What would really make a difference: the client-server model

[Red Anders]

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.

Without wishing to turn this into a combat-logging thread, which it isn't, you're completely missing the point about it. We can argue all day about the specifics of how many players it directly affects in-game but what it does is create an impression of a developer who is at best inconsistent as far as punishing cheating goes and at worst is negligent.

If this was 1984 and we were discussing a single player game, it may not be important. In 2018 discussing an MMO, believe me it is important, at least if the developer wants to be taken seriously in that market.

 

[dutchy2000]

Not this again, some random armchair numpty thinks that proclaiming client server will fix all networking issues. Here is the video that someone earlier in the thread mentioned. Unless you COMPLETELY understand what is being said in it. shut up, you know nothing and go away.
[video=youtube;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0&t=1s[/video]

 

[MarkAusten]

Again you underestimate the effect of CL not related to PVP hiding. Ok, over!

Quite possibly.

But, as I said, I can see the argument for PvP but not for anything else. Yes, I agree there will be an effect but I dispute the scale. There's also the 'tree falling in the wood' argument. You cannot see what a player does in Solo nor PG nor in Open if they are in another instance nor any player at all on a another platform. You have no idea if the lockdown in which a station now finds itself is due to combat logging, some other form of cheating (the hyperspace exploit, for example), concerted effort by a player group or a number of players doing the same thing or even just one player doing their bit and reaching the tipping point. So, if you do not know and cannot tell, does it make a difference realistically?

Yes, I know it make a difference in principle, but that's not what I am asking. My conjecture is that it makes very little difference realistically and because it make very little difference realistically, it is a small problem. I am of the opinion that the developers at FDev have far more important things to be working on than this, at least for the next year or so.

Not this again, some random armchair numpty thinks that proclaiming client server will fix all networking issues. Here is the video that someone earlier in the thread mentioned. Unless you COMPLETELY understand what is being said in it. shut up, you know nothing and go away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0&t=1s

Many thanks!

I was the someone that asked about the link. I will bookmark it right now so that I don't forget again.

Cheers.

 

[MarkAusten]

Without wishing to turn this into a combat-logging thread, which it isn't, you're completely missing the point about it. We can argue all day about the specifics of how many players it directly affects in-game but what it does is create an impression of a developer who is at best inconsistent as far as punishing cheating goes and at worst is negligent.

If this was 1984 and we were discussing a single player game, it may not be important. In 2018 discussing an MMO, believe me it is important, at least if the developer wants to be taken seriously in that market.

I can see your point but disagree. As I just posted to Ilo a few moments ago. I am of the opinion that the developers at FDev have far more important things to be working on than this, at least for the next year or so.

 

[MarkAusten]

Without wishing to turn this into a combat-logging thread, which it isn't, you're completely missing the point about it. We can argue all day about the specifics of how many players it directly affects in-game but what it does is create an impression of a developer who is at best inconsistent as far as punishing cheating goes and at worst is negligent.

If this was 1984 and we were discussing a single player game, it may not be important. In 2018 discussing an MMO, believe me it is important, at least if the developer wants to be taken seriously in that market.

Just as a matter of interest, has any other game successfully eliminated combat logging from the game? By successfully I mean successfully detecting combat loggers and not penalising non-combat log disconnects in the process.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

Not this again, some random armchair numpty thinks that proclaiming client server will fix all networking issues. Here is the video that someone earlier in the thread mentioned. Unless you COMPLETELY understand what is being said in it. shut up, you know nothing and go away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0&t=1s

And to think that they used to call me an elitist knnobbhead . I really should ramp up my game if this is the standard of a-holery around here. I can think of 5 different ways you could’ve politely dismissed my — let’s remember that — hypothesis about server structure, thus putting me in my place (I always welcome being taught something new). Including just posting the video.

Your choice of words, however, is a little marsterpiece of obnoxious smugness, which has really made my day. Ignore list, Dutchy. Dutchy, ignore list.

 

[dutchy2000]

And to think that they used to call me an elitist knnobbhead . I really should ramp up my game if this is the standard of a-holery around here. I can think of 5 different ways you could’ve politely dismissed my — let’s remember that — hypothesis about server structure, thus putting me in my place (I always welcome being taught something new). Including just posting the video.

Your choice of words, however, is a little marsterpiece of obnoxious smugness, which has really made my day. Ignore list, Dutchy. Dutchy, ignore list.

You are not the first and won't be the last that puts me there. But you are like the 100000th person to suggest all issues will be fixed by applying client-server architecture because P2P is bad. Lets just say their lead network engineer DAVs left thumb has forgotten more about networking than you will ever know. So maybe next time before making suggestions about things you know nothing about, do some research (it took me all of 5 seconds of googling to find the video) on the subject matter. Then maybe I will not dismiss you in such an aholery way.

 

[dognosh]

Call your ISP today and tell them to suck less.

You either posted this as a joke or know absolutely nothing about networks.
(and if you reply "I have been a network engineer for decades", you should get fired)

OP : Brilliant idea but it will never happen as no one will want to pay a subscription cost towards it.

 

[Red Anders]

Just as a matter of interest, has any other game successfully eliminated combat logging from the game? By successfully I mean successfully detecting combat loggers and not penalising non-combat log disconnects in the process.

Well the relevance of it to the topic of the thread is that most games which deem combat logging to be something they don't want deal with it fairly easily, by ensuring that if a player kills the task or uses some other form of ungraceful exit, their ship/character remains in the game for a period of time. Since it's no longer under control it will almost certainly be destroyed by their opponent, meaning that they will next log in to a rebuy screen, respawn or whatever other method the game uses to deal with death or destruction.

This game can't do it that way, specifically because of the networking option chosen, as Sandy has explained.

I don't know if any other games that use a P2P networking model have done it successfully. I am however sure that many will have done it more successfully.

 

[MarkAusten]

Well the relevance of it to the topic of the thread is that most games which deem combat logging to be something they don't want deal with it fairly easily, by ensuring that if a player kills the task or uses some other form of ungraceful exit, their ship/character remains in the game for a period of time. Since it's no longer under control it will almost certainly be destroyed by their opponent, meaning that they will next log in to a rebuy screen, respawn or whatever other method the game uses to deal with death or destruction.

This game can't do it that way, specifically because of the networking option chosen, as Sandy has explained.

I don't know if any other games that use a P2P networking model have done it successfully. I am however sure that many will have done it more successfully.

Thanks. I was wondering.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

The short answer is - give up, it's just never going to happen. There will never be a Client/Server Elite: Dangerous.

It wouldn't stop or prevent Combat Logging. People who are going to do it are going to do it anyways. That's just how it is, suck it up and get over it.

It wouldn't have any effect on USS. They would still generate randomly.

It wouldn't prevent any instancing issues, in fact, it could potentially make them worse. Never seen a Client/Server based game reject connections because the servers are all full? It happens.

It wouldn't make anything any more persistent than it already is.

Kind of fed up with all the Know-It-Nots who think they have some brilliant idea how to make everything all better for them, who would know their heads from their... not their heads if you showed them a picture of both.

 

[sollisb]

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.

Moving to a CS topology will not increase sales in the slightest. Players don't buy a game because it's CS or whatever. They buy based on positive reviews.

And just to note: I was writing online text MUDs using UDP nearly 3 decades ago. We didn't have CS but we had 200+ players playing without disconnects.

 

[MarkAusten]

Moving to a CS topology will not increase sales in the slightest. Players don't buy a game because it's CS or whatever. They buy based on positive reviews.

And just to note: I was writing online text MUDs using UDP nearly 3 decades ago. We didn't have CS but we had 200+ players playing without disconnects.

I remember those days. Online text is a tad different from Elite today, however.

Those games were so much fun.

 

[sollisb]

I remember those days. Online text is a tad different from Elite today, however.

Those games were so much fun.

Well, the only real difference is the amount of data packets being sent and processed? The problem with FDev is they have so much junk going on, to stop cheating that it clogs up the system. And if one server hic-cups, the entire network feels it.

On the subject of CL, while I think the problem is for the most part in the (agrieved) players head, an easy way to stop it is to not disconnect the ship server side for a period of time if the said ship is in combat.

What we did (way back when) was allow players to flag for PvP. Once flagged, they knew, even if they hard disconnected, their player character remained for 3 minutes, if the disconnect happened during combat.

Personally speaking, if 3 players gank a single ship and it CLs, I'd be laughing all the way and cheering it on

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Not this again, some random armchair numpty thinks that proclaiming client server will fix all networking issues. Here is the video that someone earlier in the thread mentioned. Unless you COMPLETELY understand what is being said in it. shut up, you know nothing and go away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0&t=1s

please point to part in it where it doesnt talk about backgroundsimulation and the universe,
but the direct interaction between player.

i have watched it two times and have not found the enlightment about that topic

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

Moving to a CS topology will not increase sales in the slightest. Players don't buy a game because it's CS or whatever. They buy based on positive reviews.

And just to note: I was writing online text MUDs using UDP nearly 3 decades ago. We didn't have CS but we had 200+ players playing without disconnects.

You're comparing a text based game to today's data heavy communications?

That's like playing civilization 1 or 2 via text, ofc you won't notice how bad it truly is, the envelope isn't being pushed.

A dedicated server would improve review scores, without a doubt. People may even play more CQC, since you need dedicated servers to be competitive.

 

[ilo]

please point to part in it where it doesnt talk about backgroundsimulation and the universe,
but the direct interaction between player.

i have watched it two times and have not found the enlightment about that topic

Then pay attention because it is mentioned several times. Anyway, this detailed description is more about the smart usage of cloud services than the overall networking, they don't even mentioned they have authentication in the TURN servers or how they distribute the EDServer list to the client, which are the very first networking events happening on the client/server structure of ED.

 

[ilo]

A dedicated server would improve review scores, without a doubt. People may even play more CQC, since you need dedicated servers to be competitive.

Oh, sorry, I missed the expert's opinion here. Sure, people will play CQC because of a dedicated server LMAO.. as if the matchmaking server (the one that is actually causing all the CQC troubles) is not dedicated enough.

 

[xondk]

You might be right here, but I think that there are several other less-than-intuitive issues that would be somewhat ameliorated by a server-client model. As for "how will that be covered", well, as I said above, Frontier is doing pretty well financially, and will do much better after JWE comes out this summer. I understand that it can be considered a superfluous expense now ("they are playing the game anyway, who cares"), but still I don't think that "we cannot afford it" can be an answer anymore.

I'd love for you to actually explain these issues, because I don't really see them.

I've seen a few games move from P2P to client-server. It is very possible, but might only marginally help instancing. It won't magically make it all better. If someone's connection can hardly communicate with others, it'll hardly communicate to a server as well. Everything else is fixable without the need for dedicated servers.

Still, it'll help connections that only have problems with each other, but that's not always the problem.

P2P is generally used because its a significantly cheaper and nearly as good as server side, what is the motivation to move away from it? remember games like GTA V and such, also use P2P.
Even with P2P there is generally a "host", but it is random amongst those players playing, done to aid syncing, but yes if a poor client is the host then problems will happen.

"Can", haven't. Are not.

Well the contacts for a faction are persistent and depending on reputation, but yeah, what would adding npcs that are out and about to be 'persistent' npc's give of gains to the game?

 

[sollisb]

You're comparing a text based game to today's data heavy communications?

That's like playing civilization 1 or 2 via text, ofc you won't notice how bad it truly is, the envelope isn't being pushed.

A dedicated server would improve review scores, without a doubt. People may even play more CQC, since you need dedicated servers to be competitive.

Firstly, I mentioned UDP and was available back then. CS architecture just not magically enhance a game, any game. I have no doubt, FDev are pushing the bounds of P2P but!! A lot of the stuff is nothing to do with player experience. A lot of background queue's etc are being generated and processed. Dynamic player data is being queued for cheat analysis as well as player to player updates. And into that each transaction has to be processed for player credits as well as the BGS, super-power, factions.

CS architecture 'might' increase performance, but, in and of itself, also generates more hassles. And to be frank, I imagine they'd [fdev] add in even more 'bloat' to the server system. A system is only as good as the data processing code working on it. P2P in a general sense makes perfect sense. But if you over load it, it becomes a behemoth of unresiliant systems, which cause havok across the entire network.

There is absolutely no evidence, that changing to a CS platform would generate more sales. Until such a guarantee existed, any company would be foolish to change. Further, CL is not a reason in and of itself for any change. At worst some player feels agrieved because they didn't see an explosion.