Yes it does, just for persistent interactions in the main - press ctrl-b and watch the counters when certain things happen or you perform certain actions with no other players around.
Realizing the Elite Dangerous is an MMO (whether you like it or not)
- Thread starter olesk
- Start date
Yes it does, just for persistent interactions in the main - press ctrl-b and watch the counters when certain things happen or you perform certain actions with no other players around.
nop and again nop
In other words: "stop posting on the forums and trying to improve things by pointing out flaws or making suggestions"
different characters locked to the game mode they are created for is how game modes should be. Pretending like there is no benefit for a player to switch at will between the modes is delusional on the part of FD. You can retain the same intended behavior of the different modes by having an Open character and two non-open characters for the two non-open game modes (though the two characters there can be used in either mode since group mode can decide which character they let in a group). Absolutely no interaction between characters of open and non-open modes despite interacting with the same background simulation. This would allow much more honest open game play.
As far as suggesting how to improve the game by providing examples in other games. The reason why such examples face negative feedback is because it works under the assumption usually that the game being used as an example is thought of as a good game. Not an assumption that can be made. Instead your suggestion ought to be able to stand on it's own, without having to mention a game that it is in at all. If it omits the game, and still gets kicked in the face by everyone, then maybe it's a bad suggestion or you can't explain it well. The minute you resort to "Well, so and so game does it this way" you lose. Nobody cares what so and so game does and why it works there, we want to know why you think xyz will work here.
As far as suggesting how to improve the game by providing examples in other games. The reason why such examples face negative feedback is because it works under the assumption usually that the game being used as an example is thought of as a good game. Not an assumption that can be made. Instead your suggestion ought to be able to stand on it's own, without having to mention a game that it is in at all. If it omits the game, and still gets kicked in the face by everyone, then maybe it's a bad suggestion or you can't explain it well. The minute you resort to "Well, so and so game does it this way" you lose. Nobody cares what so and so game does and why it works there, we want to know why you think xyz will work here.
Yes it actually is. MMOs are never P2P. You can argue until you're blue in the face but this game is not an MMO. At most it's some kind of hybrid. But it just doesn't qualify as a proper MMO by industry standards. Period.
define the proper mmo...without going to standard type of them
A game capable of handling large groups of players in the same area in a persistent world that uses dedicated servers (a persistent world without dedicated servers doesn't work), and is multiplayer only (no single player option).
then is good that they have many instances on the same world that can hadle 32 ppl..not to mention the friend/groups ....so is a mmo is hes way just different from the others we knew so far
Let's differentiate, the core argument is not the networking tech. It's the simulation computing on the clients. The communication tech is just symptom & sugar on top.
Simulation by clients has some inherent consequences, the end-user net links limiting the instance's participant numbers below "massive" is just the start.
LOL dude your... trying not to get banned.. My game play is relative to my free time and desire to play this or any game I choose. There is no right or wrong way to play a sand box, if people run out of content to play that's the developers fault. Clearly people will pay for more content of a game that they enjoy, it's just coming too slow. If they want to be successful they need to keep us spending money for new content, unfortunately they can't get the core game finished to sell anymore content.. The only thing that's dictating is cold hard cash and FD is gonna go hungry at the pace their developing..
With respect, your definition is baloney and self serving. What you've done is applied implementations you've seen elsewhere and said "this is what a MMO is" and then using your own opinion as fact.
To a point, we actually agree. There is nothing than can be accomplished by a client/server model that can't be done via peer to peer. The only difficulty is in how the required persistence is passed back to the game world at large plus (as you say) the practical limitation of instance sizes. ED doesn't handle it as well as I'd like - but there is scope to improve it within the existing model.
.
Having a large instance population isn't necessarily a good thing by the way.
.
Phrasing the same discussion a different way; why do you think FD made that particular design decision?
It seems I'm doomed to try to hijack my own thread away from the "yes it is!"/"no it isn't" derailing
Come on guys - can't you see that you will not be able to change each other's minds and let it be? You are using non-overlapping arguments, and there will be no agreement and no winners!
So, back on topic again:
This a very good idea I think. I assume the reason why there is so little difference is the amount of work required to get this done. However, I think it would've helped tremendously. Right now, it's impossible to tell stations apart from the inside. Anarchy stations that look worn down and chaotic would be fantastic.
I hope so. To me the first small step would simply be to have missions where you're supposed to take on a group. This would make creating missions for Pythons and Anacondas easy. The "take out pirate group" type of mission with an Anaconda guarded by three Cobras for example. That should be easy to implement and make it easy to adjust the difficulty to also include the bigger ships.
Turns out the Anaconda is actually a pretty nice explorer - solid jump range, and with a fuel scoop the normally prohibitive price of fuel becomes less of a problem.
Come on guys - can't you see that you will not be able to change each other's minds and let it be? You are using non-overlapping arguments, and there will be no agreement and no winners!
So, back on topic again:
This a very good idea I think. I assume the reason why there is so little difference is the amount of work required to get this done. However, I think it would've helped tremendously. Right now, it's impossible to tell stations apart from the inside. Anarchy stations that look worn down and chaotic would be fantastic.
I hope so. To me the first small step would simply be to have missions where you're supposed to take on a group. This would make creating missions for Pythons and Anacondas easy. The "take out pirate group" type of mission with an Anaconda guarded by three Cobras for example. That should be easy to implement and make it easy to adjust the difficulty to also include the bigger ships.
Funny you should mention that - I'm currently adding fuel scoop and scanner to Barbarella (my Anaconda) in preparation for doing exactly that
Turns out the Anaconda is actually a pretty nice explorer - solid jump range, and with a fuel scoop the normally prohibitive price of fuel becomes less of a problem.