Open letter to Frontier

[Asp Explorer]

That can be 'developed' and then added to the client... Heck a ruleset could be 'dowloaded' at load time when you join the group and start the client... As I said I accept it can't change the present, but it can change the possibility of future recurrances... Of course the ruleset mechanics would need to be developed and then implemented at the client side which is why it could be something basic initially and then fleshed out during the lifecycle... initially it could be an all or nothing affair like the 'pvp fire turned on/off' and then in the next iteration allowing for it to be turned on / off in specific types of jurisdiction(CZ WZ), and then the next iteration allowing it to be turned on / off in specific system types etc etc.. and could 'apply' to various aspects of the game, so you could have a 'no trade' group if you wanted where trading was turned off but you could take on trade missions where you collect the goods or whatnot...

Again my friend - that cannot work.

Never trust the client. Ruleset changes on clientside would be so open to abuse, it's almost BBC radio presenter levels. Horrible stuff. FD have no arbitration servers to manage real-time clients. The background and status stuff is safe enough - but for local instances it simply cannot happen.

 

[excalibus]

Again my friend - that cannot work.

Never trust the client. Ruleset changes on clientside would be so open to abuse, it's almost BBC radio presenter levels. Horrible stuff. FD have no arbitration servers to manage real-time clients. The background and status stuff is safe enough - but for local instances it simply cannot happen.

I can think of one way that would circumvent changes to the client side ruleset.

the P2P connection is encrypted and the encryption / decryption key is based on a hash code of the groups 'ruleset' calculated locally and also stored on the server so if you manipulate the ruleset on your side of the connection, your packets won't be decrypted by the other side, and you won't be able to decrypt there packets, therefore the connection would become unusable. the game would flag the error and report it to the server along with a copy of the current 'hash', the server then could test which client had changed the ruleset locally in such an event... now this would exhonerate a player who did not change the ruleset because they would test fine, while a client challenged by the server where the ruleset was changed locally, would fail the challenge, that commander could then be flagged for further action (further monitoring, or 'other' actions)

The has would be constantly regenerated at a semi random timeframe, it could be regenerated every random(X) packets a change to the local ruleset would cause the regeneration to generate a different hash to the servers hash.
So...

 

[Asp Explorer]

I can think of one way that would circumvent changes to the client side ruleset.

the P2P connection is encrypted and the encryption / decryption key is based on a hash code of the groups 'ruleset' calculated locally and also stored on the server so if you manipulate the ruleset on your side of the connection, your packets won't be decrypted by the other side, and you won't be able to decrypt there packets, therefore the connection would become unusable. the game would flag the error and report it to the server along with a copy of the current 'hash', the server then could test which client had changed the ruleset locally in such an event... now this would exhonerate a player who did not change the ruleset because they would test fine, while a client challenged by the server where the ruleset was changed locally, would fail the challenge, that commander could then be flagged for further action (further monitoring, or 'other' actions)

The has would be constantly regenerated at a semi random timeframe, it could be regenerated every random(X) packets a change to the local ruleset would cause the regeneration to generate a different hash to the servers hash.
So...

A nice idea - but you sextuple traffic, quintuple latency, and whatever quintuple quintupled is on the server

 

[dxm55]

Not sure what all the QQ and hyperbole is about when only a couple out of thousands of players got killed, once each, and then the offenders got banned from said group.

There's only this:
- Group rules broken, offenders banned from group. Punishment served. Case closed.
- Game rules not broken, no further action needed.

Game rules do not include or take into account your poor, hurt feelings.
It only deals with absolutes and technical violations.

AAR:
- Groups need better member management tools for more responsive management of members

End of story.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

That can be 'developed' and then added to the client... Heck a ruleset could be 'dowloaded' at load time when you join the group and start the client... As I said I accept it can't change the present, but it can change the possibility of future recurrances... Of course the ruleset mechanics would need to be developed and then implemented at the client side which is why it could be something basic initially and then fleshed out during the lifecycle... initially it could be an all or nothing affair like the 'pvp fire turned on/off' and then in the next iteration allowing for it to be turned on / off in specific types of jurisdiction(CZ WZ), and then the next iteration allowing it to be turned on / off in specific system types etc etc.. and could 'apply' to various aspects of the game, so you could have a 'no trade' group if you wanted where trading was turned off but you could take on trade missions where you collect the goods or whatnot...

Banana I did not miss the point of them being removed from mobius at all... furthermore it was more than one at, go read the reddit thread... Oh I think you will find that this latest incursion into mobius is perhaps 'the straw' and for me it's not even so much about the damage caused to the mobius player, or the damage SDC members have done to how their own group is now viewed by other players, for me it's the fact that frontier have come out and stated that griefing is not against the rules, and apart from removing them from the mobius group (because mobius was unable to remove them due to the problems with the current group administration system) those players have not even been so much as had a single consequence, they knew they would be removed from mobius for breaking the rules so that is not a consequence for their actions...

It's the fact that a community manager and by virtue, FDev, won't stand up and say that this behaviour was wrong, all they could say was it was 'unfortunate'... yes indeed it is unfortunate, now they have a choice to either make it so it does not happen again, or make it so that if it does happen again there are clear consequences for those involved, or do nothing...

Okay man, I get that, I really do.
However, if FD put themselves in a position where they are forced to take one side over another then it will destabilize the general game balance between PvP and PvE.
As has always been, Mobius dealt with any issues relating to their group. Code tried it before and it failed. Now what we have is SDC, who funnily have the same ppl doing it again so see that for what it is.

What these guys are doing is forcing a decision to be made between PvE and PvP when things were quite stable for months before.
One thing you need to remember is this game caters for a very wide spectrum of different play styles.
What has recently happened is forcing the issue towards one or the other but nothing has really changed. Bad guy got evicted.
You cannot let players rule you by fear because that's what they want.
They want you to quit, to throw the toys out.
So, make a choice. Either stay the course or let these idiots dictate terms on how you play games...and never play this one again because you let them dictate terms to you.

I'll be honest with you, I have gamed for 30+ years and I see this inflammatory for what it is. It is geared to annoy ppl so don't let it. And they will come again but if you want this game to succeed then deal with it.

When you start involving FD in what is a "private" group then it'll only get worse and to ask them to pick a side will actually fragment this community because half of it will spit the dummy.
FD gave Mobius the power to remove players and they did that so it still works.
Solo works, so does open and private.
The only reason they caused as much drama as they did was because of a bug but it's sorted.

FD have to maintain a balance between all players and like I said, they have a protection in place for Mobius so it's not really an issue beyond humans trolling and tell me a game that doesn't have that....that is multiplayer?
In the grand scheme of things, this game does alright regarding same.

If they start trolling the game, FD will know who they are, regardless if they change their nickname or whatever.

 

[excalibus]

A nice idea - but you sextuple traffic, quintuple latency, and whatever quintuple quintupled is on the server

how so? the ruleset is sent at the start of the joining of the group - that may be at most say a string of 64 characters for the 512 toggle bits, and a group ID code / group name. Sent once during the initial loading screen for the client. therefore it is a one time send.

The client would then generate a hash for the P2P connections based on the toggle bits and the group ID. It would only regenerate the hash locally for the purpose of encrypting the data sent between clients... Regular use (no abusing the local ruleset) would see no increase in current traffic. In the event of a client changing the local ruleset, and the client receiving a packet it could not 'decrypt' it would then regenerate its local hash and try to decrypt the same packet, if that fails, send a one time message to the server with your regenerated hash, and your group id. Each client would do this only where it could not decrypt the incoming packet after regenerating the hash...

Sooo for normal players, would be no noticable increase in traffic, when a client changes the local ruleset, any clients connected together that could not decrypyt a packet from a given client would report it to the server once. With the clients OWN hash and perhaps the IP of the incoming packet that failed decryption...
So you, a friend and I are all in the same group in the same instance, connected, I change the local ruleset on my client, suddenly I cannot decrypt your packets and you and your friend cannot decrypt ime, fdev gets sent the 'reports' from all 3 clients and it become crystal clear who changed the local ruleset hey...

this is the basic level of the idea, of course there would be an additional layer to the encryption that is unique to each connection, which is probably what happens already to remove MITM attacks on the clients.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Not sure what all the QQ and hyperbole is about when only a couple out of thousands of players got killed, once each, and then the offenders got banned from said group.

There's only this:
- Group rules broken, offenders banned from group. Punishment served. Case closed.
- Game rules not broken, no further action needed.

Game rules do not include or take into account your poor, hurt feelings.
It only deals with absolutes and technical violations.

AAR:
- Groups need better member management tools for more responsive management of members

End of story.

That is pretty much it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

how so? the ruleset is sent at the start of the joining of the group - that may be at most say a string of 64 characters for the 512 toggle bits, and a group ID code / group name. Sent once during the initial loading screen for the client. therefore it is a one time send.

The client would then generate a hash for the P2P connections based on the toggle bits and the group ID. It would only regenerate the hash locally for the purpose of encrypting the data sent between clients... Regular use (no abusing the local ruleset) would see no increase in current traffic. In the event of a client changing the local ruleset, and the client receiving a packet it could not 'decrypt' it would then regenerate its local hash and try to decrypt the same packet, if that fails, send a one time message to the server with your regenerated hash, and your group id. Each client would do this only where it could not decrypt the incoming packet after regenerating the hash...

Sooo for normal players, would be no noticable increase in traffic, when a client changes the local ruleset, any clients connected together that could not decrypyt a packet from a given client would report it to the server once. With the clients OWN hash and perhaps the IP of the incoming packet that failed decryption...
So you, a friend and I are all in the same group in the same instance, connected, I change the local ruleset on my client, suddenly I cannot decrypt your packets and you and your friend cannot decrypt ime, fdev gets sent the 'reports' from all 3 clients and it become crystal clear who changed the local ruleset hey...

this is the basic level of the idea, of course there would be an additional layer to the encryption that is unique to each connection, which is probably what happens already to remove MITM attacks on the clients.

I appreciate your thinking, and you have some very good ideas.

However. UDP.

 

[excalibus]

Okay man, I get that, I really do.
However, if FD put themselves in a position where they are forced to take one side over another then it will destabilize the general game balance between PvP and PvE.
As has always been, Mobius dealt with any issues relating to their group. Code tried it before and it failed. Now what we have is SDC, who funnily have the same ppl doing it again so see that for what it is.

What these guys are doing is forcing a decision to be made between PvE and PvP when things were quite stable for months before.
One thing you need to remember is this game caters for a very wide spectrum of different play styles.
What has recently happened is forcing the issue towards one or the other but nothing has really changed. Bad guy got evicted.
You cannot let players rule you by fear because that's what they want.
They want you to quit, to throw the toys out.
So, make a choice. Either stay the course or let these idiots dictate terms on how you play games...and never play this one again because you let them dictate terms to you.

I'll be honest with you, I have gamed for 30+ years and I see this inflammatory for what it is. It is geared to annoy ppl so don't let it. And they will come again but if you want this game to succeed then deal with it.

When you start involving FD in what is a "private" group then it'll only get worse and to ask them to pick a side will actually fragment this community because half of it will spit the dummy.
FD gave Mobius the power to remove players and they did that so it still works.
Solo works, so does open and private.
The only reason they caused as much drama as they did was because of a bug but it's sorted.

FD have to maintain a balance between all players and like I said, they have a protection in place for Mobius so it's not really an issue beyond humans trolling and tell me a game that doesn't have that....that is multiplayer?
In the grand scheme of things, this game does alright regarding same.

If they start trolling the game, FD will know who they are, regardless if they change their nickname or whatever.

I understand man, I also have played computer games for over 30 years, I am not asking FD to choose between PVP and PVE, the game caters for all of that and more... I accept that and enjoy that... I have nothing agianst PVP players, or PVE only players myself, I play open, I play PVE with some PVP where it makes sense - cush as CG's, CZ's etc...

The problem is IMHO that they give us a choice of private groups, solo or open, but they DO NOT give ways to set up the groups so different playstyles can be accommodated according to the type of group play we want to create, they do not give group admins an intuitive toolset for managing their groups and they sure as heck (after seeing ZAC's reply in reddit) don't view the private groups ethos of how they want to play with any real importance...

They (FDev) tell us to play the game the way we want, they tell us that they want emergent gameplay, they tell us that they can deal with griefers if they become a problem, they tell us they want more consequences for bad behaviour in the game, they do not follow through!!!

When people playing the game the way they want to in a private group get essentially 'griefed' by outsiders wanting to cause distruption to that groups playstyle through deliberate actions to ignore the groups rules which they agreed to when they joined the group, and all the community manager can say, is it's unfortunate... what a ... ... joke!!!

And I am not even a member of mobius (just to clarify) but I can see the writing on the wall if FD think that saying this sort of 'griefing' is not breaking the rules... It is giving 'free incentives' to go noob bashing, free incentives to camp at stations ramming speeders, free incentives to join any private groups that will have you and just totally ignore what the group playing together is about and just do whatever you like to disrupt the group because there are no 'consequences'...

Well I am not one to make idle threats, I am not one to get upset tooo radically or too quickly, but this type of problem that SDC members perputrated has been brewing under the surface for some time... and enough is enough... if FDev feel this sort of behaviour that SDC members have portrayed is desired, then perhaps this incarnation of elite is not for me... perhaps I have wasted a significant amount of my time and enegery, and some of my money in this game... One thing is for certain, this sort of behaviour will cost Frontier in the hip pocket, how much it costs them is up to the individual players I guess, but they can know that this year, it is $500 AUD from this one commander...

I think I might take a break... I will finish out the DWE and then that will be that I think... We will see what the future holds...

 

[Lianachan]

In my opinion they broke FDs ToS. The problem for me is not what SDC did, the problem is FDs reaction.

Yup, this. It was a pathetic response. Also, that no rules were broken doesn't mean nothing could or should be done - it just means the rules aren't good enough.

 

[dreamer1986]

I understand man, I also have played computer games for over 30 years, I am not asking FD to choose between PVP and PVE, the game caters for all of that and more... I accept that and enjoy that... I have nothing agianst PVP players, or PVE only players myself, I play open, I play PVE with some PVP where it makes sense - cush as CG's, CZ's etc...

The problem is IMHO that they give us a choice of private groups, solo or open, but they DO NOT give ways to set up the groups so different playstyles can be accommodated according to the type of group play we want to create, they do not give group admins an intuitive toolset for managing their groups and they sure as heck (after seeing ZAC's reply in reddit) don't view the private groups ethos of how they want to play with any real importance...

They (FDev) tell us to play the game the way we want, they tell us that they want emergent gameplay, they tell us that they can deal with griefers if they become a problem, they tell us they want more consequences for bad behaviour in the game, they do not follow through!!!

When people playing the game the way they want to in a private group get essentially 'griefed' by outsiders wanting to cause distruption to that groups playstyle through deliberate actions to ignore the groups rules which they agreed to when they joined the group, and all the community manager can say, is it's unfortunate... what a ... ... joke!!!

And I am not even a member of mobius (just to clarify) but I can see the writing on the wall if FD think that saying this sort of 'griefing' is not breaking the rules... It is giving 'free incentives' to go noob bashing, free incentives to camp at stations ramming speeders, free incentives to join any private groups that will have you and just totally ignore what the group playing together is about and just do whatever you like to disrupt the group because there are no 'consequences'...

Well I am not one to make idle threats, I am not one to get upset tooo radically or too quickly, but this type of problem that SDC members perputrated has been brewing under the surface for some time... and enough is enough... if FDev feel this sort of behaviour that SDC members have portrayed is desired, then perhaps this incarnation of elite is not for me... perhaps I have wasted a significant amount of my time and enegery, and some of my money in this game... One thing is for certain, this sort of behaviour will cost Frontier in the hip pocket, how much it costs them is up to the individual players I guess, but they can know that this year, it is $500 AUD from this one commander...

I think I might take a break... I will finish out the DWE and then that will be that I think... We will see what the future holds...

Great post, I totally agree with you. Maybe FD will give an official response in this very active thread, on how they will solve this problem, because once Mobius has become unsafe, I bet a lot of people will get bored while playing in Solo, and move on from the game to the next ones that are set to come out, like Star Citizen (which already looks amazing and is fun to play, even in Alpha), No Man's Sky and Space Engineers.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Yup, this. It was a pathetic response. Also, that no rules were broken doesn't mean nothing could or should be done - it just means the rules aren't good enough.

I'd disagree there. They affirmed the rules. They absolutely defined them. All sorts of things are now possible.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You cannot let players rule you by fear because that's what they want.
They want you to quit, to throw the toys out.
So, make a choice. Either stay the course or let these idiots dictate terms on how you play games...and never play this one again because you let them dictate terms to you.

Agree with this. Regardless of FD's response to the situation, we as players have to choose how we let SDCs actions affect us.

The guys have been kicked from the group, if they want to try and sneak back in, they will have to reset their CMDRs and start over with a new name.

But I think they have made their point for the moment, they are probably looking for new ways to make their point now.

All i can think though is if they keep trying to make their point, that in the long run it will cause FD to move more in favour of providing protection to the PvEers to the detriment of PvPers, and I don't think anyone wants that, most especially the members of SDC. Perhaps they better rethink their actions.

 

[Asp Explorer]

they will have to reset their CMDRs and start over with a new name.

Or buy a cheap base edition for lulz

And I don't think that Silly Dressed Clowns need to rethink their actions. It's legitimate gameplay - although obnoxious as it is. Code, Rangers, you name them - they have all done the same thing.

 

[EddyRockSteady]

All sorts of things are now possible.

All things have always been possible. They have however now nicely codified it it would seem.

This just gives a select few even further ammunition to whine when FD do get around to doing something, cause the moment FD does implement some type of consequence for abhorrent behaviour said peeps will be all over it like white on rice crying about how FD stated just a few weeks/months ago that it was OK - why change it now.......

I shake my head every time the Devs manage to impale themselves on the cocktail skewer they should be trying so carefully to avoid.......Oh well, should be interesting to witness how they recover from this particular PR debacle.

 

[dreamer1986]

Agree with this. Regardless of FD's response to the situation, we as players have to choose how we let SDCs actions affect us.

The guys have been kicked from the group, if they want to try and sneak back in, they will have to reset their CMDRs and start over with a new name.

But I think they have made their point for the moment, they are probably looking for new ways to make their point now.

All i can think though is if they keep trying to make their point, that in the long run it will cause FD to move more in favour of providing protection to the PvEers to the detriment of PvPers, and I don't think anyone wants that, most especially the members of SDC. Perhaps they better rethink their actions.

One thing is clear, the penalties for murder are way too soft in Elite, while the penalties for the victims are too high. If I get destroyed with my Python I have to pay 4 million to buy it back, and if it happens a few times in a row I might not have enough money to buy it back and get back in a sidewinder. A huge penalty. While the murderer gets a small bounty. This needs a fix.

 

[DerthGerps]

Yup, this. It was a pathetic response. Also, that no rules were broken doesn't mean nothing could or should be done - it just means the rules aren't good enough.

It's so sad that everyone is still trying to find some non-existent rule that we broke.

It isn't going to happen. They've made their statement, get over it.

Maybe instead of crying about it actually do something about it. Form a wing, come find us in open, kill us, put a bounty on us, use the in-game resources.

All you're doing is making yourselves look like a bunch of whining children.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Agree with this. Regardless of FD's response to the situation, we as players have to choose how we let SDCs actions affect us.

The guys have been kicked from the group, if they want to try and sneak back in, they will have to reset their CMDRs and start over with a new name.

But I think they have made their point for the moment, they are probably looking for new ways to make their point now.

All i can think though is if they keep trying to make their point, that in the long run it will cause FD to move more in favour of providing protection to the PvEers to the detriment of PvPers, and I don't think anyone wants that, most especially the members of SDC. Perhaps they better rethink their actions.

Not that any of us have 2nd and 3rd accounts... right?

 

[Asp Explorer]

They have however now nicely codified it it would seem.

Indeed - you phrased it far better than I could.

Would peeps prefer "How To Ruin A Pew-Pews Day Without Breaking Any Rules And With The Full Blessing Of Frontier Developments" published in ASCII or in the proper hardcore-mode hex-dump?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

All you're doing is making yourselves look like a bunch of whining children.

I am not a child, and I don't whine.

In fact I think I'll self-destruct on this exploring trip, re-equip and find myself some bacon

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It isn't going to happen. They've made their statement, get over it.

Pretty much this. No poin't really arguing against the people FD does side with, they wan't SDC to keep on doing what they are doing so of course no punishment for what they are doing is going to happen.

 

[Lianachan]

It's so sad that everyone is still trying to find some non-existent rule that we broke.

It isn't going to happen. They've made their statement, get over it.

Maybe instead of crying about it actually do something about it. Form a wing, come find us in open, kill us, put a bounty on us, use the in-game resources.

All you're doing is making yourselves look like a bunch of whining children.

I wanted a single player offline game so I only ever play in solo - I have precisely no interest in multiplayer, you or your kind. I have no dog in this fight and am not whining. All that your intentional and wilful attempt to ruin the game experience of other players, and the subsequent storm in this pathetic board, does is reinforce my beliefs that ED should always have been a single player game and that FD are useless.

 

[Raylion]

Maybe instead of crying about it actually do something about it. Form a wing, come find us in open, kill us, put a bounty on us, use the in-game resources.

All you're doing is making yourselves look like a bunch of whining children.

Do you think this poor attempt at reverse psychology works? The solution for PVE players is to turn to PVP? I'm afraid I'll have to pass on this one...I'm too much of a child to set foot into a mans arena.