That's not true in the slightest - a client can be just as trustworthy as a server. Trust does not depend upon whether a machine is a client or a server, but on how the system is set up.
What would really make a difference: the client-server model
- Thread starter TheSynopticVision
- Start date
- Status
That's not true in the slightest - a client can be just as trustworthy as a server. Trust does not depend upon whether a machine is a client or a server, but on how the system is set up.
Hm!
I beg to differ. Since we already know that the majority of players do not engage in PvP we are already in a position that combat logging can only be a problem for the minority of players even if every single one of them has an issue with it. Now we also know that a lot of players in PG or Open by their own admission rarely see another player or do not engage in combat if they do, so the combat logging problem must be less than the minority of players that PvP.
So it's definitely a minority problem.
Of course, the perception of the problem is another matter entirely. I really does seem to stir certain people up.
Perhaps the observation that the community in general does not see it as a problem is indicative that it really is a small problem.
There again, maybe not.
Last edited:
This is a problem, it's probably the most significant reason for many to not get behind fixing it, and as a supporter of removing the main benefit of CLogging (for a griefer to escape their comeuppance by switching to solo & move position) I find the short-sighted 'investigations' frustrating and counterproductive.
Nevertheless, on a very simple & easy to digest level, it's cheating & should be taken into account by the game rules.
This is the problem and like many others, I do not want a monthly subscription
Oh, okay, I misunderstood your post. I though you meant that the cheating / non-cheating thing was a matter of semantics. I apologise.
As for you not being a native English speaker, I couldn't tell. Your English looks to be better than mine.
Combat Logging in Solo? That is certainly not a problem. The player is only cheating themselves and in that case, so what?
And you are correct, my impression on the forum doesn't add or remove weight to how big the CL problem is in ED (or not) but neither does yours. It's all opinion since we do not have hard data to back up any argument.
As for the tea, I have't finished my current mug, thank you, I'll get a fresh one later. With ginger biscuits.
I think it is already taken into account by the game rules but I could be wrong there. Certainly FDev have come out a number of times and stated that Combat Logging is a no-no.
Comparing games built for instances like that to Elite is a stretch. Just had to put that out there. Huge instances is something those games were built around. Elite was not.
Switching gears...
On the issue of combat logging, I support a fix for it one day. However, will dedicated servers solve it? Is it holding Elite back? I don't think so. PvP isn't really a huge vital part of any gameplay element yet. Still, I support a fix. Either way, dedicated servers aren't a magical solution to it either so it's irrelevant.
An argument of weight. This is sure that David did not choose at random and in a few days
Ok, let me put a few case scenarios here:
- a player in solo, hanging around in an outpost, full shield tank, killing police ships. When things go badly (which barely may happen) this player Combat logs and back again to business, no need to spend a single Cr in repair, rearm or whatever. System goes to lockdown for everybody.
- a player in solo, hanging around in an RES, full shield tank, killing wanted ships. When things go badly (which barely may happen) this player Combat logs and back again to business, no need to spend a single Cr in repair, rearm or whatever, no need to trip back to the closest station. after 8h, player goes and cash in the bounties, system state bucket fills up and this affects everybody.
Before anyone says how the BGS has no importance, lets just avoid a discussion on how the BGS affects the available system facilities, market goods and even faction influence. This affects everybody.
And to fix a great many of these and other issues they would need to add a sub to cover the costs. Yes, yes, servers are cheap etc. etc. and the likes of Blizzard only charge to milk you, BUT, it does take funds and (maybe) smaller companies couldn't handle the overheads?
I'd still prefer a offline mode to a server mode, we'd maybe get mods then to make the base game work better than it is!
There is no dispute, CLogging is agreed to be a no-no as you say. The game currently takes it into account with the 15sec 'ship in danger' timer, and the largely hypothetical, 'chocolate fireguard' tracking solution FDev state they have in place.
As I said in the post you quoted, the main (most damaging to multi-player player enjoyment) is the CLogging griefer. You know those infamous sealclubbers with the youtube channels? Them.
If I wanted to, I could track them down & attack them, and others could too. In theory we could rebuy them into freewinders, or police them out of the system but all they need to do is CLog, log back into solo & move to another position, then log back into open & start clubbing again. I couldn't show them the rebuy screen no matter how skilled or well equipped I was.
If, after an ungraceful disconnect the game only allows you to rejoin the mode you left, the CLogger is forced to either not play or to rejoin in the position they left, where I may be able to finish them off.
With this benefit of CLogging removed the community stands a better chance of self-policing. This in turn takes pressure off the C&P system to be all things to all people, and actually adds worthy gameplay being a goodie.
It's how I see it.
Fair points all.
They had enough money for a shiny, new multimillion pound Frontier HQ - and I can bet you now, they have more than enough capital for dedicated servers.
If they want to attract more dedicated gamers and sales, they would be fools not to go dedicated eventually.
No triple AAA game survives or does well unless it is dedicated based. Could anyone imagine the uproar if World of Warcraft went Peer to Peer? Or if it started as peer to peer?
That game would have died, just like Space Marine did (that was Peertopeer) - every serious gamer HATES peer to peer because it is anethema to competitive gaming, or just smooth gaming in general.
The only reason elite is currently surviving is because the competition is so low at the moment. Star Citizen: Forever is still alpha, and apart from that there's no serious contenders (no man sky, lolol).
However, it doesn't detract from it being a great game in its own right - and it does have aliens (not even SC can claim that), it's just things could be so much more reliable and faster on dedicated, with so many less problems.
The amount of money they've thrown at trying to get their peer to peer system to work, they may as well have just spent it on proper servers.
If they want to attract more dedicated gamers and sales, they would be fools not to go dedicated eventually.
No triple AAA game survives or does well unless it is dedicated based. Could anyone imagine the uproar if World of Warcraft went Peer to Peer? Or if it started as peer to peer?
That game would have died, just like Space Marine did (that was Peertopeer) - every serious gamer HATES peer to peer because it is anethema to competitive gaming, or just smooth gaming in general.
The only reason elite is currently surviving is because the competition is so low at the moment. Star Citizen: Forever is still alpha, and apart from that there's no serious contenders (no man sky, lolol).
However, it doesn't detract from it being a great game in its own right - and it does have aliens (not even SC can claim that), it's just things could be so much more reliable and faster on dedicated, with so many less problems.
The amount of money they've thrown at trying to get their peer to peer system to work, they may as well have just spent it on proper servers.
I have no information to even agree or disagree on what you just wrote, but if you could share your sources (specially the last paragraph) that'd be sure helpful in opening up this conversation.
Again, so what? Any player in any mode can have this effect whether or not they combat log. Now I can see that in a PvP situation that the combat logging may well cheat the opponent of a justly deserved bounty or cargo or some other material reward, but in Solo, the effect that one player is going to have by combat logging is negligible.
Now it might just be enough to tip the balance at the right moment, the snowflake and the avalanche argument, but that would be the case of them playing as you describe without combat logging. It would just be a little sooner in the cheating case.
If we're talking 1v1, then sure, it could be. Could.
3+ players - gets sloppier.
5+ players - disconnection start occurring.
6+ players - more of the above, start adding in IP4 and IPv6 and Turn problems slowing everything down further.
7+ players - begins to become unplayable on some machines.
8+ players - jesus. Good luck getting players to stick in the instance.
To make matters worse, some ISPs don't even support IPv6 yet, like Sky, so if you have IPv6 turned on in Elite or/and have it setup on your PC, it can cause even more potential problems or simply won't work. And then there's the small % of players playing Elite with UPnP turned off, and unless they setup their ports correctly on their routers and computer, and not firewalled it, these guys will cause cancer on peer to peer networks and frack a complete instance of players over, since everyone has to try connect to him.
I'm pretty sure several of the Call of Duty games have used P2P in the past and they seemed to have done quite well
I'm pretty sure several of the Call of Duty games have used P2P in the past and they seemed to have done quite well
i wondered how long it would take for someone to mention CoD.
a game that uses a client2server only engine, where the accomplishment of the DEVs was to let one players computer act as the server, and the others as clients
-> and have someone elses PC take over seamlessly if the original host disconnects
Again you underestimate the effect of CL not related to PVP hiding. Ok, over!
- Status