Please fix the Alt F4 exploit

[tagos]

I think that we can be pretty certain of 2 things.

1) Players killing clean players goes against the developer's 'vision' for the game. Note that it is killing that is the problem - not piracy (see below). The only situation where I could see it being acceptable is when you have been given a 'kill traders' mission.

2) In a 'mature' game (in terms of development and mechanics), combat logging is unacceptable. There may be some argument for its use as a means of peaceful protest against problems in the game, but it should not be celebrated or used for entertainment. Nobody should be intending to use combat logging long term and have that accepted as a legitimate tactic.

So the developers need to work hard at eradicating both 1) and 2).

This is the nub. I don't agree with combat logging and never have. But I would if I dropped cargo and then the pirate decided to kill me anyway (and I wasn't in my Asp but a expensive and helpless freighter). Because I stood to lose millions in cargo and insurance and the jerk attacker stood to lose essentially nothing.

Pirating is an essential aspect of play, it brings an edge of danger to trading. That's why I spent the weekend trading in Open.

Pirating just isn't working at the moment. The balance of consequences between trader and attacker are too out of kilter. Until killing a trader has such serious consequences only a dedicated pirate would do it then I'm afraid people will play in solo and log.

But if pirates face harsh consequences then they should reap rewarding gameplay. Pirating should be an alternative career, not something you do when a bit bored. It should be a fun challenge to play the hunted outlaw.

 

[Bangfish]

"Player is hosting the instance in P2P connection". Yep, you heard that.

 

[jgm]

As an example of why its fraught with issues;

1. Player A interdicts player B
2. Player B knowing they have a great internet connection chances he is hosting the instance
3. Player B severs the p2p connection with player A
4. Player B cpu takes control of player A's ship
5. Player B ruins NPC controlled ship
6. Player A logs in dead having appeard to have combat logged

There is no overriding authoritative server looking after the instance, matchmaking from my understanding simply places people into relevant instances ie hosted by you or me.

In this case, and in the general "split brain" case, you need to implement a mechanism to work out which system(s) are still active. This is a slight twist on the traditional split brain case in that in the case that both players might still be active even if they cannot communicate with each other you (probably) want both players to continue to play, but that's a minor tweak.

The general way that this works is that when two systems can no longer communicate with each other they ask a third system to arbitrate. When such a request comes in the arbitrator checks the other two systems to see if they are contactable. It will then make a decision based on this result. In the case you outlined above the arbitrator will see that both systems are still active, know that no-one logged, and let both continue with the each player vanishing from the other's instance.

If someone really did combat log then the arbitrator will see that the player who combat logged is no longer running and allow the situation to proceed with the computer taking over the logged player.

 

[hookandsling]

It absolutely is going to be a pig to fix.
But the consequences for not fixing it are looking pretty drastic for the game as envisioned.

Never going to pretend I know how to fix it, but I do think the problem is real and serious enough to warrant vigorous head-scratching from those who do and can (possibly).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

In this case, and in the general "split brain" case, you need to implement a mechanism to work out which system(s) are still active. This is a slight twist on the traditional split brain case in that in the case that both players might still be active even if they cannot communicate with each other you (probably) want both players to continue to play, but that's a minor tweak.

The general way that this works is that when two systems can no longer communicate with each other they ask a third system to arbitrate. When such a request comes in the arbitrator checks the other two systems to see if they are contactable. It will then make a decision based on this result. In the case you outlined above the arbitrator will see that both systems are still active, know that no-one logged, and let both continue with the each player vanishing from the other's instance.

If someone really did combat log then the arbitrator will see that the player who combat logged is no longer running and allow the situation to proceed with the computer taking over the logged player.

would that also work if the host player had a shortcut button to start downloading a huge bit torrent file in the background, so not combat logging as such, but essentially souring the P2P connection? this is something that Gears of war, fifa and PES players used to do back in the day on the xbox (dunno if they still can) (the fifa players who did not cable plug that is)

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

In this case, and in the general "split brain" case, you need to implement a mechanism to work out which system(s) are still active. This is a slight twist on the traditional split brain case in that in the case that both players might still be active even if they cannot communicate with each other you (probably) want both players to continue to play, but that's a minor tweak.

The general way that this works is that when two systems can no longer communicate with each other they ask a third system to arbitrate. When such a request comes in the arbitrator checks the other two systems to see if they are contactable. It will then make a decision based on this result. In the case you outlined above the arbitrator will see that both systems are still active, know that no-one logged, and let both continue with the each player vanishing from the other's instance.

If someone really did combat log then the arbitrator will see that the player who combat logged is no longer running and allow the situation to proceed with the computer taking over the logged player.

which leaves us with...........the same end result as we have now albeit we arrived at it from a different angle.

 

[ToniB]

Very many threads about this complaint that you have.
I don't think anything needs to be fixed.
You could find like-minded players to play with and even form a group of dedicated non-log-outers. Or not.

i dissaprove of this post and give you negative rep my mind.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

You assume it's a flaw, I think of it as a feature, don't like having players leave the game when you catch them? don't attack players. Combat isn't fun when it's forced on you.

next step: game without npc? cause they do attack you too.

 

[jgm]

would that also work if the host player had a shortcut button to start downloading a huge bit torrent file in the background, so not combat logging as such, but essentially souring the P2P connection? this is something that Gears of war, fifa and PES players used to do back in the day on the xbox (dunno if they still can) (the fifa players who did not cable plug that is)

Depends what they're actually doing, but in general that would cause a degraded connection. Suspect that they'd do that in an attempt to delay information coming in/out of the instance to ensure that the owner of the instance can get a benefit in terms of reaction times and the like. The arbitrator could still handle this situation by pinging all clients in the same instance periodically and considering packet loss and/or response time, but it's taking a more active role at this point and acting more like an overseer.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

which leaves us with...........the same end result as we have now albeit we arrived at it from a different angle.

Maybe I misunderstood but in the example you gave step 3 was player B severing the connection from player A. In this case the arbitrator would see that both A and B were still running active clients and separate them in to separate instances. This appears to stop player B using the fact that they are running the instance to their advantage.

 

[signal11th]

This was actually fixed fairly easily in another space game, you logoffski you stay in space you a predetermined amount of time, all other online games I play have a variant of this even world of bloody tanks. It's not the fault of FD if you someone has a crappy internet connection and you pull a logoffski you deserve to get blown up and lose your stuff.

Take EVE I fly some very very expensive ships in EVE but I realise everytime I'm flying a super or a titan my connection could go at anytime and if I am involved in combat that's my ship gone. I accept it quite easily.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

This was actually fixed fairly easily in another space game, you logoffski you stay in space you a predetermined amount of time, all other online games I play have a variant of this even world of bloody tanks. It's not the fault of FD if you someone has a crappy internet connection and you pull a logoffski you deserve to get blown up and lose your stuff.

It really helps if you read the thread tbh, and understand why this isnt really an option in a P2P instanced game. Its "doable" but its messy and open to abuse and as jgm has stated above, even a possible solution can end up with the same outcome as someone logging.

Depends what they're actually doing, but in general that would cause a degraded connection. Suspect that they'd do that in an attempt to delay information coming in/out of the instance to ensure that the owner of the instance can get a benefit in terms of reaction times and the like. The arbitrator could still handle this situation by pinging all clients in the same instance periodically and considering packet loss and/or response time, but it's taking a more active role at this point and acting more like an overseer.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Maybe I misunderstood but in the example you gave step 3 was player B severing the connection from player A. In this case the arbitrator would see that both A and B were still running active clients and separate them in to separate instances. This appears to stop player B using the fact that they are running the instance to their advantage.

The end result though is still that contact can be avoided if the person (ironically) is willing to put some effort into doing so. Some would argue more effort that just dealing with the in game situation but that's by the by.

To all intents and purpose you have facilitated a disco, more so its not even visible as such to the 3rd party!

 

[ToniB]

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.

you do know this cheat also works against npc and in solo mode?

 

[Rivka]

In this case, and in the general "split brain" case, you need to implement a mechanism to work out which system(s) are still active. This is a slight twist on the traditional split brain case in that in the case that both players might still be active even if they cannot communicate with each other you (probably) want both players to continue to play, but that's a minor tweak.

The general way that this works is that when two systems can no longer communicate with each other they ask a third system to arbitrate. When such a request comes in the arbitrator checks the other two systems to see if they are contactable. It will then make a decision based on this result. In the case you outlined above the arbitrator will see that both systems are still active, know that no-one logged, and let both continue with the each player vanishing from the other's instance.

If someone really did combat log then the arbitrator will see that the player who combat logged is no longer running and allow the situation to proceed with the computer taking over the logged player.

You'd have to combine that solution with a second check to other P2P clients, then slap the wire-puller with an appropriate penalty. I see it working like this:

Heartbeat to frontier's servers.
Heartbeat to other P2P clients in the same host.
On failure of one heartbeat, log event and relay to Frontier's servers.

That, along with logging abnormal program terminations will squeeze out the vast majority of process killing and plug pullers. The trick will be matching patterns to take action. The vast majority of network drops are going to happen at random times during gameplay. Drops and crashes that happen consistently during combat interactions or interdiction warrant a closer look at.

Of course, there will be smrt types who try to play games with router blocking and such. That's where player reports and such comes in. If one guy manages to get a hundred reports of "combat logging", and his client is reporting back constant blocks to other player addresses (while Frontier's remain active), then it's time for a little poking.

 

[Betelgeuse]

Quote Originally Posted by Sammy5IsAlive View Post
I think that we can be pretty certain of 2 things.

1) Players killing clean players goes against the developer's 'vision' for the game. Note that it is killing that is the problem - not piracy (see below). The only situation where I could see it being acceptable is when you have been given a 'kill traders' mission.

2) In a 'mature' game (in terms of development and mechanics), combat logging is unacceptable. There may be some argument for its use as a means of peaceful protest against problems in the game, but it should not be celebrated or used for entertainment. Nobody should be intending to use combat logging long term and have that accepted as a legitimate tactic.

So the developers need to work hard at eradicating both 1) and 2).

No, not certain at all.

If killing clean players was not allowed then you would not be able to fire on them. Patently it IS allowed but incurs consequences, devs have altered bounties for killing players and will likely increase those or incur other penalties if they wish to make it harder. No core game design changes needed.

As has already been stated many times, the P2P model makes it very difficult to control combat logging without penalising game glitches or legitimate disconnects. Which is why FD have provided a mechanic for reporting players who cheat or exploit. FD has said they will take action against players who cheat. If you consider combat logging cheating then report the player, if FD agrees with you they will take action.

It would be 'surprising' if FD changed core game mechanics at this stage. So if you find combat logging 'unacceptable' to the point you don't want to accept the risk it may happen, then FD have provided further choices for you to play in a group that can define and enforce its own stricter rules.

You may not like or agree with the current game design but don't be fooled into thinking that an outcry on the forum affects game design. Sometimes our opinions coincide with the devs (who do actually play the game themselves) that is all.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

You'd have to combine that solution with a second check to other P2P clients, then slap the wire-puller with an appropriate penalty. I see it working like this:

Heartbeat to frontier's servers.
Heartbeat to other P2P clients in the same host.
On failure of one heartbeat, log event and relay to Frontier's servers.

That, along with logging abnormal program terminations will squeeze out the vast majority of process killing and plug pullers. The trick will be matching patterns to take action. The vast majority of network drops are going to happen at random times during gameplay. Drops and crashes that happen consistently during combat interactions or interdiction warrant a closer look at.

Of course, there will be smrt types who try to play games with router blocking and such. That's where player reports and such comes in. If one guy manages to get a hundred reports of "combat logging", and his client is reporting back constant blocks to other player addresses (while Frontier's remain active), then it's time for a little poking.

its not combat logging though is it, its peer collapse and it happens all the time with ISP's who throttle. If you force the report button then the perp just needs to file a report as well against the other player as "he also combat logged". Heartbeat to logon servers is retained and hearbeat to other p2p clients is meaningless for the reasons described above. Not to mention the network overhead that a p2p ping would introduce.

 

[ToniB]

Exactly. So in essense play on Open, but its just like Solo.

so, why not playing in solo then in the first hand? this is all so ridicoulos i cant even laugh about it.

 

[SuperkewL]

You could find like-minded players to play with and even form a group of dedicated non-log-outers. Or not.

Best advice there is for this issue.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

It would be 'surprising' if FD changed core game mechanics at this stage.

The crux of it for me is this ^. FD know their server architecture better than anyone, they have already added a log off timer to the client if done via the proper means (and bare in mind if you log off via the menu It should be deemed acceptable to do so).

If resolving disco's was a simple issue with their set up then it would have already been implemented by now. It was happening all through beta, its not a new issue.

 

[ToniB]

Cool story, bro. I'm still not letting some cost me a million credits...

then play in solo.

 

[ToniB]

Hi.

I have a couple of thoughts on this...

1) Alt-F4. I have been having some PC issues recently (basically my overclocks have been a little optimistic ) so I have been having display crashes (testing done in offline btw so no mucking up other people). However, I must admit, I found that ALT-F4 does NOT actially kill my process. The only way I can kill it is by task managering it and killing there, and even then it takes a good 30s to actually kill the game. How are you guys alt-F4ing? (Its not that I want to cheat but I must admit I thought FD had already blocked that as a quick exit - In beta it worked fine, but since gamma, it has not worked for me.

autohotkey

 

[Fian]

I'm a bounty hunter, that's what I do and what earns me money in game. And yes, I prefer to hunt human prey that thinks, fights back hard and tries to outsmart me.

That is what this one appears to have done - used all the human tools available to him/her (including DC) which would not be available to NPC? And he/she did manage to outsmart you -escaping with 10% hull.