Same old song about cheaters

[GilliganTX]

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"?

Can. It can happen. That doesn't make in common, or absolute. You did not say shall or will.

Can a player pull you into a certain death scenario - absolutely. There is a point of no return where death becomes an inevitability. That is Possible. HOWEVER -

You, as a player, can avoid those scenarios with some forethought about where you are going and how your are outfitted, being aware of who is around you in SC, and quickly reacting to an interdiction, and having a high-wake destination ready.

If you neglect to take these steps, and fly a weak cargo ship blindly into an active CG system and fly straight to the target station with no regard for who is following you, and fail to submit or win the interdiction, then have no idea about what system you can hi-wake to and escape, yes, you can be ganked by a wing and have no chance at survival.

 

[AutoMechancal]

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?

It's "failure state" stop trying to cherry pick and go readed up about it. Then you'll understand and will be a better troll.

 

[znôrt]

There are bigger things to worry about.

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.

exactly. that's why folks keep talking about this, to convey that it matters. 'el que no llora, no mama' (squeaky wheel gets the grease). now you understand!

you might argue that powerplay, or engineers, or mac support, are more important. other people don't.

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.

first because i know, i develop software. second, because it's solved by countless other games. you talk about architecture like it was something advertised, the player's issue. it is not. people bought a pvp game, not a p2p game, it's the provider's duty to deliver. he's free to choose whatever architecture but using it as an excuse not to deliver is just ridiculous. it still baffles me every time i read it.

that aside, of course you can. how do you think your missions are accounted for, even with p2p? with a transaction server. what prevents adding some for combat? you need that anyway to mitigate cheating. this is essential for pvp, call it industry standard. is frontier actually serious about what they advertise?

i don't understand how you guys don't understand that people complain about this. even if it's not your priority.

now, to be fair ... "upsetting", yeah, that was a bit of an exaggeration

 

[JerryLove]

If you neglect to take these steps, and fly a weak cargo ship blindly into an active CG system and fly straight to the target station with no regard for who is following you, and fail to submit or win the interdiction, then have no idea about what system you can hi-wake to and escape, yes, you can be ganked by a wing and have no chance at survival.

Some players don't have a lot of chose as to how powerful their ship is. Since I've seen a type 9 taken out in 3 seconds by 2 ships; I'm going to assume insta-kill is a real danger for these players that they cannot high-wake out of.

And I'm not talking about people who let themselves get in over their heads... who have wandered into a HazRez, or picked a fight... I'm just talking about people flying around.. maybe hunting at a nav point, or trading, who are attacked by players.

In a crowded system, it's not possible to keep everyone away from an angle where they can interdict... and when you are mining, or at a nav point, or a station: it's not even requiring an interdiction. Can we agree on that much?

My issue here is twofold.
1) I don't think the real complaint is combat logging. That's just a common mechanism. There's this outcry (it's hard not to call it "whine") to ban combat logging as this "root of all evil" from some "it's cheating" bully pulpit; but it doesn't seem to be the actual problem.

2) The game, lacking a good crime-and-punishment system, lacking actual safe spaces (in open) for noobs, with a system where insta-kill is easily achievable by an advanced player; fails to give many players a way to not get "random ganked".

Let's imagine we manage to "punish combat loggers". I predict 3 things.
1) You'll punish innocent people.
2) People who are not in the group that's actually bugging you will get punished for clogging to get away from gankers, griefers, and accidental police aggro.
3) The actual people you are complaining about will find some other tactic and the complaints will continue unabated.

So you'll spend a bunch of money, create two new problems, and not really fix the one problem you have now.

You know.. unless the goal (as seems the case for some posters) is simply to make some people's lives more miserable on principal.

 

[DaedalusVar]

It's funny that elite dangerous is the only online multilayer game in history that actively encourages cheating and talk about cheating in their forums.

Ya know what happens in other games? You get banned instantly. No reversal, go buy the game again and start over.

 

[JerryLove]

first because i know, i develop software.

Sweet. Me too. What's you 10k' view of the architecture of a solution? I can't wait to hear it. It might have useful applications to my own work.

second, because it's solved by countless other games.

Can you offer an example of another point-to-point game that successfully solves disconnects?

it's the provider's duty to deliver.

You might want to read the EULA.

that aside, of course you can. how do you think your missions are accounted for, even with p2p? with a transaction server.

Computer A can see the transaction server but not computer B.
Computer B can see the transaction server but not computer A.

Which computer logged? What's your mechanism for determining that?

The process just died on Computer C. Did the game crash or did the player kill the process?

The transaction server lost connection to computer D. How do you tell if D has disconnected or if it's merely a connection issue between the transaction server and the computer?

I cannot wait for your insight into these basic problems.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Cool down.
Come back tomorrow.