can we hope for better netcode? peer2peer sucks!

as most of you know, the game relies mostly on peer2peer connections. as all of you know, this is really bad. if you have a download run in the background or generally a bad network connection, everyone in your direct vicinity gets punished.

so, i would like to ask you frontier, do you plan to improve the netcode of the game of move away from peer2peer?

it's really infuriating to me. it makes my experience so much worse. most of the time i see another player, ships just start to warp around. i have a DSL connection with 16mbit download and 128KB upload. maybe this is the problem? maybe my connection is too for the game? i don't know. plz, just do something about it. it's 2015, why don't you just rely on good old client/server architecture? your netcode sucks, simple as that.
 
as most of you know, the game relies mostly on peer2peer connections. as all of you know, this is really bad. if you have a download run in the background or generally a bad network connection, everyone in your direct vicinity gets punished.

so, i would like to ask you frontier, do you plan to improve the netcode of the game of move away from peer2peer?

it's really infuriating to me. it makes my experience so much worse. most of the time i see another player, ships just start to warp around. i have a DSL connection with 16mbit download and 128KB upload. maybe this is the problem? maybe my connection is too for the game? i don't know. plz, just do something about it. it's 2015, why don't you just rely on good old client/server architecture? your netcode sucks, simple as that.

Do you want to pay a subscription in order to have that kind of architecture? Is it worth an extra $15/month to you?
 
Do you want to pay a subscription in order to have that kind of architecture? Is it worth an extra $15/month to you?

the game support itself via paintjobs already. there are plenty of other multiplayer games that don't require a monthly subscription. in fact, there are very few games with a subscription. so, i don't think your assessment is valid.

also, it's much more expensive to run a company than just a couple of servers (that already are there anyways).
 
If this is a new player I sympathize. I went to the starter systems before the steam release and it was a massive lag fest. I've played 800 hours and never known anything like it,

FD need to add more starter systems and spread them out a bit. New players should get out asap and find somewhere new to set up base un til FD sort it out.
 
FD need to add more starter systems and spread them out a bit. New players should get out asap and find somewhere new to set up base un til FD sort it out.

Whatever happened to 'random' starter systems...the thought of clearing my save is less than appealing
 
Whatever happened to 'random' starter systems...the thought of clearing my save is less than appealing

The only two I know of are eravate and lhs 3447. I think there are a few more for kick starter backers but if there are only 2 for new players they need to add more as if a players first experience of the game is a lag fest it doesn't do the game justice.

Starting players in lhs 3447 sucks due to the long distances as well.
 

gravityztr

Banned
as most of you know, the game relies mostly on peer2peer connections. as all of you know, this is really bad. if you have a download run in the background or generally a bad network connection, everyone in your direct vicinity gets punished.

so, i would like to ask you frontier, do you plan to improve the netcode of the game of move away from peer2peer?

it's really infuriating to me. it makes my experience so much worse. most of the time i see another player, ships just start to warp around. i have a DSL connection with 16mbit download and 128KB upload. maybe this is the problem? maybe my connection is too for the game? i don't know. plz, just do something about it. it's 2015, why don't you just rely on good old client/server architecture? your netcode sucks, simple as that.

Hi there sir, to answer your question:

I , myself, dont know much about the processus of internet share of datas, but im sure it also has a part to do with the game codes. If some parts of the game codes are complex, then it takes more power to get datas in multiplayer.... but if the overall game codes should be low in weight - then it will be much better sharing.

i guess this game has o be lower in coding. do things procedurally more. and they can always take examples from other games to get the best networking code, such as Minecraft.
 
the game's requirements don't indicate what type of connection you need either. it only states broadband internet connection. DSL counts as broadband internet, so theoretically i should be fine as well. but then there's still the fact that the game handles most of it's networking via peer2peer. so, if anyone in my system has a crappy connection for whatever reason (maybe a background download), everyone in that system has a bad experience. with a client/server architecture there are things like lag compensation that smooth these things out.

so, if you say that it's fine for you, that doesn't really mean a lot. you are not the only variable in this equation. if certain factors are present, you get a different outcome that may not be fine for you.

to tell you the truth, if the networking doesn't get improved, i will really think twice if i really want to invest in further expansions. i haven't bought the game because of it's singleplayer component.
 
to tell you the truth, if the networking doesn't get improved, i will really think twice if i really want to invest in further expansions. i haven't bought the game because of it's singleplayer component.

You say you didn't buy the game and still complain about the P2P networking without having played it.

ED does need multiple starter systems to reduce lag.
 
Last edited:
You say you didn't buy the game and still complain about the P2P networking without having played it.

ED does need multiple starter systems to reduce lag.

lol, i did buy it but i did not buy it for it's singleplayer component. i bought it for it's multiplayer.

about starter systems: the game already uses instancing. so, it's actually impossible to have more than 32 players per instance/system. creating more starter systems would not help, because there is already instancing that should manage the amount of players per system.
 
lol, i did buy it but i did not buy it for it's singleplayer component. i bought it for it's multiplayer.

about starter systems: the game already uses instancing. so, it's actually impossible to have more than 32 players per instance/system. creating more starter systems would not help, because there is already instancing that should manage the amount of players per system.
OK, so you are an Internet/games Xspurt, spraying buzwords arround like fury, so please could you explain, in simplistic terms, for a septagenerian, the implications of p2pnetcode and instancing, and its effect on how the game plays, because I've been playing since Beta2, and not met a single CMNDR, and I believe that may be due to my router - or something hi tek like that, or even my physical location in the world - no mans land - north of Watford where Woad wearing is manitory, and South of Watford Gap where wearing pinstripe Pearl Button coats is manditory... ;)
I may joke, but the quiery is serious, as most people seem to assume I have a PhD in computer science - there was no Computer Science when I went to school, I helped to make it happen but was too busy getting things working to learn all the new Buzwords and their implications...
Mike
 
You say you didn't buy the game and still complain about the P2P networking without having played it.

ED does need multiple starter systems to reduce lag.
I am really curious how having more starting systems would help here? By making people start essentially solo? There is Open-specific lag when some people in your instance have bad connections. I hope they optimize that instead and make it so that only people with bad connections suffer this lag. Also, last time I checked it wasn't horrible. Did you guys check your routers? :) I think FD needs to display some indicators on your connection quality so that you can understand who's connection is at fault.
 
Last edited:
p2pnetcode and instancing

to explain peer2peer i would like to point you to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

short version: a multiplayer game with peer2peer relies on the player's connection. if you play with another player that has a bad connection, you feel that, too. with traditional client/server architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client–server_model), the server has methods of compensate the lag, making it more smooth for everyone. lag compensation has other downsides but if you have a good connection, you most likely have a good experience.

instancing are basically copies of the gameworld (this includes systems, stations, RES's, USS's, etc.). so, when there are 32 people in your instance, the game basically creates a new instance and puts players in until that one is full and so forth.

that's the reason why it wouldn't make any sense to create more starter systems, because the game already manages the maximum amount of players per instance. basically, the game prevents it so that too many people are at the same spot.
 
Last edited:
to explain peer2peer i would like to point you to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

short version: a multiplayer game with peer2peer relies on the player's connection. if you play with another player that has a bad connection, you feel that, too. with traditional client/server architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client–server_model), the server has methods of compensate the lag, making it more smooth for everyone. lag compensation has other downsides but if you have a good connection, you most likely have a good experience.

instancing are basically copies of the gameworld (this includes systems, stations, RES's, USS's, etc.). so, when there are 32 people in your instance, the game basically creates a new instance and puts players in until that one is full and so forth.

that's the reason why it wouldn't make any sense to create more starter systems, because the game already manages the maximum amount of players per instance. basically, the game prevents it so that too many people are at the same spot.
Thats a nice sounding bundle of words, which tells me exactly nothing, though I havn't read through wikipeadia yet...
Em
 
Do you want to pay a subscription in order to have that kind of architecture? Is it worth an extra $15/month to you?

Yup ... ED Take my money, keep improving and give me some servers, the potential is soooo much more, i'm thinking EVE here ... look at what this could be not what it is now!
For the elite few there's always the option to earn enough to pay your subscription again like in eve.


I'm on a T1 (1mbit/s) and it's fine.

I'm one of the lucky few with a 150mbit/s line and I still see lag on the odd occasion purely because of the p2p nature of the code (odd that friends sharing my line however don't always end up in my instance ... !).
I would rather pay a premium and know that I would get that premium experience delivered by a tier 1 server than not pay it and have my experience of ED effected by some dude in remote france on dial up.

to explain peer2peer i would like to point you to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

short version: a multiplayer game with peer2peer relies on the player's connection. if you play with another player that has a bad connection, you feel that, too. with traditional client/server architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client–server_model), the server has methods of compensate the lag, making it more smooth for everyone. lag compensation has other downsides but if you have a good connection, you most likely have a good experience.

instancing are basically copies of the gameworld (this includes systems, stations, RES's, USS's, etc.). so, when there are 32 people in your instance, the game basically creates a new instance and puts players in until that one is full and so forth.

that's the reason why it wouldn't make any sense to create more starter systems, because the game already manages the maximum amount of players per instance. basically, the game prevents it so that too many people are at the same spot.

This simply points out why ED will never have world class features unless we move to a subscription based data center driven architecture.


Devs:
Please do this, and then we can think seriously big!!!
 
This simply points out why ED will never have world class features unless we move to a subscription based data center driven architecture.


Devs:
Please do this, and then we can think seriously big!!!
It would be a different game, so why don't you go play Eve instead that has the model you are looking for? We have a choice and it is a good thing.
 
It would be a different game, so why don't you go play Eve instead that has the model you are looking for? We have a choice and it is a good thing.

I agree it would be different but it's not eve i'm expecting here ...
ED caters for the flight junky, getting right in on the action being the core goal.
eve feels to me like more of a spreadsheet manager for space based economies.

With a galaxy this big it seems a waste to have no team play aspect to the game.
 
Thats a nice sounding bundle of words, which tells me exactly nothing, though I havn't read through wikipeadia yet...
Em


This might be a simple image for you.

A central online game is like sitting in a stadium watching a sport, thousands of users in one place watching the same thing.

a P2P Scenario is like

Sitting in a living room/pub with 32 friends all watching the same sport on the TV.

So the instances are lots of homes/pubs with limit number of people.


hope this helps.
 
I don't know, I kind of like it being P2P. Server-based MMO's will inevitably be shut down at some point - and no one will be able to play once the servers go down. Making it P2P means you can have a player community as long as players continue to play the game. As for features, there is no reason they couldn't make expansion packs. I'm not talking P2W or microtransactions here - I mean full-featured expansion packs that add lots of new stuff to the game. IMO that's what I would want to see.

And really, what percentage of subscription MMO's these days don't end up going F2P or P2W because of lackluster sales? Especially with a niche game like a space combat simulator? If they had charged a sub, it would probably have ended up with a P2W model by the end of one year.

One problem if they did go the expansion pack route they would either have to update the base game to be compatible with players using the new stuff, or segregate the expansion pack players from the base game players. Either way it would take a little finagling but I think it could be done. I would prefer everyone to be in one game world, myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom