I've obviously missed something - again! Where is that?
- Status
I am sure this is what they are trying to assess. Taking out proper SP got a lot of bad press, deservedly so as this was part of the original commitment.
This time around they are likely looking into the reactions to this Open/Solo balance. It may well backfire.
Reading your and some other responses it may be the easiest to open "Ironman" instance on the start menu, where anyone can start from scratch, but with different rules, ie no insurance, MP only, 100k kills to elite and similar.
I'd guess (again
) that option would not offend the existing community (even if it does, hard to imagine it creating bad press), and it would offer them a "future proof" mode where more demanding players could play and stay. Most likely issue with this are the costs associated with running a separate instance.
Last edited:
Why? The game isn't subscription based, they need to sell DLC and cosmetic gubbins to keep the future bright. Not keep as many people as possible playing enough to not cancel a subscription. Someone who played for a couple of months and walked away but will still buy the next expansion and play that for a bit before they walk away again until the next expansion is no less valuable to FD than someone who plays regularly throughout the same period.
Why are Open players more likely to do that? You could even argue that Solo players, not being able to collaboratively create more game via player interaction will be more strongly motivated to pay for more game via DLC.
Wasn't that the purpose of the locked thread?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No - it is about which mode is more viable in the long term, and should there be an incentive to join the open mode or alternatively create a real MP mode.
edit: at least for those of us who think that "Open" is where it's at, in my case I think credits would be a good incentive to make more people join it. That is all. Solo stays as is, for those who want to play with AI only.
Last edited:
I am sure this is what they are trying to assess. Taking out proper SP got a lot of bad press, deservedly so as this was part of the original commitment.
This time around they are likely looking into the reactions to this Open/Solo balance. It may well backfire.
Reading your and some other responses it may be the easiest to open "Ironman" instance on the start menu, where anyone can start from scratch, but with different rules, ie no insurance, MP only, 100k kills to elite and similar.
I'd guess (again
I don't think it's about the costs. Since they run on Amazon, it would be "easy" to shove the servers around to where the capacity is needed.
I think they just want a single galaxy.
But it's getting late for me so i just end my shift on this thread for today
That is in relation to community goals, not the modes in general (aka this thread)
I do not think that anyone makes "solo" without internet connection a future consideration. Do you think that some backers would sue FD, if they offered a MP only instance while leaving this one as is?
They said from day 1 they are making the game they want to play, go make a better one the way you want to play it, advertise it, and if I prefer it to ED I will play it & buy it, otherwise.......
I had better leave it there. I have never even had a forum warning, and I am heading full speed towards a forum ban.
Yes, because maintaining more than 1 version of the background name was not possible (the excuse for pulling offline mode) - so making another universe for people to play in would prove they can and will maintain more than 1 universe, so offline mode could be done - even if it was a stupid sized download, it'd be possible (aka the opposite of what they said to cancel offline mode)
they do the same us they do to me? haha welcome aboard ;p
Ah yes... but as I understood it, the locked thread was a Mod thing due to a misguided* merge.
If it was requested by the Devs, it should have been labelled as such - which I don't think it was.
*My opinion only!
Today's gaming world if full of F2P games which model could be easily applied here, and already is, like selling ship customizations. In the future it could be stations, weapon customizations, name tags, who knows what else. Therefore having more engaged players who spend hours every day in this universe should be their priority, as that will generate revenue on it's own. DLC's just add to it, the universe created is huge, it can support a lot of additional content that could be offered for cash, while not affecting gameplay.
MP is normally where it's at as in the interaction between players the "need" to customize appears, and also the ability for the developer to monetize it.
its more for the community goals but i wont be suprised if they devolve it to solo nerf input
Interesting. If they have a potential legal issue on hands, then they may not have much choice indeed.
edit: double posts are easy.
Last edited:
I don't buy that for a second. Say it takes a cluster of 25 systems to maintain the background sim. Ok, they can easily rent another 25 from Amazon (at considerable cost perhaps). But this is totally doable. And they can manually intervene in each... again incurring additional cost, but still tractable.
Now squeeze that into a size that will run on your home PC alongside the game, and manage it across 500,000 distinct universes. This would require the background sim to be 100% automated and robust. Offline mode required a lot of additional engineering that they weren't prepared for.
Last edited:
I agree, but how many opinions do we have here, there are 50 members a page * 820 pages = 41k forum members (out of ~ 400 k sales).
Every one is entitled to their opinion, even if 100 people are shouting right now its 100 out of 41k max (and I doubt there are that many!, that's 0.0024390244% of forum members!
OK a thousand, just in case, that's 0.024390244% of forum members!, that's a lot of noise from so few players.
A lot of shouting from so few people, I am sorry the game doesn't meet their expectations but I won't lose any sleep, I can't research it for them!
While I have no clue as to costs and if it is possible to do the offline mode, I can all ready say the background sim is not fully automated (this was confirmed somewhere a few weeks ago ~ but forgot what thread).
There were other reasons, but yea, my prior post was one of the main ones.
Exactly.
Offline => not possible,
two distinct online sims (open vs. group/solo) => Absolutely possible
No FD made the game they wanted to, KS it so they could do just that.
This is only the second time I have ever said this, in many, many months on this forum, I do try to discuss with people that disagree, I try to keep an open mind.
FD made the game exactly how they wanted to, they started over 2 years ago, they advertised it from the start, it was no secret, the information has been out there since KS.
I think you bought the wrong game (I really don't like saying that), why did you buy a game that you dislike so much?, how much research did you do?, how did you come to buy this game if you don't like it?
I am honestly interested, did you do more than watch a trailer that said "not actual game footage"?, how did they "tried to reinvent the wheel and ended up with a triangle", most people would say they made the "triangle" and the "triangle" worked ok, they bought a "triangle" and are happy with the "triangle".
I paid £100 for my "triangle" & £600 for a PC to make my "triangle" work, paypal me £700 and my "triangle" will go "ding" any time you ask.
PS
I have a cheap bridge for sale, along with a beach front property in central London, PM me for prices
- Status