Logging During Combat Punishment [Proposal]

[Shaamaan]

The difference between killing ED and ED crashing? ED generates a crash log when it crashes, not when you kill it.

Yeah, in a world of perfect programming that might be true. In the real world it's not. Heck, even if it DOES create a log... so what? You've lost all connectivity at this point. Do remember you're proposing harsh penalties, so you need hard proof. Once you've lost all connectivity, you've got 0 hard evidence.

Plus you've got a multitude of other possible failures - power outages, ISP failure, computer crashing... These things DO happen, and your best case for dealing with them is "stats will show". Well, again, you want harsh punishments? Offer harsh evidence. The likes of statistics you're proposing are bovine excrement for what you want to use them.

Match making server error? The fact that the client is capable of returning that error shows that the error has been handled. Meaning Frontier would be well aware of it by looking the data the client returns to them, not to mention the logging that occurs server side.

Except the architecture in ED is P2P (as far as player interaction goes). The connection can fail multiple ways, and you're not 100% certain to get logs.

People are trying to tell me things, they just have no experience in client/server architecture and application interoperability. I do.

And you seem to think ED operates purely on a server-client basis. It does not.

Here's an alternative take on this whole ordeal.

If this were an easy problem to fix, it would have been fixed a long, long LONG time ago. ED (in terms of mechanics) mostly resembles an MMO. MMOs, when someone disconnects, just leave the character standing there doing nothing - whatever happens to that character happens. Seems like it should be easy to fix, right? Except... it's not such a simple issue. Again, they wanted to cut down on server costs and designed their network architecture in a manner that doesn't involve a massive server handling all the clients (plus, they'd need multiple servers to keep pings low all across the globe).

So they went in with a far cheaper P2P solution. Frontier servers only handle things like the enigmatic BGS, tracking in-game credits and basic stats (where you are, what you're flying, what modules you have). But everything else is handled client-side via P2P ad-hoc connections. That's why, if you flip a switch on a router, you could be flying solo despite picking "Open" in the main menu. Open some connection tracking software and check what kind of connections ED establishes. It's also why it's possibly to actually cheat in ED - things like infinite shields / hull or super-powerful weapons are possible exactly because there's no central server tracking your moves.

 

[CMDR Zhon Daeli]

Yeah, in a perfect world of programming that might be true. It's not. Heck, even if it DOES create a log... so what? You've lost all connectivity at this point. Do remember you're proposing harsh penalties, so you need hard proof. Once you've lost all connectivity, you've got 0 hard evidence.

That's why it's sensible for the other peers in the instance to record information as well. See my post above yours, and the one before that (that wall of text).

As I mentioned to V'larr above, the P2P architecture on Windows is handled by the COM API, which means the system raises exceptions when things go wrong. Meaning Frontier simply have to implement error handling, and handling those error messages is standard development practice.
It's safe to assume that the clients also communicate with the server as to their P2P state, meaning the server could also be logging that information (so if the client goes quiet, the server can pick that up). In fact, it would be rather silly not to have the client report to the server on a regular basis; which is why you can see frequent packet transfer in-game (Ctrl+B) even when you're sitting on a planet by yourself, doing nothing.

I can only speculate as to the type of information Frontier have access to because I didn't write the application, however, my development background gives me a unique perspective; I know the technologies available, I know what's possible and what's not, I understand how using pattern recognition can bring Frontier to accurate (with acceptable MoE) assessments of situations.

As I mentioned above, it's not 100% accurate and it's impossible to get that kind of accuracy, however, you can get close to it.
Again, even with limited information, frequent occurrences can be analysed and patterns can be found. If you have 100 combat occurences, and you disconnect 60% of the time during combat (information which is recorded by your client, and hopefully by all other clients in that instance, including the server). That's suspicious.

Except the architecture in ED is P2P (as far as player interaction goes). The connection can fail multiple ways, and you're not 100% certain to get logs.

The server is still required to establish those P2P connections. The client doesn't just sit there and browse the web for other players... "Dear Google, plz help meh find friends." Although, that would be funny. Rather, it connects to the Frontier match-making servers that in turn provides the necessary P2P details to establish connections with other clients.
Logs are a guarantee, if not by the client crashing/being killed/disconnecting/whatever then by it's peers, it's host or the server. There are multiple contingencies a developer can put in place to ensure *some* kind of log is made and hopefully Frontier are thorough enough to do so.

And you seem to think ED operates purely ...

And your assumption would be incorrect.

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

the only reasonable punishment i can find for combat logging :

Spoiler

 

[CMDR Zhon Daeli]

the only reasonable punishment i can find for combat logging :

Spoiler

http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net/uri...465520937.gif?quality=.8&height=200&width=357

Whilst I'm vehemently in favour of permanently banned players who combat log, as some can attest (lol), if publicly shaming a player for combat logging (both on the forum, in a newsletter and perhaps by attaching a "combat logger" title to their name in-game) worked at deterring that kind of scummy playing, I'd be all for that.

The good thing is that studies show that public shaming is actually a very good deterant. One study found that if people were publically shamed for not paying their taxes, they'd end up paying them.

"The researchers, with the cooperation of state agencies, sent letters to 34,000 tax delinquents. About half of the letters threatened fines, and the other half implied that their status as delinquents would be shared with their neighbors.

The study found people who received the "shame" letter were about 20 percent more likely to pay off their tax debt than the other group — which translates into millions of extra dollars for local, state and federal governments."

Something to think about Frontier.

 

[Shaamaan]

That's why it's sensible for the other peers in the instance to record information as well. See my post above yours, and the one before that (that wall of text).

So, let me get this straight... you want to rely on second-hand information without any server-side confirmation for issuing bans?

How exceptions are handled really doesn't matter one bit. You've got two ways to go about this - one is insane, the other impossible. The insane one is relying on non-server-side information for bans (brilliant!). The other is implementing MMO-like "exit behavior", which you know is impossible.

It's safe to assume that the clients also communicate with the server as to their P2P state, meaning the server could also be logging that information (so if the client goes quiet, the server can pick that up). In fact, it would be rather silly not to have the client report to the server on a regular basis; which is why you can see frequent packet transfer in-game (Ctrl+B) even when you're sitting on a planet by yourself, doing nothing.

Clients do communicate, but only regarding things which aren't time critical. Ship loss (you're waiting for the re-buy screen), instance changes and initial contents (you're waiting for the instance), scan results, transactions (those only happen at stations). So, yes, some communication does happen, but again, it's not related to, say, what the client is doing at all times.

As I mentioned above, it's not 100% accurate and it's impossible to get that kind of accuracy...

Oh, so you're starting to get it?

...however, you can get close to it.

Dammit!

Again, even with limited information, frequent occurrences can be analysed and patterns can be found. If you have 100 combat occurences, and you disconnect 60% of the time during combat (information which is recorded by your client, and hopefully by all other clients in that instance, including the server). That's suspicious.

And we're back to issuing bans on stats alone, second hand stats at that (not even server-side stats).

The server is still required to establish those P2P connections. The client doesn't just sit there and browse the web for other players... "Dear Google, plz help meh find friends." Although, that would be funny. Rather, it connects to the Frontier match-making servers that in turn provides the necessary P2P details to establish connections with other clients.

Sure, and? The point of the above is...?

Logs are a guarantee, if not by the client crashing/being killed/disconnecting/whatever then by it's peers, it's host or the server. There are multiple contingencies a developer can put in place to ensure *some* kind of log is made and hopefully Frontier are thorough enough to do so.

Yes, Frontier do have logs. They do that in order to catch bugs and things going wrong, considering how many things are performed client-side. THAT'S their current goal and for this goal the data is perfect. Not the one you propose, however...

And your assumption would be incorrect.

No, it's not. You, in the above post, state you know the game is using P2P connections. Why, then, do you think my statement "this game doesn't operate purely on a server-client basis" is wrong?

In the end nothing changes the fact that what you're proposing is absolute insanity - issuing bans or punishments for quitting the game. Killing any task via the task manager isn't "illegal", yet you suggest that it should be.

There was an old anecdotal joke about a woman using her computer and getting an error message somewhere along the lines "The application has performed an illegal operation and will be terminated". Then she heard police sirens outside her home and was terrified that they were coming for her. Seems apt for what you're, ultimately, proposing.

BTW: I'm by no means an advocate of combat-logging, just so you know where I'm coming from. I sidestep the whole issue entirely purely by playing Solo. So it's not like I'm opposing your views because I want CL to remain in the game. But I do also see that there is no real solution to the problem, outside of rewriting and remaking a large chunk of the game infrastructure. Other, less drastic solutions, are about tackling the cause, rather than effect (i.e. answering the question "why do people CL in the first place, and what can be done about it?") - I'd wager going this route would yield much better results with far less effort.

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

Whilst I'm vehemently in favour of permanently banned players who combat log, as some can attest (lol), if publicly shaming a player for combat logging (both on the forum, in a newsletter and perhaps by attaching a "combat logger" title to their name in-game) worked at deterring that kind of scummy playing, I'd be all for that.

The good thing is that studies show that public shaming is actually a very good deterant. One study found that if people were publically shamed for not paying their taxes, they'd end up paying them.

"The researchers, with the cooperation of state agencies, sent letters to 34,000 tax delinquents. About half of the letters threatened fines, and the other half implied that their status as delinquents would be shared with their neighbors.

The study found people who received the "shame" letter were about 20 percent more likely to pay off their tax debt than the other group — which translates into millions of extra dollars for local, state and federal governments."

Something to think about Frontier.

When meeting another cmdr an automatic message could display : "I'm a loser, i don't take my responsibilities, i know i should play Farmville"

 

[Bzek]

The only punishment needed here is that the ship doesn't become invulnerable/disappears when you combat log.

It is a shame there are technical limitations with implementing this, but honestly they should be looking at ways to work around these.

 

[Shintai]

Perma ban for using the sidewinder bounty reset exploit too? I'm all in!

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

Perma ban for using the sidewinder bounty reset exploit too? I'm all in!

or better, if the rebuy equals the bounty then ok
let's say you have 500k bounty, you take your sidey, get destroyed and pay 1000cr for rebuy.
Your bounty drop to 499k

 

[Bzek]

Perma ban for using the sidewinder bounty reset exploit too? I'm all in!

This is a really tricky exploit that they really should fix too. I am not sure bans are a sustainable model for this but I can't really think of a good way to address it.

Maybe ALWAYS deduct the bounty costs you have whether you die in the system where you have them or not? People would still suicide for small bounties though. It is easier to lose 8000 creds or so than put up with constant FDL NPC Bounty Hunter interdictions.

or better, if the rebuy equals the bounty then ok
let's say you have 500k bounty, you take your sidey, get destroyed and pay 1000cr for rebuy.
Your bounty drop to 499k

This is not a bad idea, actually. Still probably to suicide a Viper MkIV or something to pay low off low bounties but yeah.

Ultimately I think there should be an option to pay off low bounties. They're just inconvenient.

 

[DarkWalker]

Whilst I'm vehemently in favour of permanently banned players who combat log, as some can attest (lol), if publicly shaming a player for combat logging (both on the forum, in a newsletter and perhaps by attaching a "combat logger" title to their name in-game) worked at deterring that kind of scummy playing, I'd be all for that.

The good thing is that studies show that public shaming is actually a very good deterant. One study found that if people were publically shamed for not paying their taxes, they'd end up paying them.

"The researchers, with the cooperation of state agencies, sent letters to 34,000 tax delinquents. About half of the letters threatened fines, and the other half implied that their status as delinquents would be shared with their neighbors.

The study found people who received the "shame" letter were about 20 percent more likely to pay off their tax debt than the other group — which translates into millions of extra dollars for local, state and federal governments."

Something to think about Frontier.

Particularly, I would be proud of combat logging to avoid unwanted PvP. I consider forcing others into unwanted PvP situations to be far worse than combat logging. Heck, back when I was playing WoW I used to force known gankers out of any dungeon group I was in, and since I was a tank I usually won (15s wait for a replacement DPS versus 15m wait for a replacement tank; even if I lost, I would be playing with a new group before the one that kicked me could get a replacement).

What Frontier have here isn't a case of cheating, but of players that disagree with one of the game's rules, intentionally chose to not respect it, and often don't care to hide it. Shaming is not likely to work in this case.

 

[CMDR Zhon Daeli]

So, let me get this straight... you want to rely on second-hand information without any server-side confirmation for issuing bans?

I've stopped reading here.

You're clearly aren't interested in any view but your own. You don't have any kind of actual development experience but you then have the gall to challenge me on mine, and to top it off, you're trying to prove some point based on your own (deliberate or otherwise) misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I'm not making this up as I go along, my more-than-a-decade-long development experience grants me a much greater understanding of the intricacies of software development than it does for someone who has none.


I literally can't make my words any easier to understand , and I'm not even going to bother trying any more.

 

[Bzek]

Particularly, I would be proud of combat logging to avoid unwanted PvP. I consider forcing others into unwanted PvP situations to be far worse than combat logging. Heck, back when I was playing WoW I used to force known gankers out of any dungeon group I was in, and since I was a tank I usually won (15s wait for a replacement DPS versus 15m wait for a replacement tank; even if I lost, I would be playing with a new group before the one that kicked me could get a replacement).

What Frontier have here isn't a case of cheating, but of players that disagree with one of the game's rules, intentionally chose to not respect it, and often don't care to hide it. Shaming is not likely to work in this case.

Uh, that is a pretty skewed way to look at things. If you are playing in Open it is the same as playing in a PvP server in an MMO. There is no requirement for the PvP situation to be concensual. That is precisely the point of it. On the flipside you have PvE servers where you have to flag manually to be open for PvP, which is what a concensual PvP solution is.

The closest you have to the latter in Elite is the Mobius group, but combat-logging if engaged by another player in Open because you didn't agree with it is just silly. If you're not feeling in the mood of PvP play solo or join large population groups like Mobius.

(For the record, I play mostly solo for this reason. I don't like being forced into PvP when I am not in the mood)

 

[Gunnet]

Granted, however if your P2P connection drops, something either went wrong or someone interferred. In either event, someone's client will raise a red flag. Either my client will raise an exception ( PEER_E_INVALID_PEER_HOST_NAME if it can't find your PC ), or your client will raise an exception ( PEER_E_FW_BLOCKED_BY_POLICY if I decide to block P2P on my firewall as an attempt to leave ). Somebody's client will make a fuss in someway.

Windows COM (Component Object Model) under which P2P falls, generates an exception (error) if something goes wrong when it shouldn't, both client and host side.

All this information is logged and all of it helps Frontier made educated decisions.

Even if that turns out to be the case, Windows isn't going to be throwing an exception if you do it at the router via a second computer. Back to square one with both clients producing an identical entry in their logs.

 

[DarkWalker]

I've stopped reading here.

You're clearly aren't interested in any view but your own. You don't have any kind of actual development experience but you then have the gall to challenge me on mine, and to top it off, you're trying to prove some point based on your own (deliberate or otherwise) misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I'm not making this up as I go along, my more-than-a-decade-long development experience grants me a much greater understanding of the intricacies of software development than it does for someone who has none.


I literally can't make my words any easier to understand , and I'm not even going to bother trying any more.

As others have said, if it was as easy as you say, Frontier would have done something a long time ago. So, either it isn't as easy as you say, or Frontier doesn't actually want to punish combat logging; take your pick.

(Particularly, I think it's a bit of each. I don't think Frontier would issue bans, or other kinds of strong punishment, without being sure false positives can't exist, which means pure statistical analysis and trusting the client isn't enough for them; at the same time, as the forums show, many players seem to consider combat logging to be an acceptable, and even appropriate, response to griefing and even ganking, which might give them pause.)

 

[NeilF]

Particularly, I would be proud of combat logging to avoid unwanted PvP. I consider forcing others into unwanted PvP situations to be far worse than combat logging. Heck, back when I was playing WoW I used to force known gankers out of any dungeon group I was in, and since I was a tank I usually won (15s wait for a replacement DPS versus 15m wait for a replacement tank; even if I lost, I would be playing with a new group before the one that kicked me could get a replacement).

What Frontier have here isn't a case of cheating, but of players that disagree with one of the game's rules, intentionally chose to not respect it, and often don't care to hide it. Shaming is not likely to work in this case.

I have to sort of agree.

I see it as nothing more than poor vapid mechanics when for some reason PvP in ED heavily relies on, and worse still basically ignores, a CMDR in a dedicated PvP ship (yes, dedicate PvP and PvE loadouts highlights another significant issue!) engineered to the max, interdicting another CMDR, going about some in game activity, who is not interested in PvP at the time, or probably even outfitted for PvP at the time (yes, dedicate PvP and PvE loadouts highlights another significant issue!).... Just so the first CMDR can blow up the second CMDR for no ingame purpose!

IMHO this is all a reflection of the nigh on non-existant PvP mechanics/gameplay in ED, and the fact then that mindless interdiction and destruction has be tolerated as that is almost the only form PvP can take.

So while PvP is as shallow and unorchestrated as it is ED, I can only see players voting with Task-Kill to comment on what they think of mindless destruction (ganking) which is all too often ED's poor excuse of PvP gameplay.

If FD feel inclined to penalise players for doing this, before first solving the real problem, then it doesn't bode well for the game IMHO!

 

[CMDR Zhon Daeli]

When meeting another cmdr an automatic message could display : "I'm a loser, i don't take my responsibilities, i know i should play Farmville"

LOL

Particularly, I would be proud of combat logging to avoid unwanted PvP. I consider forcing others into unwanted PvP situations to be far worse than combat logging. Heck, back when I was playing WoW I used to force known gankers out of any dungeon group I was in, and since I was a tank I usually won (15s wait for a replacement DPS versus 15m wait for a replacement tank; even if I lost, I would be playing with a new group before the one that kicked me could get a replacement).

What Frontier have here isn't a case of cheating, but of players that disagree with one of the game's rules, intentionally chose to not respect it, and often don't care to hide it. Shaming is not likely to work in this case.

If you join Open and then complain about unwanted PvP .. that's like joining a PvP realm on WoW and then complaining about getting killed by a higher level player (probably a Huntard, or a Pally..). It's illogical, and silly.
Open is a FFA. You have to accept that PvP will be thrust on you whether you like it or not. People in WoW who don't want open PvP simply move their character to a PvE server so they can engage in PvP when they want to, or in battle grounds.
So why can't people in Open do the same?

The people who combat log want the "risk" of open with the consequences of that risk back-firing on them.

I hope shaming would work (no way to really know without trying), but I'm not so closed off that I can't see alternate methods (beside shaming and banning) might have a better impact.

Perhaps Frontier need to set up "Solo", "Group", "Open - PvP" and "Open - PvE Only" - joining Open - PvP gives you message which you are expected to "Accept" that informs you that this is an open PvP group and that "unwanted" or "unwarranted" PvP is to be expected.

 

[DarkWalker]

Uh, that is a pretty skewed way to look at things. If you are playing in Open it is the same as playing in a PvP server in an MMO. There is no requirement for the PvP situation to be concensual. That is precisely the point of it. On the flipside you have PvE servers where you have to flag manually to be open for PvP, which is what a concensual PvP solution is.

Exactly why I think ED needs an Open PvE mode. And why I will keep considering combat logging to avoid unwanted PvP to be acceptable, and even commendable, until such a PvE mode is added.

Until then the only officially supported way to meet new faces, to have social interaction with random strangers, is Open. While the only sanctioned way to have this kind of social interaction is a PvP-enabled group, I can't find fault in a player going into that group for the social interaction and using exploits to avoid the PvP.

Mobius might be a very worthy effort, but it isn't officially supported and faces operational issues even now (the group is almost at the point it will have to split again, as a player group only supports 20K players and the two Mobius groups are already approaching 20K players each). Thus, it isn't an appropriate substitute for an official PvE mode, and can never be.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Particularly, I would be proud of combat logging to avoid unwanted PvP. I consider forcing others into unwanted PvP situations to be far worse than combat logging.

So if someone "forces" me into PvP, then combat logs when i start winning, how does that fit into your theory? Should they be "proud" that they did not consent to being blown to pieces? The only loggers I have EVER encountered are the ones who started on me first. They should make the ship remain after logging off (if possible given the way the game handles instancing), like what happens in other multiplayer games. This is an independent issue to ganking, conflating the two is poor logic on your part. I'm not saying C&P does not need fixing, but I am maintaining that logging is a SEPARATE ISSUE, and not a response to anything other than the cowardice of the cheater who pulls their cable in the middle of a fight/escape. If they can't take the loss, then they are free to go do something else with their time. Just go play on a PvE group, and be "proud" of that, instead of staying in Open and using logging to grief people.

 

[Bzek]

Exactly why I think ED needs an Open PvE mode. And why I will keep considering combat logging to avoid unwanted PvP to be acceptable, and even commendable, until such a PvE mode is added.

Until then the only officially supported way to meet new faces, to have social interaction with random strangers, is Open. While the only sanctioned way to have this kind of social interaction is a PvP-enabled group, I can't find fault in a player going into that group for the social interaction and using exploits to avoid the PvP.

Mobius might be a very worthy effort, but it isn't officially supported and faces operational issues even now (the group is almost at the point it will have to split again, as a player group only supports 20K players and the two Mobius groups are already approaching 20K players each). Thus, it isn't an appropriate substitute for an official PvE mode, and can never be.

Yep, I totally agree. If there was an Open PvE mode I would play there 90% of the time or exclusively.

They could take inspiration from Mobius on the CZ aspect, that if you join a side in a CZ you are open to people in the other side. Making these a bit of a PvP activity (mind, if you still wanted to just farm you could go to group/solo since having more people in your CZ instance that are not in your group is just annoying anyway).

Also I wouldn't be averse to having the WANTED condition make you PvP enabled if you are in the system where you are wanted.

EDIT: I still think that combat logging in Open is terrible, regardless of why you do it. Mobius may not be official and may have a couple of issues, but that is by far better than being complicit and advocating for exploits.