Incorporating an in-game Ship design element into the real-time MMO, and abolishing a separate Creative mode

[Jetthetank]

I have played a random bunch of other games, but one such was Empyrion: Galactic Survival.
I have encountered, as well as others I have known, that having a separate Creative or Single player mode really eliminated a core and fun aspect of the game: Shipbuilding.
with the presence of the Creative and SP modes, you could just freeform build you ship designs completely separate from the actual game world which was really convenient! but it eliminated that entire MAJOR aspect out of the base MMO game itself,
because with the current state of that game, I could jump into a MP server and all I had to do was grind such and such resources, and X amount of each, then plug them into the blueprint and Vwalla! I have a ship, and that blueprint I could have literally just downloaded from the workshop without even considering pro's and cons.

I am suggesting that Starbase integrate the building of ships directly into the MMO itself, without the ability to take that entire element of gameplay (which could potentially spark the addition of major ship manufacturing companies and add a new dinension to the game) out of the core MMO.
I feel this would add another level of immersion, keep all those hrs of playtime spent on design and ship building within the MMO, boosting the Population, and adding a ton of possible content and ability for certain factions to roleplay or specialize as another type of trade.

Otherwise, I see ingame shipbuilders having the reduced use in the game because someone has a blueprint to work off of.
but also, having this element exclusive to the MMO, will bring the community together within the game for the purposes of purchasing, selling and building of ships.

An idea I have on my mind at the moment is for maybe some sort of ingame R&D platform, where you can experiment with build simulations for testing, balance of your craft, utility, accesibility, power balance, etc... where this could be "simulated" and then designed into blueprints for repurposing.
But im sure there are other cool ways as well.

I feel this would be an awesome improvement to the space building genre.

 

[LauriFB]

The ship editor, as other editors, are incorporated in the MMO side as well and are integral part of the experience. Editors are also inside the game world, meaning for example that you need to fly to a hangar which supports the ship editor in order to use the editing tools. It's also possible to build such hangars in the final game.

Exclusion to MMO only has it's valid points, but there are also players who don't want to play the MMO side. Also blueprint trading/transfer will be at MMO side anyway, so the separate sandbox shouldn't remove anything from MMO, but instead can bring designs available from people who don't want to play the MMO side.

That said, we haven't given much thought to sadnbox mode lately, so anything related to it are currently open, including when and in what form it will be available. Once sandbox is coming we will definitely build it in a way that it will add to the MMO experience.

 

[Vexus]

I posted a similar thought on Discord before the forums came up. If it is more efficient to prototype things in an offline universe, with access to unlimited resources and unlimited ability to spawn ships and test all the game mechanics, it will be in the best interest of dedicated players to "learn the game offline" not in the MMO space. For example, if I have access to every material type, and can just test damage performance of those materials in an offline mode where I can instantly have access (spawn in) all the materials I could ever want, I can learn the game in the offline mode much much faster than if I play the online MMO organically.

If I can learn faster offline, I will spend most of the play time offline learning, since it is just more time efficient to do so. This cuts out a lot of the natural interaction that might occur when, for example, in the live game I see some resource I never tested pop up on the market, so I buy some to test it out. Since everyone will be doing this in the organic live mode, this drives the market, player experience, and player interaction as they go off to fill demand. If I can figure out which material I like the 'least' in an offline mode, I have no incentive to ever deal in that material in the live game, cutting out untold amounts of player interaction from the middle of the equation considering everyone would be incentivized to learn the game in the offline mode first. Time being the important element; spawning in all resources to test, or spawning in unlimited ships to test how damage feels and works offline, means people can 'train the basics' without ever having to interact with anyone else. I feel this would be detrimental to an MMO.

I made the case that successful MMOs are ones which keep their gameplay online. If WoW for example allowed offline mode, they likely would not be as successful. Players could jump into the offline mode and defeat all the raids and instances solo with offline dev-cheats and so on. They would learn new content instantly, being able to data mine the fight without the risk of doing it live with other players. In preserving their online-only gameplay, WoW has developed a 'World First' tournament of sorts where new content is raced for completion against by top players, creating a vast amount of value to their brand in doing so. If those players had the tools to sit offline and test, none of that value would come out.

EVE is another example where keeping all interactions online was successful. Players had to play the one live game and succeed or fail in it. This pushed players to work together if they wanted safety or if they wanted revenge. They had nowhere to dip offline and completely avoid other players; they were always connected to the greater game universe and even if they didn't participate directly in many of the bigger events, they still knew they were part of the grand scheme of things where all the markets and player interactions were intertwined. I feel this is why EVE has been one of the most successful MMOs, because they realized the stories their players would be building and adhered to making sure those experiences were as much a direct result of player interaction as possible.

I do not think a sandbox, offline creative mode which allows players to summon at will a fleet of ships is valuable to the game. I think it dilutes the core MMO from what it could be, what so many want it to be. Players would be drawn to the world where they don't have to mine resources and can instead spawn at will all their heart's desire. On the surface, this seems fine, you are letting players be creative and construct wild things, but it hurts the core game overall as each person cut out from the potential of interacting with other players represents the bulk of the 'iceberg' of content they would otherwise become. If players can perfect their ships in offline mode, it will be so much less time consuming than testing all the materials out in the live game, cutting out untold numbers of people from playing the live game until they fully understand enough systems where it's no longer wasting their time to test things in the live game.

I know the reaction from a lot of people; they want their offline creative mode and feel strongly about it. I can only counter that in having such a feature, it destroys a lot of the substance of the MMO aspect of the game. The game should make a choice what it wants to be - an offline creative mode or a dedicated MMO. If the intention is players being able to build in peace, implement in-game tools like safe zones for them to do so in, but keep them always connected to every other player in terms of how their actions affect the long term story of the game. Let their buying of materials on the market somehow have a butterfly effect to the great faction wars. I strongly feel it is in the game's best interest to decide what it wants to be before it exists and I feel the MMO component should be treated as if it will have decade or more of longevity and envision what that entails and what that could become in the future. If that is a tempting long term goal, then diluting the game world by having the players spend their most useful time unconnected to each other eliminates so much important interaction in the grand scheme of things, and player interaction is the lifeblood of MMOs.

 

[Strite]

I agree with Vexus. An offline ship editor will likely be a hotly requested feature for SB, I know it was with Worlds but I was against it there too for the same reason. I think that designing and building ships should be a social feature and, as Vexus said, should contribute to the game world and its economy. Don't get me wrong, as a long time EVE player I used third party tools like EFT to gauge different loadouts and make my ship as effective as possible, but when it came to actually buying that loadout I still had to do so in-game, with an element of risk involved. I know SB isn't EVE, or Worlds so FB may have other ideas about how to handle shipbuilding, but personally I do think that such a fundamental mechanic works best when it remains in-game.

 

[Vexus]

The loss of gameplay from people figuring out solutions in an offline game universe could be immense. The struggle to build a way to reach the in-game moon for example would have little meaning (or the struggle might not even happen) if the exact best method was found in an offline editor for this kind of task. And then it comes down to why do it (outside of simply for the sake of progression), since the problem was solved offline already, and at that point it just becomes a monotonous building plan executing the parts. Much of life's excitement comes from the fact that we're all interacting together and must work together to solve problems, and no matter how much we simulate or theorize, we still must execute our ideas in the real world with all the unknowns that brings the first times we try things out.

I'm not against an in-game ship editor or station editor and things like that. Tools that help you figure out if your ship will even work are good. The game is complex and needs those tools. I'm against the idea of a fully offline mode that allows people to learn the game offline with no interaction with other players; no first ship they leave scrapped on the edge of an asteroid belt; no ship they leave floating in the void after running out of fuel accidentally. All those little events are untold amounts of content over the timelime of a connected MMO like this. I feel the content we all create interacting with each other in the same shared world becomes so much more meaningful and gives the game roots, a history and a future. For those who want safety, the tools for safety are possible in game, where you're still connected to the greater game world, so you're still able to play test and so on and build amazing things, you'd just be much more likely to interact with others to accomplish the things you want done. This means you matter to others, and others matter to you, and it keeps you invested in the success of the game and the game world.

 

[Jetthetank]

The ship editor, as other editors, are incorporated in the MMO side as well and are integral part of the experience. Editors are also inside the game world, meaning for example that you need to fly to a hangar which supports the ship editor in order to use the editing tools. It's also possible to build such hangars in the final game.

Exclusion to MMO only has it's valid points, but there are also players who don't want to play the MMO side. Also blueprint trading/transfer will be at MMO side anyway, so the separate sandbox shouldn't remove anything from MMO, but instead can bring designs available from people who don't want to play the MMO side.

That said, we haven't given much thought to sadnbox mode lately, so anything related to it are currently open, including when and in what form it will be available. Once sandbox is coming we will definitely build it in a way that it will add to the MMO experience.

Ok, so it sounds like to already do have somewhat of an implementation of ingame editors, which is cool.
But, I still feel that if there is an offline mode, this game will somewhat end up like Empyrion: Galactic Survival, which, I know isnt a unified MMO (as it is run on dedicated servers) but almost everyone seems to spend the bulk of their time outside of the MP universe.
The only real community in that game, and the largest communities, are all centered around the single player creative mode where blueprints are share via steam workshop.
Not saying a workshop integration would be bad, it could be handy in certain aspects.

But you mention people that wouldn't want to play the MMO side, I would suggest the way it would be designed is so it is more engaging and immersive so that player would want to build ingame.

 

[YakkoForever]

Anything that encourages people to do some of the game in single player then lets them bring it over to Multiplayer is a bad thing. If players can perfect a ship design then quickly transfer its design over to multiplayer using a blueprint system it will hurt the game. Even if this single player build is less fun than multiplayer then players will optimize the fun out of the game.

I do think single player can exist and not be a problem for the Multiplayer server. some people have scars and are scared of the multiplayer setting and so for these people a single player game mode might be a good idea. But in an MMO multiplayer comes first. If single player might effect or hurt the multiplayer experience then single player needs changed and or removed.

Having and single player or sandbox mode might help new ship builders figure out what a ship needs and that can be a good thing. On the other hand, if it becomes a place where all ships are designed and build then it is hurting and taking away game play from the multiplayer setting. A good way to lower the efficiency of building in single player/sandbox then transferring the design to multiplayer is to not allow blueprint transfer. so if you build a sweet single player ship you cannot save the blueprint and then use the blueprint in the multiplayer server.

no matter what happens the game needs to be designed so that multiplayer is the place to be for all aspects of the game. maybe you can play single player but if so it should be because you do not want to play with other people rather than because you want to get an edge in multiplayer.

tl;dr keep player in the multiplayer game and scrap single player if in hurts this.

 

[Morrgard]

I'm fairly sure there was already a similar topic to this about the singleplayer having discussed a lot about it,

EDIT: Found it : https://forum.starbasegame.com/threads/concerns-with-single-player.142/

 

[Vexus]

There is a space-building game, with an infinite universe, with voxels and so on. It's called Starmade.

So why isn't everyone playing that? The reason is because it didn't have the technology to support a fully unified single universe for lots of players. That game has all the features of Starbase (roughly), so why is that game dead and why are people hyped about Starbase? It's because the networking tech in Starbase means you will be able to do all the cool stuff in the same universe with all your friends and everyone else. There is no smooth networking in Starmade and the reliance on a single server for transmitting data just couldn't hold up with lots of players. So they had to offer single servers for people to spin up their own universe, and everyone retreated into their own universe, eventually got bored, and quit the game. And now, there's a bunch of individual servers for anyone to go explore multiple, endless, unexciting universes. There's no "one" universe to explore, there's many, so there's no value in it. No scarcity of experience.

It is extremely important for the long term that if you want Starbase gameplay, you load into the main universe with everyone else. That you cannot just spin up your own universe and shoot some static ships or fight your friends and then quit the game and forget about it. You have to be online, to experience what is new in the game with everyone else. There's scarcity in your gameplay then, that it can only occur in the one and only universe of Starbase. This brings immense value and never ending chances to grab a player and make them commit to some goal in game that potentially affects thousands of other players. There are many other games which failed this, which could not hold together a playerbase due to limited networking technology and despite a large vision.

Space Engineers is successful because of all the options in ways you can play with other players, not because of individual servers. Usually individual servers cannot maintain more than 30-60 players reliably if even that. If Starbase can allow players to exist in a single universe like EVE that is the path to becoming a household name for every gamer. Starbase could be a pretty good game like Space Engineers, or it could become the next generation MMO that everyone hears about like EVE.

Speaking of EVE, I'd say it's main success was impossible without a single shared universe. The possibility for thousands of players to engage in epic battles in EVE was due to their tech which allowed a single shared universe that forced everyone to work together to solve problems. If people could have dipped out into their own private server, there would never be more than 10 or 20 people on any one server, like SE. Because EVE's tech could handle that large number of players, it became something massive, where actions mattered and you demanded more from your crew because it was this fight or nothing. Nowhere else to go but where you are in this game. There was scarcity in gameplay, meaning in which system you were, meaning behind all your actions no matter if you were farming some money or planning an attack, you were always connected to the greater ebb and flow of the game universe.

That's what I see in Starbase. I see that potential along with all the detail and possibilities. If the tech can support large numbers of players, that can be achieved, but it would be crippled if everyone 'noped out' to their own private servers after experiencing some loss. Instead if players can only get that meaningful action from the one universe of Starbase, it allows endless possibilities to occur in the game universe and an endless expanse of gameplay as what you do in game will echo across time. Players will realize their actions matter, their reputations matter, their friends matter, their enemies matter, and the game will be better for it. Devs will see the value in maintaining a game that has meaning to so many people and work harder for it. The angle Starbase has on other games is the multiplayer aspect. Other games for space sim, space trucking, space exploration, building and so on are out there, all minor players in the grand scheme of things, almost none are gamer-household-names. I see the potential in Starbase if it commits to being an MMO, embracing that and making the most of it.

 

[Morrgard]

There is a space-building game, with an infinite universe, with voxels and so on. It's called Starmade.

So why isn't everyone playing that? The reason is because it didn't have the technology to support a fully unified single universe for lots of players. That game has all the features of Starbase (roughly), so why is that game dead and why are people hyped about Starbase? It's because the networking tech in Starbase means you will be able to do all the cool stuff in the same universe with all your friends and everyone else. There is no smooth networking in Starmade and the reliance on a single server for transmitting data just couldn't hold up with lots of players. So they had to offer single servers for people to spin up their own universe, and everyone retreated into their own universe, eventually got bored, and quit the game. And now, there's a bunch of individual servers for anyone to go explore multiple, endless, unexciting universes. There's no "one" universe to explore, there's many, so there's no value in it. No scarcity of experience.

It is extremely important for the long term that if you want Starbase gameplay, you load into the main universe with everyone else. That you cannot just spin up your own universe and shoot some static ships or fight your friends and then quit the game and forget about it. You have to be online, to experience what is new in the game with everyone else. There's scarcity in your gameplay then, that it can only occur in the one and only universe of Starbase. This brings immense value and never ending chances to grab a player and make them commit to some goal in game that potentially affects thousands of other players. There are many other games which failed this, which could not hold together a playerbase due to limited networking technology and despite a large vision.

Space Engineers is successful because of all the options in ways you can play with other players, not because of individual servers. Usually individual servers cannot maintain more than 30-60 players reliably if even that. If Starbase can allow players to exist in a single universe like EVE that is the path to becoming a household name for every gamer. Starbase could be a pretty good game like Space Engineers, or it could become the next generation MMO that everyone hears about like EVE.

Speaking of EVE, I'd say it's main success was impossible without a single shared universe. The possibility for thousands of players to engage in epic battles in EVE was due to their tech which allowed a single shared universe that forced everyone to work together to solve problems. If people could have dipped out into their own private server, there would never be more than 10 or 20 people on any one server, like SE. Because EVE's tech could handle that large number of players, it became something massive, where actions mattered and you demanded more from your crew because it was this fight or nothing. Nowhere else to go but where you are in this game. There was scarcity in gameplay, meaning in which system you were, meaning behind all your actions no matter if you were farming some money or planning an attack, you were always connected to the greater ebb and flow of the game universe.

That's what I see in Starbase. I see that potential along with all the detail and possibilities. If the tech can support large numbers of players, that can be achieved, but it would be crippled if everyone 'noped out' to their own private servers after experiencing some loss. Instead if players can only get that meaningful action from the one universe of Starbase, it allows endless possibilities to occur in the game universe and an endless expanse of gameplay as what you do in game will echo across time. Players will realize their actions matter, their reputations matter, their friends matter, their enemies matter, and the game will be better for it. Devs will see the value in maintaining a game that has meaning to so many people and work harder for it. The angle Starbase has on other games is the multiplayer aspect. Other games for space sim, space trucking, space exploration, building and so on are out there, all minor players in the grand scheme of things, almost none are gamer-household-names. I see the potential in Starbase if it commits to being an MMO, embracing that and making the most of it.

This, as I mentioned a comment above, is similar to what I was arguing to see the singleplayer of Starbase become. As for Starmade and EVE I share your thoughts, but I think in Starbase you could solve it with having singleplayer just being blueprint editors with a simple test flight mode. So having it this way would mean that no matter what, you would need to get onto the main server to properly and reliably test your creations armor, weaponry and crash tests.

I don't see Starbase needing more of a singleplayer than what I had described above. And I do understand when people are mentioning (from the other thread) that they want to see constructions being built and then abandoned and tested and so forth in the main universe, quite like relics. However what I would say still happens if the singleplayer mode is only limited to blueprint editing and creation.

Important to note I believe that this blueprint editor for test flights and mechanics (such as moveable parts) should not include asteroids and such things. But just a simple empty world where you go in and out of the editor to test your vessels moving parts and to see if it just has enough thrusters and no more than this.

However, I'm still for players to be able to have their own battles and such to play in their private instances as sometimes that can be very enjoyable and just fun. But then just simply go back to the main instance

 

[Jetthetank]

I'm fairly sure there was already a similar topic to this about the singleplayer having discussed a lot about it,

EDIT: Found it : https://forum.starbasegame.com/threads/concerns-with-single-player.142/

I realized that what I devolved the discussion in that thread was a little off topic, so I started another thread. I love the amount of discussion and ideas that are being brought about. that is what I am trying to achieve here.
I just want more people to bring their ideas to the table, not their personal opinion on whether they would like this feature or the other (that also being very important).
I am just bringing my take on it backed by my experience and knowing how some aspects tend to play out.

KEEP THE IDEAS COMING!!!

 

[DirtyBoyFrey]

There is a space-building game, with an infinite universe, with voxels and so on. It's called Starmade.

So why isn't everyone playing that? The reason is because it didn't have the technology to support a fully unified single universe for lots of players. That game has all the features of Starbase (roughly), so why is that game dead and why are people hyped about Starbase? It's because the networking tech in Starbase means you will be able to do all the cool stuff in the same universe with all your friends and everyone else. There is no smooth networking in Starmade and the reliance on a single server for transmitting data just couldn't hold up with lots of players. So they had to offer single servers for people to spin up their own universe, and everyone retreated into their own universe, eventually got bored, and quit the game. And now, there's a bunch of individual servers for anyone to go explore multiple, endless, unexciting universes. There's no "one" universe to explore, there's many, so there's no value in it. No scarcity of experience.

It is extremely important for the long term that if you want Starbase gameplay, you load into the main universe with everyone else. That you cannot just spin up your own universe and shoot some static ships or fight your friends and then quit the game and forget about it. You have to be online, to experience what is new in the game with everyone else. There's scarcity in your gameplay then, that it can only occur in the one and only universe of Starbase. This brings immense value and never ending chances to grab a player and make them commit to some goal in game that potentially affects thousands of other players. There are many other games which failed this, which could not hold together a playerbase due to limited networking technology and despite a large vision.

Space Engineers is successful because of all the options in ways you can play with other players, not because of individual servers. Usually individual servers cannot maintain more than 30-60 players reliably if even that. If Starbase can allow players to exist in a single universe like EVE that is the path to becoming a household name for every gamer. Starbase could be a pretty good game like Space Engineers, or it could become the next generation MMO that everyone hears about like EVE.

Speaking of EVE, I'd say it's main success was impossible without a single shared universe. The possibility for thousands of players to engage in epic battles in EVE was due to their tech which allowed a single shared universe that forced everyone to work together to solve problems. If people could have dipped out into their own private server, there would never be more than 10 or 20 people on any one server, like SE. Because EVE's tech could handle that large number of players, it became something massive, where actions mattered and you demanded more from your crew because it was this fight or nothing. Nowhere else to go but where you are in this game. There was scarcity in gameplay, meaning in which system you were, meaning behind all your actions no matter if you were farming some money or planning an attack, you were always connected to the greater ebb and flow of the game universe.

That's what I see in Starbase. I see that potential along with all the detail and possibilities. If the tech can support large numbers of players, that can be achieved, but it would be crippled if everyone 'noped out' to their own private servers after experiencing some loss. Instead if players can only get that meaningful action from the one universe of Starbase, it allows endless possibilities to occur in the game universe and an endless expanse of gameplay as what you do in game will echo across time. Players will realize their actions matter, their reputations matter, their friends matter, their enemies matter, and the game will be better for it. Devs will see the value in maintaining a game that has meaning to so many people and work harder for it. The angle Starbase has on other games is the multiplayer aspect. Other games for space sim, space trucking, space exploration, building and so on are out there, all minor players in the grand scheme of things, almost none are gamer-household-names. I see the potential in Starbase if it commits to being an MMO, embracing that and making the most of it.

I think it's critical to mention that the 'singleplayer' is a private instance that has absolutely no way to actually save your data. The only data you can save are ship designs.

Also, you bring up EVE, but EVE has an offline mode, and better yet it's an offline mode that features progression. Plenty of people, myself included, used the offline mode in EVE to get somewhat used to the game before they start heading in to deal with other players.

And, for another example that should follow the ideal you have stated-- Worlds Adrift. There isn't a blueprint designer or any sort of singleplayer content in WA (the island designer is totally separate install and only really lets you learn the basics of movement)-- every ship designed in the game had to be created online and flown. WA never got a massive online community, despite technically having the technology to do so.

This, as I mentioned a comment above, is similar to what I was arguing to see the singleplayer of Starbase become. As for Starmade and EVE I share your thoughts, but I think in Starbase you could solve it with having singleplayer just being blueprint editors with a simple test flight mode. So having it this way would mean that no matter what, you would need to get onto the main server to properly and reliably test your creations armor, weaponry and crash tests.

I don't see Starbase needing more of a singleplayer than what I had described above. And I do understand when people are mentioning (from the other thread) that they want to see constructions being built and then abandoned and tested and so forth in the main universe, quite like relics. However what I would say still happens if the singleplayer mode is only limited to blueprint editing and creation.

Important to note I believe that this blueprint editor for test flights and mechanics (such as moveable parts) should not include asteroids and such things. But just a simple empty world where you go in and out of the editor to test your vessels moving parts and to see if it just has enough thrusters and no more than this.

The blueprint designer will have a test world that accomplishes the features you want. I think the function of the singleplayer would more be so that people who maybe don't have a stable connection, temporarily or permanently, can still contribute in a way to the overall experience, and enjoy the game, albeit in a limited sense. Plus, there are plenty of people who have absolutely no interest in playing an MMO, but they will see that there is a limited singleplayer/private instance that they can play around in with their friends, and they might pick up the game. This means that the game gets better sales, potentially higher ratings, and thus brings in more people seeing a popular game. Plus, every player who plays the private instance is a potential online player when they eventually want to try out their designs against other people.

Basically, I just don't see any problem with having a singleplayer/private instance as long as it cannot 'replace' the main server, at least not until the game is on its last legs years down the line when it might be beneficial to have multiple servers.

 

[Morrgard]

Basically, I just don't see any problem with having a singleplayer/private instance as long as it cannot 'replace' the main server, at least not until the game is on its last legs years down the line when it might be beneficial to have multiple servers.

That's good then

And that's what I was trying to bring forth, that I wouldn't like to see something that replaces the main instance of the game that could draw people out, making it less populated. I'm definitely for private servers though as long as they don't do that

 

[Vexus]

Flight testing and so on I can see 'possible' offline, but if you're in a safezone, not much reason to not have it online at that point for people to see what's going on, to see the game being alive. And then you might want privacy, and seek out a remote location, and gameplay evolves from this beyond what is normally visible on the surface.

The ability to see someone at a safe mega-station and see they're probably designing a ship and ask them what they're working on is well worth keeping even that function online. The removal of even that small interaction is unfortunate if the player is just not even in the game, not really there, unable to be interacted with.

The private instances would ensure the game could never have 1000's of players working towards a shared goal like building a warp gate to the moon. Why do that, when you instantly teleport to the moon on your private server? It would dilute the meaning behind those massive community projects. If this event was only going to happen once, and could only occur on the live game and nowhere else, there is immense scarcity in gameplay and you will have to be there yourself to see it happen, acting like a nuclear reaction in keeping players interacting with each other, helping, fighting, defending, attacking, pouring all their energy because they cannot get this gameplay anywhere else. It could be amazing, known and written about in gaming magazines and so on, or just some individual server decided to do a random thing that has no real meaning. I am hoping it has great meaning. It has the potential. Frozenbyte has made it no longer impossible. It comes down to owning that future or allowing the game to exist as hundreds of empty 0/32 servers across the internet.

EVE has an offline mode

They may now, but that's not what they made in the beginning, and not what it was known for. You might even be able to find a correlation of the downfall of EVE with the dilution of the playerbase across offline servers and Dust514 and so on. Not sure. The initial game that everyone has heard a thing or two about amazing things happening, happened in the one universe provided for what, a decade at least since it launched?

I feel any private server dilutes the gameplay where players can get that gameplay fix in a world where no one can interact with them. There will be fewer and fewer chances to rope those players in to some grand event, because, "I can just fly in my private server," is sometimes good enough. Eventually they make the choice; log on to the main universe and risk conflict, or just fly my ship alone in my private server. This leads to both the larger main server suffering and the player losing interest and quitting.

 

[DirtyBoyFrey]

Well in that case, I don't think there will be any problems. The private instances are basically just temp worlds to screw around in when you can't get online.

 

[Jetthetank]

I would say the ship designer in Worlds was really cool, as it added a level of immersion to the game. (I wouldn't say thats what killed the game)
"Plus, there are plenty of people who have absolutely no interest in playing an MMO " I dont think that should be a factor here, as this IS an MMO ad not everyone HAS to play this game. The factors that develop an MMO should be focused on building an MMO. (I feel that if these elements are removed from outside the game, they should be uniquely represented in the game, in such a way that they could be worked on through various implemented features).

 

[DirtyBoyFrey]

Flight testing and so on I can see 'possible' offline, but if you're in a safezone, not much reason to not have it online at that point for people to see what's going on, to see the game being alive. And then you might want privacy, and seek out a remote location, and gameplay evolves from this beyond what is normally visible on the surface.

The ability to see someone at a safe mega-station and see they're probably designing a ship and ask them what they're working on is well worth keeping even that function online. The removal of even that small interaction is unfortunate if the player is just not even in the game, not really there, unable to be interacted with.

The private instances would ensure the game could never have 1000's of players working towards a shared goal like building a warp gate to the moon. Why do that, when you instantly teleport to the moon on your private server? It would dilute the meaning behind those massive community projects. If this event was only going to happen once, and could only occur on the live game and nowhere else, there is immense scarcity in gameplay and you will have to be there yourself to see it happen, acting like a nuclear reaction in keeping players interacting with each other, helping, fighting, defending, attacking, pouring all their energy because they cannot get this gameplay anywhere else. It could be amazing, known and written about in gaming magazines and so on, or just some individual server decided to do a random thing that has no real meaning. I am hoping it has great meaning. It has the potential. Frozenbyte has made it no longer impossible. It comes down to owning that future or allowing the game to exist as hundreds of empty 0/32 servers across the internet.

Right but the private instances have no impact on the main server. If you instantly teleport to the moon on your private instance you are... now on the moon. Anything you do there will cease to exist the moment you quit the game. The game would still have 1000s of players working towards that goal, because a private instance could never hold 1000s of players, or even 100s of players. It's basically like temporarily hosting a game in something like Minecraft or Terraria, except with less permanence.

 

[LauriFB]

This is indeed very good discussion and it has made me realize that sandbox indeed includes a risk of players doing all meta development in sandboxes as that's infinitely faster to do there than in the game world. It's not completely bad, but inside the world it would have more meaning. In the other hand not having a sandbox at all might emphasize strong factions even more, as they would have the resources to be spent on research. But then again, smaller factions might just want to focus on espionage/stealing inventions.

I'm still not sure about splitting the player base, but maybe we should do some polls around that. What I mean is that my understanding is that some people simply don't want to play MMO, but just build things. Granted, those people could just stay inside hangars in the MMO and never see a soul, but I don't know do they feel it this way.

As we haven't put much work to sandbox yet it would be smart development-wise to postpone sandbox and see if people could live without it. But before I'm making any commitments to any direction we'll need to somehow get some polls up and running.

 

[DirtyBoyFrey]

I would say the ship designer in Worlds was really cool, as it added a level of immersion to the game. (I wouldn't say thats what killed the game)
"Plus, there are plenty of people who have absolutely no interest in playing an MMO " I dont think that should be a factor here, as this IS an MMO ad not everyone HAS to play this game. The factors that develop an MMO should be focused on building an MMO. (I feel that if these elements are removed from outside the game, they should be uniquely represented in the game, in such a way that they could be worked on through various implemented features).

My point is more that people who don't have an interest in MMOs initially can be enticed to actually play the main portion of the game (the MMO part) if you can give them something familiar to latch onto first, especially if it doesn't harm the overall experience for online users.

 

[Vic]

This is a very interesting dicussion. An offline creative mode will no doubt exist at the expense of the MMO experience for reasons that were well explained above. To me cost to benefit equation of implementing a feature that is in no way critical to the enjoyment of the game at the expense of a very promising core experience suggests that implementing this feature would do the game a disservice. Sounds like a pretty clear case of « more harm than good » imo.