Personally, if an investigation of the telemetry revealed a deliberate ungraceful exit, I would reset/expunge the account.
COMBAT LOGGING solution -= EASY and WORKING =-
- Thread starter RhymeRhyme
- Start date
Personally, if an investigation of the telemetry revealed a deliberate ungraceful exit, I would reset/expunge the account.
Trouble is, everybody who's ever combat-logged is then going to claim they did so as a result of some problem which would have meant their defeat was unfair.
"I dunno what happened but the game just froze so I had to quit"
Seems, to me, that there's 2 kinds of people who combat-log; those who just ragequit and those who make the deliberate decision to avoid a re-buy.
That being the case, I doubt there's much that will deter either category from their actions.
It did occur to me that, perhaps, the game would only allow a player to log in, say, twice per day.
That might prove to be a deterrent but it might also upset people who suffer CTDs... and it's also just downright nasty. [where is it]
I'd go one step further and suggest: make rebuy completely free when destroyed in PvP, with the one exception if you committed a crime in the fight (e.g. assault bounty).
My pilots career has been going that way:
Started - went to open - met many intresting people - went to CG - killed by somebody (ouch), for no reason, simply standing around the beacon and listening to it - went to solo - went to private group without PvP - again went to open, on a smaller ship which I can afford to rebuy - been griefed a couple of times - have been interdicted by someone on asp and had a very good fight, nearly lost and managed to highwake (thanks, cmdr P1dpis, gf, liked it).
So I have not seen even a minor cause to CL, except one - been killed by PvP-iCutter first time (it took 5 sec from the first first "attacked" message to rebuy screen).
In any case, novice pilots are discouraged to play in open, especially on CG, by the lack of C&P system mentioned above. High-security systems must be high-security for any sidewinder making his start to void...
Started - went to open - met many intresting people - went to CG - killed by somebody (ouch), for no reason, simply standing around the beacon and listening to it - went to solo - went to private group without PvP - again went to open, on a smaller ship which I can afford to rebuy - been griefed a couple of times - have been interdicted by someone on asp and had a very good fight, nearly lost and managed to highwake (thanks, cmdr P1dpis, gf, liked it).
So I have not seen even a minor cause to CL, except one - been killed by PvP-iCutter first time (it took 5 sec from the first first "attacked" message to rebuy screen).
In any case, novice pilots are discouraged to play in open, especially on CG, by the lack of C&P system mentioned above. High-security systems must be high-security for any sidewinder making his start to void...
Last edited:
Doesn't matter if it's unfair. If it's intentional, and not using the menu/waiting for the timer (which is too short, IMO), it's cheating.
As the previous poster mentioned...make the cost of cheating worse than the benefit of cheating. If the penalty for deliberately severing connection to save your ship is an account reset. You can either explode and take the rebuy and loss of cargo, or you can cheat and lose everything.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Such draconian action would require Frontier to be absolutely sure that the disconnection was by a deliberate act - I don't know if they would choose to go down that route as the risk of false positives would seem, to me at least, to be rather too high (i.e. any is too many).
No thanks, this would be too punishing for those experiencing bugs. What's wrong with telemetry, reports, and decisions on a case by case basis like it's handled now?
- - - Updated - - -
Please read his comment again. He is talking about someone claiming he experienced a bug, for example his screen went black and the game is unresponsive. That's what he claims, not necessearily what happened. He then kills the game via taskmanager and your response to this would be to reset his game account?! Sorry, you missed the point.
Last edited:
Well, I'd have to know exactly what telemetry Frontier collected before I'd be able to gauge the risk of a false positive, but I would be very surprised if even fairly basic telemetry couldn't tell the difference from a pattern of deliberate disconnections and inadvertent ones, even if the later were common and clustered around combat scenarios. Any single instance may be impossible to prove, but once it happens more than a few times, things should be pretty clear.
Anyway, I believe everything practical to avoid false positives should be done, and that the burden of proof should be fairly high.
As it stands, it appears to require an extreme amount of proof.
I report all apparent instances of combat logging/disconnecting that I personally witness. I think I may have been partially responsible for one CMDR being punished and that was only because of multiple examples of video proof, one of which featured the CMDR in question openly admitting to yanking the ethernet cable whenever confronted with an 'unfair' situation that was likely to result in ship loss. Judging from various criteria (number of first hand accounts, the gross incompetence of the CMDR, the fact the CMDR was a habitual greifer, etc) and the time between submitted videos and this CMDR's disappearance, that individual probably saved more than their CMDR's net worth in rebuy costs by cheating before they were temporarily shadowbanned.
Ten to one (I hope I'm wrong, but I've become pretty jaded about anti-cheat enforcement with how prevalent it still is), that CMDR is back in the game by now, blowing up ships at random at some ruins somewhere and yanking the cable any time things don't go well. Maybe in another six months there will be three figures of reports and half a dozen more videos to get them sent to the shadow server for another time out.
I did miss the point, but that's because instances like this wouldn't even be flagged by any sensible telemetry system, unless they are part of a pattern, and if they are part of a pattern where the system only becomes unresponsive when faced with a subjectively severe threat given the in-game situation at hand, then it's almost certain that player is a cheat.
There is nothing special, as far as stability would be concerned, about a threatening situation and a non-threatening one.
Last edited:
that it doesn't scale and requires considerable attention and resources and, as experience has shown, just doesn't do squat. it's not even a solution, more of a politically correct hand waving.
Ten in one sounds like a reasonable rate. Remember that they shouldn't be banned on the first log but the system needs to be foolproof, requiring several reports. Otherwise you would constantly ban those who just have bad luck.
I absolutely agree, just wanted to point it out before someone gets into a fruitless discussion.
The other proposed solutions aren't solutions either, actually they are worse and I and others repeatedly explained why. So far we haven't seen a working solution against combat logging apart from telemetry and reports.
imo, to support fair open pvp the game absolutely has to arbitrate combat (server side). this is just not optional and without it you can't label the game pvp competitive, any excuse involving architecture is just not relevant.
once that's in place, you have to insure it is cheat-safe (within reason). this is also a must.
and once those two items are in place, it's just a matter of deciding what happens when you disconnect. this is subjective, my personal opinion being that if you disconnect your commander just had a lipothymia and should simply drift along in space, until blown up, crashed or reconnect and miraculously saved in the last second. in that case the cmdr should travel to beagle point to lit a candle.
yes, frontier would still have to deal with people claiming bugs and exploits. like any other competitive pvp game routinely does. it will still be a fraction of the combat log reports.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That rather depends on whether the game is labeled, by Frontier, as a competitive PvP game.
In the Engineers launch stream, DBOBE agreed with a stream viewer that the game is not sold as a PvP game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtHu3AXw2Q;t=44m10s
Just out of curiosity, how much longer is this dead horse going to be beaten? The carcass is just dust now. How about considering yourself the winner and move on. I understand it's frustrating to the avid PVP'er, but my point is look how long this has been an almost daily topic (months) and with that has anything changed? Your missing out on everything else the game has to offer worrying about the activity of the human player base who apparently believe they bought the game so they can play it as they see fit. Now if Frontier back tracks and decides to change that aspect of the game this far in, then throw out your suggestions. Right now it seems their moving forward on bigger, better things. Or is it my age that doesn't allow me to get upset when someone combat logs?!? I still realize this is just a video game.
Punishment is the total wrong approach. If e.g. FDev would reset my account, I would simply deinstall Elite Dangerous immediately as this would be a slap in my face. Absolutely wrong approach.
This would end up in an outrage.
The solution must be to make PvP encounters fun, and less risky and cost intensive. As mentioned, Battlefield incentivises PvP gameplay and there's no risk in loosing against your opponent. The same goes for Elite. If I can loose months and years of work in one night, I'd rather drop out than risking that. The grind path is too hardcore that anyone is willing to risk his ship or even the rebuy costs. And here lies the problem. If I grinded for 2 years to get my fleet and finally my Cutter, I don't want to loose it. Not everyone is a billionaire. If a casual Elite gamer looses 10 or 30 mio. credits, it might be half of his total income. Or at least a huge amount for him.
Last edited:
So your solution to combat logging is to develop another game. Good idea, but it doesn't work for Elite.
On competitive PvP:
There is no competitive PvP in Elite, it was also never advertised that there'll be any. Counter-Strike is competitive PvP. Elite is not. Simple. And even they have trouble with cheats and need to record videos, watch them, report them to the admins and decide on a case by case basis.
"Winning" isn't relevant. I'm not fighting to demonstrate my skill or superiority.
My CMDR is fighting to deter behavior he finds objectionable. There can be no deterrent without consequence.
It's also about having the same rules for everyone, not one set for most and a better set for cheaters.
Having cheaters quit, assuming they simply can't be banned permanently, is about as ideal an outcome as I can conceive of.
Risks are too light as they are. If you want a friendly duel or to get some friends together and play until hardpoints are retracted, you can do that.
I want plausible consequences for my actions and the actions of those I interact with.
I disagree. Competitive and organized are not synonymous. Elite is riddled with competitive interactions between CMDRs.
Counter-Strike doesn't need to be organised either. I can just join a public server and play a few rounds of competitive PvP. The difference is that Counter-Strike provides an even playing ground and ED does not. The game can just become competitive by organising it (making rules in terms of loadout or not attacking people who don't use a combat build) or by playing CQC. Elite Dangerous is not about competitive PvP and unless all parties agree to it, it cannot work.
The problem with the salty tears is this in a nutshell:
"He killed me for real, and now I need to kill him for real."
Problem:
He is combat logging, denying my god given right for adequate revenge.
Solution:
We must determine the intent of the combat logger. We need spyware on his computer that can see what type of action he is using to combat log with.
We also need to plant IRL spies in his apartment so we can study his every move and plant bugs in his telephones and .... yea you understand the problem here.
Unless FD provide a way to implant spyware into his head, we can never really determine intent. And we would need a court of law to force the truth out of him by
induction - "you did this because of location and opportunity", deduction - "you did this because we have the logs" and reduction - "If we remove all the unrelated things, whatever is left must be the truth".
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes, Head Inspector of the Ministry of Combat Logging Infractions.
"He killed me for real, and now I need to kill him for real."
Problem:
He is combat logging, denying my god given right for adequate revenge.
Solution:
We must determine the intent of the combat logger. We need spyware on his computer that can see what type of action he is using to combat log with.
We also need to plant IRL spies in his apartment so we can study his every move and plant bugs in his telephones and .... yea you understand the problem here.
Unless FD provide a way to implant spyware into his head, we can never really determine intent. And we would need a court of law to force the truth out of him by
induction - "you did this because of location and opportunity", deduction - "you did this because we have the logs" and reduction - "If we remove all the unrelated things, whatever is left must be the truth".
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes, Head Inspector of the Ministry of Combat Logging Infractions.
Last edited:
I'm wondering how, if at all, FD or anyone else can prove CL without proof? CL... PC blue screened, CL... Router cut out, CL... Net went down/must be a supplier reboot. "Oh they will watch everyone 24/7 and see a pattern", maybe so, but it is still the players word against theirs and unless they hack webcams, it could leave them very open to calls of abuse, heavy handedness or even legal action?
Saying "Johnny did it!" can't cut it, and videos can be edited to make anyone do anything. Proof and witnesses... Ed can run live youtube court sessions!
Saying "Johnny did it!" can't cut it, and videos can be edited to make anyone do anything. Proof and witnesses... Ed can run live youtube court sessions!
What I and countless other do in Elite: Dangerous fits the definition of 'compete'. Hell, plenty of people are competing with me, and vice versa, without even knowing it, via the BGS.
Even if you limit "PvP" to only include direct confrontations an "even playing ground" isn't required for competition. That said, if cheating were eliminated, the game would be as even a playing ground as any.
No, it wouldn't. It would be the players word against demonstrable reality.
Last edited: