Forming an Armada.

[Saxxon]

Protecting 30 year old single player game concepts are sometimes hard to let go of especially when based on rose colored nostalgia.

To each his own.

I say rock on brother do your best to lock your turf down.

If I roll thru there minding my own business and you give me grief I will burn you down hehe.

Of course you probably will not notice me running silent with a load of hot goods.

 

[Tylermon]

Protecting 30 year old single player game concepts are sometimes hard to let go of especially when based on rose colored nostalgia.

To each his own.

I say rock on brother do your best to lock your turf down.

If I roll thru there minding my own business and you give me grief I will burn you down hehe.

Of course you probably will not notice me running silent with a load of hot goods.

Then it will be a fight well fought. Hope to see you in game

 

[Keybuk]

I'm also going to be the one to bear bad news. This elite is a lot more combat oriented than the past. The trailers are focusing on the combat. The a1.1 for beta backers focuses combat. Magazine reviews are all talking about the combat.

Like it or not. This elite has combat elements in it that the elite series has not seen the likes of before.

I don't think I'd agree with this.

Elite has always been combat oriented. The Elite rating itself is based on the number of kills you have. I've always played as a Bounty Hunter/Assassin for example.

The key has been that unlike other games, you can do other things instead. And that the game has always been just as strong as those.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that they're going to nerf Trading, Mining, Passenger carrying, etc. compared to Combat.

The only reason Combat is first in the test releases is that it kinda helps smooth out flight mechanics early.

For those flying alone and seeking to avoid player interactions, welcome to the single player mode.

I'm quite looking forwards to collecting the bounties on players heads actually... I'm hoping to assassinate a few too ;-)

However I would say that I'm an advocate for Player-Vs-Environment (PvE), Player-Vs-Player (PvP) and not Player-Vs-Armada (PvA).

 

[Keybuk]

Everyone is of course entitled to play in the way they see best for them.

The mechanics of Elite mean that your actions have in-game consequences, and if you want to create an armada and dominate the entire universe, you can!

All 32 of you, that gives you quite a few billion systems each to control. Talk about power!

The most interesting thing for me will be in the in-game consequences, not necessarily to the armada players, but to the game a result.

For example, let's say that a bunch of players decide to get together and blockade the entrance to a particularly central space port.

This is pretty doable (and sounds kinda fun!). Park 8 'Condies around the docking hatch fully kitted out with turrets of death, a wing of 8-16 fighters to handle the smaller, more agile stuff, and a Barge or two on-hand to pick up any cargo and sell it on the black market.

That still leaves plenty of room in the instance (which is just the square around the port, not the entire star system, remember) for other players just cruising in to get the canisters kicked out of them.

This is all fine and valid gameplay as far as I'm concerned, it's playing by the rules of the simulation.

All that matters is how the simulation handles it.

Do it in Sol, I would expect the Federal Navy to turn up with a few of those dreadnaughts and blast the hell out of them.

Do it in a lesser system, I'd still expect the Federal Navy to show up, but maybe put up less of a fight and call in some of those Combat Bonds to get other players to join in.

A more backwater system, some local defense force and a plea for help via Combat Bond.

Of course, whatever happens, this should be big news!

I want to read about it, BLOCKADE AT PORT ZELADA over the nets! Which will of course aid players to steer clear if that's not what they're into.

 

[Tylermon]

I don't think I'd agree with this.

Elite has always been combat oriented. The Elite rating itself is based on the number of kills you have. I've always played as a Bounty Hunter/Assassin for example.

The key has been that unlike other games, you can do other things instead. And that the game has always been just as strong as those.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that they're going to nerf Trading, Mining, Passenger carrying, etc. compared to Combat.

The only reason Combat is first in the test releases is that it kinda helps smooth out flight mechanics early.

I'm quite looking forwards to collecting the bounties on players heads actually... I'm hoping to assassinate a few too ;-)

However I would say that I'm an advocate for Player-Vs-Environment (PvE), Player-Vs-Player (PvP) and not Player-Vs-Armada (PvA).

Sorry, I was making a broad generalisation that with many more players in the elite universe, there is going to be a much higher degree of combat than in past games.(this also goes to say the same with the other aspects of elite)

While there has always been a degree of combat. It is my opinion that the degree of that combat has actually gone up to a whole new level.

not trying to say anything was taken away from the importance of trade and the economy. However...
To think you can trade in peace oblivious to PvP happenings or combat in general is a bad assumption.
To me it feels like many people have the mindset of I want to trade, so that means everyone should have to trade. If I am trading you shouldn't be allowed to touch me. And if you touch me, you are a terrible person and a griefer and should go play another game.

And I dont think the game trys to dismiss PvP or combat like some people are trying to lead us to believe.
I was just trying to get the point across that the game indeed does have a combat side to it as well.

 

[Tylermon]

The most interesting thing for me will be in the in-game consequences, not necessarily to the armada players, but to the game a result.

For example, let's say that a bunch of players decide to get together and blockade the entrance to a particularly central space port.

This is pretty doable (and sounds kinda fun!). Park 8 'Condies around the docking hatch fully kitted out with turrets of death, a wing of 8-16 fighters to handle the smaller, more agile stuff, and a Barge or two on-hand to pick up any cargo and sell it on the black market.

That still leaves plenty of room in the instance (which is just the square around the port, not the entire star system, remember) for other players just cruising in to get the canisters kicked out of them.

This is all fine and valid gameplay as far as I'm concerned, it's playing by the rules of the simulation.

All that matters is how the simulation handles it.

Do it in Sol, I would expect the Federal Navy to turn up with a few of those dreadnaughts and blast the hell out of them.

Do it in a lesser system, I'd still expect the Federal Navy to show up, but maybe put up less of a fight and call in some of those Combat Bonds to get other players to join in.

A more backwater system, some local defense force and a plea for help via Combat Bond.

Of course, whatever happens, this should be big news!

I want to read about it, BLOCKADE AT PORT ZELADA over the nets! Which will of course aid players to steer clear if that's not what they're into.

THIS
100 times THIS

And thats the type of things I have in mind.

The universe is big enough people can avoid it.

But those that want in on some action are more than able to take part in it.


The problematic side of things though...is that While one instance is blockaded, others can be perfectly fine.
This Is why I feel the instanced world has some major flaws that need taken into consideration.

 

[Keybuk]

The problematic side of things though...is that While one instance is blockaded, others can be perfectly fine.
This Is why I feel the instanced world has some major flaws that need taken into consideration.

True, but don't think of the instances like WoW realms where players deliberately pick. They're more of an implementation detail of the system making sure that players don't get a laggy gameplay.

But it does have to be handled cleverly, especially in the above situation. If there's a blockade at Port Zelada, and I read about it in the news, and especially if I accept a Combat Bond for it, the game has to make sure I'm matched with the same instance as the players performing the blockade.

It'd be weird to read about it, jump in, and find nobody there.

It'd be downright angering to accept a combat bond, jump in, and find nobody there.

Effectively it has to elevate these kinds of actions from ordinary gameplay to "game event".

But then it also has to keep in mind lag, you and I are on the US West Coast? Chances are we'll be in same instances compared to someone over in the UK. 'cause FD haven't figured out a way to Frameshift UDP Packets yet.

 

[Tylermon]

True, but don't think of the instances like WoW realms where players deliberately pick. They're more of an implementation detail of the system making sure that players don't get a laggy gameplay.

But it does have to be handled cleverly, especially in the above situation. If there's a blockade at Port Zelada, and I read about it in the news, and especially if I accept a Combat Bond for it, the game has to make sure I'm matched with the same instance as the players performing the blockade.

It'd be weird to read about it, jump in, and find nobody there.

It'd be downright angering to accept a combat bond, jump in, and find nobody there.

Effectively it has to elevate these kinds of actions from ordinary gameplay to "game event".

But then it also has to keep in mind lag, you and I are on the US West Coast? Chances are we'll be in same instances compared to someone over in the UK. 'cause FD haven't figured out a way to Frameshift UDP Packets yet.

Yes, I am west coast.

What would be really nice would be a single server type of set up.
Where instances with no players or very few players dont need to have resources allocated to them.
High population areas would then get more resources.

At the very least. There should be something in place so that instances that have these types of events happening lose the instance cap and have higher resources allocated.

This still allows instances for the 80% of the game.

But then 20% or so of the time where big major things happen allow a much greater community to take place in the action.

 

[M.E.A.T]

THIS
100 times THIS

And thats the type of things I have in mind.

The universe is big enough people can avoid it.

But those that want in on some action are more than able to take part in it.


The problematic side of things though...is that While one instance is blockaded, others can be perfectly fine.
This Is why I feel the instanced world has some major flaws that need taken into consideration.

While I wouldn't mind joining you on pirating/smuggling trips; wrecking havoc & striking fear(and get myself blown to bits countless times in the process); your idea of controlling space is not something i wanted to do though. The space in ED is, well, too big to just focus on a handful of systems. You will be missing a lot IMO.

Setting station blockage from time to time sounds fun though.

 

[Sanderson]

None of us know what will or can happen yet. Who knows? Maybe with such a huge universe we'll have a hard time finding real people in game?

I believe the in game universe will have more than enough space for every play style. I'm new to ED but, how many jumps would it take to disappear? 10? 15? Less? with so many places to go and explore the possibilities are mind boggling.

For me, the unknown and adventure in all its forms is the main attraction. So to all my fellow adventurers: I welcome everything you all intend to do out there

 

[Robert Maynard]

The problematic side of things though...is that While one instance is blockaded, others can be perfectly fine.
This Is why I feel the instanced world has some major flaws that need taken into consideration.

If you don't like instances then you really won't like the fact that players in private groups or solo online will be able to bypass the blockade altogether.

Instance size is dictated by the P2P nature of the game - central servers do not carry the load, they co-ordinate.

 

[The Killer Edible Poet]

Station blockading does sound fun and something I believe David has mentioned before. But the inevitable loss of all those anacondas, either to the authorities or bounty hunters, will be very expensive. Without the kind of corporate structures required to bankroll that kind of expense i can't see it as something players will not want to indulge in too often.

Of course doing it in a backwater will be easier, most people will ignore you. But who wants to be stuck in one tiny backwater when there is a whole galaxy to explore.

People here aren't averse to playing together, they are just pointing out that the game will lend itself more to loose knit groups of friends, rather than top down, power hungry, player controlled corporate structures.

[there and I said it without mentioning Eve. Oh wait…. ]

 

[Tylermon]

If you don't like instances then you really won't like the fact that players in private groups or solo online will be able to bypass the blockade altogether.

Instance size is dictated by the P2P nature of the game - central servers do not carry the load, they co-ordinate.

I fully understand that, but I dont think talking about single player pertains to me forming a group of online players!
If people fly solo or private, that is their own choice.

That post was about some of the potential flaws instances might bring. It is a perplexing question of how the game world can be tied together for all the players in such scenarios.

It is a problem I struggle to think of ways that could be solved.

Imagine flying around and all any1 is talking about is some war happening at saturn. You get there, and not only is there no war, but there never was. Because all of that took place in another instance, an instance you will never see, and never take part of.

Thats what this game is partially about right? Our actions and choices directly influencing and affecting the world around us.

So it is really an interesting discussion how instances could be improved to promote these interactions

 

[hunvagy]

I fully understand that, but I dont think talking about single player pertains to me forming a group of online players!
If people fly solo or private, that is their own choice.

That post was about some of the potential flaws instances might bring. It is a perplexing question of how the game world can be tied together for all the players in such scenarios.

It is a problem I struggle to think of ways that could be solved.

Imagine flying around and all any1 is talking about is some war happening at saturn. You get there, and not only is there no war, but there never was. Because all of that took place in another instance, an instance you will never see, and never take part of.

Thats what this game is partially about right? Our actions and choices directly influencing and affecting the world around us.

So it is really an interesting discussion how instances could be improved to promote these interactions

Your best option is if limitation don't change is not to have a group of 32 players together, because then you lock out potential adversaries for your blockade. Make smaller squadrons and try to enter the system group by group. If lucky you'll distribute yourselves evenly, and can block multiple instances, with potential human players who don't like what you're doing and try to stop you perhaps?

 

[Tylermon]

Your best option is if limitation don't change is not to have a group of 32 players together, because then you lock out potential adversaries for your blockade. Make smaller squadrons and try to enter the system group by group. If lucky you'll distribute yourselves evenly, and can block multiple instances, with potential human players who don't like what you're doing and try to stop you perhaps?

Thats a good point.

I think it still however leaves a significant break in the simulation.
"each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you."
However, that galaxy does not co-exist between players.

In game when actually doing a blockade and being in the action, I am sure I wouldnt mind or care. In my own instance and world an epic battle can be taking place and I would have a good time.

But if I wanted in on a fight or heard rumor of some player driven story taking place, I would want to go see for myself.
And that is where the problem comes up.

Some further possibilities:
And while bounty hunting and chasing after pirates. Who is to say that the pirate I have been tracking down does not suddenly vanish to a separate instance?
Or that trade caravan I was about to raid?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thats a good point.

I think it still however leaves a significant break in the simulation.
"each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you."
However, that galaxy does not co-exist between players.

In game when actually doing a blockade and being in the action, I am sure I wouldnt mind or care. In my own instance and world an epic battle can be taking place and I would have a good time.

But if I wanted in on a fight or heard rumor of some player driven story taking place, I would want to go see for myself.
And that is where the problem comes up.

The simple issue is that, with the P2P model, instance sizing is related to bandwidth of all participants, up and down. If too much information requires to be shared then we get lag. The code seems to be improving, however I don't expect the 32 player instance limit to change.

Actions do have consequences and all players affect the galaxy, whether or not they can see each other.

I hope that during beta we will experience situations that allow evaluation of the instancing and matching systems - emergent gameplay is a core part of the multi-player aspect of the game and should hopefully work well.

 

[hunvagy]

Thats a good point.

I think it still however leaves a significant break in the simulation.
"each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you."
However, that galaxy does not co-exist between players.

In game when actually doing a blockade and being in the action, I am sure I wouldnt mind or care. In my own instance and world an epic battle can be taking place and I would have a good time.

But if I wanted in on a fight or heard rumor of some player driven story taking place, I would want to go see for myself.
And that is where the problem comes up.

Some further possibilities:
And while bounty hunting and chasing after pirates. Who is to say that the pirate I have been tracking down does not suddenly vanish to a separate instance?
Or that trade caravan I was about to raid?

Your latter point is covered in the grouping and instancing mechanics. If you are on someone's hyperspace trail you WILL end up in the same instance. At least that is the plan.

As for the other things, the background simulation is governing everything. We are not the central characters in the grand scheme of things. Also take into account the distances to cover. If you read the news 30 lightyears away that a blockade is around Zelada, chances are by the time you get there, it'll be resolved and you'd miss it anyway. Your hyperdrive is adequate in the current microsystem of the alpha and the early beta, but as other parts open up, you'll quickly notice that your drive has a jump limit. So it'll take considerable time to travel 30-40 lightyears (which is quite average I'd say between inhabited systems). The only suspension of disbelief may come from this when you're "next door" and the action is in another instance. And that is hard to overcome due to technical difficulties, at least that's how I see it.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Transparent PVP which may include territorial disputes does not necessarily need to mean that players interested in it have to be psycopathic overlords desperate for power and dominion control.

But it helps

Personally tracking down traders, scouting trade routes, fending off bounty hunters, avoiding too much attention with like 3-7 people fleets sounds awesome.

Imagine you have been tracking down some trade vessels just finish cleaning up and a small group flys in to deliver justice.
There is risk and reward. People will want you dead but pull it off and you have a pretty good time.

And when the looting and pillaging is said and done.

Repairs are made and losses accounted for.

Switching over to trade, manufacturing, mining or what have you. That all sounds fun.

And then there is always dealing with the npc's which again, no harm in have a few friends at your side.

Holding off systems and planets and such for a day or two and exploring as a group progressing as a group is appealing to me.

I already explained domination of the galaxy isn't exactly possible because of instances. But everything else seems more than possible given the current system in place.

This sounds exactly like I have imagined the Elite gameplay to be, and at the same scale.

Large fleet actions are not going to be at all easy to organise or carry out, and - who would you fight?

But what you are describing is exciting!

 

[Tylermon]

Your latter point is covered in the grouping and instancing mechanics. If you are on someone's hyperspace trail you WILL end up in the same instance. At least that is the plan.

As for the other things, the background simulation is governing everything. We are not the central characters in the grand scheme of things. Also take into account the distances to cover. If you read the news 30 lightyears away that a blockade is around Zelada, chances are by the time you get there, it'll be resolved and you'd miss it anyway. Your hyperdrive is adequate in the current microsystem of the alpha and the early beta, but as other parts open up, you'll quickly notice that your drive has a jump limit. So it'll take considerable time to travel 30-40 lightyears (which is quite average I'd say between inhabited systems). The only suspension of disbelief may come from this when you're "next door" and the action is in another instance. And that is hard to overcome due to technical difficulties, at least that's how I see it.

Thanks for clarifying those last two points of mine. It is good to know that wont be an issue.


Maybe there should be instance priorities set in place?

When combat or things start in a specific instance, that instance should have a priority that goes up so players are more likely to enter that instance vs the one with nothing happening.

This I think might make the best solution.

Players could additionally have a game setting that they can set their desired priority. So players wanting tons of interaction set a high priority desire, players wanting to be left alone while online, choose a low priority.

This never garantees anything, but it would influence the instances you are placed in, hopefully appealing to many players.

This priority could even change based on your playing.
Think of it almost as a difficulty slider that happens behind the scene.

People of similar "difficulty/priority" get placed together more frequently.
This priority would also need to take into account instance population.

 

[Robert Maynard]

People of similar "difficulty/priority" get placed together more frequently.

You seem to be equating higher player interaction with higher difficulty. This is not necessarily the case.