Captain Hindsight about Multicrew, Arena, Immersion and Gratification

[Morbad]

Griefers in a PVP ship will (and do) kill people now, without the benefit of multicrew. If anything it'll make griefing LESS common since they're in one ship rather than 3.

I'm not talking about just 'griefers' and even if I were, one ship with three people in it (especially when two of them are flying SLFs) is still far more effective than one ship.

Firstly, we can ALREADY turns in bonds/vouchers remotely through Interstellar Factors - so again, nothing new there.

Multi-crew will allow us to collect them remotely. Currently I am limited in my ability to shift faction influence by actually being required to travel to where those factions have influence. Telepresense will greatly reduce that requirement.

This argument that "It affects the BGS" gets trotted out any time somebody doesn't like something - but EVERYTHING affects the BGS.

Which is why all changes affect everyone and why saying that these changes can be ignored by not using them is a fallacy.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I'm not talking about just 'griefers' and even if I were, one ship with three people in it (especially when two of them are flying SLFs) is still far more effective than one ship.

But not more effective that 3 ships. All that has happened is that the location that things occur in has changed - or that the brief time necessary to relocate has been avoided.

Multi-crew will allow us to collect them remotely. Currently I am limited in my ability to shift faction influence by actually being required to travel to where those factions have influence. Telepresense will greatly reduce that requirement.

Again, all that has happened is that the location that things occur in has changed - or that the brief time necessary to relocate has been avoided.

Which is why all changes affect everyone and why saying that these changes can be ignored by not using them is a fallacy.

And unless your argument is to change NOTHING about the game from hereon, then using the BGS argument to prevent change you dislike would be seen as hypocritical.

 

[Morbad]

All that has happened is that the location that things occur in has changed - or that the brief time necessary to relocate has been avoided.

The relocation time to many areas is still not brief enough to negate it as a factor. I used Colonia as an example because the number of people willing to go all the way out there is relatively small, but even places within the bubble still have logistical hurdles, as is evident by all the calls for increased jumprange and the like.

Logistics are a part of balance and should be a large part of balance in an internally consistent setting that has emphasized travel.

And unless your argument is to change NOTHING about the game from hereon, then using the BGS argument to prevent change you dislike would be seen as hypocritical.

I'm not using it as an argument to prevent the change.

I'm using it as a counter argument to the false idea that it's possible to completely isolate one's self in persistent multiplayer game with a shared BGS.

I do think infinite range telepresense is a bad idea, but even if I loved it, the argument that it doesn't affect those that don't use it would still be wrong.

 

[babelfisch]

Multi-crew will allow us to collect them remotely. Currently I am limited in my ability to shift faction influence by actually being required to travel to where those factions have influence. Telepresense will greatly reduce that requirement.

I am pretty sure that this will not be the case. The rewards for killing ships in multicrew will not be combat bonds or vouchers but a direct credit transfer just like the CQC rewards. Your actions don't have any influence on rank or reputation either.

 

[Pyrobee]

Instant "Telepresence" (and magic all-see cams) is too much of a stretch.

But you are fine with FTL?

 

[Weps]

I am pretty sure that this will not be the case. The rewards for killing ships in multicrew will not be combat bonds or vouchers but a direct credit transfer just like the CQC rewards. Your actions don't have any influence on rank or reputation either.

Sandro's dev update mentiones that "All bounties and vouchers that the helmsman (ship owner) receives are duplicated". I can't find what was said about this on stream.

The way I understand this, crew members also receive a voucher in their transaction panel, which they can cash in at a later date, as opposed to a direct payment. I guess Beta will tell for sure.

But I believe Morbad was talking more about the fact that you can now start *generating* vouchers and spread your influence in the blink of an eye, without having to worry about the logistics of it. Want to influence system X? Find a multicrew session there, for bounty hunting, join, BAM! you're influencing the system. Turning vouchers in at the Contacts tab (later), AFAIR, affects the BGS. And of course there's the matter of killing certain kinds of ships, which also affects the state of the system if I'm not mistaken.

At this point I should add that I have no idea how vouchers affect the BGS when turned in via the shady broker.

 

[babelfisch]

Sandro's dev update mentiones that "All bounties and vouchers that the helmsman (ship owner) receives are duplicated". I can't find what was said about this on stream.

The way I understand this, crew members also receive a voucher in their transaction panel, which they can cash in at a later date, as opposed to a direct payment. I guess Beta will tell for sure.

But I believe Morbad was talking more about the fact that you can now start *generating* vouchers and spread your influence in the blink of an eye, without having to worry about the logistics of it. Want to influence system X? Find a multicrew session there, for bounty hunting, join, BAM! you're influencing the system. Turning vouchers in at the Contacts tab (later), AFAIR, affects the BGS. And of course there's the matter of killing certain kinds of ships, which also affects the state of the system if I'm not mistaken.

At this point I should add that I have no idea how vouchers affect the BGS when turned in via the shady broker.

IIRC devs already said that influence and reputation are disabled for crew members. Also take a look at the session screen which shows "earned credits" and stuff, I think it's very likely that you'll just get the money.

PS

31:20

[video=youtube_share;lEeVParEpeg]http://youtu.be/lEeVParEpeg?t=1880[/video]

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

IIRC devs already said that influence and reputation are disabled for crew members. Also take a look at the session screen which shows "earned credits" and stuff, I think it's very likely that you'll just get the money.

PS

31:20

http://youtu.be/lEeVParEpeg?t=1880

Virtual rep'd (cuz I run out).

Tbh, I think the BGS argument is entirely moot. Whether players have to physically fly to a system to then meetup and MC to affect the BGS, or the transfer is instant, the result on the BGS (if any) is the same.

This argument is a misdirection, because the argument seems to be more relevant as an against MC in its entirely than whether the mechanics for forming a MC party are instant or not.

And at the end of the day, what is the point of the BGS if not to influence it? Perhaps, I really missed something about ED during the hundreds of hours I've poured into it, but I really don't understand this sentiment that influencing the background simulation has any real significant impact on other players. Outside of changes in state for one system in question, in a galaxy of 500 billion (or whatever)...?? Seems like a silly thing to worry about to me.

 

[Weps]

IIRC devs already said that influence and reputation are disabled for crew members.

I think that was meant in the sense that:

- only the ship (a.k.a. the Helm) affects influence (influence is not being counted times x3 for 3 crew members)
- only the Helm gains or loses reputation with a faction when destroying ships which are enemies / allies (the crew members are just in for the ride)

I doubt that a ship which enables the multicrew session flag (or whatever you want to call the fact that it opens up for a multicrew session via the menu) will suddenly stop affecting a faction's in-system influence, if for example it starts blowing up that faction's ships. But hey, I can be wrong!


I would have preferred it similar to what you described in the OP:

- multicrew with meetup and spacelegs means you affect the BGS but are constricted to meet up, be in the system, hurdles, etc. for the realism fanatics
- instant multicrew with holograms and without meetup does not affect the BGS and can be explained in any way you like (Arena, e-sport, simulation provided by the Thargoid agents to test us, whatever) for the laid-back players

 

[babelfisch]

I think that was meant in the sense that:

- only the ship (a.k.a. the Helm) affects influence (influence is not being counted times x3 for 3 crew members)
- only the Helm gains or loses reputation with a faction when destroying ships which are enemies / allies (the crew members are just in for the ride)

Yes

I doubt that a ship which enables the multicrew session flag (or whatever you want to call the fact that it opens up for a multicrew session via the menu) will suddenly stop affecting a faction's in-system influence, if for example it starts blowing up that faction's ships. But hey, I can be wrong!

That's not what I meant. The ship owner will still affect the BGS like he always did, he will also get bonds and vouchers and stuff. But there will be no additional effect for the crew members and they will also not get any additional vouchers and bonds that could affect the BGS later (when they turn them in or use shadow brokers), they will just get the credits directly.

I would have preferred it similar to what you described in the OP:

- multicrew with meetup and spacelegs means you affect the BGS but are constricted to meet up, be in the system, hurdles, etc. for the realism fanatics
- instant multicrew with holograms and without meetup does not affect the BGS and can be explained in any way you like (Arena, e-sport, simulation provided by the Thargoid agents to test us, whatever) for the laid-back players

Yes, I think the current implementation makes it almost impossible to have any meaninful game mechanics when space legs and stuff arrives later.

 

[Max Stingray]

Yeah, I think our views diverge here rather wildy. For me (and I'm sure I'm not alone) ED is a solo game experience, as I don't play in Open and very rarely in PGs, so I simply cannot rationalise the statement that "ED is a competitive MP game by nature". It simply isn't. Now, I recognise that's my subjective experience of ED, and your view is based on your own. However, I would argue that the mere fact of the existence of Solo and PG modes for cooperative play would objevtiely disprove your stated definition of ED, given that two thirds of the available game modes are not even competitive at all, and one whole third is not even multiplayer.



I commend your intent and agree that ED would be well served by at least trying to appease the largest cross-section of players that it can. I agree too that CQC arena mode should be integrated into the main game, as a kind of seasonal sport. There are so many possibilities for an intergrated CQC arena within the main galaxy, that would turn the feature from something that is simply ignored to something i'd actually play. Some ideas I has were:

- CQC is the official sport of the ED galaxy
- CQC could be integrated through specialist "arena" station types littered across human inhabited space
- CQC can be an effective career, with a proper seasons and end of season play-offs
- Player can join a CQC team of choice, sponsored by powerplay-powers
- Players can engage in CQC themselves, spectate and even bet credits on major games
- Top players can earn sponsorship deals from ship manufacturers who pay credit endorsements for those players to wear their unique decals/skins
- CQC fights can be against other players or NPCs depending on mode played.

There are so many other things you could do with it.



They already do. It's just a logical consistency that some players don't like, so gets rejected. The consistency complaints are entirely subjective.

I like that. It would make it alive. I did play some CQC as it is fun, but felt it was a bit disconnected. If it was implemented as you described, to contrary to my preference for multicrew, I would not mind if the CQC was played in virtual arenas through VR/telepresence so the only req would be do dock at a station that provides the service. But physical presence would do as well.

 

[zarking]

I'm fine with instant telepresence to any ship, anywhere.
Thing is, the alternative is having to both be docked somewhere to meet up, or maybe be sitting looking at each other's ship in the same instance right? Well the only difference there is time. I can either join my friend and play now, or wait x number of hours for me to reach him.

Time is all it is, if traveling to colonia was a danger fraught journey, filled with alien encounters, wild astronomical features to negotiate, new planet types to explore, dangerous things that pull you off course and unknown missions that generate on the way, then fair enough, you shouldn't be able to just bypass that, but it's not, it's a few hundred jump/scoop/jump/scoop cycles over and over.

Now I'm relatively fine with the time sinks in the game already, it is what it is, but as I said the only difference between instant telepresence and wait two hours to get there is time, that's all, and it's pointless time as I imagine most multicrew sessions will be quick affairs, jump on board, help a little, jump out. Do I want to wait an hour or more for 10 minutes of helping my friend kill a few targets? No, that's utterly pointless.

So I'm good with it and that's how we'll use multicrew "hey want to jump on board and help me out in this conflict zone? Cool thanks", half an hour later "cheers, see you next time, bye".

I probably rambled but I think that covers it.