Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Way too much of this game is client side.
Adjuvant1
Member RarePosts: 2,100
in Star Citizen
Are "lag switches" real? That's the debate this week, as players accused of messing with .cfg files appear to have a detrimental effect on players surrounding them.
Whether they're real or not, talented gamers have taken to their own youtube videos to prove they're "not using said lag switches", which begs the question of knowledge of actual existence of said scripts.
Unlimited ammo for hand weapons ...
...and "get out of jail free" cards... (1:10 to 1:30)
...are just a couple more examples of how too much accessibility, which should be server side, is accessible in the client. Is this a fundamental flaw in design? Why is so much accessible in the client now, anyway? Do you think CIG even intends to "fix" this?
Whether they're real or not, talented gamers have taken to their own youtube videos to prove they're "not using said lag switches", which begs the question of knowledge of actual existence of said scripts.
Unlimited ammo for hand weapons ...
...and "get out of jail free" cards... (1:10 to 1:30)
...are just a couple more examples of how too much accessibility, which should be server side, is accessible in the client. Is this a fundamental flaw in design? Why is so much accessible in the client now, anyway? Do you think CIG even intends to "fix" this?
Comments
Guess they'll be doing more code "refactoring" or whatever they were calling it when this starts becoming a major problem.
Best part is the patches will get a hell of a lot smaller.
But that being said it is unlikely that if that day ever happens this game will still be a hacker and script kiddie paradise because it will most definitely be client dependent.
They may by some miracle actually get one thing right and have good servers on their end but until they are absolutely forced to its highly unlikely.
Like I said these worries are probably a good 5 or 7 years away att his point.
That enables CIG to patch out possible bugs and store essential data on the servers instead of client side.
Have fun
That they try to put as much data as possible client side for reasons of optimisation is IMHO understandable. The testing phase is exactly the time to find out if this can be exploited or not.
That it HAS been exploited has not been officially confirmed by CIG yet to my knowledge. Possible evidence of such exploits has been presented by testers.
Have fun
And guess what, that's exactly what the Germans did.
Have fun
MAGA
Have fun
Welcome to the Internet.
Not sure why the pro side completely ignores that.
IF they could do it they would. As for making CLAIMS they can do it, how many claims have they made about this game that havent come close to being (PROVEN) reality already? Pretty much all of them actually, at least stuff that anyone could do in their basement.
We dont even know if the engine works. From the way the tiny little test bed, techdemo, alpha runs I would say it doesnt. They can make all the claims they want about what they did, but if what you see with your own eyes doesnt back those claims up then the claims are bullshit.
But still cart way before the horse here.
while every game should take responsibility for trying to prevent hacking/cheating as much as possible, even more important is how they deal with cheaters and exploiters when it does happen.
problem players have to be found fast, banned for good, and anything that was duped has to be removed from game. there should also be a public statement about the banning. no names needed, just a reassurance that justice was served.
trust me, people will think twice of hacking when they know their 1000$ + hangar will be deleted instantly if they get reported a bunch of times, and are found to out to be cheating.
That is just another side effect of pay to win games.
Nice video in regards to the P2W accusations.
Yes... backers have an advantage over gamers who buy SC on release date. And the more money they spend the bigger the ship fleet and, if it fits your narrative, the bigger the advantage.
But all items are that would give you an advantage can be obtained ingame with game currency. Yes you can buy UEC with real money but ship cannot be bought with the amount of UEC obtainable with real money.
But CIG has to be careful how they handle the UEC/real money ratio. It's a sensible thing.
if players lose confidence in the devs abilities to police fair play, a large majority will stop playing and even more will stop spending cash. New players also dry up once words gets out that the game is full of cheaters. nobody will want to play it, and even those that do will not spend anything because they have no confidence in fair play. in the long term, it will destroy your game. i sincerely hope Roberts understand this.
let cheaters spend huge sums of money to buy the game/ships over and over every time they get banned.
Like I said this game was thought up out of thin air to 'prove' something to prove that a game like the one he dreamed of and ranted about could in fact be made. Yet 4 or 5 years later and 110+ million dollars raised there has been absolutely zero 'new groundbreaking' development seem from this project. Those are facts (at least if you believe them on the amount of money they have raised). There is nothing subjective there are all. It is as simple as what you see is what you get.
The fact they are having this new secret aplha test could be (mis)construed as them having something groundbreaking they havent released yet. But that WOULD be subjective and speculation. See the difference?
Now if that comes out and its truly amazing THEN you pro guys can chirp back. If it is something that has already been done BUT at least works and advances the game it would and should also be grounds for celebration. But the hardest of hardcore critics will still criticize it. But peopel who actually want to play the game will at lest have SOMETHING to hang their hats on. So that secret thing will be a proof by inspection as well as a subjective interpretation. Because what you see will be what you get but the subjectivity of it will be based on the biases of the people associated with it. It will exist so it will pass that inspection. WHAT it delivers will be semi subjective.
Right now in all honesty, and yes I am a critic, there isnt anything these guys have done that is even worthy of anything. They have proof of concept, thats about it. But they have had that for 3 years. They havent even advanced that enough (yet) to get into anything subjective. At least not to anyone with anything more than the barest minimum of expectations.
In other words I dont think ANY honest person, pro or con can look at what what these guys have delivered, that people can see and experience for themselves and say "wow thats awesome''. I doubt they can even say (with honesty) well its pretty good. I think most of them look at it like a 10 year old girl on here 10th birthday who thought she was getting a pony that year(that she was promised when she was 7) only to see a nice new bike (and IMO subjective opinion SC isnt even a nice new bike) and says..."Really? Wheres my F-ing pony?+