That would be awesome. if that should happen, I close my ticket then and there and ask Mr Braben what else he has I can throw money at. Seriously.
No Single Player Offline Mode then? [Part 2]
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
That would be awesome. if that should happen, I close my ticket then and there and ask Mr Braben what else he has I can throw money at. Seriously.
I apologize if this has been gone over before, but I didn't really find the answers I was looking for elsewhere, so I respectfully ask that the community or Frontier forum reps please clear this up for me.
This kind of confused me:
What does the online connection provide? What does 'single player online mode' mean -- will I still need to interact with other players? Will the markets be affected by them? What impact will other players have on my playing experience in single-player mode?
Thank you for any information!
This kind of confused me:
What does the online connection provide? What does 'single player online mode' mean -- will I still need to interact with other players? Will the markets be affected by them? What impact will other players have on my playing experience in single-player mode?
Thank you for any information!
I don't know about vision but, I definitely smell something.
And, before anyone says something about it needing multiple servers, google VMWARE or EXSi.
It's all in the first thread about this, mostly confined to the last 30 pages of that thread.
I saw a post addressing this quote of yours, directing you to other games like oolite etc. Have a look at this, it should be out some time next year. At least the guy making this game is SPECIFICALLY making it offline single player.
[video=youtube;MumoTz8CKtE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MumoTz8CKtE[/video]
While you do not see any other players they do interact your space, trade routes, prices and affect events around you.
Right. Sure. That makes sense. Puhlease, get real. I'm sure all the people here just woke up one day and all simultaneously decided to work together just so they could pull one over on FD. Riiiight. Am I on candid camera?
Last edited:
i'm surprised the mods have not banned him.
All he does is put fuel on the fire tbh.
ppl want offline for there own reason they don't need to explain why to anyone on this forum tbh.
They bought into offline mode they should get offline mode.
Last edited:
That is appreciated - what should remain are the fans who want this game to succeed and like myself probably cant wait for the 16th.
cant rep you again so soon - need to spread it around, so good show sir.
Last edited by a moderator:
hypergreatthing
H
I requested a refund.
It's not so much that i even care to play in an offline mode.
It's the fact i was lied to and duped. When someone pulls a bait and switch tactic they deserve what's coming to them. It wasn't even in a sense where the feature that was promised would be worked on later, they just simply slipped it into a newsletter.
Plain and simply, FD does not deserve a dime for changing the product a month before release.
You might be happy with the crap excuses and lies but i won't be.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think they are doing something different because my ticket asking about 3 refunds was under investigation (and still is) for days. Overnight I received the form letter how if you played beta you weren't getting a refund, period.
What he said is good because it sounds like they have realized how important this was to peopole and are at least going to re-examine the requests for refunds.
How do I stick to KS? Well:
- I expect those using KS to properly present their goals, to clearly state which objectives are subject to being cut if problems arise, to list their priorities. Due to this I thought, and expected, that a clear and unambiguous statement that the game would indeed have an offline mode meant it was a feature set in stone, one that the devs would scale down or cut out features not promised in order to keep. About every project I've backed up to now succeeded in this; unfortunately, ED isn't one of those.
- I expect that the devs, at the first sight that a promised feature might need to be cut, not only clearly communicate that to the backers, but also offer to give refunds to those backers for whom the feature was important. In this ED was a complete and utter failure, unfortunately; according to DB's own words, the devs knew offline play was often clashing with their vision for the game, made choices to back their vision of the game that they knew also undermined the possibility of offline play, and never communicated it, much less offered refunds to the affected players.
- I expect the news that a promised feature needs to be dropped to be communicated clearly, with a sincere apology for it, and a few gestures to make up for the lost feature, gestures that should include at the very least a new window of opportunity to ask for refunds due to the missing feature. ED, instead, had an unapologetic note included in a newsletter, a note that aimed more at trying to paint the change as a good thing than at being clear or informative, and most players that asked for a refund were initially refused.
- I expect that the devs, in what is effectively an extremely early pre-order, won't hide behind legalese to deny refunds to backers that have legitimate reasons for wanting to get out of the project — reasons such as early promises being broken. While this now seems to be changing, at first ED very much failed this hard.
Frontier handled this exceptionally poorly. Be it luck or higher standards, I've never had similar issues with any of the other two dozen KS projects I've backed. Though, for the record, I see date slips as par for the course and give them little mind as long as the final result is satisfactory.
BTW, for everyone at Frontier: like I promised in a post on the previous thread, I will make sure anyone I know that is thinking about purchasing one of your games learns about this offline game mode issue. But I will strive to make it the full story, including whichever result comes out of this. The ball is on your court for whether this will be a positive or a negative story in the end.
(And, depending on how you handle it, I might even not request a refund. After cooling my head a bit, I can preliminarily accept that you weren't aware how important offline is for a number of players, that you failed to anticipate that the refund process you had in place isn't appropriate for when you need to do meaningful changes to your product, and that the miscommunication issue was a huge fluke. If, through your following actions, you can prove me that Frontier is a good company to deal with, I might chose to remain a customer — though getting back to the degree of trust you enjoyed with me before this fracas will take far longer, I fear.)
Do you have any source on this "hand tweaking"? If you're referring to the pregenerated stars (from stellar catalogues and previous games) and things like our solar system, those should be handled as overrides on the procedurally generated galaxy, so the seed shouldn't matter, really, and in any case they could always not release anything Frontier-specific... just give us the stars from the catalogues and keep Lave, Achenar, and whatnot.
If it's any more difficult than that, frankly, it's a pretty bad design, and I find it difficult to believe that the talented programmers at Frontier could perpetrate such a hack.
An evolving, dynamic, procedurally generated galaxy can be made... if you plan to do offline from the start.
However it's become increasingly apparent that this what not the case with Elite Dangerous, and that any talk of an offline mode was just marketspeak intended to entice people to back a game they might not be able to play.
Well, let's hope this works out for the affected people, although I'll be sad to see them go.
Personally, I don't intend to ask for a refund, I'll enjoy the game to the extent that it's possible to enjoy an online-only game (not much, even if online solo mitigates the worst issues), and wait for third party private servers to be reverse engineered.
I'd think it's already a bit too late for that...
Did read your thread before actually
Why does it make sense? Emergent game play mostly I'd say.
Let me tackle perception first. Is it indistinguishable? that depends highly on the person. If supply of commodity A decreases because a pseudo random process decided it had to decrease thus raising its price will not seem any different then a commodity increasing in price because of players / NPCs buying a lot of that commodity. So why do it at all? Mostly for what it allows. Now I have no idea how far Frontier intend to take this so I am just writing what I think would be possible. News, Missions and Trading can all intertwine together to provide emergent game play for players. Say it all starts with drought expected to hit soon on planet A in System B. Which means soon we're going to have missions to deliver water / trading water at high price. How about people could start exploring close by systems for good source of ICE to mine since this too might become highly requested. What about moving combat ships in the area as those miners will likely be the target of pirates? Thats not all though. Those miners moved from other places and the supply of Ore / ICE / Metals etc.. has fallen in those regions as people try to capitalize on the new ice market. What if some players ignore the whole Ice market and instead focus those previous Mining operations knowing that less miners will probably make what was already profitable more profitable ?
Essentially what I am trying to say it may not be possible to distinguish if a price change happened because of actual market forces or through some process trying to fake those market forces but thats not the point. The point is knowing that price change happened because of market forces rather then due to some random process engages people much much more. By having them trying to anticipate events, by having them trying to move resources to get there first and capitalize on an event. etc.. This is all emergent game play thats not really possible without actually keeping track of all the major variables and understandably with 4b systems its impossible to do that on an end user PC.
Thanks for taking the time to read it!
The whole drought->trading->missions->piracy->war->whatever chain could still be done with the kind of model I proposed, though (I used the exploration and expansion example, but this would also work); yes, it would not be caused by players, but from the point of view of each single player there's no way to distinguish between the two models.
But in any case, yes, if your distinction between two identical dynamic galaxies, one of which you know is completely automated and one of which is influenced by players, is that the one that is influenced by players is more engaging because you know it's influenced by players... then, yes, you can't simulate that, obviously (unless if you hide it in a server and tell people it's influenced by players when it really isn't, maybe).
Of course, though, this is all about multiplayer; on single player (real single player) the completely procedurally generated galaxy would be the more engaging one, since without any other players the player influenced one would be entirely static (except if it was built "on top" of the other, as I suggested).
Which brings me again to the point that Frontier just don't seem to have ever taken offline mode into account when designing the game, despite telling us otherwise.
The online connection apparently handles transactions, basically, and possibly some location information.
You don't need to interact with other players in solo online mode, but they will in theory affect the markets and possibly other background stuff.
Last edited:
Yea, and they are basically pages of the same post over and over again.
Thats not the thing some of us wanted. And we were promised to have a alternative offline universe.
Not all people prefer drinking beer. And not all people prefer online experience. For whatever reasons.
Now imagine that you want to play online game, as you will play, and suddenly someone is forcing you to accept to play offline only cause they have changed their minds and thought offline gameplay is the best thing for everyone. You can not discuss or negotiate about people's preferences...
Its never too late mbpoblet ... sometimes it takes a little while to realise things.
What is important is that FD are entering into a dialogue with people.
What is important is that FD are entering into a dialogue with people.
- Status