Combat logging?

[Distance]

These threads also rarely have a definition of "combat logging" which also makes the discussion rather meaningless.

Is it just:
- killing your connection via OS or hardware
- killing the game process via OS

Or is "Escape | Save and Exit" included as Combat Logging? The 15 second timer would imply not, as this appears to be its own combat logging penalty (like many other MMOs).

Anyway, these threads are essentially pointless without some comment or references from FDev.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105778

Using the 15 second timer is fine but dishonourable. To another player both methods look exactly the same. The timer should be lengthened but it doesn't stop someone killing process.

Contrary to popular belief ALT + F4 doesn't work but people use the term as it's a well known term for killing the process.

 

[dayrth]

Citation?

If your initial premise is invalid then your question based upon it is irrelevant. So I'm questioning your premise.

FD have made it clear many times, what they think of combat logging. Here is your citation:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105778

Spoiler

'Sandro Sammarco Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous

Hello Commanders!

This is a quick update to let you guys know what we’re looking at regarding the issue of “combat logging”.

For clarity’s sake, “combat logging” is when a Commander ungracefully exits the game (e.g. using ALT + F4 then shutting down the game process) to avoid defeat, destruction and damage.

Commanders might use this exploit the moment they are interdicted or the moment before they are about to be destroyed.

Although this is flagged primarily as a multiplayer concern, the issues (and solutions) apply equally to the single player game.

First things first: we do consider this an undesirable exploit. It’s not “part of the game”.

Because we don’t have an all powerful server running the moment-to-moment game play simulation, there is no infallible arbiter to take control of a player’s ship when they ungracefully exit.

So what we’re doing is logging telemetry that will help us detect when this exploit is explicitly being used.

Right now, all we’re doing (and have already started doing) is looking at and implementing methods of collecting and analysing data.

At some point, however, we will start to take action against Commanders using this exploit. I can only suggest that you should avoid using this exploit if you want to avoid any penalties issued for its use. I'll just repeat: please avoid combat logging - we're taking this issue very seriously.

On a related, but separate track, we’re looking at introducing benefits to Commanders that persevere and stick it out through dangerous encounters, as well as general credit costs and rewards balancing.

I’m not quite ready to talk about these in more detail just now. Obviously though, they can never counter the potential costs of ship destruction, but we want to look at a range of disincentives and incentives both to counter this issue.

I hope this helps clarify our position a little.'

Dam! ninjad

 

[Ving]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105778

Using the 15 second timer is fine but dishonourable. To another player both methods look exactly the same. The timer should be lengthened but it doesn't stop someone killing process.

Contrary to popular belief ALT + F4 doesn't work but people use the term as it's a well known term for killing the process.

Thank you for the citation

The fact that both methods look the same, but one is an exploit, seems to further complicate things (presumably to the FD session servers will see them differently though).

 

[Kayweg]

It is an exploit so it is an EULA issue.

OP combat logging is the same against a human or NPC, an exploit/cheat. If you are found making unsavory exits too many times close to death you will be shadowbanned to a server you don't effect the normal Galaxy gameplay and cannot see players on the normal server in open. Supposedly.

It can only be a EULA violation if the infringement is stated in the EULA.

I can't find anything in it that specifically describes combat logging, nor anything that could be interpreted that way.

It's an exploit, an unintended way of using game mechanics, but the EULA has nothing to do with it. When the EULA was written, nobody had any idea what sort of exploits people would come up with.

How could logging out possibly be a EULA violation ? The burden of proof that it was combat logging is FD's, i promise you, they won't go near that with a pole.

And i nigh on guarantee you, they won't penalize anyone for it.

They are the developers, what they can (and should) do is find a way to prevent it.

If they can't, then combat logging is here to stay...and so are the players doing it.

 

[Drink!]

The Devs know if someone logged off or just lost connection. They can ban accordingly.

 

[GammaZ]

The Devs know if someone logged off or just lost connection. They can ban accordingly.

No, they do not.
Because you can just pull the plug or kill game process, and it will look like you lost connection. And there is no way to prove you did it intentionaly, even theoretically.
And because of this ban is not an option at all. There need to be a solution which will make combat logging pointless, then it will stop...

 

[Steve50]

Ah the weekly "is combat logging justified thread?".

Short answer no, long answer you can get away with it in solo as no one will report you. The longer answer is fd says it's an exploit but even if you video someone doing it multiple times and send it to fd (the same with someone cheating) they won't do anything about it.

I don't get how people are allowed to discuss using an exploit on the official game forums. If we had a weekly "is hacking justified?" thread and I'm sure the mods would shut that down instantly.

This is why combat logging is so rampant, no one takes action against it or the discussions advocating it and it's killing the game.

No.. That really was not the aim of the question. I'll see if a kind mod can lock this now. Seems my actual question was mostly ignored.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Closed at op's request.