What games are these? Because I am suspecting they aren't tracking the same level of real time data as Elite Dangerous does.
Remember if you are talking about "everyone" that's possibly tens of thousands of players, in one instance at the same time.
Elite - not dangerous
- Thread starter G.man
- Start date
What games are these? Because I am suspecting they aren't tracking the same level of real time data as Elite Dangerous does.
Remember if you are talking about "everyone" that's possibly tens of thousands of players, in one instance at the same time.
Well, im largely referring to MMORPGs, as thats where open world PvP tends to be (specifically: RFonline, Aion, WAR, Age of Conan). In Aion and RFonline for one they managed race vs race battles numbering in 1000s per side.
I get that Elite does possibly track more data than those types of games, but the play area is also infinitely bigger, which should spread out players a lot more. Its true there would probably need to be a cap of some kind on numbers in a single instance (system) to prevent lag.. But my main point is if you dont even attempt to keep players in one instance, and in fact provide numerous tools for players to avoid being in an instance with anyone they dont want to be, there is no point calling it multiplayer. It isnt.
I'm with you. I'll also point out that most people equate "dangerous" with combat. Well as an explorer, I think jumping should be made much more challenging and dangerous, with the risk of misjumping and popping out 2000 ly away from the Bubble. That'll give this G5 FDL combat pilots the challenge they've been lacking. I mean, if combat pilots can force their ideas of dangerous on me, I can do the same to them, right?
Nah someone who's been playing since '84 and has got Elite in ALL Elites since should be a veteran
What about making Open/Solo a choice at account creation, not a switchable option. Caters to everyone, no? Console players can still play solo, people who dont want to interact with players can pick solo or PG if they want 'controlled' player interactions.
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
I'm not sure about this familiarisation, A-Chump.
Agreed, a lot of people like the modes just as they are and when researching the game before purchasing, included the different modes feature as part of their decision process.
An alternative could be 2 games - Elite: Dangerous as is with Open/PG/Solo and no subscription and an Elite: Deadly which is just Open Only with 1000's of players per instance but make it subscription based.
I mean, they literally already do that with console players. I think my main point is that the ability to opt in and out and back in again ruins the multiplayer aspects of the game such that they might as well not exist in the first place. The game would not be functionally different if the only possible form of PvP combat was arranged and instanced (like CQC with your own ship instead of a fighter). To be fair though, the way instancing works also means that it might as well not exist, its not just a mode thing... that ship has sailed so long ago its already at its destination.
Would be fine with that and would sign up to the subscription one in a heartbeat.
A blockade doesn't need to be perfect to be worthwhile, it just needs to have a success rate that could justify taking ships from other activities. One instance certainly wouldn't be required, but the sum of avenues for evading blockades or the like in Elite: Dangerous does render them rather senseless except where a pool of CMDRs are available that won't undertake any other action.
This is such a weak canned response.
No, no one is asking for absolute realism. We are asking for a fantasy we can believe in. Lets take your objection to its logical extension.
Lets say every time an NPC was about to kill you, the game turned that NPC into a butterfly.
Someone complains that NPC ships suddenly turning into butterflies is unrealistic/breaks immersion.
Your response: you want realism in a game set 1000 years in the future????!!!!
The problem with the game as is, and as the op points out, not an absolute lack of realism, but certain mechanics which make the fantasy very very unbelievable. We want to engange in the fantasy of flying a ship 1000 years in the future, but the degree to which this game currently cocoons a player in cotton wool makes the suspension of belief required very very difficult.
The stock canned reply, of lol, you want realism, is just moot and lazy.
Nah disagree
The 1000s of players per instance - ignoring the technical issues involved - is less about "Open only" and more about compressing the game world down to few enough locations that the busier ones have 1000 people there at once.
"Open only Elite Dangerous" in at least 99.9% of inhabited systems and all the uninhabited ones would be basically identical to what there is now, to within most people's ability to distinguish it, and that's if everyone switched to it. If most people didn't go with the subscription version, it'd probably end up being quieter than the current one in practice.
For that sort of experience trimming the game world down to something much smaller - maybe just a single large system? - would also be necessary.
Its more about being able to deny access to specific popular locations, thus organically causing wars between players trying to stop that access and players trying to open it up again than it is about specifically huge numbers in one place at a time. Area/resource denial is how organic wars form in games, and in this game its totally impossible to do, meaning organic PvP doesnt happen.
Yes, though part of the reason for that is that there aren't really any individual locations it's a problem to be kept out of. I can think of very few services that are only offered at a single location which needs regular player visits (Powerplay HQs ... anything else?)
Again, a much smaller galaxy with lots of unique locations would be far better suited.
I do agree for most purposes there is always a different place you could go, and singling out the obvious engineers is problematic because engineering is required to survive PvP encounters..
But, say, with a single system buying LTDs at 1.7m and no others, which is pretty common, i can certainly see blockading that (if it was possible) causing some fun PvP. Also known triple LTD hotspot systems... there are likely others.
That was my hope for Colonia with it being a smaller more concentrated area but I rarely saw many commanders in Open other than the usual busy systems (Colonia, Ratraii). Recently left there after 3 years and don't plan on coming back.
The engineers don't really count either, since you can remote engineer most of what you need having visited once, and every blueprint has at least two (usually more) options for applying experimentals.
Sure - but only if people are doing for the sake of the PvP. And they can do that already.
Might only be one buying at 1.7m but there are plenty buying at 1.1m. Far more efficient to go there than to attempt to break any serious blockade. Likewise there'll be hundreds of triple LTD hotspots out there.
Sure, but that's what you'd expect from the traffic numbers.
~200 traffic/day, say 75% on PC and 66% in Open [1], so that's 4 an hour, across a system with multiple stations, RES, and other points of interest. And that's a locally busy system, most of them are more in the ~20 traffic/day range.
The region as a whole had its busiest day ever last weekend, and that's still fewer ships than the busiest individual bubble systems get.
You'd need a bubble the size of Colonia but with the player population of the main bubble to get significant visible player activity in the "normal" systems.
[1] 75% on PC seems about right from the relative squadron boards, 66% in Open seems about right from running this equation backwards based on how many people I actually see.
Almost as lazy as your response or the OP's trite, open-only "the way it was meant to be played" nonsense
