Goons were good for my market, i have no quarrel with them.
Though, I understand the pain.
Oh, me neither, I'm a miner and ship manufacturer... it's just the thing to say, I guess.
Goons were good for my market, i have no quarrel with them.
Though, I understand the pain.
.... they'll move down the food-chain. From Ironman - All Group (Transponder On) - All Group (Transponder Off) - SP Online.
Now that might actually be a good thing, as people drop down rather than dropping out.
I've read all the way through this thread (90 more posts than the DDF thread). It's good to see people trying to bring different positions together, so I'll have another go at asking the same question I asked last year:
Your use of "down" in the context of "food-chain" seems to be a bit demeaning - implying moves to a lesser grouping. Shows a little bias....
I'm exactly the sort of person Togg identified as the weak-point in the ED food chain.
...
all the little compromises have created a smooth gradient for me to slide up into a more social game.
steadily as losses mount, bad experiences continue, they'll move down the food-chain.
Your use of "down" in the context of "food-chain" seems to be a bit demeaning - implying moves to a lesser grouping. Shows a little bias....
Sorry about that, blame Andrew for putting 'food-chain' into my head.
Two completely separate galaxies divided by an "iron curtain" with separate events, histories and developments within the galaxy along with of course separate economies.
This would double the back-end server requirements for Frontier - that will have a financial impact.
It takes money to make money.
This would double the back-end server requirements for Frontier - that will have a financial impact.
Having first justified any changes to the cost-base - having two completely separate galaxy simulations running simply because a percentage of the tiny PC population of the galaxy (in relation to the NPC population) is not seen by the other PCs does not seem to be a strong justification.
This can probably be done on the same server cluster already paid for as user demand as you state will be minimal as the rest of the galaxy is basically a simulation if no players are present. You argument is weak at best and the increase in sales and player retention would far outweigh any additional server costs.
i'm not sure if FD has made a decision on whether or not ships that are purchased in game are actually constructed in game, (which would use materials and items in a system) if so, that in itself would cause markets to soar just due to building ships lost in PvA.
While the players would be split between the two simulations, the NPC simulation would be doubled - that's going to require more horsepower.
You really think that players are going to leave because of the effects on the economy of players they can't encounter? That's an interesting theory.... What about players in other timezones - they have an effect on the economy and you will probably not encounter them.
I didn't mean player created.. but that the game uses local materials when IT creates a new ship for either a AI or a Player ship.
as a function to keep the economy going.. a star system would need a constant supply of parts (which could be delivered to it via player or NPC transports)
Hopefully that shows I'm open to argument, but my fundamental question about the "all" group remains: what's in it for me?