They had randomised supply&prices within the strict limits of that type of economy. They were entirely static beyond that.
That's one of the main reasons I like demo's so much. Everyone talks a load of toot.
Why do you think FD decided to forget about the DDF?
- Thread starter Ignition
- Start date
They had randomised supply&prices within the strict limits of that type of economy. They were entirely static beyond that.
That's one of the main reasons I like demo's so much. Everyone talks a load of toot.
Very true.
I think its how abstracted something gets to make it work that IMO is an issue.
I think it is less what is done to make it work and more about the hype generating misleading expectations.
Taking X-Rebirth as an example, pre-release Egosoft repeatedly warned players that there would be only one pilot-able ship yet people still complained about the lack of that feature at release despite being present during those pre-release discussions. Further more, there were complaints about NPC model quality and variety which is probably as much down to hardware limitations as it was due to the modelling itself. In X4, the pilotable ship issues were addressed and NPC models were altered but the variety stayed pretty much the same.
Where ED is concerned, FD obviously had/have a big vision for the end product BUT the vision itself is the abstract part. As I understand it, the vision in terms of overall feature set is largely unchanged although practical matters limit what is or is not feasible and what does or does not make sense to implement. FD seems to be out of touch with their wider customer base which is possibly the biggest issue, and ultimately is probably why the DDF/DDA has been sidelined.
However, FD do seem to be making an attempt to correct their course with their recent change in schedule regarding the release of Personal (Fleet) Carriers and alleged shift in focus towards addressing issues that are of immediate concern to at least some of the community.
[EDIT]The faction interaction concepts explained in the video are little different from say the Civilisation games and the station build concepts are kind of mirrored in X4/X-Rebirth. Nothing is particularly novel about it, only the setting and lore. Arguably what we do have with ED is what was illustrated in that video, but the hype that the community generated around it possibly raised expectations beyond what is realistic to expect.
In ED, CGs/ISIs are the mechanisms to build stations and factions do interact with each other - the pace of things is perhaps much lower than perhaps some were expecting though. However, I can not see the pace of universe change being updated as some might like it to be.[/EDIT]
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Stigbob often as not I agree with your general point. On this one I don't as it happens, you think ship's crew from DDF and NPC wingmates being replaced with multiplayer only as well as dropping offline is a minor thing. That is cool you are entitled to your view ... Whilst I am not bothered about offline myself had i of known the game was going to have major features locked to multiplayer only it would 100% of changed the level I jumped in at....
Where I think you are bang out of order however regardless of whether I agree with your specific view or not is attacking people who feel short changed. They are NOT saddos they are just dissapointed fans of the game who chose to trust frontier with often a lot of money. To get the game made.
I believe you said you came in after launch (sorry if I am miss remembering).
Without the saddos you are ridiculing there would have been no game for you to buy after launch.
I am happy the game has met your expectations. Those who it hasn't however have a point.
A lot of the highest backers already left and gave up.
That reminds me. What ever happened to liqua is he ever around?
Last edited:
The DDF was put in place to meet the minimum obligations of the kickstarter, much like all of the other weasel worded "rewards" that amounted to either nothing or were backtracked on.
The DDF was then totally ignored while FD went on to make a dumbed down version of the game with dev time spent on things no one wanted (e.g. CQC) or watered down implementations of the basic concepts (multiplayer / powerplay / NPC's).
Obviously it's not all bad as many people (including myself) enjoy playing, but don't expect the game to be as described at the start.
I'd disagree with each of these statements: the X economy is vastly more complex, it absolutely lives up to the hype but it definitely doesn't work well-enough. With X:R it worked catastrophically bad, making the game quite literally unplayable. Before you could complete the tutorial the entire economy would inevitably crash, and everything would grind to a halt. Dozens of massive traders being dead in the water, with the AI unable to get the economy going again. X4 was not this bad, but it still had/has many issues. The BGS actually had stronger rubber-banding at launch and then still needed manual intervention every now and then.
Getting a 'complex economy' going is an incredibly accomplishment, easily a game in and of itself. People (not referring to you here, btw) casually expecting a game like ED (or SC) to just have such an economy as one of the many, many features they 'need' for the game to be 'deep' are absolutely deluded.
Is Stigbob still going on with himself? He's ignored.
As for Liqua (and his wife, who backed the same amount of £5000), no. He has already left and gave up because of FD's broken promises. Scunnered the both of them. Can't say I blame them tbh.
This is one of the reasons kickstarters for games are so problematic. Games almost never end up like they are described/pre-designed at the start. Normally speaking we don't know that because this is done behind closed doors, internally. The road from early concept to going gold is paved with disappointments and setbacks, and invariably things end up on the cutting floor. Gamers are typically familiar with a 'light' version of this phenomenon every time a launch version turns out to look worse than an alpha version they showed a year earlier (W3 for example). And as always you end up with raging gamers claiming they were 'duped', lied to et cetera. In reality this is just how development works: during the final stages after all the feature-cutting has been done you try to optimize the game to hit some performance target. And, again, it is nearly always the case that the devs have to disable at least some of the awesome graphics stuff the engine technically can do but not when all the 'gameplay' is piled on top of it.
Kickstarters are for devices that have been designed and prototyped and only need funding to mass produce. You know what you get, you know when you'll get it. Kickstarters for games, when they transcend something like a basic platformer, are completely different. They are a vague outline of what someone might hope to accomplish in an ideal scenario that never will play out anyway. And the only way to get the funding is by framing and phrasing the dream in such a way that hyped theorycrafting gamers are satisfied. With the result being companies sugarcoating their promises and backers denying basic realities of product development. Add to that the pressure to set as low a target as possible (you either get it all or nothing!) and you even have horror scenarios where small indie studios ask too little, promise too much and then barely hit the funding threshold. The end result is always the same: a few years of problematic development followed by burn-out, mental health issues and cancelled products. Nobody wins here.
Again, we saw a light version of the above with the 'Horizon Pass' development. FD has done well to prevent all this drama by simply keeping the entire process behind closed doors. Trust me, if Next Era lands and you love it your enjoyment wont be hindered with the knowledge of all the awesome and originally planned stuff that didn't make it.
Last edited:
Ooh, I never seen that word before. Googled it, very excellent.
Unrelated, pretty disappointing to see someone who spend so much end up being so disillusioned. Regardless of who was right or wrong, or who is to blame for what, its a ty outcome any which way.
I think its finding the sweet spot between abstraction and visible consequences. ED has never really done anything with populations, which would put an interesting spin on the consequences of famine, war etc. We have the abstracted consequences (refugee missions) but never the direct results (forcing a system into decay through depopulation).
If you could displace people from one area to another, link it to food production / consumption and health levels (and happiness) ED would have it just about right.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Solo was announced at the same time as Open and Private Groups.
Offline was added about half way through the KS period and subsequently cancelled before launch.
Solo may offer the "no other players" functionality of Offline - but it was always going to be online and was not introduced after Offline.
I think that is the result of the 'training wheels' still being on. I am pretty sure that FD would love to do something like that, but simply isnt confident they can do that in a way that doesn't cause massive issues. I mean, lets be honest: ED isn't the most bugfree game on the market. Having (major) bugs in a BGS that isn't shackled to a default state at least to some extent has the potential to completely wreck the game.
I'd argue it doesn't even matter. These are the facts: at some point FD floated the idea of offline, and some people found that a compelling reason convincing them to back the game. At some point FD came back on that idea and cancelled it. Some people were upset that a thing supposedly coming, and important to them, was removed/cancelled. Stigbob can argue for all eternity how 'it isnt such a big deal', how Solo compensates for it or whatever, but that is just him being tonedeaf and unable to emphatize with others. I personally dont care much for offline, but the above facts make it clear some objectively have reason for disappointment. Regardless of whether Stigbob the Mighty agrees or shares that sentiment.
It does indeed. The problem is for ED, and by extension FD is that FD wants and needs to make ED as self contained and automated as possible. The more that can be done to make the BGS more rounded means less pressure for day to day lore input (which they have cut). Its probably why FD got scared of Powerplay, as they realized once it was 'complete' they'd have to invent new powers, keep up with lore (which confused players in the early days) and it would forever be a chain around their necks in its current form.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It does not matter to those happy with the three game modes / single shared galaxy state and no Offline mode. However, given that they don't comprise the whole player-base, it's not helpful to leave inaccurate statements uncorrected. There have been those, over time, convinced that Solo was added after Offline was cancelled and who tried to use this "fact" as a justification to demand that Solo should not affect the BGS, Powerplay, etc. - even if the facts did not support their argument.
I know offline was a later then cancelled addition. I just think solo is an improved version of offline rather something that came later.
Solo online in a world where we are always online is effectively offline. It also solves the problem of getting players to log in and receive/transmit a BGS update regularly. It also means there's only one version of the BGS so new content/CG's and such can be implemented without taking millions of versions of the BGS into account as even the most avid PVP'ers do their engineering solo. There's also cheat prevention to take into account.
It also means you come across other players discovery tags way out in the black which is nice when your mind is getting boggled by the sheer scale of things out there.
Offline would have been a downgrade, I'm glad they binned it.
Last edited:
I really wonder how - after 6 years - someone is so extremely biased into the direction of the developer. Must be Stockholm syndrome or something.
I honestly can´t believe it.
I did pre-purchase research so I knew exactly what I was buying and subsequently the whole imaginary game v reality problem was (and won't) be an issue for me.
FDEV are the people who made my favourite game ever (and the previous favourite). With more content coming soon(TM).
Why do you think I would feel the need to be mad at them ?.
Conspiracy theories are always amusing but never convincing.
That, plus the massive rage you'd get if it were more dynamic. 5C is super frustrating as-is, can you imagine how people would feel if they'd lose their entire power to it for example? Before anything like that can ever be implemented Powerplay needs to be far more solid, with way less cracks in the foundation.