Is 'smart' instancing possible (C&P related)

[Cliffson]

I know nothing about networking so am wondering if the below could work.

One of the issues which gets mentioned when the actions of emergent content providers (ECPs) trigger a deluge of crime and punishment threads is that players who want to oppose the actions of the ECPs cannot instance with them.

I was wondering if it is possible for FD to introduce some kind of smart instancing to make it more likely for them to be together.

This could be triggered actively, by say having a toggle option 'bounty hunt players' which increases the instancing likelihood with wanted players (good for masocistic traders too).

Or passively, say if you have a pure combat ship or kws fitted.

 

[Andovar]

anything is possible.
But they still haven't fixed basic instancing issues with wings. They need to fix that (and other instancing issues) before trying to customize instances.

 

[Frenotx]

I know that something like you're describing is possible, and that at least at one point, FD was considering that. Solo, private group, and open ate all technically the same; all that changes is who is listed as a valid peer for building an instance. Anyone with a good connection for open, only people in the group for private, and nobody for solo. For what you're describing, all FDev would need to do is move wanted players to the top of your "potential peers" list when deciding who to connect you to. Bear in mind that there would still be limitations such as who you can form an effective connection with, how many people are already connected to that group, etc.

For reference, for a while FDev was considering have a module our other mechanism with which you could track and follow a player, even if they went into solo mode. That is, such a device would override their valid connections list, and force you to be an option no matter what move you were in.

In my opinion, it would be awesome if when you committed a crime against a PLAYER, anyone with an "on the hunt" mode toggled on (kinda like the "report crimes" toggle) could still get instanced with you, regardless of what mode you went in for the duration of the bounty. Combine that with larger bounties for committing crimes against players, and a more effective way to track down offenders, and suddenly you've got a far more engaging and effective crime and punishment system.

 

[Cliffson]

Good info @frenotx was not aware of that. Would be awesome if they dusted off that idea.

I feel that a lot of the talk around bounties / cost to criminal focus too much on deterrance and after the fact.

If systems are ever going to be made safe they're either going to have to reintroduced engineered super npcs for security forces, or addrss the instancibg issues.

 

[lysan]

Anyone know where the heck the log files for the net connecting are in the ED folder? I simply can't find it, and the guidance from FD is not equal to my installation? (standard)

 

[Frenotx]

Anyone know where the heck the log files for the net connecting are in the ED folder? I simply can't find it, and the guidance from FD is not equal to my installation? (standard)

Are you sure you have the verbose logging turned on?

 

[lysan]

Are you sure you have the verbose logging turned on?

Yes,

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/278911-Instant-freeze-when-exiting-to-station-or-planet

Even raised a ticket but I can't find the log file :/

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

I know that something like you're describing is possible, and that at least at one point, FD was considering that. Solo, private group, and open ate all technically the same; all that changes is who is listed as a valid peer for building an instance. Anyone with a good connection for open, only people in the group for private, and nobody for solo. For what you're describing, all FDev would need to do is move wanted players to the top of your "potential peers" list when deciding who to connect you to. Bear in mind that there would still be limitations such as who you can form an effective connection with, how many people are already connected to that group, etc.

For reference, for a while FDev was considering have a module our other mechanism with which you could track and follow a player, even if they went into solo mode. That is, such a device would override their valid connections list, and force you to be an option no matter what move you were in.

In my opinion, it would be awesome if when you committed a crime against a PLAYER, anyone with an "on the hunt" mode toggled on (kinda like the "report crimes" toggle) could still get instanced with you, regardless of what mode you went in for the duration of the bounty. Combine that with larger bounties for committing crimes against players, and a more effective way to track down offenders, and suddenly you've got a far more engaging and effective crime and punishment system.

The problem being of course is that some people who play Solo have done so because they've no inclination of dealing with the kind of people who frequent open, that's why Solo exists, it's for people to get away from the kind of behaviour that populates open. If Frontier were in any way able or willing to prevent or police the kind of issues that exist, then open would not be such a cesspit, but we are where we are. Whilst anything might be "possible", the nature of client trusted, p2p oriented netcode means that it's -extremely- unlikely that we'll see any evolution of the current model for any time in the foreseeable future. That would mean fixing their netcode to which I say:

"Best of luck gentlemen, go collect your hazmat suits and your torches, dark, monstrous things lurk in code that's been mutated and modified over several years, and madness lies in trying to fix netcode that's old and hackity."

 

[Luponator]

The problem being of course is that some people who play Solo have done so because they've no inclination of dealing with the kind of people who frequent open, that's why Solo exists, it's for people to get away from the kind of behaviour that populates open. If Frontier were in any way able or willing to prevent or police the kind of issues that exist, then open would not be such a cesspit, but we are where we are. Whilst anything might be "possible", the nature of client trusted, p2p oriented netcode means that it's -extremely- unlikely that we'll see any evolution of the current model for any time in the foreseeable future. That would mean fixing their netcode to which I say:

"Best of luck gentlemen, go collect your hazmat suits and your torches, dark, monstrous things lurk in code that's been mutated and modified over several years, and madness lies in trying to fix netcode that's old and hackity."

Not only that, it's an economics question. The current AWS setup is already creaking under the load at times- and that's just for a tiny fraction of events which would have to be handled server-side. Won't happen.

 

[Frenotx]

The problem being of course is that some people who play Solo have done so because they've no inclination of dealing with the kind of people who frequent open, that's why Solo exists, it's for people to get away from the kind of behaviour that populates open. If Frontier were in any way able or willing to prevent or police the kind of issues that exist, then open would not be such a cesspit, but we are where we are. Whilst anything might be "possible", the nature of client trusted, p2p oriented netcode means that it's -extremely- unlikely that we'll see any evolution of the current model for any time in the foreseeable future. That would mean fixing their netcode to which I say:

"Best of luck gentlemen, go collect your hazmat suits and your torches, dark, monstrous things lurk in code that's been mutated and modified over several years, and madness lies in trying to fix netcode that's old and hackity."

You may notice that I specified "for crime against players". The only way to commit a crime against a player, and thus the only way to end up in that "huntable in any mode" is to play in a non-solo mode. Solo-only commanders would experience no change.

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Not only that, it's an economics question. The current AWS setup is already creaking under the load at times- and that's just for a tiny fraction of events which would have to be handled server-side. Won't happen.

That's more to do with the fact AWS is hideously unsuitable for realtime workloads. AWS's strength has always been in big data / datamining / search optimisation / database stuff. Trying to get AWS to handle a realtime load (like they tried with the reboot of Simcity) is a bit like bringing a tractor to a rally. Sure you'll get to the other end and likely on all four wheels too, but you'll not do it very efficiently, or very quickly.

 

[Mephane]

You may notice that I specified "for crime against players". The only way to commit a crime against a player, and thus the only way to end up in that "huntable in any mode" is to play in a non-solo mode. Solo-only commanders would experience no change.

It would be exploited, guaranteed. Fly unshielded ship into line of fire of other player, *poof* they become wanted and now unable to play without your people interfering.

 

[shadragon]

Log file location thread.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/75868-Log-files

 

[Aymerith]

It would be exploited, guaranteed. Fly unshielded ship into line of fire of other player, *poof* they become wanted and now unable to play without your people interfering.

How do you fly in front of another player when they're in solo mode?

 

[ForeverN00b]

The reports of Open being a cesspit are highly overstated.

Seriously, if you never played open and only read the forums, you would think that hostile interactions are the norm....but they aren't. It's just that hostile interactions get a lot more publicity than normal CMDR hellos.

Edit: To the OP, smart instancing would be possible, but first FD has to make regular instancing possible.
Kinda like you have to learn how to walk before you can run.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I know nothing about networking so am wondering if the below could work.

One of the issues which gets mentioned when the actions of emergent content providers (ECPs) trigger a deluge of crime and punishment threads is that players who want to oppose the actions of the ECPs cannot instance with them.

I was wondering if it is possible for FD to introduce some kind of smart instancing to make it more likely for them to be together.

This could be triggered actively, by say having a toggle option 'bounty hunt players' which increases the instancing likelihood with wanted players (good for masocistic traders too).

Or passively, say if you have a pure combat ship or kws fitted.

Bounty hunting is meaningless unless something's done about combat logging/menu logging/Sidewinder into station wall.

 

[Soopyyy]

The reports of Open being a cesspit are highly overstated.

Seriously, if you never played open and only read the forums, you would think that hostile interactions are the norm....but they aren't. It's just that hostile interactions get a lot more publicity than normal CMDR hellos.

Edit: To the OP, smart instancing would be possible, but first FD has to make regular instancing possible.
Kinda like you have to learn how to walk before you can run.

This is putting it lightly.

The vast majority of players are quite pleasant.

 

[ForeverN00b]

Bounty hunting is meaningless unless something's done about combat logging/menu logging/Sidewinder into station wall.

Agreed. I wouldn't hold your breath on the menu logging part, that is a design feature.

For combat logging, I don't understand why the devs haven't coded it where if someone disconnects, they are treated as AFK with an auto menu log.

The suicidewinder issue is also a little more complicated IMO. I think the reason they don't change it is because it would make it more open to exploit (but it is already open to exploit, so it is a no-win situation).

How would you change it so that if you need a bounty cleared, you don't just call up your friend and have him murder you and keep the cash? It is a win-win for both players.