Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Agreeing, in a round about way, from slightly different perspectives, probably.
Erm - no, really, thanks for asking anyway....
- Status
Agreeing, in a round about way, from slightly different perspectives, probably.
Erm - no, really, thanks for asking anyway....
Well, "Lordy, lordy, lordy, lordy". You mean to tell me your still stirring the pot here.
Ideas Man
Banned
Please don't talk to me if you are just going to stir things up, or try to, thank you
If you'd like to discuss some actual points I am happy to of course
There are two or three people in this thread who purely attack me for some reason and add little to the conversation, you know who you are and I would appreciate it if you didn't respond to or engage with me from now on, I respectfully ask you to leave me alone, thank you very much.
If you'd like to discuss some actual points I am happy to of course
There are two or three people in this thread who purely attack me for some reason and add little to the conversation, you know who you are and I would appreciate it if you didn't respond to or engage with me from now on, I respectfully ask you to leave me alone, thank you very much.
Last edited:
That's pretty much what I was going to say, one saved work and money the other would cost additional work, hardware & money etc.
Why would they want to do additional work for a minority when they have so much still to do for the majority and that change would be a PR disaster.
Its been here since conception, still here after launch, Devs recently confirmed no plans to change that so we are where we are.
I know if they enforced a choice there is no way I would start another CMDR, would be groups for me all the way.
I won't try to hold my breath until modeswitching is disabled
Me neither, if they ever even think about looking into it I would hope it's not before all the content that we are expecting to be added for the benefit of everyone, I very much doubt it would be before the DLC, that is not only a future revenue stream but something many have already paid for.
Maybe a year or two down the road but I doubt it, the few dozen loud voices in favour of it will hopefully have quietened down by then or more likely be trying to change another game by then
, well I hope so.Ideas Man
Banned
I don't think getting rid of the ability to seal yourself away from the rest of the internet in a game sold as an MMO would be a 'PR disaster' but point taken Dave. I doubt anyone apart from a vocal few would even notice tbh, Open isn't exactly a sardine tin of players lol.
I'm not sure why you would think a game company should not develop new features that cost money and take work, I'm a bit lost there.
It would be a shame if people did quit over the changes, I agree there, and I also think that Group play is the worst of all the modes as it fosters some bizarre 'secret club' mentality that is at odds with both an MMO and a single player game.
I'm not sure why you would think a game company should not develop new features that cost money and take work, I'm a bit lost there.
It would be a shame if people did quit over the changes, I agree there, and I also think that Group play is the worst of all the modes as it fosters some bizarre 'secret club' mentality that is at odds with both an MMO and a single player game.
Me and a buddy bought this game together to be able to play. Only ONCE in a couple weeks or more have we been on the same server where the Text Chat actually worked..but even then no matter what we were never instanced together.
So the private group as it stands it pretty worthless.
Online, I completely avoid because of the crap dumbfire stuff that was going on, the hacks, the exploits and the sheer baggery because pilots felt there was nothing better to do (probably true)
So the private group as it stands it pretty worthless.
Online, I completely avoid because of the crap dumbfire stuff that was going on, the hacks, the exploits and the sheer baggery because pilots felt there was nothing better to do (probably true)
One or both of you has a router with the NAT set to either (Moderate) or (Strict). For p2p type games to work properly you need to switch it to (Open), if you all do that. Start a private group, you will always be in each others (Island) as this game terms it. When you are both in the same system that is...
Ideas Man
Banned
It's honestly really cool of you to help him but normal gamers shouldn't have to know this stuff to play a video game with pals, it's terrible on every level.
Me and a group of 10 were filming a vid the other night and it happened over and over to us, it is unacceptable really.
Me and a group of 10 were filming a vid the other night and it happened over and over to us, it is unacceptable really.
It's a built-in firewall for your firewall... There is nothing game companies can do about it... Heck, Even Xbox Live says to use their service properly you must buy an xbox compatible router. I get where you're coming from, but it's just life as we know it. Blame the hackers out there trying to break into peoples computers so much that router manufacturers have built this protection into routers. It's only p2p that suffers from it though, all these 'peers' trying to connect to my pc when my pc didn't "ask" for them too, thus it blocks them (This is what's happening really). (You may already know this, it's for those who don't realize why I'm typing it out).
Ideas Man
Banned
I appreciate that yup
Maybe they should have gone crazy and used servers, I dunno ha ha
For real though, it's just a shame these issues will stop some people seeing buddies and potentially stopping playing, not everyone even knows what a router is. The P2P decision was always a stupid one imo.
Maybe they should have gone crazy and used servers, I dunno ha ha
For real though, it's just a shame these issues will stop some people seeing buddies and potentially stopping playing, not everyone even knows what a router is. The P2P decision was always a stupid one imo.
Last edited:
I appreciate that yup
Maybe they should have gone crazy and used servers, I dunno ha ha
For real though, it's just a shame these issues will stop some people seeing buddies and potentially stopping playing, not everyone even knows what a router is. The P2P decision was always a stupid one imo.
heh You may be onto something!
Ideas Man
Banned
I can't believe they didn't think of it!
Has anyone got a phone number for FD it might not be too late!
Has anyone got a phone number for FD it might not be too late!
Using my self as an example, I do not "seal" myself away, I play open, group or solo as and when I wish, it might not be a sardine tin as you say (further out) but in the core systems it is quite easy to meet a pirate if you are in the mood for it & did you read the forums when offline was scrapped.
I was talking about doubling the infrastructure (or trebling maybe, depending on what you want doing with groups) and extra programming for no benefit to the masses, ahead of content that's still to be implemented, that's why I said "I would hope it's not before all the content that we are expecting to be added for the benefit of everyone", of course features will cost money, Mods work for free not Devs, but I am sure you know exactly what I meant
.I joined Mobius without mention of aprons or rolled up trouser legs, being promoted on this forum would hardly make such a "secret club".
It would be a shame if people quit over changes, less of one in my opinion if people quit because there are not changes to features that are core to how FD want their game to be, its not like they kept it a secret.
PS I won't be leaving, just in case that thought was giving you any concern, been here 6 months and still having loads of fun playing in the different modes, depending on my mood at the time, just as the game was intended to be from the start.
Last edited:
I appreciate that yup
Maybe they should have gone crazy and used servers, I dunno ha ha
For real though, it's just a shame these issues will stop some people seeing buddies and potentially stopping playing, not everyone even knows what a router is. The P2P decision was always a stupid one imo.
The P2P decision was to allow them to reduce their server costs and, thus, keep them running for far longer than would otherwise be possible. Plus, it reduces latency; in the typical scenario where only two players are in an instance, peer to peer cuts the perceived latency by half.
Ideas Man
Banned
It's a terrible system and a bad idea, they forgot to put 'Needs an IT Education' on the system requirements
Servers are cheap, they had cash up front, the game will suffer in the long term. No excuses.
Servers are cheap, they had cash up front, the game will suffer in the long term. No excuses.
I kind-of agree with you there. Not entirely sure why a P2P model was chosen, there seems to be more and more of it in newer games these days. Given that hacking/game-modding is much more likely under a client-side P2P model, why then is it on the rise? I'm not suggesting that programmers are just being lazy (well not at this moment im not
), but I wonder if there are other reasons why client-side stuff is on the rise. Yep sure, cheaper server costs, but surely that is no barrier to FD and other larger software development houses. And yes its more sustainable over time, and doesnt rely on centralised servers to conduct traffic control. But those games that have used centralised servers (in Europe, Nth America, Oceania, Asia, etc) have had greater control over time. P2P reduces latency but only when there is someone near you playing at the same time. I still get lag/latency problem playing with someone in the same country (australia) even if he is 3 timezones away. A centralised Oceania server would have offered steady pings, that a player can get used to slowly, and wouldnt change. (and its only really important for PvP anyways). Anyways we have what we have, p2p client sided, and although I agree servers are cheap, I just wonder if its just how code and techniques are blindly moving, rather than by design, leaving us with the current model.
Ideas Man
Banned
Totally agree with everything you said to be honest.
I just hope this doesn't bite them down the line, as a group of 10 computer savvy people we never once reliably saw each other in game, not once.
The consumers experience is king and it wasn't great, especially as FD do advertise the Playing With Friends aspect of the game.
I just hope this doesn't bite them down the line, as a group of 10 computer savvy people we never once reliably saw each other in game, not once.
The consumers experience is king and it wasn't great, especially as FD do advertise the Playing With Friends aspect of the game.
I kind-of agree with you there. Not entirely sure why a P2P model was chosen, there seems to be more and more of it in newer games these days. Given that hacking/game-modding is much more likely under a client-side P2P model, why then is it on the rise? I'm not suggesting that programmers are just being lazy (well not at this moment im not
Anyways we have what we have, p2p client sided, and although I agree servers are cheap, I just wonder if its just how code and techniques are blindly moving, rather than by design, leaving us with the current model.
Please understand: Servers are not cheap, not at an enterprise level. This isn't CoD where you can rent an adequate server for pocket change a month. In addition to the existing sim infrastructure, you'll need what EVE has and then some -- basically every PC-PC encounter will require some level of serverside processing power. And then you'll need the coding infrastructure to be able to move an entire instance from one server to another one with more oomph, when Pilot 1 is fighting Pilot 2 and they both call in their hundred or so bestest buddies to join in the fun. EVE gets away with this by having long polling delays and TiDi; can you imagine what a hundred-on-hundred brawl in ED would be like under those conditions?
FDev did the financially right, if disappointing, thing: Elite never had the following to warrant the kind of infrastructure from the get-go. That isn't to say it's perfect. They definitely do need some kind of authentication and cheatcatcher telemetry.
All this being said, maybe CCP has the cash reserves to do it; in which case it's going to be interesting to see how Valkyrie fares.
FDev did the financially right, if disappointing, thing: Elite never had the following to warrant the kind of infrastructure from the get-go. That isn't to say it's perfect. They definitely do need some kind of authentication and cheatcatcher telemetry.
All this being said, maybe CCP has the cash reserves to do it; in which case it's going to be interesting to see how Valkyrie fares.
- Status