Continuity Vs. Convenience

[Flavourless]

Don't consider this as teleporting. Try to think outside the game space for a bit. You're playing a game. You want to play multiplayer. You enter someone else's game. That's it. You're not teleporting or "beaming" to anywhere. It's a game.

This kind of thinking is conducive to the issues that keep arising in this incarnation of Elite.

Too many people think only of themselves (eg it would be cool and "fun" for me if I could just hop around the galaxy doing gratuitous things on a whim), without thinking what that does to the game itself.
The nature of the game keeps changing to accommodate cheap, fluffy thrills. But the game was never like that before. Some do not think it is progress for the genre.

If we could keep just a little of the dark, gritty, challenging game - and not fall too far into magic-spaceships-world - it would be great.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

I don't care for the teleporting element of game-play either way myself, but do think this makes a bit more sense than instant ship transfers since remotely piloting is a real thing, even if not across the galaxy, of course. If we're physically there in someone else's ship instead of being an obvious hologram or the like, I'll have more of a problem with it.

That being said, I don't really plan on using the game mechanic either way. Just adding my 2 cents worth.

To me its just a bit of a mess, and probably will get evenn more of a messy once walking around comes. Some places you can teleport to, some places you have to walk to - I suspect the lack of consitency in the Gameworld will keep growing. Not my Idea of a believable world, which isn't about "realism", or anything like that but about a rulebook that is worth a thing.

 

[WR3ND]

But why don't use SRVs and SLFs? Because if you loose a SRV or SLF, nobody dies? But you still loose it, it has some small monetary value and small amounts of cargo could get lost with it (that's why I carry 2 SRVs in my expeditions, just in case).

Because I think players should have the opportunity of realistic failure and overcoming realistic and compelling challenges. I want to survive in a hard to survive game universe and not by handicapping myself, though I do generally only use small ships without Engineer mods.

This is just my preference though, no need to really justify it to others. I won't hold it against them for wanting to use various elements of the game for their full potential for what they find enjoyable. I do wonder about the direction and state of the game itself sometimes though.

 

[babelfisch]

I'm glad people are able to play the way they might like to, assuming they can, but there is only one game universe, so naturally there will be some conflicting preferences about future game development content and directions.

Adding new features for a wider audience is good in and of itself, but not at the cost of alienating and disappointing current players.

I'd rather Frontier focus on adding content most all of us would like too see, such as walking around space stations and our ships, landing on Earth-like worlds, exploring the depths of water worlds, meeting up with friends at the pub in Jaques Station, dealing with the potential threats and benefits of encountering and interacting with alien races, and so on.

Those sort of things aren't easy and take time to develop, but they're the sort of game I paid for and very much hope to eventually see realized.

Wouldn't continuity mean they should continue implementing features you don't like?

 

[L.S Algir]

I'm glad people are able to play the way they might like to, assuming they can, but there is only one game universe, so naturally there will be some conflicting preferences about future game development content and directions.

Adding new features for a wider audience is good in and of itself, but not at the cost of alienating and disappointing current players.

I'd rather Frontier focus on adding content most all of us would like too see, such as walking around space stations and our ships, landing on Earth-like worlds, exploring the depths of water worlds, meeting up with friends at the pub in Jaques Station, dealing with the potential threats and benefits of encountering and interacting with alien races, and so on.

Those sort of things aren't easy and take time to develop, but they're the sort of game I paid for and very much hope to eventually see realized.

Ok , thanks OP. I wasn't sure about which side to chose , but with this answer you hepled me a lot. And dispite the fact I agree that convenience shouldn't be put aside and should be developped as well, to serve a good continuity , my global feeling, if I have to chose only one side , would be continuity.

 

[WR3ND]

Wouldn't continuity mean they should continue implementing features you don't like?

Nah, there's enough of the game I actually do like. I was just cherry picking elements I don't care for as they are currently implemented. I am here, and I am still playing the game after all.

I do sometimes wonder though where this game is heading and how it plans to get there.

 

[Olivia Vespera]

continuinty but in the case of 2.3, gameplay trumps continuity until other infrastructure pieces like space legs are in place.

 

[WR3ND]

continuinty but in the case of 2.3, gameplay trumps continuity until other infrastructure pieces like space legs are in place.

I just hope there continues to be enough reason to follow through on some of these kind of game-play elements. I remember David Braben talking about sneaking aboard someone else's ship when docked at a station with the cargo. That specifically seems kind of weird to me, but I'd like for that kind of more realistic interaction and experience in general in future game development and content to not be undermined by convenient workarounds.

 

[Sterling MH]

I'm not voting. Which is better depends on what and why.

Do you prefer ketchup or gravy? On my jam roly poly, neither. Context and purpose are rather important.

 

[Commandeur_Brin]

I'm all about continuity but I can draw a line when the reason for breaking it is of multiplayer nature and a way to ease the "getting in touch" part.

It's logical for normal wings to meet in person given you want your actual ship to be there but in the case of multi-crew it could make sens that a crewed ship (with NPCs) get that kind of gameplay leeway...

So basically, I'm ok with breaking the continuity if we get NPC crew !

 

[WR3ND]

I'm not voting. Which is better depends on what and why.

Do you prefer ketchup or gravy? On my jam roly poly, neither. Context and purpose are rather important.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a reasonable scenario where I would prefer convenience, but that's just me. I'd even prefer Commander deletion on death in the game in a hardcore mode for those who cared for it to be able to play by the same rules as each other. Doesn't seem too likely to be implemented though and I can make do without it well enough.

Granted, a "reasonable scenario" is open to personal interpretation at least somewhat as well.

The point of this thread is to have a conversation about how people see the game, what they want out of it currently and in the future, and where they themselves are able to find balance.

 

[WindWpn]

I too voted Continuity, and basically mirror the original poster's words/play style. As noted, this is what makes ED unique and interesting... each time I come down to my "man cave" as I am walking the steps leading to my office door, i think to myself... "What am I going to do in ED tonight?" THIS, is what makes this game special. YOU do what you want to do, and a perceived Galaxy of possibilities awaits.

With the introduction of "convenience" gaming mechanics, to me, this is frankly OK. I would simply not be one to adopt/use it. If others do, that is completely fine.

My bigger concern is the path FD takes by introducing these types of "convenience" mechanics. Basically, will future focus move towards convenience over continuity? Will future development focus simply broaden the width, but not add depth? Right now, ED is a perfect fully playable galaxy of possibility and quite frankly FD has something very unique in this baseline. Though how they mold/path its evolution will dictate where we go from here. It seems "convenience" is easy and from a business model, likely makes sense. It may draw in more mass market, as well as ease development challenges; however, it would be sad to lose what is now in this original baseline, and built as the mold of the original concept.

All in all, 2.3 will be a fun next step for many, I am sure; however, I indeed would prefer to see time and resources in ED development focused on depth of game rather than simplified/convenience aspects. There are other titles out there for convenience, whereas ED is the only one now with this level of appeal which I hope will not slip away.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Voted Continuity. Of course these things are never 100% black & white but I'd like to be able to solve a problem with a believable in-game mechanism if practical.

But thats essentially neither continuity nor convenience. I mean, thats like saying your a pacifist if practical.

 

[WR3ND]

But thats essentially neither continuity nor convenience. I mean, thats like saying your a pacifist if practical.

That reminds me of something...

Spoiler

 

[Sterling MH]

I'd be hard pressed to think of a reasonable scenario where I would prefer convenience

When your ship explodes, you have to log off and wait some days or even weeks for your lifepod to be found and returned, and you have to buy the ship and claim the cost off insurance, meaning to get the original ship back, you have to go to the stations that sell the bits and buy them.

Or conveniently you reappear at the rebuy screen and get precisely the same ship, including engineering, back instantly and at the station you are sitting at.

A or B?

EDIT: PS " a reasonable scenario" is either the above because it's what whould have to happen IRL if this fantasy world was for real, or it's the "context that matters" as in the post you replied to.

 

[WR3ND]

When your ship explodes, you have to log off and wait some days or even weeks for your lifepod to be found and returned, and you have to buy the ship and claim the cost off insurance, meaning to get the original ship back, you have to go to the stations that sell the bits and buy them.

Or conveniently you reappear at the rebuy screen and get precisely the same ship, including engineering, back instantly and at the station you are sitting at.

A or B?

EDIT: PS " a reasonable scenario" is either the above because it's what whould have to happen IRL if this fantasy world was for real, or it's the "context that matters" as in the post you replied to.

Wait for "lifepod" then, only I could call on the Fuel Rats to come pick me up or similar if willing. Makes sense to me. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I haven't lost a ship in the game in over a year, so it wouldn't really be a big deal to me.

Actually, that would be a pretty cool game mechanic. I would totally go out of the way to pick someone up like that. Main problem I see with it though is that it would be prone to abuse.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Distilling this down to a simple binary selection between one or the other is not really helpful or useful for drawing any conclusions.

You can't simply have a game with one or the other, as if the two are mutually exclusive. There's is and can be a huge amount of overlap, and I'd argue that the skill in game design is ensuring continuity with the absolute maximum amount of convenience in order to maximize the player experience (i.e. fun).

Continuity without much convenience at all is not a game. It's a tortuous and impenetrable collection of systems that becomes inaccessible to everyone, and thus can no longer even justify its own existence. Unfortunately for many of us players of ED, there seem to be a number of other players who want ED to become exactly this.

 

[WindWpn]

When your ship explodes, you have to log off and wait some days or even weeks for your lifepod to be found and returned, and you have to buy the ship and claim the cost off insurance, meaning to get the original ship back, you have to go to the stations that sell the bits and buy them.

Or conveniently you reappear at the rebuy screen and get precisely the same ship, including engineering, back instantly and at the station you are sitting at.

A or B?

EDIT: PS " a reasonable scenario" is either the above because it's what whould have to happen IRL if this fantasy world was for real, or it's the "context that matters" as in the post you replied to.

Well, of course there must be a level of "convenience" and the current death implementation is frankly, quite well done where there is a credit "cost" to obtain what is lost. Depending on value, that cost can be quite high, and credit value in ED equates to player time. IF I lost a 30 million rebuy cost, that 30 million took me some time to earn. That cost while "convenient" has impact which works well. "Fly without rebuy" mantra is quite well implemented to handle this aspect.

 

[Weps]

I'm definitely on the immersion side of things. That's why I play a video game about space ships in the first place! If I wanted a fast paced game where I get to shoot stuff non-stop and only worry about how to use all the tools at my advantage to beat the game or a human opponent, I'd be playing another game. There are other games doing this far better than Elite will ever will.

 

[Chrysophylax]

Distilling this down to a simple binary selection between one or the other is not really helpful or useful for drawing any conclusions.

You can't simply have a game with one or the other, as if the two are mutually exclusive. There's is and can be a huge amount of overlap, and I'd argue that the skill in game design is ensuring continuity with the absolute maximum amount of convenience in order to maximize the player experience (i.e. fun).

Continuity without much convenience at all is not a game. It's a tortuous and impenetrable collection of systems that becomes inaccessible to everyone, and thus can no longer even justify its own existence. Unfortunately for many of us players of ED, there seem to be a number of other players who want ED to become exactly this.

Today I'm getting beaten to the punch by people who also manage to put it more eloquently than I. Would rep you if I could.

I'll add that as well as this false dichotomy, the words themselves are IMO vague enough in this context to be nearly meaningless. I don't see instant teleportation as lacking in continuity, since I prize gameplay above all. My kind of continuity in a game isn't your kind of continuity isn't their kind of continuity... It's also why immersion based arguments are trash: what I consider immersive (good gameplay, good graphics, good art design, good quality of life) isn't what some consider immersive (must take a lot of time for any action to be worthy in some sense), but immersion is still taken to be a complete argument in and of itself.