Quick solution to combat-logging

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
so if FDev are tracking the client and tallying combat-logging incidents..
have they considered fines?
combat log. pop back into the game - you've combat logged for your third time this month -
fined 10,000cr for unlawful abuse of witch-space.
do it for your 4'th time this month - fined 30,000
on your 5th it turns into a 50k fine.
etc.
eventually you're going to die. and those fines will have to be paid.
 
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.

I read about some of FD's P2P design info before I put up the OP, I'm aware the clients are trusted with most of the combat data control and a lot of the ship functions. I believe server side checks do exist for certain things (particularly trade data) but not everything. However the server has to know when clients are connected to it and when they are not and really that's all you need for the DC verification. The DC counter and abuse flagging would be a very easy addition to the player files.

There would definitely need to be a bit of coding done for a seamless NPC object switch during the actual DC. But it is doable. And if a player pulled the firewall port block to drop another client they would fail the server DC verification and nothing would be logged.
 
Last edited:
I read about some of FD's P2P design info before I put up the OP, I'm aware the clients are trusted with most of the combat data control and a lot of the ship functions. I believe server side checks do exist for certain things (particularly trade data) but not everything. However the server has to know when clients are connected to it and when they are not and really that's all you need for the DC verification. The DC counter and abuse flagging would be a very easy addition to the player files.

There would definitely need to be a bit of coding done for a seamless NPC object switch during the actual DC. But it is doable.

first: they're already keeping track of player DC's - and whether or not they're in a "danger" state at the time it happens. the data is being collected and eventually will be implemented into a solution.

second: they've stated that in their current code environment an NPC switch is just not feasible and will therefore not happen.
 
I think the only real solution, given the inherent limitations with peer to peer, would be to take a merciless approach to sudden disconnects.

The game should track whether or not you're in combat (which it already does, given the way combat music starts playing). The moment you enter combat, whether with an NPC or a player, it should contact the server and set that variable. When you log back in, if the server detects that you were in combat before your disconnect, it should kill you instantly. Literally; the moment you log back in, boom. Death screen.

It sounds way harsher than it is; if this was any other MMO, random disconnects during combat would mean death anyway. In a singleplayer game, it would mean reverting to an earlier save, which is arguably a sort of death - a loss of progress. Even in something like, say, Warframe (which is also peer to peer) disconnecting is treated the same as aborting the mission, and you have to start again.
 
I have a feeling these threads have been done to death! :) Two things to consider though, if the "death" mechanism can be updated so that logging off isn't actually much of a gain: (1) Less penalty for dying in PvP combat, e.g. a loss of rating but not a financial loss. (2) Greater penalties for repeatedly disconnecting during combat. (11) A mixture of both?
 
Or people could stop getting upset over something that can't be fixed and doesn't really affect you anyway and stop filling the forum with these "genius" solutions.
 
I got my solution... Make the three finger salute = instant self destruction and lock out alt tabbing.

You can't prevent Alt-Tab, e.g. in Windows 8.1 you can go to Start, on a Mac you can go to Dashboard or another Space, on a multi-monitor setup, or in Windowed mode you can... Well, you get the idea. The actuality is that detecting this stuff is pretty difficult. But as Anthony Hopkins would say "This is Mission Impossible. Difficult should be a walk in the park."
 
You can't prevent Alt-Tab, e.g. in Windows 8.1 you can go to Start, on a Mac you can go to Dashboard or another Space, on a multi-monitor setup, or in Windowed mode you can... Well, you get the idea. The actuality is that detecting this stuff is pretty difficult. But as Anthony Hopkins would say "This is Mission Impossible. Difficult should be a walk in the park."

Back in beta there was a bug that would crash the client if you alt+tab... nobody complained of combat logging then :D

There are many ways to kill a process in an OS.

True, but I'm hoping that by the time Loggofvski gets to that point I would have obliterated his ship.... if I didn't then I need a better combat build :D
 
I think the only real solution, given the inherent limitations with peer to peer, would be to take a merciless approach to sudden disconnects.

The game should track whether or not you're in combat (which it already does, given the way combat music starts playing). The moment you enter combat, whether with an NPC or a player, it should contact the server and set that variable. When you log back in, if the server detects that you were in combat before your disconnect, it should kill you instantly. Literally; the moment you log back in, boom. Death screen.

It sounds way harsher than it is; if this was any other MMO, random disconnects during combat would mean death anyway. In a singleplayer game, it would mean reverting to an earlier save, which is arguably a sort of death - a loss of progress. Even in something like, say, Warframe (which is also peer to peer) disconnecting is treated the same as aborting the mission, and you have to start again.

What about network error or crashing computer...?
 
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.

You are right, I did not portray this point in my original post properly, my apologies.

I am referring to OP's "easy" solution, and how it simply can't work in the current environment, due to the technical limitations on FD's side.

The main problem is here, the infrastructure. By collecting data (which they have been doing for some time now) and handing out bans accordingly (which so far, seems that none have been handed out) is not fixing the problem. It's - in my opinion - a massive waste of resources and time, if they decide to eventually go through with what they say.

I've always supported FD and -most- of their decisions, but as far as I can see, it's another one of those "we are looking into it" but in reality, nothing is happening.

I've never really had a problem with combat logging personally, but I can see that it is a problem. They need to fix it at it's root, rather than relying on multiple player reports.
Because by collecting data, they are not going to ban someone based on one report. They'll be banning on multiple reports... that's really the only fair way of going about it.
And what if a player doesn't report someone for combat logging?
Why should players go out of their way to report someone, for something, that these players shouldn't be able to do in the first place?
It really comes down to FD to actually implement a deterrent, rather than using scare tactics.

For bans.. I've personally only seen one report of someone being banned. It was on reddit some time ago, and that wasn't due to combat logging.

Really, the only solution here, is for FD to implement a solution that automatically detects these events. Not rely on players to do their job for them.

I love ED and I love FD, but they are really not taking the best course of action to an issue that a lot of players are being affected by
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom