Yes, players are outnumbered compared to NPCs, but their influence towards how events will unfold will artificially be more important than compared to the influence NPCs will have. Therefore your conclusion is simply WRONG.
Edit:
For example the trades players are doing will change the marketplace prices much more than the actions of NPCs. Got it?
Frankly, as I exposed earlier this whole "dynamic galaxy" thing doesn't seem to make much sense... players are outnumbered by NPCs at least a million to one, and there are around ten players per inhabited star (and at least half a million uninhabited stars per player), we don't have guilds, corporations, or any kind of organization, and we're supposed to be unimportant regular joes... what influence can we possibly hope to have, then, on the galaxy, or on other players (besides combat)?
So, some here don't want just an ONLINE solo because they don't want others to interfere with THEIR universe, yet they'd love the game not to be static. On the other hand others claim that the dynamic galaxy is a scam and that players have barely no influence on it. Okay...
When Ubisoft goes and releases monstrosities like an unfinished Assassins Creed : Unity that's so buggy and unfinished that there's holes in character models and glitches that create things that would give small children night terrors (they look like something out of Five nights at Freddy's *brr*), or EA make a complete trainwreck out of a respected franchise like Simcity, what on earth do you actually expect people to do? Take the results with a smile? These kinds of actions need to be called out, and rightly so, and there needs to be honest dialog between both consumer and seller. Trust is a fragile thing, and when you break it, stuff like this happens.
Is this how you feel things are resolved in life, in general? Must be really charming. Anything doesn't go the way people want, and you think the right response is pressure groups and threats of litigation.
Frontier have done amzing work, and have been hitting their anounced deadlines with a reliability very rarely seen on the software business, much less in game development.
They have been forced to prioritise. Something had to be cut, so as not to create a lukewarm compromise that would end up pleasing no-one. The on-line, living and evolving galaxy is the heart and sould of Elite. If there's a decision to be made regarding what is best for realising that goal, and providing a "DRM free solo client" then would you really have wanted them to compromise the main goal because of the needs of the single player client? Maybe you would have, but that would have massively cut down the scope and ambition of the game.
I want to see Elite pushing the boudaries. I want strong client identification, and as robust anti-cheating tools as possible. It is important for the integrity of the gameplay experience, and for protecting the investments of the clients.
You and others have accused me of "lack of empathy". My empathy dies pretty fast the moment people react with destructive anger, start insulting and threatening the developers, and gleefully machining trouble for FD by spreading libel on gaming sites and organishing / cheering on DDOS and other sabotage.
considering the (relatively, in commercial dev terms) low budget and short dev cycle, what they've done so far is excellent. To think otherwise shows a lack of knowledge re: such things.
I totally agree with that. Sadly they used scarce resources to develop an (on-line) experience the fan-base was not waiting for.
I want to be able to play without having to be connected to a big-brother. This is a breaking-point for me.
Adding insult to injury is they way this was (dis)communicated. I read the newsletter, but I did not understand the ramifications of the sentence neatly tucked away just above a picture of planets which is much more captivating. Shame on the team for trying to trick their audience in such a way!
Mr. Brabens' word still carries weight with me. If he promises me a fun and playable off-line experience with Eliteangerous after launch, I will believe him.
Otherwise I feel cheated and want my money back.
You and others have accused me of "lack of empathy". My empathy dies pretty fast the moment people react with destructive anger, start insulting and threatening the developers, and gleefully machining trouble for FD by spreading libel on gaming sites and organishing / cheering on DDOS and other sabotage.
So, some here don't want just an ONLINE solo because they don't want others to interfere with THEIR universe, yet they'd love the game not to be static. On the other hand others claim that the dynamic galaxy is a scam and that players have barely no influence on it. Okay...
Oh, no, If you read my absurdly long diatribe I expose how Frontier could ignore maths and create a user-influenced galaxy. It'd take more server-side resources, sure, but single player offline would still be possible.
The main issue, though, is that it would be completely indistinguishable from a procedurally generated dynamic galaxy that wasn't influenced by players... so what's the point of wasting resources on something that players won't see?
You and others have accused me of "lack of empathy". My empathy dies pretty fast the moment people react with destructive anger, start insulting and threatening the developers, and gleefully machining trouble for FD by spreading libel on gaming sites and organishing / cheering on DDOS and other sabotage.
I believe that only a minority of the Kickstarter campaign supportes chipped in for the online features.
Those who want an online space game are probably already playing EVE Online.
Placing the focus to online-play and ditching the offline mode looks, sadly, like bait and switch.
Personally, I never caught the online gaming wave. I just don't have enough time to invest on it.
I believe that many of the backers are in a similar situation: If you played the original Elite, you are probably at least in your mid-30s by now. You have offline/physical issues that require your attention and you can't afford 3-4 hours of daily play.
This also means that joining an online game when you can is much less fun for you: you will have your ass kicked in minutes by experienced players.
So dropping the offline mode really feels like neglecting those who made the Kickstarter campaign a success in the first place.
Not to mention the eventual cloud-rot that will make the game unplayable when it stops being profitable - unlike the original Elite which is still playable 30+ games after its launch.
I hope that you get the message carried by this thread and deliver a full offline mode - even with a delay.
My recollection of the early days of the KickStarter was that DRM and single player offline were very important to a significant minority of pledgers. FD made unequivocal promises, which was probably unwise, but is encouraged by the nature of a KickStarter.
Trying to pretend that this is unimportant or can be brushed off is also unwise. KickStarters imply a level of trust with developers that needs to be maintained if the funding model is to have much of a future.
So, some here don't want just an ONLINE solo because they don't want others to interfere with THEIR universe, yet they'd love the game not to be static. On the other hand others claim that the dynamic galaxy is a scam and that players have barely no influence on it. Okay...
I know its amazing isn't it.. Different people actually have different opinions and takes on something. I was as amazed as you were so I checked again. But yep its true we are all different individuals.
Of course Even so its entirely consistent to not want your game universe to go on without you while at the same time not wanting it to remain static when you are playing. Its also consistent to be fine with well crafted dynamic simulations to control the macro economic and political situation in your game but prefer not for those macro economic and political situations to be bent and twisted around at the whim of players who are doing it because they are playing a game creating a less believable and immerse experience. Indeed perhaps one of the greatest benefits of offline or single player games is ability to easily design them in such a way the players personal preference can be catered to. Prefer and entirely static economic situation, no problem, prefer a randomly fluctuating market that impossible to predict, here ya go, want a super difficult experience with pirates everywhere who attack on sight, lemmie just tinker here a minute... Something which is patently impossible in the one size fits all shared massively multiplayer experience.
Ok, so the influence of the players (maybe <.01% of all space ships flying around) will maybe be 70%. Now we are talking of millions of real players influencing the space dramatically. So if you want to create a dynamic galaxy in an offline-version with that complexity you would need to simulate at least millions of NPCs in a very intelligent manner (the way people are acting). That would simply be impossible on a single PC. The result would be a completely different game. A game
- they don't want to release (because of inferior game experience) and
- don't want to spend time in producing and supporting (resources for the primary game would be cut to half)
This makes sense for many, but few people unfortunately simply don't get it.
(And the way i address this issue will make them even more aggressive and less reasonable - sorry i am not very skilled in diplomacy)
........Now, I'm the first to call for Hanlon's razor to be used, but it's very difficult, if not outright impossible, to apply it to people who are clearly neither incompetent nor stupid.
Which, tragically, leaves us with only one possible explanation.
TL;DR: Brookes' excuses don't hold water; they make no sense; by any rational analysis, we are for some unknown reason (which I'd like to know) being given false information.
Frankly, I see much more disappointment (and feelings of betrayal and of being ignored, particularly given the way this is being "handled" by Frontier's PR) than hatred.
In fact I'm not sure I've seen hatred at all, except for a few people (hardly significant among the whole) that seem to hate anyone who doesn't prais Frontier unconditionally.
So, some here don't want just an ONLINE solo because they don't want others to interfere with THEIR universe, yet they'd love the game not to be static. On the other hand others claim that the dynamic galaxy is a scam and that players have barely no influence on it. Okay...
I don't see these two as incompatible. If you add them, you conclude that the online mode is just an excuse to push for monthly subscriptions later on.
Is this how you feel things are resolved in life, in general? Must be really charming. Anything doesn't go the way people want, and you think the right response is pressure groups and threats of litigation.
Frontier have done amzing work, and have been hitting their anounced deadlines with a reliability very rarely seen on the software business, much less in game development.
They have been forced to prioritise. Something had to be cut, so as not to create a lukewarm compromise that would end up pleasing no-one. The on-line, living and evolving galaxy is the heart and sould of Elite. If there's a decision to be made regarding what is best for realising that goal, and providing a "DRM free solo client" then would you really have wanted them to compromise the main goal because of the needs of the single player client? Maybe you would have, but that would have massively cut down the scope and ambition of the game.
I want to see Elite pushing the boudaries. I want strong client identification, and as robust anti-cheating tools as possible. It is important for the integrity of the gameplay experience, and for protecting the investments of the clients.
You and others have accused me of "lack of empathy". My empathy dies pretty fast the moment people react with destructive anger, start insulting and threatening the developers, and gleefully machining trouble for FD by spreading libel on gaming sites and organishing / cheering on DDOS and other sabotage.
Absolutely. I'm not exactly in my happy space over this decision, but my toys are firmly in the pram, and I'm wearing the hat of pragmatic realism. I do feel that FD have severely undermined my trust in them, but it's good to be reminded that while the top brass might be lovely chaps to have a natter with down the pub, they're also hard-headed businesspeople who won't think twice about taking a decision if it's to their commercial advantage. Yes, ED is DB's love-child, but FD exist to make money. That's not a bad thing in itself, but it's worth remembering that £££ comes before fans.
And yeah, DDOSers need to grow up and find a hobby that allows them to deal with their rage constructively.
That's basically the KS. Is this your "bait & switch"?
Yes, they screwed one of their promises, yes you're entitled to consider it to be important, and to ask for a refund now and I fully agree and sympathize for those who won't be able to play ED. But no, it wasn't a key feature for FDEV, nor a pillar of FDEV vision.
