Combat Logging Punishment Proposal

[DM_Domination]

Best thing you can do regarding so called "Combat logging" is nothing at all, this isn't Eve Online and whilst pvp is an element of the game its not a core element of the game and given that a computer program has no way to differentiate between a disconnect, a real life urgent matter and "combat logging" how can you hope to "punish" someone for not dying to your primate need to beat them over the head with a stick.

If you want hardcore mode, go Eve Online there loosing your stuff in pvp has consquences far beyond what Elite will give you so if you win you will have more to crow about and if you loose your crying will be more under understandable.

In the meantime precious time Elite devs shouldn't waste of a small element of the game could be better spend on new ships and weapons and missions and content for all.

SC

 

[BigF]

There is a very simple way to deal with this.
FD make an official version of Mobius and make it so PVP Fire has no effect, that way PVPers can shoot each other till their fuel runs out and people who don't want to partake in unwanted PVP are safe in the knowledge it can't happen.

The player can then decide,
OPEN anything goes.
PVE , safe and knowing the only way they'll lose is through thier own stupidity.

This would likely bring a lot of solo only players back to the fold, as a side affect.

 

[CryptoTrader]

Empire Ranking.. Pick up all the missions you can log out log back in and keep doing it thousands of times until you get your rank up to the desired level.

FED Ranking.. Pick up all the missions you can log out log back in and do it thousands of times until you get the rank up to the desired level.

Massacre Missions.. Pick up 2 missions then log out log and back in until you get a good board of missions. Do it Hundreds of times until you have the money you require.

Their argument for ' Cheating ' like this is that the game mechanic allows you to do it. It's part of the game.

Now if some is trying to kill you, for no reason than he thinks it's fun, and you log out and log back in, using the same game mechanics as above, your the scum of the earth and should be banned from the game.

Who is the 'Cheat' 'Exploiter' in this situation ? The poor guy just trying to play the game ?

The people using the first set of 'Exploits' are cheating everyone in the game. The guy that 'Combat Logs' is cheating you, and only you, out of a kill.

Stop moaning about it, it's part of the game.

 

[shroom2021]

Seems like the only time this could be an issue is when it occurs in open. What if the only "punishment" for combat logging is to prevent the guilty player from going back into open for a little while? Totally use the methods of detecting it that err on the side of caution, but with the punishment being only temporary removal from open, even mistakes made by FD would be less likely to be impact full to a player legitimately experiencing repeated connection issues during combat while still being a fairly poignant reminder to actual offenders that playing by the rules is recommended.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Empire Ranking.. Pick up all the missions you can log out log back in and keep doing it thousands of times until you get your rank up to the desired level.

FED Ranking.. Pick up all the missions you can log out log back in and do it thousands of times until you get the rank up to the desired level.

Massacre Missions.. Pick up 2 missions then log out log and back in until you get a good board of missions. Do it Hundreds of times until you have the money you require.

Their argument for ' Cheating ' like this is that the game mechanic allows you to do it. It's part of the game.

Now if some is trying to kill you, for no reason than he thinks it's fun, and you log out and log back in, using the same game mechanics as above, your the scum of the earth and should be banned from the game.

Who is the 'Cheat' 'Exploiter' in this situation ? The poor guy just trying to play the game ?

The people using the first set of 'Exploits' are cheating everyone in the game. The guy that 'Combat Logs' is cheating you, and only you, out of a kill.

Stop moaning about it, it's part of the game.

Using the menu is perfectly fine. No one disagrees with that. Life happens.

However, pulling the plug to avoid the rebuy screen is effectively a god mode cheat.

You should also check out my suggestion to Clogging, it's linked in the OP. It doesn't actually punish you, just puts you back where you was before.

And FYI, massacre mission stacking is being fixed in 2.4.

 

[patttiat]

No to a punsihment for dissconect, i have a lot of them in systems with other people.
Stucking when jumping in or exit supercruise, Beluga bug with the landing pad and some other stuff.

The solution to combat logging is, fix the Bounty system.
Why should the killer get away with 7.000cr bounty and the victim with 1.000.000cr - 20.000.000cr Rebuy?

 

[NeilF]

The solution to combat logging is, fix the Bounty system.
Why should the killer get away with 7.000cr bounty and the victim with 1.000.000cr - 20.000.000cr Rebuy?

The premise of bounties as a punishment for things like unwanted illegal destruction of other CMDRs, or combat logging, is wrong IMHO. It's not effective and risks creating league tables or exploits.

Far better to thing of more sensible punishments along the lines of your (negative) reputation meaning an increasing set of penalties. eg: More and more stations/systems denying you access. Or a (sensible) bounty on your head no matter where you are. Or you showing up on all other CMDRs scanners as a "warning".

 

[BigF]

The premise of bounties as a punishment for things like unwanted illegal destruction of other CMDRs, or combat logging, is wrong IMHO. It's not effective and risks creating league tables or exploits.

Far better to thing of more sensible punishments along the lines of your (negative) reputation meaning an increasing set of penalties. eg: More and more stations/systems denying you access. Or a (sensible) bounty on your head no matter where you are. Or you showing up on all other CMDRs scanners as a "warning".

exactly what's required

 

[CMDR_Elver]

The premise of bounties as a punishment for things like unwanted illegal destruction of other CMDRs, or combat logging, is wrong IMHO. It's not effective and risks creating league tables or exploits.

Far better to thing of more sensible punishments along the lines of your (negative) reputation meaning an increasing set of penalties. eg: More and more stations/systems denying you access. Or a (sensible) bounty on your head no matter where you are. Or you showing up on all other CMDRs scanners as a "warning".

Broadly agree but I wouldn't just have arbitrary penalties for griefing/ganking, as they have to be relevant and logical in the context of ED. Griefing/ganking occurs because some players are bored with the grind and want to fight against other humans as the NPC's aren't a challenge, also they like a bit of mischief. This might be unwanted game play but it is not cheating. The balance of power is too much in favour of the griefer/ganker, so it is right that consequences for these actions are increase within the C&P context. The C&P system and the way the game is set up (e.g. no death) makes this exacerbates the problem because the game mechanics to deal with crimes are up to the job or logical. This has the knock on effect of Cmdrs justifying Clogging as the Greifers/gankers do what they do with impunity.

Clogging is a separate issue and is just simply cheating, no other way to describe it. It is also difficult to determine, so it makes sense to have a system where over time behaviors could be monitored and punishments could be worked out, i.e. karma. Have a mechanism where cmdrs can flag up suspected Cloggers, provide video etc. would help and could be checked against network issues. In game punishments e.g. station bans (imho), would probably fall short, karma could have some interesting punishments, something like loosing engineer mods and ultimately character death. This would be a deterrent essentially and the consequences could ramp up for persistent cheating.

C&P Suggestions. Illegal ship destruction should have greater C&P consequences, e.g. lost of rep to the relevant factions/powers/PF & higher bounties etc. Faction/power reputation, should then in turn effect station privs. etc. Having galaxy wide blanket bans from stations for PF on PF actions especially in anarchies, does not make sense to me. Bounties should be equivalent to the cost of the destroyed ship + mods + (legal) cargo +%admin, for PF and relevant faction/powers. Bounty claims should be up to the cost of the destroy ship + mods and these are then converted to fines for the destroyed player, this makes suicidewindering uneconomical. PF fines must be paid in full at the rebuy screen + the usual rebuy options, with faction/power fines to be paid off at the cmdr's discretion. Faction/power bounties should not be time dependent but reputation dependent and cannot be paid off, only claimed or converted to fines for reputation gain.

Having viable PvP bounty hunting should make C&P workable and fun, especially for the PvP crew. Have a mechanism for duelling based on consent through the comms tab. Different gov types would have a different approach to duelling from it being legal to illegal but lightly punished through to illegal and harshly punished. Agree with the earlier post NPC opponents should be proportionate to the player strengths a lot more. This has been hinted at by Sandy for 2.4. so will have to wait and see, changes like this would help the game a lot I believe.

 

[zxaber]

...how can you hope to "punish" someone for not dying to your primate need to beat them over the head with a stick.

I wonder if this community will ever evolve past beating people over the head with strawman fallacies?
I bought this game because I wanted to play a PvP Bounty Hunter. But for that to work, I need PvP Pirates to be viable. Ergo, I've been wanting a Clog fix for a long time. Piracy doesn't work unless the pirate has his victim at mercy. It's not the pew-pew that lets him get his goods, but the threat of pew-pew.

This isn't D&D; piracy shouldn't be just for "role-playing" purposes. Piracy ought to be a quicker method to gain cash over trading, but harder to pull off and with much greater risks. Instead, people just poof out of existence whenever they don't like what's going on.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It's not the pew-pew that lets him get his goods, but the threat of pew-pew.

Find people who actually want to pew-pew with you

 

[Chrystoph]

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.

This is about the most asinine thing I can think of. You have just proposed the ability for the "for lulz" crowd to force people out of the game by simple virtue of a lag generator type program, many of which are already available in the gaming environment.

Like so: Interdictor starts transaction, gets other player to submit. They turn on the lagger, the interdicted player gets such high latency in the instance that his session terminates and is now locked out of the game for an hour.

Brilliant maneuver there...

 

[Riverside]

This is about the most asinine thing I can think of. You have just proposed the ability for the "for lulz" crowd to force people out of the game by simple virtue of a lag generator type program, many of which are already available in the gaming environment.

Like so: Interdictor starts transaction, gets other player to submit. They turn on the lagger, the interdicted player gets such high latency in the instance that his session terminates and is now locked out of the game for an hour.

Brilliant maneuver there...

Did you read the links provided in the post? There is a better proposal, which has been expanded on. It's all linked in the post you quoted.

 

[NeilF]

Having viable PvP bounty hunting should make C&P workable and fun, especially for the PvP crew. Have a mechanism for duelling based on consent through the comms tab. Different gov types would have a different approach to duelling from it being legal to illegal but lightly punished through to illegal and harshly punished. Agree with the earlier post NPC opponents should be proportionate to the player strengths a lot more. This has been hinted at by Sandy for 2.4. so will have to wait and see, changes like this would help the game a lot I believe.

Surely we can think of something a little more engaging for PvP than CMDRs just putting flags up asking for a fight? Surely the game can offer/orchestrate actual combat scenarios as part of Powerplay, missions in specific systems, or indeed new OPEN only dedicated CGs? So signing up for these immediately means you are taking part (most likely) in legal PvP...

These improved combat scenarios can then be used for PvE across the board too! And God forbid, actually make the Thargoid gameplay more involved?

 

[Chrystoph]

This is about the most asinine thing I can think of. You have just proposed the ability for the "for lulz" crowd to force people out of the game by simple virtue of a lag generator type program, many of which are already available in the gaming environment.

Like so: Interdictor starts transaction, gets other player to submit. They turn on the lagger, the interdicted player gets such high latency in the instance that his session terminates and is now locked out of the game for an hour.

Brilliant maneuver there...

Did you read the links provided in the post? There is a better proposal, which has been expanded on. It's all linked in the post you quoted.

I will concede that I had not read your "better" proposal. Having now done so, I submit that my issue still stands.

I note that your chastisement did not address the fact that the simple method I outlined above allows for player abuse through your punitive system. In effect, it would be possible for someone to cause someone else to accumulate false demerits, resulting in punishment for being ejected from the game.

 

[Riverside]

I will concede that I had not read your "better" proposal. Having now done so, I submit that my issue still stands.

I note that your chastisement did not address the fact that the simple method I outlined above allows for player abuse through your punitive system. In effect, it would be possible for someone to cause someone else to accumulate false demerits, resulting in punishment for being ejected from the game.

I'm not chastising you, I made no comment on the flaw you highlighted.

There are a lot of things that can be done outside of the game to interrupt a connection, some of which have been discussed in this thread, which is worth a read if you have the time.

Asp Explorer is in a better position to critique any more advanced network utility & how much of a threat it poses. How do you suggest the game handle the issue?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Asp Explorer is in a better position to critique any more advanced network utility & how much of a threat it poses. How do you suggest the game handle the issue?

FDEV are between a rock and a hard place on this one. I believe their best bet is to maintain the status quo - as "disconnects" can be so easily manipulated to show another player "at fault" with FD's own watchdog.exe providing corroborating evidence to support that view, when in actual fact something entirely different occurred, and is directly provable by logs.

There are ways to get around these problems, but they are really messy, involve huge privacy concerns, and would obliterate the integrity of any company that tried to use them. There are other solutions available that involve client proxies for validation of 3rd client data - and for certain data paths they work great - but in a game where you are trying to detect client shenanigans, giving clients authority over arbitration is just about the worst thing possible - especially when those clients can be manipulated at an instance level.

It's basically a case of grin and bear it chaps and chapettes. Or set up your own private group with VPN access over normalised, tested, and agreed routes.

Oh - and although I work with all sorts of gubbins, I've not been a network engineer for many years. My advice and suggestions online are worth exactly what anyone paid for them

 

[Riverside]

FDEV are between a rock and a hard place on this one. I believe their best bet is to maintain the status quo - as "disconnects" can be so easily manipulated to show another player "at fault" with FD's own watchdog.exe providing corroborating evidence to support that view, when in actual fact something entirely different occurred, and is directly provable by logs.

There are ways to get around these problems, but they are really messy, involve huge privacy concerns, and would obliterate the integrity of any company that tried to use them. There are other solutions available that involve client proxies for validation of 3rd client data - and for certain data paths they work great - but in a game where you are trying to detect client shenanigans, giving clients authority over arbitration is just about the worst thing possible - especially when those clients can be manipulated at an instance level.

It's basically a case of grin and bear it chaps and chapettes. Or set up your own private group with VPN access over normalised, tested, and agreed routes.

Oh - and although I work with all sorts of gubbins, I've not been a network engineer for many years. My advice and suggestions online are worth exactly what anyone paid for them

Thanks for replying, that was a helpful explanation

One of the advantages of CMDR_Cosmicspacehead's proposal is that the consequence (having to return to the mode you left) is minimal if the disconnect wasn't intended. There is more of a consequence if my proposed timer is added, but as a tool for trolling it's still not that effective.

If the proposed karma system (tracking trends) is implemented, a pattern would emerge where one player gets CLogged on a lot which might hopefully prompt FDev to investigate just why that is.

 

[Asp Explorer]

If the proposed karma system (tracking trends) is implemented, a pattern would emerge where one player gets CLogged on a lot which might hopefully prompt FDev to investigate just why that is.

That gets messy very quickly.

One player multiboxing and primarily using a multicrew SLF for lulz, can disconnect the host box at any time with no repercussions against the account using the SLF, and no action possible against the host account as all it did was get kicked out of an instance for reasons unknown.

 

[Riverside]

That gets messy very quickly.

One player multiboxing and primarily using a multicrew SLF for lulz, can disconnect the host box at any time with no repercussions against the account using the SLF, and no action possible against the host account as all it did was get kicked out of an instance for reasons unknown.

I'm sure you're right. Nevertheless the trend would be captured & this doesn't seem to be a reason not to implement what we have. As a potential issue, it currently exists & would continue to exist in any peer to peer system.