TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 260

Thread: Elite: Dangerous (Elite is back)

  1. #51
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    I'm sorry, but "betrayal" sounds like so much gamer sense of entitlement. Also, the game can be played single-player, it just can't be played offline - which opens a whole other can of worms, but it is a *different* can of worms. Finally, online requirement or not, I don't see a single curent game that does what Elite: Dangerous sets out to do. E.V.E. does something pretty different.

    The online requirement for a game that can be played in SP should be discussed and can be criticised, but let's criticise it for things that are actually true.

  2. #52
    Thing What Kicks
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: London
    I've been kind of nonplussed about this. Having played the beta, I can completely understand this decision. With exploration and an active economy that is influenced by all the people playing, surely being online is a massive advantage?
    And "Solo" mode means that while the universe around you will still be affected by the actions of all players, you never have to play with another person if you don't want to.

    Nothing to see here, move along please.

    Compared to a lot of other games that have used always-online as a thinly veiled DRM scheme, it genuinely improves the core gameplay of Elite Dangerous.

    I mean sure, they could probably release a version with no online connection, but next to the online one the universe would seem static and stale by comparison. In order to make it feel as dynamic, they'd probably have to code a shitload more AI governed systems, and that would just end up extending development. As it stands, they can let players be that content for them.

    And hell, it allows for a lot more emergent behaviour than most "true" MMOs out there.
    Last edited by Malf; 19th Nov 2014 at 06:47.

  3. #53
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    An emergent economy could be a very cool thing indeed.

  4. #54
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2008
    Player-driven economies are always far far more dangerously dickish, though.

    You end up with insanity like runescape's hats and shit, and in elite you just know some bunch of asshats will corner the market on furs or something (more probably, on some commodity vital for ship upgrades or whatever).


    I mean, when you consider that the original elite fit on a floppy disk, and used procedural generated...ALL THE THINGS, and still managed to be incredibly playable (Oolite is basically the exact same thing with slightly better graphics, and is also incredibly playable), I'm thinking "player driven economy and dynamic events" is not an a priori requirement for enjoyment.

    I think the quote was "Any offline experience would be fundamentally empty", to which I would reply: "That's fine. One serving of fundamentally empty, please."

    As long as I can buy textiles in Lave and then get fucking ruined by Kraits like 5 minutes later, or (more likely) smash my ship into the side of a space station AGAIN, I'd be happy.

    But no. :-/

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by DDL View Post
    Player-driven economies are always far far more dangerously dickish, though.

    You end up with insanity like runescape's hats and shit, and in elite you just know some bunch of asshats will corner the market on furs or something (more probably, on some commodity vital for ship upgrades or whatever).
    Which is more or less how real economies tend to end up.

  6. #56
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Procedural generation vs relying on player economies brings with it, it's own fun, since that can create diverse experiences on every play through, provide for far superior story related content that other players wont mess up / hamper etc.

    Imo if players want the option it is far better of a developer to provide both, and not do the Blizzard line of thinking of only providing for those who want the multiplayer experience and completely ignoring those who don't.

    You also ensure that your game will be enjoyed until the end of time and not just until the servers are switched off. Just as the original Elite is still enjoyed. If the original game had employed a similar scheme we'd not be able to play that at all nowadays.

    They should at the very least, offer refunds to those who had wanted that experience.

  7. #57
    Member
    Registered: May 2000
    Location: North of the equator.
    I personally was looking forward to this... it looked f'ing awesome & final product sounded amazing... on paper. But this was a really stupid move.

    I swear David Braben should've seen this sh*t storm coming a mile away. And the initial refund statement made it even worse (granted they doubled back on this rather quickly). I still enjoy games like Elite, Privateer, Sid Meiers Pirates (the 1987 version & the 1993 gold edition) & others that are similar right to this very day. I like knowing that I can come back to these classics anytime I want & still enjoy them like the first time I fired them up on my old 386 PC. I'm also with DDL on this & would also ask for that "One serving of fundamentally empty, please."

    The few pieces of good news to come out of this for me was that I haven't spent one red cent on this title & now I don't even have to. The offline single-player was the deal-breaker for me as that was all I was interested in. If the online requirement was like steam, in that you only needed to be online to verify the game & install, & that you could play it offline for months on end... then I'd be fine with that. At least Limit Theory still looks promising.
    Last edited by Nedan; 15th Jul 2015 at 11:41.

  8. #58
    PC Gamering Smartey Man
    I <3 consoles and gamepads

    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    I don't see it as that unreasonable to expect singleplayer content from a game series that had that in every other game released under it. If anything it's a betrayal of sorts to longtime fans since the Spectrum / Commodore 64 days.
    God forbid that game designers be ambitious and/or try to evolve existing concepts, right? From the outset this was going to a MMO, such facts were obvious from the early updates during the Kickstarter at least.

    Oh and EVE's gameplay is nothing like E:D's, there is really nothing else EVE in the marketplace.

  9. #59
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    It was also clear from the kickstarter pitch that offline singleplayer was going to be in it, which they removed after getting the money from people who were looking for that. Hence the betrayal.

    They've since offered refunds to some of the backers. And that's only for those who've never delved in the MMO side of it, which is atleast somewhat positive.

    End of the day if a game has a feature on it's box / advert and then once monies are exchanged the feature that enticed the buyer is removed (making that feature null and void), then the company should offer a refund.

  10. #60
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    I agree that they promised something that is now not going to be in the game, and while this is something that can happen, I do think they handled it less than ideally. I definitely agree with your point re: refunds.

    However, "betrayal" smacks of silly drama, of taking this personally and looking at it as a conscious choice by the devs to swindle people out of their money. I don't see any evidence of this, and I think that the tendency to personalise everything in such terms is unhelpful. Being disappointed? Sure. Deciding not to get the game? Absolutely? Framing it in terms of personal betrayal? Get a grip, IMO.

  11. #61
    PC Gamering Smartey Man
    I <3 consoles and gamepads

    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    It was also clear from the kickstarter pitch that offline singleplayer was going to be in it, which they removed after getting the money from people who were looking for that. Hence the betrayal.
    Kickstarter donations are always a gamble. In the real world, things don't always go to plan. Eg finished games could turn of sub-par quality, projects might be cancelled due to lack of funds, etc. If you're treating Kickstarter/Indiegogo/etc crowdfunding site like a glorified pre-order service then you're a bloody fool.

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    "Glorified pre-order service?" What does that even mean? That has no relation to what he's arguing.

    You put money into a project that says they're going to deliver something you want to see/play/use, with the expectation of being able to see/play/use it. It's basic business ethics that if you claim your product or service will do X, and someone gives you money for that, they are well within their rights to demand their money back if your product or service doesn't do X. Failure to deliver.

    The whole reason Kickstarter/Indiegogo projects are such a gamble is that the system offers NO safety net for backers' money. That's a failing of the system, not of the backer, and blaming the backer for putting money into a project that reneged on promises is absurd.

    I mean, yes, you should be careful where you put your money on these sites because so many projects quite obviously don't have the right people or resources to do what they want to do, and the site is certainly not going to help you get your money back if the project team decides to take it and run. That doesn't mean the backer was in the wrong for giving a project money.

  13. #63
    PC Gamering Smartey Man
    I <3 consoles and gamepads

    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Trance View Post
    "Glorified pre-order service?" What does that even mean?
    Fools treating Kickstarter like another fucking retail outlet. That list of donation rewards on campaign pages isn't a virtual retail shop window by any means. (Why do I even need to clarify this?) Your standard consumer-business relationship is completely different in the world of philanthropy.

    You should treat any crowdfunding donations as disposable money that you have may never see a return on, end of story.

  14. #64
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Second everything that Trance said, as he said it far better than I did.

    For me, if someone comes to you and says they have a product in development that will do A,B and C and it's B that enticed me, but then once they have my money they announced that B was never the focus of the project and that A & C was their main focus, then I'm entitled to a refund as the end result isn't wasn't what I paid for. And nor was it the product I wanted, in the form it resulted.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvaUnit02 View Post
    Fools treating Kickstarter like another fucking retail outlet.
    I for one don't see it like that. I see it as a place where people pitch ideas for various things (movies, documentaries, video games, events etc), when enough interest ($$$) is supplied, further stretch goals are announced (with some projects) for additional content. But what you pitch is what the public expect of you. Changes to the overal scope of the project mean that what you pitched isn't what you eventually produced, and thus it isn't what they (the public) payed for, since it is them that funded the project.

    Look at any kickstarter, or crowd funded related market and you'll see the exact same expectations from the majority of those who choose to invest their money into it.

  15. #65
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I see KS as a way for game developers to bypass the risk-averse publishers in order to take a chance on fans willing to go out on a limb. Crowd-funded projects should always be treated as if they may never work out, as that's the flip-side of taking a chance on something the big publishers aren't keen to push. You can't expect money back if it's been paying for the development to get to the stage you are at. If you can find in writing where it tells you that you are entitled to the initial design propositions, then a refund may well be due, but else it's got to be entirely down to the devs whether they want to grant refunds as a gesture of a good faith if people feel they've knowingly pitched A to get money to develop B. Otherwise, it sets a dangerous precedent which threatens to undermine the crowd-funding paradigm and put us back towards a more risk-averse system where we get fewer niche projects floated out for development.

    I've kickstarted projects which have dragged on and on and in a couple of cases, given an end product which was underwhelming, but I'm still glad I supported the projects, largely because I've learned a bit about being more careful with choosing which projects I back but also because if the big studios see X getting funded but not turning out a great product, they may seize on the opportunity to develop their own game in that style which turns out closer to what the backers were hoping for. Even at its ugliest, crowd-funding is a like a loud hailer for the economic worth of niche gaming interests, which puts them on the radar. If it looks as if Braben and co were purposefully stringing along the backers hoping for single player without the intention of ever providing such, then that's a bit different however. That's my take anyway, for whatever it's worth.

  16. #66
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    I definitely agree with you, faetal. It's a balancing act for a developer that needs to be managed by being as transparent as possible, but I think it's unrealistic and downright dangerous to what crowdfunding can be at its best to see an original list of objectives as absolute promises, because that's just not how development of anything works. Which doesn't mean that there aren't better and worse ways of handling this sort of thing, both on the side of the developer and the funders. If it hasn't already done so, Kickstarter should probably tweak its rules and guidelines to make this clearer, and to keep developers from making hard and fast promises.

  17. #67
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Here is the terms of the Kickstarter project/backer contract, copied from the source:

    When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.

    Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.

    If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:
    •they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
    •they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
    •they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
    •they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
    •they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.

    The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.
    Make of that what you will.

  18. #68
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    My guess is that "There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised." combined with the description of the reward tending to be "digital copy of the game" would rule out there being an on open route for recourse. You'd hope that if massive about-turns had occurred, the devs might volunteer some recompense though. Terms or no terms, bad publicity and loss of good faith is still worth a fair bit.

  19. #69
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Well looks like refunds to all who request them may be granted:
    Link

    So that's certainly far more positive than earlier reports.

  20. #70
    PC Gamering Smartey Man
    I <3 consoles and gamepads

    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: New Zealand

  21. #71
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Right then - best way to make money early game? I'm doing lots of courier missions and now have just shy of €20k - could start buying better weapons and go shoot stuff, could buy better engines to give me better jump range. Could keep going and just wait for enough money to buy a better ship.

    Tips?

    [EDIT] Ok, I'm hooked. Bought myself one of these, despite being playable with gamepad, because I want to feel like a pilot. I'm also strongly tempted by this, to complete my ghetto setup.
    Last edited by faetal; 29th Mar 2015 at 17:54.

  22. #72
    Thing What Kicks
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: London
    Well if you've already got a webcam, give FaceTrackNoIR a shot. A couple of guys on another forum I visit use it and say it works really well.

    I reckon you'll enjoy the game a LOT more one you've got the joystick. Just adds something that a pad simply can't. Besides which, while "Presence" is a buzzword normally associated with VR, it's still pretty damn cool when you move your view down in the cockpit and your guy has his hands on the HOTAS setup, just like you

    Regarding starter cash flow, well the Sidewinder's strongest point is that it's cheap to replace, so try taking it out to some Resource Extraction Sites. These are combat / mining areas in planetary rings heavily populated by NPCs.

    Make sure one of your utility mounts is a Kill Warrant Scanner before heading out. After a while, you'll get a feel for which NPCs are pirates and therefore valid targets. They usually com you at the same time as scanning you saying "What are you hauling?".
    Point your nose at them and your basic scanner should reveal a nice wanted sign. Scan them with the Kill Warrant Scanner at the same time, and once that scan's complete, fire away (as long as you think you can handle them).
    Scanning with the Kill Warrant Scanner can reveal additional bounties in other areas of the galaxy, so you can double or even triple the reward you get for killing them.

    Whatever you do, don't open fire on ANYONE until you see that red Wanted pop up in your hud. Doing so will just result in you getting a bounty on your head, at which point you'll have to disengage, fly to the nearest station and clear your name.

    To make sure you're killing stuff as quickly as possible in your Sidewinder, invest in the best Power Plant and Power Distributor that you can afford. For guns, I would recommend gimballed pulse lasers. The energy drain isn't massive, so they can fire longer than burst or beam lasers, and gimballed means you'll miss less, so what you lose in raw firepower compared to the mounted ones, you more than make up in hit consistency.
    I can't remember exactly, but I think the Sidewinder has two utility mounts, right?
    If so, chuck a chaff launcher on the second one. That'll confuse gimballed weapons and missiles. Even if you're just hunting other Sidewinders, higher rated ones WILL have gimballed weaponry and maybe even a missile rack. In those circumstances, the Chaff Launcher will significantly reduce the amount of damage you take.

  23. #73
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland
    I tried FaceTrackNoIR with ETS2 a while back but it didn't work very well. Still, if you've got a webcam you might as well give it a shot, faetal, seeing as it's free.

  24. #74
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Yep. I've got a nice logitech hi-res one too, which I bought after the landlord of a shared house I was in moved in an obvious drug-dealer and generally dodgy guy, so I had one of those "send photos to offline storage on motion detection every time I'm not in my room containing £10k worth of music equipment" set-ups.

    But yeah, if that works, it'll save me €50

    Malf - as it happens, I already have 2 gimbal pulse lasers - just need to save up €40k for the warrant scanner. Will do a bit more trading, get that and then use my first influx of credits to get the upgraded power bits and the chaff launcher, so I can make like discreet wheat.
    Last edited by faetal; 30th Mar 2015 at 05:01.

  25. #75
    Thing What Kicks
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: London
    Jolly good!
    By my estimates, you should be able to make between 2,000 to 9,000 credits per kill targeting Sidewinders and Eagles at Resource Extraction Sites.

    Progression wise, you get almost a 1:1 price for ships and modules when selling them back or trading them in, so I'd suggest trying as many ships as you can. They're all very unique beasts, and you can only find out if you like them by flying them.

    Sure, you can look at the stats, but that doesn't reveal things like engine sounds or hardpoint placement. While the first can be seen as purely atmospheric, the second is very important.

    For example, when flying the Cobra, you have to be aware that your two medium hardpoints are on the top of the ship and close together, while the two small ones are on the bottom and quite wide apart. This means that the mediums will have problems targeting stuff the smalls can hit and vice versa, as well as the small ones having a wider convergence point making them more difficult to keep on target. This has a noticeable affect on how you pilot a Cobra, with you adjusting to make allowances for your hardpoints.

    Conversely, being purely a fighter, the Vulture's two large hardpoints are mounted very close together on the ship and very far forward, meaning gimballed weapons have a massive degree of freedom and tracking. Combined with the ship's superior manoeuvrability, this allows you to zip around less nimble ships while maintaining a lock.

    And don't discount the importance of canopy visibility either. Some ships have all manner of crap obscuring your view, while others have canopies that offer glorious, panoramic vistas.

    Edit: BTW, stick to low-end Kill Warrant Scanners.
    Sure, the scan range isn't as great, but higher rated ones cost a lot more and require more power to operate, which takes away from power better used elsewhere.
    Power balancing's a whole other kettle of fish to be aware of, but generally, stick things like your Frame Shift Drive on low priority while your guns, shields and thrusters should always be on high priority.
    There's nothing like targeting a rogue Anaconda, deploying your guns and all of a sudden having your thrusters and shields shut down.
    Been there, done that, barely got the ship to show for it.
    Last edited by Malf; 30th Mar 2015 at 07:51.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •