Telepresence is not necessary.

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

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.

Sure it is!.. Just see how easily you're contradicting yourself... If something can be acceptably unrealistic along a continuous scale, it means it isn't binary, thus it follows that it also can be acceptably realistic along that same scale. It only depends on your frame of reference. It's entirely subjective.

Also, if telepresence for a specific function is possible in a world and purely remote piloting is not possible because of some in-world restriction prohibiting it, then that would in theory clear up any sense of said world being unrealistic or inconsistent, because just like in the real world, the rules and laws dictating a certain action in one domain aren't equal across all domains.

This is only in theory, however, and the reality is that some people would still claim the above mentioned world to be unrealistic or unbelievable, because belief is inherently subjective and can also be entirely independent of facts and objective empiracal observations... see religion, consipiracy theories and people's belief in the supernatural.

Heck, even accepted factual phenomena, like some stuff in quantum mechanics, appears unrealistic and unbelievable to many at first glance. It's people's ability to defer to the authority of clever physicists that lets them accept those things as fact, despite the appearance of them sounding like to the casual observer on the surface.

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.

Well, "it's a game" is not really the response being put forward here. Rather, "some part of the game already aren't realistic, so why does this small new feature need to be?".

If you can accept that some existing systems in ED are gamey for the sake of making the game playable, then why can't ANY new feature also be? Why does MC HAVE to comply with lore-rules when other existing features don't? If you could live with those, why can't you live with MC?

It's an issue of uniformity, where the existing game isn't uniform across the board anyway.

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.

In a game with as much grind as ED?!?... No thanks!

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Are you sure you quoted the right person? Your response doesn't make any sense in light of what i was replying to...? What does that have to do with the MC mechanic being designed as players controlling their telepresence avatar or a teleporting NPC crew member (a distinction that is essentially meaningless)?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Lol, so true!... Virtual rep.

 

[akaliel]

So...what's Telepresence? Star trek style teleports?

No, it's just a remote log in to another ship. What's upsetting some people is that it's instant, regardless of distance.

EDIT: If you believe some of the reactions to this around the forums you'd think it was making some people question their own existence.

 

[space pilot]

Sure it is!.. Just see how easily you're contradicting yourself... If something can be acceptably unrealistic along a continuous scale, it means it isn't binary, thus it follows that it also can be acceptably realistic along that same scale. It only depends on your frame of reference. It's entirely subjective.

I didn't contradict myself in the slightest. "Unrealisticness", if you will, and "Acceptability", are not the same thing. The threshold we both refer to is with respect to acceptability, which is a personal judgment.

Also, if telepresence for a specific function is possible in a world and purely remote piloting is not possible because of some in-world restriction prohibiting it, then that would in theory clear up any sense of said world being unrealistic or inconsistent, because just like in the real world, the rules and laws dictating a certain action in one domain aren't equal across all domains.

This is only in theory, however, and the reality is that some people would still claim the above mentioned world to be unrealistic or unbelievable, because belief is inherently subjective and can also be entirely independent of facts and objective empiracal observations... see religion, consipiracy theories and people's belief in the supernatural.

Oh, I guess we do disagree about telepresence in a world without remote piloting being realistic. Though it seems you're defining realism post facto, i.e. "because the game designer said it is." I don't buy a ban on remote piloting at all. I'll just ignore the ban and do it anyway. Oh, I can't? Oh, because realism, ok...

Heck, even accepted factual phenomena, like some stuff in quantum mechanics, appears unrealistic and unbelievable to many at first glance. It's people's ability to defer to the authority of clever physicists that lets them accept those things as fact, despite the appearance of them sounding like to the casual observer on the surface.

This always seems to happen to me. My debate opponent winds up at "Actually, anything is possible."

Well, "it's a game" is not really the response being put forward here. Rather, "some part of the game already aren't realistic, so why does this small new feature need to be?".

I already answered that: It's a cost-benefit issue. The cost being lack of realism and consistency and immersion, the benefit being gameplay considerations. Some costs like not having Newtonian flight have huge benefits like being able to dogfight at all. I don't think the benefit of telepresence is worth anything; I think it even makes gameplay worse because it removes a sense of adventure from meeting up at a station and leaving together. It's just bang, in the chair, do whatever, out of the chair.

If you can accept that some existing systems in ED are gamey for the sake of making the game playable, then why can't ANY new feature also be? Why does MC HAVE to comply with lore-rules when other existing features don't? If you could live with those, why can't you live with MC?

It's an issue of uniformity, where the existing game isn't uniform across the board anyway.

See previous section.

 

[akaliel]

I don't think the benefit of telepresence is worth anything; I think it even makes gameplay worse because it removes a sense of adventure from meeting up at a station and leaving together.

What you call adventure I call precious time in the narrow window I can game with my son on a weekday evening. If this were the case, the feature simply would only be used by people who know each other. And never otherwise.

Just look at backlash Bungie received for their fireteam method on Destiny raids. People had to set up 3rd party websites to organize groups to go on raids. The VAST majority of players simply never went on them. Ever.

 

[space pilot]

What you call adventure I call precious time in the narrow window I can game with my son on a weekday evening. If this were the case, the feature simply would only be used by people who know each other. And never otherwise.

I was under the impression multicrew was only going to be used by people who knew each other anyway. What difference does it make whether you have to meet at one location?

The best argument for making multicrew so easy it requires no thought or effort is getting one person who's not really interested in multicrewing to cave in and allow someone like their little brother to tag along. I don't think it's a good enough argument; they'll probably end up getting in a fight about the game.

Just look at backlash Bungie received for their fireteam method on Destiny raids. People had to set up 3rd party websites to organize groups to go on raids. The VAST majority of players simply never went on them. Ever.

I don't think that's a good comparison. I played Destiny and hated the lack of raid matchmaking. There was already a matchmaking system which was used for strikes, and they decided not to use it for raids. It had nothing to do with realism, in fact it was more unrealistic the way they did it. Lorewise there was one tower, right, and there would have been loads and loads of whatever you call them, destiny people there, and it would have just taken someone shouting "RAID HERE!", or posting a note on the wall, anything. Bungie messed that up.

 

[street]

I'd have preferred FTL teleporting capabilities of stations. The human body can be seen as a set of informations which, in 3300, can be transferred so as data packages. Maybe, the teleport can get some time to match, say 5 minutes, but the whole galaxy is surrounded with human comms beacons. At least this solution avoids the issue of telepresence in deep space (say Sag. A*). Btw, aside from lore issue, I'm not totally against telepresence. I'm more into gameplay than lore.

 

[Ian Phillips]

That is kind of weird though. Let me see if I understand you correctly, this is where you can pilot another ship by essentially remote control? For want of a better way of putting it.

No you cannot pilot another players ship. You have a presence on their ship via Holo-me and can perform some ship functions.

 

[akaliel]

That is kind of weird though. Let me see if I understand you correctly, this is where you can pilot another ship by essentially remote control? For want of a better way of putting it.

Not pilot main ship, but gunner or ship launched fighter. Otherwise, yes.

I was under the impression multicrew was only going to be used by people who knew each other anyway. What difference does it make whether you have to meet at one location?

That's not how they're pushing it. They want people joining ships with randoms. It'll probably mostly be used by people who know each other, but Frontier wants it as widely used as possible. Forcing pilots to meet at stations would undo that entirely.

 

[space pilot]

That's not how they're pushing it. They want people joining ships with randoms. It'll probably mostly be used by people who know each other, but Frontier wants it as widely used as possible. Forcing pilots to meet at stations would undo that entirely.

This is the first I'm hearing about multicrew matchmaking, would you have a source?

If correct it would presumably still be possible to load up on randoms at a station. Availability would naturally vary by location.

 

[Darkfyre99]

So, the Devs were faced with a conundrum. Distance is covered very slowly in this game and they're about to introduce a cool new feature which might require CMDRs to be in the same place at the same time, and this is too restrictive. Many players may just ignore the feature because it's inconvenient.

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.

I posted this in another telepresence thread, but this forum wouldn't feel right without every aspect of a single topic getting it's own thread and suggestions posted in General Discussion. So:

How about they allow players to play as CMDRs for hire at stations, in place of current NPC crew at stations? Your actual character could be anywhere in the galaxy. But CMDR NPC-for-hire is available right now in Leonard Nimoy Station, or whichever station is nearest to your friend that needs a gunner. When you're done, you simply terminate the contract and your temporary character disappears back into the ether where all the other crew members go.

You could do some other cool stuff with the idea too. Like allowing players to use the CMDR Creator to create their temporary character. Maybe even write they're own back story blurb for the crew screen in the station.

It could be a cool way for players to meet other players in game. How about allowing players to hang around in the crew lounge of popular stations with their temporary CMDR, and identify the station on the map as having player crew for hire?

The idea here is that the gameplay is still fun and accessible, but there's no need for clunky shoe-horned lore-breaking explanations. You'd lose the ability to jump into a ship mid battle, but I didn't like that idea anyway.

Thoughts?

Instant multi-crew needs no explanation, anymore than instant repairs, instant refuels, instant refitting, or instant ____________. That way, people can make up their own explanations.

Personally, I've always believed that I'm playing the interesting portions of my Commander's life, and instant things happen "off screen." I most often play between midnight and one server time, but what I'm doing is spread out over the whole day. Cargo takes time to transfer, and she gets a bite to eat while that's happening. She'll catch a nap while repairs are being made, or a ship is being refit. I'm perfectly fine with the notion that a player's Commander traveled "off screen" to meet up with others during a play session.

Personally, I prefer to think that instant multi-crew works because a ship's owner purchased some unregistered slave, surgically altered them to look like their friends, who are using them to con local factions into paying them bounties they didn't earn. But that's because I think the whole bounty multiplication mechanic is poorly thought out.

 

[akaliel]

This is the first I'm hearing about multicrew matchmaking, would you have a source?

If correct it would presumably still be possible to load up on randoms at a station. Availability would naturally vary by location.

"As long as their ship has enough seats (different ships have different multicrew capabilities) a Commander can directly invite players, or can set their vessel to allow multicrew access. Commanders looking to play as crew can either accept direct invites, or activate a new “looking for ship” feature, which will automatically place them as crew on a suitable vessel with multicrew access allowed, making the process quick and painless." -http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Multicrew

You can see it in action on youtube.

Availability is the key word there. Frontier wants it to be as open as possible. Not have you bounce from station to station just hoping there's someone there looking for the same thing. Probably only to just miss each other by seconds. How many people would give up and quit? Play something else?

 

[Garbarrage]

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

Taking over control of a different character for hire at a station of your choosing would be a gamey game mechanic and not break the lore. Just sayin'.

- - - Updated - - -

Instant multi-crew needs no explanation, anymore than instant repairs, instant refuels, instant refitting, or instant ____________. That way, people can make up their own explanations.

Personally, I've always believed that I'm playing the interesting portions of my Commander's life, and instant things happen "off screen." I most often play between midnight and one server time, but what I'm doing is spread out over the whole day. Cargo takes time to transfer, and she gets a bite to eat while that's happening. She'll catch a nap while repairs are being made, or a ship is being refit. I'm perfectly fine with the notion that a player's Commander traveled "off screen" to meet up with others during a play session.

Personally, I prefer to think that instant multi-crew works because a ship's owner purchased some unregistered slave, surgically altered them to look like their friends, who are using them to con local factions into paying them bounties they didn't earn. But that's because I think the whole bounty multiplication mechanic is poorly thought out.

Wow... rep for the convoluted madness involved in your narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

"As long as their ship has enough seats (different ships have different multicrew capabilities) a Commander can directly invite players, or can set their vessel to allow multicrew access. Commanders looking to play as crew can either accept direct invites, or activate a new “looking for ship” feature, which will automatically place them as crew on a suitable vessel with multicrew access allowed, making the process quick and painless." -http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Multicrew

You can see it in action on youtube.

Availability is the key word there. Frontier wants it to be as open as possible. Not have you bounce from station to station just hoping there's someone there looking for the same thing. Probably only to just miss each other by seconds. How many people would give up and quit? Play something else?

But you don't need to bounce from station to station. Your friend needs a gunner. You find out where he/she is and select your character at the nearest station. 3 minutes later that character is gunning down suicidal pirates in a res site.

Still seems pretty accessible to me.

 

[akaliel]

I'm referring to the matchmaking, if you have no friends playing and still want to multi-crew. Plus, we're not always within 3 minutes of our buddies.

 

[space pilot]

"As long as their ship has enough seats (different ships have different multicrew capabilities) a Commander can directly invite players, or can set their vessel to allow multicrew access. Commanders looking to play as crew can either accept direct invites, or activate a new “looking for ship” feature, which will automatically place them as crew on a suitable vessel with multicrew access allowed, making the process quick and painless." -http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Multicrew

You can see it in action on youtube.

Availability is the key word there. Frontier wants it to be as open as possible. Not have you bounce from station to station just hoping there's someone there looking for the same thing. Probably only to just miss each other by seconds. How many people would give up and quit? Play something else?

Well, it sounds like they're past the point of no return in creating a different style of game within the current one. Maybe matchmaking never occured to me because I think it's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard and will definitely fail miserably, but if they are doing matchmaking, it will certainly be infinitely easier with telepresence than without.

 

[Trash Gordon]

Well, it sounds like they're past the point of no return in creating a different style of game within the current one. Maybe matchmaking never occured to me because I think it's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard and will definitely fail miserably, but if they are doing matchmaking, it will certainly be infinitely easier with telepresence than without.

hiring on as gunner or crew for time, would certainly be a nice change from reptetive mission running.

 

[akaliel]

hiring on as gunner or crew for time, would certainly be a nice change from reptetive mission running.

Yes, adding fun to the game. It'll be a huge change for Elite.

 

[space pilot]

hiring on as gunner or crew for time, would certainly be a nice change from reptetive mission running.

I agree with that. I think implementation via a bulletin board system, without telepresence, would be more reliably amenable to fun-having than matchmaking would. "Gunner wanted for RES bounty hunting..." for example. Either way it's bound to end up as "for a change" gameplay for almost everyone, and I wouldn't have made the compromises which are reportedly being made to implement matchmaking if I were in charge.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Yes, adding fun to the game. It'll be a huge change for Elite.

I think this comment is very telling.

Do you actually LIKE the core ED game?

I ask because if i logged into EVE or DOTA2, i really dont like them. I am sure i could come up with all sorts of reasons why improvments would make the game better to me...... But should people who dislike the game as it stands now be the people FD are balancing the game for?

This is a genuine question and i am not trying to put words in peoples mouths, it just worries me that there are a number of people coming accross like MC is the 1st bit of fun in the game........ Honestly after a few hrs of pew pew IF you do not like the rest of the game would what we have in 2.3 win you over... Or will you still put the game down? Because the risk is ultimately no one gets what they want.

Just a thought. I am done arguing with folk 2.3 is what it is

 

[Genxav]

Frontier should just introduce the "Transporter (Star Trek)"

 

[space pilot]

I have no issues with this, provided it's 'realistic': ie crew would have to be at the same station...

Heh. I think literally no one has a problem with multicrew itself. It's that the plan is not to be realistic, not to have to be at the same station. Almost every post in this thread is about that.