Answers from the devs #2

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

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...

There's nothing to defend. Yes, there are bugs here and there, but game is clearly multiplayer and it has gotten big list of MP updates in first six months.

It's definitely an MMO and MP game.

Fact ED has features you don't like or enjoy has little to do with facts.

 

[telperion]

If anything I am defending people who brought this game for the multiplayer aspect and received nothing but the result of false advertisement...

No you're not. You're complaining that it isn't something else. Don't claim that there's been any false advertisement. FD have been quite clear about the P2P limitations since early on. No false advertising here.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

There's nothing to defend. Yes, there are bugs here and there, but game is clearly multiplayer and it has gotten big list of MP updates in first six months.

It's definitely an MMO and MP game.

Fact ED has features you don't like or enjoy has little to do with facts.

It was never advertised in the kickstarter when i backed it as an MMO - At best there could be LIMITED multiplayer.

And unless they move away from peer to peer solutions it will never be an MMO.

 

[GluttonyFang]

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.

Well I remain the king of controversy as always, and yes, that is a hyperbole.

What we have is a broken multiplayer that FD refuses to fix with their current stand on the issue.

Right, it isn't broken for you.

Are you a member of the PvP/player interaction group? Or do you hold active relation to well-known PvP player groups as an independent pilot?

If not, I will ignore your statement on that MP isn't broken. But if you do, I would like to hear what argument you can make for a broken instance system, 15 second legitimate combat logging, combat logging with no serious consequence, hacking with no serious consequence, and competing with players you can't see.

 

[xondk]

Q: Why is it that defending your own system from a hostile enemy power gives so little merit if any?

Q: In my recent bug report, someone indicated that the one interdicted is pulled to the one doing the interdiction's location upon drop out? This true? Since it does seem that you are always pulled away from your destination?

 

[GluttonyFang]

No you're not. You're complaining that it isn't something else. Don't claim that there's been any false advertisement. FD have been quite clear about the P2P limitations since early on. No false advertising here.

Read my post above this one.

 

[Barking_Mad]

^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!

Im sure 1.4 will have updates to the general game and then between then and the release of whatever the Games-con announcement is there will be more of the same. If I were a betting man, id put my money on PL's. But im often wrong, so ignore me

 

[Exil]

Q: Are there any plans into making parts of the Background Sim automated? Things like Colonization, Station Building / Upgrading and Terraforming.

Thank you.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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?

Poor FD. When they don't give a firm answer people demand a firm answer. When they do, people demand they don't!

 

[GluttonyFang]

There's nothing to defend. Yes, there are bugs here and there, but game is clearly multiplayer and it has gotten big list of MP updates in first six months.

It's definitely an MMO and MP game.

Fact ED has features you don't like or enjoy has little to do with facts.

I will re-emphasize, find another game like Elite that claims to be a functional MMO/MP, please do that.

MMO/MP tags on this game is only for revenue boost, which is fine, as a company, that is all that matters by the end of the day. But the effort put forth to conceal that dishonesty is a little lacking.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Poor FD. When they don't give a firm answer people demand a firm answer. When they do, people demand they don't!

Usually such bickering means that people asking this want FD to change their answer.

 

[Misaniovent]

https://youtu.be/Fds-yHUIFoM

Did you guys see this video of an awesome fight that ended with two pilots combat logging? Any thoughts?

 

[Zephyriel]

I was thinking the first paid expansion would be either walking around ships or planetary landings. Now that it's confirmed that walking around is not for now, I'm most certain we'll see planetary landings at gamescom

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Getting the Community Manager's thread merged into the threadnought: Priceless!

A back on topic question: Will the Federal Corvette appear as a player pilotable ship, amongst the original projection of 30 ships?

 

[geoffrey.hdt]

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

===

Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised.

So, you guys believe that rewarding undermining is a great way to push players interaction.
But on the other hand you give a way to do that in solo, resulting in no player interaction...and making the efforts of those, who try to oppose other players or who dare taking the risk to face other players, worthless.
I really appreciate the work your team is doing but as some would express: *facepalm*

 

[GluttonyFang]

Usually such bickering means that people asking this want FD to change their answer.

I am grateful for FD being direct about their answer and coming out straight, but I think we have the right to express our dismay. We hope FD changes their attitude toward certain issues, but it's not like we are holding up a knife at anyone's throat, since that's silly and naive.

If anything those favored by FD's current attitude should learn to appreciate some tolerance toward the currently disenfranchised players. But of course, that's asking too much as far as humanity goes.

So no, I'm not blaming anyone, merely expressing my perspective.

 

[Carro]

Getting the Community Manager's thread merged into the threadnought: Priceless!

A back on topic question: Will the Federal Corvette appear as a player pilotable ship, amongst the original projection of 30 ships?

This. Would be nice to know if we're wasting our time ranking to Admiral.

 

[telperion]

But if you do, I would like to hear what argument you can make for a broken instance system, 15 second legitimate combat logging, combat logging with no serious consequence, hacking with no serious consequence, and competing with players you can't see.

Yeah, ok, combat logging is a problem for pvp.

Instancing is part of the design of the game and as that was defined prior to the game being released. I've not experienced the issues with instancing although that may be because my link to my ISP is good, my router is a decent Cisco and I understand how to optimise my network and PC network settings so don't fall foul of the matchmaking issues. Come to think of it, that can be said of most of the people I play with which could explain why we don't see any issues with instancing.

Hacking is definitely a problem.

Competing with players you can't see is the same as instancing. As MANY people have stated, this isn't EVE, it was never intended to be EVE and it won't be EVE. Get used to having some people you can't see because you're not in their instance. That is working as intended.


So, in conclusion, you have a point regarding combat logging and hacking and potentially a point with instancing if it turns out that the issue really is with FDev code rather than with people's incompatible p2p network performance.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Well I remain the king of controversy as always, and yes, that is a hyperbole.

What we have is a broken multiplayer that FD refuses to fix with their current stand on the issue.

Right, it isn't broken for you.

Are you a member of the PvP/player interaction group? Or do you hold active relation to well-known PvP player groups that as an independent pilot?

If not, I will ignore your statement on that MP isn't broken. But if you do, I would like to hear what argument you can make for a broken instance system, 15 second legitimate combat logging, combat logging with no serious consequence, hacking with no serious consequence, and competing with players you can't see.

To be fair there's far bigger games than ED with hacking issues.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I will re-emphasize, find another game like Elite that claims to be a functional MMO/MP, please do that.

Why I need to do that? It's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online. And it's clearly has lots of multiplayer elements going on.

MMO/MP tags on this game is only for revenue boost, which is fine, as a company, that is all that matters by the end of the day. But the effort put forth to conceal that dishonesty is a little lacking.

There's no dishonesty. FD has never tried to hide how game works actually. It has been known 2 years *before* release of version 1.0

As for hacking and combat logging - these issues will be tackled in time I believe.