Frontier please punish people that quit game in combat

Aashenfox

Aashenfox
Snarfbuckle said:
I do not care as long as the paintjob is cool.

Besides, if everyone are using it no-one is a Clogger.
Click to expand...

That's why it wouldn't be available, just like the Dunce hat in Grand Theft Auto Online isn't available to own any other way except having it inflicted on you for griefing, I was just curious. By the way, even if they were available, there would never be a time that 'everyone' would be wearing it. The punished would be wearing it, plus a couple of weirdos. ;)
 

S3B4ST13N

S
Herbrand said:
Besides the technical feasibility of your protocol, the part in bold is where the problem is. You are trusting the client to correctly relay important information that will affect another client - you should never, ever design your network architecture around such a principle.
Click to expand...
We do this every single time we play the game and connect with other people. The whole nature of P2P in ED requires constant communication between involved parties.
We constantly trust the client is sending the correct information to the host (another player) and the host to sending the correct information back to all connected clients.
So what difference does it make?
Your client already knows who the other players are (ship specs/player names etc); and it's quite capable of switching control of a ship between player and NPC (SLF switching).
My suggestion just uses two already existing features in the game together.


Herbrand said:
With a bit of trial and error, it would be simple to design a Man-in-the-Middle attack that would allow you to combat-log while simultaneously sending your opponent to the rebuy screen without actually fighting, by simulating their disconnection. Chances are your opponent could do the same, but you could definitely grief people by enacting this in a Sidewinder or another cheap ship.
Click to expand...
It's possible to do that already. In fact, P2P intercepts were done quite frequently around BETA I think it was. Frontier implemented telemetry to combat this.
So... moot point, I think.

I don't disagree that it's possible to intercept P2P communications; but I think people are taking what are otherwise edge-case scenarios and assuming they'll become a full-blown epidemic.
 
Last edited:

Raino

Raino
Aashenfox said:
That's why it wouldn't be available, just like the Dunce hat in Grand Theft Auto Online isn't available to own any other way except having it inflicted on you for griefing, I was just curious. By the way, even if they were available, there would never be a time that 'everyone' would be wearing it. The punished would be wearing it, plus a couple of weirdos. ;)
Click to expand...

as soon as it comes into use there will be a thread opened here
"Combat loging - how to get punishpaint"
 

StiTch

StiTch
CMDR S. Russell said:
This type of data is already sent to Frontiers servers; people abused it, Frontier added telemetry to monitor it. This behaviour stopped really quickly.
Since then, this type of behaviour has been edge-case scenarios - I believe the chances of people doing as you suggested quite low.

Nevertheless, in the event a player believes they were killed for no reason, they could raise a log and have it checked because all this information is logged, so it should not be difficult to establish an audit trail.

Someone will always try to hack the system. Those will just have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean we should try and create the scenarios ;)

Trust me, I actually thought of the very same suggestion a while back...effectively taking a P2P connection and using the BGS server to temporarily convert the transaction to client-to-server, where the session is retained for 30 seconds. This emulates the 30 sec intentional logout time, and would allow even an NPC to finish off a CLing player if it was going to happen within that 30 sec timeframe anyway...in effect, it's better to at least stay in game and try survive than task kill and leave it to chance.

The server then relays the relevant information back to the client when they re-establish a connection.

Even I realised it's very open to abuse. If it COULD be implemented flawlessly I'd be over the moon; but for someone vehemently against CLing, even I realised it would likely be more trouble for FD than it's worth :/
 

Snarfbuckle

S
GreyAreaUK said:
If it makes a humorous honking noise as well, then count me in.
Click to expand...

Like a honking goose or bike bugle.

Non-Electronic-Trumpet-Loud-font-b-Bicycle-b-font-Cycling-Bike-Bell-Vintage-Retro-Bugle-Hooter.jpg
 

Raino

Raino
CMDR S. Russell said:
We do this every single time we play the game and connect with other people. The whole nature of P2P in ED requires constant communication between involved parties.
We constantly trust the client is sending the correct information to the host (another player) and the host to sending the correct information back to all connected clients.
So what difference does it make?
Your client already knows who the other players are (ship specs/player names etc); and it's quite capable of switching control of a ship between player and NPC (SLF switching).
My suggestion just uses already existing features in the game together.
Click to expand...

its all about proofing it, try understand, ur all right with this but still it is no proof

you cannot differ server or clientsidewise if its me pressing the power switch or the cat
 

Arithon

Arithon
If they quit via the menu, then they've done nothing wrong. If "anything goes" for murder hobos, then equally that applies to battlefield cowards who start a fight they can't finish. Not having a proper law & order or Karma system sucks doesn't it?

How to solve it?

  • Escalating penalty for combat exit (graceful or otherwise) fine, Wanted status, ship destruct. Basically if your ISP/PC is on the fritz, stay out of combat or get punished. Like other offenses they have a time limit (1 week?).
  • "Report crimes" setting is moved to menu (no longer changeable in game) and can only be changed before starting. Each CMDRs setting is visible to other players. Off = Willing PvP, On = not. Simples.
  • Wanted ships get interdicted by feds (like PowerPlay CMDRs do already) in high security and medium security systems. You should feel like you are being pursued all the time in these systems.
  • GTA / Need for Speed escalating response to Wanted status (low fines = Viper pursuit, murder = Vulture wing, multiple murder = Anaconda Wings) much as when you start killing Feds in a Resource Site currently.

Basically if you misbehave, you are banished to the Anarchy Step. Which is how Elite was always supposed to work. If you are wanted, the only safe place is away from the law.

Nothing suggested hre is different from existing game functions, it's just applied using different criteria.
 

S3B4ST13N

S
StiTch said:
Doesn't mean we should try and create the scenarios ;)

Trust me, I actually thought of the very same suggestion a while back...effectively taking a P2P connection and using the BGS server to temporarily convert the transaction to client-to-server, where the session is retained for 30 seconds. This emulates the 30 sec intentional logout time, and would allow even an NPC to finish off a CLing player if it was going to happen within that 30 sec timeframe anyway...in effect, it's better to at least stay in game and try survive than task kill and leave it to chance.

The server then relays the relevant information back to the client when they re-establish a connection.

Even I realised it's very open to abuse. If it COULD be implemented flawlessly I'd be over the moon; but for someone vehemently against CLing, even I realised it would likely be more trouble for FD than it's worth :/
Click to expand...

Everything is open to abuse. As a developer you program as best you can to try to prevent it; but there will always be someone smarter than you. :)
People will figure out how to get around, then you figure out a way to stop it.

My suggestion is far from foolproof - but it's a suggestion; one that, I believe, would require minimal adjustment to the core code (granted that's an assumption) simply because most of what I suggest is already in the game.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost said:
Posting such videos on this forum could be problematic as it might - depending on the mood of the mods or community managers - be considered "naming and shaming" and therefore something not allowed.

That you would post videos from the point of view of the attacker might result in that video not being considered "naming and shaming", but showing "combat logging" might be "naming and shaming".
Maybe mentioning that the other player is a noob and learned a lesson might result in the video not considered "naming and shaming".

Only the mods and community manages know what currently is considered "naming and shaming"
Click to expand...

I'll agree here to some extent. Some videos can very much be a grey area, and can result in us having to make a judgement call, and perhaps sometimes we won't get it right.

However, in the case of showing a video of someone combat logging where the CMDRs name is visible, then its pretty much a case of naming and shaming and would have to be removed.
 

highchecker

H
Agony_Aunt said:
I'll agree here to some extent. Some videos can very much be a grey area, and can result in us having to make a judgement call, and perhaps sometimes we won't get it right.

However, in the case of showing a video of someone combat logging where the CMDRs name is visible, then its pretty much a case of naming and shaming and would have to be removed.
Click to expand...

and here comes censorship....
 

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Skatez69 said:
Well of course you do, it's your idea! :p

I actually really like the idea too. +1 Rep

Edit: Seems I've Rep'd you too much, so +1 virtual Rep!
Click to expand...

I don't always like my own ideas. :p

Sometimes I suggest things for other people, even if I don't care.
(I get bored easily).

Ty for the vRep. Lol

Anyhoo, FD said they can't actually tell the difference between an intentional or unintentionally Clog.
So punishing people severely is going to do more harm than good.

Although, I do like the CLogger paint, decal, and name idea. Lol

:D

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom