Forming an Armada.

[Tylermon]

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

difficulty is a poorly chosen word.

My relation to it is how most games have a difficulty slider. Instead this would be like a player slider or something of the sort.

I need to play with the wording and idea of that more probably.
It is late...or early.
And I need some sleep.
hopefully you at least have a concept of the idea from that.

I work early, and my saitek pedals arrive in the afternoon!
Great timing and very excited.


-------------
To people interested in joining the Armada/Fleet Send me a private message, or check out that steam page.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/EliteDangerousArmada#
There are roughly 8-10 of us so far.
Mumble,teamspeak,or vent is being decided upon.
And an official website is being made.

 

[Viajero]

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.

Not necessarily tbh. There are many issues to overcome in this regard indeed. But I am quite hopeful. The key thing to realize is that, unless technology and netcode improves leaps and bounds before eventual large fleet mechanics are implemented, some compromises will have to be taken in design.

Instancing is the main barrier for large fleet size encounters obviously. Star Citizen is in the same predicament, although their instancing rough size estimates so far seems to be slightly bigger than FD own estimates. Still, this is to be seen.

But, despite the instance limit, there may be creative ways to handle such big encounters.

One such way for example could be to develop a Command & Control structure for fleets that allows for "admirals" to pre-assign a preferred hierarchy and a structure of subteams within their fleets. Such that if, for example, a sub 32 fleet encounters another enemy fleet resulting in a total combined of more than 32 ships then the server would decide to split those fleets into several instanced encounters, each instance comporting a fraction of each fleet and whose composition would be based on the "admiral" pre-design hierarchy and structure. Ultimately the split would be decided by the server instancing algorithms of which that hierarchy would be but just one variable probably and thus tehre would always be an element of "unkown" in the actual decided split. I would not have a problem with that randomness if it comes to it... it could be easily rationalized as "fog of war" .

One could conceive also a degree of communication between instances so "admirals" can eventually decide to order or queue certain ships to transfer in between instances, as long as there is room enough in them (as some ships are destroyed or withdraw etc) when needed.

This kind of multi instanced encounter mechanic would also bring a fun layer for the eventual C&C aspect of the game whereby Admirals would need to really have a well thought out and balanced hierarchy and structure in preparation for such "splits".

But this is just one such idea to handle large fleets. There may be many many others. I wont doubt FD is capabale of creative thinking in order to handle these.

 

[Gibbonici]

The beautiful thing about elite, is no one makes you play with others.

Now I just have to ask why so many of you seem against playing with others.

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.

A couple of things here.

Firstly, don't make the mistake of thinking that people are against playing with each other. It's more a case of people not wanting to be forced to play together by the same dynamic that force people to play together in EvE. It's a very different thing.

Secondly, the only reason there's so much focus on combat is that combat is the first thing that got tested. It's the part that allowed FD to test the flight model, the networking and overall responsiveness. As David Braben put it, combat is the biggest risk and is the thing that needed the most testing.

The biggest and most influential part of Elite is the part that hasn't been publcily tested yet, and that's the background simulation. That's what makes the universe dynamic, it's what generates missions, planetary crises and potential flashpoints for PvA conflict. It drives the economy and it causes factional expansion and everything that flows from that as a consequence.

It's what will make Elite's universe feel like an actual living, breathing place rather than an hugely abstracted background for players to fight each upon.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The key thing to realize that, unless technology and netcode imprves leaps and bounds before eventual large fleet mechanics are implemented, some compromises will have to be taken in design.

Instancing is the main barrier for large fleet size encounters obviously. Star Citizen is in the same predicament, although their instancing rough size estimates so far seems to be slightly bigger than FD own estimates. Still, this is still to be seen.

I take it that you mean large fleets with a player in each cockpit? If not, then I fear that you will be disappointed.

 

[hunvagy]

snip, because quoting a wall of text is not nice

I'm sorry if I come over as rude or whatever, but you are thinking about the wrong game. There won't be any command structure, there won't be giant fleets with admirals. That is not Elite. Never was, and never will be. It's one man, one ship. With E: D it's 32 people 32 ships, hopefully at least some of them don't try to stab you in the back. Fleets, admirals, ruling powers, power struggles, that's all the simulation and the NPCs. The game you are thinking about is Flagship.

 

[Viajero]

I take it that you mean large fleets with a player in each cockpit? If not, then I fear that you will be disappointed.

Do you mean that you think ED will not have player based multi crewed ships?

 

[Viajero]

I'm sorry if I come over as rude or whatever, but you are thinking about the wrong game. There won't be any command structure, there won't be giant fleets with admirals.

No worries, no offense obviously. Well as far as I can see no dev has confirmed or denied that point yet. Please point me to such dev link in case I missed it and apologies!

I obviously dont have my hopes high for launch , but over time why not?

 

[hunvagy]

Well as far as I can see no dev has confirmed or denied that point yet. Please point me to such dev link in case I missed it and apologies!

I obviously dont have my hoes high for launch , but over time why not?

I guess if you give up your personal freedom of doing what you want, you join the Federation navy (as example) then you can sit in your flagship, and when the simulation tells you to go and invade a system, you can go and invade. But to fly around with your fleet and doing whatever you want? Definitely not.

 

[Nagual]

Do you mean that you think ED will not have multi crewed ships?

This one thing they are considering along with NPC crews (robots or people).

 

[Viajero]

But to fly around with your fleet and doing whatever you want? Definitely not.

Again, please lead me to a link where devs confirmed that large fleets wont be possible at all irrespective of development time.

 

[Viajero]

This one thing they are considering along with NPC crews (robots or people).

I know, that is why I m trying to understand what Maynard really means.

 

[hunvagy]

Again, please lead me to a link where devs confirmed that large fleets wont be possible at all irrespective of development time.

There is no such thing, and as your additions in this thread it is just my side of the coin. I believe it to be so because this is Elite, not Star Trek: Armada But I guess we'll see how it turns out when the game is out and expansions beyond planetary landing and "walk around in your ship/station" are announced.

 

[Viajero]

There is no such thing, and as your additions in this thread it is just my side of the coin. I believe it to be so because this is Elite, not Star Trek: Armada But I guess we'll see how it turns out when the game is out and expansions beyond planetary landing and "walk around in your ship/station" are announced.

Indeed, thanks. It may take quite a while, if at all, I fully agree. But unless we have clear evidence from FD that rules it out, I dont think we can rule it out categorically as some here do.

Most of us here fully appreciate the "Lone Wolf" tradition of Elite. But times change and some would even argue that the "lone wolf" tradition was more of a technical limitation than a design feature. Plus new player generations come in. I can see plenty(tm) voices already in this forum suggesting they d be interested in such C&C mechanics, so who knows?

 

[hunvagy]

Indeed, thanks. It may take quite a while, if at all, I fully agree. But unless we have clear evidence from FD that rules it out, I dont think we can rule it out categorically as some here do.

Most of us here fully appreciate the "Lone Wolf" tradition of Elite. But times change and some would even argue that the "lone wolf" tradition was more of a technical limitation than a design feature. Plus new player generations come in. I can see plenty(tm) voices already in this forum suggesting they d be interested in such C&C mechanics, so who knows?

I understand the sentiment, but with me personally that doesn't fly. I'm not that old, I missed the first Elite craze, because I was 2 when it came out. I played Frontier a bit, then FFE. But I mostly grew up on Tie Fighters, Wing Commanders and the like. Still, no matter what generation, Elite should be Elite. Even if it now lets you play with others, it shouldn't turn into a game it isn't. Being a Lone Wolf might have been a technical limitation, but a game about trading, exploration, mining bounty hunting (which the devs repeatedly said should not be a group profession) and piracy should never be about huge military fleets moving around the galaxy and subjugating it. For me that is completely opposite of the spirit of Elite. But again, that is only my view on things, and the only ones to give us a definite answer where the game is headed are Frontier Developments.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This one thing they are considering along with NPC crews (robots or people).

They certainly are considering ships with crews as well as a player pilot. Link.

Ship ownership is talked about here.

Wingmen are talked about here.

 

[Viajero]

They certainly are considering ships with crews as well as a player pilot. Link.

Ship ownership is talked about here.

Wingmen are talked about here.

Also here where DB confirms plans, with time, to allow other players in those crews:

min 2:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlFwSj_Ix1o&feature=player_detailpage#t=160

 

[Viajero]

I understand the sentiment, but with me personally that doesn't fly. I'm not that old, I missed the first Elite craze, because I was 2 when it came out. I played Frontier a bit, then FFE. But I mostly grew up on Tie Fighters, Wing Commanders and the like. Still, no matter what generation, Elite should be Elite. Even if it now lets you play with others, it shouldn't turn into a game it isn't. Being a Lone Wolf might have been a technical limitation, but a game about trading, exploration, mining bounty hunting (which the devs repeatedly said should not be a group profession) and piracy should never be about huge military fleets moving around the galaxy and subjugating it. For me that is completely opposite of the spirit of Elite. But again, that is only my view on things, and the only ones to give us a definite answer where the game is headed are Frontier Developments.

Indeed.

I am also of the X-Wing generation, must admit, so I dont have the Elite "lone wolf" bias which seems prevalent here. I have backed both Star Citizen and Elite and I consider myself a fairly balanced solo, co-op, PVE and PVP player in my gaming habits.

And to be honest, I believe that ED has the vast scale and potential to allow new multiple different gameplay styles without alienating the current ones, i.e. I also believe and hope! that the trademark lone wolf experience will still be very valid and playable even if new gameplay styles are implemented.

Many here asume right away that multiple playstyles are mutually exclusive with current ones. And hence flames arise.

I prefer to think there will be ways to make them perfectly complementary and compatible.

 

[Keybuk]

Again, please lead me to a link where devs confirmed that large fleets wont be possible at all irrespective of development time.

Ok... a developer on the 32-player-per-instance limit (assuming that you believe a large fleet is > 32 ships)

The likelihood of that number ever going up is very low. It is a limitation based around the P2P networking we're doing between players in the same session along with the technical side of just keeping track of that many human controlled entities flying about and interacting with each other.

Our networking will work very much like how CoD games do it also. CoD has persistence in that everyone's player characters grow and progress and are remembered outside of the individual sessions you play in along with the fact the game itself can be patched and updated over time.

ED thus isn't an MMO because we're not handling arbitrarily high numbers of players existing at the same time in the same place because:

1. Space is huge and players don't have much reason to congregate in such large numbers yet maintain close enough proximity to interact
2. Players have a hell of a lot more control over their ships and how they fly and interact than even the most complicated mmo game systems.

It just isn't feasible to give players direct control of their ships and internal systems with huge numbers of players in the same session so the choice is either take away the control (i.e. use executive control like in EVE) or reduce the number of players to a manageable amount that can communicate and do network predication properly.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Also here where DB confirms plans, with time, to allow other players in those crews:

min 2:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlFwSj_Ix1o&feature=player_detailpage#t=160

Apologies, missed that one....

Interesting post from Mike Evans here that talks a bit about the instance limitation.

Ninja'd by Keybuk!

 

[jabokai]

And to be honest, I believe that ED has the vast scale and potential to allow new multiple different gameplay styles without alienating the current ones, i.e. I also believe and hope! that the trademark lone wolf experience will still be very valid and playable even if new gameplay styles are implemented.

If I, as a player, can rise to the level of owning and commanding a cap ship how can the lone wolf still exist as a viable gameplay option? Why would the player artificially confine themselves to a "lesser" existence when they know the challenge of the game can lead them to a more "coveted" position? If it's possible to attain the kind of money that will buy a cap ship, what will I, as a lone wolf in a (relatively) small vessel, choose to do with the all this money I have? Will I just choose to be a gazillionaire in a tiny ship that constantly gets swatted by players with cap ships and armadas? Why?

If the game design limits us to be being small parts of the big picture and gives us enough to do within the confines of that vision then we never need cap ships or more. The essence of the game stays the same as its currently is.

People often say "well what happens when I have everything and tonnes of money" but it's a dead-end argument... what happens when you have a cap ship and a fleet that can trample everything and exponentially increase their money? You can always say "what then?" as an argument but it really serves no purpose.