Realism or convenience for in-game "delays"...

[jabokai]

I've been reading, and posting on, several threads where it comes down to a face-off between the realistic "want to watch my nails grow" crowd and the no patience "insta-gratification" crowd.

There has already been a poll regarding the balance people want between realism/simulation and gameism (as it was termed) here - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3635 and the result was fairly conclusive that the majority wanted a balance, leaning a little toward realism perhaps.

This poll is to ask a different question however... I'm curious as to what people would choose from the following, in certain situations -

1. Forced Realism.
2. Choice.
3. Forced Convenience.

To give an example, there is a thread just now discussing loading/unloading times at space stations, again with the nail-growers and the pew-pews locking horns (in a friendly sort of way of course). The nail-growers want realistic (to a degree) delays to simulate the loading and unloading of cargo. During this time (until the future "walkabout expansion") you'd be free/forced to check bulletin boards, send messages, make a cup of tea, etc. The pew-pewers want to dock, sell, buy, take off with no appreciable delay.

There is the possibility where the nail growers could have delays, while the pew-pewers don't. I.e. Choice. Would choice spoil it for either side? Would the realists be annoyed that others were skipping something they deemed important? Would the gameists be annoyed at having to wait for a realist to emerge from a station he had chased him to? Or would people be happy to allow both sides to have their preferred option?

This would apply to other such delays too, such as repairing your ship, etc.

 

[Carsten]

For me it had to be "Choice" I dont really want to force my ideal gameplay style onto others.
I am sure that for some reason someone wont find my playstyle ideal(cant see why its perfect ).

When it comes down to something like this is always to give the players choice. Let those who want to skip the cargo loading sequence skip it, and those that want to watch it in all the glorious detail should be allowed to spend their 5 minutes watching it for the 100 time

Let ppl use their online time in the way that makes THEM happy

 

[Thrumbly]

I feel exactly the same as Carsten.
I was even going to suggest exactly the same 'idea' of the cutscene/skip too!
Pipped at the post again lol

 

[jabokai]

I tend to agree, but I'd asked the question a couple of times on the relevant threads - whether it would bother the realists to have other people skip those things and nobody answered. I wondered if it was because they didn't want people to skip it (giving them a sort of "time advantage") but didn't want to say for fear of appearing selfish or something... hence this anonymous poll!

 

[DrBaggy]

I've been reading, and posting on, several threads where it comes down to a face-off between the realistic "want to watch my nails grow" crowd and the no patience "insta-gratification" crowd.

There has already been a poll regarding the balance people want between realism/simulation and gameism (as it was termed) here - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3635 and the result was fairly conclusive that the majority wanted a balance, leaning a little toward realism perhaps.

This poll is to ask a different question however... I'm curious as to what people would choose from the following, in certain situations -

1. Forced Realism.
2. Choice.
3. Forced Convenience.

To give an example, there is a thread just now discussing loading/unloading times at space stations, again with the nail-growers and the pew-pews locking horns (in a friendly sort of way of course). The nail-growers want realistic (to a degree) delays to simulate the loading and unloading of cargo. During this time (until the future "walkabout expansion") you'd be free/forced to check bulletin boards, send messages, make a cup of tea, etc. The pew-pewers want to dock, sell, buy, take off with no appreciable delay.

There is the possibility where the nail growers could have delays, while the pew-pewers don't. I.e. Choice. Would choice spoil it for either side? Would the realists be annoyed that others were skipping something they deemed important? Would the gameists be annoyed at having to wait for a realist to emerge from a station he had chased him to? Or would people be happy to allow both sides to have their preferred option?

This would apply to other such delays too, such as repairing your ship, etc.

Interesting thread: there is a third group between "nail-growers" and "pew-pews": "inbetweeners". Sometimes I want to watch the sun rise in real time, or get a sense of the vastness of space by travelling in real time; sometimes I want to dock/sell/kill (In most games startoff with the former then move to the latter).

So choice please

 

[Cairo]

I vote for choice - what I mean with that is:

Build the game with "immersion enhancement" in mind, such as cargo unloading and loading taking some minutes depending on your ship's type and the amount of cargo being moved, ship repair requiring time depending on how much damage there is to fix, etc - then build in the option for those with less time to spend on a game to pay some percentage of the basic cost to skip the delays. You might pay 2% more for your trade goods, or 5% more for the repairs.

The rationale behind this would be that if you don't pay, you get bog standard service. If you pay extra, you get preferential treatment. It happens in real life, too.

EDIT:
Naturally while these things are being done the player should be free to do other things - browse news, star maps, chat, do whatever there is on offer at starports.

 

[Laton]

I think the cutscene route is the way to go. If someone wants to watch an animation of their ship being loaded and unloaded, then let them, great. I'd probably class myself as a "nail grower" but if I've only got 30 mins to play and I want to get stuff done quickly, then I'd probably want to skip it.

 

[Thrumbly]

I tend to agree, but I'd asked the question a couple of times on the relevant threads - whether it would bother the realists to have other people skip those things and nobody answered. I wondered if it was because they didn't want people to skip it (giving them a sort of "time advantage") but didn't want to say for fear of appearing selfish or something... hence this anonymous poll!

From what I understand, the 'multiplayer' aspect of the game will be optional too, so why would a 'realist' be worried about someone in the 'online single player' skipping a cut scene to speed up loading/unloading?

 

[jabokai]

From what I understand, the 'multiplayer' aspect of the game will be optional too, so why would a 'realist' be worried about someone in the 'online single player' skipping a cut scene to speed up loading/unloading?

I'm not sure! :S Perhaps it's more a case that some realists want to be FORCED to be realists lest it become too tempting to hit ESCape?!

I guess I was more thinking of the multiplayer scenario though - in multiplayer people are more likely to desire what they see as a level playing field.

 

[Toebs]

I don't think you can have both; the insta-quick crowd would over time gain credits and so on more quickly than the realism crowd, giving them an advantage - e.g. it's not a neutral choice; you do better in-game by choosing one rather than the other.

 

[HenryS]

This is not just about realism. There are also planned game features that require certain delays.

Realism is useful not just for the aesthetics. If you have a "realistic" world, you really have a self-consistent world. Self-consistent worlds can be built upon and new features added, because there's a bedrock internal logic to what's going on. If the current system is built on magic, then it may be hard or impossible to extend to future features without breaking or drastically changing existing features.

 

[jabokai]

I don't think you can have both; the insta-quick crowd would over time gain credits and so on more quickly than the realism crowd, giving them an advantage - e.g. it's not a neutral choice; you do better in-game by choosing one rather than the other.

Agreed, but you could have mechanisms to bring them more in line.

In the other thread, and continuing the example I gave above, I suggested having automated "turbo" bays which were fully automated and very fast. These could incur higher docking fees.

Or as Cairo noted above, you could simply pay a bit more to queue jump in a regular docking bay, or to get more dockers to speed the process, etc.

I guess choice could encompass 2 things then - choice with no penalties (e.g. hitting an escape key) or choice with penalties (fees for faster processing, etc)

Edit: As a question though - do you care that others are doing better by taking the easy path, so long as you're enjoying what you're doing?

 

[Thrumbly]

Edit: As a question though - do you care that others are doing better by taking the easy path, so long as you're enjoying what you're doing?

I'll mainly be in online single player, so won't mind as long as I'm enjoying it

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

'Choice' is not really possible. Not real choice, anyway. Vote for choice and you are really voting for convenience, because while you choose to be somewhat realistic other players will be pressing the fast forward button and gaining an advantage.

If E: D was a standalone single player game lie the original Elite, then that choice is fine. I play Oolite today, and the docking computer allows me to hit 'C' when inside the aegis, and I'm docked. In real world time, 10 seconds. IN game time, 20 minutes. Great. Those that want choice can have it: dock manually (or to the strains of the Blue Danube) and spend a few minutes doing so, or press 'C' and there it is done.

But E: D is going to be multi-player. The only way that I see choice working, as some have suggested, is for there to be some sort of in-game penalty for the fast forward button. So, a service for your ship is 2,000 credits and takes a day. Or there is the fast lane option that only takes 30 seconds, but costs an extra 500 credits. Please choose.

 

[Kerrash]

For me it had to be "Choice" I dont really want to force my ideal gameplay style onto others.
...
Let ppl use their online time in the way that makes THEM happy

At the end of the day this is the ideal route to take, but the most difficult to balance. If players can short cut their way to success then each action where a time penalty is removed could have to be balanced with a different kind of penalty. This is important for the sake of game play.

As a quick/bad example. If you rush the cargo loading some containers could get damaged reducing overall value.

This is not just about realism. There are also planned game features that require certain delays.

Realism is useful not just for the aesthetics. If you have a "realistic" world, you really have a self-consistent world. Self-consistent worlds can be built upon and new features added, because there's a bedrock internal logic to what's going on. If the current system is built on magic, then it may be hard or impossible to extend to future features without breaking or drastically changing existing features.

You are right, this made me think of the transport systems in World of Warcraft where boats repeatedly spawn every 1/2 minute.

I'll mainly be in online single player, so won't mind as long as I'm enjoying it

Me too, I hope a compromise can be found to suit everyone.

 

[ratdeath]

I hope the game design will start from a realism point of view and adjusted as need be as it should be "fun" but also acknowledge that part of the "fun" with frontier style is the realism.

In Star Wars Galaxies we had a ten minutes waiting time (at most) to board a shuttle to be able to travel to another planet/system. Some hated this "forced" downtime while others just accepted it for what it was, some took the advantage to go AFK for a few minutes or just hang around and talk with the others waiting for the same shuttle to arrive.

Mostly I want a game like elite that will be it's own little virtual reality to have its own realism, laws and culture. As someone said pay a bit more for loading cargo and get it done within a few seconds or instantly if you don't want to wait, then its a choice that gives a balance between the two extremes, of course how much would be a fair price to skip the waiting time?

Perhaps this is good way to have built in credit sinks (guess the game might end up with an ingame economy like in many mmos), pay more for faster service at space stations. Even in a virtual economy time equals credits I guesss

Designs/features will never fully please everyone, but hopefully it should make more people happy or indifferent than annoyed while playing. Compromise to much and it will probably break the game trying to please everyone.

I guess frontier could perhaps release features in a more realistic style and ease them up if it turns out it sounded good in theory but at the end of they day it's just something people avoid anyway, like minimize the game and write a rant on the forum how annoying something is

 

[jabokai]

'Choice' is not really possible. Not real choice, anyway. Vote for choice and you are really voting for convenience, because while you choose to be somewhat realistic other players will be pressing the fast forward button and gaining an advantage.

...

But E: D is going to be multi-player. The only way that I see choice working, as some have suggested, is for there to be some sort of in-game penalty for the fast forward button. So, a service for your ship is 2,000 credits and takes a day. Or there is the fast lane option that only takes 30 seconds, but costs an extra 500 credits. Please choose.

You answered your own point! Choice IS possible, while maintaining balance, if some sort of penalty is applied. To be honest I'd choose, in order...

1. choice (no penalty)
2. forced convenience
3. choice (penalty)
4. forced realism

I'm happy enough down to choice 3, but at 4 I wouldn't even play... it would not be enjoyable for me. I suppose I should have included the 2 different choice options in the poll... sorry!

 

[Sav112]

Lets face it single player you can do what you want as its not going to influence or affect anyone else but I think David and the team should bring in certain delays.


Most will play the game in the spirit of the original but you always seem to get competitive bunnies these days that will do their best to be top dog, or what they think is. Yes there actually missing out on the experience I think if they instantly dock, trade, launch, jump into hyperspace, instantly dock again, trade, launch and hyperspace back. But they will do for hours to get ahead.

The team will have a plan I’m sure to slow the game play down and I’m not saying that from form an action point of view that will be fast flowing and exciting by the looks of it.

When there is consequence in games its better. If you loose your ship and kit but know your instantly getting it back if you die just means you have no fear. As seen in DayZ if you die you loose time and equipment you add a new slant on death as its dare I say it not nice…

You enjoy games more knowing that all that damage you caused will not take one click to fix but real time. Gives the damage real value, As I’ve always said I want to struggle in this and have to wait for repairs, Cargo getting moved etc. Death should have a real value so you cherish it. You watch COD players they die and re-spawn without even a second thought. You watch DayZ when a fire fight is on between teams and players actually say in Chat “ Wow my heart beat is going” after a fierce fight. Why because in DayZ if you die you start again with nothing and it puts a whole new spin on the game play.

I don’t want to see players loose ships and hours of hard work but there has to be an system enough to give the game an edge, even if it’s a cold hard unforgiving edge!.

 

[Zak Gordon]

Player Choice is nearly always the best option.

However taking that into account when designing game systems and routines is a complete nightmare, so it is probably too optimistic to expect a mere £1.5 million budget game to give us lots of choices.

In that case i'd rather have a more complex/realistic game in general as that gives you a game you can grow into (as you learn the simulation), rather than a game you grow bored off due to it being too easy/simple/convenient etc.

A classic example is how the new X-com game compares to the old X-com game. 'Convenience' is good in games that fit, not so much in games that are more complex by nature.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

P...so it is probably too optimistic to expect a mere £1.5 million budget game to give us lots of choices.

This is NOT a £1.5 million budget game. It is a game where they raised £1.5 million through kickstarter. They have already invested in it, and will continue to do so. £1.5 million merely gets them some working capital, and some guaranteed customers.