P2P is broken

[Ghostickles]

From another Developers forum; 'Logs people, nothing can be done without Logs.'
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=160601

 

[Draxxen]

Also, I really miss dial-up tones. The speed sucked, but logging in had character.

My local repair shop has dial up! (Monroe Mufflers)
I catch myself eagerly anticipating the tone when they work towards their database

 

[Draxxen]

I am sure with all the hours FD has spent analyzing gameplay interaction, stutter and other conneciton issues, they should have an idea by now if P2P can be to blame and whether a server based model would solve anything.

My question is: would we be willing to pick up a monthly tab to keep this game running smoother? Provided it actually would run smoother, that is.
I, for one, would; I love the game as it is already, and think it has enormous potential. I am looking forward to years with this game.

Edit: I would, of course, hope for a little less per month than the $15 that seems to be standard among subscription games today... I mean: there is a difference between covering running costs and pure greed...

 

[Sgt Doom]

I am sure with all the hours FD has spent analyzing gameplay interaction, stutter and other conneciton issues, they should have an idea by now if P2P can be to blame and whether a server based model would solve anything.

My question is: would we be willing to pick up a monthly tab to keep this game running smoother? Provided it actually would run smoother, that is.
I, for one, would; I love the game as it is already, and think it has enormous potential. I am looking forward to years with this game.

I bought this game partly because of the explicit promise there would be no subscription fee, just DLC to come at a later date. If they feel like going for a subscription model instead, then I expect to get my money back.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I bought this game partly because of the explicit promise there would be no subscription fee, just DLC to come at a later date. If they feel like going for a subscription model instead, then I expect to get my money back.

Its not come to that yet, however I am in your camp

 

[Jockey79]

No, but currently we are talking about simply getting members of a 4 man wing into the same space. It was a little flaky before, and it's way worse now.
And in 1.2, those that *did* want to make things a bit more interesting for themselves could use wing anchors and seed space for rather epic battles. It worked way way better for those that wanted to. And there *are* plenty that do too.
This is not the only thing we do in the game by the way. Simply an awesome aspect that is now harder than ever to implement.

My friends and I have not had any Wing issues with 1.3 (or in 1.2 either).
Perhaps someone didn't have their router or firewall configured correctly, or their ISP was blocking P2P connections or even doing work on the network.
There can be many a reason why the games matchmaker won't link people up, besides the limits of P2P.

I believe Zylark was talking about simply dropping from normal space back into SC. Not following a high wake and no wake scanner needed. Players sometimes simply disappear...

That is because the star system is not the instance - the player is. That is why the Devs used to explain it by saying "instance island" - we are all moving overlapping instances.
We are all our own travelling bubble, and any small thing can push us away from some one else. Be it on purpose or by accident

I don't see how this is?

Well, I do not know how to explain it to you then.
Power Play is a PvE game. What team carts the most things from A to B wins (or collect NPC kills).

PvP is not a factor in ED or in PP. It is allowed, but it is not the reason or core of the game.
DBOBE said, "rare and meaningful" for PvP. "Rare".... R A R E as in, not often.

I don't think the OP was asking for an EVE Online by any means and certainly not a 'pew pew' gank fest? Whatever that may be.... If you had ever partaken in a large scale 'discrepancy' in space and been a part of a large scale battle, you would realise just how much planning, skill and tactics goes into setting it all up.
If you think it's just 'pew pew' COD style fighting, then you're sadly misguided on your views.

He asked for "massive" fights, aka, EVE (only space game ever, with "massive" player done fights)
This is not EVE. It does not work like EVE, it does not dilute time like EVE to compensate for network lag etc.

I appreciate everyone wants something from this game and going back to 1.2 i believe it was almost achieving this and had an exciting foundation, but for now instancing *is* an issue, even on a small scale, let alone for those who previously enjoyed pushing the envelope.

I want what was advertised and sold to me.
Not something someone else moans for because they didn't what they were buying to start with.

 

[Zylark]

First thing first - No I do not want EVE numbers in a given battle. What I want is the ability to have an actual living galaxy, where you'll see plenty of player driven ships at the more popular hubs of activity. Using a term such as massive may be a bit too undefined, but for me something along the lines of 128 to 256 players on a dedicated server instance would be just perfect. Where there are fewer players, say up to 32, P2P would do a reasonable job provided it worked.

...which it doesn't. Say you got an eye-patch, a wooden leg and a breath smelling of Rum. You interdict someone who submits, and before you can type in local chat 'Yaaargh give me yer loot me matey!' the prey have low-waked out (gone into supercruise). You follow suit in order to conduct more aggressive negotiations over the transfer of cargo, but the prey is nowhere to be seen. Gone into a parallel universe. That happens all the time and is just another sign of a broken MP mechanic.

Another is the severe difficulty often experienced with getting just one wing together in the same instance. Nevermind several. We get reports of enemy wing in our Powers capital, we organize, we go there - and nothing. People screaming on IRC that they are getting butt-****** by said enemy wing, but we can only pick our noses and twiddle our thumbs - because for all intents and purposes, it all takes place in a parallel universe.

The laundry-list of issues with the current P2P mechanic of MP instancing is game-braking for those of us that enjoy PvP combat. That's the short of it. If you don't like or want PvP, but are more than content with PvE, then fine. This thread is not for you.

 

[piugattuk]

I wonder if people expected EVE 2.0 blob fest again, god i'm so glad there's no "time dilation" or waiting 15 to 30 mins to jump into jita, or being spammed to death in local by crazed players, or jumping into a new system only to have 100 knuckle heads waiting to gank you so now I cruise from place to place with 3 DOG NIGHT-"AN OLD FASHIONED LOVE SONG" (W/ LYR…: http://youtu.be/c2WyBTGm8J4

Happy, happy, happy, and as FD continues to add content things will get even better for those without the "I WANT MASSIVE ARMYS TO BLOB OUT THE SUN" because if I remember correctly people complained about EVE blob fest, and that small roaming gangs were more fun, well I've seen those videos of people fighting in groups, somehow they did it.

 

[Jockey79]

First thing first - No I do not want EVE numbers in a given battle. What I want is the ability to have an actual living galaxy, where you'll see plenty of player driven ships at the more popular hubs of activity. Using a term such as massive may be a bit too undefined, but for me something along the lines of 128 to 256 players on a dedicated server instance would be just perfect. Where there are fewer players, say up to 32, P2P would do a reasonable job provided it worked.

If that is what you want, why did you buy ED?
At a guess, you did research what you were buying did you?
This is not a large arena fighting game - never has been.
The closest you will get is Planetside 2 - but that has it's own problems.

...which it doesn't. Say you got an eye-patch, a wooden leg and a breath smelling of Rum. You interdict someone who submits, and before you can type in local chat 'Yaaargh give me yer loot me matey!' the prey have low-waked out (gone into supercruise). You follow suit in order to conduct more aggressive negotiations over the transfer of cargo, but the prey is nowhere to be seen. Gone into a parallel universe. That happens all the time and is just another sign of a broken MP mechanic.

Another is the severe difficulty often experienced with getting just one wing together in the same instance. Nevermind several. We get reports of enemy wing in our Powers capital, we organize, we go there - and nothing. People screaming on IRC that they are getting butt-****** by said enemy wing, but we can only pick our noses and twiddle our thumbs - because for all intents and purposes, it all takes place in a parallel universe.

I've not had this issue, none of my friends have had issues getting a wing together or losing people in super cruise.
Perhaps it is a tech issue your end or with someone you are joining?

The laundry-list of issues with the current P2P mechanic of MP instancing is game-braking for those of us that enjoy PvP combat. That's the short of it. If you don't like or want PvP, but are more than content with PvE, then fine. This thread is not for you.

For a start, these are Open forums - anyone can post, so please quit it with the "thread not for you" rubbish.
Also, this is not a PvP game, it is a game that allows PvP. There is a difference.
CQC is a PvP game when it comes out and will be more to your liking. Though, like other battle arena games it is limited in number.

 

[Cosmos]

Yes - to be honest I'm just parroting the costs thing from what I've seen other people say (that's what the internets are for innit?) but I believe it means they need fewer servers using less bandwidth with P2P doing the donkey work between players than if they have the same number of players doing everything client/server.

Plus there would presumably be a re-design cost to change to all client/server.

Typical client server networking is way easier to implement than a p2p system, one which seems to have been initially designed to work on a LAN.. Creating a working p2p system over the internet is really hard in comparison and this is evidenced by the fact that its still not right many months after release. Its also pretty much impossible to detect cheating unless you use some nodes as a gatekeeper which eventually defeats the point of using p2p in the first place. Indeed, they had a real hard time getting it to work and it would appear what we are seeing now is a result of it 'working' or being fixed.

What might be a solution, if costs are a problem, is to have a hybrid system which uses both p2p and client server when required. Whatever the resolution the present system is broken and not fit for purpose imo

 

[Draxxen]

Seems to me that the game shouldn't require advanced knowledge of how to tweak your connection to get it working properly.

I am with you on this one.
And also when there is only one game out of many you experience problems with, why should you have to start troubleshooting at all?

- - - Updated - - -

What might be a solution, if costs are a problem, is to have a hybrid system which uses both p2p and client server when required. Whatever the resolution the present system is broken and not fit for purpose imo

Would this be a benefit though?
Wouldn't this require more workarounds than creating a system based on just one model? And if you are going to fire up a server system at all, what cost difference would it be to implement a hybrid system?

 

[kurush]

This is the part that I am also wary about. Is there any guarantee that by eventually switching to a server based architecture all problems will be gone?

I doubt FDev would even consider this, after all it is mostly technical fantasies of people who may be heard some networking terms and decided to throw them on us here. What has to be done is some intelligent instance management with functions such as show all instances for the current area, show in what instance your friends are, switch instance, all 3 functions I've been using a lot in a server-based MMO. Also, ironing out the bugs from the current NetCode. After all, it appears to have some of the worst issues when people are actually playing on the same LAN, which should be an ideal situation for P2P, not the worse case scenario.

 

[FreeeLancer]

I doubt FDev would even consider this, after all it is mostly technical fantasies of people who may be heard some networking terms and decided to throw them on us here.

It has been done many times on various systems that require multiple levels of interaction.
Most banal example would be a hypothetical MMO in which gameplay is bound to small instances (which could be handled by a P2P protocol) but with global/guild/hub/whatever chats (handled by server/client infrastructure).

Of course, what we're talking about in terms of ED would be allot more complex then a simple chat server, but FDev have been quite reluctant to burden their servers with any more then what's absolutely necessary for the game to function up 'till now, so in the end it doesn't really matter.

 

[eqinox]

After all, it appears to have some of the worst issues when people are actually playing on the same LAN, which should be an ideal situation for P2P, not the worse case scenario.

This is somewhat disappointing I suppose this is somewhat dependent on both your gateway and on FDev's network code. Depending on the router's support for hairpinning / NAT loopback, traffic within the same LAN might not work, maybe you have a router that does not support it for security reasons?

FDev might have done a workaround for this though, the Logs/netLog file nowadays notices both the LAN and the WAN addresses. With any luck, the LAN addresses would be used if possible..

 

[lefty1117]

We have been complaining about this going back to original beta, if not longer. Many of the major problems with this game can be attributed to its network architecture. It's too late to change, we'll either have to accept with it or move on to something else. I've been a huge proponent of the game, though critical at times, and even my enthusiasm is starting to wane. Powerplay design is pointless when you can't counter enemy activities, and why can't you? Because people will go solo, private group, or jump out and be instanced somewhere else. Hudson will likely never be able to fortify a system because other powers will just undermine them in solo or group, for example. It's just frustration upon frustration lately, and when you pull back all the layers it seems that game network design is at the core of it. They've painted themselves into a corner.

 

[Jockey79]

We have been complaining about this going back to original beta, if not longer. Many of the major problems with this game can be attributed to its network architecture. It's too late to change, we'll either have to accept with it or move on to something else. I've been a huge proponent of the game, though critical at times, and even my enthusiasm is starting to wane. Powerplay design is pointless when you can't counter enemy activities, and why can't you? Because people will go solo, private group, or jump out and be instanced somewhere else. Hudson will likely never be able to fortify a system because other powers will just undermine them in solo or group, for example. It's just frustration upon frustration lately, and when you pull back all the layers it seems that game network design is at the core of it. They've painted themselves into a corner.

Counter are built in to the PP system.

Attack with undermine,
Counter with fortify.

What you describe is PvP - the is not a PvP based game. It is a PvE game that allows opional PvP by consent.

That is how it was pitched, DBOBE said we will control who we play with - that should have been a massive clue this game was not going to force PvP down everyones throats.

So yes, you can "counter", in the FD says - through the PP system.
No, you cannot pew pew people who don't want it. Never could and I hope never will.

 

[Draxxen]

All I know is that at the game's current state, I am forced back into solo every time I try open because of gameplay issues; Solo is far from smooth, but at least playable.
It has gotten better: at least now I can do CZ and RES with low amount of stutter in solo, which I couldn't before. So they are working on this.
Patience is a Virtue.

 

[lefty1117]

Counter are built in to the PP system.

Attack with undermine,
Counter with fortify.

What you describe is PvP - the is not a PvP based game. It is a PvE game that allows opional PvP by consent.

That is how it was pitched, DBOBE said we will control who we play with - that should have been a massive clue this game was not going to force PvP down everyones throats.

So yes, you can "counter", in the FD says - through the PP system.
No, you cannot pew pew people who don't want it. Never could and I hope never will.

What are you talking about? did you even read my post? You can't counter an undermining activity if the players choose to go solo or private group. You can't blockade them or prevent them from undermining a fortify system. Therefore if another power is determined to underme your fortification attemps, it's going to happen and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

 

[Cosmos]

From another Developers forum; 'Logs people, nothing can be done without Logs.'
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=160601

Hey thanks for linking.. Missed this

- - - Updated - - -

sadly that will be wasted time... the decisions are far above any one in this thread.... so demanding such ... is, rightly, likely to be ignored

perhaps you would be better served mowing the lawn, tidying your bedroom or just playing ED

Its not so much a demand but a constructive suggestion for the good of the game. Networking and instancing is one area of the game I often hear complaints about from pretty much everyone I have ever played with.

 

[Jockey79]

What are you talking about? did you even read my post? You can't counter an undermining activity if the players choose to go solo or private group. You can't blockade them or prevent them from undermining a fortify system. Therefore if another power is determined to underme your fortification attemps, it's going to happen and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Have you even looked at PP or tried it??

All "undermine" tasks are countered by "fortify" tasks.
And as long as the trigger is met, you stop the "undermine" regardless of how much effort the attacking team put in.

And, "blockades" have NEVER been part of ED. EVER.