Elite / Frontier What would prevent *you* from buying E4?

[SuperG]

Hi SuperG
I wouldn't rely to much on game scores if I were you. Wait for a demo before making up your mind. Oh, I remember getting the Elite 2 demo and all it consisted of was the intro. I was disappointed not to get a sample of the game play proper and took a chance and bought it. Lets hope Frontier Developments make a proper demo this time around! Was there a demo of Elite 3 when it first came out? I was in Amigaland then and would have missed it if there was.

A score isn't a Review. It's more a part of a conclusion put in a subjective number.
I evaluatie a couple of reviews in a critical way. This means every thing they write about the game! Massurged agianst my preferences. As each rviewer is baised so you get some varied perspective of the game.
And then deside if I would like it. Demo isn't the game but a small tast of it. wich can give you the wrong impression. If the cool stuf comes later. Or the depth of the game. Or repetiveness etc.

So it alway's be a bit of a gamble. But I can reduce the risk of a bad buy a lot, by readng some reviews. I'am not so critical so some bad point i can live with. So I know enough what to expect.

 

[DraQ]

What counts for me in the end is the time I spend in RL in front of the screen between starting at point A until reaching point B.

That's the problem. You don't account for all the side effects. If you use time compression, it doesn't alter the in-game time required to get somewhere. Mission deadlines remain the same, you get to experience orbital movement, you get to experience expenditure of time and effort to alter your course, etc. Time compression doesn't exist on the game side - a character in game would be unable to tell whether you use it or not. With time compression you can very well turn it off while watching your ship manoeuvre on autopilot, and you won't lose any time in game by doing so - heck even if you don't use it at all and just stare blankly at the screen for three days, you won't lose a second of game time. Time compression gives you all the power you want over the tempo of the game without actually affecting any single part of the mechanics.
With FTL it's the other way around - to make the deadlines sensible they shrink to minutes, or hours, if you want to intercept a ship on the outskirts of its target system, you have to be in pursuit within seconds, not hours or days, you have no time to waste reading in game information and, let's face it, "blah blah travelling on blah blah will be leaving port blah blah in system blah. You have ten minutes to get there, plan the hit, do the job and return here" is plain absurd.

I have more of a feeling of vastness if this takes longer and not if my game clock runs faster.

But you can set any speed you want, hell, you can sit there and watch the stars for a week if you so desire - it won't change anything in game.

We probably won't ever agree about whether a time machine on board is reasonable

About as reasonable as having a menu allowing you to make other craft more detailed.

-Phear me! By moving this slider I will make your ship all blurry and stuff!
-Oh noes! I spent so much time decorating my ship with custom paint job only for it to be ruined!!1
-Buahaha, hurf-durf augly pixols!
-DO NOT WANT.

Seriously now, both lie outside of the mechanics, both have no effect in game as they only affect how the gameworld interfaces with the RL.
Yes it was stupid for DB to try to incorporate the user-side time saving widget into a gameworld, but this mistake doesn't have to be repeated - simply don't refer to time compression in game proper or accompanying fiction - there, solved.

There is no reason why FTL-objects should not be tracked on radar.

There is, however, a reason why the suspicious targets won't be discernible - because everything buzzes back and forth at mental speed with no inertia. If I see a ship on a collision course with a planet still building up speed past the point it should start to decelerate, I know what it's up to and have several days to intercept it, fire portable wormhole at it, push it off course, turn it into a rapidly expanding cloud of metal vapour most of which will miss it's target because of the volume it will spread across, whatever it takes.
With FTL I don't know something is wrong untill the terrorist sends me "IM IN UR BASE KILLING UR DOODS" kind of message.

No. The planet approaches, you fall out of FTL and back to Newtonian speed, decrease that by turning 180 degrees and firing your main thruster, then you land on the planet.

And spend at least 15-20 minutes till I even reach the starport airspace.

Make up your mind whether FTL is too fast or too slow please.

What if it's both? It's too slow to effectively prevent the game time from turning into a screensaver for most of the time you spend playing it, and too fast to not screw the pacing and mechanics up. Royally.

Remember space travel can be made interesting (encounters with other players or AI-aliens, things to explore, valuable asteroids or artifacts to be found etc.).

The problem is no. The point of space is that it's a sanity cracking volume of nothing with few and far in between specks of matter flying about. Everything you can possibly do in space concerns those specks of dust or even tinier specks of dust travelling between those specks of dust we mentioned before, so unless attacked by pirates or colliding with some unfortunate object, the most interesting thing you can do while traveling in space is watching the numbers describing distance to the target shift. Everything else, like spotting ancient alien derelict passing through the system or receiving an SOS signal, will require you to go out of your way if you want to react, and is actually yet another argument for Newtonian flight (and time compression), for it will introduce a necessary dilemma - would you rather let the random people die or ignore an unidentified object, possibly stuffed with artefacts of alien culture and technology, or **** on some influential person whose cargo you're carrying? Decisions, decisions.

With FTL you don't have built-up velocity and momentum. There is no such inherent trade-off. The Newtonian flight mechanics is reduced to the rank of mere gimmick, same as more bloom or better shaders, instead of permeating the entire gameplay as it did in Frontier.

And remember optional jumpgates could shorten the travel if you just want to reach a destination and are not in the mood to explore or hunt. Jumpgates could also be used by police though, but then if you are a pirate and feel you have to prey in an advanced system with jumpgates make sure you can handle police arriving quicker (by cooperating with other pirates for instance).

Jumpgates only exacerbate the internal logic problems introduced. If only because the tend to form defined network which makes about any explanation for lack of system defence stations in this network's nodes fridge logic.

I wouldn't object to jumpgate networks (but not some moronic tiny cubic sectors or whatever) in capital systems, if the game used Newtonian flight to get around, as long as the space between "highway exit" and any possible destination would be large enough to allow for things like piracy - with Newtonian flight the problem pretty much doesn't exist, so there is nothing to exacerbate, but in case of in-system FTL, they only make bad things worse.

It's all about balance. Things have to be and can be balanced.

Yes. In system FTL upsets it severely, time compression simply can't, so it doesn't.

You can't have time expenditure in game suddenly reduced thousandfold and not turn the delicate logic of the gameworld upside down then drive a steamroller across the resulting disordered heap.

I'm aiming for the game being in the same setting as Frontier, which matured the concept of Elite and brought it to new level, yours would be completely different.

 

[Bungarus]

You are still repeating yourself.

All the imagined catastrophic "side effects" that you are trying to construct won't make an impression on anyone who ever played something like Jumpgate and so knows that what I described - a space MMOG without time machine - works just fine in it's core and won't turn to dust with some thought-out modifications.

But yes, I'm looking forward to a game different than Frontier. FE2 and FFE are great games, I admit that. I think it would be nice if they go open source to legalize efforts to improve them graphically and once or twice a year I would gladly try a swing-by manoeuvre. But I think it is not realistic after the expectations that were built up over the years to expect DB to come up with merely a polished up Frontier as E4. People expect more, and many expect an MMOG option.

Let's lay the cards on the table. I'm not too fond of time compression, but I confess: I could live with it in a singleplayer game. My point is I can't live with singleplayer games anymore. You on the other hand detest MMOGs (without ever having played one it seems), and that is your true motif behind attacking any concept that is necessary in an MMOG as being catastrophic for a space sim.

If we knew what Frontier Developments have in mind, it would be so much easier to play with open cards here in the forum.

The planet approaches, you fall out of FTL and back to Newtonian speed, decrease that by turning 180 degrees and firing your main thruster, then you land on the planet.

And spend at least 15-20 minutes till I even reach the starport airspace.

Could be balanced down to 15-20 seconds. Or anything in between. Balance should be: not annoyingly long and not annoyingly quick and easy.

The point of space is that it's a sanity cracking volume of nothing with few and far in between specks of matter flying about.

In the present reality. Not in a fictional game set in the distant future with hyperspace, jumpgates and / or FTL-Drive and after space exploring generations left their artifacts in space and the Thargoids invaded the galaxy and can lurk round every corner.

another argument for Newtonian flight (and time compression), for it will introduce a necessary dilemma - would you rather let the random people die or ignore an unidentified object, possibly stuffed with artefacts of alien culture and technology, or **** on some influential person whose cargo you're carrying? Decisions, decisions.

In such a game changing the route inevitably leads to mission failure. In Jumpgate the decision is more complex: Not flying straight to your destination after taking a mission may work, but it is risky (more or less depending on the circumstances) - you never know what happens if you stay out in space longer than necessary. Not least because human pilots are unpredictable. More interesting I think.

The Newtonian flight mechanics is reduced to the rank of mere gimmick

Say that to those who try docking at a station or steering a big freighter with 100 tons of cargo or who are "circled" by an opponent for the first time in Jumpgate.

I wouldn't object to jumpgate networks (but not some moronic tiny cubic sectors or whatever) in capital systems, if the game used Newtonian flight to get around, as long as the space between "highway exit" and any possible destination would be large enough to allow for things like piracy - with Newtonian flight the problem pretty much doesn't exist, so there is nothing to exacerbate, but in case of in-system FTL, they only make bad things worse.

Pardon, perhaps it is my imperfect English, but what jumpgate-related problem exactly would be worse with FTL and non-existing without? Space between jumpgates being big enough to allow piracy can be balanced in a game with FTL as well. It is also possible to chase someone through jumpgates. And remember, with another ship in range or without having built up enough Newtonian speed FTL could not be engaged anyway. In Jumpgate, after activating a jumpgate the speed is reduced to zero and must be built up again after the jump. Jumpgates should not be apart to the extent that engaging FTL between them would be possible or make sense.

 

[DraQ]

All the imagined catastrophic "side effects" that you are trying to construct won't make an impression on anyone who ever played something like Jumpgate and so knows that what I described - a space MMOG without time machine - works just fine in it's core and won't turn to dust with some thought-out modifications.

I have played widely acclaimed I-War2 which uses this kind of mechanics.

Despite having a lot of well-thought out SF fluff, Newtonian flight, and despite of being a decent game overall, it's individual elements don't click together in the exact manner I described which makes it simply unworthy of comparison with either of the Frontier games.

But I think it is not realistic after the expectations that were built up over the years to expect DB to come up with merely a polished up Frontier as E4. People expect more, and many expect an MMOG option.

If you define "more" as "less".

The "improvements" you propose would greatly impoverish the core gameplay, which I think should be enriched instead.

If a rehash of FE2/FFE would be cheap, then what about a rollback to something mid-way between FE2 and Elite adorned with prettier graphics? Oh, and MMO.

I, on the other hand, would like to see more than a rehash, I would like FE2/FFE as if it was made today, with today technology and storage capacity. A living, breathing universe that could not be created at the time, but resting on the same core philosophy, which I believe is fitting for a damn sequel.

If we knew what Frontier Developments have in mind, it would be so much easier to play with open cards here in the forum.

That would be helpful, no doubt.

Could be balanced down to 15-20 seconds. Or anything in between. Balance should be: not annoyingly long and not annoyingly quick and easy.

Could not. Not without scaling the systems down, screwing up the Newtonian flight mechanics, or making already powerful thrusters downright ridiculous.

In the present reality. Not in a fictional game set in the distant future with hyperspace, jumpgates and / or FTL-Drive and after space exploring generations left their artifacts in space and the Thargoids invaded the galaxy and can lurk round every corner.

No matter what technology you have, if you can't create matter from nothing or import it from outside of the universe, or collapse the universe to a fraction of it's original size you're stuck with only so much matter being in the universe - about 10^-15g/km3 on average which means one and a half Panther (with it's old, badly adjusted mass) per cubic AU if you dismantle all the planets, stars and generally everything there is in the universe to make Panthers out of it. With some metaversal technology, on the other hand, you wouldn't be stuck with vessels flying around doing pew-pew with lasers as they do in the Elite series - you would have Dukaj's "Perfect Imperfection" styled setting where "the universes are bullets, the number of dimensions are the caliber, the speed of light is gun-powder." - about as similar to the Elite universe as Elite universe is to this of Mount and Blade.
Of course, the exact numbers are irrelevant, but the main point is that space is either massively empty or not space-like at all.

In such a game changing the route inevitably leads to mission failure.

Not necessarily, it depends on many factors, like deadlines and such, but it is likely. Even if it was certain, it would make for a good dilemma, main question being "is it worth it?".

Pardon, perhaps it is my imperfect English, but what jumpgate-related problem exactly would be worse with FTL and non-existing without? Space between jumpgates being big enough to allow piracy can be balanced in a game with FTL as well. It is also possible to chase someone through jumpgates. And remember, with another ship in range or without having built up enough Newtonian speed FTL could not be engaged anyway. In Jumpgate, after activating a jumpgate the speed is reduced to zero and must be built up again after the jump. Jumpgates should not be apart to the extent that engaging FTL between them would be possible or make sense.

You answered your own question.

In a game using time compression, even a system criss-crossed by jumpgate routes allows for >1h flight time between a jumpgate entry/exit and nearby point of interest. Hell, in case of system like Alioth, it could very well take you over a day, as you could cover 15-45 AU using jumpgate then navigate the Alioth 4's satellite system 0.6AU across on your own.

In a game with FTL, said FTL has to allow for crossing the distances of the order of tens of AU if this game is set up in the same universe as Elite and it's sequels. 50AU is about 6 light hours, and you would probably like it to be like 5 minutes tops, so it gives us 72c. The problem is that for distances within 1AU - radius of Earth's orbit and much more than any distance between an orbital jumpgate and nearby point of interest, the maximum arrival time is less than 7s, so there is no possibility for reasonably explained piracy, unless you hit the subject with sufficient amount of fridges and wave your hands extensively to make the problem go away.

The beauty of time compression is that no matter the distances, accelerations and times involved it works because it can be adjusted freely, as it has no effect on mechanics, since it scales the passage of time in general, not specifically the passage of time spent on travel.


Finally, the main problem with your design philosophy is that it is the exact design philosophy that leads to soulless, mind numbing games of today, evidently designed by committees of suits.

The game is not a set of equations that has to be balanced out. All the variables in this set do not hang in vacuum. A game is an adventure and a world. All the variables and their relationships are merely a representation of something in this world or an aspect of this adventure. If you alter any of them, you alter this world, so you may very well come up with a "perfect" solution, corresponding to a perfectly balanced game that sucks horribly by making no sense whatsoever.

The right approach is to design a consistent and interesting universe, within it a consistent and interesting adventure, then use the equations to fine tune the stuff within the context of the universe and it's limitations, not just stretch and squeeze this universe to fit your equations as if it was silly putty or some other plasticine.

 

[Bungarus]

I, on the other hand, would like to see more than a rehash, I would like FE2/FFE as if it was made today, with today technology and storage capacity. A living, breathing universe

With only one living, breathing human being in it, great.

Could be balanced down to 15-20 seconds. Or anything in between. Balance should be: not annoyingly long and not annoyingly quick and easy.

Could not. Not without scaling the systems down, screwing up the Newtonian flight mechanics, or making already powerful thrusters downright ridiculous.

Of course it could. Mainly depends on the distance from the planet when FTL is turned off and the Newtonian speed that has to be handled then. Scaling of systems and Newtonian flight don't need to be touched. 5-10 minutes would be ok for me.

No matter what technology you have, if you can't create matter from nothing (...)

Now come on, in a SF game you have technology to overcome any distance in bearable time (hyperspace, FTL, jumpgates, or your choice: time machine) and you have more stuff to be found (stations, artifacts, aliens, other pilots) then currently beyond the orbit of Earth. That's all I said.


The distances between jumpgates / between jumpgates and points of interest can be balanced in a way that engaging FTL is not possible and Newtonian flight recommended is not annoyingly long but long enough to be endangered by pirates, aliens or other enemies. When using FTL encounters are also possible (if probably less likely depending on the chosen route, especially if taking detours) if another ship coming in range deactivates FTL similar to the jump motor in Elite 1.

Finally, the main problem with your design philosophy is that it is the exact design philosophy that leads to soulless, mind numbing games of today

Jumpgate is a hardcore space sim, much more realistic than Elite 1 and is far from being some WoW-in-space-thing. Not as realistic as Frontier in certain respects (not the entire galaxy, no full scaled systems) but more realistic than Frontier in certain respects (no time machine, other human pilots out there). My suggested modifications would enrich the concept with full scaled systems that could still be traveled in bearable time without time machine. And such a game has more soul(s) in it than merely one lonely soul as in any singleplayer desert.

The ugliness of time compression is it won't work in a space MMOG, the beauty of no time compression is it allows a brilliant space MMOG as I have experienced - with all the catastrophic side effects that you claim necessary being absent - and this ends the need of further discussion on this topic for me.

In 1988 David Braben was asked about the future of computer games on German television. He said (translated back from German translation): "I personally would hope that it will no longer be a solitude thing. I'd much prefer a multitude of people in a game - something much more social."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMxt9gYe49k#t=3m30s

I agree and think the time is ripe.

 

[DraQ]

With only one living, breathing human being in it, great.

Not necessarily, it turns out.

Of course it could. Mainly depends on the distance from the planet when FTL is turned off and the Newtonian speed that has to be handled then.

To keep up with the logic designed to prevent unfortunate implications mentined before, the distance should be meaningful, meaning well above the atmosphere.

Now come on, in a SF game you have technology to overcome any distance in bearable time (hyperspace, FTL, jumpgates, or your choice: time machine) and you have more stuff to be found (stations, artifacts, aliens, other pilots) then currently beyond the orbit of Earth. That's all I said.

Not. Enough. Matter. In. The. Universe. To. Make. Empty. Space. Interesting.
Do I have to draw pictures, or something?

The distances between jumpgates / between jumpgates and points of interest can be balanced in a way that engaging FTL is not possible and Newtonian flight recommended is not annoyingly long but long enough to be endangered by pirates, aliens or other enemies. When using FTL encounters are also possible (if probably less likely depending on the chosen route, especially if taking detours) if another ship coming in range deactivates FTL similar to the jump motor in Elite 1.

Then there is no point to the FTL, or planetary systems that are not stationary skybox textures for that matter.

Observe:

Jumpgate is a hardcore space sim, much more realistic than Elite 1 and is far from being some WoW-in-space-thing. Not as realistic as Frontier in certain respects (not the entire galaxy, no full scaled systems)

Blam.

but more realistic than Frontier in certain respects (no time machine, other human pilots out there).

First, excuse this question, but did time compression Edited by Liquilla

Because your animosity towards something that is very welcome part of simulators and some strategies and both, an awesome invention for bypassing the boredom without redesigning the system to specifically exclude this boredom even if it doesn't make sense, and the most logical solution to the problem described, is getting a bit personal and more than a bit irrational.

Second, if multiplayer = more realistic, then WoW is more realistic than Frontier. So is Unreal Tournament. Do you sometimes listen to yourself?

And such a game has more soul(s) in it than merely one lonely soul as in any singleplayer desert.

I should paste a photo of Bobby Kotick's abominable mug here as a sufficient and succinct reply.

Could you be so kind to imagine that I did exactly that?

 

[Bungarus]

Not. Enough. Matter. In. The. Universe. To. Make. Empty. Space. Interesting.
Do I have to draw pictures, or something?

Once more: With hyperspace / FTL / time compression you skip the empty parts. Of course you may draw yourself pictures if it helps.

Then there is no point to the FTL

Once more: You don't have to use the jumpgates, you can still explore the whole system with FTL. Aliens, artifacts, asteroids etc. could be more frequent or different apart from jumpgate routes, or pilots could be allowed to place their own little station (hangar for several ships, storage etc.) in deep system space (not too close to planets or regular stations) to make this interesting.

Second, if multiplayer = more realistic, then WoW is more realistic than Frontier.

In that respect: Yes, of course. Reality has a multitude of humans = not euphemistically called "artificially intelligent" but really intelligent inhabitants. I hope you don't doubt that and the AI in Frontier did not pass the Turing Test for you.

 

[Sci-Fi Gene]

There was a previous discussion about whether a console-only release would deter players. My initial reaction was I'd be annoyed, but I'd make a practical decision - after all I'd probably be willing to pay to upgrade a PC to play it.

I was thinking about it again following the PS3-only release of Heavy Rain. David Cage (like a certain other David) is one of the most innovative people in the games industry: his previous games (Nomad Soul and Farenheit) have been unique and inspiring even if flawed in some ways, and from what I've read Heavy Rain is his best yet. I haven't played it: decided that I couldn't justify buying a PS3 just to play this game. My anger at being forced to choose is definitely a factor in the decision - I feel excluded and cheated. The previous games were very much written for both and there's no reason to betray PC users - and many of the fans of the previous games - in this way. I'm surprised at the strength of my reaction.

Point being if E4 (or for that matter The Outsider) was released PS3-only I would probably have the same feelings. It's hard to predict the emotional part of the decision but based on the Heavy Rain release it might be strong enough to stop me buying even E4.

 

[Steve]

Not. Enough. Matter. In. The. Universe. To. Make. Empty. Space. Interesting.
Do I have to draw pictures, or something?

Once more: With hyperspace / FTL / time compression you skip the empty parts. Of course you may draw yourself pictures if it helps.

Sorry, but that made me laugh
As Groundskeeper Willie would say, "Good comeback"

 

[SuperG]

Have watch a documentary not long ago where they say. All stars in the milkyway put close together into a sphere that it all would fit between the sun and its closest star. Or something like that. so distances are realy extreem. So extreem that lightspeed is to slow out there.

Also adressing boredom would make extreemly sense for a game. Because they will make most off all a game. Optional with some more focus on simulation. Aimed at "Simulation" gamers not some rare type of realism extremist. Who more are into space trainer software.

I also aim for realism, but I know space is compared to lightspeed extreemly large. So I go for realism as long as it go along with interresting gameplay. Emersion is important but make no sense to make a boring no fun game. Only for the sake to be correct. So the need for Extreem FTL is there. So we need some Fiction on top off science.

And playing agianst human isn't realism. Sure humans are real. But as gamers the don't behave as the would in real life. Gamers don't act like in RL. In reallife people avoid any risk to die. And if they have a dangers job or situation. The are very causious and often well trained. As a gamer, who often got not much setback for a meaning full death penalty, wenn game is over. Especialy with a close in time save game. So You can act more risky. This is unrealistic. Also gamers are often with online also annonimous. People tend to easy realy misbehave, then they would do in real life.

AI can programmed to behave like humans would in reallife. No easy task. While you can also force people to play like they would in RL. To take away annonimisy and have a extreem death penalty. But this influence game experience. And casual gamers who game for just entertainment would be kept away. And it mess up gameplay mechanics. It could make it more stress play. Starting al over again and agian is no fun.

Also Pure online games like Epic Unreal tournament games point out that there is massive play offline with bots. So the offline crowed is big to, even for a online game. Of course bot's is extra AI work. But they are delivering to a much larger market.

Then Games espacialy online and MMO there are balancing isues. While reallife there is no balance. The only rule to comply to is the of nature and physics etc. No game mechanics restriction. With Single player and Coöp you have more room for unbalance realism. So if you want Realism as in reallife you must acount for all major factors and most of the lighter onces to be correct. No abstraction. Newtownian physics is just a smal part of it. Realism is much more. A few big realism point is ships and weapons aliens nation cultures local and galactic economics etc.

So what ever they would choose. With MMO and online you are more into a trade off of realism. But even for a Single player game there big need to trade off some realism.

But I would also take the science part as far as posible and then use fiction to keep a fun gameplay. Realism is very high fidelity. There are many isues with many factors and they all interact more or less with each other. Getting complex game mechanics emulating reallife. So with real depth al the way reallife provides.

And the thing is wenn PC but also console hardware evolve to something more power full. Much more factors can be put into game. Also already used features could be set in higher fidelity. Currently what is hot. Interactive and destructable enviorments. So realistic destroyable ships. A feature like cloths physics with right atribute like high dempening setting, this physics feature can be used for metal sheet. Make it interacting like tearable. So you can rip to a hull with a mass driver. Might we reach a level where object are build out of Material types. Wich each will act realistic and destruct in the correct way on each different destruction attemp.
Also more computing power more AI options. More complex solution but also more depth and more variation would be possible.

Reallife is complex. So with powerfull hardware more of realism is possible. Could be that game mechanics complexity can hold it some back.

So Newtownian flight model with FTL on top of it. Is a problem? Well what I notice that in space combat or battle a space ship is run out of hit point it blow's up clean, like matter just disapears in space. Like the whole structure becomes a flash and then a clear cloud? It like that each hollowood car crash, the car must explode. Like it's filled with a explosives. For a space ship wenn it blow up so effective that all mass becomes a expanding plasma cloud. Something like that would bother me more. I like salvage and captivating and boarding gameplay. Boring travel time I can do without.

 

[Bungarus]

Gamers don't act like in RL. In reallife people avoid any risk to die.

I agree that in a good MMOG, "death", while it can't be "game over" of course, has to be a reasonable loss that most people prefer to avoid.

And casual gamers who game for just entertainment would be kept away.

I don't expect (the online version of) E4 to become - yet another - attempt to be the casual gamer's heaven. Most MMOGs out there try to beat WoW - and all fail, and most disappear after a while.

There must be a market niche for a(nother) serious space sim MMOG (with contemporary graphics and some innovations), and I hope Frontier Developments is aiming for that. A core of loyal players who stay for months and years should provide more profit on the long term than the life span of a single player game - and if a company aiming for that niche has the chance to conquer and maintain it, it is Frontier Developments with the legacy of Elite behind them.

 

[potsmoke66]

superg, your'e right a mmo or somthing like it would not fit to frontier, i can see a possibility for online gaming like i and others described before, more loose, post a hosting for a mission in a ground based café or a space station, then others can join, this sounds good to me. advance in skills, awards, points, explorations, installed industries or settlements of any kind as well as the whole universe can be managed online and synchronized each time you play, that would be enough imho, but there should allways be the possibility that you can play sole. i can imagine a easy to use mission editor, so users can setup their own mission targets to host. further a somewhat split into several games i still can see in front of my eyes, especially since there are players who like to play fps or tactical rpgs, also for them i can imagine such a loose online gaming.

time compression, ftl and other hyper-realities (or sub?)
as most of the old frontier player i will stay to "time compression", even if it's in frontier rather a "hibernation" then a "time compression". but in the end it doesn't matter at all, interplanetary flight should be controlled by pilot, but we all don't wan't to wait three days to reach earth, so what possibilities we have? "time compression" seems to me the best of all possible choices.

if we had ftl, we wouldn't need jump technology
but how can you control a ship that's ftl (sorry, electrons in copper don't reach lightspeed ). so there is no control close to gravital objects.
ftl in range of a system, no, outside, the same effect as jump technology.

jumpdrives, there are several fictions how they could work, i prefere following;
based on the fiction that there is a hyperspace which is "outside" of normal universe (inverted, a subspace), assuming that our "einsteinian" universes physics and limitations don't exist. a place where you have no extensions in any of the known or unknown dimensions. while we move into this "0-continuum" universe will evolve further, the idea is to use this, by pointing like a needle through a blanket and return in some other part of the universe.
you can imagine navigation is almost impossible under such conditions, but to me it all sounds logical (if at all) and it makes space exploration to a real adventure, missjumps (even over a multiple 100lys) like in frontier would be programmed.

warp technology, has to be discussed to. warp technology as used in ST, is to pull the target space by gravity to my neighbourhood, then it would be just a hop. the thing is, to move a ship this way you would need the amount of energy our sun produces in her whole lifetime. any questions?

there's another fiction where you "slide" on the "edge" between normal and hyper/sub space, which you can call a "liberated zone", limited navigation would be possible and through that even farer targets can be reached without missjumps. but this fiction didn't fits to frontier too.

 

[Bungarus]

In a singleplayer game with (not massive) multiplayer option you have to organize a temporary session with a few mostly unknown players, everyone of them has to be online at the same time, the result is just an arena, a temporary common playground, which has to be strictly distinguished from a persistent universe where things really matter.

A MMOG is a parallel universe that can be entered any time, that you inhabit for months or years, where you can become famous or infamous within a big community, where long term relationships and the self-organization of sub-communities can be experienced, where the players evolve the "storyline". (In a sandbox game where only the setting is fictional whereas the events taking place are real actions by real people, the better word actually would be: history.) It is a much richer experience overall.

Having said that, you can play sort of "sole" for the most time in an MMOG if you wish. Of course you will still be affected by other real people's actions and vice versa, and you will have encounters - some friendly, some unfriendly - with real people. In the two MMOGs I played I started playing "sole" in that sense and didn't join a guild for quite a while to acquire knowledge and capabilities, to get to know my strengths and weaknesses, to understand politics between guilds and alliances in order to get a picture where I would fit in.

Time compression will neither work in an MMOG nor in a singleplayer game in (not massive) multiplayer mode.

 

[turwhitt]

Time compression will neither work in an MMOG nor in a singleplayer game in (not massive) multiplayer mode.

"Not work" is a bit closed-minded.

One of my suggestions for this is as follows:

-Multiplayer game (not MMO)
-Group missions can be undertaken, for which other players can join from a bulletin board system or whatever
-Each group must have a leader. This leader will control hyperspacing and time compression for the whole group.
-Non-leading players can exit from time compression (with a warning) if they wish, and leave the group in the same way that group members can leave groups in most multiplayers and MMOs.

 

[Bungarus]

More limitations only to adhere to a troublesome, superfluous and easily replaceable concept. A time machine in my ship I find silly, but a remote-controlled time machine in my ship controlled by someone else I find grotesque.

And the last bit I don't get. After some "exit from time compression" and the rest still uses it you would still end up with different, err, times in the game.

I think you're beating a dead horse here, at least concerning multiplayer (in any form).

 

[turwhitt]

1) A time machine in my ship I find silly, but a remote-controlled time machine in my ship controlled by someone else I find grotesque.

2) And the last bit I don't get. After some "exit from time compression" and the rest still uses it you would still end up with different, err, times in the game.

3) I think you're beating a dead horse here, at least concerning multiplayer (in any form).

1) I'm sure this has been explained to you on a number of occasions. It's not a time machine. Time flows at the same rate. It's just a way of speeding up your consciousness to miss out the boring bits.

2) Which is solved by my other suggestion - that in group mode, people work from a communal mission timer, rather than the standard calendar

3) And of course you're welcome to think what you like (until the Emeror grants me control of whichever planet it is you're hiding on). But i for one would like to see a multiplayer group mission option on a non-MMO Elite 4. Entirely optional of course, so no-one's forcing you to use it!

 

[Bungarus]

It makes no difference if you call it time machine or speeding up of consciousness, it won't work in multiplayer because it leads to asynchronus timing. Oh, and if not my ship but my consciousness is controlled by another pilot it makes things even more bizarre.

You did not solve it, you said people can exit group mode = time compression and that results in asynchronus timing. How do you want to solve that?

I have nothing against a multiplayer group mission option on a non-MMO-version of E4 (other than I myself won't spend money on that version), I only said it won't work with time compression. My dead horse metaphor refered to time compression (in multiplayer), not to multiplayer.

 

[potsmoke66]

somewhat you might be right, the actual group of players will have a different timeflow then the rest of the "universe" or other possibly parallel acting groups/players. but since you can in such a game only meet in spacestations or spaceports and not in open space, the difference should be not such a big problem and you can be synchronized back to "normal" at any dock i.e. this will end up in finished missions in hours or minutes, but that didn't matters too.
i stay to "timecompression" if you have a more or less realistic space and not a limited like in "x" and wont use stupid jumpgates.

which are to imagine in a story (sci-fi stories and games have to had a solid ground for me), but to assemble something like a jumpgate i think you have to be able to control artificial suns and position them in a way that in their gravital center will be born something like a immense gravital lens. but they are directionally fixed and work only in one way (thats the sci in fi).

 

[Bungarus]

But look, with a Faster-Than-Light-drive like Warp in Star Trek you can have realistic space in a game and you won't have the problems that arise with time compression (drugs) in multiplayer! I don't understand you guys, really.

And it makes me giggle that you dismiss jumpgates as stupid because they are not scientific enough unless you "control artificial suns" and at the same time have no problem whatsoever with time compression. We are discussing a science fiction game and we can invent the technology that delivers good gameplay, that is my point of view.

We don't know if any technology that is used in SF to deal with space travel will one day be realistic or not. In the present day all of them are more fiction than science and that is particularly true for time compression, which is rubbish in a multiplayer game (of any sort) anyway, so let's forget about that one first please as soon as you all come to your senses.

 

[turwhitt]

You did not solve it, you said people can exit group mode = time compression and that results in asynchronus timing. How do you want to solve that?

Once you exit group mode, and leave the group, you are in your own normal calendar.

This suggestion is a way of people being able to group while being in completely different time periods.

There is no such thing as asynchronous timing as players do not share a calendar. They only share any type of time period when they are grouped, and in that situation they have a communal mission timer rather than a calendar.