Quick solution to combat-logging

[Lancing]

Okay, just add a bloody counter. To give people the benefit of the doubt you are allowed 3 pvp combat logging incidents (disconnects) per month, after that if you pull the plug your ship will remain disabled in-game for your opponent for up to 5 minutes and if they destroy it then the server records that destruction and your ship is gone when you re-log into the game and its handled like a death.
.
Every month your counter resets to cover the people who actually just have bad connections and are not doing it intentionally.
.
No public shaming, bounties or other complex .
.
Problem solved, get it done!

 

[Derath]

For the 9 millionth time, you can't have their ship floating in space

 

[Flappers]

Okay, just add a bloody counter. To give people the benefit of the doubt you are allowed 3 pvp combat logging incidents (disconnects) per month, after that if you pull the plug your ship will remain disabled in-game for your opponent for up to 5 minutes and if they destroy it then the server records that destruction and your ship is gone when you re-log into the game and its handled like a death.
.
Every month your counter resets to cover the people who actually just have bad connections and are not doing it intentionally.
.
No public shaming, bounties or other complex .
.
Problem solved, get it done!

Yeah it's a little more complicated than that... FD don't have the infrastructure at this time to even detect combat logging...

It's not so simple

 

[Lancing]

For the 9 millionth time, you can't have their ship floating in space

And why not? The ship is already loaded on the second client, if its flagged as being beyond the combat disconnect limit just don't unload it on disconnect. If they lose response from the other client it just remains in-game as an object, at that point they query the server to verifies if its has also lost connection to the client. If also yes, then if that object is destroyed it gets reported to the server which logs that information.

 

[Derath]

And why not? The ship is already loaded on the second client, if its flagged as being beyond the combat disconnect limit just don't unload it on disconnect. If they lose response from the other client it just remains in-game as an object, at that point they query the server to verifies if its has also lost connection to the client. If also yes, then if that object is destroyed it gets reported to the server which logs that information.

your existence is data sent from your own connection, as soon as its terminated you don't exist - you can't have peer to peer where your missing the second peer.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

your existence is data sent from your own connection, as soon as its terminated you don't exist - you can't have peer to peer where your missing the second peer.

Correct. Having a seamless process where they can substitute an NPC for a CMDR who has just vanished is very difficult. On the other hand, getting other clients in the instance to report that a CMDR vanished should be trivial. So whilst you will lose the bounty when a CMDR combat logs, he should be automatically reported to FD. Of course, all that supposes that FD have the will to implement something, and whilst we have seen some words, I personally, no longer take much notice of what FD say, only what they do.

 

[Derath]

Correct. Having a seamless process where they can substitute an NPC for a CMDR who has just vanished is very difficult. On the other hand, getting other clients in the instance to report that a CMDR vanished should be trivial. So whilst you will lose the bounty when a CMDR combat logs, he should be automatically reported to FD. Of course, all that supposes that FD have the will to implement something, and whilst we have seen some words, I personally, no longer take much notice of what FD say, only what they do.

This guys got the only real solution, other than drastic infrastructure changes the only real way to approach the problem is telemetry + bans, yet they don't seem to want to do either - I suspect they are hoping it sorts itself out.

 

[vjek]

It's a consequence of a poor design choice. There is no "solution" other than changing the poor design choice, which they will never* do.

(* - very very very very unlikely)

 

[PrometheusDarko]

It's a consequence of a poor design choice. There is no "solution" other than changing the poor design choice, which they will never* do.

(* - very very very very unlikely)

This guys got the only real solution, other than drastic infrastructure changes the only real way to approach the problem is telemetry + bans, yet they don't seem to want to do either - I suspect they are hoping it sorts itself out.

Yeah it's a little more complicated than that... FD don't have the infrastructure at this time to even detect combat logging...

It's not so simple

Incorrect: They are tracking data on this, and have stated as such. They have even stated they will be handing down punishment once they have enough data collected. It's one of the Dev posts in the combat logging thread, should be easy to find using the "Find next Dev Post" button.

 

[Lancing]

Incorrect: They are tracking data on this, and have stated as such. They have even stated they will be handing down punishment once they have enough data collected. It's one of the Dev posts in the combat logging thread, should be easy to find using the "Find next Dev Post" button.

Problem with the banning aspect is it entirely depends on how rampant the situation is. Banning a handful of people is one thing, once you start getting more then 10% of the player base doing something banning becomes a bad business decision. Not to mention once a player activity has hit that kind of critical mass, that's more of a poor design issue on the developer side.

 

[Derath]

Incorrect: They are tracking data on this, and have stated as such. They have even stated they will be handing down punishment once they have enough data collected. It's one of the Dev posts in the combat logging thread, should be easy to find using the "Find next Dev Post" button.

they can state what they like its been months and nothings come of it, they are also looking into / planning a whole variety of things with no ETA I might as well tell you i'm building a cancer curing robot made of gold for all the good it does

Incidentally I hope your right - I just personally gave up on them actually doing anything for two reasons, #1 there hasn't been a peep out of them on any of the multiple threads talking about this since the first, and #2 I have to deal with more combat loggers than just about anyone I suspect, some days are horrible some days are ok. If they are coming up with a solution it'd be better if everyone who relied on the mechanic hasn't quit by the time they implement it, thats the same as waiting until it sorts itself out.

oh and #3 self cited people with repeated video evidence haven't received any form of penalty for their behavior, like how obvious should we make it before they will do something? I've got someone on stream who "reappears" in my instance several times including talking about pulling the plug with him directly combat logging repeatedly.

 

[Flappers]

Incorrect: They are tracking data on this, and have stated as such. They have even stated they will be handing down punishment once they have enough data collected. It's one of the Dev posts in the combat logging thread, should be easy to find using the "Find next Dev Post" button.

Tracking data is one thing.
Leaving ships not controlled by player in a P2P environment is another.
They have said in that same thread you mention that their infrastructure doesn't currently support the ability to leave ships hanging without a connection from the player.

Until this is changed, combat logging will continue

 

[CMDR Holycow]

okay, just add a bloody counter. To give people the benefit of the doubt you are allowed 3 pvp combat logging incidents (disconnects) per month, after that if you pull the plug your ship will remain disabled in-game for your opponent for up to 5 minutes and if they destroy it then the server records that destruction and your ship is gone when you re-log into the game and its handled like a death.
.
Every month your counter resets to cover the people who actually just have bad connections and are not doing it intentionally.
.
No public shaming, bounties or other complex .
.
Problem solved, get it done!

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh cant stand it anymore!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Ydiss]

Tracking data is one thing.
Leaving ships not controlled by player in a P2P environment is another.
They have said in that same thread you mention that their infrastructure doesn't currently support the ability to leave ships hanging without a connection from the player.

Until this is changed, combat logging will continue

Correct. But you missed the point of the post you quoted. In lieu of being able to prevent the action, they will analyse behaviours and hand out punishments. Once these punishments start to hit, it'll act as a deterrent.

I'm looking forward to the "but I didn't exploit!" claims as much as looking forward to the day combat logging dies down due to the initial round of punishments. It won't go away completely, but the sooner players start getting sanctioned for repeated abuse, the better. It might take until players actually start getting banned or suspended temporarily for them to get the message but it'll be fun when it does.

 

[Wafflez]

Okay, just add a bloody counter. To give people the benefit of the doubt you are allowed 3 pvp combat logging incidents (disconnects) per month, after that if you pull the plug your ship will remain disabled in-game for your opponent for up to 5 minutes and if they destroy it then the server records that destruction and your ship is gone when you re-log into the game and its handled like a death.
.
Every month your counter resets to cover the people who actually just have bad connections and are not doing it intentionally.
.
No public shaming, bounties or other complex .
.
Problem solved, get it done!

Excellent idea, now when you join my instance I can run an autohotkey script that blocks you at the firewall and now you just combat logged from my instance. Strike 1.

P2P means combat logging isn't going to get solved, so you might as well not get upset when you encounter it and just move on.

 

[Lancing]

Correct. But you missed the point of the post you quoted. In lieu of being able to prevent the action, they will analyse behaviours and hand out punishments. Once these punishments start to hit, it'll act as a deterrent.

I'm looking forward to the "but I didn't exploit!" claims as much as looking forward to the day combat logging dies down due to the initial round of punishments. It won't go away completely, but the sooner players start getting sanctioned for repeated abuse, the better. It might take until players actually start getting banned or suspended temporarily for them to get the message but it'll be fun when it does.

I'm just going to call it. If more then 1000 people have done this then banning is never going to happen.

I honestly don't know how rampant it is, I've never encountered it personally. So far I've only had about 5 pvp incidents (most were idiots in sidewinders and vipers) and so far no one has combat logged. If I were to speculate its probably mostly griefers, traders and people flying very expensive ships doing it.

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

Excellent idea, now when you join my instance I can run an autohotkey script that blocks you at the firewall and now you just combat logged from my instance. Strike 1.

P2P means combat logging isn't going to get solved, so you might as well not get upset when you encounter it and just move on.

You missed the second post:
"If they lose response from the other client it just remains in-game as an object, at that point *they query the server to verifies if its has also lost connection to the client*. If also yes, then if that object is destroyed it gets reported to the server which logs that information."

 

[vjek]

... at that point *they query the server to verifies if its has also lost connection to the client*. ... "

You're the server. You control everything. Wafflez point is still true, and will be true, until FDEV drops Peer-to-Peer networking as a design choice.

 

[babelfisch]

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh cant stand it anymore!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Best post! +rep!

 

[Lancing]

You're the server. You control everything. Wafflez point is still true, and will be true, until FDEV drops Peer-to-Peer networking as a design choice.

You are not the server, the server stores your save file and provides the matchmaking service for instancing. You are one of two or more clients connected P2P. By default you can not entirely trust anything just from a client, hence why a DC needs to be verified by the server as well. If CMDR Whoever is DC'd from the peer connections and the server is showing them DC'd at the same time then its not a P2P connection issue. He actually pulled the plug.

Ever been on during a server reset? You can't play without them.

 

[vjek]

Sorry, Lancing, I think you'll find your impression of how it works, and how it actually works, aren't the same thing.

I'll put it another way... (as googling "elite dangerous cheats" will similarly enlighten you)

FDEV trusts the Client. A LOT. A LOT A LOT A LOT.