General Remove private Lobby and single Player

DemiserofD

D
All this discussion is irrelevant anyway. You can't force players to instance together with an instancing structure built around p2p connections, and you legally can't change the structure to a server based model after selling the game, because that would require subscription fees on something players have already purchased.

I honestly don't get why people bother with this argument when one side's opinion, no matter how well argued, is always going to be technologically impossible.
 

marinetownmick

marinetownmick
T200 said:
you don't get to say "I'm not it" if part of being in the playground includes you potentially being it (or being grabbed by everyone else and pushed down the slide as they shout "sacrifice! sacrifice! sacrifice!")
Click to expand...
What if I’m in the playground but I’m not playing “it”? I’m playing football for example! Your saying if I’m in the same playground as you I’ve got to do what you want 🤣
 

Ettanin

E
DemiserofD said:
All this discussion is irrelevant anyway. You can't force players to instance together with an instancing structure built around p2p connections, and you legally can't change the structure to a server based model after selling the game, because that would require subscription fees on something players have already purchased.

I honestly don't get why people bother with this argument when one side's opinion, no matter how well argued, is always going to be technologically impossible.
Click to expand...
A client-server model does not necessitate subscription fees. See Guild Wars 1 and 2.
Elite Dangerous is already backed by a large data warehouse. There's no other way to implement the Background Simulation and exploration entries in such a scale. If costs were the problem, the game would have already been subscription based now.

While the change from peer-to-peer to client-server would only be a minimal change in this infrastructure, it would have a large negative impact (high latency) on the playability for players in more remote regions.

Still, I disagree with the removal of Solo and Private Groups. As the game is forced PvP in Open and it doesn't have restricted safe(ish) areas the same as in Eve (besides the starter microbubble), it would become a merciless gankfest and successively cull players.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
varonica said:
You mean the playground you are trying to force everybody to play in when that's not the playground they want to be in. Sort of like forcing all the sandcastle makers into the dodgeball court then saying, "well if you don't want to play dodgeball you shouldn't be in the dodgeball court!
Click to expand...
Some players don't accept that we don't all have to play in the same play-ground to affect gameplay.

Suggestions of "private servers", especially when the game in such private servers would be able to be modded (meaning that they could not affect the shared galaxy 'cos cheating) are often a precursor to other suggestions, e.g. "and after the private servers have been implemented 'we' don't need Solo and Private Groups".
 

Ettanin

E
DemiserofD said:
Guild Wars actually absolutely does have subscription fees. They're just disguised behind the Cash Shop, offering everything from XP boosts to extra inventory spaces.

I trust I don't need to explain why Elite shouldn't be made pay to win. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
In that case, the sub costs of ED are hidden behind the (former) cost of Horizons, the cost of Odyssey and the sale of skins.

ED doesn’t need to become pay to win to use client-server. It is already pay-to-skin.

If the sale of skins wasn't profitable enough, ED would have become pay to win already.
 
Last edited:

DemiserofD

D
Ettanin said:
In that case, the sub costs of ED are hidden behind the (former) cost of Horizons, the cost of Odyssey and the sale of skins.

ED doesn’t need to become pay to win to use client-server. It is already pay-to-skin.
Click to expand...

There's a MASSIVE difference between selling skins(which both do), and selling gameplay-altering consumables(which only GW2 does). I really didn't think I needed to explain this. The most massive difference is the fact that consumables must be re-purchased an indefinite number of times - in other words, a subscription. Someone who buys those things has a perpetual advantage over someone who does not.

As for expansion packs; lol. That's not how that works, my friend. At least, not unless you want the cost of them to increase substantially to pay for server costs in addition to the development costs. At which point, it becomes...wait for it...subscription fees!

One way or another, the cost ALWAYS comes due. It's bizarre that you're trying to argue that they should somehow magically be free, in complete defiance of every known fact of economics.
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
DemiserofD said:
All this discussion is irrelevant anyway. You can't force players to instance together with an instancing structure built around p2p connections, and you legally can't change the structure to a server based model after selling the game, because that would require subscription fees on something players have already purchased.

I honestly don't get why people bother with this argument when one side's opinion, no matter how well argued, is always going to be technologically impossible.
Click to expand...
From a PP context it comes down to making this more common:


Rather than seeing 2015 level NPCs and letting min/max be the default.

More generally PvP and Open should (and is) not for everyone. What does need to happen is to make more of what is possible. The other is crafting content that requires better skills for players to progress onto.

FD have the balance right in the BGS / PMF side, but they need to either get very creative with PP PvE or let Open (with its flaws) take some of that burden but do it in a better way than now.
 

Lord Rak

L
Robert Maynard said:
Some players don't accept that we don't all have to play in the same play-ground to affect gameplay.

Suggestions of "private servers", especially when the game in such private servers would be able to be modded (meaning that they could not affect the shared galaxy 'cos cheating) are often a precursor to other suggestions, e.g. "and after the private servers have been implemented 'we' don't need Solo and Private Groups".
Click to expand...
I guess PvPer want that change so it should be PvPer playing is special server. Server for PvPers only.
 

Ettanin

E
DemiserofD said:
One way or another, the cost ALWAYS comes due.
Click to expand...
ED uses Amazon AWS. It doesn't matter whether the AWS node matchmakes players or relays data between them acting as a host.

Hosting a data warehouse in the cloud is actually more costly than hosting a farm of on-demand available game servers.
 

DemiserofD

D
Ettanin said:
ED uses Amazon AWS. It doesn't matter whether the AWS node matchmakes players or relays data between them acting as a host.

Hosting a data warehouse in the cloud is actually more costly than hosting a farm of on-demand available game servers.
Click to expand...

Lol, no, it isn't. There's a whole video on youtube explaining their network infrastructure, I suggest you give it a watch.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Rubbernuke said:
And thats fine, what is needed is a place for structured PvP though within ED as a whole, which it almost has. As long as everyone is catered for I can't see an issue.
Click to expand...
Structured but not dominant, as well as not being vulnerable to collusion / exploitation. As everyone needs to be catered to, given that we all bought the same game on the same terms, not just those who prefer PvP.
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
Robert Maynard said:
Structured but not dominant, as well as not being vulnerable to collusion / exploitation. As everyone needs to be catered to, given that we all bought the same game on the same terms, not just those who prefer PvP.
Click to expand...
And again I think thats right- although the further features stray from the core of the game the more radical the feature needs to get really.
 

Lord Rak

L
Alaska Sædelære said:
Since this is already proven a lost prospect (somewhere above in this thread), and the company's economists know better than pvpers who can't see beyond their own nose, we are pretty safe. It is them who need to blend in, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
I know, I'm just making a point. They wouldn't like this idea but it is exactly what they want to do to Solo and PG players.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom