Or someone UA-bombed the servers.
Patch Notes Update 2.1.05 update incoming
- Thread starter Edward Lewis
- Start date
- Status
Don't you see he's a troll and his post is ?
Thanks for the update. Some nice fixes and tweaks.
This bit doesnt seem t mke an sense though
"
Powerplay
- Prevent depopulating systems, change the background sim to only allow Factions to retreat if there are at least 4 factions in that system
- Additional modifier to require a commodities market during Trade related CG's"
This does not seem to have anything at all to do with Power Play. Can some on explain?
Thanks again
This bit doesnt seem t mke an sense though
"
Powerplay
- Prevent depopulating systems, change the background sim to only allow Factions to retreat if there are at least 4 factions in that system
- Additional modifier to require a commodities market during Trade related CG's"
This does not seem to have anything at all to do with Power Play. Can some on explain?
Thanks again
Did they actually say it would be complete in "about 60 minutes"? I got an ingame note, that the servers would go DOWN, in about 60 minutes. As for the "play" and then "too old" thing, your current client validates your current files. As long as you have an outdated launcher, the vaildation will go through, it's when you try to log on the servers(which are, at least to some degree) updated, say that your launcher is too old.
Damn! They shove out a maintenance just as I am so close to Sagittarius A*
Deleted member 38366
D
Me thinks that indeed belongs into this block (and is kinda redundant) :
General Tweaks & Fixes
- Factions can no longer retreat if fewer than 3 factions would remain in that star system
(I Bug-Reported that unintended consequence for the new Retreat state, as it was able to depopulate Horizons-Populated Systems down to a single remaining Faction, remaining alone @ 100% Influence and become an automatic Perma-Expansion machine)
Last edited by a moderator:
Whoa, just a second here - please explain what this means.
I interpret this as a code intervention that will prevent players trying to lockdown a CG by using the BGS will not be able to? That isn't correct right? Of course you'd allow legitimate, creative game-play (as said by your developers) as a valid defense against CGs?
This isn't forcing a commodities market to always be available/open just because a CG is active, is it?
Last edited:
Paitience! My Ar**! I wanna shoot somthing!New patch has been applied.. but servers are still offline.. have patience
Last edited:
Edit: Good work on the update though! It's good to see devs who care about the game
Just couldn't have come at a worse time
Oh by the way I am new to these forums so if any of my messages seem confusing it's because I have sent them by mistake
Just couldn't have come at a worse time Oh by the way I am new to these forums so if any of my messages seem confusing it's because I have sent them by mistake
Last edited:
This guy gets it
So does this mean the servers are working?
Anyone else wondering if there was a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch situation going on in the ED development centrebasethingy, what with the confusion between 3 and 5...
,,,nah, just me then
Hello everyone! Can't wait for the servers to get started because it could well be raining arsenic! [wacky][smile]
,,,nah, just me then
Hello everyone! Can't wait for the servers to get started because it could well be raining arsenic! [wacky][smile]
There's support for both sides of the issue. Leaving CGs vulnderable to the BGS is helpful for players who align with the political factions and only participate in CGs that affect their chosen faction, but it harms the gameplay of those who are apolitical and participate in CGs because they enjoy the CGs on their own merits.
We've also had far more numerous examples of CGs being interrupted due to coincidental BGS changes than due to deliberate player activities.
Let the Yttrium flow through all of you my friends!
- Status