Telepresence is not necessary.

[Bobbydylan]

The "lore" explanation given is honestly, pants. I get that they are sacrificing realism for accessibility, but telepresence creates so many holes in the lore that it's like they just stopped trying and just went with whatever they had at release.

To be honest, it seems Lore has really taken a back seat over at FD lately. 2.3 should be renamed "frak it". Cos that's the impression I'm getting.

Magic camera that no one can see which is the gunner cam (which seems like a massively over-engineered solution to having 360 CCTV camera's on the hull and software that stitches the various streams together.
Combat rewards that cost the mission issuer more cos the captain collecting has his mates hologram on board at the time of the kill.
Insurance Excess that somehow is affected by said Hologram.
A Hologram that somehow produces power and can allocate it to systems, Engines or weapons.
Cross galactic commutation that renders so much of the game obsolete.

I mean... Wow. I wish the 2012/13 David Braben could see this proposition. Can you imagine the response his Kickstarter would have gotten with this gamepaly idea as a DDF post?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

To be honest, it seems Lore has really taken a back seat over at FD lately. 2.3 should be renamed "frak it". Cos that's the impression I'm getting.

Magic camera that no one can see which is the gunner cam (which seems like a massively over-engineered solution to having 360 CCTV camera's on the hull and software that stitches the various streams together.
Combat rewards that cost the mission issuer more cos the captain collecting has his mates hologram on board at the time of the kill.
Insurance Excess that somehow is affected by said Hologram.
A Hologram that somehow produces power and can allocate it to systems, Engines or weapons.
Cross galactic commutation that renders so much of the game obsolete.

I mean... Wow. I wish the 2012/13 David Braben could see this proposition. Can you imagine the response his Kickstarter would have gotten with this gamepaly idea as a DDF post?

damn cant rep you again but i think you summed up my concerns on the future of ED in a nutshell.

a fantasy space shooter can be good fun, and I WOULD still have bought it, but no way would i have backed to the level i did. Had DB have been asked outright in the KSer if this was his vision, I bet my left nut (actually I bet that earlier so best make it my right one! ) he would have looked at you like you were a crazy person.

 

[Heavenly-Hammer]

Yeeep, it's a gamey game mechanic. Shocking as it is that a game would have a gamey game mechanic, we need to get over ourselves and accept that this game is chocked full o' gamey game mechanics and always will be. Becuase it's a game. Because resources are limited and some elements are better when favoring access over anything else.

As others have said, they could have straight up ignored the "how does this fit in the lore" people and never offered a reason for how it works at all, though I'm pretty sure the end result of that would be a bunch of threads trying to find a way to fit it into the lore and complaining that it doesn't make much sense. Guess what guys, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't need to. You haven't been tendered explanations for instantly loading/unloading of hundreds of tons of cargo, instant ship respawns (with all of your engineered special parts no less), CMDRs never actually dying, lack of G Force consequences, instant ship armor installations, instant module and hard point installations, so on and so on. All of which are gamey mechanics designed to allow you to focus on gameplay. They were kind enough to give you some lore to shut the hell up about it and instead this is the reaction they get. Maybe in the future they'll simply stop offering lore entirely because why bother if this is the kind of response they get?

Nobody would be playing the game if they had to leave their ship in a shop for a week of real lifetime before their armor upgrades and hardpoint installs finished. Nobody would use multicrew (certainly not in meaningful numbers) if CMDRs had to stop whatever they were doing whenver in the galaxy they were doing it, fly to a central location, dock, sell all cargo (so they can leave their ship) and get on a friend's ship. That sounds like an hour of just waiting and coordinating before even getting to the gameplay you came together for. Guess what, guys? Ain't nobody got time for that. You're not going to wait an hour to get that new laser installed on your Vulture and NOBODY is going to spend an hour trying to get another player or two to meet up with them. These "invasion of the body snatchers" ideas where you "take over" the body of an NPC are just as silly as "telepresence". The most entertaining part of this thread is how many of you think your equally silly ideas are somehow "better". No guys, they're simply different.

You'll survive, just like you survive the silliness that is respawning after getting popped by another ship or falling into a neutron star instead of having to start with a new CMDR from scratch. You will survive and you will have fun.

I wonder how many of you stressing about this even have any friends to play MC with to be so worried about how other people are having fun. :x

 

[Magic Man]

There is a very simple solution. Have an option under the options menu called "Immersion enabled". If someone has that option selected then they can only multi-crew with someone who is docked at the same station as them.

For people (like me) who are happy with telepresence or instant-travel for multi-crew then they just leave that option disabled and they can enjoy this feature as Frontier intended.

You've missed the point of this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

These "invasion of the body snatchers" ideas where you "take over" the body of an NPC are just as silly as "telepresence". The most entertaining part of this thread is how many of you think your equally silly ideas are somehow "better". No guys, they're simply different.

Re-read it, nobody is suggesting your commander is taking over the body of the NPC, you, as the game player, would be simply taking control of that NPC instead.

 

[Forum_Dad]

The only reason this "telepresence" nonsense exists is because space legs don't exist

 

[space pilot]

Yeeep, it's a gamey game mechanic. Shocking as it is that a game would have a gamey game mechanic, we need to get over ourselves and accept that this game is chocked full o' gamey game mechanics and always will be. Becuase it's a game. Because resources are limited and some elements are better when favoring access over anything else.

Not every transgression of realism is equal, and telepresence is such a major one for so little reward that you get a lot of people complaining about it.

Your position seems to be that because one thing is unrealistic to any degree, it shouldn't matter that anything else is unrealistic to any degree. I disagree.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

These "invasion of the body snatchers" ideas where you "take over" the body of an NPC are just as silly as "telepresence". The most entertaining part of this thread is how many of you think your equally silly ideas are somehow "better". No guys, they're simply different.

x

who even said that? stop twisting what others said....... you either get your CMDR over to your mates ship, like in wings now OR you do not play as your CMDR for that session and instead play as a crew mate on another ship.

I wonder how many of you stressing about this even have any friends to play MC withx

wow!.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

i remember a time when people could have a differing opinion without being an idiot........ I suppose I must be ignorant of the meaning of discussion.

Agree with me or you are an idiot is your definition it seems.

Erm... I'm speaking about a very distinct group of idiots who harbour a particularly bizzare kind of cognitive dissonance, where they on the one hand insist that every newly announced feature absolutely MUST comply with the rigid rules of the game's lore (that not even all the existing game features compliy with), whilst at the same time completely ignoring those existing features that already break the rules.

If you can see that certain aspects of the game already break lore rules whilst also appreciating why this HAS TO BE so, but yet inexplicably insist that every possible newly revealed feature must comply with game-lore rules regardless of the design intent of those new features, then I'm sorry you are an idiot, disingenuous and incredibly short sighted.

From your posts, Mad Mike, it seems you don't fall into that category. So why get so seemingly offended by my statement? Or make poor attempts at a strawman argument as a rebuttal?

I'm not saying those who don't agree with me are idiots. I haven't stated my position on the matter at all, so I'm not even making this about me eitherway. I'm saying that there are those who don't care so much about lore, and there are those who do, and of those who do, there are a smaller subcategory who are wholly hypcritical and often the loudest minority; thus the most deserving of being ignored.

Anyway, this is getting pretty offtopic.

My issue with it is, it COULD have still had your instant access put in, AND been additive for all, AND not broken any lore. a win for everyone.

Errrm... how?!? I get the compulsion to always try to play armchair game-designer, but if the primary point of contention for those vocal lore-purists is the "instant" part of the MC mechanic, how could you possibly have both "instant" MC and any lore explanation that would satisfy that dissonance-ridden crowd?

I've yet to hear a reasonable idea.

I get that you are just playing a game and want to pew pew at a moments notice, and do not give 2 squits about game consistency or narrative... and that IS OK. No need to project onto those who feel different however.

Quite why you insist on making this about me is baffling. I mean I'm flattered, but you're pretty off the mark completely about what I want from the game, so I would caution you to not try to assume you know what I want.

In which, case I'm not trying to project any of my own personal preferences onto anything. You're doing that by identifying with the cross-section of idiots I was decrying, despite you clearly not belonging to that sub-group, and then trying to frame your arguement around what you project my personal preferences to be. It's weird.

The issue at hand, is regarding the question of the "telepresence" explanation to the MC mechanic. The design of the MC mechanic is irrelevant to the discussion. You're the only one bringing that into it. If you actually read my original post properly, you'd quickly realise that my point spoke towards the question of value of this "telepresence" explanation and whether an explanation was even relevant or not; of which it clearly wasn't.

IF all you care about is instant action and not bothered about anything other than that, then surely it would not bother you if it is your avatar you get to see rather than the captains crew person? Or do you have double standards and you must only play as your CMDR?

Who knows perhaps what we have now is placeholder and one day it will be fleshed out to make sense?

I don't really agree with your premise here, that FDev should change the working of a mechanic that intentionally doesn't concern itself with lore, just to appease an obsessed minority. If a player wants to MC instantly with their own avatar, then why shouldn't the game provide the option for them to do that?

If as a player you're protesting the implementation of a gameplay feature, for no other reason than it breaks the fictional rules of the fictional world that you're trying to immerse yourself in, then OK... fair play to you... But if you're doing all this, whilst still possessing an understanding that features already existing in the game now, already break these same fictional rules in order to facilitate player fun, accessibility and/or expression, then I'm sorry but you are the one with the double standard.

Regardless, however, the percieved issue in question here is not how MC was designed. It's the explanation for it.
Does it really need to be an issue, however? Well... if folks didn't ask for an explanation for something that so clearly didn't need one, then we wouldn't need this thread would we?

- - - Updated - - -

Re-read it, nobody is suggesting your commander is taking over the body of the NPC, you, as the game player, would be simply taking control of that NPC instead.

Lol, the irony of this post is delicious.

 

[akaliel]

Re-read it, nobody is suggesting your commander is taking over the body of the NPC, you, as the game player, would be simply taking control of that NPC instead.

Lol, ummm, so your issue was that he said "taking over" instead of "taking control"?

EDIT: I've seen this suggestion posted lots and don't really like it. I want my friends to see my avatar.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Not every transgression of realism is equal, and telepresence is such a major one for so little reward that you get a lot of people complaining about it.

Your position seems to be that because one thing is unrealistic to any degree, it shouldn't matter that anything else is unrealistic to any degree. I disagree.

How great or small a transgression of realism it is depends wholly on your subjective opinion. Rendering the entire discussion of believability of lore an consisency a fruitless endeavour, because people inherently have different thresholds to what they consider believable or consistent within an imaginary fantasy fictional space world...

We've had people on this very forum complaining that the idea of 3D printing in 3309 is rediculous, despite the obvious state of the art in that technology today.

When it comes to lore, all it boils down to is essentially, "what I like" and "what I don't like" for many forum posters, and yet their completely inability to recognise it as such is imho the REAL problem of this whole debate.

If I was FDev I would simply only release lore explanations for what I consider worthy of needing them, and avoid the rest. The programmed response to the ensuing backlash from purists should simply be "it's a game, thus an element of suspension of disbelief will always be required"... I mean players happily do this when they consider the death-respawn mechanic without ever questioning it. So they should simply grow up and deal with the rest.

 

[Heavenly-Hammer]

who even said that? stop twisting what others said.......

Read post #31 for an example. It's not even a long thread. If you want to discuss the current state of conversation, at least do that much.

How great or small a transgression of realism it is depends wholly on your subjective opinion. Rendering the entire discussion of believability of lore an consisency a fruitless endeavour, because people inherently have different thresholds to what they consider believable or consistent within an imaginary fantasy fictional space world...

We've had people on this very forum complaining that the idea of 3D printing in 3309 is rediculous, despite the obvious state of the art in that technology today.

When it comes to lore, all it boils down to is essentially, "what I like" and "what I don't like" for many forum posters, and yet their completely inability to recognise it as such is imho the REAL problem of this whole debate.

If I was FDev I would simply only release lore explanations for what I consider worthy of needing them, and avoid the rest. The programmed response to the ensuing backlash from purists should simply be "it's a game, thus an element of suspension of disbelief will always be required"... I mean players happily do this when they consider the death-respawn mechanic without ever questioning it. So they should simply grow up and deal with the rest.

Yes. They mine as well ignore lore going forward because these people will trip over themselves about it. Why even bother entertaining them?

 

[akaliel]

I find it kind of hilarious that these posts are still everywhere. People jumping on them with hosts of suggestions on what Frontier should and should not change with Multi-crew. Whether it be a huge list of mechanical changes to the method of joining someone's ship, or the necessary bullet proof lore to support it. Or both. Clearly a lot of thought had gone into it. Meanwhile there's no feedback from Frontier. Not a single dev comment. They just keep fixing issues with their beta, chugging along forward with their feature unchanged from what was originally announced.

They're not going to change anything guys. Instant multi-crew is the gameplay they want to present to the 50 million PS4 gamers. They don't care what mental hoops you have to jump through to rationalize it. But make no mistake, you're gonna have to.

 

[Heavenly-Hammer]

I find it kind of hilarious that these posts are still everywhere. People jumping on them with hosts of suggestions on what Frontier should and should not change with Multi-crew. Whether it be a huge list of mechanical changes to the method of joining someone's ship, or the necessary bullet proof lore to support it. Or both. Clearly a lot of thought had gone into it. Meanwhile there's no feedback from Frontier. Not a single dev comment. They just keep fixing issues with their beta, chugging along forward with their feature unchanged from what was originally announced.

They're not going to change anything guys. Instant multi-crew is the gameplay they want to present to the 50 million PS4 gamers. They don't care what mental hoops you have to jump through to rationalize it. But make no mistake, you're gonna have to.

Yep. Just like you do with every other aspect of the game that doesn't take a realistic amount of time to complete. Which is most aspects of the game. You'll be alright.

 

[Magic Man]

Lol, the irony of this post is delicious.

Really?

Lol, ummm, so your issue was that he said "taking over" instead of "taking control"?

No, not quite. The implied context is totally different.

EDIT: I've seen this suggestion posted lots and don't really like it. I want my friends to see my avatar.

Oh, so a cosmetic representation of you is more important. Well, we have Holo Me in the cockpit so I doubt anyone would complain if the NPC 'assumed' the avatar of your commander. Again, there is no real need to try and explain this within the game world - it's simply a game mechanic, leave it at that. That is the main issue with telepresence - that it's been implemented to explain a game mechanic in lore when it didn't need to be explained.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Read post #31 for an example. It's not even a long thread. If you want to discuss the current state of conversation, at least do that much.

Lol, yes. That post is especially funny because it presents the idea of teleporting NPC crew as a solution to the problem of lore-inconsistency through the idea of telepresence.... as if teleporting NPC's is any less of a problem in the lore... lol

 

[smiths121]

Well I vote for "its a game mechanic" no lore needed.

I would feel som much happier with that - like when other commanders get the rbuy screen 10,000LY back in the bubble after crashing into a Neutron Star. Not me - not got the patients for exploration, or non-iron man mode.

Simon

 

[space pilot]

How great or small a transgression of realism it is depends wholly on your subjective opinion. Rendering the entire discussion of believability of lore an consisency a fruitless endeavour, because people inherently have different thresholds to what they consider believable or consistent within an imaginary fantasy fictional space world...

We've had people on this very forum complaining that the idea of 3D printing in 3309 is rediculous, despite the obvious state of the art in that technology today.

When it comes to lore, all it boils down to is essentially, "what I like" and "what I don't like" for many forum posters, and yet their completely inability to recognise it as such is imho the REAL problem of this whole debate.

How unrealistic something is isn't really a matter of opinion. It could be theoretically, but I don't think we really disagree that a world where telepresence is possible but purely remote piloting is not is unrealistic. Where the threshold is for acceptably unrealistic, of course that's opinion.

And of course realism mattering or not is a question of affection, because the subject is a software program meant to entertain people. It seems to matter to a lot of people, myself included, and "It's a game" isn't changing our minds.

If I was FDev I would simply only release lore explanations for what I consider worthy of needing them, and avoid the rest. The programmed response to the ensuing backlash from purists should simply be "it's a game, thus an element of suspension of disbelief will always be required"... I mean players happily do this when they consider the death-respawn mechanic without ever questioning it. So they should simply grow up and deal with the rest.

I wouldn't personally mind permadeath; I play like there's permadeath for the moment; I think it would cut down on griefing a bit. But the reward for not dying, though dying may be realistic, is significant. It makes a huge difference to gameplay, and some people would hate the game with dying, protest it, and quit playing forever. Compare that to having to g meet up to fly on the same ship and the latter is a non-issue.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Really?

Of course!... You said:

Re-read it, nobody is suggesting your commander is taking over the body of the NPC, you, as the game player, would be simply taking control of that NPC instead.

The distinction between "you" as your in-game avatar and "you" as your real-world player of said in-game avatar, is a distinction that only matters in the minds of those immersion/lore/consistency-purists any change would be trying to appease.

And if you actually subscribe to the group who cares so much about "immersion", in it's most literal sense, then your in-game avatar and the real-life "you" playing him, should be one and the same shouldn't they?

Meaning, FDev throwing away likely literal man-months of work to re-design the MC mechanic for instant teleporting NPC crew members, for the sake of something that amounts to more or less the same thing... except from a "game" point of view, it denies those players who care about it, the ability to show off their own in-game avatars to their friends that they've spent real-life cash playing dress-up on.

 

[Magic Man]

The distinction between "you" as your in-game avatar and "you" as your real-world player of said in-game avatar, is a distinction that only matters in the minds of those immersion/lore/consistency-purists any change would be trying to appease.

That's a very shallow frame of mind.

You totally forget about the rich universe that has been created around all this, the universe that has spawned numerous novels etc. The universe that drives the story-lines in game.

Without that richness then, apart from those novelists having nothing else to write, then we can look forward to children's stories for future expansion because nothing basically means anything anymore.

If all you want is a simplistic space shooter, then there are others around to cater for that. If you thought that Elite was only really intending to be that then you have totally the wrong idea of the history, backstory and what ED was meant to be.

 

[akaliel]

That's a very shallow frame of mind.

You totally forget about the rich universe that has been created around all this, the universe that has spawned numerous novels etc. The universe that drives the story-lines in game.

Without that richness then, apart from those novelists having nothing else to write, then we can look forward to children's stories for future expansion because nothing basically means anything anymore.

If all you want is a simplistic space shooter, then there are others around to cater for that. If you thought that Elite was only really intending to be that then you have totally the wrong idea of the history, backstory and what ED was meant to be.

You have it backwards. You make it sound like we're petitioning Frontier to add telepresence and insta-multicrew into their game and lore, and for them to make the game into an easily accessible multi-player game where we can shoot things with our friends. They already did. It's you that has the wrong idea of what ED was meant to be.