PvP "FD won't do anything against CL" - Here is why

[Riverside]

They are to few to be statistically relevant, I hope.

And if an exploit becomes statistically significant detecting it can be incorporated into the game at that time.

 

[Toumal]

Again, you're missing it. You cannot be framed as a combatlogger in the eyes of FDev if the other party does a bit of P2P trick to make you de-instance. Combatlogging is exiting the game in combat, which FDev will know has happened if that's the case. If both players are still in the game then neither has combatlogged!

This is completely besides the point, because we are currently at a situation where people can combat log, as well as make others look like they're combat log, all at the same time, without FD knowing who did what. And my statement still stands, FD cannot effectively punish combat logging until this is resolved. People who are currently pulling network cables will just download a script. Any solution that involves ships staying in instances after disconnection will mean that I can make you disconnect and then destroy you without you being able to do anything about it.

Do you understand it now?

You are obfuscating issues to create problems that are non-existant imo.

You seem to not grasp the full implication of my statements. Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough, but my above rebuttal should address that. Please read it, and perhaps try to understand that I fully understand your point, but the issue runs deeper than that.

FDev have introduced ways to "selectively block P2P traffic" in the game themselves (modes and blocking function). Sure, doing it "on the fly" is quite a bit on the nefarious side, but since neither party has combatlogged, there is nothing to punish from FDev's pov.

Which doesn't apply to an in-combat situation, is not 100% effective (friends and wing cohesion overrules blocking), is 100% tracked by Frontier, and thus does not suffer from any of the aforementioned issues.

 

[Arguendo]

This is completely besides the point, because we are currently at a situation where people can combat log, as well as make others look like they're combat log, all at the same time, without FD knowing who did what. And my statement still stands, FD cannot effectively punish combat logging until this is resolved. People who are currently pulling network cables will just download a script. Any solution that involves ships staying in instances after disconnection will mean that I can make you disconnect and then destroy you without you being able to do anything about it.

Do you understand it now?

The only thing I can see, is that you believe that FDev cannot punish cable-pullers or task-killers, because there is a way (with above average know-how) to de-instance with other players on-the-fly.
That makes no sense to me. It makes sense that FDev cannot force a player's ship to stay in the instance, and with the current P2P architecture in ED it's also impossible for them to implement. How that is an argument for not punishing task-killers/cable-pullers completely eludes me however.

Your argument seems to be; since there is no way to stop speeding on highways due to lack of control points, we should remove all traffic controls in school zones.

So, again, I believe your are obfuscating by taking a completely different situation to argue for not doing anything about the original premise. That is a strawman argument by definition btw.

You seem to not grasp the full implication of my statements. Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough, but my above rebuttal should address that. Please read it, and perhaps try to understand that I fully understand your point, but the issue runs deeper than that.

No, I believe I fully understand. See above.