External View [A definitive discussion]

[Hamerstein]

Well I have to ask why are you posting in this thread?

If you're set on your opinion they why raise points for/against it, if nothing anyone says will meet any consideration? What's your goal?

If you have a perceived problem or issue, for/against, great, post it, and we can discuss it. Which is surely the purpose of the thread. To discuss and exchange ideas? - Confused...

Because the title of the thread poll is external views, yes or no?

I voted no, and I've expressed why in my opinion it should be no. You raised your own examples of why the answer should be yes and I've attempted to address them based on my experience of playing the Alpha, citing factors that the answers you gave didn't take into account. That isn't an issue of me claiming I'm right and you're wrong, that's me providing game play based evidence of why the criteria you cited are flawed. It's also why I asked if you had Alpha access, because if you did, you would have also experienced these aspects, which may have altered your perspective or at least we could discuss them on equal terms (equal as in both experienced the same thing).

It's not really a fair thing for me to do, because without game play knowledge, you have to base counter arguments on supposition or someone who is in the Alpha needs to tell me I'm talking a load of rubbish and explain why.

This is why I tried to step away from this discussion a few posts ago, but you encouraged me to fully express my reasoning, so I did so.

While I don't like the concept of a disembodied or gamified 3rd person view, I've no objection to a person going outside and taking pictures (come EVA expansion). This meets the criteria of delay and risk that you covered in your suggestions and doesn't break with the underlying idea of still looking out of your own head...of course while you're playing David Bailey some cheeky cove may sneak in and nick your spaceship....

 

[NeilF]

Because the title of the thread poll is external views, yes or no?

I voted no, and I've expressed why in my opinion it should be no. You raised your own examples of why the answer should be yes and I've attempted to address them based on my experience of playing the Alpha, citing factors that the answers you gave didn't take into account. That isn't an issue of me claiming I'm right and you're wrong, that's me providing game play based evidence of why the criteria you cited are flawed. It's also why I asked if you had Alpha access, because if you did, you would have also experienced these aspects, which may have altered your perspective or at least we could discuss them on equal terms (equal as in both experienced the same thing).

Well, I see the only way this thread will be of any use to anyone is:-
1) It's a reference point at least for how an external view might work, so people have some sort of framework or reference in mind.
2) It lists/discusses issues and if possible we try and address/overcome them. Indeed that's how those related section in the OP have been built up.
3) Any official news/comments are listed so they can be found easily.

Now on the side of this, if people want to raise issues they percieve external view creating, I (& others) are more than happy to spit around ideas.

As you point out, at this stage, we can only guess, but what's the harm in doing that?

If something constructive comes out of it... great...

If nothing constructive comes out of it, at least maybe the process has been fun or informative.

It's not really a fair thing for me to do, because without game play knowledge, you have to base counter arguments on supposition or someone who is in the Alpha needs to tell me I'm talking a load of rubbish and explain why.

I wouldn't dare to tell anyone they're talking a load of rubbish, if that's what you mean?

As regards your previous example - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=328652&postcount=565

You raised the concern (if I understood it) that the work of a stealthy (cold) craft could be undone by people looking avidly around in external view and spotting them more easily than from the cockpit. I listed a series of personal opinions on why I thought the general suggested behaviour & limitation would hopefully render the concern mute. If you agree or disagree is of course entirely up to you. I can only offer you my opinion.

However, I would say of course there is the limitation some are in favour of which totally addresses your concern - how ever distasteful you may find the behaviour - and that is a ship not on the scanner is simply not rendered in external view. It's a simple solution but some find it unpalatable. Personally if it meant life or death for external view I'd accept it in a heat beat.

Again, you may find this suggested limitation problematic or have some other issue with it, which of course is fine. I can only put forward suggestions and you decide if you feel they fit or not



As I've previously said, although personally I don't believe I've seen a scenario thusfar that truly shows an external view to undermine gameplay, some points have raised valid concerns and I've even added extra notes to the OP about them.

And once again, no one is pretending this thread is anyway definative or "right". As has been clearly stated, we're in the infancy of the game so who knows what issues an external view may introduce within gameplay we're not aware of.

 

[Barns]

...No, frankly that's a terrible idea, why on Earth would a ship that stealthed (not emmitting heat) suddenly become invisible? What you need to appreciate is that while FD have had to gamify some things, they've gone to exceptional efforts to keep it to a minimum.
...
Using a gamified solution so you can take some nice screenshots or admire your ship (which you can do perfectly well from the station dock) isn't really a good justification.

Why's it not a good justification? It's gamification in order to allow a much desired piece of functionality to exist without undue negative effect on the rest of the game. I can't see the problem. If it bothers you that ships won't show, well, don't use the view and you'll never have to worry about it.

You personally value PvP balance over the utility and beauty of external views. Other players have the opposite view. It's all subjective. FD will have their final say, eventually, but none of us are more "right" or "wrong" than any others. I'd say the "right-est" approach currently would be to try to find a compromise to keep everyone sort-of happy even if they don't have precisely their dream solution.

I don't expect you to appreciate this fully, because if you haven't played it - you can't. When you do, I think you'll appreciate better why external views aren't such a great idea.

I'm in the alpha. I would love to have external views with suitable "balance" limitations, even if it's as extreme as "you can't use it unless in solo mode". I think it would enhance the feel of the game tremendously, for me. Not all alpha players are equal (just like the wider player audience are not all equal).

For the record, "look when you're docked" is a pants solution, frankly, I hope I don't need to detail why. And "use EVA when it's out" is saying "forget this for at least a year after launch" (I'm fully expecting that sort of timescale post-launch, personally). For those that want it, a 3rd person camera for shots etc is something they won't want to wait a year+ from launch for, it's something that needs to be present right away.

Personally, my absolute bottom line minimum screenshot-taking requirement is being able to take cockpit-clutter-free shots. Let me take the view from my cockpit, but make the saved image free of all the cockpit junk so I can have pretty space images... yeah I'd miss not having my ship in them, I'd prefer that was available, but making all shots have the cockpit? Bleurgh. "Hide UI" is a must.

 

[Adept]

Some videos have been made looking up through the canopy. No struts cluttering the view.

I like the immersion effect of no magical views. I'm sure some camera drones will be on the market.

 

[Barns]

Some videos have been made looking up through the canopy. No struts cluttering the view.

I like the immersion effect of no magical views. I'm sure some camera drones will be on the market.

The "hide UI screenshot" option wouldn't dent your immersion. The cockpit would all be there 100% of the time in-game, just the saved JPG wouldn't have the cockpit, UI etc in it. Purely for backdrops etc. I'm literally meaning "prt-screen" dumps the current view to a JPG minus cockpit stuff.

 

[NeoRacer]

that's horrible. no.

The "hide UI screenshot" option wouldn't dent your immersion. The cockpit would all be there 100% of the time in-game, just the saved JPG wouldn't have the cockpit, UI etc in it. Purely for backdrops etc. I'm literally meaning "prt-screen" dumps the current view to a JPG minus cockpit stuff.

 

[NeoRacer]

I dont want a 'camera drone' I want a clear 3p view where I can change the FOV, Camera focus and position relative to the ship, or a free cam that can fly to any point.

Some videos have been made looking up through the canopy. No struts cluttering the view.

I like the immersion effect of no magical views. I'm sure some camera drones will be on the market.

 

[Barns]

that's horrible. no.

Er, why? Honestly - why's it horrible?

 

[Hamerstein]

Why's it not a good justification? It's gamification in order to allow a much desired piece of functionality to exist without undue negative effect on the rest of the game. I can't see the problem. If it bothers you that ships won't show, well, don't use the view and you'll never have to worry about it.

You personally value PvP balance over the utility and beauty of external views. Other players have the opposite view. It's all subjective. FD will have their final say, eventually, but none of us are more "right" or "wrong" than any others. I'd say the "right-est" approach currently would be to try to find a compromise to keep everyone sort-of happy even if they don't have precisely their dream solution.

Yup, I do value the balanced interaction of players with other players, it's a multi-player game primarily, MP being a major feature of ED. The only thing that should separate two players in identical ships is their ability to fly them. I appreciate that there are peripherals (beyond FDs ability to control) that will create discrepancies, but game created devices that achieve the same should be discouraged. It's not whether I use it, though I don't want to, it's that it would exist in the MP environment, which in order to re-establish status quo, would force everyone to use it.

I'm in the alpha. I would love to have external views with suitable "balance" limitations, even if it's as extreme as "you can't use it unless in solo mode". I think it would enhance the feel of the game tremendously, for me. Not all alpha players are equal (just like the wider player audience are not all equal).

I'd be less opposed to that than any other solution, I'll agree that each person wants to play their own game and that would allow you to play your game without your mechanics being pushed onto mine. So on that we can agree.

For the record, "look when you're docked" is a pants solution, frankly, I hope I don't need to detail why. And "use EVA when it's out" is saying "forget this for at least a year after launch" (I'm fully expecting that sort of timescale post-launch, personally). For those that want it, a 3rd person camera for shots etc is something they won't want to wait a year+ from launch for, it's something that needs to be present right away.

Hmm, it doesn't need to be present, ED wouldn't be broken beyond belief if it wasn't. Reliable networking (for example) needs to be present. Saying that external views is a need is like saying that planetary landings is a need. Some (perhaps many) people would like it, but not having it right now doesn't ruin the game. Waiting a year or so for the ability to perform external shots while not breaking with the (FD cited) first person only isn't completely unacceptable.

Personally, my absolute bottom line minimum screenshot-taking requirement is being able to take cockpit-clutter-free shots. Let me take the view from my cockpit, but make the saved image free of all the cockpit junk so I can have pretty space images... yeah I'd miss not having my ship in them, I'd prefer that was available, but making all shots have the cockpit? Bleurgh. "Hide UI" is a must.

I cite the above, it's not a must, it's a "I really want", equally there are other players (like me) who "really don't want". Rather like the above, if it were limited to when you were playing on your own, I'd have less issue with it, as it wouldn't impinge on me. On the subject of "clutter free" shots, have you looked at Neon Raven's short films of ED Alpha? The screens are totally uncluttered and yet taken from a cockpit view.

 

[TerranAmbassador]

I've no objection to a person going outside and taking pictures (come EVA expansion). This meets the criteria of delay and risk that you covered in your suggestions and doesn't break with the underlying idea of still looking out of your own head...

And also leaving people like me, who otherwise would have no interest in the avatars expansion, and who may or may not be willing and/or able to spend (expansions are going to be 30-35 pounds, right?) 60 bucks just to be able to look at our own ships, SOL. I hope you'll excuse me for being me for being blunt, but that's unacceptable.

There needs to be way to do it without resorting to the 'meatbag solution'.



Make it a piece of equipment.

This piece of equipment is a controllable drone.

It must be purchased, and must be mounted on a hardpoint (either a utility hardpoint or one of the smaller classes of general hardpoints), and the ship must be powered up to use it. The bit that is mounted can be considered a combination launcher/controller.

When activated, this drone is capable of moving around within a specific distance from the host ship (tweakable for 'balance' purposes). If the drone somehow moves out of this range, the connection to it is lost, and it cannot be recovered. A replacement must either be purchased the next time the player docks or must be stored in the cargo bay of the host ship.

This drone is detectable via normal sensors, just like any ship (player or NPC).

When activated, the player loses control of the ship in favor of control over the drone, which cannot be regained unless the drone is deactivated and recalled, lost, or the drone itself or launch/controller is damaged.

When recalled, the drone must either travel the distance between itself and the host ship, or self-destruct and be lost, requiring replacement.

The feed from the drone is displayed fullscreen (this can be handwaved as the images being transmitted directly to the pilot's HUD implants, and can be reinforced via a few visual effects [static as the 'connection' establishes itself, for example]) for ease of screenshots and video recording.

This drone is otherwise treated as normal equipment for the purposes of gameplay, including maintenance and combat.



That serves the same purpose as making it require EVA, and is available to everyone, including the people who wouldn't touch avatars with a 10 meter pole.

Not only is the ship using it vulnerable to attack just as if the commander was EVA, it takes up a hardpoint, and can be lost, damaged, and destroyed.

It also avoids unnecessary contrivances such as making a ship arbitrarily heat up.

 

[Hamerstein]

And also leaving people like me, who otherwise would have no interest in the avatars expansion, and who may or may not be willing and/or able to spend (expansions are going to be 30-35 pounds, right?) 60 bucks just to be able to look at our own ships, SOL. I hope you'll excuse me for being me for being blunt, but that's unacceptable.

There needs to be way to do it without resorting to the 'meatbag solution'.

I'll admit, I had forgotten that post KS backers (and sub £80? Backers) wouldn't have the expansions for free, good point.

The main issue of external cams (in whatever form they took) is their exploitation of increased visual perception in combat, while taking up a utility (it'd make sense) hardpoint is a minority loss for a ship, the tactical gains of having unimpeded 3rd person views are considerable.

What kind of price tag should be attached to it? Logically it shouldn't be terribly expensive, remote cams are hardly advanced tech, but then if it's not expensive then it becomes a throwaway item - like a heatsink. Should it be an illegal item? Plenty of Military organisations wouldn't like the idea of remote cams snooping around, nor would certain governments.

What's the justification for a time delay if you wanted to use it as a scouting tool? If you wanted it back - that's a delay, but if it's inexpensive (as logically it would be) who cares if you lose it?

I'd still prefer a non MP (or consensual group) solution for 3rd person viewing, sorry that's about as much of a compromise as I'd make on my position.

My position being irrelevant of course, as it's all down to FD

 

[TerranAmbassador]

I'll admit, I had forgotten that post KS backers (and sub £80? Backers) wouldn't have the expansions for free, good point.

You also forgot that some people simply aren't going to purchase one or more of the expansions and wouldn't appreciate being locked out of what I'm sure a lot of people would consider basic functionality in a game like this simply because they didn't want to put up with gameplay that they didn't like.

I know I'd ed if I was forced to buy the avatar expansion to see my ship.

The main issue of external cams (in whatever form they took) is their exploitation of increased visual perception in combat, while taking up a utility (it'd make sense) hardpoint is a minority loss for a ship, the tactical gains of having unimpeded 3rd person views are considerable.

Which is why I also suggested the possibility of a general hardpoint. You're not giving up a heatsink, you're giving up a gun.

And its potential use in combat is the reasoning behind the limited range; no more than 100 to 200 meters. That's a long range for a Sidewinder, but an Anaconda might have trouble fitting in frame. In that range, you'd have to be suicidal to consider having the drone out in a combat situation, considering that combat ranges are probably going to be measured in kilometers.

It's also the reasoning behind the drone showing up on sensors. You may or may not see the Cobra hiding behind that asteroid, but the drone he's using to peek around it is clear as day.

What kind of price tag should be attached to it? Logically it shouldn't be terribly expensive, remote cams are hardly advanced tech, but then if it's not expensive then it becomes a throwaway item - like a heatsink.

It wouldn't be terribly expensive, no, but it wouldn't be throwaway either; I would imagine it costing somewhere around the same as a gun of the same size-class. Maybe a little more. It's not a just a drone, it's a cradle, launcher, and controller as well.

Should it be an illegal item? Plenty of Military organisations wouldn't like the idea of remote cams snooping around, nor would certain governments.

That would be interesting. I can imagine some of the nations of the Alliance banning it. But I'm not sure the Federation would care (or if they did, I doubt it would anything you got a bounty for; a fine, sure, but not much more than that), and the Empire would probably embrace them, what with the whole 'pimp-my-ride' attitude going on.

Making them illegal to use around military installations would make sense too; it's not like people are allowed to go wandering around military bases with cameras nowadays.

What's the justification for a time delay if you wanted to use it as a scouting tool? If you wanted it back - that's a delay, but if it's inexpensive (as logically it would be) who cares if you lose it?

The delay is due to travel time. Ideally, it would take a few seconds to get out to the farthest extent of the control range. I wouldn't be opposed to the drones going as slow as 10 to 20 meters per second. That's fast enough to get out to a good location to take a screenshot and come back in a reasonable amount of time, but slow enough to not be useful for scouting. With a 100 meter range, that's a 10 to 20 second round trip, in addition to the several seconds it takes to see your target and react.

As for the expense, I would expect the drone itself to cost equivalent to a good camera nowadays; it's expensive enough that you would rather not buy another one, but it's expendable if the situation calls for it, e.g. you're in the middle of taking a screenshot and someone starts shooting you, and you need to get back in your ship right now. Just like you're not going to particularly care if you drop that Nikon when you're running for your life, but are going to regret doing so once the excitement's over.

I'd still prefer a non MP (or consensual group) solution for 3rd person viewing, sorry that's about as much of a compromise as I'd make on my position.

I would rather that as well (the consensual group bit, at least), ultimately. It just makes things so much easier. But it seems like the only people who are okay with that are the ones who would rather the thing not exist at all. Which gets us nowhere.

 

[Hamerstein]

You also forgot that some people simply aren't going to purchase one or more of the expansions and wouldn't appreciate being locked out of what I'm sure a lot of people would consider basic functionality in a game like this simply because they didn't want to put up with gameplay that they didn't like.

I know I'd ed if I was forced to buy the avatar expansion to see my ship.

That's implicit in my reply, if you don't get it for free, then yes you're having to pay for it!

Which is why I also suggested the possibility of a general hardpoint. You're not giving up a heatsink, you're giving up a gun.

And its potential use in combat is the reasoning behind the limited range; no more than 100 to 200 meters. That's a long range for a Sidewinder, but an Anaconda might have trouble fitting in frame. In that range, you'd have to be suicidal to consider having the drone out in a combat situation, considering that combat ranges are probably going to be measured in kilometers.

It's also the reasoning behind the drone showing up on sensors. You may or may not see the Cobra hiding behind that asteroid, but the drone he's using to peek around it is clear as day.

Referencing Erimus above, while a loss of a hardpoint is a loss on a personal level, if you're working as part of a team and you're playing the disposable "point man". The cost implication becomes more significant than the equipment slot (as it knocks onto your insurance value if you get killed).

There's also the "fishing trip" angle. The camera itself could be used as a lure, "Oh look someone is using a spy cam, I'll go blow it up", ambushed by his 3 stealthed mates who were waiting for someone to get overly curious. All the while the owner of the cam is safely tucked away behind the 'roids - so this baiting method doesn't even pose significant risk to the bait.

Even with the cam having a short range, it doesn't reduce the range of it's visual acuity, you're effectively creating a spaceship without cockpit interference.

It wouldn't be terribly expensive, no, but it wouldn't be throwaway either; I would imagine it costing somewhere around the same as a gun of the same size-class. Maybe a little more. It's not a just a drone, it's a cradle, launcher, and controller as well.

But you only lose the drone, using that analogy the drone becomes ammunition (which is relatively throwaway on a per unit basis), the more expensive bits are the launcher and control systems - which are mounted on the ship, you don't lose them unless you're destroyed.

I think these issues need careful examination, I'm not a particularly sneaky person and I've spotted these balance challenging uses, imagine what a properly devious player could accomplish.

 

[NeilF]

I dont want a 'camera drone' I want a clear 3p view where I can change the FOV, Camera focus and position relative to the ship, or a free cam that can fly to any point.

I suspect something that powerful could open a lot of issues potentially? But then again, if it was limited/nerfed enough I guess it might be feasible.

If this "platinum" solution of yours was only available via the suggested record and playback later facility, would that still float your boat? Using that feature, you could rewind your death and watch that stealth ship come all the way in before handing you your ar$e

 

[NeilF]

Referencing Erimus above, while a loss of a hardpoint is a loss on a personal level, if you're working as part of a team and you're playing the disposable "point man". The cost implication becomes more significant than the equipment slot (as it knocks onto your insurance value if you get killed).

There's also the "fishing trip" angle. The camera itself could be used as a lure, "Oh look someone is using a spy cam, I'll go blow it up", ambushed by his 3 stealthed mates who were waiting for someone to get overly curious. All the while the owner of the cam is safely tucked away behind the 'roids - so this baiting method doesn't even pose significant risk to the bait.

Even with the cam having a short range, it doesn't reduce the range of it's visual acuity, you're effectively creating a spaceship without cockpit interference.

I must admit I'm still struggling to understand the concern with the suggestion of someone on a group of players gaining extra information, or a tactical advantage by using an external view for recon.

If we agree the external view gives a larger FOV, uncluttered by a cockpit, I can understand how that might be construed as an advantage. But in the scenario I think I see you describing, the player doing the recon is most likely away from the action looking in and reporting back to his team mates with useful information? If so:-
1) The player is only looking at a small area of the "sky". Most likely they won't even be moving their POV around? ie: They'll just as easily be able to see this section of sky through the cockpit as through external view?
2) If the ships involved are any reasonable distance away - surely they are as he won't want to be in amongst the thick of the fighting? - then all the ships he can see are dots and blobs. Without a HUD/scanner who does he even know who is who? "No not that blob! The other blob, above that blob!"

If he is close to the "action", then most likely he will need to be looking around in different directions fairly quickly to keep up with things? If so:-
1) It's suggested he will be able to look around quicker in the cockpit than using his external view (the drone won't be quick).
2) Again, he won't have any idea whose ship is whose?
3) He's not be able to defend himself as his weapons are basically useless.

And again, in any scenario, using external view he's going by sight only. There could be countless other ships he's not even aware of which are on his scanner, but not being able the scanner means he is completely unaware of their position or even existence?

I see this individual at a disadvantage?


Am I understanding your scenario correctly?

 

[Mephane]

I also think that the poential advantage is being way overestimated in this thread. I think it started a long time ago with a reference screenshots from a FPS/TPS shooter that showed how in third person view, one could see around a wall, but in first person view one could not; a situation entirely unapplicable in space combat.

I said it before and I said it again, I just want to see my ship and its details, animations, etc. I would be fine with an exterior view that does not show any of the surroundings, but a placeholder background (a starfield, or simply blackness) where I can just look at the spacecraft of which I otherwise only see little more than the inside of the cockpit.

 

[NeilF]

I also think that the poential advantage is being way overestimated in this thread. I think it started a long time ago with a reference screenshots from a FPS/TPS shooter that showed how in third person view, one could see around a wall, but in first person view one could not; a situation entirely unapplicable in space combat.

I said it before and I said it again, I just want to see my ship and its details, animations, etc. I would be fine with an exterior view that does not show any of the surroundings, but a placeholder background (a starfield, or simply blackness) where I can just look at the spacecraft of which I otherwise only see little more than the inside of the cockpit.

You mean something like this? - http://www.breachgame.com/images/active-cover-2.jpg

Personally I'd compare Elite more to a flight sim than a FPS game. So it would be interesting to see shots from a flight sim used to demonstrate the concern

ie: Where's there's not walls every 10ft, and instead, generally open space.

 

[Sterlino]

i only hope that FD will never consider this thread and this poll at all..

i am sure they will go straight by their own with their own idea about the visuals in the game.

peace brothers...

 

[Riedquat]

I assume from what everyone is saying, that we aren't going to have rear views on our ships ?

is this correct?

 

[NeilF]

i only hope that FD will never consider this thread and this poll at all.

I concur - A poll that adds up to over 160% doesn't bode well!

As for the purpose of the thread, seems you misunderstand its purpose maybe. No one is trying to tell FD their jobs.