No Single Player offline Mode then?

[Solei]

To those that get a refund will you stop posting and go away after saying I got my refund, good bye? I hope that will be the case. While you are upset and feel betrayed if you get a refund then you have nothing to complain about.

Calebe

A shame really, since i have been looking so much forward to this.
But this sudden late reveal of the lack of off-line mode have made it totally unacceptable for me.

Funny thing is that my intuition told me there was something fishy with Mr. Braben at the kickstarter back then - and the way he acted in general, talking about online this, multiplayer that. But i decided to back it since he had promised off-line functionality. Seems like my gut feeling was right after all, - and from now on Frontier stands as a company that cannot be trusted at all.

But don't worry, as soon i get my refund, I'm outta here.

 

[mbpoblet]

Ok, so the influence of the players (maybe <.01% of all space ships flying around) will maybe be 70%. Now we are talking of millions of real players influencing the space dramatically. So if you want to create a dynamic galaxy in an offline-version with that complexity you would need to simulate at least millions of NPCs in a very intelligent manner (the way people are acting). That would simply be impossible on a single PC. The result would be a completely different game. A game
- they don't want to release (because of inferior game experience) and
- don't want to spend time in producing and supporting (resources for the primary game would be cut to half)

This makes sense for many, but few people unfortunately simply don't get it.
(And the way i address this issue will make them even more aggressive and less reasonable - sorry i am not very skilled in diplomacy)

You really expect there to be millions of players? I'm afraid this is a pretty niche game (and genre), sadly... I doubt even Star Citizen can expect to have that many.

And no, you don't need to simulate NPCs, you can handle everything through procedural generation, just like stars, planets, and all that are already handled. I gave an example of how civilization expansion and the subsequent missions and events (even wars) could be automatically generated without having to involve NPCs.

The end result would work without any problem on a regular PC (like the physical galaxy itself already does), and would not be distinguishable from any player-generated "dynamism", even with "millions" of players (in fact it would probably be quite richer and more interesting, not least since those "millions" of players are still outnumbered one hundred million to one by stars).

 

[Zemurin]

Long-time supporter, first time poster.

As a player of the original 1984 Elite, I am one of those who cashed in at Kickstarter for a DRM-free offline single player experience with 21st century graphics and improvements.

Not solo mode. Not always-on mode. SINGLE-player. OFFLINE. Saveable. Playable in my own free time, when I like it.

I have requested my £165 Kickstarter entry to be refunded as I have no interest in where this game is heading. I also have zero interest in arguing with developers who have set their minds and likely cannot change the direction at this stage anyway, even if they wished to. One month before gold is far too late for paradigm shifts.

I will take my money back now, thank you, on the grounds of broken promises, and bow out.

 

[Adept]

Ha ha, coincidental that I was trying to reply to this as server hits high load!

Anyway, wanted to say that as displeased as I am with Frontier's handling of this, anyone taking such action beyond "free speech" is an idiot. It doesn't help, it's childish, petulant and potentially damaging... just don't!

We are in full agreement. This could be a perfectly healthy and useful conversation, and if it was such I'm sure Frontier devs would keep interacting with the posters as they have in the past.

Instead people quickly escalated to shouting "Trechery!", threatening lawsuits and doing their best to damage the reputation of Frontier and the game. There have been events that felt like DDOS attacks already, and it's not hard to rile certain internet mobs for such action. The "DRM!" and "Broken Promises!" slogans are probably enough, and I wouldn't be surprised if these people will do their best to sabotage the launch.

What astonishes me is that some genuinely seem to think this is how they will get their way. No negotiation, no discussion. Just threats, coercion and sabotage.

 

[kenny_brocklestein]

Ok, so the influence of the players (maybe <.01% of all space ships flying around) will maybe be 70%. Now we are talking of millions of real players influencing the space dramatically. So if you want to create a dynamic galaxy in an offline-version with that complexity you would need to simulate at least millions of NPCs in a very intelligent manner (the way people are acting). That would simply be impossible on a single PC.

I think it's cute, this faith you have for a system that is so far yet to be a rabbit pulled from anybody's butt. This notion of a loud, heat-pumping server farm somewhere, storing reams of data and pumping out vast amounts of calculations for this amazing, million-man simulator. I'm sure it'll look juuuuust like that.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

No negotiation, no discussion. Just threats, coercion and sabotage.

Can't speak for threats, coercion or sabotage, but FDEV has the no negotiation/discussion thing nailed apparently.

 

[deusx_ophc]

The vast majority of the disgruntled do not fall into that category, yet I've seen little "empathy" for them from several prolific FD apologists.

If people are genuinely threatening DDOS and the like, then they are scumbags, I think we can all agree on that.

well my dear, should you be one of the disgruntled you have my condolensces.

as has everyone else that is feeling unjustly done by, seriously.


ps: not that i tend to take well to such superfluous labelling, but i am sure you were just being helpfull

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

My recollection of the early days of the KickStarter was that DRM and single player offline were very important to a significant minority of pledgers. FD made unequivocal promises, which was probably unwise, but is encouraged by the nature of a KickStarter.

Offline mode was introduced halfway through the kickstarter pledges, and the graph of uptake does not significantly change at that point. There's no statistical proof for what you are saying. All the votes I've seen on the issue seem to peg Offline as a vital element around the 10% mark. So you, my friend and fellow commander, are in a minority, and your statement sounds more like rhetoric than fact. We like, in arguments, to exaggerate, but it does not change the facts on the ground.

The fact is that FDev have expressed regret (They have not actually said sorry but they said they would have loved to put that feature in) over it, but in the process of development, that has been guided by backers with feedback, have meant that offline is impractical now.

I.E. We, the Backers, as a group, have implicitly asked them to do this by demanding certain functionality.

So those who ask for a legal case will have to go through every feature request, every feedback, and see if it is in fact WE who have put FDev in this predicament. If that turns out to be true, then you have no case. All you will have done is feed the Lawyers, and the whole community will loose out.

 

[Fasty]

Offline mode was introduced halfway through the kickstarter pledges, and the graph of uptake does not significantly change at that point. There's no statistical proof for what you are saying. All the votes I've seen on the issue seem to peg Offline as a vital element around the 10% mark. So you, my friend and fellow commander, are in a minority, and your statement sounds more like rhetoric than fact. We like, in arguments, to exaggerate, but it does not change the facts on the ground.

The fact is that FDev have expressed regret (They have not actually said sorry but they said they would have loved to put that feature in) over it, but in the process of development, that has been guided by backers with feedback, have meant that offline is impractical now.

I.E. We, the Backers, as a group, have implicitly asked them to do this by demanding certain functionality.

So those who ask for a legal case will have to go through every feature request, every feedback, and see if it is in fact WE who have put FDev in this predicament. If that turns out to be true, then you have no case. All you will have done is feed the Lawyers, and the whole community will loose out.

Actually it does significantly change. But then it comes down to the definition of significant, doesn't it? Which would go nowhere.

 

[Diziet Sma]

I think the polite and correct thing to do is ask Frontier this question dont you think ? and not asking this in this forum.......

Given that Frontier could not be bothered to do the polite and correct thing themselves, I'd have to say the answer to your question is 'No'.

 

[hackenbacker]

So, some here don't want just an ONLINE solo because they don't want others to interfere with THEIR universe, yet they'd love the game not to be static.

That's not as bizarre as it might seem - you have to think about differences between game time and real time.

Say you are planning a trade route - yes, over the course of game time, you want the universe to be dynamic. Now, say you commit to something, for some reason you can't play the game for a couple of days. You come back and find that the profitability has massively changed, because other gamers have affected it over the course of real time.

If it was real-life, you would monitor the situation, and jump in when you need to. None of us can commit to simply jumping in to play the game at the drop of a hat, so a universe that is too dynamic over real time can be a problem.

Look at something like Football Manager - that's a dynamic world during game time. Games are simulated, players are bought and sold, managers fired and hired, teams promoted and relegated, all outside of the sphere of influence you have with the one club you are managing, and none of it is pre-determined. But all of that evolves in game time - i.e. only progressing as you play the game.

 

[noodle]

What astonishes me is that some genuinely seem to think this is how they will get their way. No negotiation, no discussion. Just threats, coercion and sabotage.

While I mostly agree, FD haven't shown much interest in negotiation and discussion thus far. I'm not making a judgement about that, just stating how it looks currently.

 

[Cathy]

Quite. They lost me at "going forwards".

I don't know if this is the case but it really read like they'd brushed up on "communicating with dumb amorphous blobs amused by flashing lights shapes and colours, 3rd edition" before writing it. That language, man.

"going forwards" from the newsletter,

"our vision" from the forums,

I am amazed someone hasn't dropped by explaining that they "love our passion".

My heart sank when I read it. And I could feel the rest of my internal organs cringing with second-hand embarrassment.

 

[natte hond]

While I mostly agree, FD haven't shown much interest in negotiation and discussion thus far. I'm not making a judgement about that, just stating how it looks currently.

that's my impression too.

 

[mbpoblet]

While I mostly agree, FD haven't shown much interest in negotiation and discussion thus far. I'm not making a judgement about that, just stating how it looks currently.

"Let's shove it under the rug. I'm sure it won't end up stinking up the whole room."

 

[light487]

I'm still cringing at the thought of AWS combined with P2P netcode. That's the multiplayer packet equivalent of five nights at freddies. Can YOU survive? #readyforfreddy

Not mention the Goonswarm getting their hands on the game and totally ripping multiplayer a new one, monopolising trade routes, and causing general mischief through sheer amount of numbers of players working towards planned goals. Single Player Online is still affected by things going on in Open Mode, you just don't interact with them directly.

 

[stimutacs]

If people are genuinely threatening DDOS and the like, then they are scumbags, I think we can all agree on that.

Was this ever anything other than one man's confusion over the term 'slashdotting'?

For that matter were the 'legal threat's anything other than "hey buddy, you know these terms you're offering are actually against consumer law"?

 

[natte hond]

My heart sank when I read it. And I could feel the rest of my internal organs cringing with second-hand embarrassment.

fortunately your no longer a mod.
I figure its very hard on the forums these days.

also its almost like if one becomes a mod he,s silenced.
or hardly shows opinion any more.

 

[Kulin]

You and others have accused me of "lack of empathy". My empathy dies pretty fast the moment people react with destructive anger, start insulting and threatening the developers, and gleefully machining trouble for FD by spreading libel on gaming sites and organishing / cheering on DDOS and other sabotage.

I find your attitude very poor.

I can give that back to you. All he said is "These kinds of actions need to be called out, and rightly so, and there needs to be honest dialog between both consumer and seller." And you throw him in one boat with DDOS Attacks, Sabotage, destructive Insults and personal threats? YOUR attitude is poor, nothing else.

In my eyes he is perfectly right. Dropping Features in this rude way, 4 Weeks before gamma without any real apology but excuses without any logical and technical substance is nothing any investor should accept without protesting. If you want yourself trampled on it's your thing. But don't expect that from everyone.

Fact is: if this game were not funded by private persons over Kickstarter Frontier would not drop features in this way. They would have to justify this things to their publisher and investors in a adequate and comprehensible way. And not just with putting some empty words like this "online-experience"-bushwa in a newsletter when - at a time when not even group or clan mechanics are in the game. It's in fact a online game without most standard online-gameplay mechanics in beta 3. Telling us something about "a online experience you don't want to miss" is at least a little bit questionable, if you compare the DDA with what we have at the moment.

In my eyes F: D is taking advantage of the apparent powerlessness of their investors. They are treating us with no respect and don't seem to take our opinions seriously enough to let US - the investors - decide if they should free up resources to make offline possible and drop another feature or better keep that feature and drop offline. However: this missing respect is a problem of many game-developers. They are grown man that tend to patronize their customers because they are just minors and "gamers" in their potentially subliminal opinions. So i'm kind of used to it.

Nontheless: you, F: D, are playing with the trust in this investor-model and sabotaging your own ability to kickstart future games. I hope everything will be end up good, anyway. I really want this game and hope for a huge success. But communication is something F: D needs to make better in the future. Honesty would be a good start.

I think NOBODY would have cried out if you just had said: "we're running out time and developing the offline mode would cost too much resources we would have to withdraw from something more important. Thats why we have to drop it. Sorry."

 

[paralipsis]

Was this ever anything other than one man's confusion over the term 'slashdotting'?

There was the vague suggestion that the plans were being hatched on "other sites". If so, I don't see why anybody here should be tarred with the same brush, even if only by tacit implication.

 

[gravityztr]

sabotage