Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Wily Rites]

In the end, when combined with other missing features, the P2P model does matter because it contributes to concerns like "this feature isn't included by design" or "that won't work because instancing isn't guaranteed." Sometimes, the feature is absent not due to design choices, but because the optimal way to balance it is restricted by a lack of resources.

I said, as you don't seem to have picked up on it here, that P2P is about chunking and sharing large quantities of data, and that this is not at all relevant in a game, even less so when it is procedurally generated. That what is more important is that the 'Actor model' is being used on the network, that resolving some of the games issues involve understanding and working with this. It has very little to do with the actual P2P networking. Which I shall reiterate, is all about chunking and sharing large quantities of data.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

"safely high-wake" means you're further from your destination and it will take longer to achieve your objective. You're being punished for winning the interaction.

This is why here we are discussing about weighting

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I said, as you don't seem to have picked up on it here, that P2P is about chunking and sharing large quantities of data, and that this is not at all relevant in a game, even less so when it is procedurally generated. That what is more important is that the 'Actor model' is being used, that resolving some of the games issues involve understanding and working with this. It has very little to do with P2P networking. Which I shall reiterate, is all about chunking and sharing large quantities of data.

If any game has a multiplayer side, the multiplayer networking matters by definition. In cooperative PvE as well in PvP.
P2P non only is about large data chunking and sharing but also about missing validation, synchronization and reliability.
ED is not known for using solely the Actor Model (if you find papers on how it is implemented in Cobra engine hit me), but rather a combination of custom systems designed for cheap scalability and the management of a complex and persistent world with a load of wannabe-realtime interaction happening.

 

[Wily Rites]

If any game has a multiplayer side, the multiplayer networking matters by definition. In cooperative PvE as well in PvP.
P2P non only is about large data chunking and sharing but also about missing validation, synchronization and reliability.
ED is not known for using solely the Actor Model (if you find papers on how it is implemented in Cobra engine hit me), but rather a combination of custom systems designed for cheap scalability and the management of a complex and persistent world with a load of wannabe-realtime interaction happening.

What matters in multiplayer, when the scale is galactic, is time. The current model is far more realistic than having one massive arena with everyone in it, with one universal clock; Though the reasons why this is so, are not immediately obvious, nor are they very easy to understand. I like to think that these reasons, this rational, were very much a part of the decision to make the game as it was constructed.

This is also a part of my rational, when I say that I find the model particularly elegant.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Just like to inject here that ED isn't pure P2P, its a hybrid system. We do have servers.

And we've all experienced those adjudication server or matchmaking server error messages from time to time.

 

[Wily Rites]

I don't think it really fits the description of peer to peer at all. In the sense of P2P TM which is about file sharing.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I don't think it really fits the description of peer to peer at all. In the sense of P2P TM which is about file sharing.

P2P networking in games came from the 80's (MIDI Maze is an example) I strongly doubt the term was misunderstood in the last 40 years of gaming industry as once upon a time was the only way for lan parties to happen

 

[Wily Rites]

P2P networking in games came from the 80's (MIDI Maze is an example) I strongly doubt the term was misunderstood in the last 40 years of gaming industry as once upon a time was the only way for lan parties to happen

The term P2P (peer-to-peer) emerged in the late 1990s, particularly in the context of file-sharing networks and distributed computing. It describes a decentralised network model where each computer, or "peer," in the network can act both as a client and a server, allowing for direct sharing of resources without the need for a central authority or server.

Key being that there is some central resource or goal that clients communicate between themselves to distribute. I think we can agree that elite is a hybrid server using both a central data store as well as shared client state. My point was more that the model suits the game very well and that there is nothing wrong with the server structure; That the reasoning and justification for it is far richer than just financial.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

The term P2P (peer-to-peer) emerged in the late 1990s, particularly in the context of file-sharing networks and distributed computing. It describes a decentralised network model where each computer, or "peer," in the network can act both as a client and a server, allowing for direct sharing of resources without the need for a central authority or server.

The fact that the term 'P2P' became popular with Napster's release doesn't mean the concept didn't exist before. Games like MIDI Maze and DOOM used peer-to-peer networking long before the late '90s. Many games in the '80s and early '90s relied on direct connections between players without a central server.

As someone who was there at the time, I can confirm these early examples clearly demonstrate the existence of P2P networking well before it became widely recognized in the context of file-sharing.

My point was more that the model suits the game very will and that there is nothing wrong with the server structure. That stating that it is P2P and that this is an issue, is pretty vague and quite erroneous.

The P2P model is primarily used because it's cost effective. However, it comes with significant drawbacks: it's more vulnerable to cheating, instancing isn't always guaranteed, instancing is limited in size, and a single player's poor connection in a 16-player instance can compromise the experience for everyone. These are just a few of the many downsides that stem from relying on this model.

Anyway, my concern was about how design is being limited by resources. I didn’t intend to dive into the origins of networking architecture.

 

[Wily Rites]

The fact that the term 'P2P' became popular with Napster's release doesn't mean the concept didn't exist before. Games like MIDI Maze and DOOM used peer-to-peer networking long before the late '90s. Many games in the '80s and early '90s relied on direct connections between players without a central server.

As someone who was there at the time, I can confirm these early examples clearly demonstrate the existence of P2P networking well before it became widely recognized in the context of file-sharing.

The P2P model is primarily used because it's cost effective. However, it comes with significant drawbacks: it's more vulnerable to cheating, instancing isn't always guaranteed, instancing is limited in size, and a single player's poor connection in a 16-player instance can compromise the experience for everyone. These are just a few of the many downsides that stem from relying on this model.

Anyway, my concern was about how design is being limited by resources. I didn’t intend to dive into the origins of networking architecture.

We can disagree, that is OK. There isn't always one correct answer, check in with Godel if you don't believe me. Don't ask Turing though, he is still waiting for his machine to come in with an answer!

True that if they wanted to develop the PvP side in any meaningful way, then the snap on CQC style play would likely be better served from a dedicated server, I expect this is what is done with CQC. That's no reason to make the rest of the game so limited though, there is an entire galaxy out there after all.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The fact that the term 'P2P' became popular with Napster's release doesn't mean the concept didn't exist before. Games like MIDI Maze and DOOM used peer-to-peer networking long before the late '90s. Many games in the '80s and early '90s relied on direct connections between players without a central server.

As someone who was there at the time, I can confirm these early examples clearly demonstrate the existence of P2P networking well before it became widely recognized in the context of file-sharing.

The P2P model is primarily used because it's cost effective. However, it comes with significant drawbacks: it's more vulnerable to cheating, instancing isn't always guaranteed, instancing is limited in size, and a single player's poor connection in a 16-player instance can compromise the experience for everyone. These are just a few of the many downsides that stem from relying on this model.

Anyway, my concern was about how design is being limited by resources. I didn’t intend to dive into the origins of networking architecture.

Its not all bad though- this old classic shows what can be done

 

[Darkfyre99]

Inclination and player base alone aren’t enough to implement a solid design. Some choices are clearly compromises between resources and the broader vision. It’s obvious that peer-to-peer exists because dedicated servers would have been too costly to maintain, not because it was the ideal design choice. Similarly, a player driven economy would require an in depth study that likely falls outside Frontier’s available resources. Also this is the reason we have to rely on 3rd party tools. And yes, an ideally balanced, unified system for all players would be the perfect design solution, but these are practical limitations that affect the direction and scope of the game.

That's kind of my point. All the compromises Frontier has made that makes me skeptical that the type of gameplay you're talking about is, in any way, "fundamental" to Elite Dangerous in general, let alone specific to PowerPlay. I've played that kind of game before (albiet in a fantasy setting, not a science-fiction setting), and it's missing most of the features that enable that kind of gameplay.

It's kind of like saying I've got a great bacon-cheeseburger on my plate, only it's missing the bacon, the cheese, and the hamburger.

 

[Darkfyre99]

A hauler has the option to safely high-wake if they aren't too greedy to run without shields, countermeasures, or engineering, especially when trading in Dangerous™ areas.

Again, you make my point for me.

Why would a hauler ever install an FSD interdiction device and weapons and go on the offensive?

 

[Darkfyre99]

I said, as you don't seem to have picked up on it here, that P2P is about chunking and sharing large quantities of data, and that this is not at all relevant in a game, even less so when it is procedurally generated. That what is more important is that the 'Actor model' is being used on the network, that resolving some of the games issues involve understanding and working with this. It has very little to do with the actual P2P networking. Which I shall reiterate, is all about chunking and sharing large quantities of data.

I think it's more accurate to say that when it comes to distriibuted computing in gaming, client/server refers to a dedicated computer which hosts the game for all the game clients, while peer-to-peer refers one of the game clients also doing double duty as the host the game. In Elite Dangerous, we do have central server that hosts the background sim and matchmaking services, while any particular instance within the game is hosted by the players.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Again, you make my point for me.

Why would a hauler ever install an FSD interdiction device and weapons and go on the offensive?

No interdictor but maybe fast boot fsd, chaffs, heatsinks, point defenses, mines (not all weapons are meant ony for offense), enough shields or armor to evade and you'll be safe ~100% by just evading.

 

[Darkfyre99]

No interdictor but maybe fast boot fsd, chaffs, heatsinks, point defenses, mines (not all weapons are meant ony for offense), enough shields or armor to evade and you'll be safe ~100% by just evading.

You seem to have missed some important context n this conversation:

Aye, that's why powerplayers will have to engage and eliminate any player pledged to a different power, no matter of the rank/ship.

Enemy is enemy!

Unless PowerPlay 2.0 actually makes PvP combat worthwhile, I doubt anyone not already interested in PvP combat is going to do that. It’s a simple cost/benefit and risk/reward analysis. Especially if the 2.0 build meta continues to favor highly specialized ships.

Having an interdictor and some guns on a hauling ship will make the trick...

A fight between an armed hauler and a specialized combat ship is going to result in a dead hauler, at which point it doesn't make any sense for a hauler to carry an interdictor or guns.

 

[Jockey79]

No interdictor but maybe fast boot fsd, chaffs, heatsinks, point defenses, mines (not all weapons are meant ony for offense), enough shields or armor to evade and you'll be safe ~100% by just evading.

So I'm not allowed to set up my ship how I want it, because someone else doesn't want me to play how I want to play.

Sounds like something I wouldn't waste my time or money on.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So I'm not allowed to set up my ship how I want it, because someone else doesn't want me to play how I want to play.

Sounds like something I wouldn't waste my time or money on.

Powerplay applies the threat of violence from NPCs or other players to your 'play'. Its not them imposing on you, its the feature.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Powerplay applies the threat of violence from NPCs or other players to your 'play'. Its not them imposing on you, its the feature.

In which case, if the combat offered by the NPCs of the other eleven Powers isn't to the liking of "a lot" of players who don't engage in combat at all, Powerplay 2.0 is likely to see less takeup than it might otherwise have done.

 

[Rubbernuke]

In which case, if the combat offered by the NPCs of the other eleven Powers isn't to the liking of "a lot" of players who don't engage in combat at all, Powerplay 2.0 is likely to see less takeup than it might otherwise have done.

Then that will have to be the price- at some point Powers (be it NPCs or players) have to bear teeth otherwise....whats the point? Powerplay is not a care home.