And I learned something today. +1Not on this side of the atlantic
Tempest in a teapot (American English), or storm in a teacup (British English)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_in_a_teapot
Please fix the Alt F4 exploit
- Thread starter Knorlac
- Start date
- Status
To be honest - there is a very easy way to prevent/fix this issue, I'll submit to frontier 
If it's flagged by a player first and then reviewed it's really not that hard to do and can be mostly automated. And people will always find away, the problem is with no statement and no repercussions nothing's stopping people from casually doing this. There is no reason to think twice.
for the record I don't care about the actual outcome of the encounter, I just want to know if I report somone and they have a habit of doing it, they are warned, and eventually banned for that behavior if they persist. I want to know that if somone ruins my day with a hack they actually have a way to look into it, as it stands they do not.
I don't believe that a purely manual approach is sustainable ... the only way this is going to be workable from a staffing perspective is if it's 99% automated with a review process at the sanctions stage. I don't believe that the sanctions should be banning either ... possibly a reset of the save back to a stock sidey and 1000Cr would be more appropriate.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Or perhaps the player should be put onto an instancing list which means they only ever get instanced with similarly flagged players.
Planetside 2 is heavily client sided, and they fixed it.
And please stop trying to justify cheating with "oh but PVP wasn't the main focus". That's completely beside the point. Whether or not PVP is the main focus, it is an aspect of the game, and as such it must be working as intended. With the logging problem, it can fundamentally not work as intended.
Totally fine with that approach. I'm also fine with it taking a while to implement. But it needs to be made clear it's not acceptable and that they will start monitoring and most people will stop right there.
Ok, do you see what you just wrote up there? ED uses p2p connections, not an instance/universe server. ED is using a validation/matchmaking server. The game itself is being run on your PC, not a master server.
Im not justifying anything, I don't play on Open, and if I did I would not resort to combat logging. Im simply saying its not a simple problem to fix, nor is it a big enough problem to enough people to dedicate the resources it would take to fix it if that is even possible given the p2p architecture in lieu of more meaningful development.
If people combat log on you, then congratulations you win that pvp encounter. If it really bothers you then block them so you wont be instanced with them again and move on.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone feels that it's acceptable behaviour, however I do think that it will need serious thought into implementing a solution, and I'd prefer it if other tasks (like wings for instance) took priority over this problem.
It is kinda cool though being p2p, if a player does bother you, just block them permanently in your router. They will never be able to see you again in essence. If they get too close to you not sure what would happen since your router wouldn't talk to them at all. Curiousity.
And people need to realize... since the game is written as p2p, the ONLY way to switch to a client/server model would be a complete REWRITE of the code from the ground up... There's absolutely zero chance of that happening.
And people need to realize... since the game is written as p2p, the ONLY way to switch to a client/server model would be a complete REWRITE of the code from the ground up... There's absolutely zero chance of that happening.
Last edited:
How do you identify which IP is the player in question? ... AFAIK the streams are encrypted.
There is a 15 second timeout on any kind of unauthorized disconnection
EDIT: and does include still being on the server if game is closed or computer shut off
EDIT: and does include still being on the server if game is closed or computer shut off
Last edited:
Ok so people are saying leaving a vulnerable "ghost" behind is not possible. What about adding some sort of telemetry, that counts the amount of times a player has killed connection during combat? And make repercussions based on that amount. 1st is free, 2nd is a warning, 3rd is an in-game fine or possibly a temporary ban, even. Infractions clear in a week.
That way people who have poor internet dont get punished, and those who use combat logging will have to seriously tone it down or enjoy faceless, brain dead npc's in solo.
That way people who have poor internet dont get punished, and those who use combat logging will have to seriously tone it down or enjoy faceless, brain dead npc's in solo.
That would be a little harder in a populated system, but if youre out somewhere and get interdicted the timestamp of the router log will just be you and the guy who interdicted you in close proximity of the log file, not too hard to find... BAM you have his IP. Now if youre in normal space at a station, it would be impossible unless you were the only 2 people there.
What consequences? People can spend the whole day clubbing baby seals then go down to the corner shop and pay off the fine. All is forgiven!
Fix that and you'll have a case for making player killing easier. Until then, nope.
Those two things don't cancel each other out. Yes, it is ridiculously easy to pay off a bounty. No, that doesn't mean the OP doesn't have a point.
Just because consequences arent strong enough (and i agree they aren't) that doesn't excuse combat logging.
Why on earth people believe that off-setting a potential design flaw with straight up exploiting/cheating boggles my mind.
There is no justification for combat logging. Period.
Blocking only works on voice comms.
Well, in the current state, it's often the only p2p connection on the router. It's not like you often have dozens of them.
- Status