text:
I get a lot of questions about how the whole persistent universe works and what I mean when I talk about battle instances.
I've given some answers but as it keeps coming up, I thought it would be good to give all of you a longer description in how this all works and fits together.
One of my goals with Star Citizen was to create a huge open world that you could adventure in solo, with your friends, mingling with NPCs and other real people.
Freelancer was built to have up to 128 players in multiplayer, but as a few of you know that was more a theoretical maximum than something that was really practical, especially back in 2003. When I started building Freelancer, partly inspired by the work done on Ultima Online (which was in development when I was still at Origin), the fun I was having playing multiplayer games like Command & Conquer and Diablo I had wanted to bring the Privateer experience into the bold new world of multiplayer. My original vision for Freelancer was to first release a single player game and then follow it up with massively multiplayer version with a dynamic economy and a world that reacted and adapted to the players actions.
I didn't get a chance to deliver this vision and ultimately while Freelancer was a good game, it fell short of what I was aiming for.
With Star Citizen I was determined to combine what I wanted to achieve with Freelancer, with the personal experience that I think both Wing Commander and Privateer were so strong with.
But me being me, I wanted to combine things I like about the promise of a MMO, but avoid the aspects that I'm not so keen on like splintered player groups, griefing and grinding. I also was really impressed with how Demon's Souls merged the single player experience with the multiplayer side.
All of this helped form my thinking on how Star Citizen is going to balance the difficult balancing act between multiplayer and single player.
All multiplayer games – whether they are a persistent world massively multiplayer game (MMO) like World of Warcraft or just an online multiplayer game like Battlefield 3 – have a limit to the number of players that can be active in anyone area or level. This number is usually inversely proportional to the amount of data that needs to go between the client and the server. For a game with complex physics and a fully destructible terrain, like Battlefield 3 the number of players that can active in an instance is less than a game with less real time fidelity like WoW, or Eve on Line. But in all cases there are always more players than any one server instance can handle. For a persistent multiplayer world like WoW the solution is to split up the player base into more manageable groups called "shards", which are a permanent instance of the universe that look after a certain amount of players.
One thing I don't like about most MMO structures is the fragmentation of the player base between these "shards". If you had joined much later than a friend of yours, there may not be room on his world instance anymore and you have to join another parallel one and so cannot play together. This is one of the nice things about the Eve Online design – everyone plays in the same universe.
In Star Citizen there is going to be one persistent universe server that everyone exists on. So you will never be separated from your friends, and if you want you'll be able to join up and adventure together, you can. Due to the fidelity of the dogfighting and physics simulation we can't however handle thousands of players in the same area of space. Even if you had enough internet bandwidth to handle the data going back and forth and a super computer for the server there's no PC, even with quad SLI that could render that many spaceships with Star Citizen's fidelity.
So the "magic" of Star Citizen's multiplayer design is how we combine a persistent universe with a more traditional (and easier to implement) temporary multiplayer "battle" instance.
The way it works is that the persistent universe server, which we're calling the Galaxy Server, keeps track of all players' assets, group relationships and locations inside the Star Citizen universe. As the Galaxy server isn't handling any realtime action it can handle our complete player base, which right now would be about 45,000 players, but is designed to be able to scale to millions if need be. The other key thing the Galaxy Server does is dynamically place players based on their location, skill level, alignment and player versus player (PvP) preference into battle instances. Think of a "battle" instance like a Battlefield 3 multiplayer session or a World of Tanks Battle with the key difference that the selection of players is done transparently and is "in fiction".
An illustration of how this would work is like this –
I start out planet side on New Pittsburg. I decide to buy a few tonnes of steel to fly to the shipyards of Terra. I'm currently in the hands of the galaxy server that communicates with my client and handles my purchases and interactions on the planet as these are not real time in the manner that the space action is. We render these in the manner of Freelancer, as detailed 3D environments where we see a third person view of our character in a location and we can click on Non Player Characters (NPCs) or terminals to buy / sell, upgrade your ship, get gossip, hear about a mission and so on. You'll also be able to interact with other players via a chat interface. We haven't fully worked out the player avatar handling planet side but the bar or private clubs will be where you can meet / chat to other players. Besides populating the bar with NPCs, the game will also populate the bar with other players. If there are more players planet side than there are slots of avatars in the bar the ones visible to you will be based off your friends list and then it will be based on relevance to you – a player looking for a wingman, one from a similar group, or maybe someone that you've been given a mission to find or hunt down. You will also be able to see the full list of players in the room if there are more players than there are slots. Default would be a drop down list for this, but as I hate anything that breaks the immersion, we'll probably come up with a better in fiction way of seeing the list of players – maybe you tell the bartender who you're looking for, maybe you can look at the door list for the bar.
Having bought my cargo I launch into space. If there are players already in orbit there will be an orbit instance already created. If it's not full then I will be placed into that. If it is full then a new one will be dynamically created. All orbit (and battle) instances reserve slots for friends and persons of interest (POI), which can be NPCs or other players, so if you've launched and there are multiple orbit instances and you have friends already in orbit you should be placed into that instance. This is also the dynamic that will be applied if you want to follow another player – you can "tag" them as a POI and then the game will do its best to place you in the same instance as your POI. For instance if you tagged someone planet side and they launch your PDA with its future version of Siri will notify you that your POI is leaving, giving you a window to launch into space too.
Once in orbit I can pull up my Navigation computer and set a course for my destination. If its several systems away like Terra, the nav computer will chart a course through the relevant jump points. You will be able to adjust this like on Google maps, so if you click a different jump point on the system map it will then re-route you on the shortest path to your destination with that jump point as the first "jump"
Once I've plotted my nav course I would then engage auto-pilot and head towards my first "way" point on the path to my destination (a jump point, an interim space feature, like an asteroid belt and so on). At this point I've been handed back to the Galaxy Server, which is determining whether I will encounter a hostile, someone that has tagged me as a POI, or a predetermined encounter on the way, or if I'm going to run across ongoing battle instance that is relevant to me (some members of the instance are aligned against or with me). These encounters could be with an NPC or a live player(s) and are sorted on skill level and also – which is important to all of you that like a more single player experience and don't want to deal with griefers – based on your player versus player (PvP) preference. So if you've set your game settings to be low PvP and you're in a relatively safe area, you'll likely have an NPC (PvE) encounter as opposed to a PvP one. Of course your ranking and any reputation you earn won't be the same with a PvE encounter versus a PvP. My hope for this dynamic is that it will allow people to first play Star Citizen in a safer more single player open world style, but as they grow in confidence and want to test their mettle against other real players they can take the training wheels off and get into battles with real players. There will also be areas of the universe that no matter what your PvP setting is, will be PvP. These will be systems that are on the fringes of the policed galaxy and will be notorious for pirate and other illegal activity. They will also be the most lucrative areas – if you can survive.
Now if you're flying with your friends, who you can link to via the game POI "tagging" system, they will be with you when you're pulled into a battle instance, whether it is against NPCs, real players or a combination of both.
Once the Galaxy Server has determined that you will have an encounter based on the above criteria it either dynamically creates a battle instance, or puts you in one if one already exists at the encounter point, and that instance has room for new players. To exit this instance you either have to resolve the hostilities by defeating who's targeting you, negotiating an exit or just outrunning them. Once in an instance you can put out a distress call to your friends. There are two ways people on your friends list (or squadron as we're going to call it) can help. We save slots in all instances for friends to warp in to fight. To do this they need to be in the same system. If they are they can autopilot in to your rescue and will be dropped into the instance. If they're not in the star system, if they can get to your system before the battle is over then they can join (but will only be able to join once they've reached your system). The second way for your friends to help out is by "dropping in" on your ship. This only works if it's a multi person vehicle like the RSI Constellation. In this scenario they don't need to be in your system, they just will drop in inside your ship and will be able to move around in first person, climbing into a turret to man it, or jumping in you P52 to fly it in combat while you fly the main ship (or they could fly your main ship and you pilot the fighter)
Once the hostilities or the event (sometimes you could be pulled into an instance because you came across a derelict ship or space station and we want to give the player a chance to explore) that triggered the drop out of auto-pilot has been resolved, you can hit auto-pilot again, get handed back to the Galaxy Server and go about your way on the nav course you've plotted.
You will always drop out at jump points and planets, where you will need to either make a jump to another system or land.
This process is continued until you reach your final destination, which in my example would be Terra, where I would use my comm system to negotiate a landing slot, which would take me down to the planet's surface via an in-engine cinematic. Once planet side I'll be able to sell my cargo, replenish my supplies and look for new opportunities via the third person planet side interface.
The advantage of this system is that is allows you to tailor your experience towards your preference – solo, co-op or full PvP. It also doesn't partition you into different, parallel versions of the Star Citizen universe as everyone is kept on the persistent server. Because our battle or orbit / space instances are temporary, you're never stuck
with one group over the long term and due to our heavy emphasis on friends and co-op, there will always be room for your friends to join you on your adventure; whether it's against other players or NPCs.
The same instance system underpins the single player Squadron 42. If you're playing off-line, your computer will be acting as the server and client, there will be no opportunities for friends to join and everyone will be an NPC. But if you play Squadron 42 through the Galaxy Server, even though your missions and space areas are pre-determined (you don't get to pick where in the galaxy you are flying if you're in the military) we will allow your friends to drop in / drop out to take over NPC wingmen and if you want extra skill ranking you can allow other players to drop in and take over enemy ace characters. This system is pretty similar to the Demon's Souls setup where people could drop in as a Blue Phantom to help you kill a boss monster or fight off another invading player, or you could drop in as a Black Phantom to someone else's world and try and kill them for XP and other gamerewards.
The key to all this is to allow player choice – you want to play alone you can, want your friends to join you in co-op we allow that and if you want to be challenged by other real players you can do that. The special part is that it can all happen in the same holistic universe.
I hope this helps in terms of understanding how we're balancing the aspects of multiplayer as well as making the game fun.
249 Responses
Jaegerjaquez says:
Thanks for the update, getting more and more excited!
Aeqvinox says:
Finally a tangible piece of information on specific game mechanics. thanks!
One thing that worries me – why aren't you mentioning anything about escaping from an instance?
Sounds like there's no such thing as simply turning tail, full power to engines and run, as soon as you realize the instance you've dropped into is bad news?-
Juggernaut says:
You can outrun other players/npc,or at least try to.
Ishist Malkov says:
" To exit this instance you either have to resolve the hostilities by defeating who's targeting you, negotiating an exit or just outrunning them."
Gears says:
Check right next to the shot of the Hornet flying towards the Bengal Carrier's flight deck..
"To exit this instance you either have to resolve the hostilities by defeating who's targeting you, negotiating an exit or just outrunning them."
Outrunning them is an option.
Nic says:
He did mention you can outrun the enemy to leave an instance.
Thus I quote:
"To exit this instance you either have to resolve the hostilities by defeating who's targeting you, negotiating an exit or just outrunning them."-
Nic says:
whoops! Looks like a few of us all posted the same reply!
Qjuwert says:
Awesome. Reminds me of the battle system of Shogun 2, where you can choose between AI or human controlled opponents in the single player campaign.
Karab says:
Simple yet actually sensible resolution, can't wait to see how it is in play.
Pleasure says:
I love how you have handled this ! Keep it going… sounds really nice and Thanks for the Detailed Explanation.
Mr Pete says:
Yepp. Makes this game even more exciting!
Especially with two of my friends being here too.
Robert Voogt says:
This really makes a lot of sense and clears up some of the mysteries!
Thanks Chris! -
Bulska says:
Awesome! But all we do is set a destination and the auto-pilot takes us there? No more flying by ourselves to new locations of interrests or randomly flying through asteroid fields to see what's there? :O
Comet says:
You can do that. The instance system is transparent to the player. It still seams like your exploring a single sector but in the background the galaxy server is switching your instance dynamically.
Keep this in mind. You'll be able to find hidden jump-gates and stations in space. Remember the example Chris gave that if you are the first one to find and navigate a jump-gate you'll be able to name it after you?
This is possible because you can explore the sector. Be it the nebula instance. The asteroid instance, the orbit instance. For us the players, it will be transparent.-
JacqSiir says:
I was getting worried about the 'instances', but if its truly transparent it sounds great
J-Boy says:
It's bold but I like it, my MMO experience is linked only to older styles like Asheron's Call but I understand the problems from the traditional model, and even the multiplayer Freelancer servers suffered from population fluctuations you jsut kind of wish it was easier to interact with others. This sounds just..elegant. And actualyl in the world of space exploration reasonable. In your part of the universe you'll get to know people friends and enemies but also random people in the wrong place at the wrong time can appear.
flashbackflip says:
Agree – 'elegant' is a good word for this construction
Reach says:
Sounds great but don't like the whole dropping in and out of your friends, I thought it would be better is if you leave a planet with just you in the ship, no npcs or pcs, you make the whole journey on your own and land on your own. If you want a friend Onboard, they should board with you in the space port.
Killer Bee says:
+1 from me. It feels a bit strange that somehow a friend appears in your ship. But well, CR decides how to do it. I dont like the pvp vs pve being semi-optional neither, but I hope they do it well and I wish them good luck with it
Steish says:
Possibly the friend just takes over a npc character for the duration of the fight? So if you don't hire a crew you're screwed
Wirenut says:
YEa i agree with this, you should have to have an NPC crewmember to act as a placeholder if you think u might have friends dropping in. Would break immersion if all of a sudden in hyperspace someone comes walking into your cockpit, unless…..might have to brush up on my transwarp theory.
Mr Pete says:
Great idea!
That way you can still choose if you want the possibility of someone else aboard a larger ship lending you a hand (if your friends are RL avaiable) or not.
And then maybe grind your teeth because you didn't hire a crew, thus having no "slots" for your friends.
That was the biggest setback on the turrets in Privateer.Question this does rise for me: what happens to my friends while they dropped into my ship? Will their ship be hidden on the Galaxy Server? Or will it continue the programmed course and float somewhere ready for plunder because the "pilot you're targeting is currently not avaiable".
HeartOfDarkness says:
Good Question, what happens to your friends ship? Will it be flown by Autopilot, will it vanish from the "Galaxy Server" point of view?
Thinking about it rises another question to me: Will you see (long range, radar, ect.) players dropping in and out battle instances, in which you didnt take part in, minding your own business on the galaxy server..?
AkelaLT says:
Why is it so hard to imagine how in the future we all be traveling ? This is sci-fi, use some brainpower, lol, for example remember Star Trek ? There you can teleport yourself in to a friendly ship or back in to planet or even in to enemy ship (if your friend is in that ship to provide teleport point) with no problems, so why it is so hard for you and others here to imagine that in a game set in similar world of the future ??? Some people just have no imagination what so ever…
Thanks Chris R. by away ! I love your way of thinking about mechanics in the game, more choices and options for people the better game is.-
sPOiDar says:
Then why is anyone flying ships around in the first place? Just set up a chain of FTL teleporters and get where you're going before any ship possibly could.
I definitely agree that the only thing I found really jarring in this description was this 'drop-in' option – it really breaks the 4th wall. Of course it's still early days, and when I heard about ships with crew capabilities, fighters, etc I wondered how they could make it not suck (most of the time) for everyone other than the pilot, so I would like to hear some more on this.
Chromoid says:
I honestly like the idea of giving people a chance to limit their pvp encounters. As a new player, it would be invaluable to be able to avoid running into a bunch of people straight off the bat who want to "kill the noob."
I also think like how they're going to handle the co-op aspect of Squadron 42, though I agree with Killer Bee that there should be an NPC of some sort for your friend to take over. It would kinda break the immersion to have someone randomly pop up in your spacecraft.
Senet says:
Want to add another voice in agreement on this. It detracts from immersion that people can effectively teleport in and out of ships in transit. Unless you're going for Star Trek 2009′s transwarp teleportation, which was a bit silly, but as long as there's an in-built lore-based reasoning for how it's possible.
As Reach said, I'd like pilots to have to prepare for these types of things. If you are planning to pilot a craft with valuable cargo that relies on having multiple people on board in case you're taking a dangerous route, what better way to take advantage of a spacebar and meetup scenario. You need to enlist some help from someone planetside. If your friends can just magically drop in and out, it defeats the need to ask for help from strangers.
And if you want to go it solo, you should fly a solo craft or become proficient at operating a multi-person one while in transit. Set the ship on auto-pilot and run to the turrets yourself.
Mattman8001 says:
I also agree with this, dropping in and out with your physical character doesn't make sense. Maybe if you own a multi person ship, you could have a friend drop in and control turrets remotely through a secured data connection. And then allow attackers to get jamming tech to stop people from being able to control systems remotely. Being able to physically be there seems unrealistic unless the game has teleporting tech.
HAWK says:
it is not teleporting… it is just the ability to take control of an npc of your crew by one of your friend….
President Beeblebrox says:
Agreed, you would need npc's to man, or woman the larger ships, so it wouldn't hurt to have a friend take the place of an npc. This would make for a more challenging target taking on actual human gunners vs. AI ones.
AkelaLT says:
And Again – get a grip – its a game set in a future, teleporting yourself to a friends ship sounds totaly reasonable to me.
Ssargon says:
I dont agree with you at all.
This will make the game awhole lot more fun and increase the ammount of cooperation between friends in-game. That is part of the experience I want from this game.
Chris is right on track about what I want at least
President Beeblebrox says:
Aye aye me matey, it would also increase the challenge of bigger targets, which will add realism to the game. I'd much rather be swashbuckling with actual players vs. a ship filled with confused NPC's.
Kwelt Lander says:
maybe cyber link to an on board droid to help man turrets and fight fires??
flashbackflip says:
Yoda's words ..indeed wise they are
Blues says:
"Master Yoda's Words are they…Accurate are you…Wise are they."
Malice says:
This sounds near enough perfect for what I want out of an MMO, lots of tailoring, I like the POI side, I can start hunting fat merchant ships
Net says:
Great update but I have still few concerns. I will have to try it to understand it.
About the co-op singleplayer and friends. I have friends and 'friends' and sometimes I would like not to play with 'friends' when I am playing with friends.-
Kantzarakos says:
Lot of games with drop-in co-op have the option of leaving the server open to anyone that wants to join, or being invitation-only. I'm pretty sure something similar can be easily set up for this game.
Net says:
Yeah, something similar would be great. There could be password protected servers or something like that.
One suggestion for Nav Computer:
Give more option like:
* shortest way by zime
* shortest way by distance
* shortest way within XX security levelSo you can tell your OnBoard AI what you want:
Fast travelling or save travelling.-
jukebox says:
That's some good suggestion, time and way is clear, just like on real navis. I like the idea about the most save oder unsave way!
flashbackflip says:
I guess you should figure it out yourself
by learning lore and your own encounters you will know which systems you want to drift through and which to lay aside..
Fact is that there will be systems which higher police control and with less of police security, so that there is determined which security level is on this system.
If you say to your onboard AI that you only want to fly through high secured system as a pre-defined option it would be very cool.
In my suggestion I have expand it that you can choose to your minimum security level you would like to have.
And then Nav is calculating route among these input.-
Kantzarakos says:
It would be cool to have events like pirate guilds attacking better guarded areas, or something similar caused by NPCs, and people that thought the system was safe suddenly bumping into them. You might also have your PvP preference influence whether you'll join some of the events or not.
InfoWarrior says:
I would like the option to upgrade the quality of NAV maps/Computers. Just like in the original Privateer.
Comrade Suhov says:
I'd love thjat idea too. A flyghing thorugh max secured and explored space, or shortest way possible (for AI, coz there is always a shorter way with manual ovveride).
Chromoid says:
After that recent blog about AI, I'm a little iffy about having one in my ship…
TheV!P3R says:
Sounds really fun, sadly the last picture isnt linked to the original one. Can you please fix this? Or is there another site where all the pictures are wrapped up?
Disposable Hero says:
that sounds almost to fantstic to be real. I realy hope everything works out just as you described it. I can't wait to play that game. Go for it Mr Roberts, HELL YEAH!! -
Yoristar says:
Just one question:
Can players change their PvP/PvE preferences on the fly? Or is it a one time setting and that's the way it stays?-
JMBeraldo says:
That's a concern I was going to raise up… It seems like, yes, you can change it (Chris mentions you can 'take off the training wheels' at some point)
Now, the potential issue: I'm a PVP player, part of a guild on war with half the universe. I need to take cargo from our HQ to a station where I will craft/sell it all. I load up my freighter, turn 'PvP' off and go happily without the risk of PvP. When I'm done, I turn 'PvP' back on.
The potential issue here is reducing by default Guild vs Guild conflict. Or maybe not, as Chris mentions that some areas will have PvP anyway.
Just something to consider during design of this mechanic.
mspedersen says:
Well, if you are at war with half the universe, then you probably have you daily 'going about' in the lawless outer systems, which Chris mentioned would be heavy pvp systems, even if you set your settings to pve. And it wouldn't really make sense to go to the systems where the pve setting works, since the reward for trading goods would be low, and you would probably have the whole Terran navy after you (since you are at war with half the universe)…. All in all I see your concern, but I think it would be almost non-rewarding for the player type you describe to actually exploit it. Or at least I hope
JMBeraldo says:
Yeah, it may be that content itself self-regulates it
BUT since we players are devilish and always find a way to exploit systems… you never know
Kantzarakos says:
In a lot of MMOs you had the option to randomly attack anyone you saw, but it would give you an aggresive status for attacking them and a murderer status for killing them, or something similar(like purple and red names instead of white). Then it rewarded players for taking down player killers.
If there's a bounty on your head and then you tell the system that you don't want PvP, the system might just tell you "too bad, mate". There are already dangerous areas where your PvP preference doesn't matter, so actually making well guarded areas "dangerous" for people with bounties on their heads wouldn't be too hard.
We've been hearing things about bounties, ways to get rid of them, ways to look for people that have them(bounty hunter career), and possibly ways to hide the fact there's one on your head (electro skin etc.). I'm sure there will be exploits, but I don't think it'll be that easy.
Deliverence says:
Such a awesome way to handle things love this design god I wish I could play this game right now, Also so glad I picked up the Constellation now having friends drop in during battle hell yes.
Mazzoff Aerolian says:
That is amazing. I can't wait to see live
Kajisan says:
Nice and very well handled system. Can't wait to see this in action.
Srefanius says:
If this system works how you describe it, it really is awesome indeed. But I have one question: How does jumping between instances work on screen. Will there be loading screens? Cause that would be bad for immersion. If every jumping from one planet to another is like in Freelancer from one system to another I wouldn't like it except one instance (ie around a planet) is big enough to explore things and have interesting points in each of it.
Lancer says:
As Mr. Roberts said that he hates things that break immersion, I believe there will be no loading screens, just another ingame cinematic (same as with landings, probably). Hopefully those cinematics will be very diversive. I still remember the autopilot from Starlancer, which got boring very quickly.
Jukarrn says:
Awesome stuff! Got a good picture of it now.
marcomads says:
It sounds good… especially i like the way you want to handle the co-op Squadron42 part.
As someone already pointed out there should be some room for real free exploration or flying around the universe but i think you can find an instanced solution for that too -
Corey says:
Maybe I am wrong but this sounds like every time I go to fly somewhere that I will be forced into combat. Even in low threat areas. It just sounds kinda artificial when enemy NPC or human players should be out there on their own…not random encounters. Again maybe I am wrong.
JMBeraldo says:
Actually I guess it just means you will have an 'encounter', which could be NPC pirates, other players, an asteroid belt, NPC traders, a derelict, etc.
In his example, if to go from New Pitsburg to the jumpoint to Terra you need to go across an asteroid belt with a trade station, you will be dropped into that instance (in either an already created instance or a randomly-generated one) before been able to move to the jump point
In the end, it will feel like playing Freelancer.
SPaulovic says:
This is a very detailed summary of all those single and multiplayer topics,
but somehow I miss the private server feature. How is this expected to work?
Do we have a LAN server tool running with a fixed world?-
ET90 says:
Thats something I'd also like to know. It was actually fun to play Freelancer on LAN-Partys.
Furthermore I liked the multiplayer system of Freelancer having multible different Communitys instead of one big Galaxy like EvE Online. Some liked roleplaying, some pvp, etc.
Despite of what I read on different news articles there wont be the the possibility of running/beeing part of a individual community as I understand this blog posting.So will it be possible to run own LAN/"galaxy" Servers and share them with other people?
flashbackflip says:
CR stated YES more than once on different sources like Reddit and Kick
CCC_Dober says:
If I understand the system right, the server would have no significant problems with people that are more into solo play and maybe a handful of friends. However, once a person has a sufficiently large friends list (think Clan leaders) and is linked to people that don't share the same friends for the most part (other Clan leaders) … I can imagine this could be quite a task for the server if things scale up. Possibly to the point that it breaks the system (think of several massive Clans operating in the same area).If this turns out to be true, then a hard limit on the number of people/ships is either inevitable or requires some workarounds, like putting a large number of clan members into giant battleships to keep down the traffic. Ironically this kind of game mode could also make the game hugely attractive if done well. The demand for tactical command and FPS mode is certainly there if you look at the most recent poll.
At any rate, I'm looking forward to this.
Cheers =)-
JMBeraldo says:
I guess what probably would happen is that you'd have a battle going in more than one instance.
There needs to be a way to categorize people on this 'friends list'. The system would need to understand the difference between… say, friends, guild members, party members, nemesis (people you want to keep track of, but are not really friends) and members of a guild you are allied or at war with (handled by a guild vs guild system?)
CCC_Dober says:
That sounds possible, but is it feasible?
Imagine 100+ people in a giant furball and how the server would want to handle this without breaking the user experience. I have difficulties to imagine that when the number of ships is equally high. Eve lag fests come to mind here.What I can imagine though is that you can have indeed several instances on large ships that fight other larger or smaller ships up to a certain number. Think of command, communications, engineering, science, medical, boarding parties, internal/external defense systems, capital weapon systems, bomber wings, fighter wings, production/salvage facilities etc.
Just a couple ideas.-
JMBeraldo says:
I guess it depends on what is the reason for that furball, as resources may be an issue to fight over if we have instances.
For instance, taking control of a region/station/asteroid field makes no sense if new instances are spontaneously created. In that sense, the Guild vs Guild (or faction vs faction) war makes no sense.
A 'mundane' furball (as in group A attacks group B to destroy their ships, cargo, capship, etc) might be split up in several instances. Say, group A is escorting their Bengal and dozens of heavy cargo haulers across space. Group B knows about it. Their pilots tag both the Bengal and the haulers.
When the 2 groups cross paths, instances are created. Since there are too many players at the same time. In one, pilots from group B attack group A's Bengal, a couple of haulers and some fighters; in the second instance, other group B players attack the remaining haulers and fighters.
Lore-wise it would be like the ambush managed to split up the convoy, attacking the slower members of the pack.
Both instances happen simultaneously and may receive friendlies as support up to the point in which that instance has no more available slots.
CCC_Dober says:
Let me put it that way: the moment both large groups decide to meet in the middle and duke it out in a giant free for all (the furball I'm talking about), this is where the server will probably buckle under high loads.
Addmittedly, this is more of a worst case scenario. Eve can't handle it (unless you don't mind slideshows) and I hope Chris is prepared to account for thousands of players in single clans. Say hello to the goons. They will want to roll together and that will be quite a challenge to overcome.
Instances within an instance might be a way. Think of each corvette/battleship/carrier having multiple instances for command, crews, fighters, boarders etc., while the ship and its sub-instances as a whole fight other ships within a single instance.
Not sure if this is the best idea or compromise though. The number of ships per instance somehow needs to be reasonable or the instances themselves must be able to overlap dynamically. The latter doesn't really solve the problem of giant furballs though (too many ships in the same spot/to render). That particular problem will invite exploits and griefing as much as it does in Eve.
CrazyTim says:
I can see this working. Perhaps when two very large squadrons clash, the galaxy server balances the players into multiple instance based on their ship/rank. Same happens when a new player joins an existing battle. If your'e lucky you'll get placed in the same instance that the space station is in. The players in each instance fight to resolve the instance, which is thereafter merged in with another, continuing until the battle is won.
The merging of instances would have to be obvious, but not so disruptive that it destroys the immersion.
Toyic says:
I think this is where the Alpha and Beta tests come in, it's our job as Alpha/Beta testers to test this to the limit, so, I'm all for the 'furball'. We've got to not only make sure the system put in place works, but make sure it's also fun to play with.
It all sounds great to me so far.
I don't really get why it would be too difficult to just toss a hardlimit of ships on each instance to preserve the capacity to actually render the battle, and then any extra players take the role of crew on the ships. That way the large clans could in fact battle with eachother, just with not everyone piloting their own ships; and with the new boarding mechanic announced, I'm excited to see how these large battles turn out.
Cpt. Archie C. Eagle says:
Really well written explanation! Thank you very much.
The whole jumping in onto your friends ship now seems to be actually physically jumping in in the sense of teleportation. Personally This is rather immersion breaking to me and I'd find some sort of remote control mechanic much cleaner. Maybe specialized VR/RC "pods" on all stations, planets,bases where RCing quality is distance depending? So that actually flying from themgetgo with your friends gives you a slighr advantage over just calling them in if you are in troubles?
But that's neither here nor there and it will not stop me from enjoying the game.
I am wondering though what happens if my friends ship gets blown to pieces? Will I "die" with him an gomthrough the standard postdeath procedure and need then to go and find my ship floating somewhere in space where I was before I teleported? Will I automagically reappear where I was before?I really love the way you are setting it all up and don't mean this to be nitpicky. Just realy curious about that aspect. And from forum posts so far I won't be the only one
Broken Arrow says:
Please NO!!!
NO for just drop in from anywhere in the universe to friends ship when ever this person needs help!!!If you want something like that make it in stile of Jump Clones.
Friends can jump in your ship if:
- they can jump in if you installed jump clone bay in your ship.
- they must be in station or some huge ship (carrier) that have Mind transfer facility.
- They cant jump more then once every 6/12/24 (choose number) hours because humans brain cant handle that kind of stress too often (medical/technical reason). This way ppl must choose, ppl must think, if they jump they must spend next x hours in that new body (choice means something).-
Net says:
Your suggestion would be very boring…and no one would use drop-in…no point to have multiperson ship.
CCC_Dober says:
If it helps, you can think of it as friends remote-controlling androids while they are not physically present. Call it crazy alien technology or the latest breakthrough in 'wetware', whatever catches your fancy. It's all about friends playing together in the end.
JMBeraldo says:
Just set up you preferences in the way that no friend can jump into your ship after you have launched from a station
BTW, I think if you could set this up independently from the one where friends can jump in with fighters if they are on the same star system, it would reduce a lot of the current discontent with the system
And, you want to play on your own? Turn the 'friends jump in' option altogether!
frank says:
like the update give's good information on how to handle server load and how co-up and so on will work
one question wil the low pvp setting only work on low rish systems ? or every where
JMBeraldo says:
Chris mentioned on the text that some areas would have PvP anyway you set it up. It's expected, as these systems will probably be set up for high risk, high rewards. It may also be designed with PvP and guild conflict in mind.
Which probably wouldn't prevent you from setting up your own private server with no PvP whatsoever
Duke Satan says:
That is how i had imagined this system was going to work, cant wait to try this in the alpha and beta stages, maybe time to start hunting for a PC upgrade…. lol.
Bloodbolt says:
thanks sounds great only thing I'd would like to see is that unsafe territory has a players and not npcs
TommeH says:
Fantastic update!
I'm really glad that I upped my pledge today from 60$ to 125$ (freelancer). -
Snowman says:
Regarding graphics fidelity and number of space ships; since most ships in a massive battle can't be terribly close, or even in view, wouldn't a Level of Detail (LOD) system help out with increasing the number of space ships that can attend? At least in terms of visuals. Would be interesting to hear more on specific technical issues at hand.
JMBeraldo says:
The main issue is not so much graphic as is positioning data going to and from. We're talking about know the X,Y,Z, vector and (high) speed of several ships, their shots, their missiles, loot, and possibly other objects whose position are not fixed on the server.
And, while combat doesn't often happen at close quarters, you'll usually get ships or other objects passing close by your screen. Without a good rig, it would mean you would lock up for precious seconds (which counts a lot when everyone is moving fast). So, LOD helps the sense of lag, but doesn't fix the issue of lag itself.
Allerka says:
So it's like Star Trek Online, just a bit more dynamic and varied.
Farsspade says:
why not just make 1 video about it instead of writing down 5000 words??
Srefanius says:
Uhm its not finished and working yet? They only have a prototype of the game…
nitrodust says:
How does the "Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)" fit into that? Are the instances hosted by people?
Srefanius says:
Its obvious: private servers and some mods may kae it o officials server if community wants it.
nitrodust says:
But how would I get on a modded server in the first place? Do modded servers have to host their own central server for the persistent data? Can you host a normal server and help balance the load? As you could potentially write a mod that makes you get items easier than you would on real servers, wouldn't that speak against the modded server thing?
gorg_graggel says:
i'd assume that the self hosted servers contain the whole universe, but don't have a connection to the database that tracks progress for the persistent universe.
so if there is no way of saving your gamestate (you know, like in normal sp games) or connect to a self hosted database, your progress would always be reset when the self hosted server is restarted/shut down…
those would be the servers where mods would run on and if a mod is very popular it can be pitched to the devs. they can the decide if a mod will be incorporated into the persistent universe…
at least that's how i always have been interpreting the whole self-hosting stuff…and i would be rather disappointed if i can play s42 coop on the persistent servers only…
Aronn says:
Sounds wonderful! Only thing I'd wish you'd consider, was the possibility to let those of us who want to, experience the groundside/fps parts of the game as first person instead of third person.
Boraxx says:
Thanks a lot for the extended explanation Chris. Really like its balance system.
Still I got something I don't understand.
With instances in the same universe, how would the system deal with instances having a different outcome on the same event? (Schrodingers cat situation)
Say an NPC Cargo ship event happens and so many players jump the opportunity to aid or attack it, that 2 instances are created. In 1 instance the NPC Cargo ship is defeated and in 1 instance it survives and finishes its mission. How would the consistent universe lore deal with this? (If a Cargo ship isnt representative enough, think space station)
JMBeraldo says:
My guess is that you either has several cargo ships (it's a convoy split apart, or different routes) and not a single named cargo ship (could it randomize ship names?)
Now, if the outcome is purely personal (a mission you are playing), in your version of the story, you killed in. In someone elses, it escaped, etc.
Another option is just say, what the heck, this is a game! Measure up how many people did the kill vs who didn't. Whichever number is higher wins. Or like WoW's raids: the first group to take out the cargo ship is considered the ones who did it lorewise
Erik Finnegan says:
This is very clever.
And I knew this was how it'd work the moment CR mentioned instances were created based on ship trajectory and player relationships.
Tim says:
Chris, this sounds absolutely jaw-droppingly amazing!
Thanks for the extremely detailed write-up regarding instancing. My main worry is that there is so much detail in this that I'm scratching my head wondering if you can actually deliver! Excellent stuff.
However, I'm wondering if you would consider one aspect of the planet-side design you've mentioned. With regards to the above, obviously piloting ships will be in first-person, and you've stated above that helping a friend inside their multi-player ship will also be first-person, as would I guess any kind of interaction on bigger ships (carriers etc).
The problem I see though, is that when you go planet-side you are then given a 3rd-person perspective which I think is a real shame and will actually grate against the experience and remind you that you're in a game rather than suspending disbelief.
If possible would you consider implementing the planet-side interfaces as an extension of the first-person viewpoint (either wholly or as an option)?
Or how about a poll for the community to see which is most desired?
Either way though, your vision of Star Citizen is nothing short of breath-taking – well done to you and your team for raising the funding to do this already, and I'm looking forward to seeing what else you have planned for us!
DCAL4 says:
This is outstanding! As someone who values the Single Player experience just as much as Multi-Player this is very exciting. Being able to play in the same universe and choose each level or style of play when you feel like it is something I have wanted for a long time.
It is official for me, I can now say that in all my years of Gaming there is no other title I have been this excited about.
Nyvis says:
So, no real massively multiplayer battles ?
You say all mmo have limits of people on the same place. I think you're forgetting one of the closest to Star Citizen : EVE online.
In a theme park mmo, having player number limitations is fine, but in a sandbox game, it sounds really bad. If I want to make a huge group to, say, conquer the galaxy, we can't all fight together ? Imagine the problems it could cause : to escort a transport without any risk, you just have to put enough people in the instance to prevent pirate players to enter it.I think the no griefing cause will also kill all interest in PvP, and all the open world thing. I'm sorry, but your world doesn't look open to me at all. If I'm a trader, I'll have a very bad PvP record and I'll put a non-PvP preference in, and I'll be safe? Being able to interact with others is the core of an open (or sandbox) game. If a person is afraid of interaction with other people, they have a solo campaign and private servers. But please, don't destroy the open world experience and the potential sandbox game by trying to satisfy the theme park players.
Fights matching with skill, chosen by the game, limits of people in instances, no-PvP settings … I hope you're also thinking of ways to balance this to keep the open worl feeling and the possibility to choose who I want to interact with. If the space can be safe for the ones not wanting to fight, I don't really see the point in playing the game multiplayer … I'm pretty sure most hardcore fans of multiplayer space games are interested more in an open world with plenty of interactions than in a theme park where you only get exactly what you ask for. Having a world players can alterate and be an active part also implies that the world and other players can and must push things on them, else it will just be a solo game.
I hope that you have these concerns in mind.
Srefanius says:
you forget that in the most profitable areas pvp is forced.
JMBeraldo says:
There is a big difference between Eve and SC, which Chris mentions on the text.
Technically speaking, Eve is about selecting targets and giving commands (attack, orbit, go to, etc). What that means is that the data going from player to server and back needs define only these commands in relation to starting points and (when necessary) finishing points. There is no 'true' simulation going on.
An action game needs to transfer a hell lot more data back and forth (and to every other player). So all the time the server needs to tell you (and every one of the other players and NPCs in that instance) where you are, in what direction, where are your shots, where are they going, etc.
For every new player in the instance is another set of data going to everyone else (and someone else that needs to receive all this data).
That's why games like Eve can handle a lot more players at a time, and it will always be like that.
Xaris says:
I think the rough number of players/ships in an instance has been mentioned as over 100. That may not count as massively multiplayer, but for any space shooter I've ever heard of, 100 ships is a huge battle. If you had 500 people fighting 500 and it just split everyone across 10 instances, I think the only difference that would be noticeable is that people's framerates would be decent instead of annoyingly slow.
You mention concerns that unlike EVE online you can't put together a massive group and conquer the galaxy and have massive battles. First, I think you could, but massive sounds like it will be sub-200 per instance, and after that you would just have multiple instances. But I'm ignorant about EVE. In EVE how many ships can you have on your screen duking it out? Is the only limit when your hardware can't handle it anymore?
nitrodust says:
thousands of people can be in a battle of eve, and the limit is the servers single thread capabilities, as they have to process every weapon fired, movements… each second. This is done with a single thread, but last thing I heard they had plans to multithread this process.
Eidolonius says:
IF you want to play Eve, play Eve.
If you want to be at the controls and fly your own ship, play Star Citizen.
It is, as it will always be in software, a trade off.
Admiral says:
This is really informative, thanks. I would still like to know what happens if you are left to drift in space. It would be fair to have some kind of NPC or player distress call, not just for your friends list, that can rescue or help you out.
When you say friends warp in to fight do you mean warp into ships already existing in the instance or new ships arriving? If new ships I would like the option to call in NPC and player ships to help, not just on my friends list.
And if new players are assigned to that instance couldn't that instance continue indefinitely until you are killed? Or couldn't you arrive at the same time that the last player leaves or is about to?
I would guess for balancing that friends would warp into existing ships. But the fact that when you navigate you can enter an already existing instance, this makes me wonder as to whether it will not mean this. Of primary concern to me is balance and the risk of instances carrying on for a very protracted period of time if you are not able to escape or get caught up in a furball where you don't have much of an option than to fight.
Sorry about the questions! I know the point of this was to stop a lot of the questions. But thanks.
JMBeraldo says:
From what I understood of the text:
In Squadron 42, players can join in in pre-existing ships (either allies or enemies)
In SC, players can join in with their own ships as if jumping in (if they are in the same star system) or as part of you ship's crew (and either man turrets, launch on a fighter you already have in you ship, etc)
Sendokami says:
Ok I got 2 questions/comments on this.
1. Choosing how much PvP you want seems like a huge problem. How are players going to pray on traders and merchants if they all have their PvP priority set to off or low? Players who are playing as pirates wont ever get any valuable kills because any trader with half a mind will set their priority to low to they and get there safely. And if your "solution" is the lawless areas that creates a problem since all the pirates will be clustered in a select few areas. It could get so bad that no trader would risk going to those areas since all the pirates are there.
I good solution to this is that if someone is going to be a trader they can set their priority but the more valuable the cargo they are carrying the more often they will pop up to be attacked. So if a trader wants to move 5000 credits worth of goods even if he sets his priority to low he will still most likely get attacked if there is a pirate in the area. This can be explained away as criminals always have ears to the ground listening for any valuable targets they naturally avoid low reward targets and prioritize high value.
The second question I have is can I attack anyone I see? If I'm just siting in space on the galaxy server and someone passes by can I attack them? Am I already in an instance? Do I have to load into one to attack them? This also raises another point about the PvP priority if I can then the whole PvP priority is borked since I can just attack anyone, If I cant then that sucks so badly I may pull my pledge. I want to be able to just point at a guy and say "I'm going to kill him or die trying!" and then shoot at him.
I understand what you are trying to do but there seems to be some major flaws that need to be explained or fixed. I plan on mainly being a trader but I don't want to play a space sim where no one can attack me unless some arbitrary rules are met and I let them. Flying in lawed space shouldn't prevent me from being attacked it should just make attacking me harder.
JMBeraldo says:
If you see someone else flying in front of you it's because you already are in the same instance
From what I've read so far, you CAN open fire in that guy. What will probably happen is that, doing that in a 'lawed' region will flag you are a pirate and probably drawn in NPC navy (and PCs pirate hunters/bounty hunters?). So, yes, you can try to kill him, but you'll probably get in trouble for it.
DragonShadow says:
It sounds to me that it works like this:
You can either be at a location, such as a planetary system or in transit between locations. Each of these planetary systems will have at least one instance if there is a player there, and anyone who arrives in that location will be placed into that instance. If there are more people in the area than the instance can support, more instances will be created for them to arrive into. If you have friends or foes in any particular instance, the game will try to match you up with these people specifically.
If two people are in transit between the two same points, there is a chance that the galaxy server will note this and create a new 'transit instance' that will work the same way as described above. You can be dropped into it and it will simply be tied to the transit, rather than a specific location such as the planetary system.
Note that each of the locations such as a planetary system will be a large area of space within which you can move inside freely. Only moving really long distances like between systems will be done through the autopilot mode.
CrazyTim says:
Sounds good. Can a transit instance join a stationary instance?
Eidolonius says:
The answer is in the text. You'd prey on NPCs. You won't see many RPCs because you have PvP set to low or off.
Ixos says:
If I understand this correctly a trader will get the exact same amount for his goods no matter if he made his travel with PvP enabled or disabled.
So when it comes to trading, why would anyone have PvP enabled if the only extra reward is what they can gain from battles they just want to avoid/survive anyways?
"The other key thing the Galaxy Server does is dynamically place players based on their location, skill level, alignment and player versus player (PvP) preference into battle instances."
No rewards = no one will accept extra risk.
This also means everyone playing as a Pirate can only hunt NPC traders…
To be honest I prefer separate servers with full PvP and full PvE (with the ability to transfer character between them).
Nyvis says:
Same thing here.
I suppose it will be different in territory without security forces (no non-pvp setting?), but it means that you could just remove the ability to pvp in regions with police forces. I don't think it's a good thing for the whole multiplayer world. Having people making money without the ability to interact with them is fundamentally bad in an open world setting.-
Ixos says:
Especially the "based on … skill level" part makes me very afraid.
This means that as a trader I WANT a bad PvP record in order to be able to avoid PvP with player Pirates (that presumably have a good record since fighting is what they do for a living)…
Setting a system up where a player wants to get a bad rating on purpose is just no no no.
Traders will quickly learn to outmaneuver NPC pirates, and life as a Pirate will be boring with no players to pray on.
Nyvis says:
Yep, your only "preys" will be other pirates who want to fight too …
Consensual pvp only is logical in a theme park mmo experience, but it's really out of place in a real open world.
CCC_Dober says:
There could be some sort of workaround, like traders joining military patrols or hiring top notch escort vessels. In that sense you could, theoretically, skip PVP encounters as a trader, except in the most unusual cases where you have to fight against some crazy players with a death wish.
Think of running with a couple Hornets, Constellations and a Corvette, when all of a sudden a swarm of 300i's decides that your force represents the bleeding cow in a piranha school. Chances are the 300i's get obliterated to the last man, but they might also force the trader/s to drop the cargo and scuttle away with the booty. You never know …
Admiral says:
You won't make much money in safe areas due to landing tariffs, taxes etc.
Ixos says:
Read it again. It will be possible to go into the most dangerous and profitable areas and only face NPC pirates as a trader. Once you have learned how they operate making otns of money for no risk will be a piece of cake in this system.
"To be honest I prefer separate servers with full PvP and full PvE (with the ability to transfer character between them)."this is the same as descriped by CR. Only you used other and less words.
On PvP many people entirely forget about the horizontal leveling of ships and weapons. It is'nt easy to shot an trader out of the sky. There is no "Axe of bashing(+5/+5)" weapon..
Nyvis says:
In the description, pvp and pve players play in the same server. So a player who can avoid all random pvp encounters still have his impact on the economy pvp players live on. But they can't attack him on his trade lane, unless they know his name and put him as poi.
Ixos says:
No If I want a full PvP server I have to mod it and make one myself in this game.
Since all traders don't want to get shot out of the sky by someone having equally large ships but heavy weapons instead of heavy cargo they will choose to never fight unless forced to…
Lancer says:
I understood this differently. The low PVP setting will determine how many unexpected PVP encounters you have. It's not about you marking a possible target as POI and then follow it or hunt it down. If a player pirate chooses a trader with low PVP setting as target they will still meet an fight it out. But any random encounter on the traders way will be more NPCs than players.
Christopher Roberts says:
Lancer is correct. There will be no switch to completely turn off PvP (at least not currently – who knows when we get to balancing – there may be a large population that want to be segregated and have no risk – and I decide that we should provide that as an option as well)
To affect the world and economy DYNAMICALLY you have to be playing with PvP on. You will also get a trading and reputation bonus if you're flying in the big bad world versus the safer one of less random PvP encounters.
The slider is more about saying if the game determines I will be ambushed by Pirates, I would prefer them to be NPCs as opposed to real players. Think of the slider as a modifier on the dice roll of NPC vs real player. And it will never be 100% safe in certain areas. Even if you've set the slider to low, if you are in the outer rim, where there is more opportunity for profits, you'll be in a full on dangerous PvP zone. The Gulf of Aden of Star Citizen if you like.
The concept is to give people a carrot to play in a fully dynamic PvP world, but allow people to work there way up to it at their own pace.
Ixos says:
Players will always be vastly more dangerous then NPCs so if it's only a modifier for a dice roll…
Compared to player ambush even the worst NPC pirates will be pretty safe because they will be predictible and within a few months trades will have gotten faster and better ships or other equipment to avoid them.
I also hope you can't flip it in a switch near the end of your trade route and get the trading bonus without the risk.
Greaser says:
Great… but I should search here for Friends in the next two years – to play it not as a "lonely eagle"
Singularity says:
I see this working really well for everyone, I personally enjoy solo play with a bit of PVP. It's good to see that I'll be able to do exactly that without being alienated from multiplier.
DragonShadow says:
I'm curious what happens to the ship of the player who is whisked into the turret or alike of another player? If for example they are in the middle of a battle themselves. I assume you would not want to do so in very unsafe situation? Where as I do see some value to be able to drop in on a friend to help, while not being fully tied to whatever they are doing.
I would assume the computer takes control and attempts to land, If already engaged in battle I assume you will have steep dropout penalties to face.
JMBeraldo says:
That would be an unnecessary burden to the server AND prone to legal/support issues. Soon support will be flooded with players complaining that they lost their ship/cargo because 'the damned AI sucks' or they 'accidentally clicked the accept button'
A simple way that places the choise on the player's hands is that, if you do it and your ship is in space, it hangs in there for a few seconds, then 'jumps out' (ceasing to exist in the game until you are back), just like if you had logged out in space. It's the player's choice to do that while in hostile space and risk losing his ship.
Immotack says:
I think(hope) that you will only be able to jump to your friend if you are at a station or big ship.
Christopher Roberts says:
You can only jump into to help a friend out as his crew if you are not in space already. You can not do this is you are already in a space instance.
Think about it the same way as when you fire up Battlefield 3 and get a message that your friend is already in a battle. But if you were already engaged elsewhere you would have to exit, go back to the matchmaking screen, then join up your friends battle.
DragonShadow says:
Thanks for the clarification. Seems this would all in all streamline and encourage setting up co-operative play in a shared ship, when you don't have to pick up and drop people off back at their ships once you're done, etc. Has some drawbacks in terms of immersion, but I think the added flexibility should be a net gain.
Charlieplaza says:
I think this should only be an option if you've previously hired NPC crew members, that your friend would assume control of. This would practically make no difference in overall, except it would greatly reduce impact in immersion and also leave the door open to players who, for whatever reason, prefer to go "solo" all the way.
BaronDeKalb says:
Thanks for the update Chris, i hope that when not doing the storyline one can also explore without a auto-pilot, but im sure that is the case.
that took a fair amount of time to put together. This is going to be great.
Again I am engaged with extreme anticipation. -
Drunas says:
Chris, thank you for share this. I found the idea of a main server very practical for scalability.
Blackshamrock says:
Thank you for ancering some of our questions Chris. I hope and pray you and your team can pull this off; as for me at this point I just want to play the game; Thanks again Chris for the update it sounds awesome.
Immotack says:
Amazing? Sorry but for me it sounds like there will be gigant bubbles where I will fight in. And if there are too many players they will dissapear because there is a new instance.
There could be two possible "worlds" as explained from Boraxx and I wont see the half of the players…
Sorry but I dont understand how this could be support immersion.
And these pvp,pve reputation system is not good, sorry I could just set my settings to no pvp and pve and fly everywhere I want, it would be like cloaked.-
JMBeraldo says:
People will not disappear. If the only instance existant in the region is already full (including 'friend slots'), new players will open a new instance. To both you and them, it will be seamless (they won't know of the other instance's existance)
Now, think of this this way: space is huge. Several instances around a planet would be like different points in orbit around that planet. In a 'realistic universe' you would probably never meet up with other ships crossing, say, an asteroid belt. This system directs people to see eachother.
What Chris explained is the 'engine under the hood'. Players will not really notice the creation of instances.
On the PvP/PvE thing, I share your concern. The good thing is that not only there is a lot of time for that system to be thought out, but, been the game online, its not hard to adjust it even after the game's release
Lancer says:
Why should anyone dissapear? The new players will be in another instance from the beginning. And you are not cloaked to anyone with a simple setting in the options. If you fly to a place where pirates are, then they will be able to hunt you.
Immotack says:
What I ment with dissapear is, that if a new player fly to the planet where a full instance is he would dissapear because he would enter a new instance(from the sight of a player that is in the full instance).
@JMBeraldo: "new players will open a new instance. To both you and them, it will be seamless (they won't know of the other instance's existance)"
So, players can interact between the instances?-
JMBeraldo says:
some games allow players to shift between instances. I don't know how SC will be handled
The core mechanic is this:
You are in version A of the Terra orbit instance and, when I get to Terra, since instance A is full, Ill appear in version B. Unless I'm your friend/squadmate. In that case, I'll drop in instance A with you.The only way I would leave this instance would be if I docked, used a gate, disconnected or, well, died
Aqualarion says:
You cant turn both PvP and PvE off and be like your cloaked. If you turn off PvP you will still have to fight NPCs. Also, even with PvP "off" there will be some places where it cant be turned off. The pirate infested areas will be always PvP for anyone who enters them.
Lancer says:
Did I overread the part where Mr. Roberts talkes about PVP "off"? All I read was being able to set it to "low".
Immotack says:
I think that it should not be possible to turn anything like this "off" no matter what.
I think it should be like the AI Director in Left 4 Dead 2: The better you are(K/D(pve)(pvp),ship,weapons,shields and "hull") the easier the system put you in a battle instance.
If you are a half destroyed, weak transporter the system wont put you in a battleinstance with a neutral player, even if he is sightly hostile to you.
(short:The better you are the harder it gets) -
Admiral says:
I agree, as long as there is sufficient NPCs for pirates to prey on, or sufficient NPC traders to "escort", you will be able to do what you want to do in the game, and there will be mechanisms for PvP included.
Pathalone says:
Sounds like an interesting concept. Hope it works out.
Cùran says:
Nice summary, makes it far easier to keep all the bits and pieces together… that Galactopedia opens soon, I hope.
By the way: what systems lie between the Terra system and the New Pittsburg system? *g* (I guess this is well known to all as it seems to cover UEE space.)
Mit says:
Does that mean that if me and 3 of my buddies are in a group marked full PVP, we will be dropped in instances with other random people who are marked ful pvp but may be alone in most cases, meaning we would wipe lone PVP guys who run in our battle instance forever, or at least until we meet a group like ours? That doesn't sound very fair as it gives huge possibilities for griefing.
Burneyx says:
Chris, many thanks for this announcement well done.
Kiyoshi Maru says:
I know this has already been said, but I just want to say it again. Thanks for the info, first of all. Many of my concerns are gone now, and it sounds really cool.
However, about the jumping to your friends multi-person ship. Why? If they didn't get someone to fly with them in their ship on the last base they were at… their fault. Sure, autopilot into the instance and fight with them in your ship, but jumping into their ship seems really immersion-breaking, as well as just doesn't seem to be needed. If you want someone to man your P-52 for you, then you should hire someone before you leave a planet, or get one of your friends to meet you at the planet, leave their ship in a garage, and get into yours with you. If you can autopilot into an instance with your friend and his attacker, I see no reason that you need to be able to jump into their ship. People should have to think about these things before they launch. 'Am I going to be in danger of anything that I can't hold off without someone in my P-52?' And if yes, they find someone in the bar(NPC, or Player) to fly with them. Whether for half the loot, etc. If no, then they can jsut take off without worry. I would prefer not to be able to jump into my friends ship. I would prefer that they not be able to save my butt, if I make a stupid mistake and don't get someone to fly in my Constellation with me at the last bar.
Immotack says:
Your way of the things sound very good, I would like to see it like this.
But, if you can walk around on the planet and on carriers you could just sneak into a constellation of someone else couldn´t you? And maybe hide there like a blind passager(dont get me wrong that would be awsome, mess around with the systems )? -
BaronDeKalb says:
i have to agree on the no poping in a fighting ship, also your "friend would just be out in space in his ship what would happen with his ship. it's just too imersion breaking.
Xaris says:
I am sympathetic to the concerns about immersion breaking. Still, I'm glad you will be able to jump into a multi-player ship. Here's why:
- you don't have to if you don't want to. No one will be forced to break immersion this way.
- it would be annoying to have to wait to start a long trip until everyone flew their ships to the planet where the person with the multi-player ship is waiting "oh great, last time I played I was on the other side of the galaxy; now it will take me hours to go man your turret."
- This is speculation, but aren't we assuming that your sub-stations always function? That your turret runs on auto/an NPC crewman/a droid is with you? If this is the case then jumping in means taking control of an NPC, which is less immersion breaking. It might be cool to have to have hired an NPC or bought a droid to fly your docked sub-fighter/man your turret, or else a friend can't jump in to control it; however, it's still nice to have the freedom to enjoy the multi-person capability of your ship without having to wait around for your friends show up at your base before entering the action.
- finally, you have to jump into the universe somewhere! Presumably the normal way is to suddenly appear on the planet where you last landed. Why not on a base or space station though? And, therefore, why not on a multi-person ship? You would still be limited to entering the game world only where you have a ship landed/docked or where a friend has an open slot on a multi-person ship. The awkwardness of your PC suddenly being on a friend's ship halfway across the galaxy…yeah, like I said, I am sympathetic.
Vayzik says:
If I'm attacked in a PvP setting and have no friends online (or no friends at all) to call for help, will my distress call summon NPC help, assuming I'm a law-biding citizen in an area with law enforcement or a pirate in a lawless zone? What if it's 3 on 1 and I really need the help?
/send anyone but FalcoAlso, if you want to have a list of players available in a private club without breaking immersion and having a drop down list, just put a guest registry near the entrance so that players check the book. You can have a smarmy owner bragging about how people come from as far as Omicron Persei 8 to visit their club and use that as a way to direct people to the list.
Immotack says:
I think a distress call would summon NPC help(if there are patroles, stations or carriers/destroyer nearby but also call players who are friendly with you(same reputation).
Fated says:
By the time this game is up and running and you really don't have any friends you can add me so you aren't totally "friendless"
I personally think it's part of the game, to be able to get into a situation where you're either outgunned or outmanned. A way to limit this possibility is travelling in groups, simply ask who's going to X or Y and go together.
If I remember correctly it was said that in areas where there is a police presence and you're a law abiding citizen they would jump in for rescue
mar7in says:
Thanks for the update Chris. I think it is the best solution and i really like it. I can say it every post but i cant wait for the alpha start.
Hulahuga says:
No one will probably see this in this massive stream of comments but I would just like to point out anyhow that I am a bit sceptical to the fact that neutral encounters seem to be near notwithstanding ATM… Think of it, say that you are a generally neutral player, and then you come across some guy with an amazing cargo and nearly no guns, perhaps you would like to take the chance that you otherwise wouldn't… Another issue is also public vs private standing. Say that I am a pirate, and want every option for pirating I can get, but am still selective about my targets, I don't want to go around announcing myself an enemy to everyone, and neither would I consider everyone necessarily my enemy…
slayerbunny says:
I get the rough idea of what's going to happen, but here are some details that gathering from the comments quite a few people are unsure of.
A basic graphic representation would be nice
travists says:
Sounds good, may I suggest a slider for merchants who are willing to do ship to ship cargo trades?
Tiger Claw says:
I like this idea and hope that in-space trades are possible for two reasons:
1 – If you're already friends in different locations and want to meet up in space, it would be nice, even if it's only to look out your cockpit window and /wave to your friend and dump out a jet-can with some power bars in it.
2 – If players could trade ship-to-ship, maybe it would be possible for cargo to be relayed via several traders to a different location, i.e., getting ship-building materials from a hi-sec area like Earth to a lawless region in pirate-controlled space. Maybe you're a respectable trader, but you also have friends in low places who can traverse lo-sec more easily. Gun-running, booze, computers, food, steel, etc. Seems like an entire trading sub-industry could be created with this one mechanic.
CrazyTim says:
I think you could dump cargo in privateer, and tractor beam it back in….
Would be interesting if you strayed upon two friends exchanging cargo in an instance, you would think they would be prime targets for an ambush!
Blues says:
Like that Tiger Claw. I'm a happy and friendly rum runner. Used to enjoy moonless cruises without incident in places like SL around 2009…but when the chips get down the ability to have a lifeline thrown as a 'jet can with power bars left on it' would sure save the rum. I just love this development and all the wealth of player experience in a lot of mmo's and singles.When you see attack ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion, stop by for a flask, some conversation -and a few barrels for your ship.
Gotta keep her happy. Happy Ship – Happy Life. Hope to see you exiting a jump point in the near future. -Blues
Thrangarhullmender says:
Well that was most interesting,thankyou for your time and effort Chris
I see several points that we as players should be given the oportunity to vote on
I guess we will see just how much input we will actually have -
Fruerlund says:
From this It sounds like you are limited to only flying from planet to planet. How will we be able to just "Fly Around" in space doing our own thing?
Tim Eriksen says:
I don't really see this as a good system. Well not all at least. I don't think giving the players the choice to set if they want more PVP or NPC action as a good thing. This gives some people the choice to kind if drop out of the massive multiplayer feeling of the game and just play their own game without ever interacting with other players. Any way, I am sure you will solve this in a good way. Another thing: let's say you are transporting some goods, would there then be a possibility for some player pirates to somehow stop you and kill you for your cargo?
Nic says:
Chris has done a good job with these ideas. It's clear he's played and picked from a good selection of game.
The use of Demon's/Dark Souls multiplayer methods is inspired for a space sim.
Ulathar says:
Plese don't tell me that we will get "chained loadingscreens" for every single action requiering an "instanceswitch"… It really sounds like we will, though…. .
You leave a Space Station to get on your Ship -> Loading Screen #1
Being on your Ship, you want to leave the Sectorspace to enter Galaxy Space -> Loading Screen #2
On the Galaxy Map you travel "somewhere" beeing pulled in a battleinstance -> Loadingscreen #3
Leaving that instance -> Loadingscreen #4
Reaching your destination -> Loadingscreen #5
Entering Starbase / Planet -> Loadingscreen #6FINALLY there to do what you wanted to do -> rinse repeat until forever.
Please please PLEASE tell me that THIS is not what we will see because this would be a huge no go to me…
Ulathar says:
You know… like for example Star Trek Online handles it (and kills the immersion of a huge universe and thus killing the game, at least for me)
TeslaDev says:
Have you read anything regarding the instancing???
It is "transparent"…ie…NO LOADING SCREENS. It is a seamless transition, you won't notice it.
Christopher Roberts says:
No loading screens! Or at least no loading screen you'll be aware off. As you now I'm big on complete immersion
CryEngine3 has very good streaming tech. When you engage auto-pilot you'll see a cool WC / Privateer / Freelancer in game cinematic of you cruising through space – probably time accelerated with the stars blurring by (as you don't really want to fly for 5-6 hours in real time through emptiness between areas of interest). You'll drop out of this warp when you arrive at an area of interest or get drawn into a battle. The objects / players in the new area / battle are streamed in while this animation is playing so it should feel seamless and be in fiction.
CCC_Dober says:
Thank god, Chris! I just fired up Freelancer some days ago and was reminded of the stupendous amount of 'Jump gates', trade lanes and travel sequences. If the process of traveling from A to B is reduced to a single animation in Star Citizen, I'll be forever thankful =)
Ulathar says:
Thank you very much for clearing this point up Chris! Sounds okay to me.
So it wont be "worse" than in Freelancer, i can live with that .
Although as a merchant all those 10000 docking, landing, goto to merchant, sell, bugy, dock, fly, repeat moments get anoying over time but we will see.Greetings from Germany
Ulathar says:
*buy not bugy, sry cant find an edit button…
Armsman says:
Effectively, this will be close to how "Star Trek Online" handles it's playerbase interaction (although I hope you'll do something to make loading into an instance less intrusive.)
Although as far as player accounts go, I hope you'll take a look at how they did that in STO as well, because it will mean no real issue with character names (which is one of the few things I think Cryptic did 100% right with their MMOs.)
TeslaDev says:
Sounds perfect Chris! Keep up the good work.
Most of the "worries" I read around here are not justified…as many of these worries are in direct contradiction to things chris has said. Everyone needs to slow down and read the details before jumping to conclusions…
PhotonMan says:
I don't like how some people worry about the pvp to much, like they don't want it. I like when in a game the main enemy is other players instead of the environment even thought the environment is still dangerous. Like in Dayz for example.
PhotonMan says:
I like how this is thought out and seeks to improve game play instead of copying something that already exists like WOW (not hating on wow).
Its great to be able to this with out a publisher because you can try news things instead them forcing you to play it safe. This is the reason why i backed this game with the little money i do have lol. not much but it helps.If you are in an orbit instance will you be able to fly into the plaints atmosphere? Like you would have to slow down so the air resistance would damage your ship/shields and it would be dependent on the thickness of the atmosphere. The once you're in you can request a landing site and whatnot. idk what is ever ones opinion on this?
Belakor says:
Sounds good so far but I have a little concern. From what I have read so far it seems that you are trying to minimize randomness as much as possible. Most encounters would be with POI and only few with other random players.That would be really dissapointing since one thing I always enjoyed was randomness in games. And it also seems like when you are in space and get in an instance with someone you automatically get into an Battle instance. This sounds like you are forced to fight. Lets say I am a pirate and I get into an instance with a newbie in his beginners ship that has foolishly come to the lawless system. But since he does not have any valuable cargo at all so I just choose to simply ignore him. However since we are in a Battle instance it sounds as if I have to kill him to get out of it again. This also means that I cant just choose my targets. I would like a bit more explanation on this behalf…
Christopher Roberts says:
No you can just chose not to attack him. After you've put a certain amount of distance between you and another ship you can autopilot again.
If you're hanging out in a location to jump other ships, when a newbie flies in, you can just let him pass, after he's a certain distance away from you he can engage autopilot and carry about his journey, while you hang out waiting for another player (or NPC) to fly through your space
Imperator Grand Admiral says:
Exactly! what I would have envisioned to feel natural without breaking immersion, or having a loading screen saying Player A vs. Player B
codenamesol says:
If I need only to stay near a player in order to keep them from leaving a system, then what is stopping me from killing them? It's almost like I'm warp disrupting them by just being near them. Am I misunderstanding what you've said?
Daworox says:
This sounds promising – great update, keep up the good work!
RyeGlitch says:
Wow, a great chunk if information. Please give them to us as often as you can. The more we know and understand about his game, the easier it is for us to sell/promote it!
Great read, and your vision sounds awesome Mr. Roberts.
Thank you,
Rye. -
Tosk says:
I'm not sure how I like this system, I'm a fan of the shard world system, but I understand that those have a much higher operation cost, since you have to run several servers.
I don't really understand why having a shard system would prevent you playing with friends, you log in, select which world you with to jump into and have your friend join you in the same world. Have it set so that you join one world and are permanently stuck in that world is a very bad design anyway. You mentioned you liked the Demon Souls setup, I'm more a fan of the Monster Hunter Frontier (I know it's only available in Japan, but it's worth the VPN for me) setup: it's full open world, you pick your server when you login and from there you can do whatever you want.
Some of my biggest issues with this design is that it seems cold and non-personal. Everything seems like a random event where player choice has no real bearing. You said that you set destination and let the auto-pilot fly you there. Why does auto-pilot need to do the work, let me fly it myself, take the long way around, maybe fly through a debris belt to avoid detection. Maybe I have a friend waiting to ambush me in the debris belt, he sees me coming and observes me and can decide if he even wants to attack, all while I'm completely unaware that somebody has me in there scope.
Anyway, feel free to comment and tell me how I'm probably wrong and misunderstood something, I am open to criticism and want to learn more about this design.
damson says:
I think that you will be able to fly manually (without the help of utopilot) just as you could in any Wing Commander or Privateer. The only difference is that it will take you more time to do so. In WC/Priv when you used autopilot to specific nav point you still could be taken out of it mid-way if you would encounter an enemy for example. So I wouldn't worry about the autopilot thing – it will joust save you some time.
damson says:
It sounds really great. I hope you will manage all that. One question though, will I be able to replay the Squadron 42 story with the same avatar, or will I be forced to create a new one? And what about replaying campaign single missions (those completed already) – will I be able to do that as well?
Aurelian says:
Looking good, kind of what i was expecting but was interested in the pvp/pve system.
However if you jump out into a system, close to a space station. Will you be able to manually fly the ship, say around the station etc.. or will it be auto pilot.
Im not sure if this is what you ment, but they way i understood it was. "auto pilot is always on, untill you hit an instance. Then you can manually fly, when the instance is done, it's back to auto pilot again". Is this correct?-
Christopher Roberts says:
You will be able to fly around in space Privateer / Freelancer style, so where you want etc. Autopilot is just a way to cut out the boring 3-5 hours of flying through empty space between areas of interest – planets, space stations, jump points, asteroid fields and so on.
Steve2258 says:
It sound very good. I'm very happy to see that the system is build for different play styles. I will probably begin solo, with low PvP. But along the way, I may go for more PvP. I have a few friends that are interested. And I supposed that their will be some sort of organizations, fleets, corporations, pirate groups, … that we will be able to join and found other friends.
Jean Tufao says:
Fantastic! For me the big problem of multiplayer games are lack of chance to become a best player due other people that plays all days and nights. So, having the choice to play more "single" or with people not so better than you is perfect!
DeMouse says:
An idea you might consider is runnign the battle-instances in a way so that people in certain real-life locations tend to be grouped together. For instance Australians will havea higher chance of running into a battle where everyone will be having the same cross-pacific latency issues instead of putting them with an equal chance of goign up against those from the U.S.
This could also help you combine the U.S. and Euro populations in the Galaxy Server while running seperate servers to handle battles for the different locations.
Christopher Roberts says:
One of the PvP matchmaking criterias will certainly be ping
Heki says:
One concern: With all those instances, how is players jumping instances going to happen visually? Am I going to se a ship disappear and another appear out of thin air (pun intended)?
It's something I can definitely live with, but I think it'd kill the emersion a little to see something like that. -
shadow says:
Sounds like a well thought-out design. The immersive aspects that Chris reported are really motivating. Star Citizen is on top of my wish list.
I wonder if there will be some kind of greater battlefront. I could imagine a big cluster of outlaws that are trying to defend their territory (e.g. 2 or 3 nearby star systems) against the officials. These places are avoided by honest citizens and could be the ground to establish a black market. I imagine that these territories are located at the fringe of the galaxy and are dynamically rearranging as the galaxy/explored systems are expanding. I think this battlefront thing would be a cool add-on to smaller embattled territories/star bases that are scattered throughout the whole galaxy. Is there something similar planned for the game? If not, what do you think about the idea?
z3d says:
sounds really good, glad I've jumped on board )
CrazyTim says:
Hi, won't the reserved spaces for friends reduce the overall average amount of random real players you will encounter in each instance?
Eg, say each instance can hold 128 players, and 10 slots are reserved for each player's friends/squad, then theoretically an instance of a completly random, unmatchable, relationship-less gathering of people will have a maximum capacity of 12! Largely populated regions like freeports would surely see a lot of random players frequenting them, forcing lots of sparcely populated instances to be spawned.
I'm observing that it seems to me the strength of the matchmaking system is that it will work well if lots of players have lots of friends (or can otherwise be easily 'matched'). Is this correct?
Schizm says:
I wonder: When you land on a planet (or dock to a station) will you be able to really walk around there? And see other people and NPC's walk around and wave to you?
C.R. Describes something very freelancer-esque where you see where you are, but a lot is done in menus. (like the avatar list)Me personally would prefer something like shopping in the Mass Effect games. Really walk around there, and explore. FIND what you look for instead of just clicking a menu.
My apologies if this has already been asked and answered. I'm dyslectic and there are a lot of comments!
joniviv says:
I really hope they make the on-planet on-station aspect good. There's something special about being able to create or customize a unique character and control him/her directly. Controlling a spaceship is one thing but it makes for a more personal and unique experience being able to walk around and interact with other pilots.
Sesiom says:
That was some really usefull information indeed!
About the reserved slots for POI, shouldnt be a problem if the total slots is big enough. All depends on the numbers i guess.
Looks like planet life will be much like freelancer i was hopping something better for it.
Btw I really like this instance style… i was worried but explanations were relieving. -
Jackhammer says:
What are the death penalties? If I lose a PVP fight is my ship lost forever or damaged and needing to be repaired or components destroyed that need to be fixed/replaced? Same if I lose a PVE fight? What are the death penalties?
Toyic says:
A lot of people here are saying having people pop in would be immersion breaking, but I like the concept much more than the proposed alternatives of "Go to a cantina and hire a human crew" or any such thing. Oftentimes, my schedule doesn't exactly mesh with my friends', so the capacity for them to simply jump in and help me no matter where they are would be much better for my particular play style and situation. I would also love to simply jump into some guy's ship and help defend him utilizing his turrets, then jump out again and continue my own journey.
Hyperion says:
Sounds great. Approx how much people will fit into one instance?
Ceige says:
Sounds interesting Chris. Good luck with the design.
How are people that NEVER want to PvP going to avoid doing so? Once word gets out that PvP can't be avoided, many of those gamers will go play another game.
DarkDissent says:
I think the aspect of the game where you drop into a friend's ship would work best if you drop into or "possess" an NPC. An NPC your friend hired or even befriended in a previous mission similar to NPC companions in Skyrim. Possessing NPCs does not break immersion as the NPC character is already supposed to be there and the possessing player doesn't break their immersion because he is not in a space station one second and magically appearing in his friend's ship the next. Some people in this thread have mentioned teleporation technology but if you've read the Timeline, there is no mention of such a technology, this isn't Star Trek. Besides, if you could teleport things from one planet to another instantly you wouldn't need cargo freighters. The only instantaneous travel is through the use of the natural occurring phenomenon of jump points. Possessing NPCs also has the added benefit of not penalizing the possessing player if things go south and everyone dies. You just wanted to help a friend in a pinch. If everyone dies in the ship then the possessing player simply "wakes up" in his own character in the space station. The captain of the ship is the only one that takes the hit unless of course your character actually got on to the ship as opposed to possessing someone.
The next thing is all the piracy issues. I think Mr. Roberts cleared most of this up already. I think his decision to allow players to set PvP to low is smart and allows people options as well as encourages new players. Who wants to jump into a game universe with a one laser Aurora in a galaxy filled with high-powered pirates and griefers who see you as easy prey. Let them make some money, learn to fly and fight better, get some upgrades etc. This doesn't mean they are completely protected from PvP, just random PvP or area ambushes and even then, only in certain systems not the whole galaxy. As anyone that played Privateer can attest, it gets boring just playing with NPC pilots, eventually they will raise their PvP settings, especially if they want to explore.
As for you blood thirsty pirates… don't fret, you just have to work harder for that noob meat. The simple yet elegant POI system is the key. Stake out your prey at the space station, maybe he's spending too much at the bar, bragging about his cargo or you simply see them load the valuable cargo on the docking bay. Tag him and follow him, and take him out. Have pirate buddies, better yet. Have spotters on the ground tag him then they can possess an NPC on the pirate ship out in space. It doesn't break immersion, you simply communicated to the ship ; ) The pirate ship is waiting at a choke point such as a jump point and Bam! The unsuspecting trader is forced into a battle instance because the player (if not the character) that tagged him is on the ship. Of course you may miss him if he takes another jump point. That's when multiple teams and multiple ships covering all the jump points come into play. What I like about this system is not just its simplicity but its realism. Do you really think in the enormity of Space you are going to randomly encounter people to hijack? I also like the hunt aspect of this. I plan on playing as a bounty hunter and the thought of tagging my target, tracking him and anticipating his destination in order to pounce is making me salivate. Bravo, Mr. Roberts, bravo!
The degree of thought demonstrated in this article is very, very promising; Chris is adding the depth we are craving for.
DarkDissent, I got the impression Chris just hadn't discussed crews in general so popins may already be intended to work as you say, for immersion purposes.
Whilst I'm here, this is what I'd like AI crews to involve:
- different crew members have their own set of random quotes/shouts over the intercom during flight. Potentially would converse or tell gags between each other, every now and then.
- individual increasingly skilled crew members are contractable, who are better at manning turrets, boarding etc; their cost should be a simple increasingly high one-off fee, as I don't enjoy rental costs, feels too much like real life. -
BananaDealer says:
I'm not entirely OK with the concept of your friends simply being able to magically pop in your multi-crew ship… It kinda clashes with the realism. I can go with it if it had a proximity or at least a same-system requirement, but not a magical jump through time, space and possibly several realities (one of which where we're all pink clouds that talk in haiku)…
I'm also OK with drop-in/out co-op where the S42 campaign is concerned with friends simply taking control of wingmen in your missions. What I'd also want to see is an 'online' campaign or something (I'm not entirely sure what it's supposed to be called) where you can meet and interact with other people that are doing the S42 missions. Like say on the carrier or in military bases. Yet without them having to be part of 'your' experience. Like in Guild Wars where the cities are multiplayer, yet everything outside them was instanced for each player/party… -
Jacob says:
To those who are worried about instances being too small for large fleet combats: I could see a system of command working very well here. So that when you leave a station and head out into space, the commander of your fleet must (or maybe rather can) assign squads, and give each squad a particular rating. So you have squads 1-20, with preference being squads 1-5 are in an instance, 5-10,11-15,16-20 are in instances together. Then it becomes a strategic command by what you hope is a good commander to balance out the squads and to protect the "softer" targets. Then, in a good command structure, as ships leave certain instances or are destroyed the other surviving squads could be re-tasked, effectively bringing them into instances to engage with enemies who are still existing.
Don't see a technological drawback as a drawback, see it as a method to force players to be more creative. You're going to be more effective with a command structure than with a zergling rush anyway, so why not encourage players to use their heads? If a commander doesn't assign squads then I see no reason a weighted auto-matchup couldn't be used. Since a real commander will be more effective than an automatch, we could really see command structure shine here. In a situation where one team highly outnumbers another, there is always a wave system. After all, a commander can't send everyone in at once anyway. Space may be big, but there really is only so much space around a single carrier.
Dealing with assualt assignment is a little harder. But maybe during the enter-instance cinematic the designated commanders could have a few seconds (read 10-30, maybe more depending on size of these things) to "throw" squads at targets. You don't know the enemies' tactics, but you know you want to take out the Bengel and sieze the transport, so you send heavier squads in those directions. THe other command then can decide to assign squads for defense or to designate squads as attack squads and send them toward enemy positions. Which squads actually make it to which encounters first could be managed by the instance. After all, where you tell your troops to head may not be where they end up, and they are going to have to do the best with what they've got.
Done well, I think this type of command system could really take care of the over the top space battle issue rather elagantly. It would allow for a dynamic encounter system while still giving control to the player, and allow large fleets to enforce a command structure. Want to be in the squad protecting the carrier? prove you're good enough to be around such a high value target. Feel like you should be in command? let your corp's ceo see how you do leading a single squad and move up from there. It incorporates some RTS elements into the FPS/flight sim which is the actual battle and instancing.
Electro says:
I do like the approach you have taken with your solution. I do however, still think that some mass fighting instances are required for a game like ths. I mean, if WoW can allow players to group up in masses if hundreds to raid a city, sholdn't a game that emphasizes its 'scale' be able to reproduce a fight with even more players? I feel like I am just being greedy, but I have never seen a game before that could accomplish that before no. Maybe this one can't either. And maybe I don't even want it, I just think I do. But I do know that a large capital starship fighting off many fighters, perhaps could be a smaller part of the bigger picture, where there are in reality 20 capital ships in the same area, battling over a territory. Maybe, you could instead have specific instances in the universe where these battles could take place. Essentially like warzones, though I do not know how to implement it:D
Lord Castles says:
This idea is brilliant! Finally a proper method to deal with grievers, parallel persistent universes, die hard PvPers hating on PvEers and server speed.
Bluntoze says:
I see you are big on the immersion factor. This makes me even more curious how you are going to deal with the "popping up" in your friends ship from another galaxy. Teleportation ? Maybe you can remotely control some android or something.
Shenzi says:
that should cover the most of the useless, existing forum threads the fanboys are keeping up. too bad it won't change anything. they'll go on filling the forum with their ideas and suggestions (99% won't be realized). i hope they get tired in a few weeks
AkelaLT says:
Then they should limit the friends and squadrons u can have in your list, otherwise people will start creating a ZERG clans/Alliances or friend lists consisting of lets say a thousand people in order to fly in mass to instances and win fights just by massively outnumbering or crashing or overloading system/instances like in ill game like EVE-Online where u jump in to system and suddenly loose control over your ship and a game because a several hundreds of Zerg alliance or clan is already overloaded system :/
DocSpyder says:
Will you be able to join battles that you don't really have a side on? Lets say I am traveling in a new ship and want to try it out or want to join a certain group. Can I have a notification that I am near this battle and the ability to enter it? This would be great for joining a guild or something of the like because some groups might not let you in if your are just some random person trying to join, but if you can fly in one of their battles and turn the tide then you can prove yourself to them. You can make your way in. This may end up in some jerks just entering in to mess up a fight, but I think it would be very interesting mechanic if you could fit it in
Manningham82 says:
I'm wary of the idea of instances and the automated match-maker. It's designed to give everyone what they want, but is that a good thing?
I would argue that having the possibility for unpleasant/unplanned/unwanted experiences makes gameplay MORE FUN, and is in fact the very source of fun in games – think about the perennial 'best game of all time' X-Com.
By matching players based on stats, settings and the like, you encourage players to focus on manipulating their stats/settings rather than the far more immsersive concerns of gameplay.
Example: I turned PVP settings to 'low' and have purposely kept my combat rank low, so I can trade all day without worrying too much about Joey the pirate. I cruise for a few hours of repetitive gameplay as the server-chosen challenges scale up in a predictable way. I realize I'm yawning and I quit. Unnatural, not fun. Joey the pirate, on the other hand, has no opportunity for an easy score, which is the highest and sole desire of all pirates, because all the easy meals have been separately instanced. Even if he does find himself instanced with the easy pickings he has equipped his ship to handle and put himself in position to find, that person's friends will instance in to deny him the prey he has earned. Why even be a pirate?
RESULT: Both of these players will play towards how they think GALAXY will tailor their experiences, dulled or unresponsive to the conditions in the persistent game world or how those conditions are changing. You won't find Joey skulking around to score an easy kill, like pirates (real and fictional) have always wanted to do, he'll be gearing up of a "match". The trader's not going to avoid as many trade runs or buy extra insurance, 'just in case'.. the matchmaker is predictable enough to disallow these concerns.
Other situations that ran through my head as I read:
- A group of players in one instance take out the law enforcement orbiting a planet to allow something to happen (freighters with contraband to pass through?). When I launch, due to my settings or the instance being full, I don't experience any of the effects of that? Unnatural, not fun. What if the law enforcement is taken out in their instance while I'm flying around in mine.. will the police disappear in my instance, too? What's the right answer to that situation?
- A group of players, knowing the server's instancing behavior, attack a player target in numbers which deny that player bringing in enough help, despite its availability, to defend himself due to instance player limits.
Players SHOULD get blasted out of the sky while engaging in 'safe' behavior.. repeatedly! Likewise, players SHOULD be able to take wild risks that work out from time to time, not because they lucked out on the server's '5% chance for no hostile instances' property, but because there just weren't any hostile players/npcs in the area at that time. If a player manages to earn that ship, the envy of all other players, he/she should be damn worried about losing it, even in a safe place.
This way, when players improve, it is because they understand the gameplay mechanics and their fellow community of players, not because they understand how an artificial matchmaking system categorizes their stats and profile.
Ahh.. doesn't it feel good to put your biggest worries in writing? My life must not be so bad if Star Citizen is one of my biggest concerns
joniviv says:
I think your system would work if we could all be on one giant server, but unfortunately that's not the case. I think Chris realized that and tried to work out the best way to cater to everyone's wants. He also understands that not everyone enjoys the risk of getting completely obliterated by some high level douche of a "pirate". Some people want a more mainstreamed story driven online game. As for me I'll probably test out low pvp settings at first and then gradually higher them as I get used to the game environment/controls/feel. I Chris mentioned something to that effect as well.
Silent Strider says:
"""The key to all this is to allow player choice – you want to play alone you can, want your friends to join you in co-op we allow that and if you want to be challenged by other real players you can do that. The special part is that it can all happen in the same holistic universe."""
As far as I can tell, seems like the most challenging content, both PvP and PvE, is expected to take place in the fringe sectors, where the PvP setting won't help in avoiding PvP.
So, it seems to me that there is one segment the game intentionally is not catering to – players that want PvE challenge but don't want to be subject to PvP.
Seems like I will have to stay on private servers. I want challenge, but I'm not going to risk PvP in order to have it. On a private server, I expect I will be able to not only have access to every system – including the ones marked for PvP on the official server -, but also I will be able to mod the PvP "carrots" to be available in PvE also.
joniviv says:
Nooo everyone…. Chris has it right, how annoying would it be to have to wait for people to "man" your ship. The chat system would be flooded with people trying to get enough "gunners" on board. So much easier to be able to start the mission and if you're in trouble let someone know and they can help out during the battle. There would have to be some kind of XP/Cash reward for being a gunner though because really…how many people will want to man a friend's turret when they can captain a friggin star destroyer themselves…i mean honestly.
They should still have NPC gunners that you can hire/recruit/create(customize). Maybe give them stats and have them level up. (One Crew mate could have a high turret skill level, another have high pilot skill, another might specialize in a specific ship size etc…) How about being able to "SHARE" your crew mates with your friends, kind of like the pawn system in Dragon's Dogma, or your racers in Grand Tourismo 5. -
Amun Khonsu says:
As a Freelancer fan, I am very excited about this project!
Thank you for coming back with this!
WLF68 says:
How exactly would that illustration be done? Will it be possible to go from walking on a planet to flying though space without any loading screens or cutscenes?
Junco Pardner says:
I can't believe I haven't read this until now! It all makes so much sense.
Icicl3 says:
Im not sure if you guys can pull it off, but I would really like to fly planetside on each planet in order to be able to site see and land in random areas to get out and explore with the possibility of finding some hidden gems, credits, materials, etc.
I think it would be a great way to get a feel for each planet too. You could put out a rumor that such in such material/goods was at such and such planet and once people started flocking there you could have battle instances planetside too. Not only do we fight in space we could have battles planetside as well.
Imagine fightin in air with the plant's backdrop? I believe that would be purely magnificent for the Magna Carta called Star Citizen. Please please please make this an ingame reality Mr. Roberts I beg of you and the Devs…
Pagan says:
The ability to tag another player as a POI is great. How about the reverse? Can I tag a player for a PODisinterest so I never get grouped with them?
Mojo-maker says:
So I guess I am sort of retarded, but I need to know if I can just get my friends on a ship with me and fly around and do whatever.