Maybe the condescending tone comes from the fact that you've been given a clear and concise answer to this question over and over, but childishly you continue to ask the question. It's like my two year old demanding an ice cream and being told no. He keeps asking, over and over. The adults aren't going to change their minds just because you stamp your feet over 800 pages. The grown ups said no. Now deal with it.
Answers from the devs #2
- Thread starter Zac Antonaci
- Start date
Maybe the condescending tone comes from the fact that you've been given a clear and concise answer to this question over and over, but childishly you continue to ask the question. It's like my two year old demanding an ice cream and being told no. He keeps asking, over and over. The adults aren't going to change their minds just because you stamp your feet over 800 pages. The grown ups said no. Now deal with it.
Okay, I've made my point - I am going to bow out of this discussion gracefully. GLHF
Last edited:
you are welcome kind sir!
I did a little SQUEEEE! when I read no walking round ships. Best process of elimination, ever.
So why do you think the question keeps being asked? It's because the tone and context of the FD replies, not the conclusion itself.
Consider:
Answer 1: Open and Solo are equally valid so nothing is changing. Move on, nothing to see here.
Answer 2: We have followed the open vs solo megathreads and understand the argument that it is relatively too easy/risk-free to participate in joint efforts compared to open, and the issue that there is no way to directly prevent progress towards a goal being made by opponents playing in solo. We understand there are views on both sides and in between the arguments and that this is an issue close to many people's hearts. We do not wish to exclude players in solo from participating in community events as we want them to have access to the whole game outside of the direct PvP element. We have considered a higher reward for players participating in open to offset this but would prefer to keep the contributions equal because [insert whatever reason this may be for...]. We have considered other options/rewards for encouraging open play versus solo play but prefer not to implement these because [insert reason etc]
We're getting (1). This is clear, but dismissive.
I'd like (2).
Too much to ask?
And finally, Frontier may view Open and Solo as "equally valid" but they are certainly not "equally balanced". Why desire the former but not the latter?
Last edited:
Zac, for the love of Thargoids, please snip quote this guy his (2) so we can move on, eh?
Im not sure that fits into the category as described by FDev, but who knows.....It might be that persistent NPC's are part of the 1.4 update, but the other news is something larger. Either way, it's all good.
Edit: Oculus Rift is a Q1 2016 release right?
Last edited:
Facepalm*
Oh FD... oh you...
This isn't a multiplayer game, please take the tag off from your advertisement, please?
Certainly a critical step needed to unlock development avenues, but I would expect a Gamescon announcement to be something with greater visual appeal. Without procedurally generated 3d avatars, you don't really have a lot to show for it, certainly nothing with the 'wow factor' that a presentation on planetary landing would have.
Don't think they need to work 24/7 on that feature, it's also not very shiny to reveal at a big press conference at gamescom. So let's keep our feet on the ground, and not walk around with our heads in the cloud.
Could we get a confirmation stating that we will NOT see anything related to PL in the next 5 weeks?
Last edited:
I multi-play most nights with friends..... in wings.... what do you mean it isnt multi-player.........
Massive? 640k is a big number
Multiplayer? Players interact and affect the same universe
Online? Yessiree, Bob!
The defence rests your honour
Case dismissed!
Not sure how naval progression works, since from 1.3 release, I've done like dozens of various missions already and still no progress
Got Deadly in a process, though.
From Samosa's earlier post:
there are long threads here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=164309
and here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=165258
detailing our struggle with and attempt to reverse engineer the ranking system.
^This. I'm so hopeful that FD will focus on the background sim a bit more - walking around ships would be another game bolted on. No thanks!
Okay okay, if you want to be technical, the multiplayer portion of the game is broken beyond repair with FD refusing to repair it. Might as well stop marketing in that genre, because it brings pretty much nothing but negative reviews and players feeling falsely advertised to.
Just take it off for the sake of customers...
But wait, yes that revenue is more important, gotta get that money upfront.
Would love to but it doesn't fit profile FD is talking about. If I am mistaken and it is persistent NPCs, I will be very very happy. But if that's expansions (by sound of David and Michael it is).....
Lol, find another "MMO/Multiplayer" game that functions like Elite: Dangerous and claims to be functional and working as intended... just find one... please?
If anything I am defending people who brought this game for the multiplayer aspect and received nothing but the result of false advertisement...
So yes, the defense rests...
Huh? What do you mean by "This isn't a multiplayer game"? I was playing it with a couple of friends only the other day and also I logged into open yesterday and saw a few folks. This is clearly a multiplayer game.
- - - Updated - - -
What are you talking about? I've been playing multiplayer fine.
Also, I haven't read anywhere that FD are refusing to repair anything. Not that it's broken for me in the first place.