An important question [I think]

[StarTux]

They were answered several times if you bothered to read the replies. Shame on you sir.

I went 4 pages past the question, other peoples later questions were being answered, although I do think (having looked back) I have seen where you answered part of it without any quotes.

 

[Storagebod]

Delete Galaxy. Insert System.

An example (maybe an extreme one):

500,000 players all log in and all head to i-bootis. However, they are all in 'group only' mode. That is 500,000 instances of the same system.

Maybe extreme. Maybe not. Depends on player numbers at launch and how people decide to play.

Just an hypothetical example though.

As I say, it'd be interesting to look at the back-end infrastructure. But even if we went into MP:ALL; you'd have 500,000/32 instances of the same system. However the P2P design is designed to keep the number of servers that they require down to a minimum.

Also, we think that they are using AWS; if this is done right, this is not an always on infrastructure and they may well be using very small amounts of compute per instance. They can spin up demand and I'd expect that the persistence layer storing state is actually relatively small in the scheme of things.

 

[CaptainSodom]

That and the head honcho is a 30+ year old with who has repeatedly said he's making a game he would want to play. Just so happens the rest of us 30+ somethings have played his previous games, and the current iteration aligns fairly well with those.

So without subscriptions, how you going to force him to change his "Vision". Pout, stamp your feet and sulk in the corner?

It has been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere that FD has stated they'd prefer most, if not all, to play the all group or whatever the MP mode is called, so I don't need to stomp my feet as their design goal is MP already.

I wouldn't have backed the game if it was a remake of an 80s game. Played Elite back then, don't want to play again. The industry has fortunately developed well beyond the limitations posed by lack of (popular) internet and persistent online gaming. And for the game to have wings beyond the piddling amount of backers to justify development of expansions, it needs to get with the times.

Moot point since MP is thankfully here to stay. It seems that you, sir, is the one who has to stomp your feet to turn back time

 

[StarTux]

I do not see the benefit of cross server switching at all. All it does is dilute player numbers in the main server as there is little anyone would use the main server for EXCEPT PvP.

Its not cross server switching, its simply allowing players to adjust the amount of PC interaction to a scale they feel comfortable with, otherwise you really risk people quitting, or at the time not backing at all.

How many PC's do you actually interact with and get to know in an MMO anyway? What makes you initiate such contact?

If this is the direction the game is headed then I wouldn't be too happy; and it seems that half the the people here agree (at the moment anyway).

The game was and is well laid out many months ago during Kickstarter:

"In the game, you will of course begin with a spacecraft and a small sum of Credits. You will be able to trade, pirate, bounty-hunt, explore, and salvage your way to wealth and fame, building on those key elements of the previous games, and with sumptuous graphics only now possible with the performance of today’s machines. Only this time some of the ships out there will be other players like yourself – other members of a secret ‘Elite’ group of space-farers…

· Multiplayer: you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends as you choose. This technology is already working, using a combination of peer-to-peer (to reduce lag) and server connections.

· Play it your way: Your reputation is affected by your personal choices. Play the game your way: dangerous pirate, famous explorer or notorious assassin - the choice is yours to make. Take on missions and affect the world around you, alone or with your friends."

And further detailed and refined here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300

Yes, diluting the playerbase was always on topic when these discussions took place and ideas were floated argued for and against many ideas at the time.

If someone chooses an offline player the character should remain that way, single player online is simply really someone whose grouping precludes other PC's joining the instance, now we're getting close to actually testing it we shall see how it works in practice.

 

[Space_Killer69]

It has been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere that FD has stated they'd prefer most, if not all, to play the all group or whatever the MP mode is called, so I don't need to stomp my feet as their design goal is MP already.

I wouldn't have backed the game if it was a remake of an 80s game. Played Elite back then, don't want to play again. The industry has fortunately developed well beyond the limitations posed by lack of (popular) internet and persistent online gaming. And for the game to have wings beyond the piddling amount of backers to justify development of expansions, it needs to get with the times.

Moot point since MP is thankfully here to stay. It seems that you, sir, is the one who has to stomp your feet to turn back time

See now before you go off on a rant please tell me where i was anti-multiplayer? Otherwise these old brain cells just get confused, it must be the incipient dementia.

 

[CaptainSodom]

· Multiplayer: you will be able to control who else you might encounter in your game – perhaps limit it to just your friends? Cooperate on adventures or chase your friends down to get that booty. The game will work in a seamless, lobby-less way, with the ability to rendezvous with friends as you choose. This technology is already working, using a combination of peer-to-peer (to reduce lag) and server connections.

I have no opinion on the OP matter as I feel we don't know enough whether it will be exploitable, and to what extent. But the above raises another concern: fragmenting the player base.

Current plans seem to be 60-100k habited systems at launch, which means several systems per KS backer. Even if we allow for popular trade routes and systems and growing number of people since the KS campaign and up to launch, we'll have pretty low concentrations of people.

Now, fragment that playerbase further by introducing various ways to avoid encountering other players, and the MMO becomes, umm, a Minutely Multiplayer-Optional game Even if we hopefully get 10-100x people after launch, space might become a very lonely place for those who'd like to do random encounters. Or perhaps even worse, those people are forced to those popular routes and systems, essentially turning the game into an instanced battlefield.

I'm skipping over the implication in your post that the KS campaign is some kind of immutable constitution; I strongly believe FD and Mr Braben should throw such documents out the window if they deem that necessary to make the game a better one.

 

[CaptainSodom]

See now before you go off on a rant please tell me where i was anti-multiplayer? Otherwise these old brain cells just get confused, it must be the incipient dementia.

Could be lack of reading comprehension on your or my side, or combination. Can't be bothered to do the forensics, if you're offended, PM me.

 

[Space_Killer69]

Could be lack of reading comprehension on your or my side, or combination. Can't be bothered to do the forensics, if you're offended, PM me.

No, never offended, it's only the internet. Just genuinely confused as to where I was anti-MP. To be honest I rather like the fact that I'm an old has-been. I've finally succeeded in something.

DB/Fdev laid out their version of ED MP 18 months ago, it is what it is.

Don't get me wrong, nothing on the kickstarter is set in stone. At the end of the day DB is a business man, FD are a business, but I've no doubt if they were in it just for the money then we'd be looking at something more akin to WoW in space rather than EvE. So what we're left with is DB's/Fdevs vision of E D and their interpretation of MP.

So far this thread (and the other two remarkably similar ones), has demonstrated people just either don't read about what they're buying before they dropped the money, or their sense of self-entitlement is so great that they don't care, the game has to change now!(I'd rather/hope it isn't the second one.)

"FD must change track after 18months because......." and all the be-causes seem to be based on little more than conjecture, subjective assessments of what may happen, or I'm a cad and a bounder, therefore everyone else is.

 

[BenjaminSisko]

btw another issue, if beta is anything to go by, not having to fight for kills in conflict zones with other players will be a big advantage.

Well past midnight here so i will wish you a goodnight.

The galaxy will be big enough that there will be more than enough conflict zones for you to find and farm without ever seeing another human player even in the full multiplayer mode.

With 400 billion star systems, you will be able to do whatever you want in MP all group without any competition from other players or even ever seeing another player.

so there really is absolutely no advantage between any of the online modes or player defined groups.

 

[CaptainSodom]

No, never offended, it's only the internet. Just genuinely confused as to where I was anti-MP.

It was just that I mentioned Elite didn't have MP, and by extension many of the old guard don't care for or want MP in E: D. Since you were railing against my post, I made the ASSumption that you're against MP.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Quite frankly, if allowing people to join the ALL group when the mood strikes means that there will be more people in the ALL group, I think that's far better than forcing people to choose one or the other.

When you consider all the out-of-game advantages people can have, I don't consider people not choosing to artificially limiting themselves to be a huge advantage. Especially given how not playing multi-player ALL won't allow you to build up the vital skills and instincts you'll need to thrive in that group.

As for me, I'll be starting out in ironman mode.

 

[StarTux]

I have no opinion on the OP matter as I feel we don't know enough whether it will be exploitable, and to what extent. But the above raises another concern: fragmenting the player base.

This has been an ongoing point since talk started on grouping and on the death mechanic, its not an easy one to deal with, but so far they have come up with the best I think they have could, outside of further testing.

Current plans seem to be 60-100k habited systems at launch, which means several systems per KS backer. Even if we allow for popular trade routes and systems and growing number of people since the KS campaign and up to launch, we'll have pretty low concentrations of people.

A large number indeed and with a likelyhood of randomized start positions it could be interesting, unless this ends up being limited to a set number places divided amongst the players, of course as you say people will tend to make their own way out, so we're really going to be seeing more NPC's than players.

Now, fragment that playerbase further by introducing various ways to avoid encountering other players, and the MMO becomes, umm, a Minutely Multiplayer-Optional game Even if we hopefully get 10-100x people after launch, space might become a very lonely place for those who'd like to do random encounters. Or perhaps even worse, those people are forced to those popular routes and systems, essentially turning the game into an instanced battlefield.

Is this really an MMO to begin with?

Shroud of the Avatar is implementing an eerily similar system:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=3955

Which as can been seen they are calling Selective Multiplayer.

How FD seem to be addressing the issue? There will be events in game to attract all sorts of activity to certain systems to attract differing styles of player, from the miner, trader, pirate, bounty hunter to those who do a bit of it all.

I'm skipping over the implication in your post that the KS campaign is some kind of immutable constitution; I strongly believe FD and Mr Braben should throw such documents out the window if they deem that necessary to make the game a better one.

There was no implication there whatsoever, merely pointing out to another user that the game has been heading in this direction for 18 months if not more as his posting came across suggesting a change in direction was recent. Of course, if during testing and feedback they find a better way of doing things then its a no-brainer, but we're not there yet. Maybe once the systems are in place we'll be beyond the "What-if" or speculation phase.

 

[StarTux]

Quite frankly, if allowing people to join the ALL group when the mood strikes means that there will be more people in the ALL group, I think that's far better than forcing people to choose one or the other.

When you consider all the out-of-game advantages people can have, I don't consider people not choosing to artificially limiting themselves to be a huge advantage. Especially given how not playing multi-player ALL won't allow you to build up the vital skills and instincts you'll need to thrive in that group.

As for me, I'll be starting out in ironman mode.

Totally agree +1 and I'll be starting out in "ironman" too, just seems more complete where escape capsules actually have a real meaning .

 

[Thespen Tombs]

Funny I too intend to start out in Ironman, I wonder how many will last the first month; I'm not betting on me

 

[the-monk]

I have noticed quite a few people will be starting Ironman (me included).

Has anyone actually ran a poll to see how many Ironmen/women are amongst us?

If not maybe someone should start one?

 

[StarTux]

Funny I too intend to start out in Ironman, I wonder how many with last the first month; I'm not betting on me

I already know my death in the first month, death by Cat. It will be during a moment when precise manoeuvring will be critical and one of the felines will choose that very moment to jump on the keyboard and then will sit right in front of the monitor, by the time I move the cat to regain conteol it will be too late lol.

 

[Jocrates]

I lurk more than post but thought I would add my opinion here as I may be representative of a type of player not showing up much in the forums.

I signed up to the Premium Beta quite a long time ago but have yet to play anything other than the scenarios as MP/PVP doesn't interest me. I prefer the original ethos of Elite which was single player against the universe and that is how I will be playing the full game when it is released. It is not for me to preach the positives of one type of play compared to the other and I am quite sure that many folk will gain immense enjoyment from the PVP universe but this is not for me.

As a result I am quite against the idea of swapping a character between the two environments. At some point MP/PVP may pique my interest and if that does occur I would much rather start afresh with a completely new character than swap across the single player commander. If the decision is made that this is possible then I would simply choose not to do so. That is my choice about how I want to play and is how I would enjoy the game.

 

[Storagebod]

As a result I am quite against the idea of swapping a character between the two environments. At some point MP/PVP may pique my interest and if that does occur I would much rather start afresh with a completely new character than swap across the single player commander. If the decision is made that this is possible then I would simply choose not to do so. That is my choice about how I want to play and is how I would enjoy the game.

If you are talking about single-player offline...you can't swap it across. MP itself covers a whole multitude of sins and don't make the mistake that it is all about the pew-pew and PvP..

The beauty about what FD are trying to do is that with the exception of the SP:Offline...you can play how you want to with all the consequences that might mean.

 

[CaptainSodom]

How FD seem to be addressing the issue? There will be events in game to attract all sorts of activity to certain systems to attract differing styles of player, from the miner, trader, pirate, bounty hunter to those who do a bit of it all.

I don't see how this could be a good solution. Activities and events can be fun, but can be just tedious and stupid - just how many "50% credit bonus this weekend for mining gold" can we stomach? And if they are more involved story-driven events, they require dev intervention and time, an ongoing investment which is possibly hard to justify in a game with no subscription fees.

Most importantly, if the game relies on such events, it stops being a sandbox game. Gaming in E: D is turned into yet another de facto instanced playground, as those who want to encounter randoms will flock to said events, sucking such activity from elsewhere.

This is exactly what happened in WoW when Battlegrounds were introduced: they killed open world PvP within days. If I wanted to play instanced battlegrounds I'd play LoL.

I want E: D to be a game where I need to be on my toes at all times for PC gank squads or stealthy assassins while I penetrate deeper into the dark moist void of space. I know I'm probably in the minority with that desire, but I bet I'm in the majority in thinking that going towards limiting group play and further fragmenting the player base is sub-optimal.

I have noticed quite a few people will be starting Ironman (me included).

I'll probably give it a stab. I'm not sure I understand the concept, as it sounds like it's unlike Diablo's hardcore mode, where when you die, you die, and it's game over, and the devs will not raise you from the dead even if your internet connection died.

 

[Bromley86]

I know I'm probably in the minority with that desire, but I bet I'm in the majority in thinking that going towards limiting group play and further fragmenting the player base is sub-optimal.

Clearly from the poll at the time you posted (55% No), that's not the case. Sure, if there was a magic wand that made everything better I doubt anyone, even the SP-leaning folks, would suggest that fractured playerbase=good. But we'd all like to play how we'd like to play.