I'm not cheating, I'm too lazy for that.... but everone else must be as we have been told it must be so by someone or another...
Notice A statement on cheating in Elite Dangerous.
- Status
Hmmm maybe a dumb question but maybe some one has a smart answer ...
what would happen if the mayoritie of the player base would boykott elite for lets say 2 to 3 days and not playing it ?
would it bring attention to the situation or would everything stay the same
just a idea ..........
the game lives from the players not the players from the game
what would happen if the mayoritie of the player base would boykott elite for lets say 2 to 3 days and not playing it ?
would it bring attention to the situation or would everything stay the same
just a idea ..........
the game lives from the players not the players from the game
It's about spending money.
Good luck organising that
Frontier would save money on AWS rental for those few days. If you want to be an inconvenience just organise mass simultaneous jumps like DW2 did.
Goose4291
Banned
It's an interesting thing, because Battleeye was an engine developed for a team who had little experience in Multiplayer antics (Bohemia) for a game engine that encouraged the use of client side scripts (VBS) where you wouldn't even think the other side would have cheated, until DayZ became the media sensation it was.
If there's something that could work for solving issues within the Cobra engine, I'd put money on it being battle eye
Just the ones that are trying hard enough.
Us relaxed types just muddling along doing stuff as and when aren't as it isn't fun and far too stressful probably.
Seems that happened years ago, for two or three years. Still moving along.
This maybe an off topic but it does feed into the cheating in some way. If the cheaters are perma-banned to solo that can't influence BGS....well isn't that offline solo mode? Isn't that what a lot of players wanted from the start? Can players then go ahead and mod that mode? After all they aren't harming anyone from that point. Would like to hear Fdev's answer to that. Especially when so many people in the past said right on these forums that it was "impossible to do".
Sigh
We see this loudly claimed over and over, and it's just not true. Now it could certainly be the case that this would be hard to do with the network stack we currently have, but we are not in a position to know that short of reverse-engineering. There is nothing magical about client-server vs peer-to-peer, with proper design and appropriate resources roughly the same space of solutions is accessible using either architectural model. And as it happens, we know that the game as it stands now uses elements of both.
Now if you think you or someone you know can do a better job, I expect you'll be excited to pass along this open job listing:
Are they paying £75k+? Are they paying relocation fees?
Nope didn't think so.
A quick search on google, showed me how to disable battle eye.
Goose4291
Banned
Yep it's disable-able.
However, what happens is if you're not running it whilst either joining or connected to a server that requires it, then the server punts you out of the game
A proxy service. Not going into specifics.
They are still connected, its not offline. They just can't affect anything. People say real offline is impossible, i doubt that, but in this case its not offline. They still communicate with the servers, and if truly offline
FD can't condone any modification of files for modding unless they have tested it first and given it the ok. Like with the hacks, who knows if it will have any knock on effect?
Regardless, if someone really wants to cheat and affect the BGS, they can just use a new account.
In theory, there's a way to thwart cheaters in a pvp environment. It requires the old fashioned way of assigning 1 peer as a "resolve server", responsible for managing the change in variables while the instance runs.
The premise is this; if one player gets advantage against the other (doing more damage for example), the server-assigned-status jumps to the loosing player. So the one responsible for verifying the instance variables is always the player on the loosing side. If all players are fighting fair, the game will resolve as it was supposed to. But if one of the players is a cheater, he will get his cheats overrided by the server rules. If all players are cheating, well, then the game resolve will keep jumping around, balancing out the damage in one weird lenghty battle that no one will care to watch anyway. XD
This method balances out ping differences too. The only thing that needs to be added to it, is substituting a logged-off player by an NPC if it happens during combat, and revoke his server-status if he had one.
Maybe even, the same could be used if the server-assigned computer identified another player trying to "fake" the combat data. That player would be kicked out of the instance, and an NPC placed in his stead. Maybe even send the flag to Frontier servers, warning them of that player's suspicious behavior. After a good number of similar flags, that player would be shadow-banned (This could backfire, as a hacker could start sending these flags for every other player, and eventually shadow-ban innocents. But at least, these flags could warn frontier to investigate in a case-by-case basis.)
The premise is this; if one player gets advantage against the other (doing more damage for example), the server-assigned-status jumps to the loosing player. So the one responsible for verifying the instance variables is always the player on the loosing side. If all players are fighting fair, the game will resolve as it was supposed to. But if one of the players is a cheater, he will get his cheats overrided by the server rules. If all players are cheating, well, then the game resolve will keep jumping around, balancing out the damage in one weird lenghty battle that no one will care to watch anyway. XD
This method balances out ping differences too. The only thing that needs to be added to it, is substituting a logged-off player by an NPC if it happens during combat, and revoke his server-status if he had one.
Maybe even, the same could be used if the server-assigned computer identified another player trying to "fake" the combat data. That player would be kicked out of the instance, and an NPC placed in his stead. Maybe even send the flag to Frontier servers, warning them of that player's suspicious behavior. After a good number of similar flags, that player would be shadow-banned (This could backfire, as a hacker could start sending these flags for every other player, and eventually shadow-ban innocents. But at least, these flags could warn frontier to investigate in a case-by-case basis.)
Last edited:
The reason cheating exists is because ED is not pushing the GPU hard enough, allowing lots of extra cycles and threads to remain free for these hacking tools to run on. If Frontier would just jack up the shadow quality, it would these tools of the processing power they need 
Last edited:
![[VR] M4st0d0n](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/182/182772.jpg?1569064854){kind=avatar}
The reason cheating exists is because ED is not pushing the GPU hard enough, allowing lots of extra cycles and threads to remain free for these hacking tools to run on. If Frontier would just jack up the shadow quality, it would these tools of the processing power they need
Seems like Cobra engine development hit it's ceiling I'm afraid. But it seems they could add more filters. You could have a blurry filter over another blur filter. Should be enough botox to make any leathery butt silky smooth.
But for now I'll advise to be just really drunk while playing.
I really miss the good old days when the 'Hotel California' thread was a thing. Now this one's got potential I grant you, but it's just not living up to what's gone before.
Young people today don't know how lucky they've got it... back in my day threads were threads... and the warriors had two black-key keyboards... ...oh, I'm misting up...
Young people today don't know how lucky they've got it... back in my day threads were threads... and the warriors had two black-key keyboards... ...oh, I'm misting up...
clever concept, but a very complex solution that gives you at best a 'trustable source' that is actually running 'server work' on a client node running on consumer grade hardware and connection. that's going to be even worse performance.
but i see theorical problems as well. how would 50 peers even agree who is 'loosing'? besides that being subjective, assuming you could have a discrete 'looser rating', how could they trust the others to report the correct number? the winning side just has to report higher 'looser rating' to claim/keep authority.
pretty much sums up my opinion on this. glad to fully agree for once! cheers!
- Status