Alright. So because YOU met 12 players, I should think that this game has a good multiplayer component?
So tomorrow we should get these then..
- Thread starter nosscar
- Start date
Alright. So because YOU met 12 players, I should think that this game has a good multiplayer component?
Yes, because essentially every action in a game is magically pressing a button, and this IS how it works in literally every other MP game. (notice I didn't say MMO)
Please, do not imply that you can earn bounty rewards together or that these can be assigned to a group, because you can't, and they can't.
Indeed. I would have paid for half the game Elite is.
And today i finally managed to meet one of the guys from my friends list in the game.
Guess what? We were not placed in the same instance. Soon after we lost the chat connectivity.
So i couldn't see him and soon I couldn't chat with him.
You call that multiplayer game?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
And that makes it bad argument because of?
Guess what? We were not placed in the same instance. Soon after we lost the chat connectivity.
So i couldn't see him and soon I couldn't chat with him.
You call that multiplayer game?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
And that makes it bad argument because of?
Last edited:
nats
Banned
I would have paid for half the game Elite Dangerous is, just maybe not as much as I have paid already, which must be approaching £80 all told. Probably the most Ive ever spent on a game. It had better be worth it.
Last edited:
This is almost a cop-out to the statement by the OP, and everyone else begging for true multiplayer. I'll say this for the 1000th time: it's not MP, it's a Solo, ONLINE game.
There are no aspects of grouping, benefits (in terms of credits, rep, etc.) for being part of a group, and no in-game systems to support actual group play, team play, etc.
THAT is what people mean when they say "poor" multiplayer: the complete lack of anything to SUPPORT MP other than the fact that you're all online together. That is not how multiplayer works.
You only need to look as far as a simple mobile game with multiplayer support to understand. Or better yet, a game of cards: 10 people playing Solitaire together IS NOT a multiplayer game, even if they're in the same room. It's 10 people playing a SOLO game, together, but separate. 10 people playing the same Poker game is a multiplayer game because they are participating and able to directly influence each other's game. And before you make the argument that in ED you can influence another player's game: you can't assist them in a way that results in credits, you can't join a recognized team (literally hold the same moniker) and you can't take group missions.
This is a simple concept and at this point I'm honestly holding the belief that those defending otherwise are either saying so on part of FD themselves or simply haven't played an actual online MP game before.
Last edited:
+1A lot of people are already disappointed because they think that they can not do those things.
It looks like some people expect to press a button and then magically spawn together in a mission arena
It simply requires communication with friends.
CO-OP Bounty hunting and conflict zone combat has been available for quite some time.
(Speaking of which - Nosscar, you missed the day where Kal-Nor, Driz Beransen and I went CO-OP bounty hunting back in Beta 3.04)
I have been grouping with three others on a regular basis.
The game is perfectly playable online with others; some people need to temper their expectations with a dose of reality. This game does not have monthly subs or micro transactions covering server costs, and folks will just have to deal with it. If they cannot accept it, they are never get what they want from ED; further, fwiw, star citizen will be using a near identical system to deliver its multiplayer content when it finally launches.
ED delivers what it set out to, but some people are only happy when exclaiming to all in sundry that the sky is falling. Is it perfect, no, no game ever is at launch, is it playable and enjoyable, hell yes, and once the event system is enabled tomorrow as has been the plan along it is only set to get better.
Last edited:
Guild Wars did not have monthly subscriptions and yet provided flawless multiplayer component.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
No, not just because of that, I was being mildly flippant. There are plenty of examples on youtube of people having great multiplayer experiences.
Sarcasm is so hard to detect in writing
but just in case, how about a purple one...
Fair enough. I'm playing a solo game with persistent multiplayer myself, because it's what I bought in. Never had the impression Elite was being made with groups, squadrons or corps in mind, and wouldn't ask for that the same I wouldn't ask the Payday devs for an open sandbox game. But yes, I guess you could call Elite's multiplayer "poor" the same way you could call the Space Shuttle a poor plane.
Seriously guys, FD is not consisted of volunteers. They are creating a game with the money collected from the players. What's wrong with asking for the features that were promised?
It's great if you are happy with the game as it is. But is it that hard to understand that some other people bought the game for some other aspects and those aspects are lacking? They must be happy with the game because you are?
It's great if you are happy with the game as it is. But is it that hard to understand that some other people bought the game for some other aspects and those aspects are lacking? They must be happy with the game because you are?
I was referring to hand holding mechanics like giant exclamation marks that point out everything to you in super easy mode at the click of a button.
It is really simplistic to say to your buddy once the target is on low health: "Target is all yours".
TL;DR - Basic communication skills is all you need.
Last edited:
I agree with some of your points but this arguement I see scattered everywhere 'Is it perfect, no, no game ever is at launch', really puzzles me to why people would even accept this? Have the corporations over the past decade actually brainwashed people to believe this is an acceptable standard?
It's the equivalent of ordering a new car, having it arrive only to discover your windows are missing, with customer service saying 'Don't worry sir! We will have them with you in a few month!', you would be absolutely outraged. It baffles me that in this modern day game industries can get away with this. I love this game, but am sourly disapointed in some features of this game that have been half polished or not placed in game yet. I personally believe this game should have held strong in beta for a few more months, but the xmas rush and 2014 release promise seen to that not happening.
Merr, either way I will still play it and love it (damn you FD *shakes fist*).
That's great! I guess they will not complain about it then?
I had a pretty bad experience with MP components so far. I find it lacking. My opinion is that multiplayer is badly implemented. Now what?
I just have to laugh at people who buy a game in the design stage, and it doesn't live up to their expectations. Talk about a hype train before release? Kickstarting games is the new E3. Frontier have done more than a lot of Game Studios (can you call it a game studio if you don't get the game at the end?) do. They delivered a game - much more playable than DayZ, and many other games that have gone through similar funding models. At the beginning of Tes V Skyrim, the original focus was going to be the now nerfed Civil War questline. There's a reason we aren't told these design changes mid game - because people will be disappointed. You bought in on the ground floor of a project, and the project went in the direction they felt best - balancing the thousands of voices, contrasting opinions and yes, whining, of fans of the Elite games.
They have done their very best, and you can see that in the quality of the graphics, the gameplay, the scope and the underlying mechanics of a game - and have managed their funding to an extent that not only are they set up to continue to support the game, they're becoming a public company. ED is a massive success story in a world where all too often players are promised the world, and get the back end of nowhere. ED promised us the galaxy, in all it's unimaginable scale. They delivered. If you travel 1000LY away from the starting area in a beta probably encompassing even 10,000 players at any given time, you're unlikely to see a soul. This is the game you bought into. I hope Frontier delivers on their promises - I'd love to see multiplayer improved (especially being able to transfer credits, and a fairer bounty system - the person who does the most damage gets the kill), but frankly, they've given us the moon. And jupiter's moons. And Mars'. And...
They have done their very best, and you can see that in the quality of the graphics, the gameplay, the scope and the underlying mechanics of a game - and have managed their funding to an extent that not only are they set up to continue to support the game, they're becoming a public company. ED is a massive success story in a world where all too often players are promised the world, and get the back end of nowhere. ED promised us the galaxy, in all it's unimaginable scale. They delivered. If you travel 1000LY away from the starting area in a beta probably encompassing even 10,000 players at any given time, you're unlikely to see a soul. This is the game you bought into. I hope Frontier delivers on their promises - I'd love to see multiplayer improved (especially being able to transfer credits, and a fairer bounty system - the person who does the most damage gets the kill), but frankly, they've given us the moon. And jupiter's moons. And Mars'. And...
Really? Guild wars offered instanced adventure zones limited to 4 players, and pvp arenas twice that ,in Ed adventure zones allow 32 players simultaneously. It was only in a couple of towns and cities that players could interact with more and even they were instanced.
I've played several MMORPG's before. (All PVE). As far as I'm concerned Solo in E
is fine...But at least i was guaranteed that when my friend joins, he will join the same instance as me. I think that's a pretty basic requirement which ED does not meet. Tested today and that didn't work.
If 4 players is the scope of the game you want, you really bought into the wrong project mate. Also - to expect a beta to work perfectly everytime on an individual basis? Bit silly too.
I already got that a couple of months ago...