We need multiplayer mechanics that make Elite a game worth to play online

id like the ability for wings to form up so we can have a actual multi squad in combat zones.

id also like combat zones to be salary instead of bounty based so when your wing kills something the puny amount you get isn't divided by 4.
 
Hmmm, maybe I've not correctly interpreted this part:



I'm now curious about "the massive restriction".


This refers to the netcode issues and how peer-to-peer limits the stability of multiplayer instancing, both for PVP and PWP. So we end up with having a severe limit on the number of players that can be in one FOV. It's a problem that makes finding players that you are talking to and even grouped with very challenging even if you are the only 2 players in the system! It is a major roadblock for the explorers groups on the Distant Worlds expedition as well disrupting emergency rescue efforts like the Fuel Rats which often require a large player investment of effort and time and are sometimes racing against a clock.
 
It is a major roadblock for the explorers groups on the Distant Worlds expedition as well disrupting emergency rescue efforts like the Fuel Rats which often require a large player investment of effort and time and are sometimes racing against a clock.

Unfortunately, due to the way that various ISP's work, the physical location of players, the connections and equipment they use, the speed of light and general Internet Stuff - this is not something easily fixable.
 
This refers to the netcode issues and how peer-to-peer limits the stability of multiplayer instancing, both for PVP and PWP. So we end up with having a severe limit on the number of players that can be in one FOV. It's a problem that makes finding players that you are talking to and even grouped with very challenging even if you are the only 2 players in the system! It is a major roadblock for the explorers groups on the Distant Worlds expedition as well disrupting emergency rescue efforts like the Fuel Rats which often require a large player investment of effort and time and are sometimes racing against a clock.

Tried to give you Rep already but the system doesn't allow me (not joking).

So, here we go. +1

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Unfortunately, due to the way that various ISP's work, the physical location of players, the connections and equipment they use, the speed of light and general Internet Stuff - this is not something easily fixable.

How do all the other companies get it done for the last 10 years? There seems to be a ... path.
 
Please post the original 'muliplayer, emergent gaming experience ...' advertisement post of the previous or (maybe it's still only) website. Not some other definition. It was precicely marketed as emergent, multiplayer bla bla ...

But do the "emergent" multiplayer mean precisely PVP environment ?

To me difinition even of emergent multiplayer still not define PVP evironment.

I'm not against the PVP in game.... Far from. But when I did backed ED I knew it won't be exact same other PVP games I have used to play. But some seems trying very hard to change that
 
How do all the other companies get it done for the last 10 years? There seems to be a ... path.

It's called Client-Server architecture. Elite doesn't use it because it wouldn't work for Elite - given that it is a real-time, first person environment with time and latency sensitive parts. You cant shoot players in the face if it takes them six seconds for them to realise they have been shot in the face, when they moved out of range or line-of-sight four seconds ago, and one-shotted you six seconds ago - but you are two seconds away from knowing that :D
 
This refers to the netcode issues and how peer-to-peer limits the stability of multiplayer instancing, both for PVP and PWP. So we end up with having a severe limit on the number of players that can be in one FOV. It's a problem that makes finding players that you are talking to and even grouped with very challenging even if you are the only 2 players in the system! It is a major roadblock for the explorers groups on the Distant Worlds expedition as well disrupting emergency rescue efforts like the Fuel Rats which often require a large player investment of effort and time and are sometimes racing against a clock.
My apologies then, I thought it was about fixing those network issues (we all want that I suppose, well I do, NPC jumping around whe there are only two or three players in an instance is bad...) then "give up" something else. I know understand the "something" is the infrastructure.

But I'm not sure that would solve the network issues.
 
Ad to that that only small minority of small minority PVP crowd post here on the forum thinking that ED is an PVP game trying FD to change the game in that fashion..... And yet it's works looking by all those changes made since launch.

True, but as per their strategy: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
I like the multiplayer aspect of ED, but I see it primarily as coop play. If I can wing up and help another CMDR get more credits or merits than he/she would have otherwise, I'm all for it. I've had some exciting PvP rounds as well, but the coop was much more rewarding.

Looking at the original ads from when ED was in beta, it clearly shows itself to have multiplayer coop built in. It says you can "team up in multiplayer, with friends or fly solo as you blaze your own trail". I saw no mention of PvP or emergent play. This is the ad on August 3, 2014. Looking at the ads when it was released in December 2014 had similar wording.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140803221237/http://www.elitedangerous.com/?
 
Nice read about ARENA, but Braben totally doesn't get it. The entire PvP feedback from the Elite players is that they finally should enhance PvP INGAME, not capsule and thus totally disconnect it from the main game, outsourcing it in a tiny fighting pit.

What we PvP players want is to use our OWN ship in some meaningful (PvP) events INGAME with results that HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE GAME. As I said many times, CGs are a good start, but that can only be a beginning. We need multiplayer mechanics that make Elite a game worth to play online. The infrasctructure is a big problem, like the net code etc. but with some nice tricks and finally giving up this massive restrictions, FDev could already enhance the PvP experience a lot.

I'll repeat what I told you in the other thread you posted this in..

David Braben designed this game, I think he knows more about what the game is supposed to be than you do, therefore, he's not wrong in how the game is working, YOU are wrong in wanting it to work another way totally.

The actual original wenonsenseite advertising was linked in this thread, it's also still on the KS page, and if you look VERY closely, you will see that it doesn't actually mention PvP at all. Go on, look real close, combat is mentioned, but the Multiplayer is directly stated to be coop, not PvP. Again, YOU made a mistake and are trying to force your misconceptions on the game in direct opposition to the man who designed the game. Guess who is going to win this contest.

Agree!!!





Yes and Yes please!!


The group play is way too buggy and the result our efforts (either PVE, PWPWE, PWPVE, or PVP) is a net zero change in the Galaxy. Which is completely demoralizing imo.

And that is such pure nonsense, you have exactly as much influence on the galaxy as you want to have, which you should know full well Ziljan. People work the BGS every day and see the results, how many systems have some of them pushed their minor faction into via expansion? How many systems have been changed from Fed to Imp or Alliance and vice versa? Don't know? That would be because you pay no attention to the GAME at all and instead are trying to force it to become something it was never intended to be, a PvP centric game, in direct opposition to what David Braben proposed, advertised and designed the game to be.

And I know many multiplayer games that have NO PvP at all, that's not a requirement of multiplayer games, never has been, never will be, no matter how much you think otherwise. Multiplayer simply means you play with other real life humans, that's it, no competition between the players is implied or required. You want a shoot em up spaceship game, I'd suggest you buy into Infinity: Battlescape, that's exactly what it is, that's all that it is. EVE: Valkyrie will be another spaceship shoot em up game, that's exactly what it is, that's all that it is. Elite Dangerous is not that game, it wasn't designed to be that game, it wasn't advertised as that game, you confusing the term multiplayer with PvP is on you, no one else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The actual original website advertising was linked in this thread, it's also still on the KS page, and if you look VERY closely, you will see that it doesn't actually mention PvP at all. Go on, look real close, combat is mentioned, but the Multiplayer is directly stated to be coop, not PvP. Again, YOU made a mistake and are trying to force your misconceptions on the game in direct opposition to the man who designed the game. Guess who is going to win this contest.

Looking at the page, I have to agree with this.


Though, to that I will say I can think of one game mechanic that has been there since ( as far as I'm aware ) the game's introduction, Player Bounties shown in Gal Net at stations, does sort of lend itself particularly to PvP.

Thus I would conclude that PvP was intended to be a part of the game on some level. Probably not as prevalent as some would hope, more prevalent than others would, I'm sure.


MEH.
 
Last edited:
And that is such pure nonsense, you have exactly as much influence on the galaxy as you want to have, which you should know full well Ziljan. People work the BGS every day and see the results, how many systems have some of them pushed their minor faction into via expansion? How many systems have been changed from Fed to Imp or Alliance and vice versa? Don't know? That would be because you pay no attention to the GAME at all and instead are trying to force it to become something it was never intended to be, a PvP centric game, in direct opposition to what David Braben proposed, advertised and designed the game to be.


Talk about pure nonsense. Lets try to stay on topic please. The OP is asking for improvements to the game that would help all forms of multiplayer. I agree with that sentiment, and with the request for an increase in depth of the BGS (including an optional purpose for PVP) and of networking functionality. Not sure why that is so controversial?

As for the BGS being currently "deep" well just pure lol at that notion. It is a shallow text change resulting in other shallow text changes. I can currently fly into any system and dock and trade completely unmolested regardless of my allegiance. So what if they swap out the text on restricted goods? So what if the police are now mafia?


If you want to discuss PVP vs PVE go find go one of the thousands of OPEN vs SOLO threads to grind your ancient irrelevant axe. This thread is about the game being functional. And yes that includes PVP. If you don't like PVP, go do something else. How hard is that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll repeat what I told you in the other thread you posted this in..

David Braben designed this game, I think he knows more about what the game is supposed to be than you do, therefore, he's not wrong in how the game is working, YOU are wrong in wanting it to work another way totally.

The actual original website advertising was linked in this thread, it's also still on the KS page, and if you look VERY closely, you will see that it doesn't actually mention PvP at all. Go on, look real close, combat is mentioned, but the Multiplayer is directly stated to be coop, not PvP. Again, YOU made a mistake and are trying to force your misconceptions on the game in direct opposition to the man who designed the game. Guess who is going to win this contest.



And that is such pure , you have exactly as much influence on the galaxy as you want to have, which you should know full well Ziljan. People work the BGS every day and see the results, how many systems have some of them pushed their minor faction into via expansion? How many systems have been changed from Fed to Imp or Alliance and vice versa? Don't know? That would be because you pay no attention to the GAME at all and instead are trying to force it to become something it was never intended to be, a PvP centric game, in direct opposition to what David Braben proposed, advertised and designed the game to be.

And I know many multiplayer games that have NO PvP at all, that's not a requirement of multiplayer games, never has been, never will be, no matter how much you think otherwise. Multiplayer simply means you play with other real life humans, that's it, no competition between the players is implied or required. You want a shoot em up spaceship game, I'd suggest you buy into Infinity: Battlescape, that's exactly what it is, that's all that it is. EVE: Valkyrie will be another spaceship shoot em up game, that's exactly what it is, that's all that it is. Elite Dangerous is not that game, it wasn't designed to be that game, it wasn't advertised as that game, you confusing the term multiplayer with PvP is on you, no one else.


Good summary. Repped.
 
Looking at the page, I have to agree with this.


Though, to that I will say I can think of one game mechanic that has been there since ( as far as I'm aware ) the game's introduction, Player Bounties shown in Gal Net at stations, does sort of lend itself particularly to PvP.

Thus I would conclude that PvP was intended to be a part of the game on some level. Probably not as prevalent as some would hope, more prevalent than others would, I'm sure.


MEH.

It was, and per FD, it was supposed to be rare and meaningful. They had MUCH higher bounties for crimes originally, but the PvPers abused that and made themselves rich by committing crimes with their friends and killing each other for the bounties of millions of credits. So that got the bounties dropped to silly low levels, thanks PvPers!

Looking at the size of the bubble itself, anyone who thinks PvP is meant to be commonplace, well, they must have studied hard for their IQ test, because very simple math shows that it's impossible for PvP to be commonplace, there's too many systems in the bubble alone for it to be anything but rare, as the odds of even encountering another human being in the bubble are astronomical in the first place. My grandson figured out that on his own when he saw me actually encounter another human being in the bubble one day. 'have you seen anyone else grandpa?' 'not since the last CG I did bud, why?' 'how many systems in the bubble?' 'I'm not sure, 20k maybe, why?'. He sat there a minute, obviously thinking hard, and said 'wow, that many systems, how do you find another player ever?'...a 12 year kid gets it and these adults don't...
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Lets try to stay on topic please. The OP is asking for improvements to the game that would help all forms of multiplayer. I agree with that sentiment, and with the request for an increase in depth of the BGS (including an optional purpose for PVP) and of networking functionality. Not sure why that is so controversial?

As for the BGS being currently "deep" well just pure lol at that notion. It is a shallow text change resulting in other shallow text changes. I can currently fly into any system and dock and trade completely unmolested regardless of my allegiance. So what if they swap out the text on restricted goods? So what if the police are now mafia?


If you want to discuss PVP vs PVE go find go one of the thousands of OPEN vs SOLO threads to grind your ancient irrelevant axe. This thread is about the game being functional. And yes that includes PVP. If you don't like PVP, go do something else. How hard is that?

The OP said:

Nice read about ARENA, but Braben totally doesn't get it. The entire PvP feedback from the Elite players is that they finally should enhance PvP INGAME, not capsule and thus totally disconnect it from the main game, outsourcing it in a tiny fighting pit.

What we PvP players want is to use our OWN ship in some meaningful (PvP) events INGAME with results that HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE GAME. As I said many times, CGs are a good start, but that can only be a beginning. We need multiplayer mechanics that make Elite a game worth to play online. The infrasctructure is a big problem, like the net code etc. but with some nice tricks and finally giving up this massive restrictions, FDev could already enhance the PvP experience a lot.

.... which suggests an attempt to persuade Frontier to shift the emphasis of the game towards PvP (by making it at all meaningful in-game). That's what seems to be being requested - and is therefore being discussed.
 
Talk about pure . Lets try to stay on topic please. The OP is asking for improvements to the game that would help all forms of multiplayer. I agree with that sentiment, and with the request for an increase in depth of the BGS (including an optional purpose for PVP) and of networking functionality. Not sure why that is so controversial?

Probably because he starts by saying the lead dev doesnt know what he's talking about, and openly says the opinions of others is invalid if it is not his. It tends to make people annoyed.
 
Nice read about ARENA, but Braben totally doesn't get it. The entire PvP feedback from the Elite players is that they finally should enhance PvP INGAME, not capsule and thus totally disconnect it from the main game, outsourcing it in a tiny fighting pit.

What we PvP players want is to use our OWN ship in some meaningful (PvP) events INGAME with results that HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE GAME. As I said many times, CGs are a good start, but that can only be a beginning. We need multiplayer mechanics that make Elite a game worth to play online. The infrasctructure is a big problem, like the net code etc. but with some nice tricks and finally giving up this massive restrictions, FDev could already enhance the PvP experience a lot.

"Epic Multiplayer" on ED's website means lots of people playing by themselves at the same time in a private instance.
 
Back
Top Bottom