I think this interview is very enlightening about DB/FD:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/archive/b5081501.htm
Same goes for the overall FAQ and table of who wrote what in elite:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/faq.htm
I've also previously posted about the following points, but won't harp on and on:
- ED Now features negatives of both networking models. P2P for multiplayer (stuttering, instance delays, poor connectivity, poor reliability) yet still uses client-server model for its game logins and market data thus can't be detached from servers like other P2P network applications. Because it uses client-server for logins and market data, this means it relies on the servers for any usage at all. Thus you only realise the negatives of P2P, and the negatives of client server. Instead of just using one to avoid the negatives of the other. It's insanity.
- Multiplayer (both Online/Open and Online/Solo) have major, major problems. online/Solo still features mission completion bugs, very poor server latency (the service uses AWS and doesn't have many geolocations for the service). This was due to cost reasons. This means for the average player, you will still get stuttering dropping out of SC near planets and stations (loading market data, contact information, orbital data, amongst other things from the server). There are also some core design problems here related to the way the client deals with server latency. It is in short, terribly low performing. As a way of comparison, online/Open is no better, in fact it's much worse. The P2P code is
really bugged and features things like extreme FPS drops around busy areas, extreme FPS drops and stutters transitioning instances, approaching stations, when entering detection range of other contacts, etc. Look at your netlogs and see the dramatic object ownership communications going on. witness the 25mb+ logs. The security issue of listing the computer name and IP of all connected peers. The low number of people per 'island/instance'. the way the core 'huge universe' gaming feature the game is advertised on is really misleading in terms of the game play area actually being divided into endless segments of nearly identical 'islands' / instances. There is very poor levels of documentation, support and troubleshooting tools for network config, with the most effective configuration (enabling uPNP and/or setting a static UDP port to use for the game) requiring manual XML file changes and manual monitoring on your router. Even basic torrent clients will do a UDP port flow test and attempt the uPNP mapping automatically/by default. In short, its an absolute shambles. For many reasons previously mention P2P causes a set of multiplayer design flaws.
Thus
- When you factor in the massive problems with Online/Open and the significant problems of Online/Solo, it makes the decision to drop Offline mode even harder to stomach.
These other factors come into play in people's frustration here:
- It's highly unethical to run a KS campaign and in the 4 weeks or so before launch, pull a
key feature that many backers were specifically backing for.
- It's highly unethical to take pre-orders and advertise a game on two basis: multiplayer excellence and offline play ability, only to fail to deliver on the first and remove entirely the second.
- It's extremely unethical to release the information in a vaguely worded paragraph in the game verse newsletter..
- It's very unusual and dissatisfying behaviour to have the game developer in the forums attempting to defend the decision with nonsense comments like 'It can't be done offline' (Despite all previous iterations of Elite featuring fully offline proc gen universes and missions and economies)
- Using the argument that providing the server would 'unlock the secrets of the universe' is equally nonsensical and just insulting to gamers, developers and other professionals in this industry around the world. Server software is provided in the form of compiled binaries and can be heavily protected through a variety of methods. Even if not, its irrespective, game servers are part of the gaming world and if you can't even detach your game client from the game server software , then don't cry foul that you also can't release the game server itself. that's just talking nonsense and hoping the majority of customers won't know enough to pull you up on it. Wrong.
- To state coldly 'refunds on a case by case basis', given the above, is not good enough. It's a further example of the unbelievably bad behaviour of this developer.
I don't like to be negative but I won't ever be purchasing or backing any future FD games. I would also like to point out FD have been an independent games company for some time and in theory, shouldn't even need a KS campaign to make a profitable game, but I won't entirely lament the KS process for these guys as at least it gets some community involvement. Not that it matters here, as FD just stomp on the community with serious attitude.
If you read the newsletter, its like the company lawyer wrote it as a press release, where people have to exercise the ability to read between the lines of the non committal statements that are designed to reduce responsibility and liability, with almost no clarity. The forum posts that followed are better but are essentially a pack of lies about the reasons behind it. If those are the real reasons, what on earth is going on with the design/coding process for this to come to light 4 weeks from release? utter nonsense.
Given the massive number of technical problems, both client, server, and P2P, this 'game' currently faces, the ridiculous release date, the terrible attitude of the developer, the multiple, many broken KS promises, the completely obvious and rather pathetic attempt to placate people with additional ships and a bubbly tone to the newsletter despite obvious set of negative announcements, you have to wonder just how big a mistake was made backing this dev to the tune of 7.5 million.
I like the progress in a
general sense, but i was seriously relying on offline mode to get me away from having to:
- compete with people that have 20 hours per day to mine/discover systems, by playing offline, and playing at
my pace, even close undiscovered systems could be a new discovery and worth credits and worth playing for me. now i have to (even in online/solo) compete with many other much more time-rich players and this makes competing very difficult and the game more boring
- deal with the server latency, the P2P networking problems, and the hug bugs throughout this game the networking creates
- deal with the fairly broken 'dynamic background simulation'. one assumed offline mode would have a more static/normal method for locating ship upgrades, scheduling missions and the pricing model for items. ill take static, predictable any day over the nonsense systems in place right now. also why should i have to worry about whether 400 other people bought frame shift drive upgrades close to the core systems? why should i have to spend 4 hours SC'ing and jumping to far remote systems that people haven't purchased from? i dont even really believe FD that this is how the market is working right now. seems more random/very boring and limited. on top of that, they have no credibility at all anymore, so i want proof of almost everything they say from here in or i believe nothing.
DB comments about evil publishers in the past forcing buggy releases and pay-to-play and all this other stuff, but i see now its just lip service designed to appear populous and garner support. Behaving in the way FD/DB have in this manner is just atrocious, and i feel really sorry for the DB/Frontier apologists who feel the need/urge to defend the indefensible here. You should pick your battles and go find some other underdog to back. This isn't appropriate behaviour for a company and this is certainly not the way to treat a loyal fanbase of customers.
I hope they lose a lot of pledges, backers and customers on the basis of all of this since its really, really terrible stuff. I want Elite to remain playable offline, I want the realism sacrificing slightly for the sake of
fun, this is a
game after all. If we had a version of the SIMS that only played in real time and took as much time as real life to do the same things as in real life, one would start to question the point of the game, the same goes for Elite, the distances involved and realism involved is great in some ways, but in other ways, i want to have a bit of fun, and like Ian Bell's comments in the original gamespot interview, although its applaudable and aesthetically pleasing to have a realistic universe, there is the flip side of
needing to balance that appropriately to ensure the fun factor is not lost. It's a game. it's been stated many times its a game not a simulation, and other sacrifices in the flight model were made to ensure fun, so where is the fun in the mission/faction play, the long distance travel, the MP communications, grouping and missions, the co-play, the PVP models, the interdictions. there is some in there, but its very shallow, and the aesthetic factor of keeping the huge game universe realistic is not currently balanced by a large enough fun factor.
The huge problems detract massively from this 'game' and the decision to drop offline mode, which was the saving grace for
many of these shortcomings, is just borderline insanity.
I guess FD are about to find out the hard way people do not appreciate KS campaigners behaving in this unethical way, and loyal, long term gamers do not appreciate being treated in this way, nor their money taking for a product that ultimately is very broken, feature poor and missing basic core components promised all the way through the design and dev cycle.
and yep, they are more probably memory/video/audio issues
