Continuity Vs. Convenience

[WR3ND]

Which do you prefer more in general, if either?

Often the discussion seems to distill down to immersion vs. fun – as if those are somehow mutually exclusive aspects of gaming – or likewise simulation vs. gaming.

Personally, I'm definitely on the continuity side of things, which I realize is just my preference. I don't lose ships (if I can help it), I don't use SRVs, I don't use SLFs, I don't play CQC, I don't farm neutron star fields, I don't work on ranking up in different navies, and I won't use this multi-crew telepresence feature either.

I just like playing at being a Commander in 3303 and beyond in this amazing game setting, going about my own business of being an intragalactic space ranger and explorer in the Pilots Federation and occasionally crossing paths with others, be they friends or foes.

More and more this seems to be a niche game-play style, which has me a little concerned for the future development and direction of the game, but as long as I can keep playing the way I am now without the rest getting in my way, I don't plan on leaving any time soon. Sorry to disappoint.

I'm curious how others play and how they view their own preferred styles of play.

Please try and keep this civil without denigrating someone for having different preferences than yourself either in the specific or general. At the end of the day, and as long as you're within the rules and guidelines and not harming anyone, there is no real wrong way to play a video game, in my opinion at least.

Cheers, and fly smartly, Commanders.

 

[playfuldreamer]

OP, it might be useful to provide which specific definitions you're comparing here. At least so everyone knows where to throw their chit.

 

[WR3ND]

OP, it might be useful to provide which specific definitions you're comparing here. At least so everyone knows where to throw their chit.

I'm hoping people can sort it out for themselves based on the context of the thread. Also, specific aspects of the game can be interpreted differently by different people. Some ambiguity or at least room for personal interpretation may be a good thing if it helps fuel a constructive conversation and it might provide better feedback to Frontier than just a binary poll. I added the poll to help spark a conversation, not to define it.

Hope that makes some sense and sorry if I'm getting too meta.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

I voted for Continuity, though I do like convenience as well.

Continuity with a generous dollop of convenience is perfect.
E.G: CQC accessible from within the main game.

 

[Neil_Trayce]

I don't use SRVs, I don't use SLFs, I don't play CQC, I don't farm neutron star fields, I don't work on ranking up in different navies, and I won't use this multi-crew telepresence feature either.

If that's continuity, then I'm after convenience.

 

[WR3ND]

If that's continuity, then I'm after convenience.

I'm likely more of an "extreme" player than most, preferring to play as a survivalist. I haven't seen the rebuy screen in over a year of playing and only 5 times in total in going on two years of fairly actively playing the game, for example. Point being, feel free to share your own thoughts on the matter and where you draw the line, if you even do, and which side you stand on.

 

[mojododo]

For me, i just think the long scale teleprescence undoes all the reasoning for why we cant get much more system information from in our ships. Ie market prices and realtime galnet etc etc.
Teleprescence would utilise vastly more data realtime than anything else that would transfer information to our ship.

 

[Khelder]

I'm partly wondering why we even bother to travel at all. Can't wait for the first "I beamed from Bubble to Beagle Point".

 

[Bomba Luigi]

I'm for continuity, but probably more important then what I want would be the Game to be consistent. Don't really understant now why the changed instant ship transfer, sure lots of people wanted it and all that but they must have know how they wanna deal with multicrew and so they should have sticked with having a consistent rulebook for the world they create.

Decide if you want stuff to teleport all around the galaxy or not and then stick with the decision, don't make a mix with rules being sometimes this and sometimes that "just because".

 

[dreampage]

Please don't try to ruin another potencially great gameplay feature. You still have the ability to play how you'd like, don't try to force others to have no other options.

 

[WR3ND]

I'm for continuity, but probably more important then what I want would be the Game to be consistent. Don't really understant now why the changed instant ship transfer, sure lots of people wanted it and all that but they must have know how they wanna deal with multicrew and so they should have sticked with having a consistent rulebook for the world they create.

Decide if you want stuff to teleport all around the galaxy or not and then stick with the decision, don't make a mix with rules being sometimes this and sometimes that "just because".

I don't care for the teleporting element of game-play either way myself, but do think this makes a bit more sense than instant ship transfers since remotely piloting is a real thing, even if not across the galaxy, of course. If we're physically there in someone else's ship instead of being an obvious hologram or the like, I'll have more of a problem with it.

That being said, I don't really plan on using the game mechanic either way. Just adding my 2 cents worth.

 

[dreampage]

Don't consider this as teleporting. Try to think outside the game space for a bit. You're playing a game. You want to play multiplayer. You enter someone else's game. That's it. You're not teleporting or "beaming" to anywhere. It's a game.

 

[Khelder]

I'm for continuity, but probably more important then what I want would be the Game to be consistent. Don't really understant now why the changed instant ship transfer, sure lots of people wanted it and all that but they must have know how they wanna deal with multicrew and so they should have sticked with having a consistent rulebook for the world they create.

Decide if you want stuff to teleport all around the galaxy or not and then stick with the decision, don't make a mix with rules being sometimes this and sometimes that "just because".

I don't care for the teleporting element of game-play either way myself, but do think this makes a bit more sense than instant ship transfers since remotely piloting is a real thing, even if not across the galaxy, of course. If we're physically there in someone else's ship instead of being an obvious hologram or the like, I'll have more of a problem with it.

That being said, I don't really plan on using the game mechanic either way. Just adding my 2 cents worth.

I agree with WR3ND that this is slightly better than the instant ship transfers. At least this is something you're supposed to be doing yourself, not tasking someone else to do it. But given the immense fuss that was caused last time (and the clear direction given from the voting player base), I'm baffled as to why they went down this path. Well... the cynical me isn't baffled, I guess.

 

[Riverside]

Voted Continuity. Of course these things are never 100% black & white but I'd like to be able to solve a problem with a believable in-game mechanism if practical.

 

[SlackR]

Please don't try to ruin another potencially great gameplay feature. You still have the ability to play how you'd like, don't try to force others to have no other options.

This implies that there is no middle ground.

 

[Greyza Badger]

Don't consider this as teleporting. Try to think outside the game space for a bit. You're playing a game. You want to play multiplayer. You enter someone else's game. That's it. You're not teleporting or "beaming" to anywhere. It's a game.

I think that is just reducing this fantastic enterprise to a game of 2 player Space Invaders.

 

[WR3ND]

Please don't try to ruin another potencially great gameplay feature. You still have the ability to play how you'd like, don't try to force others to have no other options.

I'm glad people are able to play the way they might like to, assuming they can, but there is only one game universe, so naturally there will be some conflicting preferences about future game development content and directions.

Adding new features for a wider audience is good in and of itself, but not at the cost of alienating and disappointing current players.

I'd rather Frontier focus on adding content most all of us would like too see, such as walking around space stations and our ships, landing on Earth-like worlds, exploring the depths of water worlds, meeting up with friends at the pub in Jaques Station, dealing with the potential threats and benefits of encountering and interacting with alien races, and so on.

Those sort of things aren't easy and take time to develop, but they're the sort of game I paid for and very much hope to eventually see realized.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

I like a nice mixture of both where the world is believable but not unbearable. I don't think that's too much to ask although no poll option so voted for convenience.

If I have a game like say Flight Simulator (arguably to some not a game) then it's pretty great but I'll probably not play it for years and years as it's lacking a lot of fun. If I get a game like NMS was at release I loose the belief that the gameworld is realistic and challenging (not talking about graphics here more about me believing I am the character or at least a version of me), it may be immensely fun to play but I'll never get more engaged or invested than playing the storyline or getting to a point that I have done most activities in game and say alright, next game.

 

[mojododo]

Don't consider this as teleporting. Try to think outside the game space for a bit. You're playing a game. You want to play multiplayer. You enter someone else's game. That's it. You're not teleporting or "beaming" to anywhere. It's a game.

We aren't, it's teleprescence (remote control still in your own ship - just like the SLF's are now). I don't have an issue with it really, only that is smacks in the face of limitations Fdev have put in place to other forms of data transfer in the elite dangerous universe.

 

[Neil_Trayce]

I'm likely more of an "extreme" player than most, preferring to play as a survivalist. I haven't seen the rebuy screen in over a year of playing and only 5 times in total in going on two years of fairly actively playing the game, for example. Point being, feel free to share your own thoughts on the matter and where you draw the line, if you even do, and which side you stand on.

But why don't use SRVs and SLFs? Because if you loose a SRV or SLF, nobody dies? But you still loose it, it has some small monetary value and small amounts of cargo could get lost with it (that's why I carry 2 SRVs in my expeditions, just in case).