External View [A definitive discussion]

[Theodrid]

I see it as a bit more involved than that. Consider all the videos we have of people just flying around watching Anacondas or space stations. What are they doing? They are enjoying looking at the ED universe. An external view is geared totally to allowing a player to do this better (if/when they wish to).

As per my previous example... you are flying into a space station and see a fleet of odd Anacondas leaving. You have two choices, try and fly around viewing the situation through a cockpit. Or simply flick to an external view (even carrying on flying by) to better see the scene/moment.

Consider why is it so many screen shots from FD are basically in external view mode? Consider how future purchasers of the game will feel when they can't view the universe in the way they've been "sold it".

Oh come on Neil, yes all the people that want to use it for making videos, getting nice screenshots etc will use it for that. But what about the people that want to use it as a 'tool' to aid their ganking, their friends in combat and any other of a list of things? Just because your intentions may be honourable in relation to it does not mean everyone else's will be.

And I'm afraid the argument that the trailers for this game are not going to be representative is also invalid. Look at any game ad on TV, online or through any medium today and you will see 'Not gameplay footage' at the bottom of the screen and the like. Games are sold on expensive trailers like this :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ToztqqDcaY - I play SWTOR, trust me, this is not representative of gameplay but at the time, the game sold, it is failing now, but that is not because of the trailers but because of other issues within EA, Bioware and the game itself.

These trailers are just roughly setting the scene, that is all, very often trailers do not represent the actual view, dynamics or gameplay of said games. The games still sell, all the big titles do it.

 

[NeilF]

Oh come on Neil, yes all the people that want to use it for making videos, getting nice screenshots etc will use it for that. But what about the people that want to use it as a 'tool' to aid their ganking, their friends in combat and any other of a list of things? Just because your intentions may be honourable in relation to it does not mean everyone else's will be.

Indeed... Hence if this is your concern, surely the biggest and most concrete issue people could be facing regarding a feature being used for an advantage is an OR.

As yet, I've not yet seen a single gameplay example where an external view really offers an advantage. Yet, we can clearly see any regular player up against an OR player is at a disadvantage!

As stated, if external view does indeed offer gameplay (fairness) issues then my support for it diminishes. But as it stands I can't see any issues, hence my support remains.

As for those saying, let's not have it because of reasons no one knows, that seems fairly strange IMHO. Especially when they are happy to embrace something like the OR, where a minority of people will gain a constant and obvious advantage over the majority.

note: I'm in no way suggesting we shouldn't have OR support. I'm simply using it to put matters into perspective. ie: The OR gives a minority a clear permanent advantage. Any advantage from a nerfed external view is questionable at best, and most likely not as large as someone using an OR. If it is, then it shouldn't be available (as you're suggesting)!


At the end of the day its down to Frontier to review gameplay and see if external view can fit in. I hope it can.

 

[Theodrid]

You misinterpret my "Russel Teapot".

ie: Let's not add a feature, because the feature may give us a problem... even though we don't know what it is.



I think we are in total agreement. All I wish to achieve in this thread is to try and maybe dispell the repeated common arguments against external view that do have clear & simple solutions.

I absolutely put my hands in the air and don't pretend there is a definitive answer/solution to external view as we clearly don't know all the situations (problems) to solve

But in the meantime I feel if we can at least be rational about it, and stop the repeated unfair arguments against it, it can only be useful

Yeah, I see your point on the teapot element, and I broadly agree. What we do not, and maybe will never agree on, is whether or not all the problems raised in this thread have been totally dealt with, I don't think they have, partially, yes, completely, no.

Also, arguments, just because they are against your held view are not inherently 'unfair'. Indeed, rational has largely been the watch word in this thread, on both sides, and I for one, appreciate that.

 

[Theodrid]

Indeed... Hence if this is your concern, surely the biggest and most concrete issue people could be facing regarding a feature being used for an advantage is an OR.

As yet, I've not yet seen a single gameplay example where an external view really offers an advantage. Yet, we can clearly see any regular player up against an OR player is at a disadvantage!

As stated, if external view does indeed offer gameplay (fairness) issues then my support for it diminishes. But as it stands I can't see any issues, hence my support remains.

As for those saying, let's not have it because of reasons no one knows, that seems fairly strange IMHO. Especially when they are happy to embrace something like the OR, where a minority of people will gain a constant and obvious advantage over the majority.

note: I'm in no way suggesting we shouldn't have OR support. I'm simply using it to put matters into perspective. ie: The OR gives a minority a clear permanent advantage. Any advantage from a nerfed external view is questionable at best, and clearly not as large as someone using an OR.


At the end of the day its down to Frontier to review gameplay and see if external view can fit in. I hope it can.

Again I say to you, what is better for your gameplay experience, 1 or 2 advantages to other players that could be used against you or 3 or 4? I'd take my chances with a 'the fewer the better' approach every time.

 

[NeilF]

Again I say to you, what is better for your gameplay experience, 1 or 2 advantages to other players that could be used against you or 3 or 4? I'd take my chances with a 'the fewer the better' approach every time.

I'd say, it's down to FD to decide and ultimately know that. Simply saying, we shouldn't offer something because of an unknown reason seems bizarre to me.

It's like saying let's not offer "running cold" for stealth in case someone finds a way to abuse it.

If a feature is of use/fun then great. Let's have it. If it causes problem, refine it or don't offer it.

Let's not exclude features simply on the basis of "maybe"?

 

[Theodrid]

I'd say, it's down to FD to decide and ultimately know that. Simply saying, we shouldn't offer something because of an unknown reason seems bizarre to me.

It's like saying let's not offer "running cold" for stealth in case someone finds a way to abuse it.

If a feature is of use/fun then great. Let's have it. If it causes problem, refine it or don't offer it.

Let's not exclude features simply on the basis of "maybe"?

Yes, but it is not just the unknowns Neil, as I said, you think all the problems raised in this thread have been dispelled by a few disclaimers in the OP, I however, do not.

 

[NeilF]

Yes, but it is not just the unknowns Neil, as I said, you think all the problems raised in this thread have been dispelled by a few disclaimers in the OP, I however, do not.

OK... Clearly we disagree on that then.

 

[ToadMan]

OK... Clearly we disagree on that then.

I think this is your problem in this thread. Many people have offered reasons why your OP is incomplete but you can't see them (pardon the pun).

One reason for this is that you have not yet played game.

I suggest until you have played it, you reserve your judgement on this matter since you seem unable to comprehend why some people oppose your view and feel your OP is insufficient.

Roll on the beta and we can revisit this discussion when we are all armed with gameplay experience....

Toad.

 

[NeilF]

I think this is your problem in this thread. Many people have offered reasons why your OP is incomplete but you can't see them (pardon the pun).

In short you're suggesting I'm not allowed to disagree with people of a different (your) opinion? How odd. I wasn't aware of a new world order. Must have missed that memo

And, as I keep asking. Please do point out any examples/scenarios. If I've missed any I'm keen to see them.

One reason for this is that you have not yet played game.

I suggest until you have played it, you reserve your judgement on this matter since you seem unable to comprehend why some people oppose your view and feel your OP is insufficient.

Roll on the beta and we can revisit this discussion when we are all armed with gameplay experience....

Indeed, and without doing so none of us are any the wiser.

So to vote against a feature based on "it might be abused in gameplay we haven't experienced yet" seems odd. But this is what seems to have been suggested recently. Let's not risk it!

In summary, I'd like to think this thread is here for two reason:-
1) To stop the same arguments/answers being raised over and over again. You may have seen recently one raised about it ruining "cold running" (stealth). You may have noticed this has been talked about numerous times before and is even explicitly addressed in the OP, yet it was raised yet again.
2) To state what we do/don't know. And at least set expectations of what is/isn't feasible and what we might hopefully/possibly expect.

ps: Your post comes across a tad aggressive. I'll assume it's not intended.

 

[Theodrid]

As I keep asking. Please do point out any example/scenarios. If I've missed any I'm keen to see them.

Indeed, and without doing so none of us are any the wiser.

So to vote against a feature based on "it might be abused in gameplay we haven't experienced yet" seems odd. But this is what seems to have been suggested recently. Let's not risk it!

In summary, I'd like to think this thread is here for two reason:-
1) To stop the same arguments/answers being raised over and over again. You may have seen recently one raised about it ruining "cold running" (stealth). You may have noticed this has been talked about numerous times before and is even explicitly addressed in the OP, yet it was raised yet again.
2) To state what we do/don't know. And at least set expectations of what is/isn't feasible and what we might hopefully expect.

ps: Your post comes across a tad aggressive. I'll assume it's not intended.

Neil, you say one of the purposes of this thread is to avoid repetition but then you ask for examples and scenarios, already listed, to be pointed out AGAIN. They, have already been pointed out mate, and no, contrary to what you believe, they have not been totally dispelled by the ideas in the OP. The emphasis, as I see it, is not on me or others against 3ppov, to keep coming up with more and more scenarios when many of us don't think that those already raised have been 'answered' sufficiently.

And whether we like it or not, any gameplay area or feature that can be exploited will be, it's not an if or a maybe, it will be, it is the nature of some MMO players sadly.

 

[NeilF]

Neil, you say one of the purposes of this thread is to avoid repetition but then you ask for examples and scenarios, already listed, to be pointed out AGAIN. They, have already been pointed out mate, and no, contrary to what you believe, they have not been totally dispelled by the ideas in the OP.

And whether we like it or not, any gameplay area or feature that can be exploited will be, it's not an if or a maybe, it will be, it is the nature of some MMO players sadly.

I'm confused then. The only recent points I've seen are:-
1) General abuse of an external view in game play (we've not experienced) using techniques/situations we're not aware of? (As you've re-iterated)
2) Using external view to somehow gain a tactical advantage by "looking around"?
3) Damaging "cold running" stealth attacks by people using external view?

If you feel any of these three haven't been discussed or answered to your liking, then I can only suggest we agree to disagree here? It's clear there's some points neither camp will agree on until there's more clarity/information. So be it...

If there's some scenarios that have been missed, simply be constructive and point them out?

 

[Theodrid]

I'm confused then. The only recent points I've seen are:-
1) General abuse of an external view in game play (we've not experiences) using techniques situations we're not aware of? (As you've re-iterated)
2) Using external view to somehow gain a tactical advantage by "looking around"?
3) Damaging "cold running" stealth attacks by people using external view?

If you feel any of these three haven't been discussed or answered to your liking, then I can only suggest we agree to disagree here - Am I'm allowed to do that?

If there's some scenarios that have been missed, simply be constructive and point them out?

Yeah, of course you are allowed to do that mate.

In terms of things missed, well earlier in the discussion, and it was mentioned before I did earlier in the thread, you pointed out that due to the trailers etc that people 'would not be getting what they expected'. I countered with, 'well all games do this, including many large titles' and linked a video from SWTOR's 'Hope' trailer. What is your counter to that mate, I'm not 'trolling' you here, I am genuinely interested?

But, of course, you are referring to some scenario whereby we against 3rdppov, can give a definitive this is it. Well, you are asking for the impossible, as Toad said, we may, if 3rdppov is ever implemented, well be able to provide that when the game is out, it is nigh on impossible before, I'm sure you can appreciate that.

EDIT - but then of course it will be too late mate, if something like 3rdppov is in game then it will stay in game, developers are not going to simply take a feature like that away if exploits exist because there would be uproar, players want features added not removed in general.

 

[NeilF]

In terms of things missed, well earlier in the discussion, and it was mentioned before I did earlier in the thread, you pointed out that due to the trailers etc that people 'would not be getting what they expected'. I countered with, 'well all games do this, including many large titles' and linked a video from SWTOR's 'Hope' trailer. What is your counter to that mate, I'm not 'trolling' you here, I am genuinely interested?

Oh absolutely! It's a minor issue. But I suspect many people buying the game would have seen screen shots which given an impression of an external view. I feel some will be disappointed they will not be able to enjoy key moments to them in this view.

I'm not suggesting they will feel cheated by FD if such a feature is not available as FD have never said such a feature would be. Indeed - as we know - they've been very careful on saying very little about it, and to potentially set expectations "low".

But, of course, you are referring to some scenario whereby we against 3rdppov, can give a definitive this is it. Well, you are asking for the impossible, as Toad said, we may, if 3rdppov is ever implemented, well be able to provide that when the game is out, it is nigh on impossible before, I'm sure you can appreciate that.

Not entirely clear on your point? If you're suggesting when we know more about the gameplay, then issues with offering an external view (in some guise) will become more apparent, then of course! Completely agree. But to actively vote against this feature seemingly because "there might be a problem" seems odd to me.

EDIT - but then of course it will be too late mate, if something like 3rdppov is in game then it will stay in game, developers are not going to simply take a feature like that away if exploits exist because there would be uproar, players want features added not removed in general.

True, but it would have to be a pretty fundamental oversight to have been:-
1) A significant enough issue to cause a game play issue of any real concern.
2) A significant issue to be a game play issue that cannot be addressed by a change. (eg: Akin to my silly exploit shooting from next to a space station if you happened to see it.)

But yes, I guess there's always a chance of some crazy exploit coming out of the woodwork that was never envisaged with external view. But I'm not sure how that's different to any other gameplay mechanic really.

 

[Theodrid]

Oh absolutely! It's a minor issue. But I suspect many people buying the game would have seen screen shots which given an impression of an external view. I feel some will be disappointed they will not be able to enjoy key moments to them in this view.

Maybe many, but the emphasis is on FD, if they don't want an external view to make that clear nearer release and let people make their own minds up.

Not entirely clear on your point? If you're suggesting when we know more about the gameplay, then issues with offering an external view (in some guise) will become more apparent, then of course! Completely agree. But to actively vote against this feature seemingly because "there might be a problem" seems odd to me.

For your 'might be a problem' mine reads, 'almost definitely will'

True, but it would have to be a pretty fundamental oversight to have been:-
1) A significant enough issue to cause a game play issue of any real concern.
2) A significant issue to be a game play issue that cannot be addressed by a change. (eg: Akin to my silly exploit shooting from next to a space station if you happened to see it.)

The best, most experienced games companies cannot be expected to think of every single possible exploit and workaround of every given feature, it is an impossible task. Virtually every online game in existence has exploits and things that can be 'used'. This is not an oversight of the companies involved, more a kind of bizarre salute to the ingenuity and devious creativity of players.

But yes, I guess there's always a chance of some crazy exploit coming out of the woodwork that was never envisaged with external view. But I'm not sure how that's different to any other gameplay mechanic really.

You may well be right on this part, but somehow a 3rdppov seems and feels more 'exploitable' than lets say docking with a space station!

 

[NeilF]

For your 'might be a problem' mine reads, 'almost definitely will'

Fair enough... This is where we clearly differ.

The best, most experienced games companies cannot be expected to think of every single possible exploit and workaround of every given feature, it is an impossible task. Virtually every online game in existence has exploits and things that can be 'used'. This is not an oversight of the companies involved, more a kind of bizarre salute to the ingenuity and devious creativity of players.

I understand your point, but as much as I try - albeit with the limited gameplay we can imagine thusfar - I cannot fathom how a nerfed external view can give any significant advantage. Indeed, the suggestions in the OP generally make it a disadvantage.

But hell, I'd be happy if FD offered it entirely on a probationary basis, with any exploits meaning the plug is pulled if they cannot be addressed.

You may well be right on this part, but somehow a 3rdppov seems and feels more 'exploitable' than lets say docking with a space station!

With nerfs aplenty on it; no aim (hud), no scanner, slower looking around speed, and you being a sitting (uncontrolled target) while entering/leaving it, it would have to one hell of a god exploit to make it worth it


Note: All these discussions are useful (to me at least). Over the last 24hrs I've made two further additions to the OP. If only to set the scene/issues to other readers.

 

[Rog]

If there's a worry that people will be able to 'hack' an external drone view, why isn't there the same fear that they'll be able to hack the stealth mechanic and *always* run cold?

Or Oculus mode, sticking their head *outside* the ship, monitoring net traffic to know where everybody is all the time, knowing which asteroids bear precious metals, etc.

Seriously, do you have so little faith in the devs that you really think they couldn't provide a suitably limited facility for an external view?

Is it worth stating again that no-one really wants an arcade God's-eye view like Freelancer?

 

[NeilF]

If there's a worry that people will be able to 'hack' an external drone view, why isn't there the same fear that they'll be able to hack the stealth mechanic and *always* run cold?

I don't think the concern being talking about it a "hack" as such. Simply a use in a particular circumstance/situation that wasn't envisaged, and ultimately gives people using it a frustrating advantage.

eg: When escorting an Anaconda you can fly close to it and use external view to achieve some benefit (view) that you otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't.

I can understand the worry, but I feel any such issue could be addressed, or ultimately the scenario would be so rare/infrequent that it simply wouldn't be worth worrying about?

But I can fully understand the concern, especially as we're so blind to the game play at the moment.

It could well be FD have already seen a couple of avenues whereby external view causes problems, and to address them would be so painful it's simply not viable to offer an external view.

We'll see As it stands I'm hopeful though! Fingers crossed!

 

[ToadMan]

In short you're suggesting I'm not allowed to disagree with people of a different (your) opinion? How odd. I wasn't aware of a new world order. Must have missed that memo

And, as I keep asking. Please do point out any examples/scenarios. If I've missed any I'm keen to see them.

Indeed, and without doing so none of us are any the wiser.

So to vote against a feature based on "it might be abused in gameplay we haven't experienced yet" seems odd. But this is what seems to have been suggested recently. Let's not risk it!

In summary, I'd like to think this thread is here for two reason:-
1) To stop the same arguments/answers being raised over and over again. You may have seen recently one raised about it ruining "cold running" (stealth). You may have noticed this has been talked about numerous times before and is even explicitly addressed in the OP, yet it was raised yet again.
2) To state what we do/don't know. And at least set expectations of what is/isn't feasible and what we might hopefully/possibly expect.

ps: Your post comes across a tad aggressive. I'll assume it's not intended.

It's not that you disagree that is the problem, it is that you fail to address the concerns presented to you - "see the OP" is clearly an insufficient answer and yet you use it over and over. If it was sufficient, then the concern would not have been raised.

You continually ask for scenarios but they've been presented to you many times, and you've either ignored them or restated "see the OP" when the OP doesn't address the issue.

However, since this "definitive" thread has trudged on and on let's get back to reality a little.

"There's no external view, it's cockpit view only. We may add camera drones or similar for the final game, but it won't be a third person view that you can fly in."

This is a quote from the Alpha forum from a senior member of FD. That seems fairly clear cut.

My points about a 3rd person are based on my gameplay experience of that Alpha. I suggest everyone just stay relaxed until they get to play the game and understand the interacting gameplay mechanics.

Toad.

 

[NeilF]

It's not that you disagree that is the problem, it is that you fail to address the concerns presented to you - "see the OP" is clearly an insufficient answer and yet you use it over and over. If it was sufficient, then the concern would not have been raised.

You continually ask for scenarios but they've been presented to you many times, and you've either ignored them or restated "see the OP" when the OP doesn't address the issue.

Well if I repeatedly ask for them... and I repeatedly say I'm not aware of any I've not addressed... and I even go through the process of listing every recent scenario mentioned I've seen (see above)... and you repeatedly don't simply point them out... How is this going to end?

Unless you enjoy this sort of exchange of course? I don't... I'm trying to move past it. Seemingly not very well as you keep bringing it up over and over.

So, could you just simply point any out any issues you think I've missed so I could address them please? (One last try)

However, since this "definitive" thread has trudged on and on let's get back to reality a little.

"There's no external view, it's cockpit view only. We may add camera drones or similar for the final game, but it won't be a third person view that you can fly in."

This is a quote from the Alpha forum from a senior member of FD. That seems fairly clear cut.

Not sure what your point is? See OP - "What we do know" - [Click here!]

ie: That exact quote is in the original post so people can wee what's been officially said?

The suggestion is no traditional external view - which it seems most people really don't want. The suggestion is instead of potentially/maybe a more clinical external view possibly using drones? Which as far as I'm concerned is OK with most folk as long as it doesn't screw game play etc etc...

My points about a 3rd person are based on my gameplay experience of that Alpha. I suggest everyone just stay relaxed until they get to play the game and understand the interacting gameplay mechanics.

Everyones totally relaxed as far as I can see. Well mostly



ps: You don't need to sign your name. We can work out who you are. There, saved you half a dozen key strokes each post!

 

[Hamerstein]

My points about a 3rd person are based on my gameplay experience of that Alpha. I suggest everyone just stay relaxed until they get to play the game and understand the interacting gameplay mechanics.

Toad.

In my opinion, the definitive argument.

I'm just starting to appreciate the subtleties of what FD have delivered with tactical options and ship design in the alpha. Field of view is a very important one, it was picked up on by Neon Raven (regarding those excellent short films) when he(?) observed that you didn't have as good a view out of the top of the Cobra cockpit as you did in a Sidewinder.

Ship design for ED is more than just a list of hardpoints, manueverabilty and top speed. The actual cockpit placement has significant impact on what you can see, and that impacts on your awareness when eyeballing the scanner isn't enough. With the stealth mechanic that some FD genius came up with, the whole dynamic for visual range combat is turned on it's head.

I agree that an edge is prevalent with OR or headtracker, the same edge that you gain from having a top-of-the-line HOTAS over keyboard and mouse, but these are peripherals. For FD to invite an in-game mechanic that directly dilutes and contradicts an existing game mechanic, is frankly absurd.