SPO and SP Offline

Right, I am drawing a line between single player and solo play in an online persistent world.

Content that ships with the box would be single player but content that happens through out the online life cycle would not be so revisitable. (Create a new character in Episode 5 and look to play that content that happened online during Episode 1)

Basically a definition of what people think single player story means to each of us. Single player =/= solo player

 

Well if you take the same companions forward through each episode, the initial backstory from EP1 is what counts you are with them during each episode and know exactly what they feel & do. Depending on time passed between each episode would need some filling in.

 

What about that player that never played SotA until Episode 5? How much of Episode 1 can they go back to and how much is "you had to be there when it was live"

 

well I wouldn't buy Episode 5 unless it was a Gold edition containing all the story. If you buy episode 5 its an MMO world that is shipping with it so you would expect to get all the other online worlds in the package, even it if cost a little more.

 

Dynamic events may not be story - intergrated events - but "world" events - current events of the times - I imagine (While I'm pursuing the story arch - an earthquake may open up)

It will all add to the feeling of being in a "living world" - and folks who don't come in early will miss out I imagine

But how the main main arch story is protected to "maintain a sense of uniqueness and consistent with the world" is something we will wait for I guess

Although story - does not have to equate to single player experience - I do think that / many do have that expectation

 

The statement from Richard was something like this "The evil forces are not sitting in a dungeon waiting, there is a plan and it has plans" - not a quote, paraphrasing.

Some of these plans are going to spring up and forever change the land, possibly. How would the new player to SotA that start off in Episode 5 go back to this pre changed land, or would that not be possible. From an online persistent world I mean.

This is what I imagine will happen too. A single player story arch comes with the game lauch (just as any other single player game) but the online persistant world will have events going on, some story arch some not, and these are perks for being there during online play. (single/friend/open)

 

This is indeed a problem. And this - and other problems which are adressed in this thread too - are caused by the decision that SotA shall be a kind of jack of all trades device. In which direction will the scale move - to a single player aspect with social games opportunities? Or to a mmo with the option of single player? Much of us thought - caused by the first kickstarter videos - that SotA will be a game with the focus on a story and the option to do some social gaming. Recently it seems the scale (balance) goes more and more to a mmo with single player options (online / offline). And this is the reason why this thread exists, I think

 

What were you expecting for the content that unfolds in the persistent world over the course of the year. (out of curiosity)

I am not sure how they would do zone/scene build that is conducive to single player. The planned content for release day, yes, but the content that develops on the fly, no.

What I mean is compare the SPO vs single player offline. Offline, that never gets a single update must have a full story, a completely world. If the content that gets patched is included or expected to be included will the world be incomplete if they don't patch?

Also, will the dynamic nature of the persistent world be restricted to something that is feasible for both single player and online persistent.

How is it a problem though? If they provide ample story for a single player game, at launch. If you are SPO you make partake in content as it happens, from a solo player perspective. (not single player) They are delivering on what they presented at the start of the Kickstarter, for both single player and SPO/FPO/OPO.

Or are people expecting a constant stream of single player content from launch of Episode 1 to the end of Episode 10. Is that realistic? (note their is a difference between single player content and playing the online persistent world solo or SPO)

 

I believe, there's most money to be made in MMOs. Just look at the new trailer from PAX and the game modes:

Offline Gaming isn't even mentioned...
Maybe it's best I set my expectations low, so I won't get disappointed as much and maybe positively surprised (with the informations at the moment, it's hard to say and I would maybe recommend SotA to MMO fans, but surely not to classical RPG fans).

P.S. I've seen the "epic 40+ hour narrative with ethical dilemmas" of course, but there are so many informations missing, how this (and other quests/events, etc.) will be presented ingame (and this game mechanics could indeed be revealed without story spoilers). For more see my post above, since I don't like repeating myself

 

To be fair it is mentioned at about :30. However, I agree with the spirit of your post.

 

The patch would act as some sort of DLC. What you originally installed is still good but if you want more, you might want to consider patching... especially if said patch fixes bugs. The launcher should patch things up automatically; that is, unless your entire computer is without internet connection.

Although Portalarium is adding MMO features right now, what I've seen so far tells me that they'll treat this game like any other single-player game. At least that's what I get when I look at their business model and their dev history. In its current state, their online-store can't really finance any extra content that aren't part of the planned episodes... especially since, right now, it helps financing the first episode (and stretched goals).

Maybe an event, here and there... a new hex perhaps. Holiday events in specific cities, etc. Nothing too big.

There's actually no point (and no money) to segregate your content into different play modes. The technology they're using can pull it off no problem... to play a true single-player game and still be in an MMO.

The thing with MMOs is that we tend to associate them with persistent worlds. For good reason too; that's what makes a really strong MMO. Persistence. The thing is, they're doing this "selective multi-player" meaning it still won't be a "true" MMO as players will go from instance to instance, phase to phase. With instancing and phasing techniques, the world can become persistent for each player.

Remember, we're already going to be phased based on population and our friend's list.

The only thing I don't ever see happening, however (and this isn't because it's not possible with the technology, just impractical as a design), is having major cities being affected by the story... since those act as player hubs. The idea of a town getting wiped out by a plague, for example, it'd be a small town at best... if at all.

Regardless of what may or may not happen, this is probably the best mentality to approach this.

However, for the sake of your friends, I'd suggest recommending games that you KNOW how things work... like a complete game or something.

 

The possibility for DLC style patches is there, but is that expected by the players currently? So far they have not used the DLC term. Only thing I have seen is that if you want to see the changes the world goes through then you need to go online to receive the update. (it's possible they mentioned that there would be not extra cost for DLC and would imply they might do DLC here and there - I'd have to hunt that memory down to reread and be sure)

Playing the online persistent world solo players is access to events. Do they all have to be scripted to fit the single players version and available as DLC. Some events are more about the people that show and not the script.

That's just it, they have not used phasing or mentioned phasing so far. Everything they have done is instancing. Selective multi player has no phasing.

 

I wasn't necessarily referring to DLC as extra content that you purchase; just content that you download. Nor was I implying that they'd do DLCs. Just to avoid miscommunication.

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about "scripted for single-player version". Could you elaborate?

To my understanding, it would be excessively impractical to constantly instance an area considering how dynamic they want people to show up in said area based on your friends list... you know, since servers would have to transfer character data constantly... which they already do as you load different areas. Although, that doesn't mean it can't be done.

To me, it seems to make more sense to structure the game so that there are fewer instanced areas and then phase players in and out based on your friends list (and story events). You limit the amount of data that the server has to send to your client and prevents your instance to look over-populated... because, to your client, the phased out players don't exist.

 

Just want to point out a super salient point, pendantic as some of you might find it to be.

There has never been, ever, any "announcement" or "hangout" where R.G. has said this is an MMO.

They have carefully said, every single time, this is SELECTIVE MULTIPLAYER.

I really wish people could understand what that actually implies and literally means.

It is not some standin language for MMO.

If they have decided, or planned all along, this was going to be an MMO, and disguised it with, defined and sold it as, not an MMO, there is a serious problem.

Obviously, there is a serious perception problem in the first place since it has never been branded an MMO, yet we have people (new and old) here trying to jam it into that category.

This is first, and foremost, the entire problem, with an attempt here to resolve the separate concepts of single play vs. group play.

Group play is a much smaller, much more digestible problem than resolving hundreds if not thousands of players online, with the same content.

But please, put it in that context. Like any old school MUD, where you had "groups" of players, bound together, playing through the same content, not a ton of "I am a special snowflake" personalities fighting for the singular attention and accomplishment through said content.

That is a problem with most of today's MMOs. No matter how much content they put, even if it is not vapid content, there is a complete disassociation among many because of the "repeated, non-unique" approach to its digestion.

I assumed, maybe wrongly of course, this project was aimed, though single online play, and further SELECTIVE PLAY, to bring back a time when playing with a group of people, through content, was the first real goal, to have a shared, UNIQUE experience, rather than just make pseudo-MMO version XYXY with that same non-unique content, repeatable, with a horrible combat system.

Cheers.

 

Me thinks you guys are getting worked up for no reason, working on the single player aspects and implementing story should really be the last few items in the development pipeline....(not to mention the least talked about)

Former "Concern" issues that were addressed in time...
1.) Lack of diversity in housing
2.) Too much focus on housing
3.) Deck combat
4.) The state of the website
5.) Graphics (ongoing)
6.) The cloth map
7.) Lack of focus on PVP
8.) Too much focus on PVP
9.) Too much focus on the MMORPG aspects of the game

Judging on how things are going around here we should see a "Too much focus on the single player game, story and companions" thread several releases from now

Patience, all in due time...have some faith, the ball hasn't been dropped yet (IMHO)

 

For me to answer that I think I will need to use some examples.

1: On the overland map we see a gypsy wagon. This is content that migrates around and players could interact with when they attempt to pass by. There could be several scenes tied to this wagon to keep the scene revisitable. (Gypsies attack you, are under attack, or they might offer their services)

2: Constellations align in a specific pattern and celestial even happens. The overland map shows players that the hex with highest mountain has something of interest. When the player visits this hex there is a temple that was not there before.

These has single player script potential.

A: Devs randomly spawn several rare MOBs. These mobs relentlessly attack a few hexes. The battles are epic but the players where not successful. The devs decide to extend this content to more hexes. Maybe a city is under siege. Eventually the players are succesfull.

B: Constellations align in a specific pattern and celestial even happens. The overland map shows players that the hex with highest mountain has something of interest. When the player visits this hex there is a temple that was not there before. When entering this hex you are given the option to flag for PvP (choosing no either ejects you from the hex or zones you into a solo instance without the PvP content)

These are not friendly to single player scripting but are friendly to solo play.

It is my understanding that excessive instancing is exactly the purpose of the Meta Server. If 1 million players are in SPO and in 1 hex it's instances like mad.

 

Were you talking about the forum?

 

The answer is right here in this interview posted by smack:
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...rview-with-richard-and-starr-dragoncon.14445/

Starts around 23:15 - 23:47


pre-alpha = they are still working on the sandbox\simulation part of the game, the narrative comes later.

What you perceive as "mmorpg" focus, is really focus on the core mechanics, simulation and sandbox elements that once in place they can easily drop the story\single player elements in. (at least that's current thought process and it sounds logical to me)

Relax...Ultima's 3 - 9 proves RG and team can make a great single player game, Sure UO might be groundbreaking and quite possibly the best mmorpg ever created, but it could also be a fluke (blasphemy I know) because it was the first, and many of the "fun" features from UO won't be included in SotA.

I actually think the "mmorpg" expectant crowd (since it's not) has more to be "concerned" about then the single player crowd at this point

 

Careful, Retro, I tried to explain that to some people and I was told that I, apparently, didn't understand their plight. "Everybody knows that it's pre-alpha, but we haven't heard anything at all", they said.

Ah! So, if I understand you correctly, you're referring to events that community managers tend to do in MMOs.

In what way can events like you mention could not work in a single-player offline environment? With the exception of PvP... that one's pretty much a given. The way I see it, it really depends on how the developers implement them.

To use your example (A), the devs could release a new hex with an epic battle and then, over the course of a month, create two possible scenarios: One where the players succeed and another where the players fail.
A couple of weeks later, they could release a new hex that only players that had failed the events would see. And then, after that, release another hex for those who succeed, you know, where the villain takes his revenge for one final battle.

These stories would have to be contained, episodic "side quests" at best so that it doesn't become a nightmare to track and allowing the devs to focus on quality moments.

That's, assuming, they do something like that at all. For all we know, they could release Episode 1 (forsaken virtues) and not update anything at all until the following Episodes. Which, to me, would be more likely considering their business model.

Everything has a cost; if said cost goes beyond a certain threshold, the advantages that you would gain from that particular something wouldn't be worth it and/or actually do the opposite.

A good example I tend to give to my co-workers is that (I apologize in advance if it's too work related): when you do 3D illustrations on the computer, you can set it up so that multiple computers can share the work load and individually render a portion of the same image. The bigger the network, the more computers that can render simultaneously. However, there comes a point where it becomes less efficient to spread that information across multiple computers... this is particularly true for smaller images. If your image is very small, it'll be faster if that one computer works on it.

While, indeed, a million players wouldn't fit in a single instance (and would, therefore, require multiple instances of the same zone), there comes a point where too many copies of that same zone becomes inefficient... If a server-box can hold, say, a hundred players... even if they're playing solo, it makes more sense to host 100 players in the same instance and just phase them out.

It also has a side-effect of: if you're playing multi-player online and that your friends just logged in, the odds of joining your particular instance are higher (since each instances would hold more people) and then it just has to phase you based on your friends list. If an instance gets full, single-player online players can be redirected to a new instance of that same zone.

Files more around less often.