NO .. but I would like to pay again 100 € if they make an Real LAN/Offline Mode where we get back Newtoinian Flight and Time Accelerating, with out this Intances Loading after FSD....
Subscription model for better multiplayer experience... Would you pay for it ?
- Thread starter Jim Panse
- Start date
Switching to a client-server only architecture isn't a magic wand. The network code would go back to version zero and Frontier would be forced to effectively start again. We would still have problems.
I think they have made reasonable progress with the hybrid architecture they originally planned. Other games use P2P, it isn't immediately an indication that it isn't going to work - just a technology that people don't trust over traditional server-centric design because they imagine big servers somewhere dealing with every ships position in the game, yet even in that situation you still have slow connections to individual clients.
We didn't even get a network version of the Alpha until February/March this year. If you didn't experience that you have no idea how far we have come.
I think they have made reasonable progress with the hybrid architecture they originally planned. Other games use P2P, it isn't immediately an indication that it isn't going to work - just a technology that people don't trust over traditional server-centric design because they imagine big servers somewhere dealing with every ships position in the game, yet even in that situation you still have slow connections to individual clients.
We didn't even get a network version of the Alpha until February/March this year. If you didn't experience that you have no idea how far we have come.
Mad Mike, you are right - COD uses P2P and he netcode was utter was crap 3 out of 4 titles.
Battlefield had notoriously bad netcode ever since 1942, that is because their servers are it headless versions of the game.
Supreme Commander had excellent netcode (albeit with hard coded 500 ms lag, it is an RTS) with P2P.
Look for games like Unreal Tournament, Descent, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress or Quake for good netcode. In particular, Descent 3 should come close to Elite, velocity and player count wise.
Battlefield had notoriously bad netcode ever since 1942, that is because their servers are it headless versions of the game.
Supreme Commander had excellent netcode (albeit with hard coded 500 ms lag, it is an RTS) with P2P.
Look for games like Unreal Tournament, Descent, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress or Quake for good netcode. In particular, Descent 3 should come close to Elite, velocity and player count wise.
Last edited:
I refuse to believe this. Are you saying that every single console game that has P2P and more than 4 players has cheaters, lag and highly dissatisfied players? Your entire statement screams hyperbole.
Every single one that has a large layer base at least. But the argument is indeed weak because console players are a special breed of players anyway. Actually...All competitive players are. Guess I am just bitter for being called a hacker/cheater so often despite having a truly spotless rap sheet in that regard, and very high integrity standards.
Totally support paying if it meant a better multiplayer experience, i.e. along the lines of WOW and ESO. Not the same as them ofc but the complete lack of hassle in comparison to what I am worried this might turn out to be would imho be well worth the extra cash.
Also it gives the developer a very good reason to keep everyone happy now and in the future.
People who have never payed for an mmorpg before and are against paying for play on a regular basis in principal should think about the benifits.
Total conjecture ofc as FD might sort it properly but I am a firm believer there is no such thing as a free lunch and you get what you pay for
Also it gives the developer a very good reason to keep everyone happy now and in the future.
People who have never payed for an mmorpg before and are against paying for play on a regular basis in principal should think about the benifits.
Total conjecture ofc as FD might sort it properly but I am a firm believer there is no such thing as a free lunch and you get what you pay for
Absolutely NO. That would be a bait and switch.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
"A better multiplayer experience" in what sense? No lag / rubberbanding or more WoW-like / ESO-like with guilds / loot / raids / etc?
Turned around, this infers that the playerbase would have a means to try to exert control over Frontier's game (e.g. by threatening to stop paying subs if feature X is not implemented).
.... at the same time as the pitfalls.
Personally, I would happily pay a monthly subscription, I realise many wouldn't and maybe that is why making said subscription optional would be the best solution. I do realise however that this could open the 'what do/should subscribers get that non subscribers don't?' can of worms so I am a little wary.
Two points,
1. ED is not and has never been marketed as an MMO/MMORPG so can people stop using the term, it is a single player game with a multi-player option. Why single player?
Because there is NO team play model built into the game it is all down to what you do and achieve, there will be the ability to interact a bit more with other players but it will never be a team based game.
2. Right from the off on Kick-starter it was said that the multi-player side of things would be P2P, so there is no reason for all of these people to say they are disappointed with it and that they know better. If they do know so much then they should not have join in with a project that uses a system that they are so against.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
who is expecting a free lunch? my "lunch" as you call it was £110!, which is a lot more than any other gaming meal I have played, inc ones with large MP components!.
And before you say that I paid for the privilege of the premium beta... No i didnt, I would never PAY to get into a beta. I paid that because I wanted to support the project to be as good as it can be, and that amount was the max I was happy to pay.... The beta was just a nice addition
Last edited:
who is expecting a free lunch? my "lunch" as you call it was £110!, which is a lot more than any other gaming meal I have played, inc ones with large MP components!.
And before you say that I paid for the privilege of the premium beta... No i didnt, I would never PAY to get into a beta. I paid that because I wanted to support the project to be as good as it can be, and that amount was the max I was happy to pay.... The beta was just a nice addition
Excellent reply. Sums up the reason I joined PB perfectly. I loved the idea of ED since the Kickstarter project came into being. I didn't have the money to pledge for the tier I wanted at Alpha but, when I did, PB was just around the corner. I had enough saved to pledge £100 (inc. expansion pass ... woohoo) AND enough to build my own PC and get myself a HOTAS. As Mad Mike says, I pledged money to support ED and the PB was a nice addition.
I would pay double the price if this was going for a "proper" sandbox mmo setup.
And by proper i mean:
1. Select a server to play in
2. Create a character
3. Persistent, non-instanced world
4. Base building, housing
5. Grouping with friends made easy, sharing quests, trading credits, trading items... you know all that good stuff.
6, Make a real impact in the game economy
7. Crafting
8. Auction house?
9. Open pvp (maybe faction wars, GvG, whatever really)
etc etc
Also i would love to see every single player on my screen and not get matchmaked (<-is this even a word?) every time i jump to a new system.
I know this creates problems though. High populated areas and especially the starting ones will be pretty much inaccessible due to the high load of players. Imagine having to wait 30 mins to dock to a station...
Anyway i expect to get alot of hate for this post since most people on this thread apparently bought this game for pve group/solo play.
I on the other hand come from a rich mmo background, i am used to paying monthly for services and see nothing wrong with it.
Peace
And by proper i mean:
1. Select a server to play in
2. Create a character
3. Persistent, non-instanced world
4. Base building, housing
5. Grouping with friends made easy, sharing quests, trading credits, trading items... you know all that good stuff.
6, Make a real impact in the game economy
7. Crafting
8. Auction house?
9. Open pvp (maybe faction wars, GvG, whatever really)
etc etc
Also i would love to see every single player on my screen and not get matchmaked (<-is this even a word?) every time i jump to a new system.
I know this creates problems though. High populated areas and especially the starting ones will be pretty much inaccessible due to the high load of players. Imagine having to wait 30 mins to dock to a station...
Anyway i expect to get alot of hate for this post since most people on this thread apparently bought this game for pve group/solo play.
I on the other hand come from a rich mmo background, i am used to paying monthly for services and see nothing wrong with it.
Peace
Sorry, I obviously didn't make myself very clear. Call me a cynic but I stand by my last sentence.
As to we have some sort of strangle hold over the devs about what goes in to the game,, and, your point ?
The pitfalls,, you mean like totally reliable multiplayer, fantastic in game comms, real power inasmuch I don't like I stop playing and go somewhere else.
I hate to say this but there is a very large ask being made here for basically not a lot of cash from the VAST MAJORITY of players.
Everyone wants it to play silky smooth as a multiplayer experience like Eve or WOW but many are not willing to pay for it...............
Well imho that aint gonna happen.
Biggest reason. Do you think the people who are creating this wonderful experience are doing it for totally altruistic reasons... Or maybe if not, they should ?
Am not sure what to call that, the answers range through naive, stupid, or just plain selfish.
Am sorry for the insults but for me it is stating the obvious as it appears some are trying to conflate the issue by arguing it would somehow "taint" and invite badness into the game.
All it does is cost more in cash terms and I for one would personally prefer paying that way than in the constant hassle that will be our lot over the coming months/years.
And it will..
Last edited:
