Elite: Dangerous looks better already!

[SteveMill]

..
Unless you simply cannot get onto the internet there's no overwhelming need for Solo Offline. apart from the mid mission thing I really doubt I could tell the difference between solo on and offline in a blind test..

I was under the impression even solo offline the clock was going to be ticking constantly with no re-load in much the same way as it does in Onine or Dark Souls, i.e. forcing you to live with the consequences of your actions and all that jazz.

I don't think they really discussed solo offline. In reality I think they realised the idea wasn't going to happen a long time ago and dropped the shoe once they'd maximised pre-sales.

It's not like the server-side implementation model appeared out of thin air Friday morning.

No doubt dropping it will enable scarce resources to be used to make a better online game. That's not the point for people. If you take people's money on the explicit understanding you will deliver something, you either deliver or offer a refund.

I mainly wanted off-line but I'm enjoying the game so I'm not personally too concerned. What I am concerned with is the trust issue. It means nothing they have said will be delivered and nothing they say in the future will be delivered is worth the paper it is written on.

Everything can go - including vaguely worded guarantees of future access. Including the no-sub model.

[Oldman]

...... The added frisson of a ticking clock does bring an extra dimension (an expensive one on times).
.....

Yes, that type of clock was present in the last two games. It was a feature I really enjoyed (I still occasionally play FFE...the 'modern' updated version).
The passenger missions are a case in point, I'd travel around a system picking up passengers from the different Space & Planet ports to see how many separate passenger missions I could accomplish without any negative consequences. You had to kinda think ahead and judge whether you'd manage to arrive at the last passengers destination point within the total allotted time. Sometimes this meant landing at multiple space/planet ports and sometimes two or three different systems along the way. Great fun!
Though without the Planet Expansion I'd expect that this type of gameplay will be diluted, Spaceports only I think in the release, depends though if the developers come up with more intuitive/novel ideas for passenger transportation missions. ...I'll have to wait and see.
As long as the 'timer' is fun and reasonably fair in it's concept it should be fun to do for most missions.
There were missions in the last games though that were virtually impossible to do, (red herring type) so I think maybe we might see one or two of those.

Oldman

[Avis]

I don't think they really discussed solo offline. In reality I think they realised the idea wasn't going to happen a long time ago and dropped the shoe once they'd maximised pre-sales.

It's not like the server-side implementation model appeared out of thin air Friday morning.

No doubt dropping it will enable scarce resources to be used to make a better online game. That's not the point for people. If you take people's money on the explicit understanding you will deliver something, you either deliver or offer a refund.

I mainly wanted off-line but I'm enjoying the game so I'm not personally too concerned. What I am concerned with is the trust issue. It means nothing they have said will be delivered and nothing they say in the future will be delivered is worth the paper it is written on.

Everything can go - including vaguely worded guarantees of future access. Including the no-sub model.

As I mentioned earlier my trust in FD was shaken years ago with FFE. Not wanting to re-treat old ground there, I'm a little concerned about some of the calls for monthly subscriptions, that to me would be an instant deal breaker but I can't see it going that way, PGI make a killing from micro-transaction in Mechwarrior Online and ED probably requires far less server load per player anyway.

.. Braben also claims he has played it using just a 3G tethered phone connection. ...

I've been meaning to try it on my phone and test bandwidth usage.

[matthewfarmery]

there is still the problem on handling DLC, unless those with DLC have their own servers? but FD will need to transfer your data to the new server, (and back if you have the content) but if they have to do this manually, it would be a big undertaking. its one way I see them dealing with the DLC issue.

I still think going down the subscription route would solve this, so to be honest with you, I can see them using a sub model, at least to keep everyone updated with whatever content they add. the problem with an online store, while it would help to cover costs, the real issue is, making sure everyone is on the same page regarding content, otherwise, ED gets content that could be a advantage to players who have it, (new ships, areas to explore) it won't be fair for those that don't have the content. and its also possible, you probably will need the content in a certain order?

only as subscription model would solve this, so to me, this is highly likely, the thing is, when FD and DB announced planet landings DLC, I doubt they really thought through what it might mean, or how to keep the servers updates, like offline SP, I don't think it was given much thought, and I doubt they really had any intention of fulfilling it. to me, a lot of what FD and DB said during the KS was hot air, I still maintain that. as it just sounded they were making stuff up, or didn't know how things would work, or the advantages / disadvantage that having DLC would do.

so yeah, a sub model is the only way I can see them dealing with the DLC issue, otherwise, its just going to get real complex and a major headache for them.

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

The idea of a subscription model sounds like asking people to invest in aspirin and then after they've tried it for a bit, blending in heroine.

[Avis]

.. Braben also claims he has played it using just a 3G tethered phone connection. ...

I've been meaning to try it on my phone and test bandwidth usage.

Update to the tethering thing, Well, Braben wasn't being economical with the truth, I could hardly tell any difference from playing via my lined internet connection.

Only thing I did notice was a half to 1 second delay of commodities list appearing everything else was as normal instantly loaded (logging in was slower too I guess).

I played for 20 minutes opening commodities market, shipyard, bulletin boards etc every station I visited (3 stations to be honest) and according to my phone I used 2.75Mb of data in that time. I think it's fair to say it really doesn't need much internet.

As for setting up the tethering it couldn't be simpler unless your carrier has problems with you tethering then that might be another matter, mine doesn't appear to (tho my phone Samsung S4 i9505 is rooted I don't think that's important).
Simply connect USB cable go into settings>Connections>More Networks>Tethering and portable hotspots>tick USB tethering.
Alternatively just create a portable wifi hotspot (my desktop doesn't have wifi adaptor hence using USB).

for USB I didn't have to set anything up windows side it just found and used new network connection itself.

[ATTACK_HAMSTER]

.. Braben also claims he has played it using just a 3G tethered phone connection. ...

I played for 20 minutes opening commodities market, shipyard, bulletin boards etc every station I visited (3 stations to be honest) and according to my phone I used 2.75Mb of data in that time. I think it's fair to say it really doesn't need much internet.

I did some bandwidth testing for a mate the other night and i can confirm it uses hardly any bandwidth. I played ED for 30 mins, got a couple of kills, did some trading and it only used 3mb.

[SteveMill]

Update to the tethering thing, Well, Braben wasn't being economical with the truth, I could hardly tell any difference from playing via my lined internet connection.

Only thing I did notice was a half to 1 second delay of commodities list appearing everything else was as normal instantly loaded (logging in was slower too I guess).

I played for 20 minutes opening commodities market, shipyard, bulletin boards etc every station I visited (3 stations to be honest) and according to my phone I used 2.75Mb of data in that time. I think it's fair to say it really doesn't need much internet.

As for setting up the tethering it couldn't be simpler unless your carrier has problems with you tethering then that might be another matter, mine doesn't appear to (tho my phone Samsung S4 i9505 is rooted I don't think that's important).
Simply connect USB cable go into settings>Connections>More Networks>Tethering and portable hotspots>tick USB tethering.
Alternatively just create a portable wifi hotspot (my desktop doesn't have wifi adaptor hence using USB).

for USB I didn't have to set anything up windows side it just found and used new network connection itself.

good to hear. I guess it depends on your data tariff limits as it will build up over a month.

[matthewfarmery]

then it seems that FD and DB are indeed lying through their teeth, same with Sim city and EA claiming that the game needed online servers to work and a modder proved otherwise, later EA said that they would look into an offline mode and it happened. I think if you only used 3mb for 30 minutes, then clearly its not using the server for much. if that will change once the game has more people, and becomes dynamic? but logic would suggest that bandwidth / server usage would remain low. FD / DB are probably covering up the fact the game can work offline but simply don't want to admit that.

the more people start to understand this, the more angry people will get and more decieved they will feel, FD needs to retract their statement about removing the offline mode or feel backers wrath.

[RegisterMe]

then it seems that FD and DB are indeed lying through their teeth, same with Sim city and EA claiming that the game needed online servers to work and a modder proved otherwise, later EA said that they would look into an offline mode and it happened. I think if you only used 3mb for 30 minutes, then clearly its not using the server for much. if that will change once the game has more people, and becomes dynamic? but logic would suggest that bandwidth / server usage would remain low. FD / DB are probably covering up the fact the game can work offline but simply don't want to admit that.

the more people start to understand this, the more angry people will get and more decieved they will feel, FD needs to retract their statement about removing the offline mode or feel backers wrath.

You may be correct in saying that an offline mode could be produced, but you cannot use the amount of data sent across a network to support the argument that an offline mode can be produced. If the client isn't capable of producing that data it won't work. The amount of data does not have to be related to the computational power required to produce that data, or the requirement to aggregate results from many people centrally and then redistribute.

[Tamina]

Creating a game that is not capable of running on private PCs would be economical bad because that would mean the company itself had to provide the hardware power FOR EVERY user.
It is not like the money for hardware for those calculations come from nowhere, someone has to pay for that.
And high expensive servers decrease the lifetime due to high costs of such a project.
Also they had to manually take care to turn off/on servers with increasing/decreasing player count which gets a problem together with the partners providing those servers.

Right now Elite is not finished and we CAN NOT conclude from the current state how Elite:Dangerous will develop in the future. Needed internet bandwidth might increase or decrease, they JUST started to abandon an offline solution so they will propably shift the current and future features on to the server.
We will see how it develops.

However I doubt that they found a proper solution to shift computations on to a server.
Internet is unreliable and slow to put it in computer science relations.

The amount of data does not have to be related to the computational power required to produce that data, or the requirement to aggregate results from many people centrally and then redistribute.

Actually it does.
If the amount of actual data is/stays this small that means it can also be computed on a local computer with simpler algorithms, then they are doing something wrong.
We are not talking about real life accurate physics or something like that here but about a game.

[LV]

3mb for 30 minutes, .

From my greatly uneducated viewpoint all i see here is minimum polling and data transfer as when you look at how much data your phone transfers for simply logging in and out of apps i'd expect it to be close to that

Have they said Phones or 3G phones, my spidey senses are saying "another way to make cash if it can only be done via 3g not wifi on phone"

This leaves me with the same Op that it's an unneeded and controllable feature with a little fluff & BS wrapped around it to attempt to hide this fact

I have no idea on how ED devs are defending this but am also left completely failing to understand how there is ever a need to have 100% online connection for anything to do with a game.


Anybody want to pop up a valid reason that does not include a D an R or an M?


Some good points by Tamina as well i had not considered

[matthewfarmery]

that is the thing, if it had been closer to 3mb a minute, then I would say that, that a server is doing a lot of the work, but this is 3mb for 30 minutes, therefore, the amount of data that is coming down per second or per minute isn't that huge, to me, I think this data could very well be done offline, in the same manner as sim city, as that too was also proven that it was just fluff, and it was totally possible to play the game offline even if you couldn't save. and that also had a very low bandwidth usage.

so yeah, if the amount of data was something like 300mb per 30 minutes, then sure, the server would be doing a lot, but 3mb per 30 minutes isn't much. sure this could increase with more players, but I have a feeling the data won't be that much.

FD will have to justify this, or a modder will, one way or another, the truth WILL come out.

[RegisterMe]

Actually it does.
If the amount of actual data is/stays this small that means it can also be computed on a local computer with simpler algorithms, then they are doing something wrong.
We are not talking about real life accurate physics or something like that here but about a game.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The output from a transformation doesn't have to have any relation to either the size of the input or the complexity of the transformation.

Now it may be the case that, as LV says, it's just a piss poor excuse for something else, but the amount of data alone doesn't necessarily provide support for that argument.

[felter]

I would say you cannot judge how much the bandwidth the game is going to require, as it is not yet finished. The finished game is going to be hosting events server side, which we do not have right now. As it is server side, all the data for those events will have to be streamed to users computers, meaning more bandwidth than is being used right now. As for how much extra bandwidth this is going to be,is anyone's guess.

[Terre]

I hope they have put contingency measures in place against their servers being attacked, as they will most certainly be.

[RegisterMe]

I hope they have put contingency measures in place against their servers being attacked, as they will most certainly be.

Agreed. But am I the only one who finds that somewhat ironic?

[Antilogic]

They will have and they will not be effective for the first period of any attack.

Note that ALL launches get DDOSed these days, infact DDOS attacks are common against everything. My guild sodding website has been DDOSed.

[RegisterMe]

Yeah, but to be fair that's because we're so pro.

Or not.

[Spami]

As Tamina and felter said: The game is not finished, we can't judge it right now.

Actually it does.
If the amount of actual data is/stays this small that means it can also be computed on a local computer with simpler algorithms, then they are doing something wrong.
We are not talking about real life accurate physics or something like that here but about a game.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The output from a transformation doesn't have to have any relation to either the size of the input or the complexity of the transformation.

Now it may be the case that, as LV says, it's just a piss poor excuse for something else, but the amount of data alone doesn't necessarily provide support for that argument.

Yes but this is A GAME.
Tell me one information that is heavy to compute and would be essential for a game?!
Obviously not in realtime because internet is unreliable - even small data can take up to a second or two to reach it's destination and then it needs to be computed on the destination PC first, that is already 120+ frames with 60FPS.
Remember: Multiplayergames trick the player by showing him the result his own computer has calculated as long as the computer waits for the server calculations to arrive if it was legit or not.
That again means if this data is not provided in realtime it can provided ANY time, so even a private PC can run those algorithms.

And as Tamina said correctly if those calculations are so heavy for such small data, every player needs a server for himself then. So is ED going to make it subscription based and every player has to rent a server for himself for expensive algorithms to play this game in singleplayer or what?
A server has no magic powers, it is also only just a Computer and I don't think they want to pay a bill for such high computations.

And additionaly to that: yes in regard to games you can say that the amount of data represents the amount of calculation power.
If they calculate a lot of stuff only to get out a few information out of that then they are doing something wrong. Normally I would agree in real life, if you have a simple algorithm like
f(x, y) = y' * 2 + x * y - d(t) * cos(x)
You actually only get ONE number, so information rate is low, right? Wrong! There is a lot more data you can retrieve out of this, think abstract - if you only need the output to calculate further why bothering to calculate this much? Just return more easily calculated similar numbers, this is a game! No one sees the difference if a floating point operation returns a wrong number at random decimal place.

Did it ever bother you that your computer calculates this:
1.2 - 1.0 = 0.199999999996
? No?
Well then Frontier is doing something wrong.