The simple way is to simply have a warning appear on screen for those that don't have the DLC. Something along the lines of atmospheric re-entry has begun and you must turn back now or be destroyed. The equipment required for re-entry would only be available to buy if you have the DLC installed.
Future DLC?
- Thread starter ste
- Start date
Wonder what would happen in a gang of slaved ships if one player lacked the DLC to say pursue an enemy through the atmosphere, or access some other DLC content?
Would it be a case of; "for god's sake Rupert he's getting away!" or, boom! There goes Rupert. Again.
I suppose the gang probably wouldn't get instanced with the guy they are chasing ...
Would it be a case of; "for god's sake Rupert he's getting away!" or, boom! There goes Rupert. Again.
I suppose the gang probably wouldn't get instanced with the guy they are chasing ...
To have no the planetary landings, would be a problem, if we pursue a corrupt senator, and that the latter takes refuge on a planet
Last edited:
This would be an excellent solution
Frankly, who could do without planetary landings in the game ?
Because there IS no shared shard. ED is, first and foremost, a singleplayer game with multiplayer options and the seamless integration thereof, "mingleplayer" if you will. If you choose to let your savegame do so, it will connect to the central server to upload and download important things like changes to market prices or nation borders; i.e. how much a ton of steel costs or who owns what planet at this point in time. It will even, rather like Minecraft, allow others to join in, depending on your preferences and a few parameters; one of which, I can guarantee you, will probably be the presence or absence of expansions.
All Online connects to the central server and lets others join in with the only limit being the matchmaker's parameters and any blacklists you have.
Private groups connect the central server, but only allow a select group of other players join in by invitation only.
Solo Online connects to the central server, but doesn't let anyone join in, under any circumstances, ever. This is probably the closest to this 'ghosting' that you talk about, since you don't deal with other players at all, but still get the evolving galaxy. Mind you, it's built into the game from day one.
Solo Offline doesn't even connect to the central server.
Other players take the place of, and in turn are replaced by, NPCs, seamlessly. If you let them. Other than that, however, your game, in all the ways that matter, is self contained and separate from anyone else. Your copy of ED is just that: a self-contained copy, not a client connecting to a game stored on some server somewhere. Dead Island does something very similar. I suggest taking a look at it.
That's why Solo Online can exist. That's why Solo Offline can exist. That's why it doesn't matter whether I buy the avatars expansion or not. Because it doesn't affect your game.
The expansions supposed to expand the scope of the game by allowing you to do more if you so choose. Not replace or override the base gameplay. Avatars ADD ways to get missions, steal ships, and other such activities, on top of the gameplay that is unique to the expansion; they do NOT become the one and only way.
I'm fine with lists and UIs, and I'm bored to death of shooters. Hence, the avatars expansion doesn't interest me. Hence, I won't buy it.
But my not having it doesn't affect you. In any way.
Your mistake (and mine too until recently, I'll admit) is thinking of ED as a multiplayer game with optional singleplayer. It makes much more sense if you look at it from the opposite perspective, as a singleplayer game with optional multiplayer.
The "play your way" motto doesn't just describe the gameplay. It describes everything! It's quite brilliant, thinking about it.
Last edited:
which you will affect by supplying demand.
except you ignore particular dangers and affect the market first. i'm not against getting gazumped by someone playing with the same risks though.
i do hear the view from the ivory tower allows you to see more clearly, mighty righteous of you to admit either way.
it does sound brilliant, shame it's ********, you're already resigned to being segregated and "wouldn't be happy about it".
sounds to me like 'your way' was to not be segregated....... my way has an MFD app for my tablet and hotkeys for most used menu lists/controls
funny how were both gonna be disappointed despite the freedom to play our way.
Frankly, who could do without planetary landings in the game ?
This.
Not sure we need to spend a lot of time worrying about how DLC will be NOT integrated for that one stubborn person who decides they will simply not pay for planetary landings and/or EVA.
Last edited:
In some cases you might be able to see things in an expansion, since access is after all the selling point. If someone lands on a dead moon, there would be no atmospheric barriers. I guess you will just be unable to communicate with the landing authority. With lifts and possibly airlocks, there won't be a way to sneak in. But maybe you can be shot for free?
On a side note, I would rather be a peasant in a living world, than the Emperor of my own dead Universe. Just because boredom is the slowest death of them all.
On a side note, I would rather be a peasant in a living world, than the Emperor of my own dead Universe. Just because boredom is the slowest death of them all.
I doubt this will come up, I imagine the new dangers introduced by an expansion will only be a factor if you're specifically exploring that expansion's content. For example you can only crash into a mountain if you've gone inside a planet's atmosphere, you can only get your ship stolen if you've exited the ship to walk around, etc. If they introduce dangers into the larger universe (like the Thargoids start appearing randomly in regular space) then I expect that content will be a free patch that everyone gets.
As for people with the expansions having an advantage, yes, I imagine they will. This is the case in games like World of Warcraft: people with the expansions have access to better levels and gear than people without. This will, as you suggest, indirectly effect non-expansion players in the form of market prices, etc.
Especially, when from the space, we shall see this. Difficult to resist to take a closer look
I think to rationalise planetary landings, it'll go one of two ways.
- Planetary landings won't be seamless - I know, I don't like the idea either. But at no point have FD been drawn into using the word "seamless" - at least not that I've seen. If that's the case, non expansion owners won't get the transitional element and will hit whatever wall FD will have in place pre-PL expansion.
- If it is seamless, everyone will be allowed to land, but only players with the expansion will have any functionality upon landing. Inhabited areas will have defences to handle non-expansion "trespassers", uninhabited will just have nothing. Boredom will set in for those without the expansion because landing will give them nothing to do or get them killed, it'll be self regulating. This approach gets around any conflicts regarding the need for "atmospheric shielding" to land on "airless" moons or invisible walls in space that prevent a non-exp. pilot chasing an expansion pilot into planetary space.
For an extremely user friendly approach to DLC concept, devs should turn to Bohemia Interactive Studio (BIS) and their ArmA2 (now probably also ArmA3 but I've bailed out for other reasons).
They are fully aware that the 'C' in DLC means content, and should be kept completely separate from functionality. Even better, they managed to keep the DLC haters and lovers together, by offering "lite" versions as part of regular patches. So I (as a hater) could still play with lovers on a DLC equipped server, but the added content would look really crappy for me (low poly models, small texture sizes, low quality audio and so on).
Note that ArmA2 (and now also ArmA3) is extremely modding friendly. That makes the above DLC approach work even better, because I as a user would eventually see user made content in full quality utilizing the new functionalites that came with the DLC related patches.
DLC precludes greed, and it saddens me that so few is able to see it. Do we need another Sims (EA) game, or Flight $imulator (M$)? Where will this be heading if we let it? Well, look no further than Star Trek Trexels for iPhone/iPad. Being naive and trusting only leads to more scams like this.
They are fully aware that the 'C' in DLC means content, and should be kept completely separate from functionality. Even better, they managed to keep the DLC haters and lovers together, by offering "lite" versions as part of regular patches. So I (as a hater) could still play with lovers on a DLC equipped server, but the added content would look really crappy for me (low poly models, small texture sizes, low quality audio and so on).
Note that ArmA2 (and now also ArmA3) is extremely modding friendly. That makes the above DLC approach work even better, because I as a user would eventually see user made content in full quality utilizing the new functionalites that came with the DLC related patches.
DLC precludes greed, and it saddens me that so few is able to see it. Do we need another Sims (EA) game, or Flight $imulator (M$)? Where will this be heading if we let it? Well, look no further than Star Trek Trexels for iPhone/iPad. Being naive and trusting only leads to more scams like this.
can own multiple ships, can't fly all at once.
not seen 'boarding' yet but i doubt it will ONLY work in an atmosphere, or space but only where the non expansion people can't go.
new ships, cargo or weapons.... can't go into the wider galaxy, only used in 'expansion' space?
thats not what i said, i said terrandude there gets reduced risk by not having the expansion, and increased reward bypassing dangers expansion owners face(like boarding).... whilst playing in the same market............. he can NEVER be waylaid by anyone with more 'content' but still takes from the same sources, and earlier because certain things will NEVER happen.
next time i play football i'm gonna make it clear i have no interest in goalkeepers and defenders............ and then i expect them to teleport to some other field when i have the ball........... and my goals to be worth 2 because i didn't have those issues to deal with.
Why would FD implement WiS in that way? They could just as easily make it so that a player without the expansion couldn't defend themselves in a boarding situation and automatically found themselves back at the last station they visited (in normal mode) looking for a new ship. In that case buying the expansion would actually give you the chance to defend your ship where you couldn't otherwise.
I agree, and for such a cheap price it would be foolish not too. But the game will need to take account of those that don't have the DLC and therefore cannot access that content. Some mechanism for handling this situation needs to be in place, be it simply bouncing off the atmosphere or simply exploding. Since our ships are never going to be able to travel fast enough to explode, unless in supercruise I guess, some warning and then maybe even an auto-pilot out of the atmosphere would be the way to go?Frankly, who could do without planetary landings in the game ?
... or shot into pieces at a certain altitude if you ignore the warnings (more likely)
There's also the option of making some part of a DLC/Update free and some paid. Lets continue using the boarding as an example. It'd make sense if that came in the same update as walking around in stations. You could let anyone have access to the boarding functionality but only let people who pays for the expansion to walk around in stations. Doesn't limit gameplay and gives people who hasn't upgrade a small taste of getting out of the pilot seat.
While I agree with your logic, it does make the assumption that ED is a directly competitive PvP game (and I'm not using PvP in only combat terms). ED is MP but it's not directly competitive - except in microcosm, we only have to look at the structure of the game to see that.
We know that ED will feature an online SP mode, where players will be able to play only against NPCs and Group mode, playing only with groups of friends. The conditions you describe can be attributed to these mechanics as well, so it isn't a flaw in the expansion concept, it's an accepted mechanic, given the MP premise of the game.
When making assessments on how PvP mechanics are affected by other game elements it's worth considering that your interaction level with players compared to NPCs is going to be very low in the final game, the galaxy is too large and NPCs too numerous for players to represent a significant demographic. While this doesn't make the issue disappear, it does reduce it's impact significantly as much of what you cite there is player driven.
It would be easier to imagine ED as a game where your actions primarily forge your destiny and other players occasionally interact with you, than you vs. all the other players in a survival of the fittest, it has more in common with snooker than football.
You may well be right, but I'd hope that only installations would represent a danger to "trespassers", so PL players can't just use their expansion rights as a way to escape and a greater flexibility in pursuit is possible, otherwise we're back to a variation of invisible walls.
Last edited: