I would like a response from Ubisoft/Massive whether or not the following clause taken from theguardion.com is true. (https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ion-pc-ubisoft)
"I asked Glenn Fielder, a game networking expert with 15 years experience who most recently worked on Titanfall, whether there’s anything to this......... Since talking to the Guardian, Fielder has gone on to investigate further and, after certain evidence, adds this: “The Division is most likely using a trusted client network model. I sincerely hope this is not the case, because if it is true, my opinion of can this be fixed is basically no.”
I think it is a huge statement made by Fielder and if true that is a serious outcome to PC-players and just means the game is definately broken on PC
Taken from thread: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-my-local-news
Before i get bashed or my post gets deleted again it's not needless to say i was a huge fan in the beta (that's why i bought the game|) and for the first two weeks after D-Day. But it doesn't get any funnier now anymore.
The only way to fix that would be to completely re-write the game's architecture to be server-authoritative. That's not going to happen. Its very difficult to battle hacks when the game's architecture is such that the server always believes what the client is telling it. I know devs/publishers like a client-dominant model because its cheaper in terms of server costs, but the downside is a lower quality player experience, especially in a PC environment where its just too easy for someone to install an easily obtainable third-party tool to alter the client behaviour.
That's what i NOT want to hear from Ubisoft devs but it probably will be so whether we get an answer or not from them. Accordingly to that expert Fielder that just means the PC-version is going to and already is dying without a chance to respawn. Bad bad! (I will not point a finger because that will get this thread deletedOriginally Posted by googlebright Go to original post)
Yeah, its a design decision based more on profit than quality. Which usually means it was the publisher's idea rather than the developer's. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason this game was delayed two years and now has so many bugs in it is that Massive started down the road of server-side only to have Ubisoft demand it be client-side to keep the support costs down and they had to scrap a bunch of progress and rebuild it in a hurry.Originally Posted by Benneauman Go to original post
It's painfully obvious that the game was built for consoles. There's no other explanation for why so much is handled client side. Someone sat in a board room and made a calculated cost/benefit decision to do this. What this means is the hacking problem will never be handled on PC's without a core architecture change, which is not going to happen. The only way to fix it would be to allow players to flag themselves for pvp.