Game Discussions If money were no object...

[Old Duck]

I've been thinking about something that makes online vs offline games different. I'm not talking about the obvious social aspect, but rather the idea that online MMO-like games are live simulations, always running 24x7, never paused or rewound (load last save). Offline games, on the other hand, only "exist" while you're playing them. When you save and exit, the reality that game models stops until you return. I personally love being part of a "live" world that continues on whether I'm playing or not, be it Elite or Space Engineers online. Regarding SE, I've been playing mostly alone on a new server, and sometimes I think what's the difference between that and playing single-player, but the extra challenges of keeping myself alive even when I'm not playing are well worth the downsides of playing online, along with the idea that "life goes on". However, SE offline has some serious benefits as well, and games like X4 are only playable offline.

This got me thinking - if money were no object, I'd love to have a "man cave" where I had dedicated computers running simulation games 24x7, each with a nice big dedicated display where I could track things like some CIA operation or bat cave. One computer would be running a game of X4 Foundations, another would be my own customized offline SE world, another might be City Skylines, another could be a view from a tower at a busy airport in MSFS, another from the surface of the moon in Space Engine, etc. Think of a wall of screens, each tracking some cool virtual simulation, with the ability to jump in to any of these running games at any time to play.

Anyone else dream of such a setup? If someday I become rich, this might be my retirement project

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

That is only true for a minority of MP games. Most arena shooters don't care about their "world". One of the last games I played of this type is Foxhole which is persistent PvP war across - dunno 30? maps - between 2 factions. You build a base in the morning and in the evening the front might have arrived and make it a frontline where a ton of strangers convene to defend or attack from. Loads of truck unload supplies and ants of engineers dig more fortifications.
I think it's good or so for a war, but the "attend me" kinda grinds on me and I tire of it. It is great group experience though.

 

[CMDR Von Abrahart]

Let’s hope our overlords don’t switch of our simulation

 

[deMangler]

I have my complaints about ED, but it is still the best MMO for having an enjoyable universe to live in.
During the kickstarter most of the backers were coming from single-player perspective because you can heavily invest in single-player games and back them up and knowing you have some control over whether your game-world will just end. A good example of an on-line world ending is Need For Speed World. I invested quite a lot in that and then it just ended. All gone.
This point was raised in the kickstarter and David Braben assured us that should FD ever decide to shut down the servers they would release a server that people could run so that they would not lose their investment.
I thought that showed a really good understanding of just how much we can invest in a game like this, in terms of time and connection to the world as well as money.
I still play an original Elite commander I started in the 1980's and I am looking forward to being able to play my ED commander even if FD do ever switch it off.

 

[theBreadSultan]

I really liked the aspect of EvE that you could ditch things in space, relying on the fact that only you knew it's exact location, and space is, well big.

This made group play easy and visceral - if elite had something similar to EvE's 'jet can mining' it would seriously improve the game, but would require players to be able to directly give cash to others, which is against the rulez of elite

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I really liked the aspect of EvE that you could ditch things in space, relying on the fact that only you knew it's exact location, and space is, well big.

This made group play easy and visceral - if elite had something similar to EvE's 'jet can mining' it would seriously improve the game, but would require players to be able to directly give cash to others, which is against the rulez of elite

Player transactions arent the messiah feature MP games need.

 

[theBreadSultan]

Player transactions arent the messiah feature MP games need.

Preventing them isn't the Messiah feature either.

I'm fact for a game like elite, it does more harm than good. I get the idea, don't let anyone skip grind because then they might notice that's all there is ....

But boy would it be a world easier to get your buddies to play this game if you could put your noob friend in a fully kitted out vulture to join you on a mission.

That was the big f-up with oddesy, the basic fps gameplay is so heavily gated and disjointed with the original game, there is again, zero advantage to having a friend join you.

As an example, I had 4 friends who were up for being my 'maco marines' and doing fps missions with me. 1 has even played elite on Xbox and VR (but left due to grind)

That's 5 copies of oddessy fdev would have sold... But can you guess how many of those played it?...Zero

Not only that, but it's also pretty much demotivated me to play the game, because the one ray of hope, was snuffed out.

oddessy will never be good. The fps gameplay is beyond laughable, even when compared to ancient FPS games ...

meanwhile everyone and their dog has just gotten free* day 1 release of halo infinite, should they get bored of warzone, apex, overwatch etc.

sure, player to player interaction without unrealistic and unexplained barriers (the lore reason I can't drop a fellow Cmdr 20credits is?) Isn't going to be some panacea, but will go a long way to making gameplay more fun and inclusive

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Preventing them isn't the Messiah feature either.

I'm fact for a game like elite, it does more harm than good. I get the idea, don't let anyone skip grind because then they might notice that's all there is ....

But boy would it be a world easier to get your buddies to play this game if you could put your noob friend in a fully kitted out vulture to join you on a mission.

That was the big f-up with oddesy, the basic fps gameplay is so heavily gated and disjointed with the original game, there is again, zero advantage to having a friend join you.

As an example, I had 4 friends who were up for being my 'maco marines' and doing fps missions with me. 1 has even played elite on Xbox and VR (but left due to grind)

That's 5 copies of oddessy fdev would have sold... But can you guess how many of those played it?...Zero

Not only that, but it's also pretty much demotivated me to play the game, because the one ray of hope, was snuffed out.

oddessy will never be good. The fps gameplay is beyond laughable, even when compared to ancient FPS games ...

meanwhile everyone and their dog has just gotten free* day 1 release of halo infinite, should they get bored of warzone, apex, overwatch etc.

sure, player to player interaction without unrealistic and unexplained barriers (the lore reason I can't drop a fellow Cmdr 20credits is?) Isn't going to be some panacea, but will go a long way to making gameplay more fun and inclusive

Yes, yes. How about designing the game for fun in the first place instead of Grind Quest 1000 XL where the only way is to exploit the game or cheese it by trading among "friends" who have all unlocked by exploiting the game. "Saviour" features like player trading are only brought up to fight symptoms - not the causes of the problems.

 

[theBreadSultan]

Yes, yes. How about designing the game for fun in the first place instead of Grind Quest 1000 XL where the only way is to exploit the game or cheese it by trading among "friends" who have all unlocked by exploiting the game. "Saviour" features like player trading are only brought up to fight symptoms - not the causes of the problems.

It's not about fighting systems. Its the basic premise of being able to give your friend a bit of a boost, or ability to keep up with you, when they join the game on your recommendation.

Oddessy had the chance to be really fun. And an opportunity to get people into the game who otherwise wouldn't play it...

Instead they just put off the people who were already playing the game. Honestly, anyone working on the fps side of this game, or who thinks it's even close to passable just play ANY fps game made in the last 5 years, he'll go play battlefield 2 - then go back to oddessy to witness the ness.

Floaty shieldy bullet sponge gameplay ... Yawn.
Remember, it would have been easier to make the fps element fun and engaging...

They did extra work, to make it rubbish, and that's due to a top line decision, and that decision has done half the job of killing this game, the other half of the killing blow comes from the arrogance of management to deny their mistake.

"Did I make a game that's boring and sucks?.... No it's the gamers who are wrong"

 

[Morbad]

Anyone else dream of such a setup? If someday I become rich, this might be my retirement project

Not really, but if I did, it would be a fairly simple matter to connect some extra displays, or perhaps an extra GPU for the more graphically demanding titles, to one of my systems and just run an instance of every game I cared to keep persistent.

Its the basic premise of being able to give your friend a bit of a boost, or ability to keep up with you, when they join the game on your recommendation.

There is no boost credits or equipment can give in Elite: Dangerous that is worth even cursory practical experience. You can go anywhere and do essentially anything the game offers with even starter equipment. The only exceptions being PvP, which requires far more of an experience investment than an equipment grind, and Thargoid hunting, which still needs general and specialized skills that cannot really be mastered faster than the gear can be acquired.

I could switch in-game assets with a new player and they still wouldn't be able to keep up with me if I had my CMDR go about his usual tasks. The best thing I can do for them, in any case, is to get in the same equipment they have and show them how to use it, dismissing any silly preconceptions they have about it's supposed limitations, through example.

 

[theBreadSultan]

Not really, but if I did, it would be a fairly simple matter to connect some extra displays, or perhaps an extra GPU for the more graphically demanding titles, to one of my systems and just run an instance of every game I cared to keep persistent.



There is no boost credits or equipment can give in Elite: Dangerous that is worth even cursory practical experience. You can go anywhere and do essentially anything the game offers with even starter equipment. The only exceptions being PvP, which requires far more of an experience investment than an equipment grind, and Thargoid hunting, which still needs general and specialized skills that cannot really be mastered faster than the gear can be acquired.

I could switch in-game assets with a new player and they still wouldn't be able to keep up with me if I had my CMDR go about his usual tasks. The best thing I can do for them, in any case, is to get in the same equipment they have and show them how to use it, dismissing any silly preconceptions they have about it's supposed limitations, through example.

Yes and a boost can help people get that practical experience.

Who is getting more combat experience. Your mate in his stock sidewinder, or my mate in an A rated engineered Eagle?

Which one is more likely to keep playing the game? Om Xbox at least, it's very telling that many of the achievements you get 'automatically' by sinking more than 100 or so hours into the game are all 'rare' achievement, meaning less than 5% of players got them.

If this game had a high player count and non parasitic gameplay, I'd understand the deep resistance to change on this forum. It's very Stockholm syndromey

 

[Morbad]

Who is getting more combat experience. Your mate in his stock sidewinder, or my mate in an A rated engineered Eagle?

I don't see anything about quantity of combat experience implied by either, but as far as quality of the experience goes, the former, by a long shot.

Even now, when I pick up the game after a break, I start with a stock Sidewinder (I would normally begin with the Incursion tutorial, which was originally Sidewinder only, but the "competent" scenario is a passable alternative as the low rated Viper they give you is a great trainer), because it forces the use of skills that are diluted, and can be further atrophied, by over reliance on equipment.

While everyone is different, I'd imagine your mate would be learning a lot of bad habits by starting in a ship that is essentially unmached in maneuverability.

If this game had a high player count and non parasitic gameplay, I'd understand the deep resistance to change on this forum. It's very Stockholm syndromey

The resistance to change on this forum comes from experience. Many, if not most, of the changes that have been implemented haven't been implemented well and even those that have often haven't taken the game in a direction desired by those complaining. Personally, can think of two changes/additions I consider to be a net gain that weren't purely bug fixes; nerfing the Python (back in January 2105), and the initial release of Horizons. Virtually every other significant content update and balance change has made the game worse, IMO. Even half of the bug fixes have broken more than they've fixed.

I'm not even against player asset transfers, but it's not something I want to see until other fundamental problems are addressed, which is never going to happen, because Frontier cannot be bothered to rock the boat. The whole purpose of restricting player transfers is to preserve some illusion of progression in the face of those parasitic gameplay elements you mention. With player transfers, all that very deliberate work on the part of Frontier becomes moot, and they have nothing to fall back on. They have already burnt their other bridges.

The game could use a radical overhaul, one that fleshes out seven-plus year-old placeholder mechanisms with actual economic and demographic simulations, clarifies multiplayer rules, and comes with consistent, and consistently enforced, mechanisms. A global server wipe, to cull years of legacy baggage that is holding back actual progress, would almost certainly be required in the process. Of course, this would also be unpopular and unpopular, plus work, means it'll never happen.

 

[theBreadSultan]

I don't see anything about quantity of combat experience implied by either, but as far as quality of the experience goes, the former, by a long shot.

Even now, when I pick up the game after a break, I start with a stock Sidewinder (I would normally begin with the Incursion tutorial, which was originally Sidewinder only, but the "competent" scenario is a passable alternative as the low rated Viper they give you is a great trainer), because it forces the use of skills that are diluted, and can be further atrophied, by over reliance on equipment.

While everyone is different, I'd imagine your mate would be learning a lot of bad habits by starting in a ship that is essentially unmached in maneuverability.



The resistance to change on this forum comes from experience. Many, if not most, of the changes that have been implemented haven't been implemented well and even those that have often haven't taken the game in a direction desired by those complaining. Personally, can think of two changes/additions I consider to be a net gain that weren't purely bug fixes; nerfing the Python (back in January 2105), and the initial release of Horizons. Virtually every other significant content update and balance change has made the game worse, IMO. Even half of the bug fixes have broken more than they've fixed.

I'm not even against player asset transfers, but it's not something I want to see until other fundamental problems are addressed, which is never going to happen, because Frontier cannot be bothered to rock the boat. The whole purpose of restricting player transfers is to preserve some illusion of progression in the face of those parasitic gameplay elements you mention. With player transfers, all that very deliberate work on the part of Frontier becomes moot, and they have nothing to fall back on. They have already burnt their other bridges.

The game could use a radical overhaul, one that fleshes out seven-plus year-old placeholder mechanisms with actual economic and demographic simulations, clarifies multiplayer rules, and comes with consistent, and consistently enforced, mechanisms. A global server wipe, to cull years of legacy baggage that is holding back actual progress, would almost certainly be required in the process. Of course, this would also be unpopular and unpopular, plus work, means it'll never happen.

Yea except what happens when you load up AAA money factory that is Forza Horizon? The very first car you get, is one of the very best. And after that first mission, you get to pick something more pedestrian as your actual starter car.

And this happens in so many other successful games. Some games, like cod even go as far as to put you in the game with 90-95% 'power' from the very start.

Like I said, the player retention (which is abysmal) speaks volumes on this.

And I don't buy the whole...changes can make it worse were soooo jaded. The truth is fdev doesn't listen to players, and chooses to implement the 'vision' and systems that keep players grinding and thus playing due to sunk cost psychology. It's cope...pure copium.

Letting players share assets or better yet sell assets would require a small amount of coding and open up way more gameplay options.

Be pretty cool to be able to sell upgraded ships to others (if grind wasn't gameplay). And again, because your friend needs to do app the grind to get to a point where they can have fun with you, it doesn't happen.

I can only ever think of examples of people who have tried to get friends to play elite and had those friends not get over the initial grind hump.

The relationship between fdev and the players is akin to am abusive relationship. Stop making excuses for failure

 

[Morbad]

Yea except what happens when you load up AAA money factory that is Forza Horizon? The very first car you get, is one of the very best. And after that first mission, you get to pick something more pedestrian as your actual starter car.

And this happens in so many other successful games. Some games, like cod even go as far as to put you in the game with 90-95% 'power' from the very start.

Those are successful games and they have less 'grind' than Elite: Dangerous. However, correlation is not causation.

I don't play modern AAA shooters anymore, partially because I think any unlock system in a shooter is categorically absurd. Indeed, it's one of my biggest complaints of the combat portion of Odyssey. However, there can be no denying that many people like, or at least tolerate, these systems, and that sales figures of recent CoD or Battlefield titles utterly dwarf those of the last iterations that lacked any sort of unlock grind.

Like I said, the player retention (which is abysmal) speaks volumes on this.

I'm highly doubtful player retention would be improved by allowing players to transfer assets. If it would, Frontier would do it, because it would improve their bottom line.

Letting players share assets or better yet sell assets would require a small amount of coding and open up way more gameplay options.

Yes.

I can only ever think of examples of people who have tried to get friends to play elite and had those friends not get over the initial grind hump.

I think the 'grind hump' is grossly exaggerated. It's senseless and not fun, but it's also not a major barrier to most activities. It's most annoying in organized PvP, but Frontier really doesn't care about organized PvP, and PvP has far more fundamental issues.

It's been years since I've tried to get anyone to play this game, because I don't think many will enjoy what it's become...that grind is positioned as the content, and most of the content I originally enjoyed is hard to come by. I certainly wouldn't pay the current asking price for the product that's currently sold. However, Frontier already has my money, and I already have a license to play, so as long as I can extract any entertainment out of it, I'll stick around...it doesn't cost me anything to do so.

The relationship between fdev and the players is akin to am abusive relationship.

All business-consumer relationships are abusive and antagonistic, perforce. The former exist to extract as much profit as they can wring out of the latter as possible, while the latter try to get as much as they can for as little as possible.

Frontier is just in a position where they barely even have to conceal this reality. They are the only suppliers of an experience that even vaguely resembles Elite: Dangerous. They have a solid monopoly on the first-person MMO space sim and they know it.

Stop making excuses for failure

I'm not sure how, but you've somehow misinterpreted a negative assessment of your proposal as a defense of Frontier.

Frontier is bad. Your ideas to fix their game are worse. That's my stance. Nowhere was I ever defending Frontier, I was attacking your assertion that allowing players to transfer assets would fix any meaningful problem the game has (and it has many), because I don't think it would. I believe it would do the opposite, fix essentially nothing, while introducing perverse incentives for crappy player behavior and abuse that Frontier is woefully ill-equipped to deal with.