- Status
See, this is a thing that pops up regularly in this thread: the same people whining and clamoring for a solo/groups nerf are the ones using the mode-switching tactics for their own benefit. It's not the hardcore Solo or Group players exploiting the modes; it's the people who doth protest too much. They are paranoid of themselves.
To me, in this context, fair means that everyone who would affect a common outcome plays by a common set of rules.
The common outcome is affect on the same BGS, consistency of "stats" across modes. The rules of play are generally the same for everyone... except... mode selection allows a player to choose (or influence) which players they may interact with. The player is making a choice as to how a (minor) component of the overall rules apply to them. Yet they still affect the common outcome. This, to me, breaks my definition of "fair" slightly.
I'll probably play both, to be honest. But Elite is the one I backed
I may well buy SC after launch, my nephew has it at the ~£20 pledge ship IIRC, I need to get an update and take another look next time we visit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c;t=19m41s
Its not just bad instancing, its by design it would seem.
Now where did I leave that link to "rare & meaningful" <looks under table> no soz, its around here somewhere, anyone got a spare link pls I lost mine.
out of rep again, dammit.
You are exactly right.
This is where the "solo is cheatingz wif their cloaks of invisibility!" argument falls down flat. Would the "open-only" crowd start kvetching that "instancing isn't fair cuz I can't pewpewpew everyone"?
- - - Updated - - -
Whenever I hear the word "meta" I reach for my rail gun.
Last edited:
See to me, what breaks my definition of "fair" is 25,000+ people backing a game due to the features it boasts and some feeling entitled to demand the core features be changed / removed after the fact.
That behaviour and attitude is very unfair, it's unfair on the game developer who went to the trouble to ask people before making the game, and it is unfair on those who backed the game for that feature.
What else is not fair, is people not even bothering to find out any information about a game - then making a ton of assumptions about it, to only throw a hissy fit when they realise they were wrong and also demand changes to a game they didn't even care about to start with.
To highlight that, in this very thread, this evening someone spouted another game was "online only" - yet it took me less than 60 seconds (on the main front page for the game) to read 1-2 players offline mode.
And I bet our forum member who did that is not the only one - I'd wager there is quite a few more who do the same. We have a few pages back - people (in the EU) surprised ED is PEGI 7 in the EU - and that is also on t he front page.
Let's try to take this from the given metaphor - you are a small, fairly-insignificant presence in a vast universe that doesn't really care about you. [this was the premise of Elite '84] You are not, as in many other videogames, The Hero.
Politics are happening all around you; factions & stations are being reinforced, undermined, forced into civil war states by many factors... why do you think you should be able to influence these things directly? My guess "directly" means blockades and pew-pew.
I have said before, PowerPlay is not war. None of the major Powers are at war with each other openly at this time. PowerPlay is politics - which means you're going to have dirty deeds done cheap by saboteurs, someone's cousin being placed in an influential position because family, largeish bribes being distributed around like candy, economic warfare, entrenched spies, people with magnetic (or ballistic) presences swaying the public's votes...
Now imagine the real world. Is China at open warfare with the US or Britain? Nope. However, the US & Brits are definitely under the influence of subterranian dealings, bribes, economic slowburn attacks and outright theft of intellectual property. Can we waltz into China and start shooting people? Nope. Do you know much about the situation? Nope. So there are in fact many political actions and underground warfare being carried on by all the major powers on our planet. You can hardly even know who they are, yet their actions affect you daily. Can we outright blockade China? Nope. Can we find and shoot all political operatives for the Chinese? Nope.
The players you are (i assume) worried about are just so much grist for the RNG. There will always be people who will slip past them (instancing) so why are you so worried about who is doing what in Solo/Groups? There could be just as many players fortifying your factions as undermining them and you'd never see them all either.
Last edited:
I disagree. Yes, there would obviously need to be development effort put into it. But the ability to exclude players from influencing the BGS has already been developed (shadowban). Multiple BGS is also already a developed "thing" (beta testing). I also find it almost impossible to believe that FD developers and QA are using the production BGS for their testing.
Actually, some of the perceived "issues" might go away. For those who want people who are effecting the same BGS to at least face the possibility of direct contact with their opposition, Open play with instancing still fits that need.
There doesn't need to be guaranteed contact between particular parties to make Open what it is. To me, when I fly in Open, if I see a hollow on my radar, I know I have to be more alert than usual. In Solo, I will never have that concern. That difference, minor as it may be, is still a difference.
Well, I guess you could argue that tweaking your firewall to circumvent game rules would be an exploit? Ultimately, though, network issues is a legitimate roadblock to any Open-only change.
DISCLAIMER: Not promoting change. Just discussing the points.
- - - Updated - - -
I understand where you're coming from. However, what you are talking about as unfair is outside of the game. I'm purely talking about "fair" gameplay. In this instance at least.
I need to change my sleep schedule so I'm awake when the main posting times seem to be up and at it ^,^.
I am confused on your idea of fair, mainly because the only difference in the modes are how you can see others and at no point is seeing others a "state" or a rule. The rules of play still apply to everyone.
So if this one difference is unfair... how deep do we need to go to make it fair? What variables do they need to add?
Mandate all can see others? Game can only be played on certain systems, Everyone must use same controler? What else shall Frontier force everyone to do so that it is fair for you?
You know what I feel is unfair... some feeling that they have the right to dictate to others how to play and that they and their style of game play are more important than others.
I've supported PVP even though I can not do it from the beginning, yet I'm almost to the point of saying that Open is unfair. If you want to PVP against strangers.. go to CQC, remove Open, everyone in private groups or solo. If you want a PVP group start one.. that would be fair since Mobius had to start a PVE group.
But I won't suggest it because it would be unfair as well, I would be just as bad as those in Open who come to the forums and try to get the game changed to their advantage.
I am confused on your idea of fair, mainly because the only difference in the modes are how you can see others and at no point is seeing others a "state" or a rule. The rules of play still apply to everyone.
So if this one difference is unfair... how deep do we need to go to make it fair? What variables do they need to add?
Mandate all can see others? Game can only be played on certain systems, Everyone must use same controler? What else shall Frontier force everyone to do so that it is fair for you?
You know what I feel is unfair... some feeling that they have the right to dictate to others how to play and that they and their style of game play are more important than others.
I've supported PVP even though I can not do it from the beginning, yet I'm almost to the point of saying that Open is unfair. If you want to PVP against strangers.. go to CQC, remove Open, everyone in private groups or solo. If you want a PVP group start one.. that would be fair since Mobius had to start a PVE group.
But I won't suggest it because it would be unfair as well, I would be just as bad as those in Open who come to the forums and try to get the game changed to their advantage.
I'm not all that worried about it and to be honest, I don't find your arguments particularly relevant. What has gotten me to understand why it isn't done the way that I suggested has to do with gameplay and fairness to those players who have different access, style and goals to my own. That's something I can get behind and am more than happy with the give and take. As to the vastness of the game universe and my small contribution within it... That would not be altered by anything you mentioned, nor am I ignorant of it. Whoever those issues are with, that you seem to find worthy of "explaining", it isn't me.
Cheers
Shadow ban does not need a BGS as far as I am aware, you are in a locked version of the game where your actions are completely meaningless.
As for testing (Beta / QA) - they also do not have to be living BGS to do their jobs, just a recent copy of the live server to test on for a week or two to see how new toys are used / broken etc.
I know when PP was in testing, some folks talked about their character progress vs the live server.
I think I was still in a type 6 on the PP beta while on live I was in either an Asp or Type 7.
So at a guess, it is not so much a BGS but more a BGC (Back Ground Copy).
Though that is a complete guess by me.
I'd imagine 2 living BGS are a whole new beast. With their own pros and cons.
Most of this requires a BGS. Without the background simulation, there would be no faction influences, market prices, missions, etc. Exceptions would be graphics, flight model, weapon, etc testing for which they may have a simple single-system "playground" to test in.
I don't know a lot about shadow ban. My guess would be that they have enabled a "read-only" mode (for want of a better term) for the primary BGS rather than having a separate one.
I'm not talking from specific FD knowledge here, just how I would do things. It would likely be very similar to a tiered business application. You would have a "data" layer (this persists the current "state" - current market prices, current influences, current PP stats, etc). You would then have a "logic" layer which would handle all the simulation mechanics (e.g. this system is in boom so change market prices accordingly). I'm not sure how NPC spawning is controlled. I'm guessing partly server-driven and partly client-driven. You would likely have a bunch of "controller?" servers whose job is to control the gameplay (i.e. coordinate player islands, act as a proxy for player and NPC events that need to be passed to the "logic" layer). And then you have the "client", which is the game interface where all the pretty stuff happens.
That's very simplistic but close enough.
Shadow ban: Controller is about to pass player event to Logic. Player is flagged shadowban. Ignore and continue.
Dev/test/beta: Take a snapshot Data. Spin up test Logic/Controller servers and point them to new Data servers.
Split BGS: Spin up new Data servers. Either, (a) code Logic/Controller servers to point to appropriate Data servers based on mode; or (b) spin up separate Logic/Controller servers for modes and have them point to corresponding Data servers. Code Client to point to different Controller servers based on mode.
If they put a bit of thought into the coding from the start (which I am certain they have), this sort of thing shouldn't be a huge ask. That's purely from a theoretical point of view though. There would obviously be increased management (now introducing more differences rather than just simple scaling) and cost (at a minimum, more Data servers/storage required to persist multiple BGS).
I know it's never going to happen. Commercial secrets and all that. But I would love to get some more official detail about the game architecture. Purely out of curiosity.
I know it's never going to happen. Commercial secrets and all that. But I would love to get some more official detail about the game architecture. Purely out of curiosity.
They did the Amazon stream, that gave some details.
Scripts... scripts everywhere!
Well, that was fascinating! Thank you for the hint. I hadn't heard about it before.
Maybe they will lease you a copy of The Cobra Engine.I know it's never going to happen. Commercial secrets and all that. But I would love to get some more official detail about the game architecture. Purely out of curiosity.
Just kidding, they won't.
You could however, apply....
They need Q/A testers.
o7
Your thinking isn't wrong, its just your opinion. Personally the ability to switch modes and still play in the same universe was a big selling point for me.
With Horizons coming up, people with Horizons will be able to affect faction influence on planets that people without Horizons won't be able to do anything about either, even if all are playing in Open. People on xbox affect the same universe as well that people in PC Open can't affect. There are many levels of segregation without even going into instancing. Its something you either have to accept, or if its too much for you, move on and play something else.
And you are wrong, you can oppose the actions of people playing in solo, but doing opposing actions. If people are doing stuff to increase 1 factions' influence, you work for an opposing faction.
By the same token, there are people playing in solo (or group) working against the expanding faction who you cannot directly assist. Works both ways.
- Status