So much this.
Hackers and combat loggers, the demise of ED
- Thread starter duanedibly
- Start date
- Status
So much this.
Exactamundo. There is a reason...............no repercussions. In real life they wouldn't last but a few days. On the internet they are free to cause all the chaos they can until their IP is grabbed, their location is found, and someone makes a trip to put an end to their terror.
So, let's see, I'll take the stats from here:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Day Z, peak today - 12246
Arma 2, peak today - 8286
Empire: Total War, peak today - 5358
ED, peak today - 5217
Now, let's check how many copies were sold: ED - 825k, Day Z - 3M, Arma 2 - 2.3M, Empire: Total War - 2.68M.
I think it is not that hard to calculate the percentage of people playing in relation to people who bought the game. And this clearly shows that ED is the leader among this titles. Not to mention that 5217 is the number of players who have bought or registered their copy on Steam, however, there are a lot of people who bought the game at the official store and did not link the accounts to Steam.
And there were numerous indications that FD are dealing with cheaters/hackers.
Mi rememba wen hacker be meanin someone wo actually hack
When we were young, in '84. Not these days...
It has lost a lot of its base because of lack of content (myself I havent logged on in a month - absolutely no reason to)
Be advised also you are comparing elite to games that are 3, 6, and 6 years old respectively...thats not a great comparison, elite was released what not even 12 months ago? you have to compare it to games that are of a similar age if you want to make such comparisons. Also arma 2 is still popular because of its modability. Elite doesnt have this luxury.
I think this was a good game that was ruined by poor infastructure and a slow development cycle as well as poor and insignificant policies related to (and this still continues) hacking.
More community goals would have made the game more central, powerplay tore the players apart, and then things such as undermining etc could effectively be done offline. This is not the basis of a good and well thought out game.
To this day there is no incentive to play open, and thats something that was supposed to being looked at in Feb. All these things combined mean that gamers that have access to other games and limited time, Id rather not get frustrated to hell by a game that wants to sell me DLC for rediculous amounts.
Be advised also you are comparing elite to games that are 3, 6, and 6 years old respectively...thats not a great comparison, elite was released what not even 12 months ago? you have to compare it to games that are of a similar age if you want to make such comparisons. Also arma 2 is still popular because of its modability. Elite doesnt have this luxury.
I think this was a good game that was ruined by poor infastructure and a slow development cycle as well as poor and insignificant policies related to (and this still continues) hacking.
More community goals would have made the game more central, powerplay tore the players apart, and then things such as undermining etc could effectively be done offline. This is not the basis of a good and well thought out game.
To this day there is no incentive to play open, and thats something that was supposed to being looked at in Feb. All these things combined mean that gamers that have access to other games and limited time, Id rather not get frustrated to hell by a game that wants to sell me DLC for rediculous amounts.
The only incentive to playing in Open, is knowing that you are playing in Open. It is it's own reward. It doesn't need any extra incentives, and any "bonuses" could be manipulated to obtain so easily, it would be a complete joke.
I would dispute that. Many of us went from playing COD multiplayer on the PC to xbox, because unlike the PC, hacking is rare on Xbox and requires modified hardware which is a pain. On PC all it takes is search/download/install and you're a pro.
Also, this game is no more or less difficult to hack than any other game that uses P2P architecture. While it's not as secure as a server client setup, it's used by many games just because it makes economic sense.
For all the doom and gloom, it seems to be selling briskly and is currently the #3 seller on steam. Somehow I think ED will do just fine despite the naysayers.
- - - Updated - - -
And yet...here you are. Hmmmmm.
Last edited:
Combat logging must be blocked somehow in this game. This also counts for PvE scenarios.
While I haven't seen any hacks so far, I see them on youtube with incredible turning rates, instakills and the like.
It is also true that loggers are not banned if reportet. Okey, everyone could report a player even without a reason but FD should be experienced enough to differer between rage and real reports.
I myself have reported countless of loggers and I still see them again the next day/week.
Why can't the ship just remain in space? It slows stops doing anything and is controlled by the other player(s) (not that they can move the ship but the PC should take care of both). If one ship is destroyed and the player it belongs to is offline, a message will be sent to a server and upon reconnecting the said player will see the insurance screen.
This would be in my opinion the best solution as it also covers disconnects and "wanna be disconnects".
While I haven't seen any hacks so far, I see them on youtube with incredible turning rates, instakills and the like.
It is also true that loggers are not banned if reportet. Okey, everyone could report a player even without a reason but FD should be experienced enough to differer between rage and real reports.
I myself have reported countless of loggers and I still see them again the next day/week.
Why can't the ship just remain in space? It slows stops doing anything and is controlled by the other player(s) (not that they can move the ship but the PC should take care of both). If one ship is destroyed and the player it belongs to is offline, a message will be sent to a server and upon reconnecting the said player will see the insurance screen.
This would be in my opinion the best solution as it also covers disconnects and "wanna be disconnects".
It annoys me tremendously when people don't play the game but then hang around making comments on the forum as if their opinion matters.
They're like moths to flame.
The incentive to play open lies in open being much more fun (for those that like it) than the easy modes. I and most of my friends are playing open exclusively and we would never even consider to switch to solo or group mode. Open is the only mode with any real sense of thrill and danger, without it we would probably have stopped playing out of boredom long ago.
It's something that doesn't really need to be discussed or any additional incentives added. The convinced solo/group players will never like open, no matter what kind of incentives are added, and the true open players will never switch to solo to avoid any dangerous situation, because that's exactly what they are looking for.
We just have to accept the fact that the player base is divided into solo and open players and play with those that share our conviction. A noteworthy migration between the modes does not and will never take place.
Last edited:
Think about is
You see my ship because I host my ship, like I see yours because, well, you get the picture. When I go awol, who is going to host my ship? You need something so not only you will see it, but also other members of our instance. With the host gone, and nothing else left to host it, the ship is gone.On a server dedicated architecture this is simple, the server is going to do the work for you, but on a p2p architecture things get complicated.
Last edited:
Think about is
On a server dedicated architecture this is simple, the server is going to do the work for you, but on a p2p architecture things get complicated.
I see your ship because my client is drawing the ship. All your client is doing is telling my client where it is and what it's doing. Without that data, your ship becomes a dead stick.
If you disconnect, instead of removing your ship from the game, the client could keep the ship in space for a certain period of time (known as a timeout). When that timeout is reached, the ship is removed; it's effectively a dead ship simple to an NPC vessel with no AI.
If you disconnected and were destroyed by your opponent on their client, then this information is uploaded and stored to the FD server. When you reconnect, your client retrieves its status from the FD server and applies it to your ship. So if you were destroyed, when you try to log back in you get the rebuy screen.
Last edited:
Agreed. And I play Open for this very reason.
I have to disagree on poor infrastructure, slow dev cycle and your opinions regarding undermining in solo. I think the infrastructure is solid, I haven't had very many issues with it. It could use some work but I wouldn't call it poor by any stretch.
I would say the dev cycle is pretty good considering the industry and team size. I would like to see things in the game faster, as would anyone, but I haven't even done everything the game has to offer so I cannot complain.
Undermining in solo is the same as undermining when other people are offline, or undermining in a different instance or in a group. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because it all balances out. For every guy undermining in solo there is a guy fortifying. Not literally, but the point is, how many people support a power are what effects the overall outcome and who wins from this? It doesn't matter in the end, what matters is how it contributes to an evolving narrative. It makes the game world seem more cohesive and it offers opportunities for interesting player interactions. The forums are abuzz for power play followers who enjoy discussing not only the lore but also the strategies.
Regarding your game comparisons, tomato tomahto. I really don't think the comparisons really offer any interesting discussions save for when you consider how certain gameplay elements were enjoyable and if they are transferable to Elite.
Regarding players leaving because of a lack of content - this is probably true, as much as any other reason. People leave because they want to, I'm certain there are loads of reasons spurious and legitimate; is 'lack of content' one of them? Probably. Like differing opinions - different likes and dislikes. Some will see lots to do, others not a lot. I think it is a valid concern... I also think FDEV have done well to address this and seem to have a plan to continue to address it.
i.e. they have kept releasing content and fixes, and will be continuing to do so.
Some people have been here for several years despite no ED. It's a forum, for discussion. Not to mention, they own the game, which adds a precedent for them wanting to discuss the game. It's not far-fetched.
Hell, he even describes incentives to play and lack of content so presumably, were his gripes addressed, he would play again; which makes the comment even more ridiculous
It annoys me tremendously when people don't play the game but then hang around making comments on the forum as if their opinion matters.
They're like moths to flame.
As above. It annoys me greatly when people openly dismiss others and their opinions while attempting to exclude them from a perceived social hierarchy on what is mostly an open forum with members of equal status.
I've probably missed the guy himself annoying others and I digress, but this "sorry, your name is Dave - this is the 'NoDavesAllowed' club" has always irritated me.
Last edited:
That's the way I would see it too. Except it's a little bit harsh on those with legitimate network failures or software problems. FD will need to work out some sort of balance for it.
I have explained it before, but that doesn't work. A disconnect between 2 peers doesn't mean that one of them got disconnected from the server, too. A player could even purposefully use his firewall to cut the connection to your client. Then he destroys your ship which remains in his instance and his client tells the server "OamodSias' Anaconda is destroyed". You destroy his ship and also tell the server "Ship destroyed". I bet you won't be happy, being thrown from full health to the insurance screen.
If I buy a BMW and I drive it for a few months but then never touch it again, meanwhile new versions keep coming out but I keep telling everyone how rubbish the BMW is with my experience based solely on THAT BMW, why should my opinion carry any weight at all? As far as I am concerned, if one doesn't play the game then one's commentary is meaningless; nothing but noisy fluff. *shrug*
Each to their own though; I'm not going to stop people from posting (I can't, obviously) but I don't have to approve of it.
I knew someone was going to mention that; didn't bother to include it though.
In order for that to work, the server would have to have a timeout notification from the other client. There needs to be two sources of truth.
So: You and I, for arguments sake. I don't disconnect, but you block my connection. What happens? You tell the server that you blew me up; meanwhile, the server has not received a timeout notification from my client; so it sends an "alive" request to find out if I'm still there, if I am then your notification is dismissed and flagged as suspicious.
Granted this is a drastic over-simplification, but in my experience this type of development is doable.
and what is to stop your client 'blocking' my client and thereby rendering my ship without connection on your computer? which you then destroy and that information gets uploaded to fdev?
Undoubtedly so.
- - - Updated - - -
See my previous response (directly above yours).
Last edited:
- Status