Persistent NPC's - what happened?

[Tinman]

Ha ha funny. Just stating what I see. didn't say I don't like ED or 1.2. What I said, essentially, is that the feeble dev response to the DDF/DDA question would make any politician proud and us just as in the dark as before it was asked. I thought I was straight forward with that?

Wings 1.2 is a great (and much needed) update, no denying that, I'll still call rubbish when I see it though

I guess I just don't see why people are so keen on having the devs basically say:

"Yes, we intend to make the game better and yes, we want to implement all the cool stuff we have ever talked about!!!"

That too would leave us "in the dark" just as much. Of course they want to implement all the cool stuff they've talked about (and things they haven't talked about), who wouldn't? This really goes without saying in my book.

Wings IS indeed awesome and as I said it is also a perfect example of something that was mentioned in the DDF that is now implemented pretty much exactly as described at the end of the group proposal. So obviously they used that document when implementing it.

This isn't "proof" in itself that anything else from the DDF will be implemented (but it will ), but it does show an indication of intent. This to me is far more valuable than any comment they could ever make simply because action speaks louder than words.

 

[Sanderson]

I hope so. Some things are confirmed as 'on the list' or 'being worked on' but this is one that gets a definite ignore.

But yeah, I really hope so.

My worry, per Davids xbox announcement is that'll the earliest would be in the "spring" with 1.3. I hope that's not the case. Damn you xbox!

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Michael have said just recently that a) NPC dialogs are coming b) they are looking for greater persistence of NPCs.

So nothing happened...yet. Stop treating DDF as list of features for 1.0 and it's all cool.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I hope so. Some things are confirmed as 'on the list' or 'being worked on' but this is one that gets a definite ignore.

But yeah, I really hope so.

Not really. Michael confirmed more persistence just recently.

edit: and to regular moaners - please, take a break. I plead you.

 

[Tar Stone]

I think he said 'better continuity'. There has not been a confirmation of persistent NPCs.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I think he said 'better continuity'. There has not been a confirmation of persistent NPCs.

There has been enough confirmation in many places to see that they will come. Of course people will exercise skepticism - and they should do so - but I personally see 'persistent NPC contacts' to happen rather soon I might add. First they need is NPC dialogs. That is coming.

 

[Nauht]

The DDA is one thing...

Do I need to start pasting in video links by Braben himself about features the game is meant to have but has so far failed to deliver?

But then I'd hear the same old excuses.

Fact is there was alot of hot air sales pitching to get backer money but the actual delivery leaves a lot to be desired.

First rate politician talk.

 

[Tar Stone]

There has been enough confirmation in many places to see that they will come. Of course people will exercise skepticism - and they should do so - but I personally see 'persistent NPC contacts' to happen rather soon I might add. First they need is NPC dialogs. That is coming.

OK well I hope you're right. If they manage to do it I honestly think it'd be a game changer. Wings, better ai and more sensible interdictions are a big step forward, persistent NPCs with that mix would actually be awesome.

 

[Dominico]

Now that, is funny. I may use some, none or something different then what you've stated, in another post.

Feel free to quote me but genuinly i read some the other day and i was like wow. Absolutely epic ideas!!

 

[Tinman]

I hope so. Some things are confirmed as 'on the list' or 'being worked on' but this is one that gets a definite ignore.

But yeah, I really hope so.

Michael said this in one of the Dev Update threads about a month ago:

NPC comms is on the list, but not close enough that I can talk in detail about it yet.

As for "persistent NPCs" I think it's important to note that many of the types mentioned in the proposal is actually already in the game (marked in green). Everything can of course be improved, but they are still there in some form.

--

Tier 1 NPCs are already in the game in the form of the characters we hear about in the newsfeeds.

Characteristics:

• Players do not interact with these characters directly.
• The character is common to all online players.
• The character is created via an in-game invent – typically manually.
• The character can only be killed by an in-game event.
• A tier 2 character can be promoted to tier 1, but only by an event.

EXAMPLES

• 
  [*]Faction leaders
  [*]Station leaders
  [*]Regional persons of note
  [*]Engineering/Scientific specialists (enhanced weapons and modules)
  [*]Can provide missions, but only on rare occasions, for example:
  • 
    Very high faction rating
    [*]Very high player rank

--

Tier 2 NPCs are to some extent in the game already, but there is still things missing. Of the three tiers this is the least developed one so far, but it's also the most complex one to get right. Basically this is what I guess most people is asking more of (for good reason) at the moment.

Characteristics:

• Players can interact with the character directly.
• Character can be killed by players or by events.
• Character can be created via an event, by the game or promoted from tier 3.
• Character can be promoted from tier 2 by being known to a large number of players.
• Characters can issue missions.

EXAMPLES

• 
  [*]Faction leader underlings that the player deals directly with
  [*]Mission targets
  [*]Mission providers
  [*]Pilots of NPC vessels that the player has previously interacted with
  [*]Player contacts

--

Tier 3 NPCs are simply "background NPCs" and that is already in the game.

So it's not like they completely ignored the proposal. Interestingly enough the remaining NPCs (coupled with NPC wingmen) are mostly the types you need to have a NPC comm system to be able to interact with. As noted above that is still "on the list", just not in a state to be talked about yet.

My guess is that this is connected to the overhaul of the mission system they are working on. Being able to interact with NPCs through comms opens up for so many possibilities. Both in terms of actions you can take during a mission (asking around for your target for example), but also in terms of how you get involved in missions and events in other ways than through the BBS. Being hailed by someone who asks you to escort them, distress signals, wingmen interaction, passenger gameplay and so on...

Really looking forward to when this gets implemented! Yes...I said when!

 

[Sanderson]

Michael said this in one of the Dev Update threads about a month ago:



As for "persistent NPCs" I think it's important to note that many of the types mentioned in the proposal is actually already in the game (marked in green). Everything can of course be improved, but they are still there in some form.

--

Tier 1 NPCs are already in the game in the form of the characters we hear about in the newsfeeds.





--

Tier 2 NPCs are to some extent in the game already, but there is still things missing. Of the three tiers this is the least developed one so far, but it's also the most complex one to get right. Basically this is what I guess most people is asking more of (for good reason) at the moment.





--

Tier 3 NPCs are simply "background NPCs" and that is already in the game.

So it's not like they completely ignored the proposal. Interestingly enough the remaining NPCs (coupled with NPC wingmen) are mostly the types you need to have a NPC comm system to be able to interact with. As noted above that is still "on the list", just not in a state to be talked about yet.

My guess is that this is connected to the overhaul of the mission system they are working on. Being able to interact with NPCs through comms opens up for so many possibilities. Both in terms of actions you can take during a mission (asking around for your target for example), but also in terms of how you get involved in missions and events in other ways than through the BBS. Being hailed by someone who asks you to escort them, distress signals, wingmen interaction, passenger gameplay and so on...

Really looking forward to when this gets implemented! Yes...I said when!

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, persistent NPCs are already partially in-game? By your example, 50% of the P-NPCs are already in-game.

Also, they are, right now, working on a mission overhaul?

Who do you know on the inside at FD and how are you getting this top secret info?

If, and I say if, there's already partially persistent NPCs in the game, then I think we all need to have a talk with FD about what "persistent NPCs" mean. Maybe? Because, IMO, most of us have a lot different idea of what that means then, apparently, what FD does.

 

[Tinman]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, persistent NPCs are already partially in-game? By your example, 50% of the P-NPCs are already in-game.

50% of the bullet points are indeed in the game in some form, yes. These are the easier types to implement though...the ones you can physically/directly interact with are a lot less developed or non-existent though at the moment.

Also, they are, right now, working on a mission overhaul?

Who do you know on the inside at FD and how are you getting this top secret info?

Michael...

There are ongoing incremental improvements, but a major overhaul for missions is coming. There'll be more details in future updates.

Michael

Its coming, but it's a longer term job. I'll include it in a dev update a bit nearer to its release.

Michael

That is in progress, but there's a large amount of work involved so it won't be complete in the near future.

Michael

The mission overhaul is not a short term goal as it's a major update.

Michael

If, and I say if, there's already partially persistent NPCs in the game, then I think we all need to have a talk with FD about what "persistent NPCs" mean. Maybe? Because, IMO, most of us have a lot different idea of what that means then, apparently, what FD does.

What I said was that some of the NPC types listed in the persistent NPC proposal is indeed in the game already. Look at the ones marked green above. Are you saying these aren't in the game in some form?

 

[Herik]

Currently everything is Tier 3 with no promotion to Tier 2. There is pretty much nothing changeable but persistent other than arbitrary stock levels / prices and faction percentages.

My guess is that FD had to release ED as a flight simulator first, game later. A development roadmap would be nice, much better than arbitrary "patch titles"...

Well, regarding the last; I know the major patches are not "arbitrary patch titles". Each development in this game has not been "arbitrary"; they appear to be orderly and carefully considered. Other than knowing the approximate time of the coming "expansions"; I don't need a "road-map"...

As far as 'simulation' is concerned; I agree the first Alphas and some of the Beta's were simulation. But beginning with the later Beta's, the simulation aspect obviously slowed down, and 'Game' development began in earnest. There's more to be said about this; but (for the most part), FD made good decisions in their development path.

 

[Sanderson]

50% of the bullet points are indeed in the game in some form, yes. These are the easier types to implement though...the ones you can physically/directly interact with are a lot less developed or non-existent though at the moment.




Michael...








What I said was that some of the NPC types listed in the persistent NPC proposal is indeed in the game already. Look at the ones marked green above. Are you saying these aren't in the game?

Not at all. What I'm saying is this; FD's understanding of persistent NPCs and the general public's (us players) is not the same thing. For example, tier three on your chart is not what I'd call persistent in anything other than there's random NPCs flying around. Yes, there's random NPCs flying around but, that is hardly the definition of persistent we think of when we talk about persistent NPCs. Random NPCs are always there somewhere, that's just persistently random NPCs flying around, which is hardly what most had in mind when this is talked about.

I think it's great you defend FD and all, I admire your dedication but, come on, random tier three ships are persistent NPCs? That's a bit like saying snowflakes are persistent because there always there when it snows. Sure, not the same snowflakes but, there's always snow flakes, so one could say they are indeed persistent snowflakes.

I also have to question the persistent NPCs you say exist that we take missions from. I'm a bit confused, is this the job board thing you're referring to? Perhaps the Mineral Magppie? Serious question, because if there's persistent NPCs handing out missions, I'd love to meet them.

I suppose technically your defense of FD is correct, I suppose, not really sure I'd even go that far but, I do have to say it all reminds me a bit of this (I'm the evil good looking prince and you're the puppet) :

[EDIT] I should add, I'm not saying your lying, just very good with words and explanations

[video=youtube;6CGyASDjE-U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CGyASDjE-U[/video]

 

[cherbert]

It was also an extremely well run bit of marketing that generated a lot of interest, excitement, and dialogue back and forth between backers, potential backers, and FDEV at the height of the kickstarter campaign.

Sorry to say, but a lot of us fell for it and pitched in a lot of money based on the sheer energy and enthusiasm that was coming out of that dev dialogue, player feedback, and Braben's regular dev diaries. Should we have known then that the game would release with a fraction of what was discussed and pitched to pledgers (and no hint of it even being seen at all at this stage), I'm sure the project would have floundered. So it did its job.

I enjoy aspects of what we have but so far there is no way in hell it was worth the £150 I pledged, and if someone polled the high stake backers (if they're even still around) I'd hazard a guess many would feel the same way. But as we're often told, give it time as its only 3 months into release.

I pledged £300 and feel let down in a lot of ways. But I am still here and enjoying the game. I just felt like we were all a little used. But if we were used to get the game (I waited 30 years for) made then I accept that - otherwise we wouldn't be here.

I don't like the fact David Braben's dev diaries stopped. I don't like the fact the DDF stopped. It all seemed a bit of a marketing trick and I do feel a bit bitter about it - it seemed after they won the Kickstarter the interaction just stopped over night. Communication could be so much better.

Also, the Offline Mode fiasco and Frontier's arrogance (or ignorance?) and not realising the impact of their actions coupled with diabolical communication.

I am holding out that they will redeem themselves by finishing the game and making it the masterpiece they sold us. If they can pull landing on planets out the bag and nail it, give us some more persistence and get this dynamic galaxy running smoothly then it will be a job well done.

I do have my doubts though. Its okay for David Braben to keep saying they are making the game they want to play - but that kind of contradicts his responsibility of running a PLC. He has investors to answer to. If the game isn't making money it won't get resources thrown at it. Investors don't care about persistent NPC's they care about profit. So IMHO they have to make a game that makes money and that generally means agame people don't want to play. I might be wrong... I hope I am wrong.

 

[Herik]

Aren't they statements of intent for possible future expansions? You know the game's development model.

Some things were intended and explained as (doable), and some thing were considered (possible to be decided upon); and some things were said to (not be possible). The things that were doable, they had begun work on.

 

[Herik]

Well, I assumed ALL the features wouldnt be added, but most would. They werent unreasonable features either they were solid, realistic gameplay mechanics which only seemed to expand on the "front page" feature list rather than just be a pub "what if" discussion.

Id like to point out that the DDA was one of the few resources online before release that seemed like a more detailed feature list of stuff that could have been realistically in the game at release (all the interview and stuff were about distant planet-landings and fps-walking), FD was and is pretty arbitrary with info on what the game has, or will have in terms of actual gameplay. Details were impossible to get by before the actual release before no-one knew then and FD sure wasnt telling.

In any case that Archive might as well be purged from the internet entirely imo, FD lowered their expectations on what the game can be and I think it would be best if we should to.

Well; in a (lot) of your statements your utterly wrong, and of course we should keep the DDA; Its not a 'road-map' but they are continuing to work on things from it....

 

[Tinman]

Not at all. What I'm saying is this; FD's understanding of persistent NPCs and the general public's (us players) is not the same thing. For example, tier three on your chart is not what I'd call persistent in anything other than there's random NPCs flying around. Yes, there's random NPCs flying around but, that is hardly the definition of persistent we think of when we talk about persistent NPCs. Random NPCs are always there somewhere, that's just persistently random NPCs flying around, which is hardly what most had in mind when this is talked about.

I don't disagree with you here, but that isn't the point I was trying to make. However that is why these are on the lowest tier of persistence. "Persistence" in games is always an illusion. When you walk into a city in Skyrim and meet someone there they feel persistent, but as soon as you leave they will effectively disappear. Even the tier 3 NPCs in ED has some minor form of persistence because if they jump away you can scan their wake and follow them. Things like this have lots of room for improvements but persistency isn't really a on and off kind of thing. It's all a matter of how clever you can make the illusion.

I think it's great you defend FD and all, I admire your dedication but, come on, random tier three ships are persistent NPCs?

It's not about defending anyone...it's about looking at things objectively. No they are not persistent in a truly meaningful way, but they are listed in the DDF proposal and they are in the game. This thread have had several people claiming that this and that from the DDF haven't been implemented at all. I'm simply pointing out that there are several parts of this proposal that have indeed been implemented.

I also have to question the persistent NPCs you say exist that we take missions from. I'm a bit confused, is this the job board thing you're referring to? Perhaps the Mineral Magppie? Serious question, because if there's persistent NPCs handing out missions, I'd love to meet them.

Yes, it's the BBS board and alternate missions you can get from NPCs you meet in USS. These are indeed a game mechanic for providing the player with missions, AKA a "mission provider". That is a NPC from a faction offering you a mission. Can you see their faces or "meet them"? No. But then this was a no point promised...the type of NPCs that you will directly be dealing with and "meet" is still listed in red.

I suppose technically your defense of FD is correct...

Yes, indeed it is.

I just think there is a lot of personal projections of ideas around many of the bullet points in the DDF proposals. People read "mission providers" (or anything else really) and then assume that this must mean X, Y, AND Z when it really just means X.

Now, I too make lots of assumptions about what I think certain things might mean, but I always try to make clear that this is me speculating and if it turns out I'm wrong I'm not really that bothered. That is different from reading a bullet point in a proposal, making a lot of assumptions of what that must be and THEN complaining about FD not living up to the "promises" they've made...the "promises" that was actually just assumptions that the person in question made him/herself.

 

[Sanderson]

I don't disagree with you here, but that isn't the point I was trying to make. However that is why these are on the lowest tier of persistence. "Persistence" in games is always an illusion. When you walk into a city in Skyrim and meet someone there they feel persistent, but as soon as you leave they will effectively disappear. Even the tier 3 NPCs in ED has some minor form of persistence because if they jump away you can scan their wake and follow them. Things like this have lots of room for improvements but persistency isn't really a on and off kind of thing. It's all a matter of how clever you can make the illusion.



It's not about defending anyone...it's about looking at things objectively. No they are not persistent in a truly meaningful way, but they are listed in the DDF proposal and they are in the game. This thread have had several people claiming that this and that from the DDF haven't been implemented at all. I'm simply pointing out that there are several parts of this proposal that have indeed been implemented.



Yes, it's the BBS board and alternate missions you can get from NPCs you meet in USS. These are indeed a game mechanic for providing the player with missions, AKA a "mission provider". That is a NPC from a faction offering you a mission. Can you see their faces or "meet them"? No. But then this was a no point promised...the type of NPCs that you will directly be dealing with and "meet" is still listed in red.



Yes, indeed it is.

I just think there is a lot of personal projections of ideas around many of the bullet points in the DDF proposals. People read "mission providers" (or anything else really) and then assume that this must mean X, Y, AND Z when it really just means X.

Now, I too make lots of assumptions about what I think certain things might mean, but I always try to make clear that this is me speculating and if it turns out I'm wrong I'm not really that bothered. That is different from reading a bullet point in a proposal, making a lot of assumptions of what that must be and THEN complaining about FD not living up to the "promises" they've made...the "promises" that was actually just assumptions that the person in question made him/herself.

Would you be willing to agree that there's framework for persistent NPCs and functioning persistent NPCs, at the most basic level, currently in-game, and we expect future updates will bring them more (way more) inline with the DDF/DDA as resources and time allows? Also, that the DDF/DDA may give some insight in what to expect but, is not set in stone and may, or may not, until further notice from FD or actually already in-game be implemented. That would seem like pretty fair common ground in this discussion, IMO anyway.

[EDIT] I should add, that for me personally, my idea of persistent NPCs came from David himself, in his many videos, and not my interpretation of the DDF/DDA. Currently, that level of persistent NPCs isn't in-game, granted, they may be at some point in a future update.

 

[Globusdiablo]

LOL. I'm sure some unscrupulous employee from another development studio has already archived it all away and will use it as a blueprint for some future epic space sim. FD should copyright it.

Elite: Deadly?...

 

[Tinman]

Would you be willing to agree that there's framework for persistent NPCs and functioning persistent NPCs, at the most basic level, currently in-game, and we expect future updates will bring them more (way more) inline with the DDF/DDA as resources and time allows? Also, that the DDF/DDA may give some insight in what to expect but, is not set in stone and may, or may not, until further notice from FD or actually already in-game be implemented. That would seem like pretty fair common ground in this discussion, IMO anyway.

Yes, I can easily agree with that since that is pretty much exactly what I'm saying. See! What did I tell you previously...we probably agree on more than you think. It's more how we choose to approach it that is different.

[EDIT] I should add, that for me personally, my idea of persistent NPCs came from David himself, in his many videos, and not my interpretation of the DDF/DDA. Currently, that level of persistent NPCs isn't in-game, granted, they may be at some point in a future update.

Just curious...which videos are you referring too? He never really spoke specifically about persistent NPCs as such as far as I can remember so I think there might still be a lot of personal assumptions showing themselves here.

Once again, I'm not saying it is in a good state yet or that they can't improve on it, they most certainly can and will.

The way I listen to David is as follows:

He lays out the vision, not the specifics. If he talks about some new feature, let's say inflatable space stations that the players can deploy, then I take that as something that might come in the future, but I always try to approach his comments as rough sketches rather than something concrete. Making it concrete is the job of the designers after all. Until something else is said we can still assume these things will come in some way since he owns the company and is "the law", but production, design or technical issues might still block the implementation at any given point.