I challenge Frontier Developements!

Moving to a server based architecture for P2P would require quite a substantial rewrite of the netcode, with some sort of client-server reconciliation needed (so that both players can agree on their positions etc). The netcode for a lot of FPSes behaves differently for low ping and high ping players. Any ping over 70 or 80 becomes increasingly hard to play and you're forced to aim differently with hitscan weapons. P2P is going to give you the best ping difference and the lowest level of packet loss (introducing a 3rd machine into the network is clearly only going to increase the ping). It's also expensive for Frontier, and hence ultimately us. It does make weeding out hackers a bit easier, but it's by no means the ultimate answer - check the forums for your favourite server moderated FPS and search for 'hacker'.

At least with P2P both players in a fight have the same ping to each other. With a server based architecture, one player is going to have a ping advantage and depending on the netcode it's not necessarily the low ping player that benefits.
 
Last edited:
Well they still decide what information will be sent.

ping has nothing to do with bandwidth. if you do have 2000ms ping with your peer then data optimization could help but never solve the problem.

just pointing that out, i totally agree with your post. blaming it on p2p is no excuse, nobody asked for any specific architecture.

that said, i don't see this changing anytime soon, i guess it's take it or leave it.
 
Hi, have you heard of physics. There's this thing where electrical signals can only propagate so fast over copper. Also light can only go so fast through fibre. The problem is that you aren't physically close enough to everyone else. So just skootch in a little. You know just pick up your PC and drive like 3000k to the other guy. Then you'll be under 100ms.

Yeah, physics. Umm... You do know you can send a signal faster then the speed of light with a long enough copper cable, right?

The issue is the way our global internet infrastructure has been built. With a direct connection from my house in the UK to someone's house in Australia, Frontier's p2p would work fine. Now where did I put that spare trillion pounds to get a new cable installed :)
 
Yeah, physics. Umm... You do know you can send a signal faster then the speed of light with a long enough copper cable, right?

The issue is the way our global internet infrastructure has been built. With a direct connection from my house in the UK to someone's house in Australia, Frontier's p2p would work fine. Now where did I put that spare trillion pounds to get a new cable installed :)

It's not even the method use. Or the topology. People are rambling on about p2p or c/s like (either) are some kind of disease and getting all worked up. It comes down to how the client processes changes within the instance it's connected to, versus data shipped between individual clients over p2p.

It's very evident that p2p matchmaking rules now regulate who can peer with whom; this is the quick and dirty approach really anyone would take to solve high latency impacting real-time mechanics, whilst investigation and works are ongoing to improve the experience sufficient that such blunt-force rules aren't required. The thing is, it's not immediately clear that that isn't actually the 'improve the experience' solution.

Mobius now have at least two groups. Over time I can see that become three. EU, US and potentially SEA. Because this is where the game is heading. Open in the traditional sense is dead, because anyone in the US probably isn't seeing SEA people in the exact same instance now. This includes Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand -- pretty much most of the Pacific. Fun fact, we often can't see you - either.

Unless you and your mates are in a reasonably geographically optimal location, too bad, move house. Which is all the more kind of not great when you consider one of the hotly anticipated upcoming features is multi-crew, where being able to actually operate stuff in someone else's ship (or others in yours) is entirely reliant on the same p2p system we have now.

The issue is that game companies wrangle not with our global infrastructure, but with the simple fact it's community is global. That's not going away. It's only going to accelerate. It's pretty much the hardest thing anyone involved with global comms, has to face. The simplest approach is to regionalise the experience. This is increasingly where ED has been going.
 
Last edited:
It's very evident that p2p matchmaking rules now regulate who can peer with whom; this is the quick and dirty approach really anyone would take to solve high latency impacting real-time mechanics, whilst investigation and works are ongoing to improve the experience sufficient that such blunt-force rules aren't required. The thing is, it's not immediately clear that that isn't actually the 'improve the experience' solution.

How do you know that they didn't improve their netcode AND set high latency filters for matchmaking? And if they really use such blunt-force rules, why does OP experience lags?


Mobius now have at least two groups. Over time I can see that become three. EU, US and potentially SEA. Because this is where the game is heading. Open in the traditional sense is dead, because anyone in the US probably isn't seeing SEA people in the exact same instance.

True, that's just how any other multiplayer game works. They should make matchmaking impossible for players on different continents and only allow it via a checkbox in options. I would also like to see a latency filter I can set myself.
 
How do you know that they didn't improve their netcode AND set high latency filters for matchmaking? And if they really use such blunt-force rules, why does OP experience lags?

Because the OP and the other person aren't in the same room, and apparently it's okay to ignore actual physics because "my immersion" is a valid reason (it's the reason given for everything, so I kind of ignore it at this point).

Also there have been only a handful updates recently that make any reference to wings and matchmaking changes; beyond vague suggestions things have been done; and then a new bunch of people discover they can't wing any more.

True, that's just how any other multiplayer game works. They should make matchmaking impossible for players on different continents and only allow it via a checkbox in options. I would also like to see a latency filter I can set myself.

Create a private group, invite only the pure (low ping, same continent, must have good references) and you can have exactly that, today. ;)

But if you are in open, you can enjoy a virtually empty one. Which sort of makes that entire game mode's name - well - redundant. I shouldn't have to repeat that I am a huge fan of frontier and the game. I just believe the experience can be improved, by giving matchmaking more focus - or at least communicating that they are looking at it.
 
SNIP-Thanks :)

I left the thanks in to show I did read it all!

I get your frustration but for a slightly different but similar reason. I had to download the game again last night and despite being in the UK and having a 50mb download speed Frontier (Or Amazon) could only supply me with 1.5mb feed. 2 Hours... 1st world problems are a swine.

When it comes to CQC/Arena does anyone know the tick rate? 100ms Ping is workable but nowhere near ideal or what you'd want in a competitive PvP environment especially if it is paired with a low tick count.
 
Last edited:
frontier has already said that they can't afford new servers and that there is nothing they can do to improve the current situation without a serious investment.

In other words, FD has already said that laggy multiplayer and non-functioning instances are here to stay.

But sometimes I wonder. How did distant worlds get 100 CMDR in the same instance? Why can no one show a screenshot of more than 30 people in the same instance in open play? Sometimes I honestly think FD chooses to mess up instancing in open play for the benefit of private group. I have no way to prove it, just seems suspicious to me that no one in mobious ever has instancing issues and can get 100 CMDR in the same instance. meanwhile in open play you are lucky to get 16 people in the same instance, most instances are dead, and you NEVER get more than 30 people in the same instance. IDK.

Could you please link to that statement, because I can't find it, and I find it very interesting if true.
 
But sometimes I wonder. How did distant worlds get 100 CMDR in the same instance? Why can no one show a screenshot of more than 30 people in the same instance in open play? Sometimes I honestly think FD chooses to mess up instancing in open play for the benefit of private group. I have no way to prove it, just seems suspicious to me that no one in mobious ever has instancing issues and can get 100 CMDR in the same instance. meanwhile in open play you are lucky to get 16 people in the same instance, most instances are dead, and you NEVER get more than 30 people in the same instance. IDK.


100 cmdr in same instance? I assume it's because there is no npc's and all the extra stuff, etc

However, there is a difference with open. I tested this last year.

I took a clean save and stayed around the starter systems and saw full instances.
Later on, as soon as I had some pvp, the same systems in open emptied of Cmdrs.

Back then, I could enter a populated system, see a full instance of Cmdrs and within a sec or two they all disappeared.
I could also see Cmdr's entering the system, show for a split sec and then disappear. No wake, not even enough time for cooldown, they just disappear into another instance.
 
Elite P2P Instancing is affected by the activities CMDRs part take in...

If they are stationary taking screen shots of making space-hippy-flower-patterns with their 100 ships - less info needs to be shared between the P2P instancing than a handfull of "w00t" - shoot it if it moves "kill-hungry" protagonists...

The P2P instancing handles everything players do - and shares it with all the other players computers in the instance, all the various changing angles of each ship, all the comms, all the shiny laz0rs..

Which basically means Elite in this form will never be a true large space battle simulator..

And it is also why many posters - who I suspect of being aligned with the developers - say they don't want features or game aspects that are resource heavy on the P2P client instancing model...
 
Last edited:
Elite P2P Instancing is affected by the activities CMDRs part take in...

Within each instance yes, CMDR activities will affect other CMDR's at a local level (pew-pew) via the P2P network, but not BGS wide (mission hand-ins etc) and other major state changes (Munition used, Bounty gained, Discovered X, Player death etc) which are handled by direct server transactions (C/S).

If they are stationary taking screen shots of making space-hippy-flower-patterns with their 100 ships - less info needs to be shared between the P2P instancing than a handfull of "w00t" - shoot it if it moves "kill-hungry" protagonists...

Not at all - the same P2P traffic occurs between all CMDR's in the instance. Being stationary means fewer state changes, but traffic is maintained. If they all start shooting each other, traffic increases as a direct result of the increased state changes as the P2P passes all the updates between everybody. C/S is still only involved with major state events.

The P2P instancing handles everything players do - and shares it with all the other players computers in the instance, all the various changing angles of each ship, all the comms, all the shiny laz0rs..

All players in the instance are peers, they want to move fast and shoot each other, P2P is perfect for this.

Which basically means Elite in this form will never be a true large space battle simulator.

Have heaps of players with good connections with regard to each other, I'm absolutely positive you can have large space battles. Add players with rubbish connections, and that will never happen.

And it is also why many posters - who I suspect of being aligned with the developers - say they don't want features or game aspects that are resource heavy on the P2P client instancing model...

I don't believe anyone does that. I simply believe that many players expecting large space battles have absolutely no idea how they can be realistically implemented in real-time on the absolute garbage links that many ISP's sell customers, with a potato for a router, and a PC that needs a good shake to redraw the screen.
 
Within each instance yes, CMDR activities will affect other CMDR's at a local level (pew-pew) via the P2P network, but not BGS wide (mission hand-ins etc) and other major state changes (Munition used, Bounty gained, Discovered X, Player death etc) which are handled by direct server transactions (C/S).



Not at all - the same P2P traffic occurs between all CMDR's in the instance. Being stationary means fewer state changes, but traffic is maintained. If they all start shooting each other, traffic increases as a direct result of the increased state changes as the P2P passes all the updates between everybody. C/S is still only involved with major state events.



All players in the instance are peers, they want to move fast and shoot each other, P2P is perfect for this.



Have heaps of players with good connections with regard to each other, I'm absolutely positive you can have large space battles. Add players with rubbish connections, and that will never happen.



I don't believe anyone does that. I simply believe that many players expecting large space battles have absolutely no idea how they can be realistically implemented in real-time on the absolute garbage links that many ISP's sell customers, with a potato for a router, and a PC that needs a good shake to redraw the screen.

What a load of rubbish....

P2P Instancing packets increase per peer in instance - when peers within the instance even turn their ship...
This reaches a threshold value - that prohibits large groups of players being very active - ergo - no large space battles for anyone...
Feel free to post a youtube link of a 100 player space battle..

Thanks - bye now...


As for blaming Elite Dangerous's MMO short fallings on peoples potato routers - thats just ridiculous..
 
Last edited:
Honestly I dont think it is latency. Just because the missile doesn't hit the cockpit doesn't mean it hasn't hit anywhere else. Compared to a pilot, an eagle is still large. Also the shield makes the eagle have an even larger hitbox.
 
Honestly I dont think it is latency. Just because the missile doesn't hit the cockpit doesn't mean it hasn't hit anywhere else. Compared to a pilot, an eagle is still large. Also the shield makes the eagle have an even larger hitbox.

It always comes down to latency eventually. You and another pilot can be dancing around in a vicious knife-style dogfight on a LAN with a completely awesome internet connection in Open, it's all hanging in the balance as you are both so well matched. Suddenly, you both get blown up by CMDR (56k)LULZ0r because his instance had you both sitting stationary long enough to pew-pew you both without you even knowing it.
 
You'd think 2 objects on a nearly blank screen wouldn't be much of a challenge...

Quite the opposite. 2 objects moving at speed on a otherwise blank screen in full three dimensions offers a much greater challenge than 200 objects on a 2.5d plane moving at low speed as offered in most shooters.
 
It always comes down to latency eventually. You and another pilot can be dancing around in a vicious knife-style dogfight on a LAN with a completely awesome internet connection in Open, it's all hanging in the balance as you are both so well matched. Suddenly, you both get blown up by CMDR (56k)LULZ0r because his instance had you both sitting stationary long enough to pew-pew you both without you even knowing it.

If only players weren't messing with their connections for such a long time then we wouldn't be here but whoops...human's and their fear of dying, even in a game.
 
If only players weren't messing with their connections for such a long time then we wouldn't be here but whoops...human's and their fear of dying, even in a game.

If only ISP's actually delivered the linerates they promised and got rid of datacaps, traffic shaping, throttling, preferred peerage. If only the comms companies actually invested in infrastructure. If only every internet-connected device was on a secure fibre channel. If only we could change the speed of light.

Until then - you can absolutely bet every penny you will ever earn that every man, his dog, and it's fleas will mess with their connections to gain some benefit over a competitor.
 
Back
Top Bottom