I need some explorer's input (relates to psychology and understanding of why some people don't get it).

piugattuk

piugattuk
I need some explorer's input (relates to psychology and understanding of why some people don't get it).

On a thread I purposed something to add to the game play, one comment got me thinking why don't they understand (or is it my not understanding).

"I think that trying to assert that player ownership of in game space is somehow unobtrusive is disingenuous".

And they were not the only one's to say that they are against the ideal based upon "it would bother them"

So I started doing some thinking upon this and still don't understand how they can be bothered by stumbling upon someones "planet/moon if they even could find it.

I don't think they understand the
1. Mechanics of the game (instances, mode).
2. Just how BIG the playground is.
3. The numbers of planets and moons, and asteroids.

Which is where I need your help, on average how many planets, or moons do you suppose there are in ED, I know in my many forays I've been sometimes suprised by coming into a system with more than 60 bodies (planets/moons).

To me in my thinking is that if we have 400 billion systems then the average number of planetary bodies has to be in the trillions (only FD knows), so then add to that the game mechanics described above, the fact that you can move in 3D, then go further by limiting that players cannot own anything within 100 LY from the core systems.
All this above and yet some are troubled over someone having a planet or moon would be some how obtrusive is what I have an issue with, more then any other group I believe explorer's understand how vast and lonely the ED universe is and how stumbling across a commanders home in the stars would be a great thing to run across...if it's even in their instance, would stumbling across a commanders home make the ED world feel obtrusive to you?

Thanks for your input.
 
Last edited:

Witzo

Witzo
I think it is a nice idea to build your own base on your own distant moon, like buying a farm on earth.
But it would distract from the core game mechanic of you = your ship. Before you know it, we're knee-deep in first-person, click-objects, worry-about-leaving-the house-unprotected. It would turn this game into three or more games. Which will always be convoluted and feeling unfocused.
 

piugattuk

piugattuk
Witzo said:
I think it is a nice idea to build your own base on your own distant moon, like buying a farm on earth.
But it would distract from the core game mechanic of you = your ship. Before you know it, we're knee-deep in first-person, click-objects, worry-about-leaving-the house-unprotected. It would turn this game into three or more games. Which will always be convoluted and feeling unfocused.
Click to expand...

I understand, although I wouldn't feel that way because I understand that David himself says this game is an open world and that it is to be experienced in a sandbox setting so my interpretation of what his saying is, is that everything in the environment is open to interact with, seems bit short if we can't base ourselves anywhere we wish except the core systems, which then if you are completely locked this makes it not a sandbox, would this be reasonable for me to look at it this way?
 
Last edited:

Witzo

Witzo
piugattuk said:
I understand, although I wouldn't feel that way because I understand that David himself says this game is an open world and that it is to be experienced in a sandbox setting so I interpretation of what his saying is, is that everything in the environment is open to interact with, seems bit short if we can't base ourselves anywhere we wish except the core systems, which then if you are completely locked this makes it not a sandbox, would this be reasonable for me to look at it this way?
Click to expand...

I think your outlook is perfectly reasonable. It fits what David Braben said.
I myself am in doubt if such different things as flying in space, driving around the surface, building a base, and walking around in it, would come together very well.
 

marx

marx
I believe what many find issue with isn't simply that players would own in-game space, but that they would control what other players could or couldn't do in their space. It doesn't really matter how many planets there are, simply the knowledge that there are places where somebody could arbitrarily (try to) restrict you would be enough. It might be an interesting exercise to estimate how many astronomical bodies there could be in the Milky Way, but I don't think you could convince anyone with that number. (And let's not forget that the number of inhabited systems is orders of magnitude lower.)
 

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
It all depends on the type of property we're talking about. If you want a place somewhere to call home, have a small port where you can dock, I see no issues.

When I can encounter obviously player owned structures it breaks immersion for me. It's the same as seeing open icons. That emphasises I am not buzzing around the galaxy, but that I am playing a game. Same goes for guilds, player owned stations and those kind of things.

An extension to that is treating NPCs as if they're not NPCs but just pilots like me. I guess that's why I'm drawn to leaving the immersion breaking bubble with it's gamey aspects in favour of an environment where there are no player/gamey aspects.
 

piugattuk

piugattuk
marx said:
I believe what many find issue with isn't simply that players would own in-game space, but that they would control what other players could or couldn't do in their space. It doesn't really matter how many planets there are, simply the knowledge that there are places where somebody could arbitrarily (try to) restrict you would be enough. It might be an interesting exercise to estimate how many astronomical bodies there could be in the Milky Way, but I don't think you could convince anyone with that number. (And let's not forget that the number of inhabited systems is orders of magnitude lower.)
Click to expand...

Absolutely, having people restrict others is definitely not what I'm about, in NO way am I wanting player empire building (beyond having a little personal place), restrictions is why I left EVE because player organizations like goonswarm, PL, BOB, etc etc, just use their weight to keep their areas from interlopers (which is fine for EVE), but it's a bummer for those who want to just play the environment.

I think many don't keep into account the game mechanics to know that it is unlikely they will go around finding people everywhere.

Also, in my original post I also didn't want the system to be claimed just a body, and even then have no "can't land" because that would take away from seeing others "structures" and enjoying what someone else has built.

We know there are crazed players who would be unfriendly both claimant and visitor but this is where instancing comes into play.

But yeah, I'm gonna ask FD if they can tell how many planets and moons are in this environment.
 

Mephane

Mephane
One other argument against played-owned bases to have some sort of "home", which is rarely ever mentioned, is that

a) we already have such a thing (our ship - a Sidewinder is a flying house, an Anaconda a cathedral),
b) any development effort towards building, maintaining, modifying, decorating, personalizing a player-owned outpost/starport/ground base could instead be used to further enable customization of our ships as our homes, interior and exterior.

I'd rather see all the things that people dream into their own bases, become things within and about our ships.
 

piugattuk

piugattuk
Ziggy Stardust said:
It all depends on the type of property we're talking about. If you want a place somewhere to call home, have a small port where you can dock, I see no issues.

When I can encounter obviously player owned structures it breaks immersion for me. It's the same as seeing open icons. That emphasises I am not buzzing around the galaxy, but that I am playing a game. Same goes for guilds, player owned stations and those kind of things.

An extension to that is treating NPCs as if they're not NPCs but just pilots like me. I guess that's why I'm drawn to leaving the immersion breaking bubble with it's gamey aspects in favour of an environment where there are no player/gamey aspects.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I'm not advocating guilds and empires of players in space, only a place to enhance the immersive experience especially those that have an oculus rift, by being able to set a home out in the stars with an interesting view of the sky.

Put on your oculus and log in to your home, is it day is it night, is there a storm... lightning, is the sky red, blue, white or black, from your home you live near a nebula and see it in the sky, that to me is immersive experience.
Laser_Towards_Milky_Ways_Centre.jpg
 

piugattuk

piugattuk
Mephane said:
One other argument against played-owned bases to have some sort of "home", which is rarely ever mentioned, is that

a) we already have such a thing (our ship - a Sidewinder is a flying house, an Anaconda a cathedral),
b) any development effort towards building, maintaining, modifying, decorating, personalizing a player-owned outpost/starport/ground base could instead be used to further enable customization of our ships as our homes, interior and exterior.

I'd rather see all the things that people dream into their own bases, become things within and about our ships.
Click to expand...

Sure I agree, why not have both, anything that gives an immersive experience, gives one a sence of a stake in the game, a reason to keep coming back, instead of a grindy experience.

V'ger...is there nothing more, is this all I am.

I really liked that movie quote.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
piugattuk said:
Absolutely, I'm not advocating guilds and empires of players in space, only a place to enhance the immersive experience especially those that have an oculus rift, by being able to set a home out in the stars with an interesting view of the sky.
Click to expand...
I don't think the objection in your OP was objecting to that. With instancing you can have the player owning the home being the only one to see it.
 
Last edited:

piugattuk

piugattuk
Ziggy Stardust said:
I don't think the objection in your OP was objecting to that. With instancing you can have the player owning the home being the only one to see it.
Click to expand...

It's very hard for me to understand often people, you know that saying "you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please everybody all of the time"

This is what FD is up against, as we have discussions on the forums if FD reads some of them maybe that gives them an ideal on what people will go for "marketing their game" towards the users.

Sometimes I think many don't give FD credit, or are too critical, yes we can ignore them so they go away but it has been quite an eye opening experience to see into the minds of others, it really helps one to not react (badly), when someone has a view that is seemingly odd to others, as David said in his interview on YouTube about griefing in game, it's fascinating to see the behaviors.
hZFbq8V.png
 
Last edited:

Sapient6

S
Personally, I'd hate to see players owning anything free-floating in space (stations, moons, planets). I just don't want to see that.

What I'd like, though, would be player owned bases built on the surface of moons or planets. I picture this as being something that would be exorbitantly expensive. If such a thing were limited to a single base per account, with very strict rules around picking up stakes in order to rebuild elsewhere, such things could become so rare that we might never come across another player's structure without going to it deliberately.

Of course most players stick to the bubble and would want their base built where it would be most advantageous (for trade, bounty hunting or pirating), and as such we could still end up with significant clumping in already busy systems. The solution there is simple: TAXES. If you build your base within a minor faction's territory then you are going to have to start paying them an income tax in the form of a nice steep 20-30% or so on every credit you pull in, and possible a quarterly estate tax just to give that stick a nice pointy end.
 

yah-ta-hey

yah-ta-hey
Personally, I'd hate to see players owning anything free-floating in space (stations, moons, planets). I just don't want to see that.
TOTAL agreement... This is not about colonization
... this game is about exploration, trade and combat.
If you want to colonize space then play alpha centauri.... stop ruining my expectation of wandering the space lane free of litter and houses with 3 or 4 space ships on blocks and spare parts scattered around.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom