Game options for single player

[Alpha Protocol]

I still dont see why you have to be in online multiplayer mode to see the world evolve?
I mean if i dock at a station and save my game in online mode will i be able to pick-up where i left off with all my credits / equipment / status etc intact.

Because thousands of other players are going to affect the background simulation, AND the devs will be "injecting" events in real time. Offline players will only generate their own events and effect on the background simulation.

If you're playing in "Single-player online mode" you will see all the changes as they occur in the online world.

"Single-player offline" players will only get developer related changes through game patches and updates.

It's not X-Series... those are ONLY single-player. It's an entirely different system.

 

[The Space Pirate]

First, there is an "Single-player offline only mode". Secondly, there is going to be an ignore feature. If someone is being a complete idiot, just ignore them. You'll never see them again unless you "clear" your ignore list.

What - like a forum ignore list? That sounds like it could work.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

But all of this does happen, and could happen without being online as it does in the X-series ! Wars happen, sectors change hands, sides are chosen and DLC adds content and big changes to the universe.

I still dont see why you have to be in online multiplayer mode to see the world evolve?
I mean if i dock at a station and save my game in online mode will i be able to pick-up where i left off with all my credits / equipment / status etc intact?

The only advantage or indeed difference i can see from the current X-series (which of course is single player only), is that the world can contimue to evolve even your not playing.

What happens when new (paid-for content arrives), some will buy and some will not meaning people will have a different game, what then?

I did say that this also happens in the single player but a vastly slower rate. In single player you only get one player changing the course of the game. Online there are 1000s so you will see more changes more often.

Yes the game itself will also change, on its own, but still the difference should be noticeable with more players interacting.

If you are expecting the same game offline experience as to online then I would say no you will not.

David has said that content updates would be applied to areas that are locked down in the game areas that neither single player or multi player people can go. Imagine roped of areas saying keep off the grass until the gardener says you can walk on it. This stops you making changes in areas that will be developed over time. Other aspects like planetary landings etc will be applied across the board as it will be code that no one can do anyway.

 

[Barns]

But you cannot switch between them. You cannot get an awesome ship equipped and lots of money in the single player game and then switch to the Full multiplayer version. It would be like cheating. You choose one style and stick with it.

This isn't completely accurate. You can't move between offline and online, but you can certainly more between solo, private group and "all" online modes, at will (possibly at login time I am guessing). So yes you can get stuff in single player online and switch to full multiplayer at a later date, and back again, as often as you wish.

 

[FrogsFriend]

Another option for PVE-only players to be able to join in with the online game will be Private Groups.
I'm sure that clan/guild/friendly-society (call them what you will) groups will get together via websites to run their own organised Private Groups in the online game. This will let them enforce their own rules about play-styles/PVE/PVP/etc. and kick people out of their group (but of course not from the entire game) who don't behave as they'd like.

 

[-o-]

In single player you only get one player changing the course of the game. Online there are 1000s so you will see more changes more often.

Yes the game itself will also change, on its own, but still the difference should be noticeable with more players interacting.

If you are expecting the same game offline experience as to online then I would say no you will not.

You may get a better experience offline in some cases.

If you are playing in offline mode, I assume the universe is in a frozen state when you are logged off. That is, if there is, for example, a NPC ship which was 45% through its docking procedure at the point when you logged off, and you next logged back in to your SP offline game 5 days later, that NPC ship will continue the docking procedure from the 45% point. I assume there is no magical time acceleration (time synching) at the login stage to compensate for the 5 day gap.

If the game is frozen in offline, unlike the online versions, it would make the game more consistent as it will match whatever playing schedule you have.

As an example ... you are involved in a long spying mission where you needed to stay within a certain distance of the target. If that target were to dock and you also docked with him, but then you needed to log off, you can be assured that when you logged back in (at any time), that the target is still docked where you last left him, and not half way across the galaxy with the mission failed (as the case would be in an online mode).

Another example ... In a trading run covering a few systems, you purchased 200 slaves and were expecting to sell them at a particular price once docked in 'New Washington'. Two waypoints before that sell point, you needed to log off. Again, when you logged back in, as the game was frozen while you were away, you can confidently resume the trading run from where you left off. In online mode however, during your time away who knows what may have happened to your trade expectations. New Washington may now find slave trading as illegal due to some changes triggered by players or the game universe while you were away.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

This isn't completely accurate. You can't move between offline and online, but you can certainly more between solo, private group and "all" online modes, at will (possibly at login time I am guessing). So yes you can get stuff in single player online and switch to full multiplayer at a later date, and back again, as often as you wish.

I am not saying that players can not switch between play styles. They can. They just cannot create a ship, trade and gain credits in the single player and then take that same ship to the multiplayer game.

Single player online is PvE and the multiplayer universe, also online, is PvP. If you were able to build up your ship and then switch it to a different game style server/shard/system it would be the first online game that I have heard of that you could.

If you are referring to the FAQ where they say "Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though". I think this refers to grouping within the PvP universe such as grouping for missions, possible public grouping missions, guilds etc. It also conflicts with what you get when you first create your Alpha client setup. We got the options to choose multiplayer, Single player offline and single player online. Currently we got only the one option to test.

I maybe wrong of course but until we get more information your guess is as good as mine. But this is how I see it since the Kickstarter just over a year ago.

 

[tooterfish]

I maybe wrong of course but until we get more information your guess is as good as mine.

My guess is better than yours, because I read the design discussion on groups.

You're wrong. Group in this context is specifically referring to multiplayer visibility, not a cooperative "party" mechanism. You can switch between online groups at will.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

My guess is better than yours, because I read the design discussion on groups.

You're wrong. Group in this context is specifically referring to multiplayer visibility, not a cooperative "party" mechanism. You can switch between online groups at will.

I stand corrected. That is what I get for switching countries and missing a few DDF threads.

While it does say you can switch between them, but only one at a time, I cannot see it saying anywhere that it would be the same profile that would be used or that the switching is available in game.

Anyway we are going off topic of the original thread. No more for me to say here.

 

[Poacher886]

I did say that this also happens in the single player but a vastly slower rate. In single player you only get one player changing the course of the game. Online there are 1000s so you will see more changes more often.

Yes the game itself will also change, on its own, but still the difference should be noticeable with more players interacting.

If you are expecting the same game offline experience as to online then I would say no you will not.

David has said that content updates would be applied to areas that are locked down in the game areas that neither single player or multi player people can go. Imagine roped of areas saying keep off the grass until the gardener says you can walk on it. This stops you making changes in areas that will be developed over time. Other aspects like planetary landings etc will be applied across the board as it will be code that no one can do anyway.

Ok, im sort off getting it....but you say because online 1000's of players will make changes to universe status at a quicker rate, because of many versus the single you in offline mode....but are you then suggesting the NPC's dont go about there business and create changes themselves to the universe as in the X-series?, because the idea that ONLY you can make the universe turn round and evolve is frankly naff. Surely we have a living breathing universe of which YOU are just a part off?

Im understanding the Single/Online mode for a world that CONTINUES to live even when your not playing, which is a nice feeling, but as a previous poster mentions, could have some negative points. i.e you go back to your game after a week at work and everything has changed.

So there is no option the play a single/Online mode type of game where you can meet other players piloting ships then? it would be nice to play a typical campaign where some ships are NPC's and others are real players with no obvious signs of who is who, this would allow a balanced game but with real threat.

 

[Stachel]

Frontier will expand the game gradually to include more systems. Initially the game will be of limited scope - although it will be pretty big no doubt even then - but possibly be very computer generated and lack a degree of variety at the start. I am sure they will also alter the game gradually to destroy some systems at war, create flashpoints, create new stations, add special missions, change the politics, introduce alien contact, expand human space, add more interesting worlds to land on/tour etc as time goes on. The game will have some automated systems such as economy trading and pilot AI etc but some areas will be changed be Frontier directly and to benefit from these changes you will have to play online or at least be able to receive regular update downloads.

Overall I am sorry that Frontier are not doing a completely single player offline game because that is what I always wanted for Elite 4. We are losing a lot of the old gameplay that I loved because of that decision. So I hope the benefits of playing the changing online game will outweigh the substantial pain that online gaming often causes to players like me. I dont play any online games normally.

The problem with all multiplayer games for me is that many people will start cheating and/or causing grief to other players if they are just bored, or fed up with struggling with the normal gameplay, or for no other reason than they are that kind of idiot. Frontier better have a flipping good method of dealing with that.

There could also be a problem with some players buying good starting points so that they dont mind restarting after quickly dying due to ramming player ships or whatever for 'fun'. I hear a lot of multiplayer online flights sims are ruined by ramming suicide idiots who keep doing it for some easy points - especially ramming players flying bombers etc because those provide higher rewards than killing fighter planes. I cant imagine anything worse than spending time getting all the way to a target in a bomber and then being taken out time and time again by a Kamakazi idiot. Which is why I dont play those games.

Those kind of players could ruin the game if harsh measures are not introduced to deal with them.

The thing is, people just don't want to play alone anymore. Its a paradigm shift in how we socialise and utilize the internet. Its moved on now. Yes there is a market for solo gaming, of course, but anything sandbox ultimately feels soulless without the unpredictability of others to enliven it. I honestly think FD have the right appoach with the limited multiplayer aspect and enabling/empowering the user to decide for themselves how much that impacts on them. The onus is on choice and as we have seen from the polls, a vast majority want interactive gaming as a cornerstone of ED. FD have designed the game in a way that fully facilitates that without the headache of a traditional MMO. Its really as good as it gets for the next decade or two ..

 

[tooterfish]

I cannot see it saying anywhere that it would be the same profile that would be used or that the switching is available in game.

It's implied that you can switch in game. If you can't, at least half of that document wouldn't work.

"A player who accepts such an invite will be removed from their current group upon the next hyperspace jump and be placed in the private group of the inviting player"

"Disband the group resulting in all the other players entering their own individual private groups with “quick joining” disabled (gives them the opportunity to play solo or decide to join the all players group)"

"Upon disconnecting, logging off or leaving the group automatically passes leadership to the oldest private group member, i.e. the first player to accept an invite into the group that is still present"

etc.

 

[noodle]

The thing is, people just don't want to play alone anymore.

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

During the first day of release, Steam showed over 230,000 people playing Skyrim concurrently.[127] In the first week of release, Bethesda stated that 7 million copies of the game had been shipped to retailers worldwide, and that total sales through the following Wednesday were expected to generate an estimated US$450 million.[3][128] By December 16, 2011, this had risen to 10 million copies shipped to retail and around US$620 million.[129] Additionally, Valve stated that it was the fastest selling game to date on their Steam platform.[129] Steam's statistics page showed the client breaking a five million user record by having 5,012,468 users logged in January 2, 2012. During this time, Skyrim was the most-played game on Steam by a huge margin, with double the number of players as Team Fortress 2, the second-placed game.[130] As of July 2012, an estimated 10 million copies have been sold; of those sales, 59% were for the Xbox 360, 27% for the PS3, and 14% for the PC.[131] In the United Kingdom, Skyrim was the 9th best selling title of 2012.[132] In June 2013, Bethesda announced that over 20 million copies of the game had been sold.[4]

 

[KING5TON]

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

If Skyrim also had multiplayer what do you think would be the ratio between those that only played single player and those that played multiplayer?
IMO the MP players would outnumber the SP players.

People buying a good single player game because it is a good game does not prove that multiplayer games aren't the most popular way people will play given the choice.

 

[Oss133]

If Skyrim also had multiplayer what do you think would be the ratio between those that only played single player and those that played multiplayer?
IMO the MP players would outnumber the SP players.

People buying a good single player game because it is a good game does not prove that multiplayer games aren't the most popular way people will play given the choice.

It is not proof, no, but countering an argument backed by statistics, albeit a rather specific one, with a personal opinion is not entering the fight from a position of strength.

Personally, I enjoy SP games more than MP games, but both have their merits, and we can cite good and bad examples on both sides, just as we can cite popular examples on both sides.

I have no desire to play either World of Warcraft or Candy Crush but both are massively popular and could be used to show that their particular approaches are the way forward.

 

[noodle]

If Skyrim also had multiplayer what do you think would be the ratio between those that only played single player and those that played multiplayer?
IMO the MP players would outnumber the SP players.

On the other hand, there are plenty of fantasy MMOs if that's what people "want".

People buying a good single player game because it is a good game does not prove that multiplayer games aren't the most popular way people will play given the choice.

That wasn't what was being suggested though. The suggestion was that people don't want to play single player games. The numbers would suggest that they do.

 

[KING5TON]

It is not proof, no, but countering an argument backed by statistics, albeit a rather specific one, with a personal opinion is not entering the fight from a position of strength.

Personally, I enjoy SP games more than MP games, but both have their merits, and we can cite good and bad examples on both sides, just as we can cite popular examples on both sides.

I have no desire to play either World of Warcraft or Candy Crush but both are massively popular and could be used to show that their particular approaches are the way forward.

So you agree that given the choice of a pure singleplayer game or the ability to play the same game multiplayer that most people will play only single player?

 

[Oss133]

So you agree that given the choice of a pure singleplayer game or the ability to play the same game multiplayer that most people will play only single player?

No. I have no way of knowing the answer to that question, and neither does anyone else. Only time will tell.

 

[KING5TON]

On the other hand, there are plenty of fantasy MMOs if that's what people "want".


That wasn't what was being suggested though. The suggestion was that people don't want to play single player games. The numbers would suggest that they do.

Ah, OK, I stand corrected, I though you were arguing that single games are more popular because a good single player game had a lot of players because it was single player.
I do agree that people still want to play single player games.

 

[noodle]

Ah, OK, I stand corrected, I though you were arguing that single games are more popular because a good single player game had a lot of players because it was single player.
I do agree that people still want to play single player games.

I think a lot depends on the type of game. Fantasy MMOs are arguably less immersive because the nature of the interaction with other players and the nature of the persistent world draws you out of the immersive experience. I think space sims like ED are potentially different for a number of reasons. That being said, I'm not personally swayed either way yet where ED is concerned.