No Man's Sky Next.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 19:15

I've never tried the game. I guess I haven't grasped the concept of an infinitely empty universe with nothing to do, but aimlessly travel from one planet to another planet with essentially the same things to do one each.

I realize it's better than that, but that's the image I have so far.

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 19:18

Morkonan wrote: It's not like they're wiping EVE servers with them. How difficult or how many hours does it really take to reach certain levels of progress?

Actually, it would be more fair to think NMS along the like of an MMO in term of progression, rather than a SP. And according to some, the amount of hours lots is in the hundred or even thousand.

pjknibbs wrote: This is fairly normal for Paradox games--new Stellaris patches often break savegame compatibility due to the scale of the changes involved.

Like I said above, it's not quite like that. When you play Stellaris or one of the civilization game, while you can have really long game, the fact is that it's unlikely you are only gonna play just ONE game, it is accepted that eventually you will restart with a new game, trying new things ... you not gonna play one game forever. Where games like NMS is the opposite, you want to "collect them all" on one character, and the process is often long and tedious. I can say with almost certainty that if any of the MMO I play get a character wipe, I would stop playing.

To new players or coming back, of course new features and a more completed game is good. But to those who had put in a lot of hours, I can see their grievance.

Post by **Ketraar** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 19:31

Also to note that Paradox always has branches up that allows one to revert back to previous versions, for those that want to finish their run before moving to a newer save.

Still not finding incentive to get this one.

MFG

Ketraar

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 20:13

Observe wrote:I've never tried the game. I guess I haven't grasped the concept of an infinitely empty universe with nothing to do, but aimlessly travel from one planet to another planet with essentially the same things to do one each.

I realize it's better than that, but that's the image I have so far.

That's the same sort of opinion I have for the game. I haven't actually tried it, either. It seems to be a sort of "walking sim/survival" hybrid with some exploration through in.

It's not the multiplayer galaxy sort of experience that was first advertised and, even though they're making some progress towards that, it's still not that and may never actually be that sort of game.

I have similar reservations about Elite, as well, in that regard. Though, I think it may be much closer to its original intended design.

If I'm going to play a multiplayer game, I want a "real one." These make-do hybrid sorts of multiplayer games seem to water down both multi and single player experiences, not really accomplishing great things in either.

Post by **Terre** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 20:28

I found out why in my game I am unable to place a Portable Refiner, there is a known bug with loading an old game save, there is no known work around.

I'm not sure I want to, but I may start a new game until they come up with a fix, so I can continue.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 20:37

Terre wrote:...I'm not sure I want to, but I may start a new game until they come up with a fix, so I can continue.

That's a sort of curious mechanic, when one thinks about it. In most traditional multiplayer games, one has "characters" that are tied to an "account." A game "restart" is basically just "re-rolling" a new character.

With NMS, according to reports here, it seems it's structured more around "Game Saves" which is usually only found in the traditional single-player model of design.

It's just weird. Considering everything there was supposed to be available to players, a multiplayer progression mechanic would have been the choice, even if there wasn't any multiplayer. I don't know what, exactly, the saved-games actually track or how they do it, though.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 22:46

Morkonan wrote: I have similar reservations about Elite, as well, in that regard. Though, I think it may be much closer to its original intended design.

If I'm going to play a multiplayer game, I want a "real one." These make-do hybrid sorts of multiplayer games seem to water down both multi and single player experiences, not really accomplishing great things in either.

Not sure how the multiplayer experience in Elite is "watered down"? You can actually see other players in their ships and fight them if you want, which is more than you could do with NMS when it launched (and more than I think you can do now, but willing to be proven wrong there).

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Thu, 26. Jul 18, 23:34

pjknibbs wrote: Not sure how the multiplayer experience in Elite is "watered down"? You can actually see other players in their ships and fight them if you want, which is more than you could do with NMS when it launched (and more than I think you can do now, but willing to be proven wrong there).

Apparently the latest update make it become somewhat like the system in Dark Soul. For both your information and entertainment:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/275850/d ... 313119305/

The OP (and the response to it) may make you laugh or give you a headache, perhaps both.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 27. Jul 18, 06:51

pjknibbs wrote:...
Not sure how the multiplayer experience in Elite is "watered down"? You can actually see other players in their ships and fight them if you want, which is more than you could do with NMS when it launched (and more than I think you can do now, but willing to be proven wrong there).

But, Elite isn't really a regular sort of multiplayer game, is it? It's a bit more limited than most multiplayer experiences, right? ie: It's not an MMO Space Game. It's more a case of instances and limited capacity for player interaction?

That's basically how I've come to understand it. I haven't played it, but looked over how that worked and it seemed a lot more watered down in that regard than I would have liked to see. (ie: EVE Online, with spaceships instead of spreadsheets)

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Fri, 27. Jul 18, 08:37

Morkonan wrote:ie: It's not an MMO Space Game. It's more a case of instances and limited capacity for player interaction?

I didn't think it worked that way. Space is big, though, really big, so actually being in the same place as someone else is something you have to work at!

Post by **Terre** » Fri, 27. Jul 18, 19:21

Another patch arrived this afternoon, but I've not had time to test it, yet.

Hoping for the base reconstruction mission along with the build options to be fixed.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 27. Jul 18, 20:33

pjknibbs wrote:
Morkonan wrote:ie: It's not an MMO Space Game. It's more a case of instances and limited capacity for player interaction?
I didn't think it worked that way. Space is big, though, really big, so actually being in the same place as someone else is something you have to work at!

Interesting. I had looked into the multiplayer aspects of Elite, since I always wanted to play a big multiplayer spaceship game with "real" spaceship kinda flight characteristics, etc.. (X3 MMORPG) So, I looked into it when it came out and it seems to be taking a sort of limited multiplayer route, with servers running instances for just a few players at a time. Then, I found out it was more of a P2P system, which drastically limited multiplayer capabilities to basically an unstable handful.

If that's not the case, I'd love to play it or even NMS if it has "real" multiplayer. If not, that's cool too, but I'd consider it to be a different sort of game, then. (Kind of a more relaxing building/explore simulation sort of game?)

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Fri, 27. Jul 18, 20:58

What do we actually want from multiplayer and why?

What if we had really good artificial intelligence that could simulate multiplayer? Is part of the interest in multiplayer due to poor AI in single-player games?

I understand the idea of real people playing next to us in cyberspace has a nice feel to it. I suppose that is the biggest driving force in demand for multiplayer.

Personally, I'd rather have super smart AI acting like real people, than hooking up with too many unrealistic real players who just want to crash and burn everything in sight. Real people don't act that way in real situations.

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Fri, 27. Jul 18, 22:02

I have always considered multiplayer as a cheap solution to the difficulty of doing a proper AI, F.E.A.R managed to some extent years ago, granted it is not an easy task ( or should I say too expensive/risky to be attempted by the big AAA companies ) but still a cop out ... A bit like RNG..

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 27. Jul 18, 22:02

Observe wrote:What do we actually want from multiplayer and why?

What if we had really good artificial intelligence that could simulate multiplayer? Is part of the interest in multiplayer due to poor AI in single-player games?

I understand the idea of real people playing next to us in cyberspace has a nice feel to it. I suppose that is the biggest driving force in demand for multiplayer.

Personally, I'd rather have super smart AI acting like real people, than hooking up with too many unrealistic real players who just want to crash and burn everything in sight. Real people don't act that way in real situations.

I certainly agree with you in regards to disruptive players and the like - Nobody wants them.

But, to be honest, I like the idea of sharing a play experience with other "real" people. That doesn't mean I want to group with them or have them significantly effect my own experience, or me theirs.

My first online MP experience was Ultima Online. And, I was chased around by PK'ers most of the time... Even so, it was a great experience. Later, my first real MMO experience was Everquest and that sort of set the stage for the rest of my MMO expectations. When I first started playing, I was just the same as every other "Kill five rats" player. And, higher level players would often come to newbie zones and help lower level players... just "because." And, when I got higher level? I did the same. I spent many hours in Nektulos Forest at "the Newbie log" handing out buffs so players could level a bit more safely... Just like thousands of other players did before me.

I'm not a guy that insists every game must have a multiplayer component. But, when it's possible and when it could actually have a "value added" component that encourages "community" and "experience sharing" then I'm all for it. Just so long as I don't have to deal with griefers, disrupters, and kids screaming how many times they had sex with my mom...

("Building Games" that involve many hours of player investment that could be seriously disrupted or devalued by other players are not, IMO, very suitable for pervasive multiplayer experiences. "Instanced" experiences though, where the build-space is somewhat protected, doesn't have to be a bad thing. Later MMOs generally adopted that sort of thing with important or demanding tasks.)

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Sat, 28. Jul 18, 02:59

Observe wrote: What if we had really good artificial intelligence that could simulate multiplayer? Is part of the interest in multiplayer due to poor AI in single-player games?

The thing is ... in the current state, it's a really big IF. I think we're still pretty far off from when we will have satisfactory AI. I remember BOT has been developed and added in games like Counter Strike, Battlefield since like ... a decade and a half ago? To do exactly what you ask - simulate multiplayer. They have come a long way, but even as of now, not even the best BOT programs can provide half the challenge a decent human player can. And even when they can put up a fight, it's still lacking certain dynamic that human have, something that make the experience ... organic. And these games are very small and compact comparing to MMO.

Which is the next problem. Even if we figure out a good algorithm/script for a good enough AI to simulate real player, it will no doubt be something fairly expensive to run resource wise. A human player doesn't really strain the system, since it just have to wait for our input and carry them out, all the thinking and decision making is done with our brain. An AI player will put an extreme strain on the server. I'm not sure if you play MMO, but there is a reason why outside of small instance (raid/dungeon) the AI you run into on the open map are just simpleton. Because if the game are to spawn say ... a few dozen or hundred decent AI to simulate human players in an MMO ... the server will have to be run on nothing less than a super computer.

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Sat, 28. Jul 18, 05:41

Challenging gameplay is no longer mainstream, it has become a fringe activity and what company wants to sell too the fringes.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Sat, 28. Jul 18, 07:51

birdtable wrote:Challenging gameplay is no longer mainstream, it has become a fringe activity and what company wants to sell too the fringes.

The millions of copies of Dark Souls games that have been sold kind of counters that claim, wouldn't you say?

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Sat, 28. Jul 18, 08:13

That is the problem with sweeping statements,, they soon get swept..

Quite right pjknibbs ..quite right.

Still not sure about No man's ...will wait... still looks cutesy.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Sat, 28. Jul 18, 19:54

birdtable wrote:Challenging gameplay is no longer mainstream, it has become a fringe activity and what company wants to sell too the fringes.

There is some small bit of truth to that, but I don't think it's so generalized. IOW - There are a lot of games that have excellent gameplay, graphics, neat-o stuff to do and, in the end, really aren't very difficult to "win." And, there are plenty of overly difficult games that cater to the "tough gamer" market, too.

Games are not judged to be good because it's difficult for the player to achieve a goal or victory conditions. Good games can be very easy to win and still be very good, even widely acclaimed and wildly popular, games.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

No Man's Sky Next.