Yes I always felt that an alpha 3.0 should definitely be released between the alpha 2.0 and 4.0. It would be very confusing otherwise.
Update on Alpha 3.0
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
Yes I always felt that an alpha 3.0 should definitely be released between the alpha 2.0 and 4.0. It would be very confusing otherwise.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I wonder if they will be withdrawing alpha from sale soon.
I hope so - not because I dont want people buying it - but because I don't believe FD would be so mean as to sell it right up to beta release without warning.
Therefore as long as Alpha is still for sale imo that means we know for sure beta is still probably at least 1 but more likely 2+ months away.
So I look forward to the day Alpha is removed from sale.
I hope so - not because I dont want people buying it - but because I don't believe FD would be so mean as to sell it right up to beta release without warning.
Therefore as long as Alpha is still for sale imo that means we know for sure beta is still probably at least 1 but more likely 2+ months away.
So I look forward to the day Alpha is removed from sale.
I think if you have the option for private grouping, the option to declare a 'rule set' of game options on or off would make a lot of sense. In truth, I expected that from the blurb waaay back in the beginning. It harms no one and allows people to play the game their way.
Although I suspect there is a danger of splitting the user base further and further with this.. there is no easy answer.
Didn't know about this issue. Do you mean the image shakes to represent engine vibration? That is a serious mistake in sims, it ruins some car racing sims and causes a break from reality. Visual vibration is neutralised or synched by the brain responding to the vibration it feels in the body, we dont see it as a distinct aspect, but if it's on a video display we have no choice to see it if it's there, unmatched to our bodies senses. It's unrealistic, can melt the brain and causes sickness, I hope that is never in Elite final release.
Problem is however that you can move between groups. Therefore no rule changes.
I don't quite understand.. you said yourself they can't please everyone, so the things you pointed out may get left out, thats to bad i guess. But that has probably happened to many other suggestions where the people(s) felt equally expressive about his opinions of some feature or lack thereof.
What makes anyone suggestion/concern more valid than any other? should FD include an option for everything, you know that wont happen.
Indeed, however should such a rule set thing be implemented, have it group specific.
This is a bit of a flimsy argument really. The Kickstarter pitch mainly emphasised gameplay options in terms of being able to play lots of different roles, not being stuck to them, being able to travel where you like, etc. That was the "Play it your way" promise, which has not been diluted in my opinion.
Certain flexibility in being able to choose which people you play with was also promised, and that also seems like it will be delivered in the form described in the pitch. Different game modes were never mentioned. That's not to say there's not a good argument for them - just that the argument that Frontier are narrowing the choices doesn't hold true.
Endless graphics options, and a multiplicity of game modes were never put forward though. I don't think that Frontier are pandering to the majority either, and that they're actually relying much more on personal judgement than popularity polls. As they said in the Kickstarter, they're fundamentally making the game that David Braben wants to play.
This reassures me more than any other single piece of information.
For what it's worth, I'd support PVE as an option for groups, the ability to turn of engine shake for those who feel sick because of it, and some of that other stuff.
It's the bit of info I always fall back on in my head when I see a popular forum opinion head off in a direction I don't personally like.
Frankly, if DB makes a game I don't like, I can live with that. Kudos to him for sticking to his own personal vision in a world filled with focus groups. I'd be far less happy if FD made a game I didn't like because they'd pandered to every opinion poll posted on the forum.
Rex_Black
R
Yep, I mostly concur.
Yes, it's been raised in several threads and it's affecting quite a few people. When I see these issues coming up time and again I always think "okay so we have a few hundred people here and 10 are complaining about this... now scale that up to all the customers not here".
The rules would be tied to the group, not the player. As the current criminality group option is.
What makes anyone suggestion/concern more valid than any other? should FD include an option for everything, you know that wont happen.
Numbers, basically. The Ironman mode was brought in because 20% who voted in the polls wanted it. As with my comment above - scale that up and it's many thousands who would likely want that. The PvE group mode got more than 20% support. People feeling sick is a much smaller amount but they already have the facility to turn it off as it's off in Oculus mode... so why not make those people happy by giving them something that already exists - an off button.
I'm sure many of my arguments are flimsy!
And you're right about the Kickstarter comments - I guess me and some others put 2 and 2 together ("play your way" and "private groups") and got 5.Fact is that the groups system could be utilised to make more people happy - isn't that a good thing? Of course you cannot cater to every tiny little thing (which is why I usually accept a decision once Frontier have commented on it - until then I figure it's open to discussion/persuasion.) I suppose what I really want is to see the issues I mentioned, and others, that keep coming up again and again to be catered to especially when you have the mechanism already there. We forumites are small in number but if 10 people don't like/want an alternative now then that's perhaps several thousand at release. Where it's little or no cost, why not.
Also let's remember - you can't really tell will you enjoy it before trying it. Sometimes our biases gets best of us. Previous experience can ruin lot of interesting perspective.
Well thats for FD to decide.. some suggestion might have the votes, but if FD decide its not feasible or somehow doesn't fint into the ED context somehow and thereby leave it out then thats their decision.
I like that way, because then majority don't rule.
Last edited:
Well thats for FD to decide.. some suggestion might have the votes, but if FD decide its not feasible or somehow doesn't fint into the ED context somehow and thereby leave it out then thats their decision.
I like that way, because then majority don't rule.
Ha ha, first time I've heard 20% be called a majority!
Of course it's for them to decide, I've never said anything else. It's their game - if they want to peddle me something I don't want to play in the end, that's my tough luck. I'm merely advocating things I think can make it work for more people. I've already chosen to go into single player now because of decisions they've made that don't suit me - I'm not crying, that is just the way it is. So some of the things I'm suggesting here won't even affect me, I still think they'd be of benefit though.
Ha ha, first time I've heard 20% be called a majority!
Of course it's for them to decide, I've never said anything else. It's their game - if they want to peddle me something I don't want to play in the end, that's my tough luck. I'm merely advocating things I think can make it work for more people. I've already chosen to go into single player now because of decisions they've made that don't suit me - I'm not crying, that is just the way it is. So some of the things I'm suggesting here won't even affect me, I still think they'd be of benefit though.
alright.. maybe not a majority, but a vocal group