Elite : Dangerous

[kalniel]

As they're explaining it, it will be required occasionally to get the updates, but you should be able to continue playing the outdated version offline, if you so choose.

Apparently not - every trade etc. is carried out on the servers, not locally. You need a constant/consistent server connection. Loss of connection is only OK until the next transaction.

[Andy3536]

You have a Cobra??!!
Get online and kill summat!!

Maybe take some combat missions and get in practice beforehand, then go seeking players at the Nav Beacons or in conflict zones. Make sure you have the money to buy back the ship and kit if you do kark it and just go have some fun!

I've spent the majority of my game time flying a hauler with no weapons. So i've yet to try combat other than the craft that interdicted me. Hence my trepidation.
I think i'll get a little more money then go killing stuff. ;-)

[Lowe]

Don't go engaging humans with a standard Cobra. Stock ships are useless against NPCs. Unless you're running B grade kit or higher where it counts, you might end up with a large insurance bill

[Ttaskmaster]

I've spent the majority of my game time flying a hauler with no weapons. So i've yet to try combat other than the craft that interdicted me. Hence my trepidation.
I think i'll get a little more money then go killing stuff. ;-)

In that case, spend some time taking bounties and hunting Wanted NPCs at USSes, Nav Beacons and warzones, for some practice.
Upgrade your weapons and kit, as mentioned and get some practice in... THEN go online and kill summat!!

[Ttaskmaster]

Apparently not - every trade etc. is carried out on the servers, not locally. You need a constant/consistent server connection. Loss of connection is only OK until the next transaction.

Ah well.
Guess you'll have to get with the times and play online, then.

End of the day, it's their call.
If keeping the data server-side is what stops a lot of hacking and fiddling, fair enough.

[scaryjim]

OK, I'll make something clear. I haven't given any money to David Braben yet, for exactly this reason.

He talked about compelling single player experiences in the early videos, but now the single player experience is going to be affected directly other people's actions. I'm not at all surprised that this has happened. Frustrated, but not surprised. Has he actually asked anyone about what kind of experience they'd like in the single player version?

It wouldn't be difficult to create basic scenarios - his OWN basic scenarios - that would play out in a single player offline game: that's how every other offline single player game works. You could give people the option, when they start a single player game, to have a connected game - where the plot, economy, exploration etc, of their game world linked to the live MMO universe, if they wanted. They'd get to explore a semi-persistent universe that would subtly change each time they logged back in. I can see the appeal in that, and it'll give a real sense of immersion for people who want that.

But technically that's actually HARDER than just writing a single player offline game. So I'm really struggling to see why he's decided to limit the ways in which people can experience the game. And before you say disk space again, Frontier came on a single 720KB floppy and had half a billion star systems. They're not taking this decision for technical reasons. David Braben has decided that he wants to limit the way people interact with his software. I'll say again, that's entirely his choice, but I wish he'd drop this "fundamental to the experience" rhetoric and just fess up that he's doing it the way he wants to. There's obviously a lot of players to whom that dynamic, evolving universe is *not* fundamental to their gaming experience, and he's just alienated the lot of them.

[kalniel]

Ah well.
Guess you'll have to get with the times and play online, then.

If I want to play Elite, sure. There are other games I play online for my MMO fix, but at the end of the day I was hoping for something different from this one. And that's fine - like I said before, different people want different things out of games. If Braben wants *my* money then the game has to appeal to me. If by not doing that he gets to appeal to other people instead then good for him - my gaming dollars will await the next thing instead.

If keeping the data server-side is what stops a lot of hacking and fiddling, fair enough.

DRM is a valid use of required online connectivity - however a) it's a royal pain in the behind, as you can see from the issues legitimate users have with games that use it for that b) he should just say so.

I'd actually probably be fine with DRM that required online connectivity ala steam etc. - my main issue is the fact I'm having to compete with other players and they will be materially affecting my game, even when I'm not playing. If I wanted that I'd play an MMO, but I don't - I want a game I can play at my own pace. Elite was always that for me - a grand space exploration/trading game that I could fire up once in a blue moon whenever I wanted to take up my roleplay of a commander.

[Lowe]

Just out of interest Kalniel - what's the difference between playing a universe that changes dynamically according to player inputs, and one that's pre-programmed? Given the scale of the universe it's more than possible for you to find your own little corner and never see another human if you're willing to venture away from the core systems?

I honestly don't see the issue - other than people getting their knickers in a knot about one thing being said and another being delivered.

[kalniel]

Just out of interest Kalniel - what's the difference between playing a universe that changes dynamically according to player inputs, and one that's pre-programmed?

Timing. A standalone game changes at the same pace that I'm playing the game - if I don't play it's frozen and ready for me to resume at the same point from. It's like I'm telling my commander's story and pausing at the end of the evening ready to carry on next time.

On the other hand a persistent world is a bit like reading a bed time story and carrying on turning the pages even when it's not being read - it's now tied to real time, not my commander's timeline.

To carry on the analogy, sometimes I like to read books again, and enjoy the opening moments when a story or world state develops and changes - I like re-reading the start of Lord of the Rings, or Pandora's Star etc. With single player games too I enjoy the same - starting Dragon Age Origins all over etc. With the original Elite, and other standalone games, this was possible. But with a persistent world being the only option now, I won't be able to start over down the line, with the game world in the starting position it was out of the box, with the universe a great unexplored unknown.

Given the scale of the universe it's more than possible for you to find your own little corner and never see another human if you're willing to venture away from the core systems?

But how long will that take? On day of release it might only be a few hours play. A few weeks later I expect it'll take many hours play as to head off into the unknown requires building up enough wealth and equipment for long distance travel. A few months/years later and I expect the new player will require a huge investment in the game before they can head off into the unknown - simply because the unknown is now that much further away etc.

[scaryjim]

Just out of interest Kalniel - what's the difference between playing a universe that changes dynamically according to player inputs, and one that's pre-programmed?

Can't answer for kalniel, but for me it's that a pre-programmed universe stops when I leave it, and if I don't return for a year, it'll be the same as when I last played. I can pick up my quests where I left them, the markets will still be basically the same so I can continue making the trading runs I know - basically, I return to a game at the point I left it. With DB's current vision of Elite, if I don't play for a year then decide to pick it up again other player's actions could have materially affected the universe I return to - markets will have shifted, quests may no longer be relevant or even possible.

And leaving a game for a year then coming back? I do that a LOT. I go through phases of playing PC games. And one of my little delights - part of the escapism of computer game - is that if I return to a game I haven't played for some time, it'll still be basically the same game I left. I get to pause the whole universe while I do real life, then when I get time I can drop back into my escape and feel at home. While there's a great realism in a universe evolving over time, there's no great realism in my character hibernating for a year and waking up in a subtly different world.

A quick actual example. Year and years back I got into Puzzle Pirates. I was pretty good at certain aspects of the game, enjoyed the company of some of the people on there, and I used to play in the evening, with my wife and a US based crew we joined. I had a good year playing with those guys, then my lifestyle changed and I couldn't get on for a year or so. When I came back, the world was noticably different, and I no longer felt immersed in it. It simply wasn't as much fun to play anymore, because I hadn't been involved in the changes that happened, I hadn't lived through that intervening period. So I stopped playing.

Now imagine that you pick up a game that boasts a single player mode, play for a while, then for whatever reason don't fire it up for a year. Would you want to come back to that single player game where you left it, or with the entire universe having moved on without you? Because that's what would happen if I played E: D - I don't game regularly or often, and I tend to focus on one game at a time. While it offered the possibility of an entirely offline game, plus the option of dipping my toe into an online universe, I was excited. An updated classic elite experience plus the option of a multiplayer, evloving universe? That'd be something worth paying for. I might even have bought the game at launch if that was the offering (which is pretty much unheard of for me).

Now? *shrug* I guess I feel a bit let down. Not because DB is making the game his way - that's fine - but because I don't understand his decision. It seems to me that what he's decided not to offer would be virtually no work to provide, and he's doing it out of pride, arrogance, and a bit of a God-complex, then dressing it up in rhetoric as if he's doing a good thing, protecting us from an unsatisfactory game experience. Strangely, I don't like being told what I want....

[scaryjim]

... with a persistent world being the only option now, I won't be able to start over down the line, with the game world in the starting position it was out of the box, with the universe a great unexplored unknown. ....

This is another issue that occurred to me, actually - DB talks about all the players getting the same experience, but someone who picks up E: D a couple of years down the line (like I might have considered, when it get down to ~ £15) is not going to get the same new player experience as people who buy it at launch. They're going to enter a universe that's been evolving for several years. That's potentially going to be a very different experience.

[Ttaskmaster]

Timing. A standalone game changes at the same pace that I'm playing the game - if I don't play it's frozen and ready for me to resume at the same point from. It's like I'm telling my commander's story and pausing at the end of the evening ready to carry on next time.

But from what does the programming take its timing, so it knows when to apply a major change?
Does it wait until you kill 500 ships?
Make 500,000 Cr in trade?
Discover 500 new systems?
Pirate 500 ships?
Visit 1000 systems?
There are so many different possible triggers for each event, for each different way of playing, the only consistent triggers I can think of is either time played or the PC clock.
Minor changes are almost random anyway and often swing back the other way, too.

On the other hand a persistent world is a bit like reading a bed time story and carrying on turning the pages even when it's not being read - it's now tied to real time, not my commander's timeline.

Which is the way a lot of games are going anyway.
Think of it as the next episode in a TV show, where some time has passed and you're now catching up... or imagine you've gone away on holiday to Ceti Alpha III and returned to find you've missed a few things that weren't reported on the overseas news network...

To carry on the analogy, sometimes I like to read books again, and enjoy the opening moments when a story or world state develops and changes

"Here's a basic ship. Here's a thousand credits. You're docked at Azeban City in Eranin. Off you go, Commander".
That is the long and the short of the starting storyline in Elite. The rest is what you make it.

But with a persistent world being the only option now, I won't be able to start over down the line, with the game world in the starting position it was out of the box, with the universe a great unexplored unknown.

In many ways, it will be the same. Events will happen, things will change, but most of them will change back. It's not like 400 Billion systems will suddenly be reduced to 20 because some Clan have built a Death Star, or anything.

A few weeks later I expect it'll take many hours play as to head off into the unknown requires building up enough wealth and equipment for long distance travel.

It requires a fair bit of that as is. Your starting ship only does a few Ly, so you will always need to get a bigger ship first off.

A few months/years later and I expect the new player will require a huge investment in the game before they can head off into the unknown - simply because the unknown is now that much further away etc.

Yes, and eventually all 400 Billion systems will have been fully charted and explored. Alexander will weep, for there will be no more worlds left to conquer, etc etc... Already, it took quite a fair bit just to find a system that was not already listed as discovered (darn NPCs) when the Beta launched.

Theoretically, even you in your offline mode could visit every system. I think someone calculated it would take 12 years... but would you really manage even a tenth of that?
By that time, though, I'm sure Elite 5 will have come out... perhaps we'll even have the Star Citizen Beta as well!!

[Ttaskmaster]

While it offered the possibility of an entirely offline game, plus the option of dipping my toe into an online universe, I was excited. An updated classic elite experience plus the option of a multiplayer, evloving universe?

But would you want all your efforts in Offline to transfer over to the Solo/Multiplayer, or would you be perfectly happy to start the online version again from scratch?
That seems to be one of the big hurdles in all this. People don't mind the grind in one game, but to have to repeat it across two separate games, in something like Elite where it is supposed to take a very long time to achieve in the first place?

This is why it's coming out as two different games, with FD not keen on trying to bring all the new features to both.

[kalniel]

But from what does the programming take its timing, so it knows when to apply a major change?
Does it wait until you kill 500 ships?
Make 500,000 Cr in trade?
Discover 500 new systems?
Pirate 500 ships?
Visit 1000 systems?
There are so many different possible triggers for each event, for each different way of playing, the only consistent triggers I can think of is either time played or the PC clock.
Minor changes are almost random anyway and often swing back the other way, too.

That's a very well known aspect of computer science called simulation or modelling. They are going to be doing this anyway, as player actions can only be responsible for a fraction of the events going on in the universe. Since it's already there, we might as well have a stand-alone game use it.

Which is the way a lot of games are going anyway.
Think of it as the next episode in a TV show, where some time has passed and you're now catching up... or imagine you've gone away on holiday to Ceti Alpha III and returned to find you've missed a few things that weren't reported on the overseas news network...

That's fine in some cases, but as I said, if I wanted that I'd play EVE. In my case my commander will be on holiday a hell of a lot more than he is actually flying his ship - to the point where he shouldn't be able to operate as a commander. Realistic? Maybe, but I play games to get away from real life and it's constraints. The whole idea of playing a starship commander is a fantasy, I shouldn't have to bog that down with real world considerations.

"Here's a basic ship. Here's a thousand credits. You're docked at Azeban City in Eranin. Off you go, Commander".
That is the long and the short of the starting storyline in Elite. The rest is what you make it.

Precisely. It should be what I make of it, not other people.

In many ways, it will be the same. Events will happen, things will change, but most of them will change back. It's not like 400 Billion systems will suddenly be reduced to 20 because some Clan have built a Death Star, or anything.

It won't ever be the same. Once charted a now explored area cannot be reset to unexplored.

It requires a fair bit of that as is. Your starting ship only does a few Ly, so you will always need to get a bigger ship first off.


Yes, and eventually all 400 Billion systems will have been fully charted and explored. Alexander will weep, for there will be no more worlds left to conquer, etc etc... Already, it took quite a fair bit just to find a system that was not already listed as discovered (darn NPCs) when the Beta launched.

Precisely - so why make the problem worse?

Theoretically, even you in your offline mode could visit every system. I think someone calculated it would take 12 years... but would you really manage even a tenth of that?
By that time, though, I'm sure Elite 5 will have come out... perhaps we'll even have the Star Citizen Beta as well!!

The scale isn't the problem. It's the world operation when I'm not there. Players + NPCs will be operating and exploring when I am not logged in. That means I am not telling a story on my commanders terms or in relation to the time I have available to play the game.

Should a single player game experience materially change based on how much free time you have to play the game or when you buy the game? That's debatable - but ideally we would have the choice to decide whether it does or not. Games like Elite, Skyrim etc. do not. MMOs like EVE do. I was hoping E: D would be more like the former than the latter, or ideally, let us chose by making online optional. (And it should be a completely separate commander for online vs offline of course)

[scaryjim]

But would you want all your efforts in Offline to transfer over to the Solo/Multiplayer, or would you be perfectly happy to start the online version again from scratch?

I absolutely would not expect those efforts to carry over, just like I wouldn't expect things I did in the online universe to impact my solo game commander. I start many games numerous times to experiment with different aspects of game play - often without ever "finishing" the game (if such a thing exists). And if I decide I've made bad decisions with my solo game, I'd like to be able to ditch what I was doing and start again, knowing that my experience of starting out will be exactly the same every time - otherwise I'll never know if my new decisions are actually better, or if the game world has just changed enough to work around them.

This is why it's coming out as two different games .....

Huh? There's a second Elite: Dangerous? Links? References?

[Lowe]

DB just posted on the ED forums:

Back during the Kickstarter, we were clear about the vision, to make a phenomenal new sequel to Elite in an online world, which we believe we are about to deliver. At the time we believed we could also offer a good single player experience, and base an acceptable offline-only experience off that. As development has progressed, it has become clear that this last assumption is not the case. That experience would be empty at best, and even that would take a lot of extra work.

It is not to enforce DRM or advertising as you suggest. We will be judged on quality, and the quality of that game experience would be poor, and we don't want to deliver a poor game. To make a richer offline single player experience has always been possible (and still is) but would be a separate game with its own story content. A huge slice of separate work. We have developed a multi-player game with an unfolding story involving the players, and groups collaborating with specific objectives and taking account of all players behaviour. This is what the game is about. Without this it would not be the rich gaming experience that we will deliver, and would be a great disappointment to all players.

I don't pretend it was an easy decision, but it was done to benefit the game as a whole. One thing we have looked at carefully is our requirements of the network connection. For the single player game they are pretty light. I myself have played the game fine on the train using a laptop on a tethered connection over my phone. Given that this is a game which is only available online, this was the decision we took. I am sorry that people are so upset about it, but it was the right decision.