Pirates combat logging in open
- Thread starter Globusdiablo
- Start date
Tbf there are workarounds, ED does have a central server it just doesn't host instances and (most) data is transmitted directly between clients.
For example the firewall hack requires that you switch off certain things, and block *a lot* of ports because ED's server will try routing data from other player's clients through to you if they report you as unreachable.
If you pull the plug on your network, the server sees you are offline and your enemy's client sees you are offline it wouldn't be too hard to pass control of your ship to the enemy client after ED's server verifies that you are unreachable.
Then when you log back in, if you're alive ED loads you back up in that instance with status updated from your opponent's client. If you're dead, ED's server lets you know and you can pay your insurance.
It would be hard to abuse that kind of system, as you'd need to make sure the enemy client was unreachable not only for yourself but also for ED's server.
Not that I think ED would introduce anything like this, but it is possible.
The one that also loses connection to the validation server is likely the logger. Obviously, this won't find those who are blocking specific IPs, but that is much less common than just terminating the game process, and even the IP blockers should be leaving a pattern that can be checked for and corroborated with reports.
Indeed. A player abusing game mechanics in this way is an exploiter and a cheater, utterly irrespective of the character they play, or any possible rationale they may use as justification.
If they're just killing the process then ED log it and know it happened anyway, Windows gives applications quite a lot of time to close down neatly in that event.
Logging it or sending a quick notification to the server would be trivial.
It would be so funny if a "bug" cropped up that when you killed the client, your ship cuts its speed to zero and sits there for one minute before disappearing. That's a bug I really wouldn't mind FD taking forever to fix. Nudge nudge, FD.
Assuming the user is an Administrator (fairly likely for a home system) then you can force kill any process instantly with no logging or defence, you can't log the Admin on a box anyway. The only real approach is to track disconnects over time with in-game context.
If someone Combat Logs REPORT them. This needs to stop and is already considered an exploit by the Devs!
Happens way too often now
Happens way too often now
Last edited:
Solo Pirates should have a cargo scanner although you can get away with playing the percentage game in Lave and similar. Wings of pirates only need one guy with a scanner, one with an interdicter, etc.
Combat loggers are all 12 year old(or grown ups with the same mentality as a 12 year old) little wusses born into the age of entitlement. I would love to see a mechanic where anyone who combat logs gets there name displayed in big, bold letters for everyone in open to see. It would read " Player so and so is a confirmed combat logger and has been banned from open play for 1 week for his first offense."
Of course this would lead to hundreds of combat logging little girls coming into the forums and crying about how they never combat log and have been wrongfully accused. Such is gaming these days.
Of course this would lead to hundreds of combat logging little girls coming into the forums and crying about how they never combat log and have been wrongfully accused. Such is gaming these days.
Yeah but realistically they'll just be hitting end task and you'll get a chance to do cleanup with the reason for closing given as "TaskManagerClosing".
Alternatively, if you really want to go all in, set up another process to monitor the client and perform cleanup/logging when the client process is killed.
You can not rely on ANY client behaviour to detect if the logging was intentional. If your detection method has a weakness, 2 weeks later a little program will appear that will do the combat logging in exactly the way that exploits that weakness, and all wussies would use it. The server only knows what instance the player was in. But it could get more knowledge.
* The remaining client could send data about the combat logger, when it logged (was it in a battle?). The client could automatically take AI control of the logger in that case.
* After the fight, the client could report the result and if the server still can not connect to the logger, it could accept that result and store it.
* The remaining client could send data about the combat logger, when it logged (was it in a battle?). The client could automatically take AI control of the logger in that case.
* After the fight, the client could report the result and if the server still can not connect to the logger, it could accept that result and store it.
So many people don't understand the complications of p2p.
If the solution was to keep the ship on machine B when A disconnects so A could get killed, what would stop A disconnecting through blocking traffic and now A thinks B has disconnected. So now A can easily kill B and B kills A in local instances.
If the solution was to keep the ship on machine B when A disconnects so A could get killed, what would stop A disconnecting through blocking traffic and now A thinks B has disconnected. So now A can easily kill B and B kills A in local instances.
The central server could easily check with both clients, information is already routed through it if a peer is unreachable by another client.
ED has a server, it is not purely P2P.
How do you complain about combat logging?
As I pirate I have interdicted several human players who don't appear. I gather they turned their PCs off or quit ED to avoid the combat?
This would not work since yes oneside they can get the kill etc.... But on the otherside they would still have their ship. If both computers cant "talk" after they see each other both enemy players on each screen would sit still and credit the other with a kill but when they do connect it will disregard what just happened to go again. This is how people use lag switchs or packet flooders to block the traffic allowing them to "dip" out of an interdiction fast and stay connected to the system.
The only way combat logging could be stopped right now is to change it from p2p to full server side control. If Frontier want to cheap out then allow players to host their own servers but have it written that every server connects to each other in a web state allowing a community run large single instance and push solo to local machine + LAN only this would open up a WHOLE world of options to Frontier to do whatever they wish to do.
I know it would be a huge longshot but if they lack the skill to do this then head to another game DEV and just simply ask "Hey we have little money but i dont suppose we could borrow someone to help us fix x, y, z we could name a starport/system after you/them for the work" Or they could simply pay them if its not extortionate. Nothing wrong with just plain being nice and asking.
Last edited:
Maybe, if the game is worth it.
I barely play it right now, and it's free(once paid for.. lol). They've got some work to do with this game before I would pay a sub just to fix their server issues.
actually people not appearing usually just a disconnection bug with the interdiction, i've been on both sides of this one fairly often - its not exactly common, but its not rare either.
What your looking for is people who instantly vanish while getting shot, or whose ships suddenly stop taking damage while getting shot.
I've also noticed some people vanish when you start approaching them in SC, if they don't leave a high/low energy wake then they saw you coming and logged.
Why they can't just take evasive manoeuvres at that stage is beyond me.
To be fair, players entering/leaving SC around me, or even entering/leaving SC myself can leave me with a hung machine and looped audio 
only thing I can do then is a hard reboot - and anyone looking at that with a view to interdicting would probably assumed I had logged for the lulz
only thing I can do then is a hard reboot - and anyone looking at that with a view to interdicting would probably assumed I had logged for the lulz 