Telepresence is not necessary.

[Garbarrage]

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?

This is relative depending on what you are comparing it to. Real life? Sure. Distance is covered fast. Another game lore based on wormhole tech that lets you cover point to point distances instantly, it's pretty slow.

To be clear, I'm not complaining about the time it takes to cover distance. I was merely pointing out the barrier to gameplay that FD were using Telepresence to overcome.

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?

Remote control drones are not the same thing as a technology that allows somebody 60kly away to control the guns in my ship in real time, when stations can't transmit market data, where pilots risk their lives by piloting their ships in person when the option is there to do it remotely, risking only credits, or where people still pay others to manually carry data from one station to another.

The intercept/hack explanation is lame. I mean, if there's a risk of data being intercepted, then surely there's a risk of someone hijacking the telepresence signal and shooting an ally in the butt, or blowing the nose off of your own ship, or firing your guns in a station and getting you killed.

Stretch is an understatement. The worrying part is that it's an explanation that Sandro was visibly uncomfortable with in the Q&A, and yet it made it into the game anyway. It's almost like it was a concession too far for him. Whether caused by time constraints or whatever, I'm concerned that they're in a position where they'll paint themselves into a corner because of pressure if they make too many of these concessions.

Personally, I think they've been doing a pretty good job up to now considering the obvious challenges they've had, without even knowing the behind-the-scenes challenges. But the lore is the foundation that binds the game together for me. Maybe I'm in a minority, and I could accept that but I don't think that I am.

 

[Captain N]

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.

3303's version of Skype would be very likely to be telepresence, though. This technology is going to revolutionise how people communicate, work and socialise over distances during the next 3-5 years or so in real life, we won't even have to wait a thousand years for it. If we don't need the AR functionality of avatars overlaid over reality, we already basically can do virtual telepresence through social VR apps like Rec Room and Altspace.

A huge amount of nuance is lost in human communication when you can't meet face to face or use nonverbal communication. All of our social behaviour and instincts are attuned to face to face communication, and a huge amount of information is simply lost when we use text only forms of communication. (ever wonder why there are constantly arguments flaring up on this very forum over seemingly nothing. even when there is no genuine disagreement - you simply can't accurately and reliably get a sense of someone's intentions through text only, at least when not everyone is a world class author with perfect articulation in english) Even 2D video teleconferences aren't quite the same as meeting face to face. This is largely the reason why people still gather in physical offices to do things like software development, despite Skype and similar existing. It's just more efficient for teamwork for people to be in the same physical space with each other.

The captain might not need to see the crew-member's hands on the steering wheel so to speak, but the hands may be useful for the crew member to gesture something - like pointing at a target and saying lock on to that thing over there. I actually had a moment in multi-crew already where I had to refer to something happening in the starboard, front and above of us and had to think for a few long seconds how to actually tell the rest of the crew about it. Would have been easier and faster to just point. Crazy thing is that exact thing wouldn't even be difficult to implement in ED right now, in VR at least, using already existing hand trackers like the Vive motion controllers or Oculus Touch, and making the avatar heads follow HMD movement. (Though in honesty, with people constantly telepresencing to fighters and turret views and such and not seeing each other it might not be actually that useful after all. But you get the point) Being able to gesture naturally is something that is already a practical reality and a staple in current VR games. It's only going to get better with full-body tracking and finger tracking, possibly in the very near future. edit: eye tracking too. Eye contact is very important after all.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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?

I know why FD are doing what they are doing, my worry is (and i am not saying i am right just thinking aloud as it were).

What was EDs hook? What does it have that other games do not have?. I woukd say it is their simulation of the milkyway...... Which even if you want to argue that ED is not a simulation anyway but an arcade shooter, the galaxy map IS a simulation and the thing is imo there are other games which will always be better as a multiplayer pew pew game.

And this is why i worry that FD may be going down the wrong path.

Surely if your stand out feature is billions of planets then where is the logic in spending hardly any time on exploration and space travel?. Instead FD seem to be simply coming up with ways to negate the size of the game "map" rather than embracing at and making getting from a to b fun.

In short i worry for multiplayer pew pew other games will simply do it better because they have a smaller game size so naturally hooking up with other players will just work better. If multiplayer combat people are going to stuff off anyway once star citizen drops anyway ( and multicrew in star citizen is built into the game from ground up not a bolt on) then is it a mistake practically putting all dev time into those features and hanging the explorers and space truckers out to dry?.

Example
FD want MP content players want faster travel of ships........ Well build in missions where a player delivers another player ship.

Damn... Gotta go so cant put in rest of drivel i have.........

Fly safe

 

[Weps]

but there's just no scientific reason whatsoever why a captain would need to see a hologram of a crew member who is helping remotely.

Was thinking the exact same thing while I was catching up on this thread. Even in the context of instant communication and pilots working remotely from thousands of light years away, there isn't any reason why the ship's captain would consider wasting even 1 Watt of power on displaying a hologram which for some reason sits in a chair behind him where he'll never look. It would actually be more productive to have the crew's faces displayed on monitors or even as partial holograms in front of him, as part of the HUD.

By the way, for those testing it in the Beta, do the holograms speak? [haha] Do crew members hear each other over comms, and are they muffled, or is the sound directional?

To me it just seems that FDEV needed to tick something on the to-do list ☑ player avatars aboard other ships and did not consider that there aren't any in-game reasons for it at this time.

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.

Amen to that. The fact that some of us quietly accept the lack of game bits, which obviously have a smaller value to the large playerbase and as such, don't justify costs and need to be cut, does not mean any half-baked idea should receive the same treatment.

 

[space pilot]

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 am capable of empathizing with the opposition, people who want any-time-any-place multicrew. I.e. I understand the desire for immediate "transportation". I understand just wanting to shoot lasers and not caring about realism or consistency, because you're not really pretending you're a space man, you're just doing a thing with your hands. I understand those things without being or living them. That's empathy.

And FYI, a down escalator is a contradiction-in-terms. You mean self-contradiction, but It still isn't true.

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.

It's not just me, it's a lot of people, and it's a zero sum game for reasons I've gone into. Why you say I haven't provided any explanation is completely beyond me. That I haven't made you change your mind, because you never will, doesn't mean I've made no case. Apparently there was a vote for instant or delayed stored module transport between stations, and delayed won cleanly. I would have voted for delayed. I assume you would have voted for "both". Do you really think that's viable? Do you really think more than one in ten thousand people will choose "wait" instead of "don't wait" when sitting in the outfitting menu? Please say you do, because it's absurd. You know instant is possible, you know others are doing it all the time, and you'll do it too. The realistic choice the developers have is one or the other, because "both" is really just the quick, easy, short-term, unimmersive choice. Unless it's a permanent game mode choice for the player like I discussed previously, which I would much prefer to "telepresence world".

To summarize, "both" is a false option, and either way someone's preferred gameplay style is getting forced on someone else. It's a question of whose.

I like debating you barely enough to do it, and all I like is the hope it persuades someone else to agree with me (and disagree with you).

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

I am capable of empathizing with the opposition, people who want any-time-any-place multicrew. I.e. I understand the desire for immediate "transportation". understand just wanting to shoot lasers and not caring about realism or consistency, because you're not really pretending you're a space man, you're just doing a thing with your hands. I understand those things without being or living them. That's empathy.

That's your problem... you see people who hold a different view than you as "opposition". That's not healthy... Both sets of player preferences and tastes can and should be accomodated in the game without meaningful compromises. It needs only a little creativity on the part of the developer. In a situation where it is a zero-sum-game, or a binary decision between one option or the other, where one player group gets satisfied and the other gets screwed, I could understand your position. With multicrew, however, this clearly isn't the case.

And FYI, an escalator that goes down is a contradiction-in-terms. You mean self-contradiction, but It still isn't true.

Thanks for the correction. I knew it wasn't the right term to use but I couldn't think of a better one.

It's not just me, it's a lot of people, and it's a zero sum game for reasons I've gone into.

It clearly isn't a zero-sum-game and I've demonstrated that with my explanations. Your reasons are a shakey as the logical premise you base them on. And on your claim of it being "a lot of people", I'd really like to see some receipts, because a handful of hardcore purists who post on the official forums are even remotely a representative sample size. I'd expect you to know that.

Why you say I haven't provided any explanation is completely beyond me. That I haven't made you change your mind, because you never will, doesn't mean I've made no case. Apparently there was a vote for instant or delayed stored module transport between stations, and delayed won cleanly. I would have voted for delayed. I assume you would have voted for "both". Do you really think that's viable? Do you really think more than one in ten thousand people will choose "wait" instead of "don't wait" when sitting in the outfitting menu? Please say you do, because it's absurd. You know instant is possible, you know others are doing it all the time, and you'll do it too. The realistic choice the developers have is one or the other, because "both" is really just the quick, easy, short-term, unimmersive choice. Unless it's a permanent game mode choice for the player like I discussed previously, which I would much prefer to "telepresence world".

You're wrong. Because the entire point of facilitating MC through the immersive space-legs option is that it comprises a part of "space-legs" which is incidentally one of the most asked about feature across the entire community (both immersion fans and non-immersion fans). Using the instant telepresence MC option comes with obvious compromises that don't exist for the "full fat" version. Instant MC won't allow you to all pile out of your ship at the end of a session and mill about the starpoint selling loot or changing the spacesuit on your avatar. It's the quick and dirty option, but it doesn't in anyway devalue the space-legs option.

It's absolutely analogous to fast travel in an RPG like the Witcher 3 or Skyrim. At every point the player has the choice to:

- Manually travel to a location - taking in the gameworld and exploring new dungeons and content along the way, or
- Fast travel to the nearest quest location and miss a chunk of that content

No one simply ignores half the game content just because a fast travel options exists. I'm sorry but you're not being realistic at all here.

To summarize, "both" is a false option, and either way someone's preferred gameplay style is getting forced on someone else. It's a question of whose.

I like debating you barely enough to do it, and all I like is the hope it persuades someone else to agree with me (and disagree with you).

Lol, sums up your weird combative approach to this debate perfectly. I honestly don't think it's a helpful for you or anyone else. I'm confident that you'd gain more by being a little bit more open-minded instead simply believing that "I'm right, and everyone else is the enemy".

 

[space pilot]

It clearly isn't a zero-sum-game and I've demonstrated that with my explanations. Your reasons are a shakey as the logical premise you base them on. And on your claim of it being "a lot of people", I'd really like to see some receipts, because a handful of hardcore purists who post on the official forums are even remotely a representative sample size. I'd expect you to know that.

A lot of people in this thread, see for yourself. If you go looking for those who have said exactly the same thing I have, you might only find me, but if you widen it a bit to people who have expressed dislike for the idea of using telepresence for multicrew, a lot of people. There's also the poll for delayed module transfer showing many are on the "purist" side.

...No one simply ignores half the game content just because a fast travel options exists. I'm sorry but you're not being realistic at all here.

But that's not true. They do. Morrowind is more immersive than Oblivion because it doesn't have fast travel. With fast travel you don't feel like you have persistence in the game world. I think this is pretty commonly understood. And as I've argued, with things like fast travel that would save time and make things easier in the moment, people will almost universally use them if they're available. This is also widely acknowledged. Also as noted, but something people are less aware of, when such tools are available, they affect the design of the game otherwise, because developers correctly assume players will use them. A hypothetical difference could be not worrying much about the land detail in a remote area between two fast travel locations. The odd person who doesn't use fast travel will have a worse experience than if fast travel wasn't in the game, as more effort would have been spent there.

It's good that we at least agree that fast travel and telepresence are substantively similar.

As stated, "both" isn't a choice, "both" = quick/easy/fast-travel/telepresence, and it affects all players.

Lol, sums up your weird combative approach to this debate perfectly. I honestly don't think it's a helpful for you or anyone else. I'm confident that you'd gain more by being a little bit more open-minded instead simply believing that "I'm right, and everyone else is the enemy".

You've incorrectly accused me of self-contradiction twice, and have been consistently condescending, so if anyone started with combativeness it was you. "Opponent" and "opposition" are technical terms with respect to disagreement in debate. They are accurate and impersonal, I'd use them again if I went back in time, and I'll use them many times in the future.

 

[Kaocraft]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Telepresence is in the game not merely because the devs were in a bind and this is their best attempt to reconcile gameplay requirements with lore, but because the devs genuinely think it's a cool and exciting concept. The enthusiasm behind Ed's initial pronouncement that "yes, it's telepresence!" speaks volumes. When you look at some of the other goofy-yet-convenient ideas that they've introduced, such as 3d-printed spaceships and the remotely controlled deployable fighters, it seems to me that we're watching George Lucas syndrome in action. I think that whoever is in charge of making these decisions is doing so under the delusion that they are brilliant Sci-Fi visionaries introducing bold and mind-blowing new concepts which enrich the lore of Elite. Moreso than the compromises themselves, it is the mentality behind them that disturbs me, and it does not bode well for the future of the game at all.

So yeah basically what someone else said: midiclorians.

 

[Tarman]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Telepresence is in the game not merely because the devs were in a bind and this is their best attempt to reconcile gameplay requirements with lore, but because the devs genuinely think it's a cool and exciting concept. The enthusiasm behind Ed's initial pronouncement that "yes, it's telepresence!" speaks volumes. When you look at some of the other goofy-yet-convenient ideas that they've introduced, such as 3d-printed spaceships and the remotely controlled deployable fighters, it seems to me that we're watching George Lucas syndrome in action. I think that whoever is in charge of making these decisions is doing so under the delusion that they are brilliant Sci-Fi visionaries introducing bold and mind-blowing new concepts which enrich the lore of Elite. Moreso than the compromises themselves, it is the mentality behind them that disturbs me, and it does not bode well for the future of the game at all.

So yeah basically what someone else said: midiclorians.

This is an unsettling perspective in terms of game development direction. I very much hope that this is not the case but there are enough clues of supposition to make this a valid potential theory.

 

[Trash Gordon]

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

My favourite from this thread is still, "schrodingers crewmember"

 

[lysan]

Telepresence dosent bother me, but it reallyyyyy riles some people up.

I still think the best way to go about it if they were to go down a different route is...Have other commanders embody crew members that you must have to be eligible for the system.

It would solve many issues, one being..How weird do big ships feel? I mean they call us commanders but we dont command anything, we are captains.

Im not a "meh immursion" guy but when i look around my clippers huge cockpit with the 2nd chair thats always empty and the side panels with placeholder info and sitting stations i just think......Well its like taking a bus to work instead of my car, it feels kinda ridiculous to be in ships the size of football fields with just 1 person on board.

So, give us AI crew in all the ships that are MC compatible and let other players embody them during MC, jobs a gooden .

I agree with this one, let us hire NPC crew, and the players will do a agent smith when they take over the crew.

The thing is that I don't think the brainstorming was very long for this feature hence the result.

 

[space pilot]

I agree with this one, let us hire NPC crew, and the players will do a agent smith when they take over the crew.

The thing is that I don't think the brainstorming was very long for this feature hence the result.

How would you explain getting the credit rewards of an NPC though?

 

[lysan]

How would you explain getting the credit rewards of an NPC though?

Well while in "agent" mode the commander get all the credits, as the NPC is not in control.

 

[space pilot]

Well while in "agent" mode the commander get all the credits, as the NPC is not in control.

Okay. You're going way weirder lorewise than I was thinking, lol.

 

[SkipRat]

The answer is so simple.

Just have the ships that would in theory require a crew, for example Cobra MKIII would require one additional crew member, whilst a corvette would require 10 or 11 crew members to function. However, you could use the ships AI, but it would not be better than hiring a crew, but hiring a crew costs money and a % of your earnings per crew member.

When you want to someone come take a role aboard your ship, you simply take over a crew member that is already there and the pilot avator will be come useful when walking around becomes a thing.

So real life human crew are better than NPC crew, which in turn are better than the ships AI.

Humans ----> NPC ----> Ships AI

So what is lore breaking about taking over a crew member that is already on board. In fact, having crew on board in the bridge etc would add some much needed life to the larger ships, without coming up with stupid lores in game, to justify certain game features... Yups, forgot, common sense doesn't exist with some people at FDev.

 

[lysan]

Okay. You're going way weirder lorewise than I was thinking, lol.

Lore sometimes are weird, however we also need to make it work.

 

[space pilot]

Lore sometimes are weird, however we also need to make it work.

Taking over the minds of NPCs is way past my threshold for acceptably weird, and I personally think meeting at stations and leaving together is perfectly fine. The more often you do multicrew, say if you have a regular arrangement with other players, the easier it is, because you won't find yourself 500 LY away. You'll always be next door, no problem.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Taking over the minds of NPCs is way past my threshold for acceptably weird, and I personally think meeting at stations and leaving together is perfectly fine. The more often you do multicrew, say if you have a regular arrangement with other players, the easier it is, because you won't find yourself 500 LY away. You'll always be next door, no problem.

I think anyone who says that does not mean it literally. IF this happened you wouldnt be taking over the minds of npcs. For that session you woukd BE the npc no acceptibility for weird needed any more than its weird when you play GTA5 and play different characters

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Amen to that. The fact that some of us quietly accept the lack of game bits, which obviously have a smaller value to the large playerbase and as such, don't justify costs and need to be cut, does not mean any half-baked idea should receive the same treatment.

This is such a good point the people who accuse those of wanting certain shortcuts therefore are presumably having double standards are totally not getting this.

Now of course presumably no one wants to float in space for 5 days waiting to be picked up on destruction. But a 3min sequence during which we can sort out our insurance (thoughts from another thread) would be great.

 

[Jack Schitt]

I think anyone who says that does not mean it literally. IF this happened you wouldnt be taking over the minds of npcs. For that session you woukd BE the npc no acceptibility for weird needed any more than its weird when you play GTA5 and play different characters

This is such a simple concept and yet whole groups of players (and, alas, some employees of FD) can't seem to wrap their heads around it.

Players and characters aren't the same thing, although their "experiences" within the game world can be parallel. If a player does something that also makes sense for a character within the game world, then they can be treated as one and the same for purposes of lore / immersion / call it what you will. But if something is happening to a character that would not make sense for, or would otherwise inconvenience, a player then the two are separated "because game" and no explanation is needed. Hence instant resurrection upon character death, zero wait time for refuelling or engineering or cargo loading etc. none of which needs an in-universe explanation because they are meta-universe events for the convenience of the player and would be impossible for a character to experience.

Why these simple rules weren't applied to multicrew I'll never know. I can only assume that someone didn't think through the implications of extending the already in-use telepresence to cover pan-galactic distances. Because that's the real problem isn't it? Not the technology but the distance. Remote control of SRV turrets over a couple of metres? Great. Remote piloting of drones over a couple of tens of kilometers? No problem. High bandwidth full duplex instantaneous data transfer across galactic distances? How can anyone not see how that massively stomps all over most of the rules under which the Elite galaxy, already peppered with minor inconsistencies, operates?

Why can I send text messages between characters at Sag A* and Lave but I can't transmit exploration data remotely? Because it's a restriction placed on the players so there'll be a value and risk attached to exploration data, and a need to return their characters to civilisation occasionally. And because if in-game communications wasn't available for characters, players would use out-of-game channels. Practical reasons. Gameplay reasons. No in-universe explanation necessary.

How can a character I'm controlling be flying my own ship one moment then manning a turret on someone else's ship thousands of light years away the next? To provide players with fun and engaging options. Practical reasons. Gameplay reasons. No in-universe explanation necessary.

Except for holograms and instantaneous telepresence apparently.