Forums » Suggestions
@starblazzz: I have, and do, suggest that if you are under faction self defense status, your respawn point be moved.
I oppose a log in timer, because it can be bypassed by the technically elite. Technically eliteness should not be a major consideration in playing this game.
It takes next to nothing to make a 2/2/0/0/0 disposable alt on a trial account. Fight fire with fire. Make disposable alts.
I oppose a log in timer, because it can be bypassed by the technically elite. Technically eliteness should not be a major consideration in playing this game.
It takes next to nothing to make a 2/2/0/0/0 disposable alt on a trial account. Fight fire with fire. Make disposable alts.
The name of the game is Vendetta. Try that instead of care-bearing.
So this thread is about Nyrius F6? And you are trying to make it safe to move RBH? Has you all forgot about something? You can build RBH in Bractus M14. Just take the station, and the turrets will defend your RBH for you.
Three letters that make everything in this thread useless:
VPN
VPN
Will a VPN affect all clients on a single device? I have no idea how one works but I don't think it can affect multiple clients.
+1 to timer between switching alts
+1 to timer between switching alts
You are assuming that the alts are on the same account. With a simple VPN and multiple accounts you can bypass everything suggested in this thread.
Roda is the only one with the answer, fight alts with alts.
Roda is the only one with the answer, fight alts with alts.
Move RBH manu to Dau Biocom station. Manu should be safe. WAF, no one will manu in M14, stop trolling.
+1 to login timer. 5 minutes will make it fair.
+1 to login timer. 5 minutes will make it fair.
Technically eliteness should not be a major consideration in playing this game.
^THIS
It should not. Yet it is.
Here's the thing, in any online game there are moments of frustration when it appears that someone else knows something about the game that gives them a leg up. It's up to the individual whether or not it's worth trying to improve their knowledge or skills to bring themselves up to speed. It's up to the game designer to provide reasonable avenues by which to pursue that knowledge and improve those skills.
In VO everything is "work in progress" and the path to mastery requires a certain skillset that is not only not possessed by most of the users, but that is also not something most users have any interest in learning in order to play the game (say, if how to write plugins and how to use various command lines and key binds to improve the experience was 100% adequately explained in the tutorial, or how to setup VPNs to mask that you are running multiple clients).
Combine that with the basic "shrug" incarnate has given this issue, I fear this is just how VO is going to be.
^THIS
It should not. Yet it is.
Here's the thing, in any online game there are moments of frustration when it appears that someone else knows something about the game that gives them a leg up. It's up to the individual whether or not it's worth trying to improve their knowledge or skills to bring themselves up to speed. It's up to the game designer to provide reasonable avenues by which to pursue that knowledge and improve those skills.
In VO everything is "work in progress" and the path to mastery requires a certain skillset that is not only not possessed by most of the users, but that is also not something most users have any interest in learning in order to play the game (say, if how to write plugins and how to use various command lines and key binds to improve the experience was 100% adequately explained in the tutorial, or how to setup VPNs to mask that you are running multiple clients).
Combine that with the basic "shrug" incarnate has given this issue, I fear this is just how VO is going to be.
Hasn't incarnate already pretty much said he's not going to do anything about people doing this kind of thing?
Combine that with the basic "shrug" incarnate has given this issue, I fear this is just how VO is going to be.
Can you please let people productively discuss the subject? That's the point of this forum. Repeating negative assumptions is unhelpful
.1. Set a max_connections_per_ip value for each account that defaults to 1.
Keep in mind that there are large networks, like college dorms and campuses, that will gateway thousands of systems through a single external IP. This is particularly prevalent since the exhaustion of ipv4 space. Ipv6 migration is sill on-going.
Combine that with the basic "shrug" incarnate has given this issue, I fear this is just how VO is going to be.
Can you please let people productively discuss the subject? That's the point of this forum. Repeating negative assumptions is unhelpful
.1. Set a max_connections_per_ip value for each account that defaults to 1.
Keep in mind that there are large networks, like college dorms and campuses, that will gateway thousands of systems through a single external IP. This is particularly prevalent since the exhaustion of ipv4 space. Ipv6 migration is sill on-going.
Wash, I very clearly did account for those
This obviously doesn't cover all ways to abuse the system, for example, using VMs that use a vpn connection or mobile devices on a data plan, but it's a good start to blocking this behavior and raising the bar for anybody wishing to carry out this type of abuse.
This obviously doesn't cover all ways to abuse the system, for example, using VMs that use a vpn connection or mobile devices on a data plan, but it's a good start to blocking this behavior and raising the bar for anybody wishing to carry out this type of abuse.
I think Wash's point is that.. saying that doesn't actually "account for it". It just makes VPNs the standard instead of people attempting to do anything else.
Also, as I posted above, I cannot limit "connections per IP", as it's architecturally built into a lot of big networks. Like, for instance, AT&T's mobile network gates their millions of users through only a limited number of actual IPs. A lot of mobile networks use address translation. "Lan parties" are not the problem.
It's possible to inject some cooldown timer requirement into switching between alts on a single account, like 60 seconds or something. But that again may just make the "norm" into using multiple accounts, rather than meaningfully blocking much of anything.
Also, as I posted above, I cannot limit "connections per IP", as it's architecturally built into a lot of big networks. Like, for instance, AT&T's mobile network gates their millions of users through only a limited number of actual IPs. A lot of mobile networks use address translation. "Lan parties" are not the problem.
It's possible to inject some cooldown timer requirement into switching between alts on a single account, like 60 seconds or something. But that again may just make the "norm" into using multiple accounts, rather than meaningfully blocking much of anything.
Again, the true limiting factor, is that one person can only control so many alts at once.
Instead of trying to limit others to your limitations, eliminate your limitations to bring yourself up to their speed.
I can build a 3/3/2/1/1 character in under an hour, without any outside assistance. With outside assistance, half that.
An unlimited number of trial and free to play characters, that can be played simultaneously, should be built into all accounts. This is effectively what is in play now, for those that know how, and we should eliminate the unnecessary limitation of knowing how.
If it can be done technically, eliminate the unnecessary technical element.
Instead of trying to limit others to your limitations, eliminate your limitations to bring yourself up to their speed.
I can build a 3/3/2/1/1 character in under an hour, without any outside assistance. With outside assistance, half that.
An unlimited number of trial and free to play characters, that can be played simultaneously, should be built into all accounts. This is effectively what is in play now, for those that know how, and we should eliminate the unnecessary limitation of knowing how.
If it can be done technically, eliminate the unnecessary technical element.
Roda, i like that idea. Make it a new suggestion, and i'll +1 it
An unlimited number of trial and free to play characters, that can be played simultaneously, should be built into all accounts. This is effectively what is in play now, for those that know how, and we should eliminate the unnecessary limitation of knowing how.
Just to be clear, this would not necessarily equalize the playing field. A lot of people don't have the hardware to run multiple copies of the client concurrently.
On the other hand, I can say the process of making the current client capable of controlling multiple simultaneous characters would be a really big development process. Our entire client game architecture is not built for that.
So, you will still have a big number of haves-and-have-nots, if this became the norm.
I think the key problem here is the use of spotter bots.
I just want to make a note about rkerst's response from page 1. We could alternatively:
1) Remove any ability for plugins to be aware of radar-based data.
AND / OR
2) Remove any ability for plugins to be able to message other players, or transmit data over the network.
Either or both of these would remove a lot of "ease of automation" for these kinds of issues (and obviously, other spotter-bot based problems). Removing the ease of automation would have a pretty major downward pressure on their likelihood of happening.
The flipside, of course, is it would instantly nullify all plugins that share information via the network for other reasons (asteroid prospecting lists, trading prices, etc etc).
Just to be clear, this would not necessarily equalize the playing field. A lot of people don't have the hardware to run multiple copies of the client concurrently.
On the other hand, I can say the process of making the current client capable of controlling multiple simultaneous characters would be a really big development process. Our entire client game architecture is not built for that.
So, you will still have a big number of haves-and-have-nots, if this became the norm.
I think the key problem here is the use of spotter bots.
I just want to make a note about rkerst's response from page 1. We could alternatively:
1) Remove any ability for plugins to be aware of radar-based data.
AND / OR
2) Remove any ability for plugins to be able to message other players, or transmit data over the network.
Either or both of these would remove a lot of "ease of automation" for these kinds of issues (and obviously, other spotter-bot based problems). Removing the ease of automation would have a pretty major downward pressure on their likelihood of happening.
The flipside, of course, is it would instantly nullify all plugins that share information via the network for other reasons (asteroid prospecting lists, trading prices, etc etc).
+1 to eliminating the ability of plugins to talk to each other
"Make Nyrius where Kos pilots cannot dock in system if Kos to biocom"
are you suggesting that Nyrius become a Biocom system now?
are you suggesting that Nyrius become a Biocom system now?
@incarnate:
Sure, being able to hot swap characters would be nice. But my main point is to have an unlimited
number of trial/f2p characters, without changing accounts. We can just log out and back in for now.
It bugs me that I can be detected by someone that I can not find and kill, or at least chase off. Is there a reason that players outside radar range are not occluded?
Sure, being able to hot swap characters would be nice. But my main point is to have an unlimited
number of trial/f2p characters, without changing accounts. We can just log out and back in for now.
It bugs me that I can be detected by someone that I can not find and kill, or at least chase off. Is there a reason that players outside radar range are not occluded?
"Manu should be safe."
No it shouldn't.
"1) Remove any ability for plugins to be aware of radar-based data."
"2) Remove any ability for plugins to be able to message other players, or transmit data over the network."
Neither of these is worth it, and the second one wouldn't even work unless you also nerf the ability for plugins to output to the log file, and you'd need to make sure the system notes and config files aren't written until the client exits (if it's not already like that). Otherwise people could just as easily write an external program that reads data via the files and communicates the information to them out-of-game (extra monitor, or window-mode, or text-to-voice, or whatever). And then there's the inconvenient existence of software that can read pixels off the screen, allowing people to create yet another way to leak data out of the game into an external program... So really, option 2 is a bust. It would need to be option 1.
But why bother? I realize that a lot of people have irrational paranoia about spotter bots, but I don't see how raping the plugin API to eliminate them would accomplish anything worthwhile. The only difference it would make is that instead of using plugins to aggregate the data into one client, they'd just tile the game windows and watch them all manually, security-guard-style. That does reduce the maximum number of bots an individual can manage, but I figure somebody could still pay reasonably decent attention to at least nine bots at once, so I wouldn't call it a meaningful improvement. Certainly not enough to justify ruining a bunch of perfectly acceptable plugins like TargetLess, or that one that announces your current target to group chat, etc.
No it shouldn't.
"1) Remove any ability for plugins to be aware of radar-based data."
"2) Remove any ability for plugins to be able to message other players, or transmit data over the network."
Neither of these is worth it, and the second one wouldn't even work unless you also nerf the ability for plugins to output to the log file, and you'd need to make sure the system notes and config files aren't written until the client exits (if it's not already like that). Otherwise people could just as easily write an external program that reads data via the files and communicates the information to them out-of-game (extra monitor, or window-mode, or text-to-voice, or whatever). And then there's the inconvenient existence of software that can read pixels off the screen, allowing people to create yet another way to leak data out of the game into an external program... So really, option 2 is a bust. It would need to be option 1.
But why bother? I realize that a lot of people have irrational paranoia about spotter bots, but I don't see how raping the plugin API to eliminate them would accomplish anything worthwhile. The only difference it would make is that instead of using plugins to aggregate the data into one client, they'd just tile the game windows and watch them all manually, security-guard-style. That does reduce the maximum number of bots an individual can manage, but I figure somebody could still pay reasonably decent attention to at least nine bots at once, so I wouldn't call it a meaningful improvement. Certainly not enough to justify ruining a bunch of perfectly acceptable plugins like TargetLess, or that one that announces your current target to group chat, etc.
Pizza nailed it. It would be a rather minor undertaking for me to drag up another pc and simply set it up security gaurd style. I've actually been considering doing that as alt-tabbing is kinda annoying.
they'd just tile the game windows and watch them all manually, security-guard-style.
A lot of the problems raised by these issues stem from simplicity of automation, not from the fundamental awareness gleaned by watching multiple screens, security-guard style.
A lot of the problems raised by these issues stem from simplicity of automation, not from the fundamental awareness gleaned by watching multiple screens, security-guard style.