Why doesn't Frontier invest in dedicated servers?

[IndigoWyrd]

So if everyone who only wants to play in PG Solo go to X4 can we make ED Open only? I'd pay a subscription

So what about those of us who want to play with SOME other people, just not you? AKA the Private Groupers?

What do we have to go play? Oh yeah, that's right... we get to stay and keep playing our way, while you stay and play yours, and we leave each other alone and we all get along a little bit better.

See how that works? Minding one's own business really is a good thing. Much better that planting your nose up someone's exhaust port and b---ing that it stinks.

 

[Archvillain]

It'll continue to get better over time, but will always be limited by people with poor local internet connections and the physical speed-of-light limits on inter-continental instancing.

FDev's gameplay coders already solved the problem of the game being limited by the speed of light, by inventing the Frameshift Drive. FDev's networking coders need to get with the program.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Not sure what you mean by that but I regularly fly together with friends :S

I don't, I am having serious issue with instancing and stability. No, I will not list all the issues now again. Currently I am switching my ISP because of other reasons but I highly doubt that this will solve any issue.
Let's be real here. The netcode is one of the worst in many truple A++ titles and is actually trying to not get us instanced than getting as many people as possible in one instance. Quite frrequently I experience two seperate instances for a friend and me in open play despite noone else being around.

 

[Bigmaec]

I don't, I am having serious issue with instancing and stability. No, I will not list all the issues now again. Currently I am switching my ISP because of other reasons but I highly doubt that this will solve any issue.
Let's be real here. The netcode is one of the worst in many truple A++ titles and is actually trying to not get us instanced than getting as many people as possible in one instance. Quite frrequently I experience two seperate instances for a friend and me in open play despite noone else being around.

When you shouted at me to clear the pad some weeks ago our instancing worked pretty good

edit: I have no instancing problems, I use a 50 mbit V-DSL line in europe, so no idea, never had trouble :S

 

[moorison]

To be fair, no game can do that. Even EVE, which is known for enormous battles, only manages by slowing down time to let the servers catch up with all the activity.

Besides that EVE has in comparison not as immediate controls, most MMOs do.

 

[DaSucker]

Fortunately, this will not be decided by players but by FD. Personally, I think the new exploration system is much better than the old god Honk.

 

[babelfisch]

GW2 Managed it just fine in wvw battles with crazy particle effects, twitch combat, and aoe interactions involving combination layered effects.

We are talking about this game?
[video=youtube;kLNgkZDHOIs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLNgkZDHOIs[/video]

If your expectations are that low I could see it work. I prefer to keep the high quality of Elite.

By the way, GW2 combat is definetely not twitch, it isn't even an active combat system. The game still rolls a dice to determine if your attack hit or missed, there is no collision system for your weapons and enemies. You can just hit the air and the game decides if you magically hit the enemy.

 

[CmdMarty]

ED is an MO (multiplayer online game) not an MMO(Massively multiplayer online game) and should be judged as such.
Does MO work ? I have played with many in the same instance and other times had huge difficulty to get in to an instance of only half a dozen(DW1, distant worlds 1).
Will the problem go away with dedicated servers ? no, P2P in my opinion is terrible, as it relies on us to be connected to each other, not a central server.
If FD could/wanted to afford their own servers and change from P2P to one shard galaxy(like Eve Online), can they ? I reckon a total rewrite of the underlying networking code would be in order(others can chime in and correct me if they wish )

This is the best we will get for a "one time fee" game, unless you want monthly sub like Eve?

Except its advertised as a mmo!

 

[Old Duck]

To be fair, no game can do that [50-100 player battles]. Even EVE, which is known for enormous battles, only manages by slowing down time to let the servers catch up with all the activity.

Fortnite (100 players)

I'm not advocating for such battles in ED, since without proper tactical and strategic support tools, it would be an utter mess. Even CZs feel like a bar fight vs. an actual war, as they lack any sort of true objective or command structure (though perhaps the Q4 update fixes this).

ps - 50 v 50 mode in Fortnite is actually kinda fun, in small doses

 

[babelfisch]

Except its advertised as a mmo!

Dognosh forgot to add in my opinion. Elite Dangerous can definetely be seen and marketed as a MMO, we have hundred thousand players actively manipulating and changing a shared environment, the BGS iteself is a MMO mechanic. There are lots of different types of MMOs and just because Elite isn't the same as game XY it doesn't stop it from being a MMO.

Even Peter Molyneux's Curiosity is a MMO.

 

[dognosh]

Except its advertised as a mmo!

Yes that is unfortunate, but they are following the rest, as many other P2P games with a large population call themselves an MMO

 

[Vicktore Beskor]

I think people misunderstand how central p2p is to how ED works. It isn't as if they can make the decision tomorrow to throw some money at it, flick a switch and suddenly it is all client/server. In the end it is about what kind of game ED is. And that is a game where youu play by yourself or with a small group of friends, and occassionally encounter others. It isn't about massive pvp battles or some such, and making that happen would be a massive investment of time and resources. In the end I feel by far most players would much rather see atmo planets, space legs and more gameplay options rather than FD focusing on massive multiplayer infrastructure changes. Especially if the latter would result in subscriptions, which they promised they'd never do. So 10-15 people max is going to be a practical limit I guess.

I would like to see proper colonization mechanics “PMC” in the game so that we can colonize unpopulated Star systems. Space Legs and atmospheric landings is a waste of time in my so humble opinion till we have something to do in stead of just standing there and taking screenshots of ourselves.

 

[Sylow]

I think people misunderstand how central p2p is to how ED works. It isn't as if they can make the decision tomorrow to throw some money at it, flick a switch and suddenly it is all client/server.

.
Interestingly enough, most of this could be done easily. It only fails due to a few small details. The game has some management in the background, which determines which PC is "host" and which is "client" for each instance. So have a server cluster and let that routine always appoint one of those servers as the host and you're working on a crude client/server infrastructure. What we'd be missing would "only" be instance creation depending on player distribution and proper load distribution. Which other games also implemented, so it's not impossible.
.
This of course would be the most crude version. A lot of optimization would then be necessary to get it to run well. But the basics are there, in the roots of the P2P structure.
.
That being said, this is just a philosophical discussion. While there are games out there (most famous: GW2) which keep servers running on a buy2play system plus item store, FD decided to go the P2P way. This definitely won' change any more.
.
Also, there's one big plus on this on the long term: when server based games are at the end of their lifetime, they shut down and are history. Keeping them alive would be a lot of effort. Things will look much better for ED in the end. The BGS and the player accounts most likely will not survive the end of EDs lifetime. But if FD just "simply" includes the option to load and save games locally when the games lifetime ends, the core gameplay can remain playable even when the game is not supported any more. It would fulfill one of the promises from the KS campaign.
.

 

[Ashnak]

....Things will look much better for ED in the end. The BGS and the player accounts most likely will not survive the end of EDs lifetime. But if FD just "simply" includes the option to load and save games locally when the games lifetime ends, the core gameplay can remain playable even when the game is not supported any more. It would fulfill one of the promises from the KS campaign.
.

By the time ED ends, (hopefully) your home PC will have the capacity to continue running the BGS and Galaxy, either in solo or group mode.

Or some people may have to possibility to ge together and rent the necessary infrastructure from whoever will be supplying those services by then.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Except its advertised as a mmo!

V!agra, which is auto-censored, is advertised as a male-problem pill, but it was actually researched, developed, tested and prescribed as a treatment for hypertension and angina pectoris.

See how things work out?

 

[masCh]

Seriously the Private Group and Solo game modes need to be retired. It brought up numerous issues that tied developer's man hours when they could have been better used to implement floating around your ships, or generating artificial gravity while your crew mate attempts to walk to your FSD module.

 

[Old Duck]

Seriously the Private Group and Solo game modes need to be retired.

Seriously, this argument needs to be retired. Thankfully "you lose" because Solo and PG aren't going anywhere.

 

[Sterling MH]

What I always found more worrying by design is the interconnect between Solo and Open through shared effect on the BGS and market. I can to this date not comprehend why someone who doesn't play with others is allowed to manipulate the world for everyone else without them being able to see it or intervene until it's too late.

What I fnd mystifying is why you would buy a game that had a Solo mode. It's not like there aren't any open-only space games around. And it's not like Sim City or Diablo 3, despite being 100% always online, did not require that you play with and amongst others and it's not like your BGS and market isn't already affected by those you cannot intervene with until too late: NPCs, people playing different platforms and the devs themselves. If you want a world that only allows you to play online and has nobody affecting your world's background without you affecting them, then there's Fallout76.

But if you bought Elite Dangerous, you accepted Solo mode players. If you did not want that, you chose incorrectly.

Seriously, this argument needs to be retired. Thankfully "you lose" because Solo and PG aren't going anywhere.

Open as PvE only and PGs allowed to set PvP would solve everyone. I like PvP but only with friends. Randos produce nothing other than "win/lose" and neither state gives me anything other than that state, a state NPCs also give me.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Seriously the Private Group and Solo game modes need to be retired. It brought up numerous issues that tied developer's man hours when they could have been better used to implement floating around your ships, or generating artificial gravity while your crew mate attempts to walk to your FSD module.

Seriously, Open should be retired then resources could be reallocated....
(does that sound stupid to you?)

 

[Rat Catcher]

Open as PvE only and PGs allowed to set PvP would solve everyone. I like PvP but only with friends. Randos produce nothing other than "win/lose" and neither state gives me anything other than that state, a state NPCs also give me.

You could set up your own PG for you and your friends, I believe you are then able to set your own rules Although I'm not sure how well that would work for a larger group...