and they addressed it, albeit too late.
To start with, players who frequently disconnect have an icon next to their name to let everyone else know they're a rage quitter [or, you know, have poor internet if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.] Then, those frequent rage-quitters have some match making restrictions applied so that they are matched with similar opponents. 24 hour bans come in later.
While, in ED, we don't get to pick and choose our opponents all the time, if a combat logger [or someone with frequent connection problems] was identified in the game - a different coloured hollow rectangle/triangle or something - than I could see them on the radar and choose not to get involved with a CMDR who has a poor connection.
Somewhat like a 'name & shame,' as those intentionally combat logging have to wear the badge... those with a poor connection are wearing the same badge but as a warning, to other players, about their connectivity.
To start with, players who frequently disconnect have an icon next to their name to let everyone else know they're a rage quitter [or, you know, have poor internet if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.] Then, those frequent rage-quitters have some match making restrictions applied so that they are matched with similar opponents. 24 hour bans come in later.
While, in ED, we don't get to pick and choose our opponents all the time, if a combat logger [or someone with frequent connection problems] was identified in the game - a different coloured hollow rectangle/triangle or something - than I could see them on the radar and choose not to get involved with a CMDR who has a poor connection.
Somewhat like a 'name & shame,' as those intentionally combat logging have to wear the badge... those with a poor connection are wearing the same badge but as a warning, to other players, about their connectivity.
Last edited:
This is entirely true, and is the likely outcome if such a system was used.
But, if the system could work on trends, then the timer could increase for serial offenders.
Or even flip, meaning you can not enter Open or PG instead of being forced to return there.
Last time I was in a busy place in open I was having lots of trouble with "Cannot connect to matchmaking server" exits to the main menu. There were people in the system complaining about combat logging but I'm not too sure it was combat logging.
I'd only support any kind of punishing if it could be guaranteed that the punishment would not be handed out where it was a Frontier server issue.
I'd only support any kind of punishing if it could be guaranteed that the punishment would not be handed out where it was a Frontier server issue.
Depending on how it is handled and plays out, I think that logging on the Thargoids may be a method more than a few people use. If it so happens that they are nigh on impossible to escape with current builds, I'm not going to fly back halfway across the galaxy to refit, and I'm sure as hell not going to let several months of exploration data end up lost...
_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
Simple solutions to complex problems: Always logical.
Always reasonable. [heart] Always practical. Always wrong. [knocked out]Sorry Riverside, I support any move to deter cheating, but there are so many reasons that the game can drop you in it's current state that Frontier would be absolutely insane to prevent players reconnecting for an hour after disconnects.
My connection is rock solid, but I have friends on teamspeak/discrord who don't have that luxury. None of them are playing in Open and they're usually messing about doing silly stuff, like jumping onto ships in their srvs, or teabagging rares, so they'd be getting punished harshly and repeatedly for something they couldn't possibly be guilty of. I think they'd quickly give up on Elite if your idea was implemented.
Last edited:
Hell NO !!!!
1stly if you're worried about Clogging, then you should exclude Solo,and PG, as I can't see Cmdrs killing each other in those(for PG)
2ndly ,and sorry I am not being sarcastic, but do you play in Open ? Do you know how bad it can get in terms of lockups and crashes at times? And that's without having any Cmdrs near you.
Punishing the many(crash, lockup, reboot, power loss,ISP loss,Router lockup) to appease the few who hate Clogging is not fair.
Find another solution, or as someone else said before my post, live with it, you won the battle !
Hell NO !!!!
1stly if you're worried about Clogging, then you should exclude Solo,and PG, as I can't see Cmdrs killing each other in those(for PG)
2ndly ,and sorry I am not being sarcastic, but do you play in Open ? Do you know how bad it can get in terms of lockups and crashes at times? And that's without having any Cmdrs near you.
Punishing the many(crash, lockup, reboot, power loss,ISP loss,Router lockup) to appease the few who hate Clogging is not fair.
Find another solution, or as someone else said before my post, live with it, you won the battle !
Simplest solution would be for those who are worried about combat loggers to start a PG for PvP and have one of the rules of the group be No Clogging, No exceptions, with a group ban for anyone suspected of clogging.
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
I hear you, regarding trends... though I still think that actual "in danger" disconnects are few and far between enough that a simple "rebuy screen" mechanic should be enforced. Hard quit while you're "in danger", your next login is at the rebuy screen. 15 second menu logs exempted.
I cannot help but think that FD's time would be better spent identifying firstly why people have the unfortunate tendency of tripping over their ethernet cable (as opposed to the valid tactic of 15 sec combat log to main menu) at the most inopportune of times, and secondly, once so identified, take steps to mitigate the reasons for doing so in the first instance.
Numbers will probably drop drastically.
FD is also probably struggling to see where the problem is, actually. Elite Dangerous has never been a competitive combat simulator so it is probably a struggle to formulate sufficient reason for the behaviour to be punished to any great extent. At the end of the day where exactly is the harm when havoc can be caused equally over 3 game modes? I'm sure nobody is crying over a PvP'er losing his bragging rights over a kill of a non-consensual 'victim'.
Numbers will probably drop drastically.
FD is also probably struggling to see where the problem is, actually. Elite Dangerous has never been a competitive combat simulator so it is probably a struggle to formulate sufficient reason for the behaviour to be punished to any great extent. At the end of the day where exactly is the harm when havoc can be caused equally over 3 game modes? I'm sure nobody is crying over a PvP'er losing his bragging rights over a kill of a non-consensual 'victim'.
Deleted member 115407
D
Combat logging in Open is as dishonest as infiltrating a PvE PG with the intent of killing other players.
If a player doesn't "consent" to PvP in the first place, then they shouldn't login to Open.
Or just add a PvP consent tick box upon login, and have it set for the duration of their session. If they want to change their PvP consent status, they log out, and back in. Different colors in the HUD for consent status, and anyone who is not consenting to PvP takes no player damage, and can not deal damage to other players. To make it a bit more robust, have the match making server group players based on their consent status when they log in to minimize instances with PvP consenting players along side PvP non consenting.
Last edited:
Is there though?
Bear in mind that FDev can determine whether you logged via the menu or not (triggering the 15 second delay is an eventt and can be logged) so we're only talking about applying any judgement to exits other than via the menu. The discussion about whether that is fair, unfair or whatever is for another thread - as things stand FDev say that is legit, whilst cable-yanking, ALT-F4 etc isn't and they make the rules not us.
The easiest way to deal with it, not ideal because some players would undoubtedly slip through the net, but still incomparably better that what the game offers now* is to do what I suggested in the now-locked thread and apply a balance of probabilities test.
Let's kill the strawmen before they spawn.
1. Nobody gets banned for a single occurrence of anything because yeah, my connection drops sometimes. Most people's connections will drop occasionally for a number of reasons.
2. Nobody gets banned for an ungraceful exit whilst just flying around in supercruise, or when jumping in/out - the issue is combat logging.
I would have to accept that one potentially exploitable scenario would have to be exempt, namely connection drops at the point of a successful interdiction. The reason is that I know this is a time when flaky connections can cause genuine problems, same as when trying to drop in on a wingmate. It'sa well-documented problem and a potential nightmare to police.
OK, that will undoubtedly mean that some players will just log at the point they're about to enter combat and get away with it, even if we leave aside the tedious and never-ending discussion around 'when is combat logging actually combat logging?' Is that ideal? Nope. Is it considerably better than the situation now, where a player who is happy to join the fight when they think they might win but then logs when they realise they won't, can also get away with it? I'd say that it is. If we can't do perfect, let's focus on doing better and just commit to working towards perfection lol - not being able to do it perfectly is not a reason to do nothing.
Ok, so that leaves us with players who can fly round in supercruise with no problems, can manage to drop into an instance with another player with no problems, can then fight that other player for a period of time with no problems, yet whose connection suffers an incredibly unfortunate failure just as they drop to 5% hull with their opponent drawing a bead on them.
If that happens once, should the player be getting a ban? I'd say not, bad luck is a real thing.
How about twice? Hmmm. Well I guess some people have really really bad luck.
Tell you what. Let's see how many times other players think someone could reasonably be unlucky, in what is a very specific situation and one that would be occurring after the most likely disconnect points for people with naturally flaky connections, who nontheless decide that playing online games that require a good, stable connection is a really good idea.
Quiz time:
You arrive home from work on Friday evening to discover your front room window smashed. There's a brick in the middle of the room which has clearly come through the window. Standing outside is a bloke with brick dust on his hands. He says 'This your house mate? Wow, proper mess that. I saw this fella launch a brick through it and run off down there, I tried to catch him but I've got a sore leg.' So obviously you thank him for his public-spirited behaviour and head inside to phone a glazier.
The following Friday, you arrive home from work to discover your front room window smashed. There's a brick in the middle of the room which has clearly come through the window. Standing outside is a bloke with brick dust on his hands. He says 'This your house mate? Wow, proper mess that. I saw this fella launch a brick through it and run off down there, I tried to catch him but I've got a sore leg.' Something is tickling away at the back of your mind about this situation but it's raining on your telly, so you thank him for his public spirited behaviour and head inside to phone a glazier.
The following Friday, you arrive home from work to discover your front room window smashed. There's a brick in the middle of the room which has clearly come through the window. Standing outside is a bloke with brick dust on his hands...
The following Friday, you arrive home from work to discover your front room window smashed. There's a brick in the middle of the room which has clearly come through the window. Standing outside is a bloke with brick dust on his hands. He says 'This your house mate? Wow, proper mess that. I saw this fella launch a brick through it and run off down there, I tried to catch him but I've got a sore leg.' Something is tickling away at the back of your mind about this situation but it's raining on your telly, so you thank him for his public spirited behaviour and head inside to phone a glazier.
The following Friday, you arrive home from work to discover your front room window smashed. There's a brick in the middle of the room which has clearly come through the window. Standing outside is a bloke with brick dust on his hands...
I'm not going to labour the point - just how many weeks would you let that go on before you accepted that the balance of probability is that the bloke is smashing your window and hanging around to have a laugh at you? Three? Five?
Balance of probability does not mean punishing someone for an act of God. It means that there is a tipping point after which a reasonable person could infer that the feathered, quacking bird in front of them is in fact a duck.
I don't agree with automated timeouts as per the OP simply because as I said above I totally accept that connections can drop legitimately and even with mine, which is usually rock-solid, I would have probably been unable to play on any Sunday night for the last year given the number of random disconnects I used to have. Mainly though, if the issue is combat logging, there's no need to do something as controversial as that when we're only really concerned with ungraceful exits during combat. For example I'm currently about 21,000 LY from Sol approaching the edge of the core - what impact is my connection dropping on a jump there having on anyone that means I should sit out an hour? It's just pointless and would be a huge cause of frustration.
I do however think that it's entirely reasonable for players to get banned on the basis that the circumstances in which repeated connection drops happen would defy any reasonable likelihood of being accidental. It's not about the number or frequency of disconnects, it's about the context. Just the same as I thought it was entirely reasonable that players should lose a load of grade 5 engineered mods even though there is an infinitesimally small possibility that they did 1n fact just exit to the engineers menu and then go back to do a grade 5 roll on 172 consecutive occasions.
This concept that what is needed to punish people is 'proof' in the sense of a video of them doing it and laughing about it along with a signed statement to that effect is bunk. What is needed is a reasonable belief that the chances of other causes are sufficiently small as to be disregarded and that is a point that you can definitely reach with contextual evidence. Nobody in their right mind can realistically believe that a player who drops connection regularly at the critical point of a fight and yet doesn't do so regularly (or at all) at other times is doing anything other then deliberately pulling the plug. It's nonsense.
* When I say implementing the above would be infinitely better than what we have now, I mean that the perception of what we have now at least is a situation where on the one hand FDev say 'ungraceful exits are an exploit' and yet where what seems to happen about them is nothing. That's actually worse than not having a rule about it at all because it gives the impression that enforcement of rules is weak and in MMOs players quite rightly have an expectation that rules will be enforced.
Last edited: