![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
So much this ^
Captain Hindsight about Multicrew, Arena, Immersion and Gratification
- Thread starter babelfisch
- Start date
So much this ^
Elite Dangerous has always had system to system travel as a core mechanic....
Last edited:
Sorry but I just to say that I am actually much more confused now....
So are you advocating the option to INSTANTLY TRAVEL to wing up or not?
In my understanding, instantly traveling pretty much equates with traveling being removed.
Um... except this guy:
- - - Updated - - -
The Witcher 3 has the player spending copious amounts of playtime walking or travelling through the open world... does that somehow mean that the game is a walking simulator?
No, but I'm not saying that it is. It's an open world RPG. If you remove the Open world, then it's no longer and open world. CAn you imagine how much use all that beautiful landscape would be enjoyed if you could insta-travel to all quest givers and quest locations?
If you refuse to play a game because the devs add in an "optional" fast travel mechanic for a specific mode of gameplay (e.g. MC or wings) that doesn't in anyway affect how you want to play the game, then I'm sorry I cannot sympathize with you, as you are just being petty, selfish and childish. If it's an option, ignore it and go about your business.
In your reddit example, I'm not sure how instant fast travel would really make any difference. If players want to use a forum to organise an in-game meet-up to influence the BGS, then whether they all have to travel to the meet-up point manually or whether it's instant is pretty immaterial. If the will is there to influence the BGS, players will do it either way.
And adding in an "option" for fast travel for multi-crew play or wings doesn't negate that fact. It won't remove system-to-system travel for those who enjoy that, anymore than fast travel mechanics in RPG's like the Witcher 3 don't remove ability to manually travel for gamers. However, unlike in the Witcher 3, manual travel in Elite is boring and can and should be improved.
I'm answering two separate issues there. Instant travel for MC play, or even wings for that matter, will have no effect on manual system-to-system travel for solo play... surely you can see that.
I'm saying that an OPTION for fast travel for co-operative multiplayer in the game is a good idea. I'm also saying that adding this OPTION, doesn't somehow remove the need to travel manually for missions/trading/exploration etc in solo play. It's simply an option for convenience to bring human players together.
- - - Updated - - -
See above... asking for instant fast travel for multiplayer in ED is not the same as asking for all travel in multiplayer and single player in ED to be removed.
Errrr, but you can!?! That's kind of the point that I was making. Fast travel allows you to insta-travel to all hub locations (i.e. quest givers). And yet that still doesn't take away the need to manually travel around the world to do missions.
In exactly the same way, instant fast travel to bring friends together in wings and MC, doesn't take away the need to travel around the galaxy manually to do missions and engage in BH/CZ when you and your friends are together in the same instance.
How is this difficult to understand?
The difficulty to understand something is infinite when ones does not want to.
A lot of arguments boil down to : "I don't like it, and it's gonna be my way or the highway. And If FD does not do as I say it should, I'll quit"
Last edited:
Some, maybe. Other are " I don;t like it, I'd prefer it to be another way, since I don;t see the point in playing something I don't like".
Actually - and unfortunately - that is exactly what they are not doing right now.
This upcoming update is more or less exclusively for the short attention span phew-phew audience and apparently they deliberately left everything out what could have provided a lot new "content" so to speak for really everyone... real and actually meaningful multi-crew, multi-srv operations, Cmdr-transportation missions or simply doing existing missions as a true coop team, all the good stuff.
In fact, I would not even be surprised if we get at least some of the features I mentioned - but as a new season only. Those features would actually be worth a lot for a lot of ppl and therefore need to be gated behind the next season paywall of course.
But this time around it is meaningless arcade style multi-phew-phew for one and one target audience only.
The "multi-crew" that people want is pretty much dependant on ambulation. Till then, Remote Gunner mode will have to do.
Talk of throwing the baby with the bath water.
Sorry, but...
We got white knights that tell us the game is perfect now, but if that one feature gets in, they'll quit over it ? Please...
The whole thing is over hyped drama fueled on personal preference and nostalgia. Nothing more, nothing left. I understand that some
would like a retro-futuristic 1944 ball turret experience, but I'd rather have the hi-tech scifi VR turret central command interface.
Fits the theme better IMO (sci-fi, and not retro-futurism), but "realism"/"immersion" arguement are moot here.
And ambulation in battle between the turrets = death by splatering in the ship under 15-30g's.
Pilot : "Can you get to that turret ?"
Gunner : "Sure"
Pilot : *Boost turn*
Gunner : "Whaaa... " *splurt*
Pilot : "Woopsies..."
Last edited:
I think this is just a matter of interpretation and perspective.
I think we can all agree that the current implementation of MultiCrew mechanics are lacking and in need of expanding. I personally consider the lack of SRV MC a gross oversight on FDev's part. However, it's painfully clear to me that the existing MC implementation is more an issue of limitations in available dev resources and the schedule for releasing the update, as opposed to any deliberate intention on the behalf of FDev to target any one specific group with this update.
I think it's safer to just give the dev the benefit of the doubt instead of projecting ones' own frustrations over what one wants onto the intentions of the developer over their update design/release.
The main reason because of which I have to disagree with you is the biggest difference between Elite and The Witcher 3: one is a multiplayer game with a persistent universe and the other is a single player game. I have absolutely no problem with players being able to fast travel in The Witcher 3, even though I personally have adopted a playthrough where I never used that option.
But you can't ignore fast travel in a game which is fundamentally competitive. From the BGS, to community goals, to being the first to discover alien ruins or a simple celestial body, Elite has a very dominant competitive vein. And you just can't ask players to gimp themselves and not use all the tools at their disposal to stay competitive.
Which is why I believe this thread made a pretty good suggestion at how an optional feature could be implemented in the context of Elite: make multicrew fun and accessible for those that want to live the moment and just enjoy the experience, make multicrew hard and demanding for those that want to have an impact on the gameworld.
I think the difference in opinion comes from the difference of what the developers intend to do, and what they end up doing.
Of course, if you look at the features they implemented, they're clearly meant for the crowd you mentioned. Nothing there for the "game-atmosphere-good-taste" people.
What the OP is trying to say (I think!) is that they also try to somehow appease the second bunch by providing the backstory which no one ended up liking:
"We'll call it telepresence!"
"If we make this cool animation where the hologram glows as it appears in the chair, they won't wonder why you'd need a chair in the first place!"
"So how can we make this TTP camera look better?
Just type telepresence in one corner, and put a blue wavy function there. Put gunner camera in the other corner!"
Fair enough
I think the Arena needs to be better tied to the main game in order to work. Imagine there would be a RES site with a constant stream of pirates, how would it be any different from what we saw in the live stream? In terms of game design it fits better to an Arena mode, sitting there, looking for pirates. I think some parts of the main game already are the arena mode I mentioned in OP. Also remember that I was just brainstorming, my ideas aren't necessarily the best, which doesn't mean the whole concept is wrong (catering to both, action and immersion players).
- - - Updated - - -
Most players don't use the wing feature because of the lack of NPCs.
- - - Updated - - -
That's a very good point!
Last edited:
After reading the rest of the thread, a quick reminder:
This wasn't supposed to be a discussion about realism players vs fun players but about how both playstyles could coexist. So please stop fighting, you are not going to convince either side. If you think my suggestions didn't meet your expectations engage your brain and share your ideas on how to make the game better, but please do it in a way that accepts both views as legitimate.
This wasn't supposed to be a discussion about realism players vs fun players but about how both playstyles could coexist. So please stop fighting, you are not going to convince either side. If you think my suggestions didn't meet your expectations engage your brain and share your ideas on how to make the game better, but please do it in a way that accepts both views as legitimate.
Yeah, I think our views diverge here rather wildy. For me (and I'm sure I'm not alone) ED is a solo game experience, as I don't play in Open and very rarely in PGs, so I simply cannot rationalise the statement that "ED is a competitive MP game by nature". It simply isn't. Now, I recognise that's my subjective experience of ED, and your view is based on your own. However, I would argue that the mere fact of the existence of Solo and PG modes for cooperative play would objevtiely disprove your stated definition of ED, given that two thirds of the available game modes are not even competitive at all, and one whole third is not even multiplayer.
Fair enough
I think the Arena needs to be better tied to the main game in order to work. Imagine there would be a RES site with a constant stream of pirates, how would it be any different from what we saw in the live stream? In terms of game design it fits better to an Arena mode, sitting there, looking for pirates. I think some parts of the main game already are the arena mode I mentioned in OP. Also remember that I was just brainstorming, my ideas aren't necessarily the best, which doesn't mean the whole concept is wrong (catering to both, action and immersion players).
I commend your intent and agree that ED would be well served by at least trying to appease the largest cross-section of players that it can. I agree too that CQC arena mode should be integrated into the main game, as a kind of seasonal sport. There are so many possibilities for an intergrated CQC arena within the main galaxy, that would turn the feature from something that is simply ignored to something i'd actually play. Some ideas I has were:
- CQC is the official sport of the ED galaxy
- CQC could be integrated through specialist "arena" station types littered across human inhabited space
- CQC can be an effective career, with a proper seasons and end of season play-offs
- Player can join a CQC team of choice, sponsored by powerplay-powers
- Players can engage in CQC themselves, spectate and even bet credits on major games
- Top players can earn sponsorship deals from ship manufacturers who pay credit endorsements for those players to wear their unique decals/skins
- CQC fights can be against other players or NPCs depending on mode played.
There are so many other things you could do with it.
They already do. It's just a logical consistency that some players don't like, so gets rejected. The consistency complaints are entirely subjective.
That would be ideal.
I'm not categorically opposed to telepresence, but having it be unlimited in range and log out your own ship at the same time are steps too far.
There is also nothing stopping me from taking my war Corvette to Colonia, and beaming in a squad of crack PvP CMDRs to man it, as I go about imposing surrealism on others.
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure why you consider that an argument against multicrew as currently specified.
Because the argument that features like this can be ignored by not using them are total nonsense. Anyone who plays in Open and isn't willing to tediously block everyone who doesn't want to play by their rules is going to have to deal with multi-crew vessels, even in situations where logistical considerations, were there any, would make them less far less prevalent.
Even in other modes, instomatic multicrew is still going to make it easier to influence the BGS, because many people won't need to move to do things like collect and turn in bonds/vouchers. I can sit at my home base, and switch between friends' ships spread across the bubble and beyond, greatly amplifying the changes I am able to effect, on account of this silly system.
Last edited:
Griefers in a PVP ship will (and do) kill people now, without the benefit of multicrew. If anything it'll make griefing LESS common since they're in one ship rather than 3.
Firstly, we can ALREADY turns in bonds/vouchers remotely through Interstellar Factors - so again, nothing new there.
Secondly, have FDev confirmed that multicrew members can access any of the station functionality when they're not the pilot?
That may well be a reason why they're not planning to allow the helm to be switched out.
This argument that "It affects the BGS" gets trotted out any time somebody doesn't like something - but EVERYTHING affects the BGS. Type 7 got a buff. That affects the BGS - more cargo capacity means more effect on the BGS. Multicannon ammo capacity gets an increase - it affects the BGS because people can stay in a CZ longer before having to restock. Neutron star FSD boost - it effects the BGS because explorers can get to and from the Bubble more quickly and their rate of turning in exploration data goes up. Nobody mentions the BGS when they get something they like.