Why does it matter if some players make the game easier for themselves?

[Elrawkum]

Other than Ironman mode, everyone is playing with the same rule-set. There are no "easier modes".

Did the game come out already?

I didn't say there were - I was answering the question asked in the thread, "why does it matter if...?". These are some of the reasons why it might matter. Nothing is set in stone yet (well maybe some are, but not everything), so I was raising potential issues with and concerns about people "making the game easier for themselves" in a shared universe.

Does this change your opinion on things ?

It reassures me that they're aware of the potential problems, yes. Thanks for the reference. :cheers:

As I said before, I am not sure there is an easier path.

Not what was being asked. The question was "why would it matter if...?"

I'm really not sure what the difficulty is here. These are reasons why it would matter if...

If there isn't an easier path, then it's all moot. If there is, my answer contains reasons why it might be imbalancing, especially over time.

Neither you nor I know precisely what paths, modes or options will be in the final game for sure. This might be an entirely different conversation once all the features and modes are 'locked' - and another one again once we've actually played the game for a while. Or completely moot. I'm answering the question as it was posed without knowing what we'll be getting in the final game.

Well, firstly, it is not an MMO

It is, unless I've been grossly misled. "(An MMO) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously". Isn't this precisely what it is?

Everything you do affects everyone else? I'm not so sure, the effect would be so small as to be immeasurable.

If it was immeasurable it would be zero. If it's not zero, it's measureable, and multiplied by 10, 20 or 100 thousand players will add up to a significant effect over time. If the impact of what players did wasn't 'measureable' we couldn't influence the galaxy at all. That we can means it is. What we do matters. No matter how much or little, it all counts.

This is simple math, so I am stating this as fact. What impact it would actually have is impossible to say at this point, but that it would have one is inarguable.

Well, in a sense you were stating a 'fact'. You said that not having a 'level playing field' was a problem and that in needed sorting.

Do I really need to state "in my humble opinion" after every statement?

Please, take it as read, generally. It'll save a lot of unnecessary arguing.

I am, hopefully respectfully, disagreeing with your axiom.

You're not really arguing about whether something might be unfair or not, you seem mainly to be arguing that it shouldn't matter to me if it is, because it doesn't matter to you.

Well, excuse me, but it does.

it makes no sense to isolate one particular method, additionally that the method you are concerned about is still elusive to me.

I'm not isolating 'one particular method' - I've already said 'however making the game easier might be achieved'. The point is the imbalance in influence when players can choose different 'rules' than those of other players, not the specific method by which this is achieved.

what myself (and possibly Cathy, I would not like to speak for them) have not managed to fathom is how this would affect your gameplay and enjoyment of the game.

I have a strong sense of fair-play. I would worry that my, your or anyone's hard work is being undermined by someone running in easy/an easier mode. My enjoyment is enhanced when I know the game I'm playing is fair. It's a thing I have. If you fail to understand it, I can only apologise, because it's not something I can really do anything about.

I'll still play games which I know are 'nerfed', and can enjoy them all the same, depending on just how much that imbalance becomes obvious, but there's no question my enjoyment suffers when I feel the game I'm playing isn't balanced - especially when it's being shared with others and they have an influence on the gameworld too. A game like this magnifies it even more because, more than most MMO's where all they do is reach another rank or gain a better piece of equipment and just beat me in a fight easier, players taking an 'easier path' (if there is one) in this game could affect my gameworld too, disproportionally (if not accounted for). IF all players will be sharing the same world-space, with different rules for some, all having influence not based on their skill or time and effort put into the game, but just because of 'easier' options they've chosen, this would bother me.

I'm not one of the 'stamp my feet and demand my KS money back' types, so I'm not making a massive deal of it, but it's something I'd like to be taken into consideration when people ask questions like "Why does it matter if some players make the game easier for themselves?" in a shared universe is all.

'Just not fair' is not an argument becoming of someone with obvious intelligence. Seriously, I am trying to understand how your experience will be lessened by an 'easier path' if one exists.

And there went 'respectfully'. You don't have to understand it to respect it.

I am trying to understand how your experience will be lessened by those who would prefer a fair and balanced game.

I'm not suggesting that people who want an easier ride shouldn't be catered to at all, and have even tried to think of ways it might work - just that it isn't quite as clear cut as "why not?" in a shared, dynamic, evolving universe without taking into consideration the consequences - foreseen and otherwise.

I've tried to explain, I'm genuinely sorry if I've not made it clear, but it's how I feel. I'll live with it if it's not perfectly fair and balanced, but I'd hate to think nobody bothered because it "doesn't matter".

 

[DigitalDuck]

I'm generally on the side of Elrawkum here, although it doesn't matter to me either (but then, I'm not the only person playing the game, am I?)

I would like to make a brief aside, though:

I'll still play games which I know are 'nerfed', and can enjoy them all the same, depending on just how much that imbalance becomes obvious, but there's no question my enjoyment suffers when I feel the game I'm playing isn't balanced - especially when it's being shared with others and they have an influence on the gameworld too.

There is a difference between a game being fair, and a game seeming fair.

Games never need to be fair. It doesn't matter if the game is fair or not. However, games do need to seem fair. Elrawkum isn't alone; a not insignificant chunk of players will be disappointed if they feel there's imbalance in the world.

*****

Personally, I don't think it'll be a problem because I don't think players will even notice the effects they have on the universe, these effects being much more subtle. I don't think it'll be a problem because I don't think players will be able to manipulate the universe to their advantage.

But if they can and do? Well...

Again, I can't find any mention of actually "blockading" a system - any chance you could link it?

*****

I'm not sure this will actually be a problem, but that's not the issue. It could potentially be a problem, and therefore we should look at solutions.

Let's get some more info: What solutions are you suggesting?

The obvious solution is to have two entirely separate galaxies on entirely separate servers. One for PvP and the other for non-PvP. Within those, the rule-sets would have to be consistent. Whichever you choose, only your skill, equipment, brains, the routes you choose and the friends you make decides how easy or hard the game is. Easier is a bigger gun. Or a bigger friend.

But... is it fair that Ironman/PvP players have to share a universe? After all, if a group of players are "blockading" a system in PvP, they're not there in Ironman.

Is it fair that PvE/Private/Solo players have to share a universe?

Will this mean that players aren't allowed to switch between PvP and other modes? If yes, doesn't this create accessibility issues? If no, then doesn't this entirely ruin the concept of fairness?

The problem might be valid, but is this a good solution?

 

[Andrew Sayers]

It is [an MMO], unless I've been grossly misled. "(An MMO) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously". Isn't this precisely what it is?

Jumping in again to address a narrow point.

Not including offline single player mode, things like trading and newsfeeds support large numbers of players simultaneously enjoying a single gaming experience. But space battles probably won't involve more than 32 people. The convention is to say "it's not an MMO", although strictly something like "it's not a traditional MMORPG" would more accurately capture the subtlety.

Frankly I'm not convinced there's a genre for Elite to fit in. Did alright without a genre in 1984, why change now?

 

[Elrawkum]

Again, I can't find any mention of actually "blockading" a system - any chance you could link it?

http://youtu.be/5uKD1ap5hsI

The blockade is just a small part of the video (at around 2:40), but he makes the point a number of times that "The balance of players will determine who wins the conflict", which is where imbalances could potentially have a detrimental effect on others taking part in such conflicts.

Let's get some more info: What solutions are you suggesting?

Nothing but purely speculative ones at the moment, and mostly off the top of my head.

I've not given it a great deal of thought beyond what came to mind when answering this question, and the tri-poll tbh - I'm not selfish, so I do have some consideration for those who want to play the game however they want, but I don't claim to have thought of all the angles, by any means.

But...

Again, without knowing exactly how all the modes will be implemented it's hard to say. And it might be a wasted effort trying to solve problems that might not exist in a few weeks...

Plus it's late, and I'm not staying up all night on this bloody forum again.

Jumping in again to address a narrow point...

MMO isn't a genre - it's a catch-all phrase for a massively multiplayer game, regardless of genre. 32 players per instance might be the case (don't most MMO's have instance limits too? I'm not vastly experienced with them, I confess), but there will be a hell of a lot more players online simultaneously than that. Let's not beat around the bush - If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (not you Digital)... it's an MMO. Do I detect a slight touch of snobbery perhaps?

 

[jabokai]

MMO isn't a genre - it's a catch-all phrase for a massively multiplayer game, regardless of genre. 32 players per instance might be the case (don't most MMO's have instance limits too? I'm not vastly experienced with them, I confess), but there will be a hell of a lot more players online simultaneously than that. Let's not beat around the bush - If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (not you Digital)... it's an MMO. Do I detect a slight touch of snobbery perhaps?

It's the devs themselves who have said, on several occasions, that it's not an MMO.

Instances in games like WoW, for example, are very different from instances in ED because EVERY time you encounter another player in ED you will be in a 32 player (max (currently)) instance. You won't EVER see yourself and 32 (or more) other real players. It's how they're getting around the need for beefy servers, and hence keeping it free-to-play - the network traffic will be handled largely P2P... the limitations of which leads to the instance size.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

You won't EVER see yourself and 32 (or more) other real players. It's how they're getting around the need for beefy servers, and hence keeping it free-to-play - the network traffic will be handled largely P2P... the limitations of which leads to the instance size.

I imagine that in Space Stations whilst docked you can see more than 32 players at once .. if not then that's a serious oversight imo. There would be little NW traffic barring conversations between pilots, plus the updates from the servers for commodity purchasing; jobs; etc.

 

[jabokai]

I imagine that in Space Stations whilst docked you can see more than 32 players at once .. if not then that's a serious oversight imo. There would be little NW traffic barring conversations between pilots, plus the updates from the servers for commodity purchasing; jobs; etc.

Yeah, I meant see as in SEE! As in their physical ship, not an icon or a line of text on a ship manifest at a station.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Yeah, I meant see as in SEE! As in their physical ship, not an icon or a line of text on a ship manifest at a station.

I expect to also see them in the space station as well ... Avatar icons perhaps in the "who's docked" listing ... also out my window see a number of ships docked, and when we're unshackled and allowed to walk about I expect to see more than 32 pilots in the station .. now granted this will most likely need instancing again to avoid GFX lag, but the number should be higher than 32.

 

[jabokai]

I expect to also see them in the space station as well ... Avatar icons perhaps in the "who's docked" listing ... also out my window see a number of ships docked, and when we're unshackled and allowed to walk about I expect to see more than 32 pilots in the station .. now granted this will most likely need instancing again to avoid GFX lag, but the number should be higher than 32.

I doubt we'll have a realistic "out of window" view in the initial release, and even then it'd surely be in a reasonably sized bay (perhaps even solo bays!)

Icons/avatars/lists - yeah.

As for EVA, I think it depends really. A human character has at least as much network info to transmit as a ship, no? Basically, I see no real difference between 32 ships and 32 people when it comes to network traffic and probably why most FPS games have instance caps too. And most of those are hosted as far as I'm aware, rather than P2P.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Basically, I see no real difference between 32 ships and 32 people when it comes to network traffic and probably why most FPS games have instance caps too. And most of those are hosted as far as I'm aware, rather than P2P.

I don't know personally .. Does it make a difference that the range of things you do inside a station is far more limiting than what a ship would ? I imagine a person would walk about at a slow speed compared to a ship; interact with the vendors; accept a job and read the bulletin boards. Meanwhile a ship has to track other ships; track missile and weapons fire; track damage and show debris when things fly apart .. etc. (Like COD or BF3 for instance - same thing but on Earth hence the map limit of 64 on large maps)

 

[jabokai]

I don't know personally .. Does it make a difference that the range of things you do inside a station is far more limiting than what a ship would ? I imagine a person would walk about at a slow speed compared to a ship; interact with the vendors; accept a job and read the bulletin boards. Meanwhile a ship has to track other ships; track missile and weapons fire; track damage and show debris when things fly apart .. etc. (Like COD or BF3 for instance - same thing but on Earth hence the map limit of 64 on large maps)

I don't really know either, I'm just guessing too!

It also depends on the shooting side. If fighting is simply not possible in a station then I suspect you're right and more than 32 would be achievable. Presumably there will be at least SOME areas in the game where firing is possible and then you're back to tracking weapons fire, etc, as you detailed above.

It's all too far away to worry about for me! :smilie: My main point was that all "proper" encounters in ED will be instanced. Icons/avatars/ship lists/etc notwithstanding.

 

[DigitalDuck]

I don't know personally .. Does it make a difference that the range of things you do inside a station is far more limiting than what a ship would ?

It does! If you can get away without direct player interaction, and have everyone walk at a constant speed, then you only really need to send the player's position; it should be possible to have a couple of hundred players in that case.

But then, we're not sure exactly how much interaction there'll be, so we can't say for sure.

 

[Elrawkum]

At the risk of stirring up a(nother) hornet's nest, I have to say the 32 player limit is very disappointing. I actually was hoping for "massive space battles containing thousands of players across vast swathes of space". I'm aware technical limitations make that - I won't say impossible (nothing's...) - impractical, but a truly open universe would have been something really special.

I hope they can at least push that number up over time as development continues.

 

[Cathy]

Even server hosted MMOs can't put thousands in one battle. I think the top raid limit in WoW was/is 40 (might be more for a pvp-only battleground).

If you're talking about a long-term war, involving many battles across multiple systems over days, then yes you can involve big numbers of players in one campaign. But they can't all see each other at once.

 

[jabokai]

It does! If you can get away without direct player interaction, and have everyone walk at a constant speed, then you only really need to send the player's position; it should be possible to have a couple of hundred players in that case.

A little more than position! You need to know where they're facing and when they start stop too! Also, if you don't want it to feel like you're in a world of mindless automatons then you have to have some other basic movements too - sitting, multiple gestures, etc.

If they do add in weapons, etc, you're back to the same amount of traffic as a ship.

At the risk of stirring up a(nother) hornet's nest, I have to say the 32 player limit is very disappointing. I actually was hoping for "massive space battles containing thousands of players across vast swathes of space". I'm aware technical limitations make that - I won't say impossible (nothing's...) - impractical, but a truly open universe would have been something really special.

I hope they can at least push that number up over time as development continues.

They always said that was the minimum, but they have also since said that it's unlikely to rise. It's never really been sold as a thousands of players simultaneously kind of game - that's just not possible, I don't think, with a twitch combat game.

 

[Elrawkum]

I know, and it's fine, but before we knew anything of the technical limitations, when we were in "oh wow, just imagine..." mode, the possibilities of jumping into a system to see hundreds of players in colossal space battles was very exciting. I'll live with 'rather self-contained' space battles (as I'm sure 32 players will seem plenty when we're all shooting at each other), but "in a perfect world..."

Maybe for Elite V...

 

[Cathy]

Elite 10: Holodeck

 

[Majere]

I tried several time times to write something to explain what I meant, deleted them all. Then Sandro posts pretty much exactly what I was trying to say

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=126257&postcount=14

 

[Cathy]

Nothing but purely speculative ones at the moment, and mostly off the top of my head.

I've not given it a great deal of thought beyond what came to mind when answering this question...

I don't think our lack or otherwise of thought is the problem - it's the fact that the question is so loaded:-
Why does it matter if some players make the game easier for themselves?

- presupposes that they can
- presupposes that it matters

Can they, and and if so does it matter, and if so why, are better questions.

No wonder our discussions got a bit discombobulated

 

[Slawkenbergius]

I know, and it's fine, but before we knew anything of the technical limitations, when we were in "oh wow, just imagine..." mode, the possibilities of jumping into a system to see hundreds of players in colossal space battles was very exciting. I'll live with 'rather self-contained' space battles (as I'm sure 32 players will seem plenty when we're all shooting at each other), but "in a perfect world..."

Maybe for Elite V...

Space battles could be 32 players, augmented by maybe up to a hundred NPCs (not quite sure of the number, but it's fairly high)... If one of those NPCs is an Imperial Cruiser, one a Federation Cruiser, with a couple of battleships on each side, then I reckon we'll be in epic realms. Also, as NPC fighters are destroyed, the Crusiers could spew out a few more. You just have to accept that player-only battles will be smaller affairs (though not small).

I doubt we'll have a realistic "out of window" view in the initial release, and even then it'd surely be in a reasonably sized bay (perhaps even solo bays!)

It will be interesting to see how docking works. From various dev comments, my impression is that it's a seamless process, and that the trading screen will be shown as a hologram from your ship computer. That would suggest a view from the ship window. It does seem like a lot of work though, as you'd at least want to see NPCs scuttling about.