If you play it, we'll go on and develop it!
- Thread starter Strangepork
- Start date
We have a winner!
This is what it means, nothing more, nothing less. Can't really see whats wrong with that.
Minonian
Banned
Yep, that's the one, great video and thank you!
Gives some indication of the popularity of exploration and activities outside the bubble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xzlGaqrq3M
Well I am kind of a niche player myself.. I dont really care for the credits so for me MC will be a possible way to join fellow explorers and just witness what they see. I dont even mind that I wont get anything aside the experience from it. (However I can totaly understand many of the concerns here)
Maybe I can ride along in your Asp one day too Ant would be quite the honor
Well I am kind of a niche player myself.. I dont really care for the credits so for me MC will be a possible way to join fellow explorers and just witness what they see. I dont even mind that I wont get anything aside the experience from it. (However I can totaly understand many of the concerns here)
Maybe I can ride along in your Asp one day too Ant would be quite the honor
I have to agree with your stance, for me multi crew has never been about actual progression in game... just a means to play with pals on the same ship. As long as it does that, I'm happy. I don't actually care how it affects creds, or rep, but I understand the want for it to tie in better with the rest of the game
if true it does indeed sound a odd thing to say :S
so.. no more main stream activities evryone..! go explore now, in multicrew preferably! (and while u ar at it do some deep space mining in mega ships... and dont come tell me that aint possible yet)
Last edited:
If you play with it, it will grow.
"Here's a half-baked, under-delivered, half-a'd feature we told you that you had to have. If you don't play it sufficiently, we're not going to expand on it in any meaningful way." - Frontier Developments
Bass ackwards.
Bass ackwards.
Last edited:
Wish the devs had seen field of dreams or had a vision of their own telling them:
"If you build it, they will come".
Not the other way around.
Duane Dibbley
Banned
I've ordered some boxing gloves for you off of of Amazon!
It's the worst kind of game design imaginable. To explain that to a moron who wouldn't recognize it automatically, an unenjoyable feature of X type will be used massively less than an enjoyable feature of X type. That has no bearing on whether X type features are enjoyable or not, in themselves.
Take for example station docking as a minigame which is just an oscillating slider where you have to click a button at the right time, vs. station docking as actual flight maneuvers. You could introduce the first version, which everyone hates, and decide station docking "doesn't work" because no one likes that.
Take for example station docking as a minigame which is just an oscillating slider where you have to click a button at the right time, vs. station docking as actual flight maneuvers. You could introduce the first version, which everyone hates, and decide station docking "doesn't work" because no one likes that.
For me Multicrew is pretty much DOA. There's no reason to play it, and even if it were super profitable, credits are no motivator for me to play ED.
If FD doesn't realize this, then I foresee a troubled future for ED.
Frontier, you have to have a VISION for your game, and then you need to execute that vision. You can't put a "first throw" of a major feature that lacks fun and depth, and expect people to play that so much that you get motivated to flesh out the implementation.
And if you don't have a vision, fret not, for the community has given you a treasure trove of ideas for making the current game deeper by giving players more control and things to play with.
If you wait for players to pick up Multicrew before you consider adding deeper functionality like a systems engineer, repair management, or even a sensor position with deeper systems for planetary and ship scanning, then you should probably stop investing any more time into MC at all because it's going to be dead quicker than CQC.
If FD doesn't realize this, then I foresee a troubled future for ED.
Frontier, you have to have a VISION for your game, and then you need to execute that vision. You can't put a "first throw" of a major feature that lacks fun and depth, and expect people to play that so much that you get motivated to flesh out the implementation.
And if you don't have a vision, fret not, for the community has given you a treasure trove of ideas for making the current game deeper by giving players more control and things to play with.
If you wait for players to pick up Multicrew before you consider adding deeper functionality like a systems engineer, repair management, or even a sensor position with deeper systems for planetary and ship scanning, then you should probably stop investing any more time into MC at all because it's going to be dead quicker than CQC.
Last edited:
stupid sentence, a game needs to bedeveloped first to deserve being played, if you develop bad, no one palys it, If you do a good job people paly it. thas how it works, not the other way around. If people stop playing your game, ask yourself what you did wrong. But of course with this inverted logic devs can blame their gamers more easily. lol.
This is a real kicker, my friend and I played MC last night for a short while (he had VR trouble, although mine worked fine so we had to cut short). The main thing that went through my head was, so I get no rep and only a small amount of the over all cash.. great just great..
FD will need to up their game though.
No point putting out dross and then blaming the players for not buying it.
Horizons probably didn't sell that well because it was initially massively overpriced, very vague on what would be delivered for that price and planetary landings while cool didn't really add much gameplay which was desperately needed (and still is).
As time's gone on it's been delayed, the content released has been lackluster and in some cases much reduced from what was originally described.
FD over promised, charged too much and under delivered again.
If they're going for bite sized DLC chunks in the future they have to put the effort in as people will be able to see what they're getting rather than some nebulous promise of future content. They will also need to be priced accordingly. Whomever at FD sets the prices for things needs a reality check as Horizons and the cosmetic DLC has been massively overpriced. I just don't know what they are thinking with the prices.
I think it's just a marketing way to drop the ball.
Of course if an implementation is barebone and barely useful it won't be used much by the players, and i think they totally know it, and since they can't do more about it, they are looking for an excuse to drop it.
Last edited: