The Wings discussion thread

[EdzUp]

Tbh having wings will allow traders to have friends along for the ride as a safety net, all we need now is credit transfer between wing members so the trader can sell loads of goods and share the spoils.

Having four players will allow us all to hang out in space but if ya want more than four couldn't you just have two wings or more?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I'll tell you why player transactions aren't in the game shall I?

Because at some stage FDev are going to sell credits in the store, and they don't want any Chinese gold farmers stealing their profits. It's been mentioned by them a few times; that they will possibly sell IGC... so don't build your hopes up on having a decent player transaction system.

They had better not. If they did that then it would completely destroy the game economy and go against everything they have based the game off of up to now.

 

[Anopheles]

I'm glad you feel a little restricted by this; depending on my play style I could be too, (not likely). The limit was implimented so that an individual 'wing' could not take over a star system.

Taking over a star system wouldn't be possible with a 1000 person wing, for reasons I've mentioned several times.

 

[Sanderson]

Nice assumptions there mate... I guess it's a YMMV situation and an experience one also - That is, I know for certain in a number of systems I've personally come across more than 4 and certain above 8 players in an area. Heck, even in Alpha we tested situations that pushed it above maximum - yes it strained at the time yeah - there were definite bugs we were trying to highlight at the time as well. But it did show the P2P can do more and at that point in time needed some tweaking to make it smoother in operation.

I've played since the first Premium Beta in May and rarely have I seen more than 4-8 people in any instance. I reckon I have 400 or so hours (maybe more) in ED so far so, ya, my milage and experience has been different than yours. Based on my experience and many others, it would appear hardly anyone has more than just a few cmdrs in an instance and 8 or more is certainly rare. Also, for me and many others, the reliability of connections in the rare cases more than 4 players are in any single instance, are less than stable and reliable. So, while you've obviously had great luck, I don't the majority of us have. Could be wrong but, based on my experience and the hundreds if not thousands of posts I've read, I'd say your the exception rather than the norm.

I always welcome real data to prove me wrong but, until you have that I'd say we are both making assumptions wouldn't you?

 

[Kiblams]

I don't mind how they do it, but there needs to be a way to hire other players services for protection etc in game.

Without that feature there simply is no way for the community to create 'content' in the game (aforementioned in this post) and it will either remain boring or be a huge burden on the devs resources. And if either of those happen; it will likely fail to exist.

I really think its about time that the decs gave us the players the reigns on making the game community enjoyable, so they can concentrate on adding features and fixing bugs rather than content (like the community goals nonsense)

 

[Herik]

I can agree with you that if they had nice big servers running large shards if the game then the multiplayer aspects may support the large groups you envisage. But on a gameplay front, what are you going to do with those enormous groups right now. To me it becomes a pvp enabler and not a lot else right now. That's a problem because it may result in OpenPlay being very unplayable unless you have a big group. If they add content for big groups to promote pve then that content becomes u reachable for the lone pilot.... This isnt the design vision on which the kickstarted was funded or the game built.

There is another problem more down to earth as well. Funding. If they have to support big server farms then they have to fund them. This means subscription fees which is an adamant "no" from the community from some of the threads I've read or some form if micro transaction based mechanic = pay to win = adamant no from FD and the community!!!

To me these are the reasons we are where we are. Flawed design, Im not sure. A design compromise.. Maybe, but that's the world we live in

THIS; agree good points.

 

[Flavourless]

Any form of in game credit transfer would result in real money exchanges. There are too many players that want to go direct to an Anaconda without actually playing the game. No go.

 

[Herik]

It wouldn't... that's the point, that's why they did it. FD have been saying since day one it's not a primarily PvP game, it's about one man and his ship. It's not about large groups of players taking over huge areas and dominating them, it must be playable by a single player on his own. Then every time they implement a mechanism to that end (or fail to implement a mechanism that changes it) the same people start making the same complaints that "FD are ruining a game with bad decisions that limit multiplay." No... they are staying true to what they said they'd do, and a certain group of people are constantly disappointed that they haven't managed to bully FD into changing their direction.

Of course...+1

 

[BlackReign]

I have more than three friends! Will Wings later be expanded to allow more than four players? Or Meta-wings (squadrons?) of coordinated Wings? And what is this weird obsession with the magic number four in multiplayer games anyway? I can understand the need for limits for technical reasons, but surely something like eight or sixteen would be achievable?

I like the direction Elite is going with this, but I do feel a bit restricted by a four-player limit.

To prevent a squad from dominating an area. Pretty easy and obvious answer. I agree with this limit.

 

[Herik]

You could also coordinate your two wings to dominate an instance.

But I'm almost sure you'd have major 'rubberbanding'; therefor unplayable...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I think Robert probably has the truth of it. I'd guess, on average, there's rarely more than 8 people in an instance and FD simply split the potential power base 50-50. Otherwise, the cries of ganking and griefing would reach galactic proportions, even though, IMO, the gank/grief fear is greatly exaggerated.

Nope; not over exaggerated at all.

 

[Commander Silex]

They had better not. If they did that then it would completely destroy the game economy and go against everything they have based the game off of up to now.

Pretty sure it was decided against during development. They were considering it, but the resistance to it convinced them to change their minds.

 

[Herik]

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.

Yeah wonderful job going forward, were going to love this; many just don't realize it yet.

 

[Herik]

While the instance size (and 32 is ludicrously small, but that's the fault of the ludicrous decision to go p2p for player interaction, but that's another story) is probably the legitimate reason for the decision, the idea that anyone (up to a 1000 players) could dominate a system is bogus for reasons explained elsewhere.

This isn't a simulation. This is a simulation in a straightjacket.

Yeah P2P was probably a good decision...

 

[Sanderson]

But I'm almost sure you'd have major 'rubberbanding'; therefor unplayable...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Nope; not over exaggerated at all.

Really?.......

 

[Auditore]

Without credit transfers I don't see any meaningful emergent co-op gameplay between players happening. At least not the kind I would expect, like escort missions that could potentially lure more solo traders to open play and at the same time allow for actual emergent mercenary jobs for example.

 

[Herik]

The mob mentality is a human trait and it exists in every single MMO or online game where it is allowed to exist. In a "play to crush" environment it becomes even worse because the winning side will single handedly run all of the losing player guilds out of the game. When the dominant winning faction has nobody left to fight they will get bored and leave the game too, leaving you with a very small and often inactive player base. I have seen it with so many games over the years (1996 Ultima Online prior to rep patch, Shadowbane, SWG Pre-cu, Asherons Call, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Darkfall, etc) and I'am a hardcore PvP player who wishes that this game succeeds where the others have failed. Please don't make false promises that you cannot keep as all of those other titles did.
----
----
Keep solo players involved in PvP, allow the skilled ones to take out wings on their own and you will have a best seller on your hands. Give in to the mob mentality and you will have the same failed concept that every other game has.

Good! thank-you Cathalo.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I`m a little bit disappointed about the max number of the players in Wing. I understand that in 32 instance it make sense, but it could be at least 6 or 8.

Hey; and this might change. As long as it maintains DB's design.

 

[Ydiss]

If you have a group of more than 4 players, just split into more wings. This game has been designed always with the vision that large groups wouldn't be a factor. 4 is a good number to shape coop content around. Any bigger and it'd fundamentally change the game's vision.

In a nutshell. The answer is "because that's what the devs want".

 

[Anopheles]

To prevent a squad from dominating an area. Pretty easy and obvious answer. I agree with this limit.

You can't dominate a system with a 1000 player wing. Bogus argument is bogus.

 

[Herik]

That's completely wrong on all counts. David said many many times he hoped people would play together to shape the galaxy (and more) and large scale multiplayer functions was always the idea, certainly not to be "the seminal space trading video game". Wherever did you get ED was designed from the start as "the seminal space trading video game"? I realize that's essentially what it is today but, it was never intended to be "the seminal space trading video game". Trading was but a fraction of the "dangerous" galaxy David described in his "vision" speeches and I can direct you to quite a few of his "vision" talks where he directly contradicts your claims in your statement.

That was the primary reason for cutting offline because people would miss the rich, dynamic, ever unfolding multiplayer experience FD was supposed to create.

No (in my opinion); the primary reason for cutting offline (regardless everything said), was FD bit off more than they could chew, in the time/man power restraints they knew they had.

 

[Tinman]

You can't dominate a system with a 1000 player wing. Bogus argument is bogus.

You keep using the word "system" while many others talk about "areas" and "instances".

On a meta level it is true that you can't dominate a physical system, but you CAN dominate "areas" and "instances" from the perspective of the people there which is what matters in moment to moment gameplay.