Worth doing? No. Why? Would rather money was spent on expanding the game, adding features like atmospheric worlds/gas giants/spacelegs than adding redundant networking architecture.
"the changes needed too the code could be very minimal, be we don't know, so all guesswork here": Yet in spite of admitting this is all based on guesswork your assumption is the cost would be minimal... How is that conclusion valid?
Worth doing? No. Why? Would rather money was spent on expanding the game, adding features like atmospheric worlds/gas giants/spacelegs than adding redundant networking architecture.
"the changes needed too the code could be very minimal, be we don't know, so all guesswork here": Yet in spite of admitting this is all based on guesswork your assumption is the cost would be minimal... How is that conclusion valid?
have i assumed the cost would be minimal? maybe the work could be, on the server changes (a guess). Sorry if i have said that. May have said we don't know who much it will cost, referring to the ends users charge. like so
''and even though someone already trying to poo-poo the idea on cost ''tenner a month'', we do'nt even know if it may be a reasonable venture, could be 5 or 3, and with sub gifting well everyone can get in''
-I understand that it could cause issues with others platforms and how that would work… I dint care trial it on PC, Consoles don’t need everything, just like the PC don’t get free multi accounts. We already forking out more.
-I understand it would be a huge investment of time and resources for Fdev, but would it be worth it? Would it make Elite shine?
-And the risks of a trail are – If it not used, then fDev have lost time and resources, that’s cash! and now they have dead code they gotta rip out. I know it not just an easy thing to do.
-also, I understand this would put none-open modes at a disadvantage with connectivity but hay Open is about connecting with others players, more than solo and PG. So not really a good reason to disadvantage open players (if there is a need for such a service)
defiantly! no removal of peer 2 peer.
---
the server mode/subscription:
It would kinda be like, one of your friend had a super computer and a super connection, and large groups (50+) could all instants on that one computer without doping out of wings and such... and also connect to people around the world (as there are issues with US and EU instancing, and i guess other places)
But instead of this being your friends computer, and hoping you all get onto it, and hoping they remain the host, so it doesn't fall apart... It would be a server, for people that payed for it, via subscription.
(i guess there would also be channel selecting, as you would wanna limit the instance to some reasonable number... so if your friend was in channel 1 and you where in channel 3, just hop over and all good)
Like what we have now, just the instance holder/host, isn't a random player, its an emulated player(as the host) on a server.
I think it's reasonable to expect dev time priorities to be spent on developing things I already paid for, if given the opportunity. They didn't seem to have a problem taking my money in the first place after all.
I think it's reasonable to expect dev time priorities to be spent on developing things I already paid for, if given the opportunity. They didn't seem to have a problem taking my money in the first place after all.
Right now transaction server gives the most trouble. What makes you think going subscribtion based would stop them just renting other low tier amazon servers with buggy netcode on?
I have not ever, nor will I ever, at any point in time supported, endorsed or engaged in any Pay-to-Play model for any game. I cannot and will not ever support this model, and encourage the rest of the gaming world to join in opposing this model until the creators and publishers abandon it permanently.
Now, since Elite is already written, published, and enjoyed by its player base, changing the very network model the game uses is massive WOMBAT (Waste Of Money, Brains And Time). It is built around a P2P model, with minimal server interaction. It's about 3.3 versions of the game too late to change this.
A vast majority of players also oppose this notion, and a huge portion of the player base would abandon the game if it were switched, leading to its ultimate failure, likely within 30 days. Add to that the social media backlash that would be created, and this would cast a terribly grim shadow on any future projects, and may ultimately doom Frontier.
The only way this would even remotely float would be if it were to go live at the same time as:
Atmospherics that have solid game loops.
Epic space encounters such as real-time wars that ebb and flow.
The removal of instancing in most cases.
Footage and Dev map of what's coming, progress, etc.
Not anything less than all of the above, in my opinion.
Yes, to FDev someday changing the infrastructure from p2p to their own cluster server farm based version (in the background, our assets should be seamlessly transferred) whenever it becomes feasibly tech-cost-effective for them to do so, however many years or decades later in the future.
I've always preferred subscription modelled games because they always tend to be of a higher quality, and you know where the money for the game is coming from. You know exactly what you're spending your money on. An subscription for EVE Online is $15 a month, that's 50c a day. It's cheap for what is, essentially, a 'do whatever you want' game. I can never find that level of quality and dev attention to detail and the player base in free-to-play or hybrid games, and I'm sick to death of microtransactions being a replacement for quality game development.
That being said, the decision for Elite was made a long time ago, and it's not something that can just be changed, or even shoe-horned in, without huge development time being diverted away from just focusing on updating the game as it is. It's a 'no' for me.
That's a matter of context though. Sure, it's good value for someone who plays every day. But its not so good for someone who plays, perhaps, once a month.
Me, I'm a tight wad, even though I have more money than I could care to spend. I wouldn't ever pay a subscription for a game. Its just not value for money in my eyes. Even out shopping and I see something I like. I could buy it and not feel the dent, but if I don't see it as value for money I won't buy it. I'll just do without. Same goes for video games.
Yea, I would, so long as the cost were kept low, say a fiver a month (basically a Starbucks coffee), with proper PVe / PVP servers - just for adding in the Massively part of MMO, and kept the P2P tech in for those not interested.
...
Dual Universe looked super-promising, even though it has the same kind of dishonest marketing hype smothered across all of it that you get with Frontier. Right up my street - build and design and program your own ships, interstellar economies, etc. Then I found out it was going to be a subscription model with a bit of P2W sprinkled on top and I immediately unsubbed from all of their hype channels.
...
Worth doing? No. Why? Would rather money was spent on expanding the game, adding features like atmospheric worlds/gas giants/spacelegs than adding redundant networking architecture.
...
I'm guessing network engineers are different to programmers are different to artists are different to sound engineers are different to middle and upper management etc etc etc.
Plus they could email a short questionnaire to every player in their database asking if the choice was there would they take it and how much would they pay.
-I know Fdev chose Cosmetics over Subscription
-I understand this causes an issue with Life time passes
-I know not everyone has cash
-I know it’s less scalable than P2P
-know this has been discussed over and over.
-Don’t just post ‘No’ in this thread, it’s not smart, it’s not cleaver, its spam.
P2P, it’s a shambles most of the time, wings fall apart, Streamers can get in the same instance without a lot of work. Gankers find it hard to get customers, if they are playing outside their geographical zone.
(once I was winged up with people in the US, and in I’m the UK, best I got to see was a marker of where their ship was, in normal space, saw it flying around, but no ship, not same instance)
It impacts all game play and makes Elite feel like it’s held together with sticky tape, in regards to multi play.
I know how clever the P2P system is, the deves have show us… Nice work chaps and chappets, it really is an inspired bit of coding (not being sarcastic) but its hardly doing the job in a lot of cases. It works for casually bumping into people… works great as a solo player in Open, who likes the random encounters (that’s me) But not so great for groups of friends from around the world, or any sort of large scale event.
Not goanna have a 25 v 25 player battle, even if you could get that many in one instance, it’s not gonna hole together… yet the trailers for elite make it look so much fun (misleading eh?)
Wait, before you post
- I’m not saying force a subscription service
- I’m not saying remove the P2P system
- I am hinting at a server based mode (open) for subscriber. Allowing for more stable , predictable instancing, as an option.
What I would hope could happen (even though it would be a big risk, just to test, and a waste of resources if it fails) is a subscription mode that runs on a real server (not a reel-to-reel server). See if people will play for it.
Sure, we may have the problem of complaints over it being open and such, and griefer , but we have all that already . Would be nice if we could also have populated areas, with people from all-around the world.
For example; I was at the CG, must have been 8 commanders in my instance, maybe another 5 in a US bases instance, and who knows in other instances. That could have been an epic experience… but nah, we are all over the place, connection droppings out and … hmph.. it’s sub-par for an online experience.
And just a bit more before you post
-I understand that it could cause issues with others platforms and how that would work… I dint care trial it on PC, Consoles don’t need everything, just like the PC don’t get free multi accounts. We already forking out more.
-I understand it would be a huge investment of time and resources for Fdev, but would it be worth it? Would it make Elite shine?
-And the risks of a trail are – If it not used, then fDev have lost time and resources, that’s cash! and now they have dead code they gotta rip out. I know it not just an easy thing to do.
-also, I understand this would put none-open modes at a disadvantage with connectivity but hay Open is about connecting with others players, more than solo and PG. So not really a good reason to disadvantage open players (if there is a need for such a service)
Frontier have sold millions of units of ED, JW and Planet Coaster not to mention cosmetics and dlc for all three franchises.
If they cant use the profits from them to invest in proper networking then I don't feel in any way compelled or interested in giving them a monthly sub to do it.
Right now transaction server gives the most trouble. What makes you think going subscribtion based would stop them just renting other low tier amazon servers with buggy netcode on?
I have not ever, nor will I ever, at any point in time supported, endorsed or engaged in any Pay-to-Play model for any game. I cannot and will not ever support this model, and encourage the rest of the gaming world to join in opposing this model until the creators and publishers abandon it permanently.
- I’m not saying force a subscription service
- I’m not saying remove the P2P system
- I am hinting at a server based mode (open) for subscriber. Allowing for more stable , predictable instancing, as an option.
defiantly! no removal of peer 2 peer.
---
the server mode/subscription:
It would kinda be like, one of your friend had a super computer and a super connection, and large groups (50+) could all instants on that one computer without doping out of wings and such... and also connect to people around the world (as there are issues with US and EU instancing, and i guess other places)
But instead of this being your friends computer, and hoping you all get onto it, and hoping they remain the host, so it doesn't fall apart... It would be a server, for people that payed for it, via subscription.
(i guess there would also be channel selecting, as you would wanna limit the instance to some reasonable number... so if your friend was in channel 1 and you where in channel 3, just hop over and all good)
Like what we have now, just the instance holder/host, isn't a random player, its an emulated player(as the host) on a server.
...
Now, since Elite is already written, published, and enjoyed by its player base, changing the very network model the game uses is massive WOMBAT (Waste Of Money, Brains And Time). It is built around a P2P model, with minimal server interaction. It's about 3.3 versions of the game too late to change this.
...
Fair point, but as i have said. we don't realyl know what involved in carrying out what i have suggested... as i understand it it could (''could'', just a guess, like yours) be less effort than some people think. So we had already made some progress on this point so again, this :-
A vast majority of players also oppose this notion, and a huge portion of the player base would abandon the game if it were switched, leading to its ultimate failure, likely within 30 days. Add to that the social media backlash that would be created, and this would cast a terribly grim shadow on any future projects, and may ultimately doom Frontier.
you know. I don't think people are reading what has been said, and just reacting. You saying a huge number of players would leave the game if the was a payed for, optional open mode that provided a more stable multi play connection, the only catch is... its not free... cus, someone has to pay for it?
------
An nor would you have to my comrade. As this would change nothing as we have it now, apart from the optional service of.. well its explained above, and the post prior to this one Is more about offering a better source connection to players willing to pay for it. Like having a computer right next to the BGS and Stella forge server, running the game, and players enter that instance and not one generated by a random player (as is P2P). I'm sure i when over this... maybe its me
----
Yes, to FDev someday changing the infrastructure from p2p to their own cluster server farm based version (in the background, our assets should be seamlessly transferred) whenever it becomes feasibly tech-cost-effective for them to do so, however many years or decades later in the future.
- I’m not saying force a subscription service
- I’m not saying remove the P2P system
- I am hinting at a server based mode (open) for subscriber. Allowing for more stable , predictable instancing, as an option.
- I’m not saying force a subscription service
- I’m not saying remove the P2P system
- I am hinting at a server based mode (open) for subscriber. Allowing for more stable , predictable instancing, as an option.
As far as i've got so far... cus i when for a nap and all this happens /\
**
A suggestion has been invented and pasted over what i'm saying, and some here are no longer addressing what i said, but what they think the topic is about. I don't know if its because people arnt reading, that includes the opening and how the thread evolved - you know, where i have addresses some of the issues that have come up and i have addressed again, with the original quotes.
If you think i'm wrong, please.. post what you think am proposing, as i don't think some of you know... and that means we are not able to discuss the topic
I would pay money if it meant people actually working on the game and fixing bugs and stuff. But it's never going to happen because the playerbase is older and old people are stingy.
trial it on PC, Consoles don’t need everything, just like the PC don’t get free multi accounts. We already forking out more.
![[VR] M4st0d0n](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/182/182772.jpg?1569064854){kind=avatar}
