Or report them for trolling if people really think that is what is going on... trolling is against forum rules too you know
Frontier cant deliver.
- Thread starter Gypsy12
- Start date
You don't know what you are talking about... Momentary sales don't count... Horizons and ED base game are still selling for full price.
Here's an idea for something that could add some interest and content in the game.
Having some AI NPCs that you can have a dialogue with. Basically, having NPCs that are not pirates but you can strike a conversation with (could be a simple "Eliza" model program), but then, if you ask the right questions and such, perhaps they would give you a mission. For instance, having some NPC that claims to be an explorer and have found something mysterious. You talk to it, and eventually you get the coordinates for a planet/place to visit, and you can bring some artifacts from there, back to the NPC or to someone else. So, in other words, missions that are less obvious and require some "fishing" to get to.
Actually, I was thinking this could be done by a player even.
Having some AI NPCs that you can have a dialogue with. Basically, having NPCs that are not pirates but you can strike a conversation with (could be a simple "Eliza" model program), but then, if you ask the right questions and such, perhaps they would give you a mission. For instance, having some NPC that claims to be an explorer and have found something mysterious. You talk to it, and eventually you get the coordinates for a planet/place to visit, and you can bring some artifacts from there, back to the NPC or to someone else. So, in other words, missions that are less obvious and require some "fishing" to get to.
Actually, I was thinking this could be done by a player even.
Analyst> Tell me about your mother.
Simulant> I'll tell you about my mother (and shoots the Analyst).
Or something like that...
Blade Runner reference.
I think you are over thinking things, not a good idea IMO.
We do already have random missions that get triggered by certain events and then appear in the journal - trigger events seem to include reaching a certain location or doing certain missions.
Last edited:
No, let us not note your statement of what I did as though it reflects reality. We can note how you interpreted it if you want though. We can also note that you're making false statements about what I've done. We can also note that you were using the rationale that I was pointing out the flaw in as a means to dismiss someone else's opinion. - how about we do all that?
That all seems a bit silly though, so personally I'd suggest that discussing the points being made would be more reasonable.
The point I'm making is that as a general principle, volume of sales/units shipped/equivalent measures does not equate with how good something is. Food, drink, music, movies, tv, and so on, the principle applies. They all have genres too (which is why I didn't explicitly mention genres in the food example - I thought the parallels were implicit in the example I gave). If you think gaming is exempt from this, perhaps you could explain why.
No one's trying to alter reality - people are just pointing out that what you're saying doesn't equate to absolute reality. If to you sales/volumes equates to good, then fine, that's how you see things, but that's just a small subset of what can be considered to constitute something being good. And as per the examples, it can also often be an indicator that something wouldn't be considered good in terms of many of the other subsets of what constitutes something being good.
At the end of the day, 'good' is just a subjective thing, as is 'boring'.
DDF document for communication
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/6371-Eilte-Dangerous-Communication-Interaction
I leave that as it is.
It was discussed,
the KS backers wanted it,
but i do not find this system
implemented in the current game.
That sounds like the radial/numbered option dialog system that is common to most games with a conversation element.
It could be considered already present in at least a basic form with the current mid-mission changes and mission offers as well as the current NPC Pirates which make a demand and shoot if their demands are not met with-in a time interval.
The key area I can see this getting expanded on is possibly with PC piracy of NPC vessels so the CMDR can make similar demands of NPCs.
Last edited:
Well i stick to the wording:
"Players will choose from a number of options and the NPC will automatically respond, they will take reputation into account when deciding their response."
And that is not in,
we cannot deliver our demands and such.
Even one man developer games like Voiddestroyer
have that, along with a suitable criminal ranking and reputation system.
It not only applies to piracy, it also applies to bounty hunting,
since assaulting a ship should be a crime, wanted target or not,
without stating the purpose to claiming the bounty to authorities
prior to engagement.
It would allow for a multitude of new scenarios to indulge in,
getting trading tips, explorers sharing info on a lost ship and such.
FD fails to address this stuff and create a living galaxy.
Last edited:
Rules of engagement:-
- See an unknown ship
- If you attack the ship first without scanning then you gain a bounty regardless of their status
- If you scan the ship then kit on your ship looks up details and automatically flags ship as wanted or not
- If ship is flagged as wanted after scanning then you can attack without recrimination
- If ship is NOT flagged as wanted after scanning then you gain a bounty
The above system may not involve radial dialogs but it does cover your stated requirements.
The only thing that is not seemingly considered directly is either your reputation with the local authorities nor the reputation of the target with the local authorities. However, I do gather that reputation with the local authorities does affect local authority response times - by how much I am not sure.
A method, a task you do or a tool you use,
is no direct communication to the NPC.
Again the wording here is important:
"Talking to NPC would be handled entirely by the preset messages system.
Conversations happen either when the player hails an NPC and they respond and vice versa"
What you describe is no conversation, it is interaction.
So it still is not implemented.
What i quoted is nowhere to be found in elite.
Clicking a decline/accept box is no conversation,
neither is a scan a direct communication.
I disagree with the level of importance some people are putting on "conversation" aspects, such things are bound to be limited in scope and will eventually start to become annoying to some, boring/repetitive to others, and have zero net benefit to gameplay. I am sure many of us have already seen the net effect of the limited "conversation" options that would be required. At best it adds little value, at worst it detracts from immersion IME. To draw a parallel with Skyrim - how many ex-Adventurer medieval knee capped guards must there be in that game.
I know that particular example is related to random non-interactive background voice but it is perhaps one of the most well known examples of where overused phrases can detract from gameplay.Where "conversations" are concerned, I think FD should be concentrating for now on in-flight interactions such as piracy demands (vs PC/NPC CMDRs targets) and piracy responses (vs PC/NPC CMDR pirates) amongst other things. NPC wing men would be another area that requires more urgent attention IMO as opposed to bespoke random conversations while in-flight. Maybe add some bartering and/or in-game rewards for NPC fuel-ratting/hull-ratting perhaps but certainly no focus on random ship interactions.
When we have "space legs" then the conversation aspects MAY become more relevant/important but until then I think in-flight interactions should be the primary focus for now.
I disagree with the level of importance some people are putting on "conversation" aspects, such things are bound to be limited in scope and will eventually start to become annoying to some, boring/repetitive to others, and have zero net benefit to gameplay. I am sure many of us have already seen the net effect of the limited "conversation" options that would be required. At best it adds little value, at worst it detracts from immersion IME. To draw a parallel with Skyrim - how many ex-Adventurer medieval knee capped guards must there be in that game.
Where "conversations" are concerned, I think FD should be concentrating for now on in-flight interactions such as piracy demands (vs PC/NPC CMDRs targets) and piracy responses (vs PC/NPC CMDR pirates) amongst other things. NPC wing men would be another area that requires more urgent attention IMO as opposed to bespoke random conversations while in-flight. Maybe add some bartering and/or in-game rewards for NPC fuel-ratting/hull-ratting perhaps but certainly no focus on random ship interactions.
When we have "space legs" then the conversation aspects MAY become more relevant/important but until then I think in-flight interactions should be the primary focus for now.
Simplification of the communication aspect in dialogue with NPCs
will keep the existing spirit of Elite: boring, not going the extra step.
You need a real interaction menue with NPCs, as this is the key to opening
interaction with NPCs up for dynamic and immersive actions and tactics.
You could for example taunt a target into attacking you becoming wanted,
if you did it right, or get someone to stop firing on you, in exchange for something
or just by threatening him with allies that are closeby.
Not implementing a complex system will hamper and limit
the necessary presentation of the world.
As with all, if it were to be a radial comms menue it still would be optional,
not a requirement, as are wings and multi-crew, etc.
Adding arbitrary conversation elements which will be required to be "repetitive" and from a limited pool of options would in the end add ZERO value to ED (in itself).
Expanding on interactions that increase interactivity with NPCs is another matter entirely. A prime example of potential improvement (over and above the cases I have already highlighted - PvE/EvP piracy, NPC wingmen, NPC fuel/hull ratting) would be cargo collection/delivery/transference between Large ships and outposts via the flight control menu.
I disagree that not implementing explicit conversation mechanics would either hamper or limit options. Conversation elements in games do not improve gameplay IMO and there are many ways to achieve the same net improvement results. Conversation elements are merely one of the means of delivering gameplay and at least some hate the notionally required "radial" menus that go with such systems. Further more, concentrating too much on conversation mechanics could in fact "limit"/"hamper" options, such mechanics are not necessarily enabling in nature.
Last edited:
They would be repetitive, yes that is true, as we have not any interface to directly converse with an NPC via speech,
and haven't yet got any program that mimics a human as NPC-role reacting and answering.
They still would add something,
look at the flight operators on stations.
They are voiced now, they might seem arbitrary as seems the conversation,
but they are great, loved and an addition to immersion.
Without basic communications there is no link, no stepping stone
to evolve the matter on. Without NPCs reacting to comms,
this dream is dashed, as the pirate NPCs like to say.
No one says that we need any radial menue.
Look at Wing commander:
This is a none radial, contextual menue
that works fine.
I do not like the radial menues either,
but this pretty much is standard in the niche,
only Elite seems to still miss the bus.
So you say that we have already all options in this game
in a way to interact with NPCs, without having comms?
Where is me demanding cargo?
Where is me threatening an NPC into submission, so he stops the drive and i can KWS/Manifest scan RPing a cop?
etc.
Where is that?
Why do you think it does not improve gameplay,
adding options to the game other than scan, ram, 'dict, shoot, ignore and run?
That is contradictory.
I am saying that radial menus would be required if ED is to continue to support VR and the console platforms for conversation mechanics - there is no getting around that particular nugget really.
I am also saying that explicit "conversation" mechanics are NOT required to improve gameplay in the aforementioned areas - bespoke operation specific interaction screen based solutions are better IMO. They allow for complete freedom of implementation rather than being tied/limited to a specific path of interaction.
NPC conversation menus tend to be limiting and tiresome in the long run, efficiency of interaction IMO is more important than implementing "conversation" mechanics. It is far from contradictory.
Last edited:
That is totally up to the devs, there are a lot of alternatives for that,
like adding a tab in the comms-panel with prefabbed messages, on the
screen between your legs or adding simple messages tied to the controls menue,
as we have with NPC fighter pilots.
I do not see the presumed need for radial menues.
There always is the option to bind messages and demands to control schemes
and allow for easy button presses, as we see with fighter NPCs.
The conversation itself might not be needed to improve the gameplay,
but very well the function.
What the result of including the function will be,
is simply people asking for adding conversation lines
to reflect a dialogue, so they very well can add these in
one swoop.
It also would complete a section of the DDFs.
Last edited:
It is totally up to the devs to consider particular aspects of the DDFs relevant or not. The DDFs are what I would call a "brain storming" area and should not be used as a bible to dictate future progression of development. At the time, the ideas may have seemed to be relevant but every idea should be weighed up wrt cost/benefit balance. Personally, I think conversation elements add ZERO value in themselves regardless of what may or may not have been discussed in abstract design discussions.
If FD choose to implement some form of conversation mechanic then they should be wary of the impact to gameplay. They have already proven that their judgement is at least slightly misguided with their implementation of the camera mechanics - personally I like them but I know people who do not because they find them overly complicated. The problem there is a Photoshop v. GIMP v. .NET Paint type syndrome, the fundamental solution is to ensure that if complexity is increased, that it is not done at the expense of ease of interaction. To take the camera mechanics as an example, FD should have probably added an advanced mode toggle with the default initial option being the more simplistic free mode that some may have already become used to and the advanced mode being the new camera system.
The fundamental point being, no single aspect of the DDFs should be considered an indisputable (not subject to change) "requirement" for ED as the product grows and evolves. Everyone will have their pet "feature" that they perhaps are looking for but I think everyone needs to be prepared to compromise - something that at least some in these forums seem incapable of.
FTR Ambient noise voice comms and traffic control tower feedback are one thing - they do add a degree of immersion on their own - but conversation mechanics are a double edged sword that can detract from immersion. Voice/Text recognition are not viable options either for various technical and usability reasons IMO.
Last edited:
DDF in a nutshell
Fanboys will probably come to tell you that it was never planned for release (completely ignoring the fact that DDF things that were really not planned for the release had it clearly stated next to a proposal)
EDIT: Scrap that... they came here to tell you its already in game instead...lol.. guess they still can surprise me.... radial menu.... have you by any chance ever played FE2 and FFE people???
Also the good old argument that its better not to implement stuff that was planned by the developers to be a part of a coherent game and which people wanted in the game and which worked well in former games because it has a chance of becoming boring to some... lets instead imagine the lacking content and believe in the next glorious update that will surely bring stuff much better than the DDF proposals just as we have seen in the recent years...
Last edited:
I want Minecraft in space.
I want Minecraft in space.
EVE has that ability with Player-Owned Stations, you know... just sayin'