An Open Letter to Frontier Developments re: Engaging MMO Gaming Experiences

[Captain Kraag]

Cautionary Praise

I want to open by saying the graphics, flight dynamics, and combat mechanics of Elite Dangerous are fantastic. The game definitely satisfies on that front. The game’s open world simulation of a 1:1 scale galaxy with Newtonian physics is breathtaking. The potential of this game is both broad and deep. However, potential - by itself - does not make a game.


History Repeats Itself

There was another game that offered similar potential for its time; 2003’s X2:The Threat. It was an open world sandbox space combat simulator and trading game. Given the technological limits of the time, it was not of the same scale as Elite Dangerous. Regardless, it was almost identical in concept; fly a space ship, gather resources, trade them at space ports, purchase new ships, upgrade those ships, and…not much else. The developers made promises of future expansions which never materialized. The game died a quick and quiet death, another casualty of great concept/failed execution.

Granted, X2:The Threat was single-player; but as I’ll explain in a moment, Elite Dangerous’s multi-player capability isn’t being leveraged anywhere near to its fullest.

Now we come to Elite Dangerous where we fly a space ship, gather resources, trade them at space ports, purchase new ships, upgrade those ships, and…not much else. Yes, promises are being made of new gaming mechanics with future releases that will greatly expand and enhance the range of activities in which players can engage.

Unfortunately, those new mechanics are being rolled out at a snail’s pace in terms of what gamers expect these days (and at price points that are giving players pause; but that’s another discussion). With other space sims on the horizon, I fear Elite Dangerous will be eclipsed by them if it doesn’t take the initiative to become the modern space sim classic it deserves to be. Sadly, it may turn into a situation of too little, too late; and that would be a shame.

In addition to the slow feature roll-out, the other shortcoming of Elite Dangerous is its failure to make use of its status as an MMO. There exists this vast space in which real players reside. As faithful as the recreation of the galaxy may be, it is that vastness which undermines the elements of a good MMO; interaction with those other players. With 400 billion star systems to choose from, the concept of fighting over resources is ridiculous. There’s no reason to fight, no incentive to interact; just simply find an uninhabited corner of the galaxy, far from other players, and grind away in peace.

Interaction with real people is what makes an MMO worthwhile. Remove the motivations and incentives for interaction, and the game becomes almost indistinguishable from a single-player game. With the exception of a few niche markets, though, most players don’t want single-player anymore; they want the interactivity of an MMO. Elite Dangerous is failing to provide that experience at present.


High-Level Goals for an Engaging MMO

My suggestions for improving this situation are not to remove anything that currently exists. Quite the contrary, I think the concept of providing a 1:1 scale galaxy is daring, innovative, and worthwhile; it can even be leveraged to the game’s advantage from an MMO perspective as I will detail shortly.

For there to be interaction between players in an MMO there must exist two inseparable elements: interdependency and limited resources. I’ll start by addressing the limited resources, first.

In a galaxy of 400 billion star systems, functionally there is no such thing as a limited resource in the classic sense. For example, you could play this game for a lifetime and never run out of asteroids and planets to mine; there will always be raw materials to find. With the game as it currently exists, this situation can not be remedied; nor should it.

However, resources do not have to be limited to raw materials. A resource can also be human constructs and those constructs do not have to be material; they can, instead, be social constructs. In a vast galaxy inhabited by various factions, the limited resource is the ability to expand one’s influence throughout that galaxy. As players align themselves with those factions, they can be brought into conflict with one another as their respective empires seek to enlarge their spheres of influence.

Why bother, though? Because of the incentives empire-building brings: more faction-aligned star bases to trade at, easier access to raw materials and markets within the empire’s sphere of influence, the security of having allied NPCs patrolling your faction’s controlled space, and rewards for players who aid their faction’s expansionist vision (said aid taking many forms; charting new territory, defending that new territory, bringing raw materials to market, etc.).

That covers the high-level overview of creating a limited resource for factions - and, by extension, the players - to fight over. This is only one half of the equation, though; creating a limited resource for players to interact over in an antagonistic way. If this was the only element introduced to incentivize interaction, it wouldn’t fully satisfy. Those interactions would be brief as they would take the form of combat between players along the borders of their respective empires’ territories. The second half of the equation is long-term interaction; the cooperation with allies born of interdependency.

In the game’s current form, there’s little incentive to cooperate among players. This is because we’re cast in the role of the rugged, loner space rogue plying the star lanes for fame and fortune. Our motto: “I don’t need anyone!”. That plays to a desire for independence, the freedom to choose our own path without being influenced nor controlled by others. It’s a welcome escapist fantasy from a real world where all too often our choices are constrained by others. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make for a very engaging MMO experience nor successful community building; the keys to long-term success of a game.

If I, as a player, can get everything I need to be successful in the game (the measure of success, of course, being a very fluid and personal metric) without relying on another player, then why would I bother engaging with them? I’m not looking to eliminate that option from the game; there’s plenty of room out there among those 400 billion star systems for the Han Solos among us. What I AM attempting to do is add the elements of interdependency and cooperation into the game to increase interaction among players.

That’s the high-level overview of cooperation and interdependency. Next, I will make specific suggestions of new game mechanics which I believe will achieve the high-level goals previously stated. Throughout, I am remaining cognizant of programming time and release cycles of future expansions while remaining one step ahead of competitors’ pending titles.


Specific Suggestions for Achieving High-Level Goals: Interdependency and Cooperation

In this section, I’ll reverse course; I’ll speak to the interdependency and cooperation first, followed by the how these naturally lead to creating a limited resource.

With the upcoming release of Elite Dangerous: Horizons, we’re being introduced to the ability to land on and move around the surface of asteroids and planets. Though accomplished with SRVs and limited to airless worlds for the time being, this demonstrates the potential for players to have both a ship AND a SRV simultaneously active/tracked in game on a planetary surface. You may only be piloting/interacting with one at a time, but they both exist in the game as models and their associated data. In other words, it doesn’t appear to be taxing the game engine to allow for the existence of both.

This opens the door for my suggestion of how to introduce interdependency and cooperation into the game: the Resource Module.

Resource Modules will be an item that can be purchased from the faction with which the player is aligned; there will be no other method by which it can be attained. A Resource Module allows a player to construct a self-contained habitat and resource-gathering structure on an asteroid’s or planet’s surface (or, in some specialized cases, perhaps even drifting in a gas giant’s atmosphere or floating on a liquid planet’s ocean).

If it makes it easier, you can think of it as the player’s “home”; though it will have much more significance in the game than simply a place to decorate and show off your trophies (which is something that can be added later).

The attributes of Resource Modules are as follows:

1) In the beginning, a player is limited to a single Resource Module. Functionally, this is to prevent players from building economy-breaking financial empires if they were permitted to build an unlimited number of Resource Modules. It also prevents players from creating vertically integrated monopolies wherein they own the entire supply chain; thus breaking their interdependency on other players.

The in-game continuity explanation for this is each faction is seeking to expand its empire. The players, as representatives of their faction, are tasked with helping grow its borders. The faction wants to ensure the player is successful in this endeavor; thus it limits them to a single Resource Module so as not to spread themselves too thin in the beginning.


2) Resource Modules are fully automated, robotocized resource gathering constructs. Though there will be a small habitat area suitable for sustaining human life (the player’s “home”), the facility’s primary purpose is resource gathering.


3) Resource Modules are limited to gathering or producing a single resource or class of resources. A mining module or a farming module would be some examples. The developers can get as granular or not as they like. We could go the simple route of “Resource Module - Low-Grade Metals Mining” which would mine a variety of common ores, or something as specific as “Resource Module - Iron Ore Mining” which produces only iron ore if they prefer.


4) Resource Modules have a footprint. I envision this being a square or hexagon grid. The base Resource Module takes up a few squares of the grid, with the rest being empty. Even so, there must be unobstructed space in which to place the entirety of the grid (no overlapping with other players’ modules or extreme variations in terrain). Once placed in a suitable location, the Resource Module unpacks and starts production.


5) Resource Modules can be re-packed up into the cargo hold of the owning player’s ship and relocated to another planet if they choose. This would likely incur a small cost of credits and/or resources to restart operations elsewhere.


6) The empty blocks in a Resource Module’s grid can have additional units built on them. For example, a player may choose to build laser turrets in some of the empty grid squares for defense or some extra solar panels for power generation. This would be akin to customizing one’s spaceship. In other words, the programming for this already exists; just treat it as a planet-bound spaceship.


7) Each Resource Module has everything it needs to begin gathering or producing its resource upon being built. Initially, nothing more is needed other than to find suitable space to place it on a planet. However, over time, it may be the case the Resource Module will require infusions of additional raw materials to keep it operational.

A farm module, for example, may require periodic restocking of seeds, water, fertilizer, etc. This opens up the potential for interdependency and a second-tier player-driven economy; for example, the player with a farming module may barter with the player with a hydrocarbon refining module to obtain needed fertilizer for their plants.


8) Resource Modules are subject to damage but NOT complete elimination from the game (with two exceptions, noted later). Natural disasters, persistent environmental effects, and attacks by other players and/or NPCs will damage Resource Modules. The more damage taken, the less resource it produces until it reaches zero productivity at 0% health. Despite this, the Resource Module is not removed from the game at 0% health; it persists and can be repaired by the owning player. Of course, the player may choose to relocate to a more hospitable and/or less contested planet.


9) Resources Modules do NOT automatically transfer their products to market. Each Resource Module will have a storage capacity (which can be increased by adding more warehouses, storage tanks, etc. to the empty grid squares) which - once reached - will cause operations to cease until the owning player transfers the products to the cargo hold of their ship.

It is up to the owning player to transport these products to market; such as a NPC space station or to trade with other players. This keeps players engaged with the game and flying their ships rather than just earning income while AFK or logged out (as this IS a space flight simulator, first and foremost).


10) There will be NO taxation of Resource Modules (à la ArcheAge’s housing model). There will only be the one-time purchase price (in-game credits; not real world money) and that’s it. Of course, there will be plenty of other in-game costs associated with operating, maintaining, and repairing Resource Modules.

In ArcheAge, taxation is necessary as a limiter to unchecked growth because space on which to build is a limited resource. As there’s 400 billion star systems in Elite Dangerous, no such practical limit exists; thus no need for a taxation scheme.


11) It may be the case that different tiers of Resource Modules exist for different environments. The same class of module may produce the same product (iron ore, for example), but there are three variants: one for planets with oxygen atmospheres and normal pressure, ones for planets with normal atmospheric pressure but no oxygen, and ones for low pressure/vacuum environments. This, again, offers another opportunity for players to be dependent on one another. For example, the pressurized modules may need periodic restocking of liquid O2 tanks; a resource produced by players who operate O2 concentrator modules.


12) The hardier the Resource Module (as per the previous point), the more expensive it is to purchase. A module meant to operate in the vacuum of space on the surface of an asteroid will cost more to reinforce and pressurize than a module designed to operate on an idyllic planet with an oxygen atmosphere.

The trade-off is the more expensive module may have a bonus to its resource generation; the tried-and-true high risk:high reward paradigm. An expensive, reinforced, pressurized mining module built on an asteroid of pure iron will mine much more of the metal in a given time period than a mining module on the surface of a planet which must drill into the surface through bedrock to reach the unrefined ore. It will also receive much greater solar radiation, unfiltered by an atmosphere, to better power its solar cells.

The trade-off to the trade-off is the asteroid mining player will likely have much more frequent maintenance and repair costs as their module is exposed to meteor impacts and the solar wind and radiation of the local star without the benefit of a protective Van Allen belt nor atmospheric blanket.

These are just examples to demonstrate how the Resource Module system has the potential for great variety as well as introducing high risk:high reward and low risk:low reward game elements.


13) Other players can raid Resource Modules. If they manage to bring down the shields, destroy the defensive turrets, punch through the armor (if the owner of the module was wise enough to install any of these defensive components), and finally crack open the module’s storage units, they’re free to collect any raw materials that spill forth; just as if they were salvaging the spilt cargo of a ship in space.


14) Resource Modules are persistent within the game; even when reduced to 0% health. However, a Resource Module that is abandoned by a player who is no longer actively playing the game will eventually be removed. There’s various ways to accomplish this.

Of course, we don’t want to discourage exploration, so we wouldn’t want to impose a requirement that a player must visit their module on a regular basis (daily, weekly, or whatever). On the other hand, it’s not really in keeping with the spirit of the game if a player can keep their module extant by simply logging into the game and then immediately logging back out again. A middle ground will have to be found; which I leave to the developer.

Regardless, I see this as being a gradual decay of the module over time rather than an it’s-at-full-health-today-and-disappears-tomorrow implementation. This would be in addition to whatever damage it may take from natural disasters, environmental effects, or attacks from players/NPCs.

Within whatever time period the developer settles on as reasonable, the module would enter a state of disrepair, then decay, followed by abandonment, and concluding with condemned. Shortly thereafter, the module would be removed from the game entirely. Each stage would show visible signs of damage to the module while it’s statistical health is being reduced by a set percentage until it reaches 0%.

This is one example of how Resource Modules are permanently removed from the game as an exception to point #8.


15) Once a player has proven themselves to their respective faction, they will be permitted to upgrade to the next level of Resource Module. This proof could come in the form of the player selling X amount of a resource to their faction’s trading posts (e.g. 1,000,000 metric tons of iron ore).

Trade between players wouldn’t count. The player has to weigh the trade-offs of selling to real players for a potentially higher profit versus trading to their faction’s trading posts at a potentially lower profit but with the advantage of earning its favor. The burgeoning empire needs resources put into circulation in its economy and rewards players who do so with permission to build upgraded Resource Modules.


16) Resource Module upgrades would permit players to produce higher quality resources and maybe even manufacture some goods. The next tier up from Resource Module might be Refining Module and the final tier could be Manufacturing Module.

For example, there may be a Resource Module that mines sand. The next level up, the Refining Module processes the sand into silicon. At the top tier, a Manufacturing Module may use the silicon (and other resources) to build solar panels or processors.

It’s open to debate whether the upgrade replaces the player’s existing Resource Module (with an attendant increase in the number of grid blocks available for placing additional components) or if the player keeps their original Resource Module while gaining the ability to place a completely new Refining Module (and, eventually, a third Manufacturing Module).

I lean towards the existing module being upgraded to the new module. This prevents a single player from achieving vertical integration; they remain dependent on other players for the raw materials needed for refinement or the refined materials needed for manufacture. Which is the whole point; interdependency in order to foster interaction within an MMO.


17) A player who has earned the right to upgrade a Resource Module must upgrade it within the same resource category. Using the previous example, a sand miner can’t upgrade to an oil refinery; they must upgrade to a silicon refinery.

If they want to become an oil refiner, they would have to disassemble their sand mining Resource Module (possibly being permitted to sell it back to their faction for a percentage of the original purchase price or salvage it for raw materials), purchase an oil drilling Resource Module, extract enough oil to sell to their faction to earn the required favor, and THEN upgrade to an oil refinery.

Favor earned in a tier is saved. For example, our silicon miner who decides to become an oil refiner would still keep the favor he earned towards upgrading to a silicon refinery, should he ever decide to switch back.​

With the Resource Module system, the following is accomplished:

1) Players are given a “home” to defend and customize. They now “own” a piece of the game that is personal to them, giving them greater investment and motivation to continue playing.


2) Players have a dedicated source of resource/income generation that doesn’t require micromanagement nor grinding. They won’t get rich relying on their Resource Module alone, but it frees them to “play” the game more rather than “grind” the game. This theoretically increases the fun-factor, aiding retention.


3) Interdependency and a player-run economy is created. Resource Modules will use consumables which can only be obtained from other players, not from NPC trading posts. For those who build Resource Modules this fosters interaction with other players, supporting the MMO aspect of the game.


4) Players may cooperate to build communities on planets wherein self-sustaining local economies are built. Instead of everyone building a mining Resource Module on the same planet, they may choose to diversify by building different modules in a network of mutual support. A simplified example would be an oil drilling module provides fuel to power their neighbor’s mining module. The mining module provides the metal for making drill bits for the first player’s oil module.​

Specific Suggestions for Achieving High-Level Goals: Conflict Over a Limited Resource

That covers the method by which interdependency between players and - to a lesser extent - cooperation is introduced into the game. Now let’s delve into how this can be leveraged to further increase cooperation and bring about conflict over a limited resource.

Of course, for this to work, we need a conflict. As stated earlier, in a galaxy of 400 billion star systems, resources are so abundant and space so available, there’s no real reason to fight over anything. Fortunately for us, a contrived conflict already exists; the various in-game factions’ expansionist designs. Furthermore, the groundwork for my following suggestions has already been laid with the Powerplay aspect of the game. This reduces the programming overhead to implement the ideas.

As players build Resource Modules on planets, they are also expanding their chosen faction’s sphere of influence in the galaxy (for those who elect to align with a faction, of course). Once enough players of a particular faction have built enough of the right type of Resource Modules on a planet, that planet is then eligible for inclusion within their faction’s sphere of influence.

These are the particulars of how this works:

1) There will be three tiers: Outpost, Settlement, and Colony.


2) No planet on which players of a particular faction have built Resource Modules will be considered for inclusion into their respective faction’s sphere of influence if that planet is within the sphere of influence of another empire.


3) To be declared an Outpost will require a specific number and type of Resource Modules be built on any planet, planetoid, or asteroid in neutral space. The overriding expectation here is that the Resource Modules requirement creates the semblance of a functioning, self-sufficient, interdependent local economy (which I leave to the developer to sort out).

Sixty percent of the functioning Resource Modules* (more on this later) on that planet, planetoid, or asteroid must be owned by players aligned with the same faction. Once these requirements are met, the planet, planetoid, or asteroid will be declared an Outpost of the majority faction.

Minority players (either neutral or who are aligned with another faction) who own Resource Modules on the planet, planetoid, or asteroid will be given two weeks to either declare allegiance to the conquering faction or vacate the planet, planetoid, or asteroid. Those who fail to do either will have their Resource Modules reduced to 0% health, disassembled, and returned to them in a manner similar to eminent domain (with the cost of repairing the Resource Module to be borne by the owning player).

Once the planet, planetoid, or asteroid is officially inducted into the conquering faction’s sphere of influence, it will be patrolled by X number of NPC-controlled fighters and Y number of NPC-controlled defensive turrets will be built planet-side.


4) The establishment of a Settlement and a Colony will follow the same pattern as an Outpost with the following notable differences:

Settlements can only be established on planets and planetoids either in neutral space or in the majority faction’s sphere of influence. They will require a greater number and diversity of established Resource Modules as well as Refinery Modules compared to Outposts. They will also require a 75% majority of faction-aligned Resource Module representation. Settlements gain the defensive advantages of an Outpost plus more of them and an orbiting space station.

Colonies can only be established on planets either in the majority faction’s sphere of influence or star systems adjacent to the majority faction’s sphere of influence (I’ll leave it to the developer to define “adjacent” in the context of a galaxy of 400 billion star systems). They will require a greater number and diversity of established Resource Modules and Refinery Modules as well as Manufacturing Modules compared to Settlements. They will also require a 90% majority of faction-aligned Resource Module representation. Colonies gain the defensive advantages of a Settlement plus more of them (including the orbiting space station) and a planet-side capital building/fortress to include a planetary shield generator.


5) Once an Outpost, Settlement, or Colony is established, it gains passive benefits/bonuses similar to the existing benefits/bonuses of the Powerplay aspect of the game. The bonuses increase and are cumulative as the level of colonization increases; a Colony will have substantially superior benefits/bonuses compared to an Outpost.


6) Once an Outpost, Settlement, or Colony is established, no player not aligned with the controlling faction may build a Resource Module on that planet, planetoid, or asteroid while the controlling faction retains ownership**.


7) Settlements will require that the planent or planetoid was first designated an Outpost before it will be considered for Settlement status. Colonies will require that the planent or planetoid was first designated a Settlement before it will be considered for Colony status. It won't be the case that a previously uninhabitated planet or planetoid can instantaneously become a Colony; it must progress through the previous designations first. Given my previous suggestion in point #3 of a two week period from the point at which the requirements are met for an Outpost, Settlement, and Colony to the time it is officially inducted into the owning faction's sphere of influence, it would take 6 weeks under optimal conditions to progress from neutral planet or planetoid through Outpost, Settlement, and, finally, Colony.


8) During the two week period during which the asteroid, planet, or planetoid is being integrated into the claiming faction's sphere of influence, other players not aligned with that faction may still place Resource Modules on the asteroid, planet, or planetoid. If doing so tips the ratio of Resource Modules such that the faction attempting to lay claim to the asteroid, planet, or planetoid no longer has the minimum majority percentage of Resource Modules required for Outpost, Settlement, or Colony status, then that asteroid, planet, or planetoid is considered contested. The establishment of the asteroid, planet, or planetoid as an Outpost, Settlement, or Colony is put on hold until the required majority percentage of Resource Modules is re-achieved. Time elapsed in the establishing of the Outpost, Settlement, or Colony is not reset; it's simply put on hold until the asteroid, planet, or planetoid is no longer contested. An example to illustrate:


Players belonging to Faction A are attempting to establish an Outpost on Asteroid Potato31. They build enough Resource Modules to reach the 60% majority on the asteroid (along with the required diversity of modules; they aren't all miners, for example). This triggers the Establishing-an-Outpost-on-Asteroid-Potato31 timer; in two weeks time it will be formally declared an Outpost of Faction A.


One week passes when players beloning to Faction B land and build enough Resource Modules on Asteroid Potato31 that the players from Faction A no longer populate a 60% majority of the asteroid with their Resource Modules. Asteroid Potato31 is now contested with different possible outcomes:


The original players of Faction A may manage to destroy (bring the health to 0%) enough of Faction B's Resource Modules that Faction A regains their 60% majority. At this point the timer for establishing the asteroid as an Outpost of Faction A resumes its countdown from the 1 week elapsed time mark; NOT from the zero/2 week mark (the 1 week of previously elapsed time is credited).


Alternately, the players from Faction B could build enough Resource Modules and/or destroy enough of Faction A's modules that now THEY have the 60% majority Resource Module population, triggering FACTION B's Establishment-of-an-Outpost timer (and resetting Faction A's timer to zero/the 2 week mark).


This ability to contest another faction's attempts at establishing Outposts, Settlements, and Colonies further brings players into conflict (interaction) with one another and will contribute to a much more dynamic ebb and flow of the spheres of influence of the various factions.
​

* A functioning Resource Module is one whose health is greater than 0%. For example, let’s say there’s ten Resource Modules on an asteroid; five are owned by players aligned with faction A and five are owned by players aligned with faction B. Faction A mounts an attack on faction B, reducing two of their Resource Modules to 0% health. For the purposes of determining whether or not this asteroid is eligible for classification as an Outpost of Faction A, Faction A now has five functioning Resource Modules while Faction B has only three functioning Resource Modules. Faction A has a 62.5% ownership of the Resource Modules on the asteroid; they are now eligible for Outpost status (provided their five Resource Modules are of the correct type and number to satisfy the additional requirements of being declared an Outpost).

** Ownership is defined as having functioning Resource Modules on the planet, planetoid, or asteroid. If all of the planet’s, planetoid’s, or asteroid’s NPC defenses (ships, turrets, and/or planetary shields) are destroyed and all of the Resource Modules on the planet are reduced to 0% health, the planet, planetoid, or asteroid is returned to neutral status and any player aligned with any faction or any neutral player may build Resource Modules there.

With the colonization system, the following is accomplished:

1) Players are brought into conflict with one another, fighting over planets, planetoids, and asteroids, as their respective factions’ spheres of influence collide. This furthers one of the goals of an MMO; player interaction.


2) Players are given incentive to cooperate with one another in mutually beneficial pacts to both defend existing Outposts, Settlements, and Colonies or go on the offensive in attempting to establish a new Outpost, Settlement, or Colony or destroy an enemy Outpost, Settlement, or Colony.


3) Players are given incentive to communicate and cooperate with one another when building Resource Modules in an effort to create diverse, self-sufficient, functioning local economies in an effort to be declared an Outpost, Settlement, or Colony by their respective faction, gaining the attendant defensive and passive bonuses. This furthers another of the goals of an MMO; community building.

​

In Closing

This concludes my suggestions for moving Elite Dangerous from a one-dimensional (but, oh, what a dimension!) space flight sim and trading grind to a robust, fully-realized, epic, space-based MMO. This is accomplished with the addition of two fairly-minor-to-program changes: the ability to build Resource Modules and the use of those Resource Modules as the driver of colonization and expansion of the factions’ spheres of influence. This subtracts nothing from the current space sim and trading mechanics while adding substantially to the game’s breadth, depth, appeal, and longevity.

I realize that many of the suggestions made in this post are ones you've probably considered and may already be in development. However, a having a good idea is not enough; you need to actually deliver the idea to the world. Time is ticking with No Man's Sky, Star Citizen, and others on the horizon. Elite Dangerous is ideally positioned to grab a decent share of the space sim gaming market; but only if you act quickly and with an eye towards leveraging the MMO aspects of your game.

Frontier Developments, please don’t let Elite Dangerous become this decade’s X2:The Threat. Instead, reach for the stars and realize the full potential this game possesses; but do it in a timely manner.

~ Signed, a 45 year old gamer who’s seen too many great game concepts fail due to poor and/or delayed execution

 

[Captain Kraag]

I forgot to add two points regarding Outposts, Settlements, and Colonies. They are the two bold points #7 and #8 below; I'll also edit the original post to reflect the additions.

7) Settlements will require that the planent or planetoid was first designated an Outpost before it will be considered for Settlement status. Colonies will require that the planent or planetoid was first designated a Settlement before it will be considered for Colony status. It won't be the case that a previously uninhabitated planet or planetoid can instantaneously become a Colony; it must progress through the previous designations first. Given my previous suggestion in point #3 of a two week period from the point at which the requirements are met for an Outpost, Settlement, and Colony to the time it is officially inducted into the owning faction's sphere of influence, it would take 6 weeks under optimal conditions to progress from neutral planet or planetoid through Outpost, Settlement, and, finally, Colony.


8) During the two week period during which the asteroid, planet, or planetoid is being integrated into the claiming faction's sphere of influence, other players not aligned with that faction may still place Resource Modules on the asteroid, planet, or planetoid. If doing so tips the ratio of Resource Modules such that the faction attempting to lay claim to the asteroid, planet, or planetoid no longer has the minimum majority percentage of Resource Modules required for Outpost, Settlement, or Colony status, then that asteroid, planet, or planetoid is considered contested. The establishment of the asteroid, planet, or planetoid as an Outpost, Settlement, or Colony is put on hold until the required majority percentage of Resource Modules is re-achieved. Time elapsed in the establishing of the Outpost, Settlement, or Colony is not reset; it's simply put on hold until the asteroid, planet, or planetoid is no longer contested. An example to illustrate:

Players belonging to Faction A are attempting to establish an Outpost on Asteroid Potato31. They build enough Resource Modules to reach the 60% majority on the asteroid (along with the required diversity of modules; they aren't all miners, for example). This triggers the Establishing-an-Outpost-on-Asteroid-Potato31 timer; in two weeks time it will be formally declared an Outpost of Faction A.

One week passes when players beloning to Faction B land and build enough Resource Modules on Asteroid Potato31 that the players from Faction A no longer populate a 60% majority of the asteroid with their Resource Modules. Asteroid Potato31 is now contested with different possible outcomes:

The original players of Faction A may manage to destroy (bring the health to 0%) enough of Faction B's Resource Modules that Faction A regains their 60% majority. At this point the timer for establishing the asteroid as an Outpost of Faction A resumes its countdown from the 1 week elapsed time mark; NOT from the zero/2 week mark (the 1 week of previously elapsed time is credited).​

Alternately, the players from Faction B could build enough Resource Modules and/or destroy enough of Faction A's modules that now THEY have the 60% majority Resource Module population, triggering FACTION B's Establishment-of-an-Outpost timer (and resetting Faction A's timer to zero/the 2 week mark).

This ability to contest another faction's attempts at establishing Outposts, Settlements, and Colonies further brings players into conflict (interaction) with one another and will contribute to a much more dynamic ebb and flow of the spheres of influence of the various factions.​

 

[Psycho Romeo]

In my opinion, you nailed two points and nothing else.

Hit:
1) ED fails to make use of its status of an MMO. You're right. It falls pathetically short of an MMO. It barely fits the title of multiplayer online game.
2) Player-player interaction should be a fundamental aspect of an MMO, not an optional one.

Miss:
Where you've missed requires a few more words. I too came to the realization that ED did not MMO very well. However, then I simply stopped thinking it is an MMO or should be an MMO, and just accepted the product as is. ED is a game where you can dink around (with or without others) in a simulated galaxy. The player must create their content. The game merely gives them some tools to do so. This is fine. If this thread were a plea to have ED give up its title and descriptor of MMO, I'd totally be on board. But it's not, so I disagree with much of your suggestion.

ED will not be a game where you can have automated resource collectors. ED is not X2 or X3, or SC. We are not building an empire. We do not have the capacity to, and probably never will. We are one pilot of one ship. We have what we need with us on our back. I believe this is what ED is moving to deliver and I believe it delivers this fairly well. SC, X2, and X3 already completely eclipse ED in the areas that I think you are focusing on, because ED is simply not subscribing to them.

I hardly believe X2 'died' as you put it. X2 is to X3 as ED is to Horizons.

Based on your suggestion, I suggest you check out other games similar to X2/X3 for the experience you are interested in. There's lots out there.

 

[Captain Kraag]

In my opinion, you nailed two points and nothing else.

Hit:
1) ED fails to make use of its status of an MMO. You're right. It falls pathetically short of an MMO. It barely fits the title of multiplayer online game.
2) Player-player interaction should be a fundamental aspect of an MMO, not an optional one.

Miss:
Where you've missed requires a few more words. I too came to the realization that ED did not MMO very well. However, then I simply stopped thinking it is an MMO or should be an MMO, and just accepted the product as is. ED is a game where you can dink around (with or without others) in a simulated galaxy. The player must create their content. The game merely gives them some tools to do so. This is fine. If this thread were a plea to have ED give up its title and descriptor of MMO, I'd totally be on board. But it's not, so I disagree with much of your suggestion.

ED will not be a game where you can have automated resource collectors. ED is not X2 or X3, or SC. We are not building an empire. We do not have the capacity to, and probably never will. We are one pilot of one ship. We have what we need with us on our back. I believe this is what ED is moving to deliver and I believe it delivers this fairly well. SC, X2, and X3 already completely eclipse ED in the areas that I think you are focusing on, because ED is simply not subscribing to them.

I hardly believe X2 'died' as you put it. X2 is to X3 as ED is to Horizons.

Based on your suggestion, I suggest you check out other games similar to X2/X3 for the experience you are interested in. There's lots out there.

Fair enough. However, despite how invested we may personally be in a game, the reality is games aren't made to entertain; they're made to make money. The entertainment of the audience is the product that is being sold. Consequently, a "successful" game - by the metrics of the market - is measured not by how entertaining the game is to any one single individual, but how entertaining it is to a large demographic.

Fail to entertain a large enough demographic or fail to entertain them as well as or better than the competition, and a game developer and/or game is considered a failure. It's about appealing to as large a market as the product has the potential to appeal to; fail to do that, and the game fails. This game - with it's literally galactic scale - has more than enough room to appeal to a much broader audience with the addition of some very simple mechanics. Furthermore, that same scale permits a variety of gaming styles and interests to co-exist within the same space without intruding upon each other. Yet it isn't being leveraged; which I believe to be detrimental to the game's longevity.

I want ED to succeed; but at it's current rate and based on a historical perspective, the future does not look promising for the game's longevity on its present course. I'll catch heat for that statement, but live long enough and you see the patterns and the repetitions over and over and over again. ED is headed down that same path to obscurity and my post was a cautionary one that gives credit to the strengths of the game but also recognizes its weaknesses.

Lastly, I'm not proposing individual players become empire builders; owning a single Resource Module won't turn you into a galactic mogul or Emperor of the Galaxy. Yes, we have one ship; I'm not looking to change that. What I'm proposing is thousands, tens-of-thousands, or - hopefully - hundreds-of-thousands of players, each with their own ship, interacting, cooperating, and fighting each other in their own small, localized way would contribute to a seething, teeming, living, breathing, dynamic MMO gaming experience as a result of some very minor and easy-to-program additions to the game specifically designed to bring players together to interact with one another.

The beauty of ED is it is such a vast play space that's there room for those who do NOT want that kind of game experience (but are in the minority) and those who DO want that kind of game experience (who are in the majority and would become the primary contributors to the game's financial health). The former group could find themselves on the other side of the galaxy completely unaware and uninvolved in the unfolding conflicts of the latter. Both types of players get what they want and Frontier gets a bigger slice of the gaming demographic pie; win-win.

I understand and appreciate the territorialism of some within this community for whom the game's current iteration and future path are very appealing. However, to dismiss a dissenting viewpoint with the all-too-common, "This game isn't for you", is to be very short-sighted in my opinion. Because this game's space is so vast, we should be embracing the opposite sentiment; "This game is for EVERYONE!". It's so huge, nearly every single taste in gaming can be accommodated within ED without anyone stepping on anyone's toes. Rather than reject that, it should be embraced; if only out of enlightened self-interest. The more players the game appeals to, the more money Frontier makes, and the more they invest in and support it; now and into the future.

I'm not proposing taking anything away from how the game plays currently. I'm suggesting making additions which will be more inclusive of a broader range of gaming tastes. If a current player doesn't care for the particular population that represents, ED is more than big enough for the two groups to play alongside one another, completely unaware of the other's existence. That's a STRENGTH of this game; but one that is not being leveraged anywhere near its full potential.

In closing, I have to disagree with you; ED is going to have to learn how to MMO well (at least within a subset of its vast space) if it's to survive and avoid becoming just another niche game that the developer eventually abandons due to to lack of profits.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Again, it's my opinion you nail a few things and miss all the others.

You are right in that a product's success is often measured by the avenue it generates for the business This is unfortunate, especially when applied to games.

Though, however often that may be true for games, it is not (and as long as games continue to be considered a form of art) absolutely will not be all that matters. It is a dying concept, but at least some part of a game's success is/will be measured by the experience it delivers.

To illustrate the difference, consider this thought experiment: Would you rather have an MMO with a hundred thousand random players of random maturity and random amounts of disposable income, or a thousand mature, intelligent, and devoted players?
This will be a reoccurring theme in my post: The narrow audience. Do not dismiss small or narrow target audiences, as this is a quality that definitively makes the best games you'll ever play.

---

As a preface, please note that I am speaking about games as a whole, not specifically ED.

Let's consider game reviews. Is a game that has a hundred thousand players a good game? Is a game that has 10/10 ratings by 90% of its players a good game? There can be arguments made for either, and that's the point. A game that is absolutely loved by a small number of players is no less successful of a game that's got a ton of people throwing money at it.

Do not dismiss a game that appeals to a narrow audience as failure. Assuming the other elements are sound, if a game chooses to not include you in its target audience, that's all it is - a game that's not for you. Do you not enjoy rogue-like surreal art games? Then Caves of Qud might not be for you. Do you not enjoy hardcore hyper-realistic management games? Then Dwarf Fortress might not be for you. However, to call either of these games failures would be irrefutably absurd.

The equivalent would be calling the yoyo a failure because it doesn't appeal to old men.

---

The target audience (and the quality of the player) are extremely important to an MMO in particular. I think ED failed by advertising as an MMO. I think they did entice more players by doing so, but these players are hurting the game, even as paying customers. We see it on the forums as people like you (no offense) and others (in game) who have found ED to be not what they were expecting.

Were it more perfectly executed, ED's community would be a little less hostile and a little more accepting, and it would show on the forums. Powerplay would be functioning a little more smoothly. The vulture would be 20m. Repair rates wouldn't be tied to a yoyo. Fuel would cost something. Instead, we have the Xbox crowd, and I don't really see that panning out, regardless of how much money FD receives.

The players will make or break an MMO. More, broader, all inclusive etc. does not necessarily equal better, and it's short sighted to say so.

 

[Captain Kraag]

I don't disagree with your premise; quite the contrary, I'm in agreement with it. I didn't qualify my statements in the previous post, but they were written from the point-of-view that no matter how valuable the game is as a form or art or how well it entertains its core audience, most game companies these days are largely run as for-profit businesses. If a game isn't profitable, it dies; no matter how good the game, how entertaining the game, or how artful the game. Even games developers who publicly state they make games to entertain first and make a profit second (and sincerely mean it) eventually come to focus on the profit motive over the entertainment motive when the realities of the market are brought to bear.

In games of old where the play space was limited, I would agree that needing to focus on - and even limit the game to - a specific target audience was of paramount importance in order to preserve the gaming environment the developer was seeking. But ED has broken with that convention (or at least one half of it, anyway), by offering a play space that can be described as almost functionally infinite. What I think the developer and some current members of the community are failing to realize and capitalize on is how this break with convention could permit gamers of all stripes to play ED (with a variety of mechanics and avenues designed to attract and cater to their widely varying tastes) and yet never cross paths with one other.

ED's space is so vast there's plenty of room for those who want to play the game in its current iteration, those who want close quarters combat with leader boards and progression, role players, RTS enthusiasts, FPS adherents, empire builders, economy micromanagers, and on and on. Each could pursue and enjoy their particular flavor of gaming without treading on the others' play space. Not because artificial barriers are erected to sequestor each into their own arena à la the theme park model, but simply because the space is so huge.

Furthermore, ED is going to be facing stiff competition in this market when No Man's Sky, Star Citizen, and others upcoming space-based titles are released. The market is going through another one of its pendulum swings. With the resurgence of interest in sci-fi and space in popular culture and culture in general, more and more space-sims are going to be released in the near future. ED is ideally positioned to capture a large chunk of that market if they can appeal to it. Fail to do so, though, and gamers will move on to other titles that better cater to their interests. Regardless of the artisitic merits and entertainment virtues of ED in some abstract sense, none of it will matter if the game fails to attract and hold a large enough audience to turn a profit for the developer.

Idealism is a noble and worthy goal, but the reality is developers have to eat and pay the bills like the rest of us. If their efforts on a current project aren't producing income, they will redirect their efforts elsewhere with an attendant loss of support for the current project. It's the necessary evil of having to make money. The beauty of ED is they can make money by appealing to a broader audience and still keep the original niche audience happy by virtue of their enormous play space. If this were a different title in a smaller space, I'd agree attempting to appeal to a broader audience would ruin the current experience. That's not the case here; it's a functionally near-infinite space with equally near-infinite possibilites contained within. The developer just has to be willing to unlock those possibilites.

What they've done in creating such a huge virtual world is pretty much unprecedented. Consequently, there's no clear path forward because no one has trod it before. The potential breadth and depth this game could achieve is awe-inspiring, but I fear they're treading too cautiously and too slowly; for which they could almost be forgiven since they're in uncharted territory. But they're going to have to overcome that timidity and take ownership of what they've accomplished if they're to see that potential fully realized. Doing so will increase their audience; the increased audience means more money for the developer; properly managed, that more money translates into long-term support and commitment to the game; this translates into everyone getting the game they want, including those who are satisfied with it in its current iteration.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

I can't agree with anything you've said in this post. It sounds rather absurd to me. I'll take it paragraph by paragraph.

1) If a game isn't profitable, it isn't profitable. I think you're mistaking 'dead' with 'unpopular', which I called you out on two posts ago. Just because a game is loved by a few does not make it a failure, unsuccessful, or dead. Haven and Hearth is what comes to mind most immediately, along with a large handful of others. Pretty much every mod can be thrown into this category as well.

2) The finite or infinite nature of the game's game space has exactly nothing to do with how big its audience should be. Haven and Hearth comes to mind again. The relationship between how large the audience should be and how large the game space is has less correlation between my shoe size and the sun rising. Exactly nothing. What determines the ideal audience size/type is based on a million other vastly more significant factors, like mechanics and systems. Haven and Hearth is functionally infinite, with a tiny number of players. Club penguin is tiny, with a huge number of players.

3) Once again you are projecting what you wanted your experience to be, instead of what the experience is or what the experience is intended to be. You are correct in that the capacity for more mechanics are there, but you are wrong in that this is necessary to make the game more successful.

4) ...Vote with your wallet. Seriously. To do anything less would be absurd. Personally I don't think ED is in competition with these other games. They share some audience (scifi space), but ED is a hyper universe sim, no man's sky is a exploration thing, and ED is about dinking around in the galaxy. I will be playing these other two games likely. Neither of them make ED less successful. Haven and Hearth is no less successful with Minecraft doing its thing. It's just a different game.

5) Isn't this the dream? What you fail to understand is that every mechanic will (not may, will) affect the game both positively and negatively, depending on the player. Many players want ships to be cheaper so there's less grind. Many players are stupid. Similarly, someone may want automated resource collection. Some players may not. One ship, one pilot. I like it, and while I think many things about ED really needs to go, this is not one of them. This is an illustration of how having a large game space has little relevance to the ability to make everyone happy.

6) I don't really agree with this assessment at all. Yes, galaxy is pretty spectacular. However, this breadth, scale, and depth is not unheard of.

Thought experiment: More money for the developer is an ideology you're clinging too.

 

[Serapo]

Interaction with real people is what makes an MMO worthwhile. Remove the motivations and incentives for interaction, and the game becomes almost indistinguishable from a single-player game. With the exception of a few niche markets, though, most players don’t want single-player anymore; they want the interactivity of an MMO. Elite Dangerous is failing to provide that experience at present.

Holy wall of text Batman.

Sorry didn't read all through it. But I take issue with that statement.
"Interaction with real people is what makes an MMO worthwhile"... well, it can also be what breaks a game, since dealing with jerks is a major drawback of MMOs.

Claiming that you know what most players want is wrong. I am perfectly fine after a long week to have some hours to game in a "jerk free" environment and without the pressures that come with living up to a group with common goals. Social interaction in games is massively overrated and only of outstanding value for those that have no social live in the real world or have little imagination or are unable to find their own paths.

I believe that Elite is going down an excellent path where coordinated group action is not a requirement and in allowing solo play or having plenty of room for lone wolfs without that being a huge disadvantage to organized and complicated groups. The social tools in Elite could use an improvement though.

Having said that, some of your ideas seem very interesting and worth exploring and I would support them. Just couldn't find the time to read through them all. Short concise formulation may help in getting your ideas finding more eyeballs.

 

[Captain Kraag]

Holy wall of text Batman.

Sorry didn't read all through it. But I take issue with that statement.
"Interaction with real people is what makes an MMO worthwhile"... well, it can also be what breaks a game, since dealing with jerks is a major drawback of MMOs.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why, in reading the entirety of the post, it would be revealed that the suggestion would add interactive MMO elements to the game while still permitting players who don't want that interaction to go on playing the game exactly as they do today.

Claiming that you know what most players want is wrong. I am perfectly fine after a long week to have some hours to game in a "jerk free" environment and without the pressures that come with living up to a group with common goals. Social interaction in games is massively overrated and only of outstanding value for those that have no social live in the real world or have little imagination or are unable to find their own paths.

I don't claim to know what most players want. Market studies, trending data, game sales, and statistical analysis reveals what most players want; and these unequivocally reveal that the majority (i.e most) of players want an MMO experience rather than a single-player experience. I, too, want that "jerk free" environment and lack of pressure of living up to a group with common goals. Which is why my suggestion allows for both to exist in tandem within the game. My suggestion isn't aimed at imposing MMO interactivity on every player in the game; only those who wish to partake in it. But with the inclusion of those MMO elements, it's my hope the game's financial health will be assured into the future as a result of appealing to a broader audience so the developers continue supporting their creation.

I believe that Elite is going down an excellent path where coordinated group action is not a requirement and in allowing solo play or having plenty of room for lone wolfs without that being a huge disadvantage to organized and complicated groups. The social tools in Elite could use an improvement though.

I don't make it a requirement in my suggestion, either. It becomes but one facet of a game that has the untapped potential to appeal to a very broad and diverse group of gamers in a play space so large they never even have to come into contact with one another if they prefer. It's a facet, though, that would bring in greater income for the developer.

Having said that, some of your ideas seem very interesting and worth exploring and I would support them. Just couldn't find the time to read through them all. Short concise formulation may help in getting your ideas finding more eyeballs.

As it's an open letter to Frontier Developments for a suggested new game function, I wanted the idea and every detail of it fully fleshed out. That they've chosen their public forum as the method for delivery of such suggestions is not something under my control.

 

[Serapo]

I don't claim to know what most players want. Market studies, trending data, game sales, and statistical analysis reveals what most players want; and these unequivocally reveal that the majority (i.e most) of players want an MMO experience rather than a single-player experience.

Same market studies would indicate that most people prefer run of the mill burgers, pizzas and other assorted junk food.
I see ELITE and its vast, realistic, modeled on science universe as sort of a "gourmet" game experience. This very positive facet of the game makes it seem so empty and lonely for many, who long for the standard "buddy" experience and predetermined path.

I wish to think there is room in the world for not "mainstream" games, just as there is variety in restaurants even if most of the zombie masses go for junk food.

You others points are well taken and I think we are in agreement in most.

 

[popuptoaster]

You have to remember that an awful lot of backers actually wanted an offline mode precisely so they DIDN'T have to interact with other players, the fact that you personally want lots of things added in to reflect your belief that Elite is an MMO is not representative of the entire community.

Many of us already feel there is to much interaction with idiots and would like less not more.

 

[Captain Kraag]

I can't agree with anything you've said in this post. It sounds rather absurd to me. I'll take it paragraph by paragraph.

1) If a game isn't profitable, it isn't profitable. I think you're mistaking 'dead' with 'unpopular', which I called you out on two posts ago. Just because a game is loved by a few does not make it a failure, unsuccessful, or dead. Haven and Hearth is what comes to mind most immediately, along with a large handful of others. Pretty much every mod can be thrown into this category as well.

2) The finite or infinite nature of the game's game space has exactly nothing to do with how big its audience should be. Haven and Hearth comes to mind again. The relationship between how large the audience should be and how large the game space is has less correlation between my shoe size and the sun rising. Exactly nothing. What determines the ideal audience size/type is based on a million other vastly more significant factors, like mechanics and systems. Haven and Hearth is functionally infinite, with a tiny number of players. Club penguin is tiny, with a huge number of players.

3) Once again you are projecting what you wanted your experience to be, instead of what the experience is or what the experience is intended to be. You are correct in that the capacity for more mechanics are there, but you are wrong in that this is necessary to make the game more successful.

4) ...Vote with your wallet. Seriously. To do anything less would be absurd. Personally I don't think ED is in competition with these other games. They share some audience (scifi space), but ED is a hyper universe sim, no man's sky is a exploration thing, and ED is about dinking around in the galaxy. I will be playing these other two games likely. Neither of them make ED less successful. Haven and Hearth is no less successful with Minecraft doing its thing. It's just a different game.

5) Isn't this the dream? What you fail to understand is that every mechanic will (not may, will) affect the game both positively and negatively, depending on the player. Many players want ships to be cheaper so there's less grind. Many players are stupid. Similarly, someone may want automated resource collection. Some players may not. One ship, one pilot. I like it, and while I think many things about ED really needs to go, this is not one of them. This is an illustration of how having a large game space has little relevance to the ability to make everyone happy.

6) I don't really agree with this assessment at all. Yes, galaxy is pretty spectacular. However, this breadth, scale, and depth is not unheard of.

Thought experiment: More money for the developer is an ideology you're clinging too.

1) You haven't called me out on anything. Popularity has nothing to do with it. If the devs look at their game and it's costing them more to continue to support it than what they're bringing in as profit, they will the end their support of the game. This could include going so far as to shut down the servers. In other words, dead. Clinging to the belief that simply because something is beloved will make it withstand the forces of the market despite evidence to the contrary is wishful thinking. A game could have the most faithful and dedicated fanbase in the world; if that fanbase isn't bringing in the money the dev's accounting department determines to be financially worthwhile, they pull the plug. The fans may then keep the game alive with their own mods and servers, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about a mass marketed game with active dev support. If a game of that type fails to meet certain financial goals, then support ends. That's how gaming businesses are run.


2) The other determining factor of ideal audience size/type are the financial goals/profit motives of the game's developer. If they need more money to keep the franchise afloat, they will most certainly broaden the game's appeal in an effort to attract more players. Better to address it now so that's there a clear path forward of how to preserve the current gaming experience while bringing more players into the game rather than wait for a potential crisis mode (e.g dip in sales, failure to meet financial projections for a particular quarter, etc.) where decisions are not as well thought out and made in haste.


3) I'm not projecting anything as I haven't once stated what I wanted my experience to be. That's you making erroneous assumptions based on your own projections. I made suggestions aimed at increasing the audience for the game with the goal being to bring in more money for the developer. I actually enjoy the game in its present form. However, I also see the potential for the game to not achieve sufficient financial success with the consequence being the end of support and development. I don't want to see that happen. The size of the game space and the parameters that define it allows it to be marketed to a diverse population of gamers without negatively impacting the present experience.


4) ED shares enough similarities with the other space-based titles due for release that a failure to attract sufficient market share within that general genre could see an exodus of players from ED to the point that it won't be financially successful enough for the developer to continue supporting.


5) I don't know why the hang up on the "One ship, one pilot" issue as this is the second time you've referred to in a post. Nothing in any of my posts has once made a suggestion that players be permitted to own more than one ship or to make it easier to obtain other models. I even agreed with the "One ship, one pilot" mantra in a previous post. The only thing I've suggested adding to the game is what I'm calling a Resource Module; it's not a ship. It's not even mobile and it's certainly not being piloted. I even suggested that a player is limited to owning only one. We're getting SRVs with the expansion; a mobile surface vehicle. A Resource Module doesn't even approach that level of complexity and certainly won't break the immersion of someone who chooses not to purchase one.


There's no thought experiment to be conducted because I'm not espousing an ideology. I'm looking at a market that is competitive and with a fickle audience, populated by companies whose primary motive is earning a profit (with Frontier Developments being no exception). Given those parameters - and they are the parameters and environment under which this game developer and nearly every game developer operates - it's prudent to have an eye towards expanding market share if you want to remain in business.


What I wonder is why anything I've written makes you feel so threatened and defensive over something I haven't even suggested removing. The suggestions I've made would do nothing to detract from the present gaming experience. To illustrate, here IS a thought experiment and some number crunching to go along with it:


Let's consider the scale of the game, as I don't think many people truly appreciate just how big the galaxy is. Imagine for a moment you're the curator of the science wing of a museum. The director of the museum approaches you and says he'd like you to build a scale model of the Milky Way galaxy for the science wing. He wants you to represent our Sun using a 1/8 inch diameter ball bearing painted orange; this will serve as the reference point for building the rest of the scale model. You're to report back in four weeks on your progress.


At the end of the four weeks, the director checks on your progress. You report to him you've built nothing. Want to know why? Because a scale model of the galaxy using a 1/8 inch ball bearing to represent our local star as the reference point would be 1,340,821 miles in diameter! That's more than five times the distance from here to the Moon. You not only couldn't fit the model inside the museum, you couldn't fit it on planet Earth. THAT's how big the galaxy is. Here's the math:


Diameter of our Sun = 864,948 miles


Diameter of our Galaxy in Light Years = 100,000 light years


Distance of a Light Year = 5,878,499,810,000 miles


Diameter of our Galaxy in miles = 587,849,981,000,000,000 miles


Ratio of the Diameter of our Sun to the Diameter of the Galaxy (587,849,981,000,000,000 miles / 864,948 miles) = 1 to 679,635,660,473


1/8 inch ball bearing x 679,635,660,473 = 679,635,660,473 / 8 = 84,954,457,559 inch diameter scale model of the galaxy


84,954,457,559 inches / 12 inches to a foot = 7,079,538,129 feet


1 mile = 5,280 feet


7,079,538,129 feet / 5,280 feet to a mile = 1,340,821 mile diameter scale model of the galaxy based on a 1/8 inch ball bearing representing our Sun


Average distance to the Moon = 238,900 miles


1,340,821 miles / 238,900 miles = The scale model would stretch 5.6 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon!


Granted, we're not playing with real models in the physical universe; we're playing with virtual models in the digital universe. The point is to illustrate just how vast the space is in which we're playing. Even with the contrivance of a faster-than-light-speed drive, it's still so big that you can hide whole populations within that space and never even know they're there (and yet have them still support the game financially). To demonstrate:


There's 400 billion star systems in the game. Let's assume the game was so popular that 1,000,000,000 (one billion) people signed up to play it. We'll leave aside the server bandwidth issues for the moment. Now let's further assume those 1,000,000,000 players were broken up into chunks of 100 each and given a planet on which to build a colony; a pretty broad diffusion. They would need 10,000,000 (ten million) planets to accommodate all those colonies. Even at that staggering number, those 1,000,000,000 players would only populate 0.0025% of the star systems in the game. The odds are you would never accidentally stumble upon a populated planet as you flew through the remaining uninhabited 99.9975% of the galaxy. Of course, in practical terms, the population would be even less dense as the game will never have 1,000,000,000 people playing it; even lower odds of bumping into a colony.


And even if you did accidentally stumble upon "Foul-Mouthed, Misogynistic, Homophobic, Pubescent, Trolling World", or "We Love Hello Kitty World", or "We Gaze at Our Navels and Compare Belly Button Lint World", or "Let's Discuss Ad Nauseum the Pros and Cons of Communism Versus Capitalism World", so what? You turn your nose cone starward and jet out of there as fast as your thrusters will carry you, never to return and never having to worry about the denizens of that planet interferring with your gaming experience. Or better yet, limit colonization to discreet sectors of the galaxy, such as the factions' space (per the original suggestion). That way, those who don't want to associate with certain types of gamers can avoid those known yet infinitesimally tiny pockets of space where the colonists reside.


That covers how the game space is so large there's no reason to fear running afoul of players whose company you'd rather avoid or who would break your immersion (which really seems to be the subtext of your posts).


Now for the time issue. With 400 billion star systems in the game, you couldn't visit them all in a hundred lifetimes. Let's assume you play the game 16 hours/day, 7 days/week. Furthermore, let's assume you have an even faster than faster-than-light-speed-drive permitting you to visit one star system every second. No interaction, no screenshots, no planet-fall; just flitting from star system to star system at the rate of 1 per second and nothing else. It would take you 19,025 YEARS (actual years, not in-game years) to visit all 400 billion star systems!


With the time it takes to travel between star systems, trolls aren't going to set sail on the vast galactic ocean in the hope of having that less-than-one-in-a-million chance of bumping into a player just to antagonize them. Instead, they'll stick to more densely populated colonies and spout their nonsense there; low-hanging fruit, cost:benefit, laziness, and all that. Those players who prefer to take to the stars, leaving the colonies behind, will probably never run across a troll in their entire time spent playing ED.


Besides, do you honestly believe the developers are going to allow planet-fall but NOT permit planets to be colonized? If the game is a purist's space-sim, why bother with planet-fall at all? What, you thought 400 billion star sytems' worth of planets were just hung in space to give you something pretty to look at as you fly by in your ship? Two of their future goals speak of fortresses on planetery surfaces which can be attacked and being able to walk around a planet's surface in first person perspective. They're already moving in the direction of planetary colonization; whether it's scripted by the devs or left up to the players remains to be seen. Regardless, it's just a matter of time before it's fully implemented. If that isn't enough to convince you, then the fact they've released the game on XBox One should scream volumes about the future direction of the game. I'd rather engage in a productive discussion of how to implement colonization while still preserving the current gaming experience than live in denial.


In conclusion, I made a very simple suggestion - from a programming standpoint - with the intent of helping the devs bring in more money by appealing to a broader audience; thus ensuring the financial health and continued development of the game. The suggestion does nothing to negatively impact the existing game experience despite the objections of a vocal minority possessed of an elitist mentality and an irrational fear that their pristine gaming experience and precious immersion will be sullied by the unwashed masses. As I've demonstrated, the game space is so huge, there are so many star systems, and the time to travel between them is so great (taken as a whole) that you statistically have a vanishingly remote chance of ever encountering a toxic or immersion-breaking community, colony, or player within the game.


The game is obviously moving towards offering colonization as an option at some point in the future. My suggestion seeks to curtail that colonization from negatively impacting the current gaming experience by sequestering it within the context of the various in-game factions and their attempts to expand their spheres of influence. The collision between the borders of these expanding spheres of influence will naturally limit their growth to a tiny fraction of the game space; there would be no impact on those who want nothing to do with that particular mechanic. Just continue playing the game as you do now; nothing will change in that regard. Meanwhile, Frontier Developments brings in more players and more money, increasing the likelihood of continued support and development for years to come, thus ensuring the longevity of the franchise (which is the real goal for which I'm reaching).


It's you who've chosen to misinterpret my intent and project your own insecurities over an imaginary threat to the gaming experience you currently enjoy. The responsibility for that is your's. Taking a page from your playbook, perhaps "This suggestion isn't for you"; but it certainly appears to be on Frontier Developments' radar in one form or another. Colonization of planets is coming; you can bet on it. The financial rewards for the company will just be too enticing to ignore. Now, you can be a realist and part of the discussion of how to shape that colonization so that it doesn't negatively impact the current gaming experience or you can be an idealist and continue to stick your fingers in your ears while yelling, "La, La, La, I can't hear you!".

- - - Updated - - -

You have to remember that an awful lot of backers actually wanted an offline mode precisely so they DIDN'T have to interact with other players, the fact that you personally want lots of things added in to reflect your belief that Elite is an MMO is not representative of the entire community.

Many of us already feel there is to much interaction with idiots and would like less not more.

1) I don't want lots of things added. I suggested adding one thing.

2) It's not my belief that ED is an MMO; that's Frontier Developments' own marketing of the game as being an MMO. You'll have to take that up with them.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

First off, I have to apologize. I think the last bit of my post got rushed and I accidentally mutilated my last paragraph. This made it sound much more hostile. It's supposed to say something more like this:

Here's a thought experiment: Profits can come alongside meaningful experiences, however there is and always will be a lot of conflict between the two. Consider the differences between a game that is made to bring in profits to fund the next bit of 'content' that will bring in profits that will fund the next bit of 'content' (...), versus a game that is simply made to deliver the experience as uninhibited as possible.

Now on to the post...

[...]
1) Clinging to the belief that simply because something is beloved will make it withstand the forces of the market despite evidence to the contrary is wishful thinking.
[...]
2) I'm not projecting anything as I haven't once stated what I wanted my experience to be. That's you making erroneous assumptions based on your own projections.
[...]
3) The only thing I've suggested adding to the game is what I'm calling a Resource Module; it's not a ship.
[...]
4) The suggestions I've made would do nothing to detract from the present gaming experience.
[...]
5) That way, those who don't want to associate with certain types of gamers can avoid those known yet infinitesimally tiny pockets of space where the colonists reside.
[...]
6) I made a very simple suggestion - from a programming standpoint - with the intent of helping the devs bring in more money by appealing to a broader audience; thus ensuring the financial health and continued development of the game.
[...]
7) Just continue playing the game as you do now; nothing will change in that regard.
[...]
8) The financial rewards for the company will just be too enticing to ignore.

Once again you've hit the mark in many areas. However, I've pulled out the bits of your post that fall a few octaves short of logical.

1) Context: A game that is beloved by its players will not feed its developers. A game that is profitable will continue to be a game.
You're right. However, this is true for businesses. In my post I specifically state that I am speaking of all games, and not simply ED. FD is more of a business, and their needs are different than bay12. Based on your posts I don't think you acknowledge that an unprofitable game has the capacity to both be more successful and have more longevity than a profitable one.

2) Context: You are projecting what you want your experience to be, rather than what ED is meant to deliver (in my opinion).
Yes, you are. Your idea of the ideal route to take is painting over reality. Like calling an emergency fire exit a fire door.

3) Context: One pilot, one ship.
That's not the meaning of one pilot, one ship. The meaning behind it is that your actions come from your fingers on the flight stick. Your income comes from you being face to face with your commodity, or bounty, or planetary body. It does not come from a resource module 50 light years away. It's one pilot, one ship. Not one pilot, one ship+one resource module.

4) Context: Resource modules, planet colonization, etc are only additions to the game, and there's enough space in the galaxy to make me completely insulated from them.
I hate seeing this argument come up. It boils my blood. Players earning resources from resource modules affect my galaxy, as now they are flying in anacondas and what not. If exploration data was given a 10000% increase in profits, everyone in the game is affected, not just explorers.

5) Context: The galaxy is so big, I can just run away from people I don't like.
This is absurd coming from someone who as just talking about resource limiting and forcing layer interaction. You're going to have to pick one view or the other. Part of ED is forcing those interactions. That's why we have a habitable bubble, CGs, systems like Lembava and Lave. Managing the player base is important not so we can pick and choose who we interact with, but because we often can't pick and choose who we interact with (solo/group being the notable exceptions).

6) Context: Resource modules are simple from a programming standpoint.
Said every short sighted visionary ever.

7) Context: It doesn't affect you, so what's your problem?
See six (and the others for that matter). This is a destructive line of thought. Like comedians, designers need to craft an experience. You can't tell the white people in the room one kind of joke and tell the black people a different version and expect to have a very cohesive skit.

8) Context: The money potential is worth it.
Maybe. However I will resist any change that puts profits before experience, and this is a personal problem.

 

[ianstrauss]

I agree. The only thing missing for elite to be a great game is the social interaction. Check out this video where 101 CMDs met in Sagittarius A and did something nice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3bMZTCleq4