The Star Citizen Thread V2.0

[ianw]

(apologies for off-topic - insert obligatory SC knock down here ------> )That said, the thing that always throws me in the in the open v solo group argument (as discussed upthread) is that going solo is always presented as a cheat/exploit. Because it allows the player to avoid other players.

Yet everyone appears to ignore that for the inexperienced PVPer those terminally useless NPC pirates Cod & Cob are probably a serious challenge (don't even get me started on Radiant Dawn...)

But more importantly what never seems to get addressed is how the single player - who has neither the time or the inclination to team up with other players - deals with the massive advantage that players playing together have compared to the single player.

Recent events at Freeport show how devastatingly effective even 2 players can be against the lone player, never mind 3 or 4 or more.

Yet this never seems to get a mention in the "it's not fair" argument.

By comparison to the power of players in co-operation, the advantage someone gets by slipping into SP is pretty insignificant.

(I'm open group, playing with other players,open to PVP etc. etc.)

 

[Firemonkey]

This one is made by fans, its from the "TNGS" - The Next Great StarShip Show.

Bunch of people in the world made some ships and the best ones were choosen to integrate the game in the future. This one was made by 3Dingo, a group of 3 guys from italy that participated in the show.

That ship is actualy the 3rd place and not the winner, community is making efforts so we can have all the ships in the PU, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Place.

This was the winner:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m30JTfZGOw

 

[Asp Explorer]

Yet this never seems to get a mention in the "it's not fair" argument.

"The answer to that is because it's emergent gameplay, it takes effort and money and time and as we are all busy on teemspeek we are at the disadvantage, so single pilots should be nerfed even more to compensate for just how busy we are.

A single Sidewinder is overpowered compared to three grouped Anacondas - we don't have enough hands to press Mic Off and shoot at the same time and use a joystick and type in comms to order surrender of cargo. Surely you can see how this affects grouped performance? It's not fair - we are disadvantaged!"

 

[Bains]

The thing that always throws me in the in the open v solo group argument is that going solo is always presented as a cheat/exploit. Because it allows the player to avoid other players.

Yet everyone appears to ignore that for the inexperienced PVPer those terminally useless NPC pirates Cod & Cob are probably a serious challenge (don't even get me started on Radiant Dawn...)

But more importantly what never seems to get addressed is how the single player - who has neither the time or the inclination to team up with other players - deals with the massive advantage that players playing together have compared to the single player.

Recent events at Freeport show how devastatingly effective even 2 players can be against the lone player, never mind 3 or 4 or more.

Yet this never seems to get a mention in the "it's not fair" argument.

By comparison to the power of players in co-operation, the advantage someone gets by slipping into SP is pretty insignificant.

(I'm open group, playing with other players,open to PVP etc. etc.)

It's no fairy tale. The best option there is to run. But the real problem or reason two guys might jump you is not because pvp is enabled, but because you are playing in a game universe lacking fit for purpose in fiction in game controls. Take for example the first offence of killing someone in game, i.e. murder, comes with the threat of ending up being stuck for a week of real-time on some nasty prison planet mini game. Suddenly murder would become very rare very quickly indeed. Although I'd be fine with playing in such a universe even as a pirate, I'm not suggesting this particular example is the perfect or only answer, I'm only using it to illustrate the point that a universe rich with in fiction checks and balances, in this case genuinely onerous consequence if caught, is the key.

And here is the real issue with employing unambitious gamey approaches such as sliders and modes as a means of accommodating the non-pvp player within a MP universe. From what I have seen time and again the price is gamers and developers no longer have to dream up and invent effective in fiction in game controls. It kills the urgency and need to do so, and the game universe is always the poorer for it.

In this regard IMO open/solo mode compared to sliders is the lesser of the two evils. You are either all in or not, with no shades of grey, which should set the stage for requiring some thought to go into this open universe. It stands to reason that if they get it right, such a universe should encourage more and more solo players to cross over.

st, 2nd and 3rd Place.

This was the winner:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m30JTfZGOw

nice job.

 

[Commander Maugham]

But more importantly what never seems to get addressed is how the single player - who has neither the time or the inclination to team up with other players - deals with the massive advantage that players playing together have compared to the single player.

It's just as possible that those playing cooperatively have also tooled-up in offline mode and only ever play P-v-P when supported by friends so offline play against inferior AI doesn't offer any real additional balance for solo-players. The actual problem with it is that it has an inflationary effect which devalues the worth of online progression (whatever the numerical balance of power). Inevitably the best way to be competitive in multiplayer will be to accumulate gear offline first and that just undermines the character of the online world by turning it into an even more competition focused arena (you're unlikely to run into other players just doing trade runs).

Fixing this problem rather depends on making the AI just as hard to beat as a player which raises a whole other set of potential issues.

 

[Trash Gordon]

It's just as possible that those playing cooperatively have also tooled-up in offline mode and only ever play P-v-P when supported by friends so offline play against inferior AI doesn't offer any real additional balance for solo-players. The actual problem with it is that it has an inflationary effect which devalues the worth of online progression (whatever the numerical balance of power). Inevitably the best way to be competitive in multiplayer will be to accumulate gear offline first and that just undermines the character of the online world by turning it into an even more competition focused arena (you're unlikely to run into other players just doing trade runs).

Fixing this problem rather depends on making the AI just as hard to beat as a player which raises a whole other set of potential issues.

Yep infact why ever do a high investment trade run online ?

If the AI is made hard it will still be there online as well.

 

[Coda]

What is the fear of PvP?

Why do you think it is fear? Maybe pvp is boring to some gamers. I think a lot about colonizing space. I dream about it, but nothing in my dreams is about fighting. For us space lovers, pvp just comes with a terrific space game. That's just the way gaming is now. There is fighting and there is space. Some gamers see that as two different things.

I don't think it is fear. Can games have peaceniks who love anything about space?

Of course, my Minecraft world is set for just building stuff, but I hate it because it is not in space...so I must do the combat training if I want to fly in ED. I don't think that is fear; it's putting in time doing a part of the game that isn't my big thrill.

 

[1500]

Why do you think it is fear? Maybe pvp is boring to some gamers. I think a lot about colonizing space. I dream about it, but nothing in my dreams is about fighting. For us space lovers, pvp just comes with a terrific space game. That's just the way gaming is now. There is fighting and there is space. Some gamers see that as two different things.

I don't think it is fear. Can games have peaceniks who love anything about space?

Of course, my Minecraft world is set for just building stuff, but I hate it because it is not in space...so I must do the combat training if I want to fly in ED. I don't think that is fear; it's putting in time doing a part of the game that isn't my big thrill.

Check out Starmade, its minecraft in space. Has flying, combat and just building, and is a lot of fun.

http://star-made.org/

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[SuperG]

I am more a single player gamer.
The problem with PvP mplay is not alone that you can group up co- operating and going as wolfpack on a starter or a loner. Also getting the goodstuf offline is also just part of better your chances. But there is much more to it.

But the key point people want to go singleplayer and want to go solo is that AI is balanced. And most of all consistent. If they are hard it even not big problem. Because player can be weak a fellow more noob to a very great skill difference Ace pilot, most lesser pilot cant even deal with.

In other online genres there is this trouble some match player making lobby servers. It difficult to match a group of players there.

I think I would stick a whole lot longer into ofline mode. Just the way I played freelancer and Epic Unreal Tournament with secial ops mod ofline against bots.
Just like did more often played BF2 ofline against a lot of bots.
Also large group of gamers dislike the choice to go MMO.

So what means enforcing players to go online. It could some migrate others they get fed up with the limited offline and quit gaming. The game has faild for them.

Then there is part of those non onliners who dislike PvP. But like co-op vs NPC.
That is how I did play freelancer to.

Also it seams more the vision braben has.

If there are large save zones then it all isn't a problem.

But lot of gamers aren't into gaming to sociolize and are more into singleplayer.
They go for ED SC For the singleplayer.

As playing BF4 my drive kills are low my pilot skills lower then average. So my live execttion in the air is low. But as a fast resawn online game it not that much of problem. But for game with dead means something and set you back a lot. That is a huge isue.

So I look forward to squadron 42 campains

 

[Voivod]

Things like this make me feel really uncomfortable talking about the game.

 

[Stormprooter]

I'm no techie here so I am out of my knowledge zone but I have a sneaky feeling it will be a very slow and bumpy ride for them to increase instance counts. And 50v50 battles will be a very distant dream.

The amount of data that needs to be shared and updated across every player is quite a lot, and it's not a linear multiplier to go from 4v4 to 8v8, it's more like a factorial, or arithmetic progression (i.e. 4v4 = 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1, 8v8 = 16+15+14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1) - That's a very rough and ready explanation, and there are optimisations that help, but it does illustrate the type of problems going to be encoutered when upping the player count in an instance.

Battlefield 3 & 4 manage 32v32, but the dedi-server hardware needs to be pretty pokey, and is pushed to the limits - and there is always rubber-banding, stuttering and lag when the match gets beyond 16v16.

 

[Stormprooter]

(apologies for off-topic - insert obligatory SC knock down here ------> )That said, the thing that always throws me in the in the open v solo group argument (as discussed upthread) is that going solo is always presented as a cheat/exploit. Because it allows the player to avoid other players.

Yet everyone appears to ignore that for the inexperienced PVPer those terminally useless NPC pirates Cod & Cob are probably a serious challenge (don't even get me started on Radiant Dawn...)

But more importantly what never seems to get addressed is how the single player - who has neither the time or the inclination to team up with other players - deals with the massive advantage that players playing together have compared to the single player.

Recent events at Freeport show how devastatingly effective even 2 players can be against the lone player, never mind 3 or 4 or more.

Yet this never seems to get a mention in the "it's not fair" argument.

By comparison to the power of players in co-operation, the advantage someone gets by slipping into SP is pretty insignificant.

(I'm open group, playing with other players,open to PVP etc. etc.)

Good point. I've been playing private group with some Elite n00bs from my gaming clan. Basically helping them get used to the game and providing on-hand advice as and when things happen. We also have been fighting together in the Fed Distress Signal (to get them more familiar with combat) and yes, a few players (even less skilled ones) working together can be absolutely devastating. A week or so more of the 'training wheels' and we will be moving into open play - as confidence amongst players grows.

Before we do that though, I have got them all to agree to a bit of PvP training. We will go to a star nav beacon and do it there. Starting off in Sidey's with fixed pulse lasers to begin with - so when we do kill each other, the consequences are minimised. Then we will move on to selecting our own ship & loadout (at our own risk), and then when everyone is happy they've had enough practice, we'll go open play

For me, this is a perfect example of how the solo/private/open grouping mechanics are working really well.

 

[dumbo]

Then there is part of those non onliners who dislike PvP. But like co-op vs NPC.
That is how I did play freelancer to.

Also it seems more the vision braben has.

For those who aren't seeking PvP, you might enter PvP when:
- in Elite (online) when visiting anarchic systems [or] when entering pick-a-side battles [or] when encountering a pvp pirate.
- in SC (PvE only) when visiting "null-sec".

AFAICT, in practice:
- in SC it's possible to find completely unavoidable PvP (if you need to travel to a null-sec system).
- in Elite it's always possible to avoid PvP, but playing in a online PvE manner you will periodically encounter "incidental PvP".

If you are seeking PvP, it is also probably quite similar.

 

[Toumal]

The amount of data that needs to be shared and updated across every player is quite a lot

That's why games with good netcode don't share all data between all clients, but use stuff like occlusion culling and "bubbles", outside of which you don't receive updates about what's going on inside. There's also dynamic update rates and entity aggregation that can be employed.

So for example, the moment you have an enemy behind you and at a certain distance, you might get his updates only once a second. When he's in front of you and in visual range, you get them much faster. When out of range, the update rate drops significantly and at a certain range you don't exchange information at all.
Players in an area form a "bubble" which is essentially a mini-instance. That bubble gets smaller and smaller the more players join in, so if it's really crowded you might have situations where you can't see a player that's a bit further out anymore, even though you could if you two were alone. In the grand scheme of things however, it's better to scale down the bubble but still be able to "see" all the players once you get closer.

That's how Planetside 2 does it for example. And that's the reason why they can have thousands of players on a single server, on one continent. Ultimately there's compromises to make, but you can make it a seamless experience with thousands of players.

Crytek, and Arena Commander, have none of that tech at the moment. And since they don't even seem to have update rate throttling implemented properly, I woulnd't hold my breath. ED is more advanced with its instance system, but those are rather rigid instances between peers, not dynamic bubbles on a centralized server.

 

[ianw]

It's just as possible that those playing cooperatively have also tooled-up in offline mode and only ever play P-v-P when supported by friends so offline play against inferior AI doesn't offer any real additional balance for solo-players. The actual problem with it is that it has an inflationary effect which devalues the worth of online progression (whatever the numerical balance of power). Inevitably the best way to be competitive in multiplayer will be to accumulate gear offline first and that just undermines the character of the online world by turning it into an even more competition focused arena (you're unlikely to run into other players just doing trade runs).

Fixing this problem rather depends on making the AI just as hard to beat as a player which raises a whole other set of potential issues.

I do understand that argument that gets made about SP online progression affecting MP online (you won't be able to take offline progression online AFAIK). But given that we all play in different circumstances anyway I just can't see it making that much difference.

In my own case I made all my Beta progression in open online and have been attacked precisely once - just as I entered SC so it wasn't a fight. I wouldn't play SP online to progress simply because I prefer to see other players around.

But none of that ever addresses the fact that players playing together in the online group have a significant advantage over single players in the online group in terms of general progress, combat, trading etc.

It just seems to me that some of the players that complain about the SP/MP switch are group players - but they don't seem to mind about the group advantage.

 

[Renideo]

Seems like some people like to dream up increasingly convoluted hypothetical scenarios where players abuse the group system, but in reality it's utterly fatuous.

It's a game heavily predicated on individual skill, and ships being balanced against each other. It isn't a game where having higher quality loot is what matters.

And individual preferences are not only not evil, but likely not what you think.

 

[SuperG]

The amount of data that needs to be shared and updated across every player is quite a lot, and it's not a linear multiplier to go from 4v4 to 8v8, it's more like a factorial, or arithmetic progression (i.e. 4v4 = 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1, 8v8 = 16+15+14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1) - That's a very rough and ready explanation, and there are optimisations that help, but it does illustrate the type of problems going to be encoutered when upping the player count in an instance.

Battlefield 3 & 4 manage 32v32, but the dedi-server hardware needs to be pretty pokey, and is pushed to the limits - and there is always rubber-banding, stuttering and lag when the match gets beyond 16v16.

I think it more a matter of what needs to be synchronised per gamer. Thus the client side. In complex large world it is a lot more and that limits the number of players.

Back in those day when PPU physics proscessor was hot. You got interactive fine grain real time generated physics which also needs to be synchronised. This was a extreem burden. What did they do make a Arena like tech demo online. Limiting gameplay physics.
To me SC with high ship detail give a heavy load per client connection. That's limiting the amount of players. Also there is also some ware and tear and damage model to synchronise. But large scale battels aren't important for me.

 

[SuperG]

Things like this make me feel really uncomfortable talking about the game.

Well make no sense to me. They are free to do merchandizing. Ed have these 3 T- shirts. But to me make sense if you aten't into that ignore it. It means its not ment for you.

Then same as this 10000 backing jammering. Its not ment for me and the majority. But those few that can and do blow money that much because the are just filty rich.

I am also not into this thing of merchandising.

 

[Voivod]

They are free to do merchandizing. .

I never get this argument.
Everyone is "free" to do merchandising, it's the style in which you do it that matters.

Can't wait to see what else they'll come out with over the next years of development (and beyond)

Anyway I'm just being a grumpy git now, I'll get my coat.

 

[Bains]

It's just as possible that those playing cooperatively have also tooled-up in offline mode and only ever play P-v-P when supported by friends so offline play against inferior AI doesn't offer any real additional balance for solo-players. The actual problem with it is that it has an inflationary effect which devalues the worth of online progression (whatever the numerical balance of power). Inevitably the best way to be competitive in multiplayer will be to accumulate gear offline first and that just undermines the character of the online world by turning it into an even more competition focused arena (you're unlikely to run into other players just doing trade runs).

Fixing this problem rather depends on making the AI just as hard to beat as a player which raises a whole other set of potential issues.

Balderdash. Worry about SC p2w now that you're suddenly an expert on economic systems and inflation. You don't need to be a lecturer at the London School of Economics to see which of the two games suffers from the real danger of this becoming a reality.

Yep infact why ever do a high investment trade run online ?

If the AI is made hard it will still be there online as well.

Please explain why I will then?

I never get this argument.
Everyone is "free" to do merchandising, it's the style in which you do it that matters.

Can't wait to see what else they'll come out with over the next years of development (and beyond)

Anyway I'm just being a grumpy git now, I'll get my coat.

You mean like this?

On another note. I was interested to discover Alien Isolation was developed using their own in house engine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXFBsvg61f0#t=623
I think it bodes very well for EDs expansion module

I do understand that argument that gets made about SP online progression affecting MP online (you won't be able to take offline progression online AFAIK). But given that we all play in different circumstances anyway I just can't see it making that much difference.

In my own case I made all my Beta progression in open online and have been attacked precisely once - just as I entered SC so it wasn't a fight. I wouldn't play SP online to progress simply because I prefer to see other players around.

But none of that ever addresses the fact that players playing together in the online group have a significant advantage over single players in the online group in terms of general progress, combat, trading etc.

It just seems to me that some of the players that complain about the SP/MP switch are group players - but they don't seem to mind about the group advantage.

You're right. But I would go further and say that it is players who play for advantage that do the complaining full stop.

And as with Trash Gordon statement posted above they appear unable to step outside of their shoes to comprehend a great many players will play online or solo for the experience alone.