Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Darkfyre99]

I’d argue that the popularity of this game is partly thanks to the dedicated community members who have created and maintain those third-party tools. That said, I was referring to more fundamental features. For example, the ability to instance together and engage in PvP combat, even if instancing isn't flawless. There's also the crime and punishment system, which, while not perfect, is specifically designed for Open Play interactions. PvE content, like the Thargoid encounters, offers escalating difficulty, especially in coordinated wing battles.

And I'd argue that this isn't the case.

In other games I've played similar to this, players wouldn't have to rely on 3rd party tools for their coordination. I'd be able to simply jump into my Power's chat, say "I'm facing player opposition in system X!" In Elite Dangerous, I have to choose between numerous 3rd party communication platforms, and hope I get the right one... assuming I'm willing to jump through hoops to get access to them in the first place.

In other games, instancing is handled flawlessly by the game itself. In Elite Dangerous, players have to coordinate with friends lists, VPNs, and firewall settings to instance together, and even then it's not always effective, let alone flawless.

In other games, "Crime and Punishment" is handled differently for PvP and PvE activities. In Elite Dangerous, the game relies on the same C&P system that's used for PvE, with predictable results.

In other games, they designed things deliberately to facilitate the PvP and cooperative aspects of the game. In Elite Dangerous, it feels like a poorly designed, tacked on afterthought.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Unless PowerPlay 2.0 actually makes PvP combat worthwhile, I doubt anyone not already interested in PvP combat is going to do that. It’s a simple cost/benefit and risk/reward analysis. Especially if the 2.0 build meta continues to favor highly specialized ships.

Having an interdictor and some guns on a hauling ship will make the trick...

 

[Darkfyre99]

Having an interdictor and some guns on a hauling ship will make the trick...

Only if the other player is also flying a hauling ship.

A fight between an armed hauler and a specialized combat ship is going to result in a dead hauler, at which point it doesn't make any sense for a hauler to carry an interdictor or guns.

Which is why I hope the PowerPlay 2.0 meta is going revolve around multi-role ships, rather than specialized haulers and combat ships.

And even if the other player is also in a similar similar ship, there's the question is whether the reward for making the kill is worth risking what you're carrying and whether the reward is better than what you'd earn simply ignoring the other player and continue on with your PvE activities.

Not that I have any problem with players going out of their way to do PvP combat if they enjoy that kind of thing. But most players don't enjoy that kind of thing, even though they do choose Open despite the potential for PvP combat. So there's the fun-factor to consider as well.

It'll be interesting to see how Frontier will be able to balance all these factors, if their goal is to facilitate PvP combat.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

If the inclination was there, and the player base, every power could hold its own PvP arena championships, and there could be a yearly or 4 yearly galactic championship. The game play would make a superb opening for pilot recruitment, it would also likely solve much of the anti social behaviour in game too, especially when combined with power play. Those wayward trigger fingers could be swept up out of the system gutters and put to some, well, some more directed and channeled form of their innate domineering behaviour.

It's clear that the PvP side has been there from day one, with the games creator speaking passionately about the combat matches in which he partakes amongst the rocks, and also of how geography is so important to adding that extra something to space combat; There is no denying how important an aspect of the game it is.

And I'd argue that this isn't the case.

In other games I've played similar to this, players wouldn't have to rely on 3rd party tools for their coordination. I'd be able to simply jump into my Power's chat, say "I'm facing player opposition in system X!" In Elite Dangerous, I have to choose between numerous 3rd party communication platforms, and hope I get the right one... assuming I'm willing to jump through hoops to get access to them in the first place.

In other games, instancing is handled flawlessly by the game itself. In Elite Dangerous, players have to coordinate with friends lists, VPNs, and firewall settings to instance together, and even then it's not always effective, let alone flawless.

In other games, "Crime and Punishment" is handled differently for PvP and PvE activities. In Elite Dangerous, the game relies on the same C&P system that's used for PvE, with predictable results.

In other games, they designed things deliberately to facilitate the PvP and cooperative aspects of the game. In Elite Dangerous, it feels like a poorly designed, tacked on afterthought.

Inclination and player base alone aren’t enough to implement a solid design. Some choices are clearly compromises between resources and the broader vision. It’s obvious that peer-to-peer exists because dedicated servers would have been too costly to maintain, not because it was the ideal design choice. Similarly, a player driven economy would require an in depth study that likely falls outside Frontier’s available resources. Also this is the reason we have to rely on 3rd party tools. And yes, an ideally balanced, unified system for all players would be the perfect design solution, but these are practical limitations that affect the direction and scope of the game.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

A fight between an armed hauler and a specialized combat ship is going to result in a dead hauler, at which point it doesn't make any sense for a hauler to carry an interdictor or guns

A hauler has the option to safely high-wake if they aren't too greedy to run without shields, countermeasures, or engineering, especially when trading in Dangerous™ areas.

 

[Wily Rites]

Inclination and player base alone aren’t enough to implement a solid design. Some choices are clearly compromises between resources and the broader vision. It’s obvious that peer-to-peer exists because dedicated servers would have been too costly to maintain, not because it was the ideal design choice. Similarly, a player driven economy would require an in depth study that likely falls outside Frontier’s available resources. Also this is the reason we have to rely on 3rd party tools. And yes, an ideally balanced, unified system for all players would be the perfect design solution, but these are practical limitations that affect the direction and scope of the game.

I don't believe that was the reason for the networking design decisions made, the elegance and its brilliance of the design is a far more compelling reason for its existence. The intention was never to make the game entirely PvP, far from it, just that the combat model be good and fun should folk want to do that. To believe that the scope is limited, when you have a scale model of the galaxy to play in, is rather an amusing thought, to my mind anyhow.

The resource that the team have in abundance, is particularly creative solutions from very creative minds, solutions that permit things that would otherwise not be possible. Such as the scale model of the galaxy.

 

[Lu-v H8-2020]

For the sake of bgs and powerplay neutral stances I'm hoping that hauling, carto data etc for powerplay will simply be attached as turn in via the power play contact while wanting to do it for a pmf bgs wise will just use the ui as is for the turn ins

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

I don't believe that was the reason for the networking design decisions made,

Oh considering the list of the drawbacks poisoning any possible design, it is:

• Latency and connection issues:
  • In a P2P system, players must connect directly to each other, which can lead to latency problems if there are large geographic distances or unstable internet connections between peers. This results in lag or delays, especially noticeable in PvP combat.
• Inconsistency in synchronization:
  • In P2P games, keeping the game state synchronized between different peers is more complex. This can lead to issues like rubberbanding, where ships or objects jump back and forth, or inconsistencies in player actions (e.g., shots that hit or miss differently for players).
• Security and vulnerability to exploits:
  • In P2P systems, it is easier for malicious players to tamper with the data transmitted between peers, leading to various types of cheating. This includes modifying their position, speed, or other game variables without going through central servers that can validate this data.
• Disconnections and session stability:
  • If a peer hosts the session and experiences a disconnection or crash, the entire session can be disrupted.
• NAT compatibility issues:
  • In a P2P system, players need to connect directly to each other, but home network configurations (like strict NAT) can prevent these connections from happening properly. This leads to situations where some players cannot see or interact with others, fragmenting the game experience.
• Load on player resources:
  • In P2P, the player acting as the host or relay for a session must handle more network traffic than others, which can cause performance problems. Additionally, host peers may experience frame rate drops or slowdowns if their hardware or connection cannot handle the extra load.
• Limited scalability:
  • A P2P infrastructure is less suited to games with large numbers of players per session because each player must manage more traffic and synchronization. This can become unsustainable in large-scale battles or events with many participants, leading to instability.
• Lack of centralized control:
  • In a P2P network, there is no central server governing the behavior of all participants, making it difficult to enforce rules or intervene immediately to correct irregular behaviors or handle abusive situations.
• Matchmaking challenges:
  • The P2P system can create difficulties with matchmaking, as the game must try to connect players based on their network proximity, potentially limiting encounters with other players in certain regions.
• Uneven player experience:
  • Since P2P connections rely on the quality of individual players' networks, the gaming experience can vary drastically between players. A peer with a faster or lower-latency connection will have a better gaming experience than others, creating fairness imbalances.

The intention was never to make the game entirely PvP, far from it, just that the combat model be good and fun should folk want to do that. To believe that the scope is limited, when you have a scale model of the galaxy to play in, is rather an amusing thought, to my mind anyhow.

I never claimed the goal was to create a dedicated PvP arena; I simply pointed out that PvP exists, but like many other player interactions, it involves compromises when it comes to managing resources.

The resource that the team have in abundance,

Having creative solutions doesn't necessarily mean being able to implement them. Even with innovative ideas, there are technical and practical limitations that can't be overcome. For example, certain solutions for ensuring security and quality in multiplayer interactions, like data prediction or reliable networking without servers, aren't feasible without the proper infrastructure. So, while the team may have brilliant ideas, actually implementing them depends on the available technical resources and the constraints of the platform.

 

[Wily Rites]

Oh considering the list of the drawbacks poisoning any possible design, it is:

• Latency and connection issues:
  • In a P2P system, players must connect directly to each other, which can lead to latency problems if there are large geographic distances or unstable internet connections between peers. This results in lag or delays, especially noticeable in PvP combat.
• Inconsistency in synchronization:
  • In P2P games, keeping the game state synchronized between different peers is more complex. This can lead to issues like rubberbanding, where ships or objects jump back and forth, or inconsistencies in player actions (e.g., shots that hit or miss differently for players).
• Security and vulnerability to exploits:
  • In P2P systems, it is easier for malicious players to tamper with the data transmitted between peers, leading to various types of cheating. This includes modifying their position, speed, or other game variables without going through central servers that can validate this data.
• Disconnections and session stability:
  • If a peer hosts the session and experiences a disconnection or crash, the entire session can be disrupted.
• NAT compatibility issues:
  • In a P2P system, players need to connect directly to each other, but home network configurations (like strict NAT) can prevent these connections from happening properly. This leads to situations where some players cannot see or interact with others, fragmenting the game experience.
• Load on player resources:
  • In P2P, the player acting as the host or relay for a session must handle more network traffic than others, which can cause performance problems. Additionally, host peers may experience frame rate drops or slowdowns if their hardware or connection cannot handle the extra load.
• Limited scalability:
  • A P2P infrastructure is less suited to games with large numbers of players per session because each player must manage more traffic and synchronization. This can become unsustainable in large-scale battles or events with many participants, leading to instability.
• Lack of centralized control:
  • In a P2P network, there is no central server governing the behavior of all participants, making it difficult to enforce rules or intervene immediately to correct irregular behaviors or handle abusive situations.
• Matchmaking challenges:
  • The P2P system can create difficulties with matchmaking, as the game must try to connect players based on their network proximity, potentially limiting encounters with other players in certain regions.
• Uneven player experience:
  • Since P2P connections rely on the quality of individual players' networks, the gaming experience can vary drastically between players. A peer with a faster or lower-latency connection will have a better gaming experience than others, creating fairness imbalances.

I never claimed the goal was to create a dedicated PvP arena; I simply pointed out that PvP exists, but like many other player interactions, it involves compromises when it comes to managing resources.

Having creative solutions doesn't necessarily mean being able to implement them. Even with innovative ideas, there are technical and practical limitations that can't be overcome. For example, certain solutions for ensuring security and quality in multiplayer interactions, like data prediction or reliable networking without servers, aren't feasible without the proper infrastructure. So, while the team may have brilliant ideas, actually implementing them depends on the available technical resources and the constraints of the platform.

You've made a really nice list all about PvP, as I mentioned, the game is not PvP oriented, never has been and to boot, I just agreed with you that PvP is important aspect of the game and always has been from day one.

When I play the game, I feel like they have succeeded, which I why I stated such. You are of corse entitled to your own opinion, but there is little point in trying to argue with me about my opinion, it is formed from my own empirical experience of the game, and I've my doubts as to whether your interpretation of your own experience is going to sway mine. Like I said, I feel that they have succeeded in implementing this server model in a way that demonstrates that it is very much feasible for a fantastic multiplayer experience.

Opinions may differ, there is no reason that we must agree.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

From another point of view, if I’m not working for my Power, then I’m obligated to avoid getting killed by hostile Powers, not stop working for myself and start working for my Power. Doubly so if I’m playing simply for the sheer joy of flying, and thus am not armed.

For sure. It was more a discussion about what in theory should be done given the nature of PP2 as we understand it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't believe that was the reason for the networking design decisions made, the elegance and its brilliance of the design is a far more compelling reason for its existence. The intention was never to make the game entirely PvP, far from it, just that the combat model be good and fun should folk want to do that. To believe that the scope is limited, when you have a scale model of the galaxy to play in, is rather an amusing thought, to my mind anyhow.

The resource that the team have in abundance, is particularly creative solutions from very creative minds, solutions that permit things that would otherwise not be possible. Such as the scale model of the galaxy.

I largely agree with Jack Burton here. If they had gone with a C/S architecture ED would have either been dead by now or converted to a single player game or be fully P2W to keep the lights on.

Another factor was probably that around that time P2P was a big darling of the tech industry. A few games were trying it out and it was also finding some use in non-gaming apps as well. I'm sure a techbro was at least somewhat influential in steering FD towards the P2P model.

 

[Jockey79]

As mentioned several times, turn it into an unkillable (by the AI) AFK turretboat.

Been there, done that. Got bored with it in about 10 minutes.

Elite Dangerous is most certainly is not an offline game at its core. There are still a lot of folk who post here that are at the least disappointed about this fact, and at the far end of the spectrum very bitter about this.

Bitter is an understatement

But Frontier took their money in good faith, then cast it aside to shoehorn the MMO tag into the game to attract more players.
So I fully understand why they are the way that they are. And I don't want to see a repeat of it with the mode system, to appease the smallest demographic, PvPers

I’d argue that the popularity of this game is partly thanks to the dedicated community members who have created and maintain those third-party tools. That said, I was referring to more fundamental features. For example, the ability to instance together and engage in PvP combat, even if instancing isn't flawless. There's also the crime and punishment system, which, while not perfect, is specifically designed for Open Play interactions. PvE content, like the Thargoid encounters, offers escalating difficulty, especially in coordinated wing battles.

C&P isn't "specifically designed for Open Play interactions" at all. It's because of humans trying to exploit it (earning bounties vs AI and having friends collect it while you're in a Sidewinder), that they had to rework it to try and compensate for that behaviour. So if anything, it was designed without human players in mind and FD had to scramble to add countermeasures for people cheating.

You can go and play a "pirate" in Solo Mode and easily gain bounties and notoriety. And have AI ships try to collect it.
No other human is needed for the C&P system to work.

 

[Wily Rites]

I largely agree with Jack Burton here. If they had gone with a C/S architecture ED would have either been dead by now or converted to a single player game or be fully P2W to keep the lights on.

Another factor was probably that around that time P2P was a big darling of the tech industry. A few games were trying it out and it was also finding some use in non-gaming apps as well. I'm sure a techbro was at least somewhat influential in steering FD towards the P2P model.

The model is naturally geared towards a system that is procedurally generated, I see no reason more influential than this, nor more elegant.

Addendum: I'd also argue that focusing on the peer to peer nature of the model is misleading, hardly any data is shared precisely because it is procedurally generated. Where as P2P is all about sharing large quantities of data by chunking it.

The actor model is a far better description of the structure, which is in my opinion, where work would need to be focused to improve many aspects of the play. More so than by centralising things.

 

[anShpan]

At least three users after my post pointed out that Solo is just a private group with one player... no need for any salt

And Open is just Private Group with unrestricted access.

 

[Wily Rites]

And Open is just Private Group with unrestricted access.

Hey are we moving into set theory now?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

When I play the game, I feel like they have succeeded, which I why I stated such. You are of corse entitled to your own opinion, but there is little point in trying to argue with me about my opinion, it is formed from my own empirical experience of the game, and I've my doubts as to whether your interpretation of your own experience is going to sway mine. Like I said, I feel that they have succeeded in implementing this server model in a way that demonstrates that it is very much feasible for a fantastic multiplayer experience.

Opinions may differ, there is no reason that we must agree.

My concerns were focused on how design is constrained by development side resources, not from the player's perspective. I don't expect the average player to fully grasp the advantages and disadvantages of different multiplayer networking models (and this isn't limited to just PvP) and I don't pretend everyone to be satisfied/unsatisfied of the current status in the same way.

 

[Wily Rites]

My concerns were focused on how design is constrained by development side resources, not from the player's perspective. I don't expect the average player to fully grasp the advantages and disadvantages of different multiplayer networking models (and this isn't limited to just PvP) and I don't pretend everyone to be satisfied/unsatisfied of the current status in the same way.

Did you read my comment just above as to why P2P is not really that relevant here?

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Did you read my comment just above as to why P2P is not really that relevant here?

In the end, when combined with other missing features, the P2P model does matter because it contributes to concerns like "this feature isn't included by design" or "that won't work because instancing isn't guaranteed." Sometimes, the feature is absent not due to design choices, but because the optimal way to balance it is restricted by a lack of resources.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Been there, done that. Got bored with it in about 10 minutes.



Bitter is an understatement

But Frontier took their money in good faith, then cast it aside to shoehorn the MMO tag into the game to attract more players.
So I fully understand why they are the way that they are. And I don't want to see a repeat of it with the mode system, to appease the smallest demographic, PvPers

Likewise, its a primary part of the reason I turned my back on PP1.0 after the first six months.

As to the 'offline mode', I think i better make it clear, As someone who goes for internet sometimes for months at a time, at the time I was very disappointed that offline mode got canned.

 

[enonymous]

A hauler has the option to safely high-wake if they aren't too greedy to run without shields, countermeasures, or engineering, especially when trading in Dangerous™ areas.

...and this takes us back to the stupid design of the interaction.

You're asking players to make their ship worse for the task they want to spend time doing and opt in to give others the ability to force you into an interaction. Every possible outcome of the interaction is worse than not having the interaction.

"safely high-wake" means you're further from your destination and it will take longer to achieve your objective. You're being punished for winning the interaction.