Same old song about cheaters

[thirstyfish]

it is solvable. it is argued it can't be solved with the current architecture but this is simply not true. it's just more difficult to solve, but still possible. just not even in the backlog.

Ok...fine. maybe it is solvable, but FD has neither the time, resources or personnel required to solve it. If you assume that this issue can be solved under P2P architecture (something I highly doubt), it would still take more time, money, and people than FD has to spare. It's not in the backlog because it doesn't make any business sense for FD to even attempt to solve. FD is a business. They want to make money, not spend money on a computer science research project. You say the problem is solvable. How do you know? You don't. In fact, you can't know unless you already know of a solution that works under P2P. If you do have a solution, please share. Otherwise, you simply cannot make that claim.

Also, the game does have a game mode that is exclusively for PvP combat: CQC mode.

 

[Asp Explorer]

You say the problem is solvable. How do you know? You don't. In fact, you can't know unless you already know of a solution that works under P2P. If you do have a solution, please share. Otherwise, you simply cannot make that claim.

Oh - there certainly are solutions - quite comprehensive ones that banks etc use for cash machines etc.

The thing is - because of the way that they work, it makes these solutions completely unsuitable for anything approaching real-time. As you said - there's no real point in FD devoting much effort to fix a "problem" that only exists for a relatively small subset of players, who already have options available to them to mitigate the perceived "problem" as much as possible on the open internet.

 

[thirstyfish]

Oh - there certainly are solutions - quite comprehensive ones that banks etc use for cash machines etc.

The thing is - because of the way that they work, it makes these solutions completely unsuitable for anything approaching real-time. As you said - there's no real point in FD devoting much effort to fix a "problem" that only exists for a relatively small subset of players, who already have options available to them to mitigate the perceived "problem" as much as possible on the open internet.

The banking solutions are not viable solutions for ED for the very reason you said. Thus, I don't count them as being actual solutions for ED. Just to clarify.

 

[Querty Out]

...
Well technically they would have conceded the game. 3 points to the home team and early start on the post-match pints. Happy days.

If it's a backyard team you'd just don't want to play with them anymore. In the public arena there'd be disciplinary measures for unsportsmanlike behaviour. No happy days. But you know that already.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

If it's a backyard team you'd just don't want to play with them anymore. In the public arena there'd be disciplinary measures for unsportsmanlike behaviour. No happy days. But you know that already.

So add them to your ignore list. Still happy with my pint.

 

[Shaamaan]

Also, the game does have a game mode that is exclusively for PvP combat: CQC mode.

Surprisingly the mode is a ghost town while there are (apparently?) plenty of gankers in Open...

I feel like it's about actual PvP to a very, very small subset of people (no offense to them, these guys rock, but I really do think they are a small minority). The rest of the folk who complain about CL just crave an easy win and are oh-so-annoyed that they are getting denied.

 

[Riverside]

Surprisingly the mode is a ghost town while there are (apparently?) plenty of gankers in Open...

I feel like it's about actual PvP to a very, very small subset of people (no offense to them, these guys rock, but I really do think they are a small minority). The rest of the folk who complain about CL just crave an easy win and are oh-so-annoyed that they are getting denied.

I spent a bit of time doing some PvP in Beta the other day, met plenty of friendly folk who asked if I wanted to fight, or were happy to 1-on-1 if I asked (requesting consent). There were others who interdicted & opened fire without a word (assuming consent) but responded in a friendly manner when I evaded without pulling a gun on them, and then there were those that simply opened fire & were just looking to cause a nuisance.

Probably 80% of the Cmdrs I saw were friendly & pretty clearly wouldn't have been interested in attacking a PvE'er unprovoked.

Without meeting them it would be impossible to tell them apart.

 

[DaedalusVar]

The same could be said of high-waking, menu logging, self-destructing, or just sitting there and ignoring you while you blow them up. Or the playerbase could just move to private/solo (as much of it has done) and deny you the encounter all-together.

Would you like to ban all of those as well?

You seem to be arguing that other players should be obliged to fight you. They are not. (also: have you considered CQC?)


Not without completely changing the underlying structure of the game from P2P to client-server. Even then, though you would at least be able to tell *who* disconnected; you'd never be sure why.

Those exit options aren't cheating. Also you are obliged to interact with them and choose to fight or flee...not cheat. By your logic using chest engine scripts is ok because they are not obliged to interact with you.

Fixing p2p is easy but costs them money, which is why they don't do it.

 

[JerryLove]

Those exit options aren't cheating.

So I'll ask yet again: If the outcome is identical: why do you care about the mechanism? What difference does it make to anyone.

Also you are obliged to interact with them and choose to fight or flee...

Logging out, would be a form of "fleeing".

By your logic using chest engine scripts is ok because they are not obliged to interact with you.

That would depend on the script. A script that raises an alarm when my ship nears its destination in supercruise? Sure. I'd have no problem with that.

In fact: I run VoiceAttack that pushes a bunch of buttons for me... sometimes in a sequence. That's a script.

Fixing p2p is easy but costs them money, which is why they don't do it.

There isn't anything easy about setting up a client-server MMO on this scale... which is part of what they would have to do.

 

[DaedalusVar]

So I'll ask yet again: If the outcome is identical: why do you care about the mechanism? What difference does it make to anyone.


Logging out, would be a form of "fleeing".


That would depend on the script. A script that raises an alarm when my ship nears its destination in supercruise? Sure. I'd have no problem with that.

In fact: I run VoiceAttack that pushes a bunch of buttons for me... sometimes in a sequence. That's a script.


There isn't anything easy about setting up a client-server MMO on this scale... which is part of what they would have to do.

1) it's cheating
2) it's cheating
3) it's cheating.

Logging out is not a form of fleeing it's cheating. Fleeing is getting away not force closing you're game....cause you're no longer in game.

When I say a script meant a cheatengine call script which is client manipulation. Not even remotely the same as voice attack or a script to push keys.

Also don't pretend you actually know anything about game development and server coding.

 

[GilliganTX]

1) it's cheating
2) it's cheating
3) it's cheating.

Logging out is not a form of fleeing it's cheating. Fleeing is getting away not force closing you're game....cause you're no longer in game.

When I say a script meant a cheatengine call script which is client manipulation. Not even remotely the same as voice attack or a script to push keys.

Also don't pretend you actually know anything about game development and server coding.

*Logging out via the menu is fine.

I know you've stated that, just a point of clarification.


I agree with you though, forcing a disconnect is absolutely, 100% cheating.

- - - Updated - - -

And also agreed that it is unfortunate that FD do not seem to care about players openly expressing blatant disregard for the rules of the game, and providing accounts of themselves cheating, on the developers own forum, as no action is being taken.

 

[JerryLove]

1) it's cheating
2) it's cheating
3) it's cheating.

Why do you care?

Logging out is not a form of fleeing it's cheating. Fleeing is getting away not force closing you're game....cause you're no longer in game.

Logging out has you no longer in the game too... but you have just stated again you are fine with that.

So since the outcome is identical: why do you care about the mechanism?

When I say a script meant a cheatengine call script which is client manipulation. Not even remotely the same as voice attack or a script to push keys.

Then do please spell out the differences between the script that executes when I issue a command to voice attack and a script which executes.

Also don't pretend you actually know anything about game development and server coding.

Oh.. I don't pretend. The former has been my hobby and the latter is my occupation.

 

[DaedalusVar]

Why do you care?


Logging out has you no longer in the game too... but you have just stated again you are fine with that.

So since the outcome is identical: why do you care about the mechanism?


Then do please spell out the differences between the script that executes when I issue a command to voice attack and a script which executes.


If you can't be civil, *you* are violating TOS


Oh.. I don't pretend. The former has been my hobby and the latter is my occupation.

Outcome isn't the same because the chance of success is vastly different. Dirty cheater.

Not only is combat logging a 100% chance of escape you also get a refresh of your shields and hull like the encounter never happened. I can't follow your high wake or find you because you left the game. Logging out via menu you're still in game just at the menu. It's still dirty but not cheating.

 

[Truesilver]

@JerryLove, You appear to believe that fleeing and logging are the same thing and achieve the same thing.

But apart from those who simply log by default, logging happens when fleeing (or fighting) has failed.

By definition, a significant proportion of logs occur because the pilot has failed to escape using in-game mechanics so resorts to out-of-game cheating instead.

Classic example: aggressor interdicts. Aggressor gets spanked and gets FSD or Drives bust down to 0%. Aggressor logs.

It's not the same thing and it doesn't have the same outcome.

 

[JerryLove]

Outcome isn't the same because the chance of success is vastly different. Dirty cheater.

Ok. So you aknowledge that in ED: a ganker can intercept a player where the player has no chance of survival? Playing in open means random, unavoidable death; quite possibly over and over again?

- - - Updated - - -

@JerryLove, You appear to believe that fleeing and logging are the same thing and achieve the same thing.

But apart from those who simply log by default, logging happens when fleeing (or fighting) has failed.

By definition, a significant proportion of logs occur because the pilot has failed to escape using in-game mechanics so resorts to out-of-game cheating instead.

Classic example: aggressor interdicts. Aggressor gets spanked and gets FSD or Drives bust down to 0%. Aggressor logs.

It's not the same thing and it doesn't have the same outcome.

So the problem is specific to aggressors? It's not "combat logging"... it's "people who attack poorly, take too long to realize they are outmatched, and have <15 seconds before they die"?

OK. What's the specific goal that's being avoided by their combat logging? Shaudenfreude at their demise? The bounty for killing them? The hope that they will stop ganking people?

 

[DaedalusVar]

Anyone can get away, but you have try. Instead you kill the client cause it's easy.

 

[Yaffle]

All

Please calm down, and cut out the personal attacks. It is, after all, meant to be the season of goodwill.

 

[GilliganTX]

Ok. So you aknowledge that in ED: a ganker can intercept a player where the player has no chance of survival? Playing in open means random, unavoidable death; quite possibly over and over again?

100%, absolutely.

But you're acting like the player being ganked had no agency leading up to that event.

In a vast majority of cases, ganking happens in a small handful of starter systems, or in an active CG system.

Step 1, if you cannot deal with being exploded, is to avoid those systems.

Step 2, if you cannot avoid those systems, and still cannot handle being destroyed by a player, get out of Open.

When you log into open you are accepting the reality of the environment, in which another player has the freedom to kill your ship. Period. That is valid game play.

That said, if you have half your wits about you, you shouldn't be in that situation, and it is not difficult to escape.

I will say though, regarding ganking:

Asymmetric warfare is warfare. TBH it's the preferred style of warfare for every aggressor ever. Be it Assyrian, Persian, Chinese, Carthaginian, Roman, Viking, , the goddamned US armed forces bringing to bear an absolute storm of stealth bombers, attack helicopters, and vastly superior armored batallions from the rear of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

Anyone complaining about the inevitability of destruction when engaged on the attackers terms is out of their mind - because, A, they're wrong, and B, that's the whole g idea.

 

[AutoMechancal]

Ok. So you aknowledge that in ED: a ganker can intercept a player where the player has no chance of survival? Playing in open means random, unavoidable death; quite possibly over and over again?

- - - Updated - - -



So the problem is specific to aggressors? It's not "combat logging"... it's "people who attack poorly, take too long to realize they are outmatched, and have <15 seconds before they die"?

OK. What's the specific goal that's being avoided by their combat logging? Shaudenfreude at their demise? The bounty for killing them? The hope that they will stop ganking people?

A failure state. You know one of the things that makes a game a game and not a 3D tech demo.

 

[JerryLove]

Ok. So you aknowledge that in ED: a ganker can intercept a player where the player has no chance of survival? Playing in open means random, unavoidable death; quite possibly over and over again?

When you log into open you are accepting the reality of the environment, in which another player has the freedom to kill your ship. Period. That is valid game play.

That said, if you have half your wits about you, you shouldn't be in that situation, and it is not difficult to escape.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused as to your position here.

Playing in open can result in an unlimited amount of unavoidable death, or getting killed by another player is "easy to escape"?

Or are you saying that the escape is "don't play in open"?

- - - Updated - - -

A failure state. You know one of the things that makes a game a game and not a 3D tech demo.

I'm not sure I understand how their subjective "failure" affects your game, nor what "failure" even is in this case.

What is the outcome you want that you are not getting, and why do you want it?

The beginning asnwer to that first question is, I assume "I want them to experience exploding"; but is that the ends or the means? *Why* do you want them to experience exploding? What does that gain you?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone complaining about the inevitability of destruction when engaged on the attackers terms is out of their mind - because, A, they're wrong, and B, that's the whole g idea.

So someone complaining that a game is too difficult to actually play because they are being unavoidably attacked and killed by opponents they cannot possibly defeat is "wrong"?

In any single-player game I've played that would be considered a difficulty imbalance. Every MMO too (most segregate by play-spaces).