Multiplayer comment (the eloquant version)

[bassman]

I will answer this post from the other thread which asks reasonable questions

coming from a design decision forum VIP?
Maybe you should have made better decisions
or maybe the multiplayer is not quite finished yet

The DDF was only consulted on logical gameplay design i.e. the intended observable behaviour - not on how they were technically implemented, and that is how it should be as implementation is FD's internal concern.

My complaint stems from the fact that the chosen implementation (peer to peer) is so far proving to be significantly inadequate for achieving the intended gameplay mechanics. And yes I know full well that "its a beta" and "its not finished yet" but my position is that this does not wash with me any more. Seeing other players who are in the same game location (instance limit notwithstanding) is a fundamental mechanic of modern multiplayer game and we are now, what, 6 months into the multiplayer testing, plenty of time to demonstrate the viability of their chosen approach.

Hitting the main site page you will be greeted with the browser banner "Epic multiplayer space adventure", well sporadically bumping into 2 or 3 players on a good day is not "epic multiplayer" as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention that most of the mulitplayer scenarios that David Braben has been airing consistently over the last 18 months as his vision for multiplayer interations seem to not be possible. To give a specific example DB described in one interview 'one player may get a mission to escort a VIP to a new station to open it, other would have a mission to assassinate the VIP before they reached the station' - such gameplay would require both players to inhabit a single logical game world and for there to be consistent location based match making.

The thing that concerns me is that I dont have confidence that any significant improvement is possible. The reason I dont have that confidence is not because FD are not capable of solving difficult technical problems (which they clearly are) but simply that I believe this problem is not solvable in the general case given the current state of internet peer to peer connection quality.

Of course I will be happy to be proved wrong ...

Edit ---- mods, merge this with intrudr's thread if you like.

 

[Tar Stone]

The example you gave of the daisy-chained missions Dah'Boh-Bee talked about gave rise to me having the same exact concerns, and it's fair enough to talk about them.

It melted my brain a little bit thinking about how they are going to make that work.

So first of all I thought, right, well obviously they've tested the p2p stuff all out on LANs.

Then I wondered how you'd think about the daisy chaining missions - well a dozen players might get that mission to track down the player commander.

Selecting which of those dozen commanders even see that mission as available is going to be the same type of instance selection - but the problem is how to select if both players aren't online at the same time. Maybe a database or matrix of who should be instancing or daisy-chaining with who exists and will build up over time, like a routing table of players. All logical and solvable stuff so far.

Then you get to the actual p2p - there's a lot of infrastructure, ISP meddling, dragons, pixies, old dodgy switches, smoke, mirrors, dogs, cats, clouds and fairies between each of us in a p2p bubble. It's a miracle of human engineering and bodging together of Stuff.

So you need another layer of management, server side, that keeps the matrix/routing table of players who should be instancing/daisy chaining up to date and healthy.

There is no way, physically absolutely no way, that you can build something server side to do this without doing it live, and in the field, and it seems to me that this is exactly what is happening now.

And once such a thing is in place, it will improve over time like all the routing tables do.



This is how I comforted myself that they'll get it sorted. I'm sure their actual solution is many times smarter than what I've cobbled together in 10 minutes on a forum.

And there's no way you can put this kind of thing up for discussion on forums, you need to be on site every day with it, in meetings, getting shouted at and beaten with sticks.

 

[graham.reeds]

I am quite happy with the way the P2P code is progressing. There are improvements needed but it is better to chose a better algorithm than to optimize a poor one.

Most I have come across is 5 or 6 (I wasn't counting) hanging around a space station but then the point isn't 100% gameplay at the moment. Also the scenerio you quote only needs 2 players to be in the same instance...

Also would you be happy with hundreds or players all crowded within a couple of star systems?

It would be interesting to see how many actual players I come across and instance with over a course of an evening playing...

 

[bassman]

Also would you be happy with hundreds or players all crowded within a couple of star systems?

20 - 30 players would be fine but currently thats an order of magnitude more than I currently see.

Let me be clear - I'm not against island/instance limits as such as they are a practical necessity, I just don't want the player base divisions to kick in unless the limit is actually reached. Currently I get the impression that if so much as an ant farts somewhere between me and another player then we are separated.

 

[Zenicetus]

Then I wondered how you'd think about the daisy chaining missions - well a dozen players might get that mission to track down the player commander.

The impression I got was that Braben was talking about a best-case scenario, where the design could manage to link up 2 players on an escort/assanation mission like that. When it couldn't work, due to P2P lag or just not enough players on the other side of the mission, you'd get an NPC substituting for the other player. That's always going to be the fallback for these individual player vs. player missions, isn't it?

Another possibility might be for these missions to be available to friends used to playing together, either in All or Private Groups, where they know they have a good connection. Maybe they can opt-in to play the competing sides of the escort mission?

Not to excuse the issues y'all are bringing up about the P2P design, just pointing out that the hype about some of these multiplayer elements will always be based on best-case scenarios that may not occur very often. If they can occur at all, it will be neat, and maybe it can be improved over time. This game should be around for a while.

 

[Binkles]

Hi bassman

I think it is too soon to write off the multiplayer framework that FD have chosen, but then I do not believe we will see a release candidate version of this game before Q1 2015 at the earliest so there is still time to make it work better!

I've experienced small but steady improvements with the online aspects of the game. Beta 1.03 is the most stable and consistent experience for me yet. There is no doubt in my mind that those improvements have come from FD having the opportunity to release their netcode into the wild for us early backers to break and expose exploits/weaknesses. I can't see how else their framework could be as effectively tested. Things have improved greatly since the Alpha stage in this regard and that was only a few months ago.

There's a lot of speculation as to how a traditional client/server setup would somehow magically solve the instancing issues. My own (past and present) gaming experience tells me this might not be as clear cut a solution as would appear. ESO are less one subscriber here, chiefly because their super servers were anything but. I gave up with Diablo III because of the awful lagging as well.

I did read elsewhere on these forums that FD have not ruled out a traditional server setup so it looks as though there is a contingency if things really do not improve beyond this point.

 

[bassman]

Hi bassman

I think it is too soon to write off the multiplayer framework that FD have chosen, but then I do not believe we will see a release candidate version of this game before Q1 2015 at the earliest so there is still time to make it work better!

I'm just getting royally fed up with traipsing round supposed hotspots such as freeport federal distress and the conflict zones and seeing hardly any players there. Seeing all these players obviously converging there in SC just makes me even more annoyed at their absence in the actual instance when I get there. And then theres watching DB harping on about how wonderful all the MP stuff is going to be in recent interviews and the interviewers lapping it up and I'm left here thinking "if only they knew the reality of it now they wouldn't be so impressed."

 

[Binkles]

For sure, missing out on the instancing hotspots is frustrating. I keep going over to Freeport to see if I can get a slice of the action, only to find the station won't let me dock for ages. Then when I finally get to go in, I can see practically every single pad is lit up-probably with all the other players I can't see!

On the plus side, I'm seeing an average of five other players not including myself in the other busy systems like Aulin and Azeban, as well as in the combat zones, which are definitely more stable for me. In Premium Beta it would usually just be me on my lonesome when it allowed to me connect.

I'm hoping things will continue to improve. The game is so much better when there are other human players about-even when they are behaving like complete spanners.

 

[ToadMan]

And then theres watching DB harping on about how wonderful all the MP stuff is going to be in recent interviews and the interviewers lapping it up and I'm left here thinking "if only they knew the reality of it now they wouldn't be so impressed."

FD are entitled to express their vision for the game, they also have to be allowed time to implement that vision. No one twisted you arm to buy access now - you could have waited until release to see if they delivered the experience you wanted.

You may doubt the vision is achievable and you may be right - that's the chance everyone takes when they're involved in a development process.

Toad.

 

[Reidquat]

For sure, missing out on the instancing hotspots is frustrating. I keep going over to Freeport to see if I can get a slice of the action, only to find the station won't let me dock for ages. Then when I finally get to go in, I can see practically every single pad is lit up-probably with all the other players I can't see!

On the plus side, I'm seeing an average of five other players not including myself in the other busy systems like Aulin and Azeban, as well as in the combat zones, which are definitely more stable for me. In Premium Beta it would usually just be me on my lonesome when it allowed to me connect.

I'm hoping things will continue to improve. The game is so much better when there are other human players about-even when they are behaving like complete spanners.

5? I don't think I've ever seen more than two! I'm not on an awful connection either, my current trade grind is going into Aulin every 4 jumps so I'm there pretty often, I saw an anaconda outside Aulin enterprise this time, which was the first for a while, even though I saw two or three in SC.

 

[deusx_ophc]

I'm just getting royally fed up with traipsing round supposed hotspots such as freeport federal distress and the conflict zones and seeing hardly any players there. Seeing all these players obviously converging there in SC just makes me even more annoyed at their absence in the actual instance when I get there. And then theres watching DB harping on about how wonderful all the MP stuff is going to be in recent interviews and the interviewers lapping it up and I'm left here thinking "if only they knew the reality of it now they wouldn't be so impressed."

i think the reality of multiplayer elite will be multifold. once the game is released in all its mind boggling scope.

a) it is a HUGE galaxy and space in ed will feel empty. and dangerous.
b) you will be able to hang around Shinrarta Dezhra with your mates and group hug
c) no, it will not be another trad. mmo with a party system and 40 man raids (or the other games equivalent)
d) solo offline
e) solo online
f) IRONMAN
g) IRONWOMAN
h) all group
i) my group

.....

just let it go, let your idea of mmo gaming go.

and try to embrace the future of gaming, you were one of the chosen few that helped make it happen

 

[CaptainKremmen]

For sure, missing out on the instancing hotspots is frustrating. I keep going over to Freeport to see if I can get a slice of the action, only to find the station won't let me dock for ages. Then when I finally get to go in, I can see practically every single pad is lit up-probably with all the other players I can't see!

I think that's just a bug whereby NPCs can "lock out" docking pads. There aren't 30 hidden commanders doing it.

 

[Binkles]

5? I don't think I've ever seen more than two! I'm not on an awful connection either, my current trade grind is going into Aulin every 4 jumps so I'm there pretty often, I saw an anaconda outside Aulin enterprise this time, which was the first for a while, even though I saw two or three in SC.

I've got a decent fibre optic connection but it's only since the Beta stage I've seen player numbers this high. 5 is a big number when you've got used to seeing none! Maybe more people local to me have started playing...

I think that's just a bug whereby NPCs can "lock out" docking pads. There aren't 30 hidden commanders doing it.

That's a pity, but it would explain why I only ever see NPCs when this happens. It does look quite impressive when you enter the station and every single pad is lit up with a number. 30 odd player ships would look amazing but I can't help thinking this number of people in one instance would make my connection start coughing up blood.

 

[Tempered]

So we have a relatively small group of players in a substantially sized environment. These players all play at different times of day and live in different time zones. Some of these players do not play online. These players are generally only in an instance for a minute or three before super cruising off to elsewhere. Your main source of seeing is a radar that covers a miniscule amount of the area around you. And you guys think you're not seeing other players because of network code?

Once the game has more players, you will see more players.

 

[alexios]

FD are entitled to express their vision for the game, they also have to be allowed time to implement that vision.

And then to optimise its implementation.

Premature optimisation of such a large project could end up making it much, much worse than testing it (say, in a public beta) and tweaking the networking infrastructure while it's live and you have the means to measure performance. Or if the architecture's not suitable, replacing it altogether.

I'd wait it out. Premium Beta 1 had horrible network performance. Now I really tell the difference between the practice combat missions and open play. I'd say this is improvement, and there's clearly more to come.

PS: I just moved back to the popular systems from the sticks, and have been encountering four to five players almost constantly for the past 90 minutes or so.

 

[SentineI]

I've got a decent fibre optic connection but it's only since the Beta stage I've seen player numbers this high. 5 is a big number when you've got used to seeing none! Maybe more people local to me have started playing...

I really hope I won't need fibre to see more than 1 or 2 other players in the finished game, as fibre won't be available in my area until sometime next year (assuming they manage to keep to their planned roll-out timetable).

 

[SentineI]

And you guys think you're not seeing other players because of network code?

Once the game has more players, you will see more players.

I'm sorry, but 100,000 other players is MORE than enough to ensure we SHOULD be seeing lots of other players at busy locations (at least some of the time).

Anecdotally most players tend to stick to the "core" systems (and in fact those are all you CAN reach in a Sidewinder). I also suspect most players live in the UK (and possibly the USA), simply because Elite Dangerous doesn't tend to get much publicity outside the UK (Star Citizen gets the limelight).

But even if you assume there is no player clustering & no country clustering, such that they were spread-out evenly over the 50 systems and the (approx) 24 world time zones, that still means 100,000 / 50 / 24 = 83 players per system. Most systems only have one or two major points of interest (the station & something else if you are lucky), so you'd expect to see maybe 83/2 = 42 players at any location.

Now yes, not all 100,000 / 24 players will be playing the game in their time zone at the same time, but neither will they be evenly spread-out over 50 systems & 24 time zones. It seems reasonable that those effects will cancel-out each other at least some of the time (e.g. weekends), such that 40 players (give or take a factor of 10, i.e. 4 to 400) should be near each other at least some of the time.

EDIT: Forget all my educated speculation above, as you can prove the problem: Someone else pointed out that you typically see several other players approaching the same location when in SuperCruise... yet when you drop out of SuperCruise you usually don't see anyone. If you see several people approaching in SuperCruise just in the few minute(s) of your approaching the station/etc, then it stands to reason there should be MANY players at that location.

 

[SentineI]

I do not believe we will see a release candidate version of this game before Q1 2015 at the earliest so there is still time to make it work better!

I don't either... but Frontier have been loudly repeating "4th quarter of 2014" since early Premium Beta (if not Alpha), and I assume their (newly found) financial shareholders will not take kindly to the game being delayed until 2015 (i.e. their shareprice will drop massively, which would cause Frontier much financial problems).

In short, I expect Elite Dangerous to be released just before Xmas this year, but most likely in an unfinished state that'll lead to bad reviews. Or else they might redefine "release" to mean "released to Kickstarter backers" (even though this contradicts the wording on their online shop among other places).

 

[CaptainKremmen]

I don't either... but Frontier have been loudly repeating "4th quarter of 2014" since early Premium Beta (if not Alpha), and I assume their (newly found) financial shareholders will not take kindly to the game being delayed until 2015 (i.e. their shareprice will drop massively, which would cause Frontier much financial problems).

In short, I expect Elite Dangerous to be released just before Xmas this year, but most likely in an unfinished state that'll lead to bad reviews. Or else they might redefine "release" to mean "released to Kickstarter backers" (even though this contradicts the wording on their online shop among other places).

There's no reason that a volatile share price would cause FD financial problems. Their new-found shareholders only own a fraction of the company, and would invariably be expecting short term volatility...

It'll be done when it's done...