Telepresence is not necessary.

[S3B4ST13N]

I don't like telepresence, it sounds like a poorly thought out cop-out - we can telepresence across the galaxy but can't send the quantity and price paperwork for a shipment of fish to the station next door? :/
That said, I can live with it. It doesn't affect my gameplay, and MC is a nice diversion from monotony.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

In the example you give there, changes were made to make it easier for players to accomplish their goals, not harder. If there's actually a large base of players using multicrew at some point in the future, and it's changed to require meeting at one location, there will be a substantial backlash. Furthermore, once telepresence is implemented, the motivation to come up with an alternative drops off a cliff. It goes from choosing between X and Y to having to choose to replace X with Y.

Well, the obvious solution is to offer both options.

Let people meet up to MC, providing incentive to do this, and for those who just want quick telepresence action, provide the option to do this too; albeit in a somewhat nerfed form (e.g. remove the additional pips for telepresence MC and only allow them for those who MC in person).

There are lots of ways to acomplish the objective. Hence your assumption that "once telepresence MC is in, it can't be changed" is incorrect.

It's not as if FDev are averse to making changes to the game that some players will dislike. I mean, literally every balancing pass update, as well as the fact that they are still going ahead with the telepresence MC implementation, are both testaments to that.

So, as far as they find a way to satisfy the needs of both types of player (i.e. immersion-focused and those who just want quick mulitplayer action), when the space legs update is ready, then I don't see there being anything wrong with that.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

I don't like telepresence, it sounds like a poorly thought out cop-out - we can telepresence across the galaxy but can't send the quantity and price paperwork for a shipment of fish to the station next door? :/
That said, I can live with it. It doesn't affect my gameplay, and MC is a nice diversion from monotony.

Tbh, as much as I can appreciate the basis of the argument, there are lots of ways your example can be explained believably.

E.g.

(i) Telepresence is only offered for remote gunner and SLF control - so support remote operation of auxillary combat operations aboard ships.

(ii) Market information is far more sensitive as computing power in 3309 would be lightyears beyond what we have today, thus the kinds of automated trading using financial instruments based on minute pricing differences between commoddities across stations throughout the bubble would allow even the lowliest peons sufficient computational performance to become rich overnight. Thus in order to regulate the distribution of wealth across the galaxy, market regulators would have to suppress the ability of stations and trade market terminals to broadcast their pricing data. They would most likely have highly sophisitical security systems that only allow access to market information to vessels within a certain proximity to the station/terminal... hence in 3309, capitalism is still king

 

[Trash Gordon]

Tbh, as much as I can appreciate the basis of the argument, there are lots of ways your example can be explained believably.

E.g.

(i) Telepresence is only offered for remote gunner and SLF control - so support remote operation of auxillary combat operations aboard ships.

(ii) Market information is far more sensitive as computing power in 3309 would be lightyears beyond what we have today, thus the kinds of automated trading using financial instruments based on minute pricing differences between commoddities across stations throughout the bubble would allow even the lowliest peons sufficient computational performance to become rich overnight. Thus in order to regulate the distribution of wealth across the galaxy, market regulators would have to suppress the ability of stations and trade market terminals to broadcast their pricing data. They would most likely have highly sophisitical security systems that only allow access to market information to vessels within a certain proximity to the station/terminal... hence in 3309, capitalism is still king

Sounds right on par with medichlorians

 

[RhymeRhyme]

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.

Thoughts?

Some good points but this feature needs to be instant. I'm so sick of traveling and wasting valuable spare time. If you need to gather somewhere before you multi crew, this feature is dead as places another frustrating time barrier in front of you.

 

[kork attuma]

Game full of defects,
Sammarco worst developer of history.
Here we continue to change the roof tiles, when have not been resting the pillars of the house.
The core-gaming is absent.
Canceled the game, uninstalled the game. This is the solution when a game does not meet.
I know this does not interest anybody, but I wanted to say it, especially the part of Sammarco.
I leave you to your telepresence, nerf and various other crap.

Bye Bye

 

[Garbarrage]

Some good points but this feature needs to be instant. I'm so sick of traveling and wasting valuable spare time. If you need to gather somewhere before you multi crew, this feature is dead as places another frustrating time barrier in front of you.

How long does it take to get to the nearest station to you right now?

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Sounds right on par with medichlorians

Well, if your starting point is Telepresence... you gotta go somewhere *shrug" lol [big grin]

 

[space pilot]

Well, the obvious solution is to offer both options.

Let people meet up to MC, providing incentive to do this, and for those who just want quick telepresence action, provide the option to do this too; albeit in a somewhat nerfed form (e.g. remove the additional pips for telepresence MC and only allow them for those who MC in person).

There are lots of ways to acomplish the objective. Hence your assumption that "once telepresence MC is in, it can't be changed" is incorrect.

My position was and is that once telepresence is implemented in the game proper, requiring meeting at the same location for multicrew in the game proper will never happen. Not that it can't be changed. It's a prediction, and I'm accounting for potential wishful thinking to the contrary, as I think it's just that. Once it's in, they won't take it out.

It's not as if FDev are averse to making changes to the game that some players will dislike. I mean, literally every balancing pass update, as well as the fact that they are still going ahead with the telepresence MC implementation, are both testaments to that.

Nerfs and the like are done to please some people with the knowledge some will be displeased. In this day and age especially, the intent is to please more people than you displease, because of money. Changes which will displease some are basically never made just for the sake of world consistency, also because of money. Once they've already ticked off the "realism crowd", they won't want to tick off the "convenience crowd" too. The only caveat is if there's a massive public outcry upon the implementation of telepresence, with many more people on my side speaking up than now, combined with a lack of comparative response from your side, they might remove it. I doubt that'll happen.

So, as far as they find a way to satisfy the needs of both types of player (i.e. immersion-focused and those who just want quick mulitplayer action), when the space legs update is ready, then I don't see there being anything wrong with that.

What if you want to mc on someone's ship, and they want to mc with you on their ship, you want to roleplay meeting at a station for immersion, and they aren't willing to wait. You can't both be accomodated.

The only way to appeal to both types is to have different game modes, like high/low realism, to be chosen when you start a character, essentially splitting the playerbase in two, complicating multiplayer.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

How long does it take to get to the nearest station to you right now?

Maidenhead station is a 5 minute walk from my house. But I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion friend?

Spoiler

/Cheek

 

[RhymeRhyme]

How long does it take to get to the nearest station to you right now?

Ok, if you mean just dock and lock, then it might work and the 'some good points' I wrote are valued. But it's important that this game takes away the time and grind barrier thta it puts in front of players due to lack of gameplay and repetiveness. Every patch comes with nothing else than cosmetics. The underlying and very repetitive thus boring gameplay doesn't change.
This game is proceduarlly generated gameplay at it's core and that's it's biggest problem. No interesting storyline, no interesting and unique missions.

Shoot 10.000 ships, deliver 50 mio. goods, explore 100.000 system. You only need to do one and you it all the game does offer.

 

[xondk]

So, the Devs were faced with a conundrum. Distance is covered very slowly in this game

The "lore" explanation given is honestly, pants.

1: That is simply not true, you travel very far very fast in the game, the problem is, the game is without any doubt bigger then any other game out there in actual square kilometers of you have access to, and people for some reason think that you should be able to cover that faster? apparently if you make a bigger game world, you should also speed up game travel. Why would you increase game world then? if actual travel time doesn't reflect the bigger size?

2: Is it though? considering our rl military already use remote controlled drones and similar, including representing the terrain around you from sensor information inside vehicle without a person having to actually look outside? the only 'stretch' is FTL communication?

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Telepresent Hologram interfaces or 3d Printed Mecha-organic clones, or magical simulacra forged of space-dust and spit - it really doesn't make a difference to me.

As long as it works and I can make credits from it, then that's really all the explanation I require.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

My position was and is that once telepresence is implemented in the game proper, requiring meeting at the same location for multicrew in the game proper will never happen. Not that it can't be changed. It's a prediction, and I'm accounting for potential wishful thinking to the contrary, as I think it's just that. Once it's in, they won't take it out.

And my position is that it doesn't need to be taken out to ALSO provide MC through players meeting up at the same location. Retaining instant MC through a nerfed telepresence is an option, just like ship transfers for money is. They didn't remove the ability to manually transfer ships between stations when the ship xfer QoL feature was added, thus there's no reason to remove telepresence for MC when the longer option is also added.

Nerfs and the like are done to please some people with the knowledge some will be displeased. In this day and age especially, the intent is to please more people than you displease, because of money. Changes which will displease some are basically never made just for the sake of world consistency, also because of money. Once they've already ticked off the "realism crowd", they won't want to tick off the "convenience crowd" too.

Aren't you defeating your on argument here? I thought players like you, who wanted MC implemented through players psyically meeting up, wanted it because you saw some value in the greater "immersiveness of it". In which case, FDev adding in a manual meet-up version of MC with benefits over instant will be a change to please the crowd you identify with, despite displeasing a few who prefer the convenience of the instant option. Remember, I'm advocating for both options continuing to exist within the game, meaning that a cross-section of players in both camps will be pleased by the changes (and the remainder FDev will live with, as it's never possible to please all players with a change to the game).

What if you want to mc on someone's ship, and they want to mc with you on their ship, you want to roleplay meeting at a station for immersion, and they aren't willing to wait. You can't both be accomodated.

Of course there's no way of designing the feature to accomodate a case like this. So I don't know what purpose this suggestion serves? If you are the first player, looking to MC using the immersive method, and another player doesn't want to wait, then play with someone else... that's the obvious solution here.

The basis of my argument is that the devs should provide both options to facilitate both players in your example playing with others whose preferences align.

The only way to appeal to both types is to have different game modes, like high/low realism, to be chosen when you start a character, essentially splitting the playerbase in two, complicating multiplayer.

See above. Your premise here is flawed. That isn't the only way to appeal to both players at all. FDev could provide both instant MC and the immersive space legs version, and then provide additional tools to allow players to identify other players in-game looking for MC play-styles which suit their individual preferences:

E.g. for instant MC you can have a matchmaking function in the menu, and for the manual role-playing method you can provide social spaces in starports like bars that allow role-playing players to meet-up and go off adventuring together. Both options will provide equal value to players who are looking for different things.

In my example solutions, the only people who would be upset are those who simply don't even want existence of a second option for MC to appear in the game. These are the kinds of narrow-minded irrational people that FDev shouldn't be looking to appease in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

the only 'stretch' is FTL communication?

Not if it's using a system based on quantum entanglement. The technology exist to quantum entangle atoms today, so I don't see why communication technology in 3309 wouldn't be based on it.

If anything, the entire human bubble and much of the universe in ED wouldn't even be possible without FTL communication. The bubble is 500 Lys across give-or-take, so sub-FTL communication would mean literally every faction, power and super power would have no-chance at being able to coordinate anything properly.

 

[space pilot]

...In my example solutions, the only people who would be upset are those who simply don't even want existence of a second option for MC to appear in the game. These are the kinds of narrow-minded irrational people that FDev shouldn't be looking to appease in the first place.

Okay, I read the entire post. While I can empathize with a person who wants convenience over immersion, it doesn't seem that the reverse is true, because you're not adding any persuasive arguments, and humorously end with a statement that the devs shouldn't even be worried about my side.

It's the same thing as fast travel or enemy tagging in an FPS. Short-term convenience at the expense of long-term immersion. If it's there, you'll use it, but degrade the experience in some way. Further, if it's there, you're expected to use it, so things will be tuned on the dev side assuming you are.

It's a shame that everything has to have the edges rounded off to appeal to the broadest possible audience, for the sake of money. PC games in the 80s/90s were for a niche market and built like they were, by smart people. Now they're primarily console ports for everyone, made by the average. It's a shame there isn't any room for the old school among polished products.

 

[Yodebe]

Tele-presence seems daft to me. Players should be real, not Halloumi.
If you want to go on a ship with your mates, then you all meet up at a station, put yourself on the 'crew for hire' page, & your mates pick you up.
if the ship dies, your 'escape pod' takes you back to the last station visited (same as teh pilot) & you either get back on board the new insurance ship, or buy a sidewinder, or 'transfer' your ship there, or put yourself on a passenger list to get a lift somewhere.

 

[Cosmo]

From a lore, immersion perspective, telepresence is the only plausible explanation. It's officially confirmed as such and I'm fine with that rather than magical teleportation. Because teleportation would radically change the way the Elite universe works. For example why travel across the galaxy if you can teleport instantly from Sol to Colonia. So telepresence has more believable limitations, because your real body stays in the same place.

With a full-scale galaxy it takes too much time to physically meet up and people only have a few hours per week to play so Holo-me and telepresence is the best solution.

There's also people who don't care about the lore which is okay.

 

[Ford Solo]

If it were my game, y'all would have to actually travel to your friend's ship, and if it were too inconvenient for you to travel that distance to meet up, then boo hoo for you. If it's really that important or exciting, you'd be willing to put in the time (the same concept as the popular book He's Just Not That Into You...if you can't be bothered to travel for multicrew, then you're just not that into Multicrew)

But since it's not my game, and it needs to sell more than 10 copies, and I do have to put up with the rest of you , I'll agree with the camp that says no lore should have been offered to explain Multicrew. Just let it happen without a lame lore-breaking telepresence explanation and we can easily pretend that the game merely skipped over the time required to meet up. We can easily imagine we simply didn't witness that part of the action. Just let the screen go black, and when the cockpit reappears there's your co-pilot walking through the door behind you, and you can imagine for yourself how much time passed while the screen was black. Was it a few hours? A few days? Weeks? Who cares!

When our ship destructs we don't get to see our Remlock suits go into action, the screen simply goes black. When we change ships we don't get to see ourselves travel from one hangar to the next, the screen simply goes black. Obviously things transpired during the time our screens go black in those instances, but we instinctively understand that those moments were skipped over in order to keep the gameplay tight. Personally, I DO want to see what my Remlock suit does after my ship destructs, I DO want to see myself travel from one hangar to the next, but I understand I'm a freak about that stuff and so I don't complain. I'm assuming these kinds of wishes are why space legs are being talked about, but none of it was a condition for me buying and enjoying the game so they can take their time with that IMO.

But asking me to believe that our friend's HOLOGRAM is required for them to help control aspects of the ship when they could simply sit at remote controls and remote in via 3303's version of Skype, is approaching bridge-too-far territory. Either a co-pilot needs to physically be in our ship, or they don't. If they do, a hologram won't cut the mustard, and if they don't, a hologram is pointless. There are plenty of reasons why a captain would appreciate some help on the bridge from extra crew members, but there's just no reason whatsoever why a captain would need to see a hologram of a crew member who is helping remotely. When a Tesla is on autopilot, is it necessary or helpful to put a hologram of hands on the steering wheel? I agree it will be really cool to look over and see a co-pilot in one of those empty chairs, but if it's not an actual tangible human pilot then there's simply no point in filling that chair. A hologram of a co-pilot offers no advantages over a co-pilot who is merely controlling systems on the ship remotely without any visual representation, the same way there's no advantages to having a hologram driver in your Tesla when it's on autopilot.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Okay, I read the entire post. While I can empathize with a person who wants convenience over immersion, it doesn't seem that the reverse is true, because you're not adding any persuasive arguments, and humorously end with a statement that the devs shouldn't even be worried about my side.

It's the same thing as fast travel or enemy tagging in an FPS. Short-term convenience at the expense of long-term immersion. If it's there, you'll use it, but degrade the experience in some way. Further, if it's there, you're expected to use it, so things will be tuned on the dev side assuming you are.

It's a shame that everything has to have the edges rounded off to appeal to the broadest possible audience, for the sake of money. PC games in the 80s/90s were for a niche market and built like they were, by smart people. Now they're primarily console ports for everyone, made by the average. It's a shame there isn't any room for the old school among polished products.

If you claim you can empathize with the group who wants convenience over immersion, why would you self-identify with the group who wants immersion at all costs at the expense of any convenience? That seems to me like a contradiction in terms.

I think it is narrow-minded to believe that the immersive space legs option to facilitate MC is the ONLY version that SHOULD exist. That doesn't sound like empathizing with players with different preferences at all. That sounds like a person that wants the game to be designed around them and no-one else. Especially when you claim the mere existence of the instant option somehow degrades the game and yet offer no explanation as to why that could possibly be the case.

It's purists being purists for the sake of purism, without opening their eyes to see that the developer can acutually provide sufficient options to facilitate your desired playstyle as well as the desired playstyles of others; and more importantly, without any real meaningful compromises.

I'm sorry space pilot, although I don't always agree with you, I do enjoy debating with you since I can often appreciate your position. On this one, however, I'm not with you at all. I reject the premise entirely that providing options can degrade a game. As I see it, providing options always enhances the gameplay experience, provided it's done in the right way.

 

[krylite]

If it were my game, y'all would have to actually travel to your friend's ship, and if it were too inconvenient for you to travel that distance to meet up, then boo hoo for you. If it's really that important or exciting, you'd be willing to put in the time (the same concept as the popular book He's Just Not That Into You...if you can't be bothered to travel for multicrew, then you're just not that into Multicrew)

But since it's not my game, and it needs to sell more than 10 copies, and I do have to put up with the rest of you , I'll agree with the camp that says no lore should have been offered to explain Multicrew. Just let it happen without a lame lore-breaking telepresence explanation and we can easily pretend that the game merely skipped over the game time required to meet up. We can easily imagine we simply didn't witness that part of the action. Just let the screen go black, and when the cockpit reappears there's your co-pilot walking through the door behind you, and you can imagine for yourself how much time passed while the screen was black. Was it a few hours? A few days? Weeks? Who cares!

When our ship destructs we don't get to see our Remlock suits go into action, the screen simply goes black. When we change ships we don't get to see ourselves travel from one hangar to the next, the screen simply goes black. Obviously things transpired during the time our screens go black in those instances, but we instinctively understand that those moments were skipped over in order to keep the gameplay tight. Personally, I DO want to see what my Remlock suit does after my ship destructs, I DO want to see myself travel from one hangar to the next, but I understand I'm a freak about that stuff and so I don't complain. I'm assuming these kinds of wishes are why space legs are being talked about, but none of it was a condition for me buying and enjoying the game so they can take their time with that IMO.

But asking me to believe that our friend's HOLOGRAM is required for them to help control aspects of the ship when they could simply sit at remote controls and remote in via 3303's version of Skype, is approaching bridge-too-far territory. Either a co-pilot needs to physically be in our ship, or they don't. If they do, a hologram won't cut the mustard, and if they don't, a hologram is useless. There are plenty of reasons why a captain would appreciate some help on the bridge from extra crew members, but there's just no reason whatsoever why a captain would need to see a hologram of a crew member who is helping remotely. When a Tesla is on autopilot, is it necessary or helpful to put a hologram of hands on the steering wheel? I agree it will be really cool to look over and see a co-pilot in one of those empty chairs, but if it's not an actual tangible human pilot then there's simply no point. A hologram of a co-pilot offers no advantages over a co-pilot who is merely controlling systems on the ship remotely without any visual representation, the same way there's no advantages to have a hologram driver in your Tesla when it's on autopilot.

Well said. I agree this is the most basic implementation multicrew should have been, with the fadeout to black assuming all the traveling and time that went with it similar to the ship rebuy process. With the invited crew walking in the bridge from the opening door then sitting in the crew chair would have been fine, even setting up a sign of things to come with spacelegs. Teleprescence contradicts so many things the ED lore already establishes. "occupied escape pods" are presumably inhabited by sleeping (or screaming for help) crew members, not their flickering teleprescence-holograms when you find 2 to 4 of the pods strewn around the wreckage.