Woah, away for a month and the argument still rages
I thought the Internet was designed to aid cooperation?
I think most of us have moved on from this now.
People seem to like banging their head against a wall!
100 billion star systems - now what?
- Thread starter Fromhell
- Start date
- Status
I think most of us have moved on from this now.
People seem to like banging their head against a wall!
Oh gosh. They finally managed to achieve that. How incredible. 50k subscriptions is very important for Eve, considering that they had very long static period in their subscriptions.
Which still does not change fact that Eve has free reign over small niche without competition. Something that is bound to change in year or two and will most likely kill Eve.
It is not MMO. ED is going to be MMO. Compare MMO with MMO instead of FPS with tanks. It makes as much sense as taking F1 car and then saying that it is we should not consider mule and cart to be slow and irrelevant method of transportation because F1 car can get to places so and so fast.
PvAll is load of rubbish. It is just attempt to rename PvP. It IS PvP. Because PvP alone cannot keep together any MMO. Only FPS games.
In case you have not thought about it, trying to force people who consider PvP to be totally not fun (which is actually majority of players, as noted for example in WoW where PvP vs PvE-servers in terms of population is estimated to be around 40/60 in favour of PvE) to be with you in PvP or single player. Very stupid policy really, because single player does not provide incentive to BUY stuff. You know, those micropayments which are supposed to be means to maintain this game?
Hardcore PvP-crowd is already catered for. Eve is all about PvP, Star Citizen is offering some half attempt to throw a little bone to PvE majority, and failing really. ED has to compete with them by offering something neither does....
And that is PvE without limitations and without PvP. Separate PvP and PvE to different universes.
I'm too old and too successful to actually give a flying f*** about someone
being better in some game. But my playing time is limited, you know that being successful tends to also mean that you have stuff that requires your time (family, job, other hobbies). I am not interested in sacrificing that time to childish and flat out ******* behaviour rampant in PvP communities. Been there, seen that and got too much t-shirts to give a crap anymore.
Again, bad idea to say that PvE players should only have access to 5% of content, and even then they would be attacked by *******s. (that "policeships will guard you"-crap has not worked in Eve either. Just google Burn Jita to get the most blatant example)
Stop that. PvAll DOES NOT EXIST IN THAT DEFINITION! It is PvP just given new name because PvP has managed to ruin it's reputation beyond repair. PvAll is exactly same thing as PvP.
Only way instances break immersion if you are not immersed anyway. Your PILOT (you know, the online persona you are supposed to see as your alter ego who actually does all that) has no way of knowing what is going on in different instance. As far as your pilot is concerned, what he sees is all there ever is. Only once he docks in station he could receive information that in area where he just was has been majort battleground.
But without exact location (space is big) and exact time you cannot break immersion. Say vicinity of Jupiter. How you define it? It is massive piece of area, most of which ships would not rationally see.
And you still do not grasp that different server DOES NOT BREAK IMMERSION! It is different universe. Only way it can break your immersion if you keep thinking "I wonder what those people in PvE-universe are doing in this location... I think they might be HERE. And I can't shoot them... Damn PvE-unvierse".
Immerse yourself into the game. What your pilots radar tells is all you know. There is no different universe, there is no different instance. There is only what your radar shows, and if it is empty then it is empty. Even if different universe or instance would be filled with ships.
All those "methods" are essentially rubbish. They are based on flawed concept that you would lose something by not meeting other people who do not want to meet you. Just listen to yourself. "Go play single player"-being your solution. Maybe I will. Do you think you can immersively meet me then either?
Risk vs rewards is also wrong. Danger are NPC characters. In many cases bigger than player characters. So risk vs reward is already balanced out. And that too would be solved by splitting people into PvE and PvP servers.
PvP has never been more popular option in games which have presented possibility to opt out of it. That is a fact, not poll.
PVALL DOES NOT EXIST! IT IS JUST ATTEMPT TO RENAME PVP!
What you call PvAll is 100% of what PvP has been all about since day one of MMO.
And solution is easy.
Different.
Servers.
Let people decide what they want. But I think you know just as well as I do, that PvP-server is going to be barren. So you cannot accept that others would be given freedom to play the game as they want, without disruptive *******s coming in guns blazing to ruin the game with idiotic behaviour.
Or not. Elite has always been about one pilot.
BECAUSE PEOPLE GATHER TO TRADE IN THE HUBS! Have you actually played any MMO games? Vast majority of territory is void of players, but there are ALWAYS hubs where there is going to be massive population of people coming from trip or another or heading out for a trip, selling and buying stuff.
Without instancing those areas are going to be horrible, laggy hellholes.
Make them instanced but not areas around them and you simply cause the hubs to be surrounded by massive number of clogged up systems where people are having trouble leave or arrive because most approach routes are already filled to capacity (if game does not stay tiny and soon dead one, this is going to happen without doubt).
Let's see... WoW, the most successful game in MMO... Separate PvP and PvE, majority of players in PvE-servers.
Then we have games heavy on PvP with little to no PvE. Say, Shadowbane. Haven't heard? No surprise, because it died.
MMO market lives with PvE. Out of pure, unlimited and forced PvP-games only Eve is alive and well. And that only because it has small niche completely to itself. Give Eve competitor with possibility of disabling PvP and you see Eve go the way of Shadowbane.
By the way, checked that term PvAll. It actually is already defined...
It means player versus all... As in, deathmatch.
MODS! Wake up!
This horse is well and truly thrashed don't you think ?
Last few posts are the same guys arguing (no surprise there) about PvP.
It's a circular argument with both sides refusing to give ground which has been said over and over and over and ....
This horse is well and truly thrashed don't you think ?
Last few posts are the same guys arguing (no surprise there) about PvP.
It's a circular argument with both sides refusing to give ground which has been said over and over and over and ....
Why are you trying to limit free speech? You have just demonstrated why I don't contribute much to these forums as interesting as they are.
Tom Dawkins
A discussion that repeats the same things over and over and both sides refuse to give any ground is pointless.
Or are you saying that by allowing them to continue the argument is healthy and contributes something worthwhile ?
Then don't read the thread. Others may have not yet contributed or they may have something interesting to write. I really don't like moderation being a usenet veteran I would like to keep it as only a last recourse.
Actually I have been interested in the continuing pvp discussion having never played any multi user games before.
Tom Dawkins
Michael Brookes
Game Director
OMG that´s typical... "help me Mods, someone is talking about something I don´t like"... tip: don´t read if you can´t stand controversial topics. Reading a thread is entirely optional.. no one forces you to engage in forum PvP either, isn´t that great?
BTW claiming a star system and defending it... could *gasp* have something to do with PvP! So maybe, just maybe, it is not a surprise that people like Tiwaz bring up the "dead horse"
with all due respect, if the topic is claiming territory, people smell PVP from a mile away, therefore the drama.
Ok let´s not talk about PvP then and close this topic, may I recommend looking into a fantastic thread by a user on mmorpg.com for reference. Of course the usual mayhem going on afterwards, very entertaining read but I fully agree with the OP, totally nailed the topic:
Dispelling the myths about full PvP
another great article about Non-Consensual PvP in the upcoming sandbox by CCP, World of Darkness:
The Value of Non Consensual PvP
Fine, so you mean 50K is nothing? If you say so.
Quick reminder, ED only has 25K backers, most likely old Elite fans, but if 50K is nothing, then 25K probably is half of nothing. You sure you are arguing for ED or against it?
Right now, ED is in the niche with only 25K remaining Elite fans who backed the game.
What´s with the new potential players this game needs? Which market will they try to tap into? WoW players? EvE players? World of Tanks players? CoD players?
Name a couple more subcription based online games with half a million subs to support your claim that EvE would be a "niche" title. F2P doesn´t count. They ALL went F2P for a reason. Because they are all the same type more and more people are fed up with.
Again, look at how EQ Next sandbox will turn out, only a few more days until August 2.
Have you even read anything about this game and multiplayer, I suppose not.
Braben himself, November 24:
Elite: Dangerous multiplayer “isn’t an MMO”, closer to “things like Call of Duty”
http://games.on.net/2012/11/elite-d...nt-an-mmo-closer-to-things-like-call-of-duty/
->Ship combat is about skill, not random button mashing like in MMOs, so it´s a LOT closer to a MMOFPS than MMORPG. Even Chris Roberts says about Star Citizen "it´s a FPS". You sit in your cockpit and shoot at stuff in first person.
If you say so, please come up with a better terminology for people who play both PvE+PvP. Hint: I´m not considering myself "a PvPer", mind boggling, huh?
yet I want seamless PvPvE or PvAll and a solid risk vs. reward system.
I take the risk to get "ganked", I want higher rewards. Otherwise PvP is useless and I´ll end up in PvE oder single player mode.
Both Blizzard and Bioware admitted that their PvP warzones and arenas are among the most played content, even before raids. One of the many reasons SWTOR is going down because they messed up open world PvP and caused the epic Ilum debacle, besides it´s just the same type of boring linear theme park ride than WoW. Who wanted space WoW anyway?
"EvE is all about PvP".. yep, that´s why there is High Sec (no PVP whatsoever because of police guards) mining in High Sec (PvE), agent missions (PvE) tons of NPCs to shoot (PvE) and trading ..... so according to you, EvE is nothing but a big PVP arena with nothing else to do than PvP...? You´ve obviously never played Eve and you are just spreading false rumors.
... now that made me laugh. It´s like SC is competing with ED for most carebear friendly online experience 2014. SC already got single player campaign (Hooray PVE-only folks) they got private servers (hooray PVE-only folks) they got the "slider" concept for the persistant universe(hooray let´s please the scared PVE-only folks some more), they got 90% guarded space and maybe 10% lawless (hooray PvE-folks - no wait they are STILL complaining!). Yeah, poor, poor neglected PVE-only community, so sad, so incredibly sad and ignored.
You can put that concept into a museum
now that gives some more weight to your arguments. Totally believable too.
Admit it, you probably just don´t play PvP because you are not good at it, it´s the same with PvE-only folks, that´s why they only want to shoot bots with predictable AI and get that epic piece of loot for taking less risk.
who said 5% ? You won´t get any more credibility if you are making things up no one said
You just don´t want to admit that your so called "PvPers" are playing plenty of PvE.
...museum. Stop demanding Space WoW.
"way of least resistance" was the downfall of online gaming
Btw lost another million players, now down to 7.7 million and declining.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/07/26/world-of-warcraft-down-to-7-7-million-subscribers/
Leage of Legends: PvP-only - over 30 million players
World of Tanks: PvP-only - over 60 million players
then call it PvPvE, still more accurate than calling everyone "a PvPer" or "griefer" who doesn´t want optional safemode gameplay in a multiplayer sandbox universe
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
"Owning" any star system will be irrelevant - anyone who wants to will just avoid your star system.
Michael Brookes
Game Director
Drama which you continue to stir up. Consider this a warning, discussion is fine as long as it is relevent and done with due respect. Your posts come across as baiting more than discussion.
Michael
An on-topic question for FromHell - I remember from the debate-that-shall-not-be-named (oh okay - the PvP/PvE one ) that you were quite adamant when talking about the poll results that the majority should get their way - do you also feel the same about this poll you created? The majority do not want the possibility to rule/defend their own star systems - does that answer your original query and are you happy with the result?
) that you were quite adamant when talking about the poll results that the majority should get their way - do you also feel the same about this poll you created? The majority do not want the possibility to rule/defend their own star systems - does that answer your original query and are you happy with the result?An on-topic question for FromHell - I remember from the debate-that-shall-not-be-named (oh okay - the PvP/PvE one
Unlike others I accept poll results.
It´s a sad fact that there are people begging for less things to do and ultimately less engaging gameplay and more restrictions to get the desired "safe gameplay".
Endless territory no one can claim, only ruled by NPCs instead of players - fine if you like it that way, so be it.
Isn't private ownership of planets/moons illegal? Even by whole countries?
According to Article II of the 1967 UN Treaty On Principles Governing The Activities Of States In The Exploration And Use Of Outer Space, Including The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies:
Therefore, no-one (or thing) can own a planet. You can own real estate ON a planet, or moon, but not the planet itself.
On the other hand, Article IV also states:
So obviously that gets lost somewhere between 1967 and the 'now' of the Eliteverse, which means other aspects of the treaty might be discarded too...
However, I still don't like the idea of individuals owning celestial bodies or other large scale structures regardless, although I have no problem with players throwing money at a system in order to improve it (say, helping fund a space-station) which although wouldn't be 'owned' by the player or players funding it, they might get a 'cut' of the profits it generates - making players shareholders at best, rather than outright owners.
If, however, a player wants to say he owns something, makes a claim and defends it illegally, then I have no problem with that (if such a thing is even possible with the current instanced design).
Short version - shareholders in companies and stations and ownership of 'real estate' on a planet/moon = not a problem. Outright ownership of same or of whole systems/planets/moons beyond a player's ability to militarily defend said claim - yuck.
Link: http://www.lunarregistry.com/treaties/treaty_1967.shtml
According to Article II of the 1967 UN Treaty On Principles Governing The Activities Of States In The Exploration And Use Of Outer Space, Including The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies:
Therefore, no-one (or thing) can own a planet. You can own real estate ON a planet, or moon, but not the planet itself.
On the other hand, Article IV also states:
So obviously that gets lost somewhere between 1967 and the 'now' of the Eliteverse, which means other aspects of the treaty might be discarded too...
However, I still don't like the idea of individuals owning celestial bodies or other large scale structures regardless, although I have no problem with players throwing money at a system in order to improve it (say, helping fund a space-station) which although wouldn't be 'owned' by the player or players funding it, they might get a 'cut' of the profits it generates - making players shareholders at best, rather than outright owners.
If, however, a player wants to say he owns something, makes a claim and defends it illegally, then I have no problem with that (if such a thing is even possible with the current instanced design).
Short version - shareholders in companies and stations and ownership of 'real estate' on a planet/moon = not a problem. Outright ownership of same or of whole systems/planets/moons beyond a player's ability to militarily defend said claim - yuck.
Link: http://www.lunarregistry.com/treaties/treaty_1967.shtml
Last edited:
Having thought about this for a while I'm not sure what the benefits of owning a system in ED are, except maybe prestige? This isn't Eve Online where there only 5,000 systems in the whole galaxy and 500,000 people fighting over them with whole areas of the map no-go areas. That won't happen in ED because of its sheer size and game mechanics - 400 billion systems makes owning one insignificant in the extreme, and no choke points means there's no way of stopping other players passing through or resource gathering within your system anyway.
All I can think of is having somewhere to call "home", but again with 400 billion places to visit why would you confine yourself to one place?
But by all means, lets have ownable systems as the ultimate gold sink for the sake of 'owning one' and as a far off end goal for players that have become rich and bored through normal gameplay (this always happens in these games). But as for fighting for territory and other Eve-like reasons to have one, that simply won't work in ED.
All I can think of is having somewhere to call "home", but again with 400 billion places to visit why would you confine yourself to one place?
But by all means, lets have ownable systems as the ultimate gold sink for the sake of 'owning one' and as a far off end goal for players that have become rich and bored through normal gameplay (this always happens in these games). But as for fighting for territory and other Eve-like reasons to have one, that simply won't work in ED.
It's not that a vast majority doesn't like the idea, it's 42 % versus 58 %.
And I am sure it would be more than 42 % if it would not say "Yes - I want the possibility to rule/defend my own star systems" but "Yes - I want the possibility to build my own little station or ground structure after a while, and if I am part of a guild of a certain size that guild should be able to control some territory as a combined effort of it's members - which of course can always be challenged by others."
I gave a concrete example how building a structure can have weird consequences if it is not in real-time and a concrete example how the destruction of a structure can have weird consequences if it is not in real-time.
But you are right in a way, the difference is mainly gradual, because missing important events despite being there will also happen without structures being involved. Incoherent environments will make it even more frequent though and of course not only different people and different events at the same point in time and space but also different environments add to the bizarreness.
Stop completely ignoring what has been said because otherwise threads deteriorate to loops of repetition. Examples of totally twitch based and totally persistent MMOGs that worked fine for more than a decade, even in times with dial up connections, have been given.
No one knows how many players regularly paying in All mode ED will end up with, but even if they are significantly more than let's say in Jumpgate at it's peak it should be a manageable thing in 2014 with vastly improved hardware and bandwidth plus a much bigger game universe plus additional measures which I pointed out that you are also ignoring.
I am convinced the dreadful fashion of instancing is that tenacious because most of today's online players only know instanced games and lack comparison, with WoW playing a big ugly part here, and of course because it is the easy-measly way of addressing the technical limits.
All-Mode is close to MMO no matter what the propaganda says. A large part of the mainly nostalgia-driven Elite fans never liked the idea of an online version and never played Jumpgate which was the closest thing to an Elite MMOG that existed, so they fall into the trap of prejudice and tend to hate / be frightened by the idea of a fully multiplayer Elite which DB is probably aware of, that's why he tried to calm them down there I guess.
Both are MMO. And the boundaries are blurred, an MMOG can be centered around twitch controlled combat in first person view and still have a strong RP aspect.
The reason RP was / is not as rich as it could have been in Jumpgate and Vendetta Online is not because there was / is first person view in combat but because they were / are not 100 % sandbox with their predefined factions.
The game with the most variety and richness in RP that I ever played was Mankind - which had no predefined factions whatsoever and no NPCs whatsoever, so everything was player-driven. I wrote about that a long time ago in more detail here.
Vendetta Online has predefined factions and lots of "human" NPCs, so it is less player-driven and the RP is poorly developed in comparison. Jumpgate also had predefined factions but no "human" (only alien) NPCs and thus was somewhere in the middle concerning richness of RP. In the end, the majority there agreed if the game should have a future there should be more emphasis on player organizations than on predefined factions. Attempt at a follow-up game was called "Squad Wars".
Of course a prerequisite for any noteworthy RP is a persistent world without instancing. All games mentioned did not use instancing. Another game that is not instanced and has rich RP is EVE. Second Life may not be a game but has many RPGs within it - and is not instanced. Most popular game that is instanced and has shallow RP is WoW.
And I am sure it would be more than 42 % if it would not say "Yes - I want the possibility to rule/defend my own star systems" but "Yes - I want the possibility to build my own little station or ground structure after a while, and if I am part of a guild of a certain size that guild should be able to control some territory as a combined effort of it's members - which of course can always be challenged by others."
I gave a concrete example how building a structure can have weird consequences if it is not in real-time and a concrete example how the destruction of a structure can have weird consequences if it is not in real-time.
But you are right in a way, the difference is mainly gradual, because missing important events despite being there will also happen without structures being involved. Incoherent environments will make it even more frequent though and of course not only different people and different events at the same point in time and space but also different environments add to the bizarreness.
Stop completely ignoring what has been said because otherwise threads deteriorate to loops of repetition. Examples of totally twitch based and totally persistent MMOGs that worked fine for more than a decade, even in times with dial up connections, have been given.
No one knows how many players regularly paying in All mode ED will end up with, but even if they are significantly more than let's say in Jumpgate at it's peak it should be a manageable thing in 2014 with vastly improved hardware and bandwidth plus a much bigger game universe plus additional measures which I pointed out that you are also ignoring.
I am convinced the dreadful fashion of instancing is that tenacious because most of today's online players only know instanced games and lack comparison, with WoW playing a big ugly part here, and of course because it is the easy-measly way of addressing the technical limits.
All-Mode is close to MMO no matter what the propaganda says. A large part of the mainly nostalgia-driven Elite fans never liked the idea of an online version and never played Jumpgate which was the closest thing to an Elite MMOG that existed, so they fall into the trap of prejudice and tend to hate / be frightened by the idea of a fully multiplayer Elite which DB is probably aware of, that's why he tried to calm them down there I guess.
Both are MMO. And the boundaries are blurred, an MMOG can be centered around twitch controlled combat in first person view and still have a strong RP aspect.
The reason RP was / is not as rich as it could have been in Jumpgate and Vendetta Online is not because there was / is first person view in combat but because they were / are not 100 % sandbox with their predefined factions.
The game with the most variety and richness in RP that I ever played was Mankind - which had no predefined factions whatsoever and no NPCs whatsoever, so everything was player-driven. I wrote about that a long time ago in more detail here.
Vendetta Online has predefined factions and lots of "human" NPCs, so it is less player-driven and the RP is poorly developed in comparison. Jumpgate also had predefined factions but no "human" (only alien) NPCs and thus was somewhere in the middle concerning richness of RP. In the end, the majority there agreed if the game should have a future there should be more emphasis on player organizations than on predefined factions. Attempt at a follow-up game was called "Squad Wars".
Of course a prerequisite for any noteworthy RP is a persistent world without instancing. All games mentioned did not use instancing. Another game that is not instanced and has rich RP is EVE. Second Life may not be a game but has many RPGs within it - and is not instanced. Most popular game that is instanced and has shallow RP is WoW.
Last edited:
I don't know, it works well for Question Time.
The problem is that the question is so specific, extreme and very either/or.
A number of options between both extremes might have been more useful.
Say:
Expand/edit as necessary.
As I said, my initial thoughts are that I'm not for player ownership of stations or celestial bodies, but IF they wanted to implement that idea, it wouldn't be difficult to make it persistent and use it just like any other system where control moves from one state to another (from unexplored to colonised, from democracy to anarchy, from federation to empire, etc.).
The player wouldn't be able to defend it alone anyway, regardless of the instancing implications, but the mechanics of ownership would just mean that it would be a non-ship activity for the most part regardless - and the player would simply replace the local AI at certain decision-making junctures;
As you see, it turns a bit into System Management Sim rather than Elite, but if that kind of thing floats your boat it could work.
A number of options between both extremes might have been more useful.
Say:
- Own anything, including celestial bodies, even up to whole star systems
- Own anything up to space stations, but not celestial bodies
- 'Shareholder' status in space stations (help fund them, earn share of profits in return), but ownership is still in npc hands.
- Own facilities (such as production or mining bases), but not stations
- 'Shareholder' status in production or mining facilities, but not stations.
- Own a unique player 'base' or home
- Own nothing except your ship. Everything else is owned by the game and you merely 'lease' at best.
Expand/edit as necessary.
As I said, my initial thoughts are that I'm not for player ownership of stations or celestial bodies, but IF they wanted to implement that idea, it wouldn't be difficult to make it persistent and use it just like any other system where control moves from one state to another (from unexplored to colonised, from democracy to anarchy, from federation to empire, etc.).
The player wouldn't be able to defend it alone anyway, regardless of the instancing implications, but the mechanics of ownership would just mean that it would be a non-ship activity for the most part regardless - and the player would simply replace the local AI at certain decision-making junctures;
- a Viper police force could be employed (player decides the budget allocated to them)
- Drones or proximity mines' could be deployed around installations.
- The player decides how much budget to spend on agriculture, tech development, taxation, military spending, etc.
- A certain amount of mission generation could be player-led, such as specifying a need for certain goods or individuals (such as scientists or diplomats) the system might require, or even putting out assassination contracts on particularly annoying players...
- If the player doesn't 'manage' the system well, or is unable to defend it against other players actions then he is at risk of losing control too (at which point the system/facility devolves into 'anarchy' and the AI retakes control).
As you see, it turns a bit into System Management Sim rather than Elite, but if that kind of thing floats your boat it could work.
Last edited:
Re: the instancing problem when building a new 'facility' (of any kind) and persistence.
Isn't this a problem for the game too, in a dynamic changing universe where formerly unexplored systems may slowly become populated over time (albeit by the AI)?
How does the game deal with a new station, for example, being built now?
It has to appear in the same state of construction for everyone regardless of instance, regardless of whether it's AI or player driven.
So, logically, when the game's constructing a new AI station, it must communicate this across however many instances required, at all stages of construction, mission generation, etc. Right?
So why couldn't the game do the same if/when a player finances the construction of a new station/mining base/military facility, etc.
You might not see the player who's building the structure in your instance, should the rare situation occur where 32 players are already in the original instance with him, but how difficult would it be to make it so you could see its parts gradually being put into place as its being constructed, even if you're in another instance, just as new AI structures must be?
Isn't this a problem for the game too, in a dynamic changing universe where formerly unexplored systems may slowly become populated over time (albeit by the AI)?
How does the game deal with a new station, for example, being built now?
It has to appear in the same state of construction for everyone regardless of instance, regardless of whether it's AI or player driven.
So, logically, when the game's constructing a new AI station, it must communicate this across however many instances required, at all stages of construction, mission generation, etc. Right?
So why couldn't the game do the same if/when a player finances the construction of a new station/mining base/military facility, etc.
You might not see the player who's building the structure in your instance, should the rare situation occur where 32 players are already in the original instance with him, but how difficult would it be to make it so you could see its parts gradually being put into place as its being constructed, even if you're in another instance, just as new AI structures must be?
- Status