Universe Wide Chat... Why Is It Not A Thing?

[Robert Maynard]

It won't ever be the case...

Anyway if should be made it has obviously to be made in a proper way... With channels, everybody won't be in the same "room".

That's rather a definitive prediction....

Ok, so now it's not global chat, it's channels - it still would not take too many to be participating in a conversation for it to scroll off the top of the screen faster than it can be read....

 

[Oman MkII]

Hmmm, I like the idea.

You're right about the awkward "emptiness" of Elite - but at the same time it's trying to be real, so instant communication to the other side of the galaxy is absurd. It's an MMO, but it's problem is that it's massive, I rarely see NPCs anywhere unless I'm chasing them. I get that some people like the reality of the silence, but I find it way too empty. There needs to be something, like people have said it's a crazy amount of people to do a universe-wide chat, but maybe a 20Ly range? That way you can talk to people that are near you without entirely ruining the authenticity or overloading the chats.

I want something like that. None of my friends like space sims, and it's awful quiet out there. Can't even turn on the radio.

 

[OamodSias]

That's okay... your sense of immersion is yours and yours only. Hopefully, you can accept the fact that other people may have slightly different definition. So when you talk about it, try to understand that some of us find lack of communication tools in one multiplayer game not only awkward, but also immersion-breaking.

See my previous post about the ED MP aspect and think that's where the general conflict between the views comes in.

I do understand that, and I accept it - however, I don't want an instant communication chat that (in almost every single game) ultimately serves no function other than to create spam, arguments, petty insults and immaturity; I've rarely seen a game with a chat system used for much else. This is ultimately my biggest fear (immersion damage and lore violation notwithstanding).
( If people would RP using the chat feature, that would be ideal - but will likely never happen, obviously. )

I'd actually be okay with a chat system that uses delayed messaging based on distances from stations. That would, at least, bring my level of immersion up. Of course, it would likely be shattered by things like "lel, jst pwnd a noob in LHS3447 roflbiscuitmonkey" - I've seen it in more than enough games to know that it will eventually resort to that.

Another option which isn't bad but would need to be worked out properly, is a Comms section on a station menu; so the only time you can have a type of galaxy chat is from a station.

For me, it boils down to: Fear that ED will become just another game with people spamming chat, some kind of service offering company offering to "level" your Cmdr for 10 bucks, and immersion/lore damage because it wasn't implemented correctly.

You'll notice of course that pretty much everything in the game has some kind of lore-supporting reason for its existence. I say "pretty much" because there are a few things that aren't lore-friendly.

 

[Varrag]

Regarding the communication and the number of players - when does communication stop being effective simply because the rate that is comes in at exceeds the rate at which players can assimilate it while playing the game?

Using the 50,000 players each typing 100 characters per minute example above, if 100 characters was 3 lines in the text window then the text window would be rattling along at 2,500 lines per second....

That was just an example aimed at (simplified) analysis of client side bandwith requirements - some people were worried, but it was shown that even in these extreme conditions IRC-based global chat should, most likely, take less than 0.1 Mbit/s. However, in reality, global chat is never that flooded because just a tiny fraction of players tend to get involved at any given time. For example, if you open up global chat in WoT, you'll see that the text is coming in relatively slow pace; sometimes minutes will pass without a single word being dropped (bear in mind that WoT is hugely popular game: almost 1 million players are logging at least once per week).

Also, global chat is just one channel and usually the least interesting. If FDEV would be so kind to give us an option to create and moderate our own channels, players would quickly spread across hundreds of different channels, according to their preferences and interests. Thus, we would get dedicated exploration, faction, trade, language specific channels etc etc.

 

[Vasea Azure]

Some people really feel that, in a game where there is only instant communication across short distances, an instant chat system across the galaxy to your friends just throws the entire purpose of short range communication only, out of the window and whilst not game breaking is somewhat immersion breaking; it..spoils it; for want of a better term.


I think therein lies the rub of the problem. I don't see ED as a multi-player game; I see it as a single player game with multi-player elements (and I know I'm not the only one). I see it as thousands of Cmdr's going about their own business in the galaxy, impacting it in their own way. Thousands of individual solo experiences sharing the same galaxy. Thousands of solo's who can choose to work together if they wish. Pretty much like life, lol.

Imagine WoW, right - but without the raids, or the roles, or the dungeons. A world in which you can live and go about your e-life, doing what you like. Farming, trading, soldiering and so on. That's kinda like how I see ED.

It's MP in the sense that we're all in the same place, but we're meant to "blaze our own trail!"

And, I think, this is where the issue of a GalChat ( ) comes in; it breaks the idea of ED systems being separated and independent from each other; where communication is ultimately spread around through the ebb and flow of mankind as they move about space, or through short range communication buoys.


I don't like it. My preference would be for something like this: [ Unable to establish a connection with Galnet: You are outside of Galnet communication range ] when you attempt to open GalNet when outside of human space.

Thanks for the answer. I dont share your point of view mostly because I can immerse myself in the game with no problem with tools like global chat existing. And feature like that would not change my Elite experience in the slightest. Agree to disagree

 

[Helgarth]

That's rather a definitive prediction....

Ok, so now it's not global chat, it's channels - it still would not take too many to be pWarticipating in a conversation for it to scroll off the top of the screen faster than it can be read....

You sound pessimistic... With that kind of speech no MMO won't ever implement a channel/global chat ever... I'm pretty sure that the channel solution won't ever be so flooded, specially with channels like "help", "powerplay fation X", "language X", "trade", "bounty hunting". And everybody won't participate!

- - - Updated - - -

I see it as a single player game with multi-player elements (and I know I'm not the only one).

You should not

 

[OamodSias]

Thanks for the answer. I dont share your point of view mostly because I can immerse myself in the game with no problem with tools like global chat existing. And feature like that would not change my Elite experience in the slightest. Agree to disagree

That's fine, I'm not here to change anyone's mind; just to express my opinion.

Agreed to agree to disagree.

 

[Varrag]

I do understand that, and I accept it - however, I don't want an instant communication chat that (in almost every single game) ultimately serves no function other than to create spam, arguments, petty insults and immaturity; I've rarely seen a game with a chat system used for much else. This is ultimately my biggest fear (immersion damage and lore violation notwithstanding).

I do respect your opinion and understand you fears - you do have a point regarding the spam. However, if chat is optional and not being forced upon you (way it's usually done in pretty much all MMO games), I don't really see a problem. As being said before, you choose whether you want to participate or not. If not, nothing changes for you. It's going to be another option you'll ignore. Just like me who pretends that PP doesn't even exist, for example

 

[OamodSias]

You should not

How come?

To me, a multi-player game means at some point or another I'm going to have to work with other players to achieve something; ie: WoW; you need to work with other players to get the leet phat loots. But with Elite, I can "blaze my own trail" from start to server shut down without ever having to work with another player. From my point of view, Elite is a single player game with multi-player elements implemented to enhance the overall experience.

 

[Helgarth]

How come?

To me, a multi-player game means at some point or another I'm going to have to work with other players to achieve something; ie: WoW; you need to work with other players to get the leet phat loots. But with Elite, I can "blaze my own trail" from start to server shut down without ever having to work with another player. From my point of view, Elite is a single player game with multi-player elements implemented to enhance the overall experience.

Well I explained this in my previous post in the previous page. But it was more a joke than something else.

 

[OamodSias]

I do respect your opinion and understand you fears - you do have a point regarding the spam. However, if chat is optional and not being forced upon you (way it's usually done in pretty much all MMO games), I don't really see a problem. As being said before, you choose whether you want to participate or not. If not, nothing changes for you. It's going to be another option you'll ignore. Just like me who pretends that PP doesn't even exist, for example

This is true, and I don't have a counter-argument against it. If I can hide it/turn it off, I'll more than likely be okay with it (eventually) but I would prefer it to be implemented using in-game lore/mechanics in keeping with the current UI and communications (lore) available. I don't want it to clash or seem out of place; and a galaxy wide chat would be most out of place (even if I'm not using it).

Someone's suggestion (Luston maybe?) a few posts ago about fitting it into the comms panel *could* work and would look neat and tidy but I'd still prefer it if it were in station only (perhaps only stations can provide long range communications); but if fitted to the comms panel then if outside of the bubble communication should be delayed and then eventually cease all together; that would put a great spin on it imho.

- - - Updated - - -

Well I explained this in my previous post in the previous page. But it was more a joke than something else.

Ah okay.
I'll see if I find your post.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That was just an example aimed at (simplified) analysis of client side bandwith requirements - some people were worried, but it was shown that even in these extreme conditions IRC-based global chat should, most likely, take less than 0.1 Mbit/s. However, in reality, global chat is never that flooded because just a tiny fraction of players tend to get involved at any given time. For example, if you open up global chat in WoT, you'll see that the text is coming in relatively slow pace; sometimes minutes will pass without a single word being dropped (bear in mind that WoT is hugely popular game: almost 1 million players are logging at least once per week).

Also, global chat is just one channel and usually the least interesting. If FDEV would be so kind to give us an option to create and moderate our own channels, players would quickly spread across hundreds of different channels, according to their preferences and interests. Thus, we would get dedicated exploration, faction, trade, language specific channels etc etc.

I replied to your example - uncompressed data at 100 characters (excluding packet overheads) per player per minute for 50,000 players would be 0.667Mbps - up to the chat server. The chat server then needs to disseminate that chat to the players - so, 50,000 x 0.667Mbps = c.33Gbps.

Contrasting this data-rate with 9921 bytes of traffic to the server for a player in Solo over 3m23s - about 390bps - multiplied by 50,000 players, that would be 19.5Mbps.

While both are estimates, and text would probably be able to be compressed somewhat, the data rates of chat exceed those of the player's game data requirements by a factor of 1,000.

That alone should be enough to cause some concern - data throughput is not free, after all.

 

[OamodSias]

I replied to your example - uncompressed data at 100 characters (excluding packet overheads) per player per minute for 50,000 players would be 0.667Mbps - up to the chat server. The chat server then needs to disseminate that chat to the players - so, 50,000 x 0.667Mbps = c.33GBps.

Contrasting this data-rate with 9921 bytes of traffic to the server for a player in Solo over 3m23s - about 390bps - multiplied by 50,000 players, that would be 19.5Mbps.

While both are estimates, and text would probably be able to be compressed somewhat, the data rates of chat exceed those of the player's game data requirements by a factor of 1,000.

That alone should be enough to cause some concern - data throughput is not free, after all.

Random fun fact: An IRC chat server, with compression and 4000-5000 users can hit 1.2Tb a month.

 

[Helgarth]

Ah okay.
I'll see if I find your post.

Page 14. Sorry I don't know how to give a link to a specific post.

EDIT: Mod told me how to do this:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=186081&p=2870704&viewfull=1#post2870704

 

[Robert Maynard]

Page 14. Sorry I don't know how to give a link to a specific post.

Right click on the post number link (at the top right of each post) to copy the link to a specific post - or quote it in a response.

 

[Helgarth]

Right click on the post number link (at the top right of each post) to copy the link to a specific post - or quote it in a response.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=186081&p=2870704&viewfull=1#post2870704

Hey! Thank you!

 

[OamodSias]

Page 14. Sorry I don't know how to give a link to a specific post.

EDIT: Mod told me how to do this:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=186081&p=2870704&viewfull=1#post2870704

Thanks muchly.

 

[Khelder]

I replied to your example - uncompressed data at 100 characters (excluding packet overheads) per player per minute for 50,000 players would be 0.667Mbps - up to the chat server. The chat server then needs to disseminate that chat to the players - so, 50,000 x 0.667Mbps = c.33Gbps.

Contrasting this data-rate with 9921 bytes of traffic to the server for a player in Solo over 3m23s - about 390bps - multiplied by 50,000 players, that would be 19.5Mbps.

While both are estimates, and text would probably be able to be compressed somewhat, the data rates of chat exceed those of the player's game data requirements by a factor of 1,000.

That alone should be enough to cause some concern - data throughput is not free, after all.

We seem to be getting confused a bit here. The initial discussion (for which I provided the numbers) was more a concern on excessive bandwidth to the client causing interference with gameplay (given existing issues with P2P, etc).

I agree with you that the server(s) bandwidth requirements will be significantly higher since they will be acting as hubs transmitting messages to all connected clients. Even so, if it's something that FD really wanted to do, it wouldn't be that excessive. I took a quick look at the AWS pricing calculator (I use Azure personally, so I may have read it wrong). Would seem that with the EC2 instances, you could throw around 10TB of data a month for around $900 (US?). Mind you, I have no idea what EDs current bandwidth requirements are. They very well may be on a high pricing tier already. If that were the case, the costs would be even less.

The likelihood of data requirements hitting anywhere close to that for a add-on feature to a game (as opposed to a dedicated chat service) would be pretty slim I would think.

The other factor was the speed at which messages (lines) would appear in the chat panel and how readable/usable that would be. Again, I don't think the chat would be that high. But I think channels (or some other means of partitioning players) would be more effective.

 

[Robert Maynard]

We seem to be getting confused a bit here. The initial discussion (for which I provided the numbers) was more a concern on excessive bandwidth to the client causing interference with gameplay (given existing issues with P2P, etc).

I agree with you that the server(s) bandwidth requirements will be significantly higher since they will be acting as hubs transmitting messages to all connected clients. Even so, if it's something that FD really wanted to do, it wouldn't be that excessive. I took a quick look at the AWS pricing calculator (I use Azure personally, so I may have read it wrong). Would seem that with the EC2 instances, you could throw around 10TB of data a month for around $900 (US?). Mind you, I have no idea what EDs current bandwidth requirements are. They very well may be on a high pricing tier already. If that were the case, the costs would be even less.

The likelihood of data requirements hitting anywhere close to that for a add-on feature to a game (as opposed to a dedicated chat service) would be pretty slim I would think.

The other factor was the speed at which messages (lines) would appear in the chat panel and how readable/usable that would be. Again, I don't think the chat would be that high. But I think channels (or some other means of partitioning players) would be more effective.

Not confused, per se, more using what little data throughout between client and server has been made available and comparing it to data for simultaneous chat with, potentially, thousands of other players.

It does indeed come down to whether Frontier want to implement such a large scale chat with unknown (as it is down to the number of chat active users and their activity) data requirements.

Channels would be more effective in terms of dividing the active users between a number of conduits - however, chat in a single instance can move rapidly enough to get immediately lost (and that was only with c.12 players), so even a hundred players could cause text overload.

 

[Khelder]

Not confused, per se

I meant the conversation was getting confused between client performance issues, server bandwidth issues, and too many lines to read issues.