The Wings discussion thread

[Hadron-Higgs-Boson]

slightly off topic, but one assumes that the limited instancing is down to the mixed bag of frogs that is 'everyones' PC's and networking connections, very hard to determine the actual capabilities of them for a gaming session and impossible to manage - so P2P is, without doubt, the root cause of all evil when it comes to multiplayer. It does mean no one has to pay for a lot of gaming servers though.

Anyway, FD could look to the future of this and think about a 'headless' client that could run in, say, Amazon's cloud.

This would be FD preconfigured 'client' servers that you could buy by the hour (like an AWS service), they would be big enough to allow for much greater instance sizes and as they in effect create the 'big single central server' model but do it by just utilising a slightly modified client game, the development between here and there may actually not be too big.

Im not sure of the 'client' constraints, 32bit is one but I suspect (I hope) FD have written it as a 64bit client and it would be easy to switch, it would still be windows based and single server (as opposed to being able run pver multiple servers ina cluster), but that still means memory, number of cores and connection quality can be vastly bigger and in theory (maybe AWS is a bad example service) more reliable.

just a thought

 

[Sandmann]

ofc ppl want to dominate a system, after all its a sandbox game, or so they claim to say, why not then let the gamers have ther way and have ther fun.

Because that's not the game they want to make, and it's not the game a lot of us want to buy.

 

[ianw]

I'd like to know just how much space an instance can cover. Using your Yembo example... did it only cover the area around the station, or were the nearby planet etc in the same instance? I'd assume that as soon as you enter/exit supercuise/hyperspace you change instances, but if that's the case you're in the same instance all the way from the sun to the destination which is a LOT of space. If the instances are larger than we commonly imagine it'd go a long way to explaining why we see much fewer than 32 players in even popular areas.

Regardless of that, as ianw points out the PERTINENT number is how many other players you're liable to have in the area at the same time. Just because you can theoretically have another 28 players with your 4 player wing, chances are you are gonna see a lot less than that at any one time (many of whom are gonna run as soon as they see a wing descend upon them anyway).

I think the instance size probably doesn't match scanner range - I seem to remember a dev saying the most players they'd recorded in an instance was about 19. Can't recall who or exactly when.

I imagine even that would have players rubber banding all over the place.

I reckon 32 is a pipe dream at the moment - I'd say people need to adjust their expectations..

 

[Zieman]

rant

Sorry, but you just don't get the idea of Elite at all. Players are not the center of everything and Galaxy-saving heroes, nope. Players are just pebbles on the beach, all this talk of dominating systems etc is just pointless, that stuff belong to other games.

 

[[LG] Khan]

slightly off topic, but one assumes that the limited instancing is down to the mixed bag of frogs that is 'everyones' PC's and networking connections, very hard to determine the actual capabilities of them for a gaming session and impossible to manage - so P2P is, without doubt, the root cause of all evil when it comes to multiplayer. It does mean no one has to pay for a lot of gaming servers though.

Anyway, FD could look to the future of this and think about a 'headless' client that coudl run in, say, Amazon's cloud. This would be FD preconfigured 'client' servers that you could buy by the hour (like an AWS service), they would be big enough to allow for much greater instance sizes and as they in effect create the 'big single central server' modle but do it by just utilising a slightly modified client game, the development between here and there may actually not be too big. Im not sure of the 'client' constraints, 32bit is one but I suspect (I hope) FD have written it as a 64bit client and it woudl be easy to switch, it woudl still be windows based anmd single server, but that still means memory, number of cores and connection quality can be vastly bigger and (in theory, maybe AWS is a bad example service) more reliable.

just a thought

why not send this idea as a ticket in case FD don't see this post.( i don't really understand what you're saying but the headless client system in arma3 improves AI and server performance) it doesn't look like FD believe it was a mistake to go with p2p so it looks like we're stuck with it. anything that could improve it would be welcome

 

[Alien]

I play in solo mode a lot, and must say, not looking forward to wings, as I won't have a wing, but the NPC's will. I'm not looking forward to getting interdicted by 4 NPC's. I hope this isn't the case for those of us in solo mode.

How hard can it be to restrict the NPC's to only interdict the same number of ships? ie:
only one NPC can interdict a ship on it's own,
up to 2 NPC's can interdict a wing of two ships,
up to three NPC's can interdict a wing of three,
and up to four NPC's can interdict a wing of four.

 

[Captain N]

Did the NPC's not attack in groups in the old games?

 

[Rubbernuke]

For solo players 1.2 is going to make trading in Lakons more difficult, but for me at least it will up the challenge as right now my Asp is pretty safe almost all of the time, I want to sweat with fear!

 

[Sandmann]

I think the instance size probably doesn't match scanner range - I seem to remember a dev saying the most players they'd recorded in an instance was about 19. Can't recall who or exactly when.

Now that you mention it I seem to recall hearing similar - it would make sense.

I imagine even that would have players rubber banding all over the place.

I reckon 32 is a pipe dream at the moment - I'd say people need to adjust their expectations..

Yah... a theoretical maximum at best.

Either way, it's an easy thing to increase the size of wings if it proves to be sustainable, but it'd generate a lot more complaints to reduce it if they introduce it at too big a size. I think people forget that these numbers are starting points and not written in stone.

 

[jgm]

I play in solo mode a lot, and must say, not looking forward to wings, as I won't have a wing, but the NPC's will. I'm not looking forward to getting interdicted by 4 NPC's. I hope this isn't the case for those of us in solo mode.

How hard can it be to restrict the NPC's to only interdict the same number of ships? ie:
only one NPC can interdict a ship on it's own,
up to 2 NPC's can interdict a wing of two ships,
up to three NPC's can interdict a wing of three,
and up to four NPC's can interdict a wing of four.

It's not about hard, it's about how FD want the game to work. You could ask the same thing as to why I can be interdicted by a Python when I'm in a Sidewinder, or why I can be interdicted by a Dangerous NPC when I'm Mostly Harmless.

 

[Hadron-Higgs-Boson]

I missed the 'NPCs will travel in Wings too' from FD, does anyone have the link?

I think it would have to be seen in testing, no reason to think four cross eyed half hull NPC's will be any harder than one but certainly the opportunity is there for it to hopelessly unbalance things in if its done badly and not tested fully. I feel that right now so little is actually know about Wings that its almost pointless, the full scope of it has not been confirmed and there is nothing but bits of information. Maybe FD wil communcate its actual design goals and scope for all of us, I would assume they wil have to for beta testers (under NDA perhaps) or they can not possibly test it.

 

[Captain N]

I missed the 'NPCs will travel in Wings too' from FD, does anyone have the link?

I think it would have to be seen in testing, no reason to think four cross eyed half hull NPC's will be any harder than one but certainly the opportunity is there for it to hopelessly unbalance things in if its done badly and not tested fully. I feel that right now so little is actually know about Wings that its almost pointless, the full scope of it has not been confirmed and there is nothing but bits of information. Maybe FD wil communcate its actual design goals and scope for all of us, I would assume they wil have to for beta testers (under NDA perhaps) or they can not possibly test it.

There was actually a point during Alpha when NPC interdictions could have more ships than 1. This was removed when they added the ability to see other ships in supercruise (possibly because it couldn't support multiple ships flying in formation).

It certainly made surviving more of a challenge, but not impossible. Was more fun and felt more like Elite, IMO.

 

[QziQza]

I just don't see how a wing can keep its integrity if the members all have differing lives - will they only be able to play when they are all available? It's fine for school kids who all have much the same windows of availability to play but for grown-ups with other responsibilities to find four people who are going to be available at the same time will be almost impossible.

2 possible ways around this, 1) NPC wingmen. 2) Ad hoc groups formed to play together for a little while and then go their separate ways. Neither of which seem in the spirit of the game.

regarding a regular wing group, i used to play wow, and a few other raid style games.. we always managed to get the odd night every week where we could all get on together, but then comms where a little more global so maybe not the best example. I guess the closest thing to that would be joining a large group like Mobius, they always have players online, so there should be a steady pool of wingmen available. Bottom line though, i think they really need to work on a comms system specifically to allow for wingman pick up groups, it would need to allow players to select mission type, profession and distance willing to travel.

 

[HectorW]

Actually the opposite is true. Modern airforces have systems on fighters to exchange information between computers. For instance sharing targeting information, they also network up to other assets such as AWACS, ships etc.

There is also nothing stopping groups of wings forming on teamspeak and coordinating that way.

Lastly groups of four are easier to coordinate and defend, Luftwaffe fighter schwarmes were this size and highly successful.

Exchange information between computers not health bars. Otherwise you're right.

But please stop spreading myths.
Luftwaffe was successful only when engaging weaker, unprepared opponent or defenceless targets. They could fly in 3 or 5 plane teams and it wouldn't matter, you can shoot refugees on roads even solo. When they met prepared opponent - they were nothing. Nothing glorious, nothing to be proud of.

 

[Inodoro Pereyra]

That's the main point!
More than 4 coordinated player will obliterate ANY ship in the game no mater the rigging of that lone ship!
Just a 4 player wing with lousy Vipers is barely survivable for a kitted Anaconda...
Everybody scream balance, but they deliberately want the opposite.
Frontier balanced the big ships to let one small ship be able to take them. Now what? 4 small will take anything. So im not against "dangerous", but must be "survivable" too; and appears not.
So unless you play in the suburbs of the galaxy, there will be no life outside a wing (to hunt, trade or pirate or whatever)

 

[Anopheles]

While 4 is clearly not enough and is caused by the stupid, self limiting, decision to link multiplayer by P2P, it will cause some player interaction where needed. Want to travel through that anarchy system in Open with a cargo hold full of Rares? Well, don't unless you have back up.

 

[Flavourless]

Did the NPC's not attack in groups in the old games?

Yes. But they were groups of weaker ships than your own which made for good gameplay.
In ED you will soon be attacked by ships which not only outnumber you but are also more powerful too. Its not an ideal concept.

 

[Sanderson]

Well one thing is for sure, unless FD ever states whether or not more than 4 players in a wing at one time would even work reliably, we won't know if it was ever even an option. IMO, I foresee all kinds of "I can't see my wingmen" type threads in the future and seriously doubt more than 4 was a real option solely on a performance level.

Who knows, maybe 16 was working great and they just decided on 4 but, I don't for a second buy the blockade, player dominating systems as an excuse because FD themselves have used the instances/solo argument in the past for reasons why doing what they say they are trying to prevent wasn't possible.

 

[Sandmann]

Exchange information between computers not health bars. Otherwise you're right.

But please stop spreading myths.
Luftwaffe was successful only when engaging weaker, unprepared opponent or defenceless targets. They could fly in 3 or 5 plane teams and it wouldn't matter, you can shoot refugees on roads even solo. When they met prepared opponent - they were nothing. Nothing glorious, nothing to be proud of.

Actually the thing that really defeated the Luftwaffe was British radar.

 

[Captain N]

If you get into a fight you can't win, what do you then? That's right, you run.

I don't see what's not "ideal" about that - and the old games had ships that were more powerful than you, too.