another thought... about the update

RevCaoticFox

RevCaoticFox
before, when talking about CLOG solutions... FDEV claims that there is not an all-powerful AI waiting around to pilot Player ships when they log off...
but if there is an AI to dock, undock, & fly in SC...
Why cant it pilot my ship if I CLOG???
 

StuartGT

StuartGT
If you're clogging the toilet I advise contacting a plumber (to clear the blockage), and perhaps a doctor too (for anti-clogging medication).

Neither FDev nor an AI can assist you.
 

S3B4ST13N

S
RevCaoticFox said:
I want an ELITE AI to take over MY SHIP when I CLOG
Click to expand...
You'll get Mostly Harmless and you'll be thankful.

I can't see why Frontier can't implement this though. The game can spawn NPC's already.. so...

If the player disconnects from the game:
  1. Remove the player ship from the instance,
  2. Generate a mirror image ship piloted by an NPC of comparable rank to the player who left; that NPC ship is linked to the player.
If the player reconnects whilst the NPC is still active:
  1. De-spawn the NPC and replace it with the player ship.
  2. Allow for a n second grace window where the returning player can't be killed (FSD/Boost disabled during this time)
  3. Player takes a damage penalty equal to a % of the damage taken by the NPC ship
If the player reconnects after the NPC has been destroyed:
  1. The player is sent to the rebuy screen.
 

Stealthie

Stealthie
RedPaintedPaw said:
I can't see why Frontier can't implement this though. The game can spawn NPC's already.. so...

If the player disconnects from the game:
  1. Remove the player ship from the instance,
  2. Generate a mirror image ship piloted by an NPC of comparable rank to the player who left; that NPC ship is linked to the player.
If the player reconnects whilst the NPC is still active:
  1. De-spawn the NPC and replace it with the player ship.
  2. Allow for a n second grace window where the returning player can't be killed (FSD/Boost disabled during this time)
  3. Player takes a damage penalty equal to a % of the damage taken by the NPC ship
If the player reconnects after the NPC has been destroyed:
  1. The player is sent to the rebuy screen.
Click to expand...

It's a hideously terrible idea because it encourages the weaponisation of P2P manipulation tools.

1. I interdict you.
2. I twiddle some software and you get disconnected from the game.
3. I destroy your NPC-piloted ship.
4. LOL.
 

hardtopnet

hardtopnet
RedPaintedPaw said:
You'll get Mostly Harmless and you'll be thankful.

I can't see why Frontier can't implement this though. The game can spawn NPC's already.. so...

If the player disconnects from the game:
  1. Remove the player ship from the instance,
  2. Generate a mirror image ship piloted by an NPC of comparable rank to the player who left; that NPC ship is linked to the player.
If the player reconnects whilst the NPC is still active:
  1. De-spawn the NPC and replace it with the player ship.
  2. Allow for a n second grace window where the returning player can't be killed (FSD/Boost disabled during this time)
  3. Player takes a damage penalty equal to a % of the damage taken by the NPC ship
If the player reconnects after the NPC has been destroyed:
  1. The player is sent to the rebuy screen.
Click to expand...

I'd add:

  • If player disconnects ungracefully, ship is replaced with an equivalent NPC
  • NPC's AI state is set as how current NPC AI's when low on hull ==> try & low/hi wake.
  • If NPC wakes, all is good. It's deinstanced & player will reconnect to same spot in a new instance (because only the client can remember last spawn position ?)
  • If NPC is destroyed, there needs be another player to witness it & update a flag to the clogger's entry, sothat when he/she reconnects, the client can detect the ship was destroyed and present a rebuy screen.
 

hardtopnet

hardtopnet
Stealthie said:
It's a hideously terrible idea because it encourages the weaponisation of P2P manipulation tools.

1. I interdict you.
2. I twiddle some software and you get disconnected from the game.
3. I destroy your NPC-piloted ship.
4. LOL.
Click to expand...

which is against TOS, we shouldn't be discouraged from implementing meaningful mechanics because some guys will try & abuse them the illegal way.
cheating is always a breach of TOS and susceptible to banning, so whatever mechanics are added if they are abused with unauthorized methods it's a ban, period.
 

Stealthie

Stealthie
hardtopnet said:
which is against TOS, we shouldn't be discouraged from implementing meaningful mechanics because some guys will try & abuse them the illegal way.
cheating is always a breach of TOS and susceptible to banning, so whatever mechanics are added if they are abused with unauthorized methods it's a ban, period.
Click to expand...

This ISN'T a "meaningful mechanic" though.

It's simply an attempt to mitigate one exploit which creates a much bigger, more dangerous, one.

It's like suggesting it'd deter muggings if everybody had their own personal nuclear device.
 

hardtopnet

hardtopnet
it IS a meaningful mechanic for PvP combat, which is plagued with combat logging issues (which are considered cheating as well)
 

S3B4ST13N

S
Stealthie said:
It's a hideously terrible idea because it encourages the weaponisation of P2P manipulation tools.

1. I interdict you.
2. I twiddle some software and you get disconnected from the game.
3. I destroy your NPC-piloted ship.
4. LOL.
Click to expand...
Heh. They probably shouldn't have gone with P2P then. :p

Counter-suggestion then, perhaps the game could simply assume the worst of you (you dirty Clogger), and kill you outright if you don't make it back online within a certain time frame? Harsh, but definitely preventable; though that too might encourage the "weaponisation of P2P" as you say.

However, maybe that's what the game needs? If enough people start abusing the P2P mechanic; perhaps it could give Frontier the ammo they need to help combat it (more intel = more knowledge = better ways to protect against it)? Or push them into the dedicated server realm (super wishful thinking).
 
Last edited:

Sylow

Sylow
Stealthie said:
It's a hideously terrible idea because it encourages the weaponisation of P2P manipulation tools.

1. I interdict you.
2. I twiddle some software and you get disconnected from the game.
3. I destroy your NPC-piloted ship.
4. LOL.
Click to expand...

No need to twiddle anything. You can cut down the scenario to this:
1. Two players get into a fight.
2. The game has P2P issues once again. They happen often enough without anybody doing anything forbidden.
3. BOTH players now are fighting against an NPC ship.
4. BOTH players can handle fighting an NPC and shoot them down.
5. BOTH players will face the rebuy screen at their next login.

Way to go. One of the best thought out suggestions we ever had here... :D;)
 

S3B4ST13N

S
Sylow said:
No need to twiddle anything. You can cut down the scenario to this:
1. Two players get into a fight.
2. The game has P2P issues once again. They happen often enough without anybody doing anything forbidden.
3. BOTH players now are fighting against an NPC ship.
4. BOTH players can handle fighting an NPC and shoot them down.
5. BOTH players will face the rebuy screen at their next login.

Way to go. One of the best thought out suggestions we ever had here... :D;)
Click to expand...
Oh, I wasn't aware there was a requirement in place to making a suggestion viable (with room for improvement/changes). My apologies.
Next time, I'll hash out the entire suggestion from business requirement, to concept to technical specification, it'll include flow charts, a restructure of the JSON transfer data as well as database table creation/changes, any UI/UX designs as well as a detailed document on security concerns/adjustments/implementations around P2P networking. ;)

FYI: It is possible to identify the differences between combat logging vs other P2P issues.
 
Last edited:

Sylow

Sylow
RedPaintedPaw said:
Oh, I wasn't aware there was a requirement in place to making a suggestion viable (with room for improvement/changes). My apologies.
Next time, I'll hash out the entire suggestion from business requirement, to concept to technical specification, it'll include flow charts, a restructure of the JSON transfer data as well as database table creation/changes, any UI/UX designs as well as a detailed document on security concerns/adjustments/implementations around P2P networking. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow. Quite some reflex you have here. I just pointed out an obvious flaw. I experienced something like i explained already. Two people fighting next to a station, me watching. Suddenly both flew off in a straight line, shooting at empty space. Then both of them started to complain that the other one combat logged. (The time they were shooting at empty space, they were attacking a virtual ship on their computer, where their system did not get position updates any more, so merely lag-reduction algorithms still moved the ship. )

I still saw both of them in my instance. I was able to communicate with both of them. Neither of them believed me that i still saw both of them and that i got the messages from both of them. It's a classical IP split, for which P2P is very prone.

So i am very sorry for pointing out the obvious flaw of your suggestion and for offending you by doing that. Feel free to rage on and make wild suggestions.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
RedPaintedPaw said:
If the player disconnects from the game:
  1. Remove the player ship from the instance,
  2. Generate a mirror image ship piloted by an NPC of comparable rank to the player who left; that NPC ship is linked to the player.
If the player reconnects whilst the NPC is still active:
  1. De-spawn the NPC and replace it with the player ship.
  2. Allow for a n second grace window where the returning player can't be killed (FSD/Boost disabled during this time)
  3. Player takes a damage penalty equal to a % of the damage taken by the NPC ship
If the player reconnects after the NPC has been destroyed:
  1. The player is sent to the rebuy screen.
Click to expand...
A slight alternative suggestion:

  • if you disconnect, the game remembers what ships were in the instance at that point on the server (player or NPC), what state they were in, and which ones were attacking you (it might be a few seconds behind, in the case of a non-menu exit, of course, but close enough)
  • when you reconnect, it puts them back in the instance, replacing any players with NPCs
  • any ships shooting at you before you disconnected continue to shoot at you afterwards

If someone manipulates the network to force a disconnection against you, then all that happens is when you reconnect you get to fight an NPC version of them. Which will probably be less dangerous, so no harm done. Conversely if you combat log while losing, you still have to get away from the Elite NPC flying a properly built engineered ship, which will be easier but nowhere near guaranteed. You only get sent to the rebuy screen if you can't beat/flee from the NPC.

As a big bonus - and the main actual reason I'm suggesting it - it'd mean that if you have a random server drop/disconnect while fighting a mission-specific NPC, or half way through a CZ or Scenario, you can log back in and carry on rather than having to start over. Conversely, miners who had taken the time to make sure their instance was clear before starting to mine would then reappear back in an empty instance if they got disconnected half-way through. Indeed, it'd probably be rather more popular as a PvE continuity feature than for its PvP effects. If the doorbell rings or whatever during a big PvE fight, you can just menu log, knowing that it'll still be there when you reconnect! (They could trim the menu log timer to zero, in that case, for added convenience)
 

S3B4ST13N

S
Sylow said:
Wow. Quite some reflex you have here. I just pointed out an obvious flaw. I experienced something like i explained already. Two people fighting next to a station, me watching. Suddenly both flew off in a straight line, shooting at empty space. Then both of them started to complain that the other one combat logged. (The time they were shooting at empty space, they were attacking a virtual ship on their computer, where their system did not get position updates any more, so merely lag-reduction algorithms still moved the ship. )

I still saw both of them in my instance. I was able to communicate with both of them. Neither of them believed me that i still saw both of them and that i got the messages from both of them. It's a classical IP split, for which P2P is very prone.

So i am very sorry for pointing out the obvious flaw of your suggestion and for offending you by doing that. Feel free to rage on and make wild suggestions.
Click to expand...
Though my response was made tongue-in-cheek, maybe rather point out the "obvious" flaw without the sarcasm; it tends to send the wrong message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom