External View [A definitive discussion]

[Robert Maynard]

Citation needed.

Here you go:

I've said many times here on the forums that total realism really isn't what any of us (the design team) are going for. Elite is a romanticised science fiction and other than the realistically populated and scaled galaxy and star systems everything else is designed to provide a good game. If it happens that it comes out seeming plausible or even realistic then that is a bonus. Also if we can use fiction to make a mechanic more realistic or plausible then we will. I get slightly annoyed when I see fans declare that we're trying to make the most realistic space game possible because we really aren't (Kerbal Space Program is probably the most realistic I've played). If I had my way I'd have scaled the universe and star systems down to a comic scale (something akin to the way No Man's Sky is doing it) but obviously that wasn't a decision the design team got to make but it's something we've had to deal with (and meant that super cruise became a thing as it was needed to ensure there was a point to the massive scale of everything; all that realistic space would be wasted if it were just boxes and corridors ). Look at any mechanic or feature in our game and it quickly becomes apparent that any veneer of realism is paper thin and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny but the game play is pretty good for it (in my opinion).

 

[JughedJones]

Here you go:

Well done, sir.


That being said... I don't care a jot for 3rd person.


EDIT: It seems I'm glad Michael Brooks didn't get to have his way with the 'comic size' No Man's Sky version of space he wanted. I don't think I would have purchased the game!

 

[jabokai]

That being said... I don't care a jot for 3rd person.

To quote an old friend of mine...

You're bad at arguing a point, sir.

 

[JughedJones]

Touche'

I guess my beef is with the immersion aspect. With a science fiction based game, of course people's opinion of what reality means to them has to be put on a sliding scale. Most (or many) of the phenomena we accept as fact for the purpose of this game are theoretical. So, immersion is the one thing that tethers us to a foundation of reality. If you can suspend disbelief, and accept theoretical principals as proven theories... then you've got something. Dig?

I have no problem, as many have proposed, with an out of combat third person view, perhaps explained away with a remote drone or some such. I would have a huge HUGE problem with being able to turn it on when your weapons are deployed, or even when there are other ships on your scanner.

There. That's my argument.


EDIT: I would even stop short of making it a hard and fast rule that you couldn't deploy your hardpoints, as long as your 'camera drone' is inoperable when other ships are on your scanner. (I want to see my weapons deploy too!)

 

[TerranAmbassador]

Are drones shy or something? That makes no sense.

 

[JughedJones]

Are drones shy or something? That makes no sense.

It would require some explaining away I know.

I'm just trying to think of a solution here. 3rd person during combat, or to get an advantage prior to combat is hooey in my opinion.

(and according to the poll data, it seems I'm not alone.)

 

[TerranAmbassador]

I'm just trying to think of a solution here.

To a piece of equipment? :S

 

[Armour]

Just don't make it real-time. That way it doesn't affect gameplay as it occurs, and people can be all like "I'M A FIRIN MAH LAZER!1!!" as much as they want.

 

[JughedJones]

To a piece of equipment? :S

Are you arguing for the sake of it, or do you not understand my sentiment?

I'm just throwing reasons out there for how we could get a non-combat 3rd person view and make it somehow plausible. If you would like to add to that, please do!

Perhaps there's safety regulations that restrict pilots from running around with drones whizzing around their ships when there's other traffic in the area?

I'm just spit balling here.

 

[Zalifer]

1) External view is through a very small remote camera drone, think basketball. This drone takes 2 seconds to deploy, perhaps like in X:Rebirth, the pilot pulls on some VR goggles, or whatever.

2) The player can fly the drone like any ship, up to a certain radius around the ship. At that point, cosmic interference messes with the smaller, unshielded comms unit, causing the player to have to turn back to continue using the drone, or it loses connection, and returns to the ship automatically

3) While the player is controlling the drone, that is where their control input is sent. The control settings in the ship when the drone is launched are kept, meaning you can keep flying forward, to get shots of the ship moving.


This deals with the issue of combat in third person. While the drone is deployed, no inputs are being received.

It deals with immersion, as it's an in world solution, and you may even be able to see another players drone.

The range on the drone means people can't use it to spy very well. Radius could be rather small. They might possibly get a small advantage under certain circumstances, such as running silent, behind an asteroid, and scouting with the little drone. That sounds like a cool feature to me.

The 2 second launch delay stops people from tapping the key, spinning round to view behind, and tapping to return to controls during a firefight. Maybe even a longer delay to make it a very stupid decision in combat.

I don't see them being something that can deal any damage, or doing anything other than view a scene. X:Rebirth has some cool interaction mechanics for drones, like hacking, or EMP, but not sure that should be here. They should do no collision damage either, though they should take it.

 

[TerranAmbassador]

Are you arguing for the sake of it, or do you not understand my sentiment?

I do not understand your sentiment.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Perhaps there's safety regulations that restrict pilots from running around with drones whizzing around their ships when there's other traffic in the area?

Then why can we run around weapons deployed, in the middle of a crowded docking bay, without so much as a fine?!

Even if we accept the above, why would this regulation prevent us from deploying the drone? I could maybe, MAYBE buy a punishment for it around stations in high-security systems (of course, I'd be wondering just how loony the government is, worrying about remote-control cameras when they've got pilots running around with ship-to-ship missiles as a matter-of-course). But even then, I don't see why or how your ship would just. . . refuse to function.

What about deep space? Anarchy systems? Uninhabited systems?

Is your ship gonna just lock up? For what bloody reason?

Let me say it again:

It. Makes. No. Sense.

 

[Zalifer]

His point seems to simply be that things need to be limited, for some reason, regardless of concerns about reality.

I'd agree, though my solution on the previous page should be rather pleasing for anyone who want's it unused in combat. No arbitrary restrictions, an in world explanation, just that it's not viable in combat.

 

[Kid Firestorm]

1) External view is through a very small remote camera drone, think basketball. This drone takes 2 seconds to deploy, perhaps like in X:Rebirth, the pilot pulls on some VR goggles, or whatever.

2) The player can fly the drone like any ship, up to a certain radius around the ship. At that point, cosmic interference messes with the smaller, unshielded comms unit, causing the player to have to turn back to continue using the drone, or it loses connection, and returns to the ship automatically

3) While the player is controlling the drone, that is where their control input is sent. The control settings in the ship when the drone is launched are kept, meaning you can keep flying forward, to get shots of the ship moving.

I like this idea. I'd buy that. If the drone works like this it could be an un universe explanation for 3rd Person view that's believable. It could even be useful when exploring, checking the damage to the hull of your ship.

 

[TerranAmbassador]

His point seems to simply be that things need to be limited, for some reason, regardless of concerns about reality.

I don't care if the 'solution' is "realistic".

I care that it is internally consistent with the rest of the game.

His suggestion simply isn't.

 

[Rog]

Most of the many suggestions, aims, and condensed arguments both for and against are collected in the very first post on page one of this thread.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

I do not understand your sentiment.

It. Makes. No. Sense.



Then why can we run around weapons deployed, in the middle of a crowded docking bay, without so much as a fine?!

Even if we accept the above, why would this regulation prevent us from deploying the drone? I could maybe, MAYBE buy a punishment for it around stations in high-security systems (of course, I'd be wondering just how loony the government is, worrying about remote-control cameras when they've got pilots running around with ship-to-ship missiles as a matter-of-course). But even then, I don't see why or how your ship would just. . . refuse to function.

What about deep space? Anarchy systems? Uninhabited systems?

Is your ship gonna just lock up? For what bloody reason?

Let me say it again:

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Here's a reason why I don't want it.

Because I won't use it and I don't want resources used up on producing in game, numpty external views.

Although, I don't have a problem with a black box replay system only available when docked.

 

[TerranAmbassador]

. . . What?

 

[Darkoba]

I own a 1991 Toyota Celica (No, I'm not showing off ). I also own a small quad-copter (cost me €60) which carries a small camera with which you can make still pictures or short videos to inspect later.
If I had spent more money, I could have bought a 'flying camera' which would transmit live images back to a receiver. That would have been nice, but it was a bit too expensive.

I drive my Celica, and take the quad-copter with me. If I am alone in my car, I do not deploy the copter. If I want to deploy the copter, I stop the car somewhere.

If I deploy the copter, I can take car-selfies, or I can take a limited look at what's happening over the next hill ("limited" because I lose (control of) the copter if it goes too far, or it runs out of juice if I fly it too long).

I might add that the quad-copter gives me absolutely no advantage in combat conditions, except perhaps to warn me that an enemy lies in ambush over said hill.

Now, scroll forward about 1300 years...

Isn't the answer to all of these arguments actually self obvious? :S

And if somebody absolutely doesn't want a 3300 style quad-copter, don't buy it, or if you have one, don't use it. Simples.

 

[NeilF]

I own a 1991 Toyota Celica (No, I'm not showing off ). I also own a small quad-copter (cost me €60) which carries a small camera with which you can make still pictures or short videos to inspect later.
If I had spent more money, I could have bought a 'flying camera' which would transmit live images back to a receiver. That would have been nice, but it was a bit too expensive.

I drive my Celica, and take the quad-copter with me. If I am alone in my car, I do not deploy the copter. If I want to deploy the copter, I stop the car somewhere.

If I deploy the copter, I can take car-selfies, or I can take a limited look at what's happening over the next hill ("limited" because I lose (control of) the copter if it goes too far, or it runs out of juice if I fly it too long).

I might add that the quad-copter gives me absolutely no advantage in combat conditions, except perhaps to warn me that an enemy lies in ambush over said hill.

Now, scroll forward about 1300 years...

Isn't the answer to all of these arguments actually self obvious? :S

And if somebody absolutely doesn't want a 3300 style quad-copter, don't buy it, or if you have one, don't use it. Simples.

I don't think anyone here doesn't believes it wouldn't be possible in over a 1000yrs.

But much like the fact we don't have a rear view camera (mirror or window), it comes down to gameplay reasons why we may not get an external view, or get a seriously reduced one.

 

[Darkoba]

I don't think anyone here doesn't believes it wouldn't be possible in over a 1000yrs.

But much like the fact we don't have a rear view camera (mirror or window), it comes down to gameplay reasons why we may not get an external view, or get a seriously reduced one.

Fair enough, and I don't disagree...

However, if / when I'm reincarnated in approx. 3280, I'm going to save up for a Celica, er, Cobra, and also for an external view probe if they already exist. If they don't, I'll invent them and make a fortune