How? If the PC client must be uplifted to Odyssey, that precludes consoles from continuing to function or leaves the underlying product(s) a complete bunfight to maintain.
Request for a "Player Council", Resurrected DDF, Streamer Representation to Dev track, Focused Feedback or Similar Directed Community Engagement
- Thread starter Hydrino
- Start date
The only thing they can do is to slap some big PEGI16 warnings, employ a new starting screen showing the TOS to be agreed with everytime we start the game - that is for Odyssey
And for Horizons mode (be it Horizons client or Odyssey client) they should prevent people from instancing together with Odyssey players.
Either a 100% no instancing between Horizons and Odyssey, no matter what - or a no instancing below the exclusion zone of landable bodies - which would imply a hard crash to menu for already instanced people to prevent getting to surface in normal space.
So there is a chance that even after dropping the horizons client from PC, there will be very limited instancing to no instancing at all (as it is now) between Horizons and Odyssey players
And I argue that has dire ramifications for the nature of content that can be delivered to PC at that point.
That is Frontier's problem. To handle however they see fit.
Although, in all honesty, I don't see any further development of ED beyond Odyssey on any platform being likely. The game will be left to die.
You definitely couldn't pay me enough to wrangle that beast...
Why?
People playing the base game could not get below the exclusion zone during the Horizons era, isn't it?
They could implement the same restriction for Horizons / Odyssey - within the same Odyssey client and that will allow space instancing.
Horizons players could still get to landable planets, but not in the same instance with the Odyssey players.
What a wasted opportunity!
You could turn your low profile observation into a full blown DOOM post, if only you added some histrionics!
Can't be bovvered...
There are plenty of others who are succeeding in that regard better than I...
I'm just making an observation based on personal opinion, I could start another doom thread a little later, when the steam chart afficiondos, or the forum professional accountants / stockbrokers have another apoplexy about whatever, that would be fun!
I know it is unfashionable, and all that, but I'm having too much fun playing in the expansion to be bothered much with plasying the forum game. I'm jumping a FC from the bubble back to Colonia, so have a little time free today
Sure... it's all "doable". But the implications of having content that relies on an
I hope nobody expects to see future space content come to the bubble or anywhere else horizons-accessible. And that's a pretty bleak consideration.
Well, they have to build an incentive to motivate people to buy Odyssey.
But they said that no new content will be added to Horizons code-base, so no expectations in that regard
... not sure what that has to do with what I said.
If new space-based content is delineated by the system it takes place in (which is where this line of conversation started; putting new DLC content into permit-locked areas), how could new space-based content ever come to areas otherwise accessible to both games? Only two ways I see are:
- It can't; or
- A substantial massive overhead to maintain two distinct and functional "versions" of the same system and relevant procedural mechanics, on an already-fragile product.
Neither of these are a good outcome for anyone.
It's not like they dont have the experience with the base game and Horizons.
And even if the drop the Horizons client from PC and force us to use Odyssey client for Horizons only stuff, they still need to maintain the Horizons client for consoles.
People will expect whatever they wish, it will be their disappointment (as might be seen with the outrage on the forum by some when features they 'imagined' to be coming with EDO didn't appear as if by magic!) if those expectations are not met.
If he tried he'd only be a pretender.
Far more entertaining histrionics can be had from those who have a long pedigree of such behaviour.
Expecting a fully functional game is too much i guess. Even update 11 regressed more bugs.
It functions, it must do as since launch I've used the expansion.
I do have pretty reasonable hardware to run it on, being a PC gamer rather than just an ED player. (as I have read here often that some of the members only play ED!)
Yes, it is still buggy, but then, so is the base game, with long-standing bugs never squashed, as well as new ones introduced recently.
Never mind, I'm sure the conversation will remain as productive as it is now, so I'll opt to leave it. Thanks.
That would definitely be concerning, if that's what the future held. Personally I'm skeptical about that.
My guess is, we eventually wind up with PC users running the Odyssey engine (with EDH-only owners gated out of EDO planets, prevented from disembarking on foot, etc, much as base game owners were running the same code base but content gated from EDH stuff) and consoles running the older EDH engine. Since a lot of content is server-side remixes of existing assets and mechanics, not much will change at first. A revealing moment will be the first time FDev decide to add a new asset accessible to EDH ships, like a new megaship or something. Either they decide that pushing that new asset to the console players counts as a "critical update", or they don't and we get to see how they gate that. Seeing as pretty much everything happens in normal space inside instances, it might be as simple as new signal types that just don't show up for console players. Which would be sad for them, but I think not catastrophic for the game overall.
All user input is useless when it isn't factored into the design. Then again, who'd want to let their work be dictated by amateurs? In the end the devs have to do the work. If it doesn't please you it just isn't the game that you envision. My own painful lesson from the release of engineers was that all they care about is soulless grind gameplay for peowercreep.
I'll have to find the FSS thread. Thanks for the heads up.
i dont think it's just a matter of a conflict in vision. I think fdev doesn't have a cohesive vision for the game...where each decision or choice in new features is building towards that vision to create a game that that person(s) would enjoy playing.
Perhaps instead of a set group of players, fdev could do something like implementing a weekly survey that is randomly sent out to a fraction of the players who have been active in the past 2 months. These surveys would ask targeted questions about current and future game design items that are coming up in a vague but still valuable way.
This would allow fdev to at least get an idea on what they're doing right or wrong before they get beyond the point of no return.
questions like :
1. exploration needs dangers but only in certain scenarios like around certain kinds of planets or stars (pick 1 do not agree at all to 5 agree completely)
2. Trade should be adjusted to personalized mission opportunities and not a commodity board, allowing buy or sell orders to be made as well that are unique to players based on reputation and BGS (1-5)
3. Foot combat should reduce the importance of shields and high/no ammo weapons and focus more on targeting skill (disabling particular body parts and eventual healing of them to avoid outright murder if desired - and thus skip getting bounties) and strategic use of limited ammo. (1-5)
and fdev could track all the responders and tell if they're heavy explorers, traders, foot players or a good combination of them thru actual in-game data. Then they would have a good visual on what those kind of players want and how to design features that impact those players the most in a way that those players would like them to function.
I think if they cared about improving the game experience something along those lines seems necessary because what their current process is, is lacking and frequently out of sync with players across all spectrums.
edit: Now if only we can go back about 5 years and implement this then, when it had any chance of actually happening.
Last edited: