I assume they "knew" it was "in" through the same sources as the rest of us, to wit, that it had been advertised by Frontier, Braben, Brookes, et al. as being "in".
No Single Player offline Mode then?
- Thread starter Brandon31
- Start date
- Status
I assume they "knew" it was "in" through the same sources as the rest of us, to wit, that it had been advertised by Frontier, Braben, Brookes, et al. as being "in".
They are on cleaning up every now and then. It is getting late now here in the UK and tomorrow is a school day ,and they were probably up late 2 nights in a row.
Who can blame them with some of the crap posted in this thread. Must be very demoralising.
Oh come on, are you trolling or are you serious? It's been documented many times in this thread where both David Braben and Michael Brookes both confirmed the offline mode was a feature of the game (up until two days ago that is). See link below:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=8fa4...17&ithint=folder,png&authkey=!AB8ihXyry1B55fw
That's not the point. I know which side you're on Titus but why don't you try and use your influence on you fanboy BOA who is in complete denial that offline was ever part of the project.
God help who ever made this decision at FD tomorrow!
At the end of it, David Braben as the main producer and stakeholder on the project made the final decision. He also owns 56% of the company.
There is no eek here.
Another reason, that i plan to downgrade my pledge. I am aswell in the DDF and have read nothing about this there aswell. Run there the second i have read about this change. This leads me to start thinking, why i have spend so much money on it, when it seems, that they don't even care, what the customers want.
Hmm, good idea. Could take the links aswell in my sig. ^^Check the reddit link in my sig
For the damage limitation, the best move now for Frontier would be to reannounce the offline mode and tell, that they included it because of the large feedback of the forum.
Uff, people are writing even faster as i can read or scroll this thread. ^^
weren't you the guy that claimed to be pragmatic? and that "talked about sense"? come on now...
I think this interview is very enlightening about DB/FD:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/archive/b5081501.htm
Same goes for the overall FAQ and table of who wrote what in elite:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/faq.htm
I've also previously posted about the following points, but won't harp on and on:
- ED Now features negatives of both networking models. P2P for multiplayer (stuttering, instance delays, poor connectivity, poor reliability) yet still uses client-server model for its game logins and market data thus can't be detached from servers like other P2P network applications. Because it uses client-server for logins and market data, this means it relies on the servers for any usage at all. Thus you only realise the negatives of P2P, and the negatives of client server. Instead of just using one to avoid the negatives of the other. It's insanity.
- Multiplayer (both Online/Open and Online/Solo) have major, major problems. online/Solo still features mission completion bugs, very poor server latency (the service uses AWS and doesn't have many geolocations for the service). This was due to cost reasons. This means for the average player, you will still get stuttering dropping out of SC near planets and stations (loading market data, contact information, orbital data, amongst other things from the server). There are also some core design problems here related to the way the client deals with server latency. It is in short, terribly low performing. As a way of comparison, online/Open is no better, in fact it's much worse. The P2P code is really bugged and features things like extreme FPS drops around busy areas, extreme FPS drops and stutters transitioning instances, approaching stations, when entering detection range of other contacts, etc. Look at your netlogs and see the dramatic object ownership communications going on. witness the 25mb+ logs. The security issue of listing the computer name and IP of all connected peers. The low number of people per 'island/instance'. the way the core 'huge universe' gaming feature the game is advertised on is really misleading in terms of the game play area actually being divided into endless segments of nearly identical 'islands' / instances. There is very poor levels of documentation, support and troubleshooting tools for network config, with the most effective configuration (enabling uPNP and/or setting a static UDP port to use for the game) requiring manual XML file changes and manual monitoring on your router. Even basic torrent clients will do a UDP port flow test and attempt the uPNP mapping automatically/by default. In short, its an absolute shambles. For many reasons previously mention P2P causes a set of multiplayer design flaws.
Thus
- When you factor in the massive problems with Online/Open and the significant problems of Online/Solo, it makes the decision to drop Offline mode even harder to stomach.
These other factors come into play in people's frustration here:
- It's highly unethical to run a KS campaign and in the 4 weeks or so before launch, pull a key feature that many backers were specifically backing for.
- It's highly unethical to take pre-orders and advertise a game on two basis: multiplayer excellence and offline play ability, only to fail to deliver on the first and remove entirely the second.
- It's extremely unethical to release the information in a vaguely worded paragraph in the game verse newsletter..
- It's very unusual and dissatisfying behaviour to have the game developer in the forums attempting to defend the decision with nonsense comments like 'It can't be done offline' (Despite all previous iterations of Elite featuring fully offline proc gen universes and missions and economies)
- Using the argument that providing the server would 'unlock the secrets of the universe' is equally nonsensical and just insulting to gamers, developers and other professionals in this industry around the world. Server software is provided in the form of compiled binaries and can be heavily protected through a variety of methods. Even if not, its irrespective, game servers are part of the gaming world and if you can't even detach your game client from the game server software , then don't cry foul that you also can't release the game server itself. that's just talking nonsense and hoping the majority of customers won't know enough to pull you up on it. Wrong.
- To state coldly 'refunds on a case by case basis', given the above, is not good enough. It's a further example of the unbelievably bad behaviour of this developer.
I don't like to be negative but I won't ever be purchasing or backing any future FD games. I would also like to point out FD have been an independent games company for some time and in theory, shouldn't even need a KS campaign to make a profitable game, but I won't entirely lament the KS process for these guys as at least it gets some community involvement. Not that it matters here, as FD just stomp on the community with serious attitude.
If you read the newsletter, its like the company lawyer wrote it as a press release, where people have to exercise the ability to read between the lines of the non committal statements that are designed to reduce responsibility and liability, with almost no clarity. The forum posts that followed are better but are essentially a pack of lies about the reasons behind it. If those are the real reasons, what on earth is going on with the design/coding process for this to come to light 4 weeks from release? utter nonsense.
Given the massive number of technical problems, both client, server, and P2P, this 'game' currently faces, the ridiculous release date, the terrible attitude of the developer, the multiple, many broken KS promises, the completely obvious and rather pathetic attempt to placate people with additional ships and a bubbly tone to the newsletter despite obvious set of negative announcements, you have to wonder just how big a mistake was made backing this dev to the tune of 7.5 million.
I like the progress in a general sense, but i was seriously relying on offline mode to get me away from having to:
- compete with people that have 20 hours per day to mine/discover systems, by playing offline, and playing at my pace, even close undiscovered systems could be a new discovery and worth credits and worth playing for me. now i have to (even in online/solo) compete with many other much more time-rich players and this makes competing very difficult and the game more boring
- deal with the server latency, the P2P networking problems, and the hug bugs throughout this game the networking creates
- deal with the fairly broken 'dynamic background simulation'. one assumed offline mode would have a more static/normal method for locating ship upgrades, scheduling missions and the pricing model for items. ill take static, predictable any day over the nonsense systems in place right now. also why should i have to worry about whether 400 other people bought frame shift drive upgrades close to the core systems? why should i have to spend 4 hours SC'ing and jumping to far remote systems that people haven't purchased from? i dont even really believe FD that this is how the market is working right now. seems more random/very boring and limited. on top of that, they have no credibility at all anymore, so i want proof of almost everything they say from here in or i believe nothing.
DB comments about evil publishers in the past forcing buggy releases and pay-to-play and all this other stuff, but i see now its just lip service designed to appear populous and garner support. Behaving in the way FD/DB have in this manner is just atrocious, and i feel really sorry for the DB/Frontier apologists who feel the need/urge to defend the indefensible here. You should pick your battles and go find some other underdog to back. This isn't appropriate behaviour for a company and this is certainly not the way to treat a loyal fanbase of customers.
I hope they lose a lot of pledges, backers and customers on the basis of all of this since its really, really terrible stuff. I want Elite to remain playable offline, I want the realism sacrificing slightly for the sake of fun, this is a game after all. If we had a version of the SIMS that only played in real time and took as much time as real life to do the same things as in real life, one would start to question the point of the game, the same goes for Elite, the distances involved and realism involved is great in some ways, but in other ways, i want to have a bit of fun, and like Ian Bell's comments in the original gamespot interview, although its applaudable and aesthetically pleasing to have a realistic universe, there is the flip side of needing to balance that appropriately to ensure the fun factor is not lost. It's a game. it's been stated many times its a game not a simulation, and other sacrifices in the flight model were made to ensure fun, so where is the fun in the mission/faction play, the long distance travel, the MP communications, grouping and missions, the co-play, the PVP models, the interdictions. there is some in there, but its very shallow, and the aesthetic factor of keeping the huge game universe realistic is not currently balanced by a large enough fun factor.
The huge problems detract massively from this 'game' and the decision to drop offline mode, which was the saving grace for many of these shortcomings, is just borderline insanity.
I guess FD are about to find out the hard way people do not appreciate KS campaigners behaving in this unethical way, and loyal, long term gamers do not appreciate being treated in this way, nor their money taking for a product that ultimately is very broken, feature poor and missing basic core components promised all the way through the design and dev cycle.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/archive/b5081501.htm
Same goes for the overall FAQ and table of who wrote what in elite:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/faq.htm
I've also previously posted about the following points, but won't harp on and on:
- ED Now features negatives of both networking models. P2P for multiplayer (stuttering, instance delays, poor connectivity, poor reliability) yet still uses client-server model for its game logins and market data thus can't be detached from servers like other P2P network applications. Because it uses client-server for logins and market data, this means it relies on the servers for any usage at all. Thus you only realise the negatives of P2P, and the negatives of client server. Instead of just using one to avoid the negatives of the other. It's insanity.
- Multiplayer (both Online/Open and Online/Solo) have major, major problems. online/Solo still features mission completion bugs, very poor server latency (the service uses AWS and doesn't have many geolocations for the service). This was due to cost reasons. This means for the average player, you will still get stuttering dropping out of SC near planets and stations (loading market data, contact information, orbital data, amongst other things from the server). There are also some core design problems here related to the way the client deals with server latency. It is in short, terribly low performing. As a way of comparison, online/Open is no better, in fact it's much worse. The P2P code is really bugged and features things like extreme FPS drops around busy areas, extreme FPS drops and stutters transitioning instances, approaching stations, when entering detection range of other contacts, etc. Look at your netlogs and see the dramatic object ownership communications going on. witness the 25mb+ logs. The security issue of listing the computer name and IP of all connected peers. The low number of people per 'island/instance'. the way the core 'huge universe' gaming feature the game is advertised on is really misleading in terms of the game play area actually being divided into endless segments of nearly identical 'islands' / instances. There is very poor levels of documentation, support and troubleshooting tools for network config, with the most effective configuration (enabling uPNP and/or setting a static UDP port to use for the game) requiring manual XML file changes and manual monitoring on your router. Even basic torrent clients will do a UDP port flow test and attempt the uPNP mapping automatically/by default. In short, its an absolute shambles. For many reasons previously mention P2P causes a set of multiplayer design flaws.
Thus
- When you factor in the massive problems with Online/Open and the significant problems of Online/Solo, it makes the decision to drop Offline mode even harder to stomach.
These other factors come into play in people's frustration here:
- It's highly unethical to run a KS campaign and in the 4 weeks or so before launch, pull a key feature that many backers were specifically backing for.
- It's highly unethical to take pre-orders and advertise a game on two basis: multiplayer excellence and offline play ability, only to fail to deliver on the first and remove entirely the second.
- It's extremely unethical to release the information in a vaguely worded paragraph in the game verse newsletter..
- It's very unusual and dissatisfying behaviour to have the game developer in the forums attempting to defend the decision with nonsense comments like 'It can't be done offline' (Despite all previous iterations of Elite featuring fully offline proc gen universes and missions and economies)
- Using the argument that providing the server would 'unlock the secrets of the universe' is equally nonsensical and just insulting to gamers, developers and other professionals in this industry around the world. Server software is provided in the form of compiled binaries and can be heavily protected through a variety of methods. Even if not, its irrespective, game servers are part of the gaming world and if you can't even detach your game client from the game server software , then don't cry foul that you also can't release the game server itself. that's just talking nonsense and hoping the majority of customers won't know enough to pull you up on it. Wrong.
- To state coldly 'refunds on a case by case basis', given the above, is not good enough. It's a further example of the unbelievably bad behaviour of this developer.
I don't like to be negative but I won't ever be purchasing or backing any future FD games. I would also like to point out FD have been an independent games company for some time and in theory, shouldn't even need a KS campaign to make a profitable game, but I won't entirely lament the KS process for these guys as at least it gets some community involvement. Not that it matters here, as FD just stomp on the community with serious attitude.
If you read the newsletter, its like the company lawyer wrote it as a press release, where people have to exercise the ability to read between the lines of the non committal statements that are designed to reduce responsibility and liability, with almost no clarity. The forum posts that followed are better but are essentially a pack of lies about the reasons behind it. If those are the real reasons, what on earth is going on with the design/coding process for this to come to light 4 weeks from release? utter nonsense.
Given the massive number of technical problems, both client, server, and P2P, this 'game' currently faces, the ridiculous release date, the terrible attitude of the developer, the multiple, many broken KS promises, the completely obvious and rather pathetic attempt to placate people with additional ships and a bubbly tone to the newsletter despite obvious set of negative announcements, you have to wonder just how big a mistake was made backing this dev to the tune of 7.5 million.
I like the progress in a general sense, but i was seriously relying on offline mode to get me away from having to:
- compete with people that have 20 hours per day to mine/discover systems, by playing offline, and playing at my pace, even close undiscovered systems could be a new discovery and worth credits and worth playing for me. now i have to (even in online/solo) compete with many other much more time-rich players and this makes competing very difficult and the game more boring
- deal with the server latency, the P2P networking problems, and the hug bugs throughout this game the networking creates
- deal with the fairly broken 'dynamic background simulation'. one assumed offline mode would have a more static/normal method for locating ship upgrades, scheduling missions and the pricing model for items. ill take static, predictable any day over the nonsense systems in place right now. also why should i have to worry about whether 400 other people bought frame shift drive upgrades close to the core systems? why should i have to spend 4 hours SC'ing and jumping to far remote systems that people haven't purchased from? i dont even really believe FD that this is how the market is working right now. seems more random/very boring and limited. on top of that, they have no credibility at all anymore, so i want proof of almost everything they say from here in or i believe nothing.
DB comments about evil publishers in the past forcing buggy releases and pay-to-play and all this other stuff, but i see now its just lip service designed to appear populous and garner support. Behaving in the way FD/DB have in this manner is just atrocious, and i feel really sorry for the DB/Frontier apologists who feel the need/urge to defend the indefensible here. You should pick your battles and go find some other underdog to back. This isn't appropriate behaviour for a company and this is certainly not the way to treat a loyal fanbase of customers.
I hope they lose a lot of pledges, backers and customers on the basis of all of this since its really, really terrible stuff. I want Elite to remain playable offline, I want the realism sacrificing slightly for the sake of fun, this is a game after all. If we had a version of the SIMS that only played in real time and took as much time as real life to do the same things as in real life, one would start to question the point of the game, the same goes for Elite, the distances involved and realism involved is great in some ways, but in other ways, i want to have a bit of fun, and like Ian Bell's comments in the original gamespot interview, although its applaudable and aesthetically pleasing to have a realistic universe, there is the flip side of needing to balance that appropriately to ensure the fun factor is not lost. It's a game. it's been stated many times its a game not a simulation, and other sacrifices in the flight model were made to ensure fun, so where is the fun in the mission/faction play, the long distance travel, the MP communications, grouping and missions, the co-play, the PVP models, the interdictions. there is some in there, but its very shallow, and the aesthetic factor of keeping the huge game universe realistic is not currently balanced by a large enough fun factor.
The huge problems detract massively from this 'game' and the decision to drop offline mode, which was the saving grace for many of these shortcomings, is just borderline insanity.
I guess FD are about to find out the hard way people do not appreciate KS campaigners behaving in this unethical way, and loyal, long term gamers do not appreciate being treated in this way, nor their money taking for a product that ultimately is very broken, feature poor and missing basic core components promised all the way through the design and dev cycle.
Last edited:
Careful buddy, I've had many posts removed for even suggesting such things, the mod police don't like opinions, especially your own!
But I agree, they have crawled out of somewhere!
I know! The same old post from Dec 30 2013.....
Ooh Ohh! This we can agree on
With a cool soundtrack to boot! I'd love a remake of this too.
If anyone is joining the forums just to poke fun out of those that feel they have been cheated in some way, they need to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
And although I have empathy and sympathy with those affected by this decision, (I am not affected myself), this kind of 'collateral damage' is, while not unexpected, certainly unwelcome.
They can pull it on the 16th.
When I was an online game forum moderator we had a separate log in with a different name, moderator title and company banner. We were there purely to maintain order, we didn't have opinions about anything as we were flying the company flag and the company didn't want us talking on their behalf.
Our discussions about the game and our person views on anything were posted under our original forum names.
Like it or not, if people see posts with a Frontier flag next to them, they will be taken more seriously than posts from you or me.
It was started, but sadly never really got off the ground.
Loved the original. Good case in point though that the company went bust, the assets bought, and despite the fact that the creator wanted to open source it he was prevented from doing so.
These things happen when companies go bust or are bought over.
Good job we have offline mode, eh?
As much as I feel for those who really wanted offline mode ( Me included ) and may have pledged because of it...... I think there may be some here just to stir the pot.....I really don't think the Bad publicity is doing any of us any favours at the moment
- Status