This devs expect me to roleplay don't they?

[Deleted member 147460]

The last time I played this game, I was doing missions for a democratic, Alliance affiliated, minor faction. Virtually all of the missions I had taken from this minor faction seemed like missions for a relatively good cause, or at least one that wasn't immoral, if you will. Eventually I earned the highest level of reputation with this faction.

I took on a spec ops mission and when I arrived at my destination, the mission called for me to kill civilians. All I could think was "why?". I mean, what are this factions' motivations? Of what importance are these civilians? I was under the impression that this faction was halfway descent. I don't mind being the bad guy tbh but even in that case, I'd like to know why the faction I'd chosen to support wanted to kill civilians. I suppose I could read my minor factions description but guess what? It's a single sentence that tells me virtually nothing of significance.

I don't have an issue with procedural generation or a sandbox in general but I find Elite's to be way too shallow for me. It's as if I am expected to just fill in the gaps with my imagination. It had occurred to me that perhaps that's what the devs intended. Unfortunately, roleplaying is not my thing. Roleplaying is something I did as a kid before I discovered video games.

Note: I have typed this on little sleep so forgive any typos and/or incoherencies.

 

[rootsrat]

I hear ya

 

[tomalus]

Instead of making 100 factions and stations that matter, frontier made 100 000 wich mean nothing to nobody except the diehard roleplayer.(the ones that still play AD&D 2nd edition because newer d&d rules are too "gamey"mechanics)

 

[Ian Skippy]

The last time I played this game, I was doing missions for a democratic, Alliance affiliated, minor faction. Virtually all of the missions I had taken from this minor faction seemed like missions for a relatively good cause, or at least one that wasn't immoral, if you will. Eventually I earned the highest level of reputation with this faction.

I took on a spec ops mission and when I arrived at my destination, the mission called for me to kill civilians. All I could think was "why?". I mean, what are this factions' motivations? Of what importance are these civilians? I was under the impression that this faction was halfway descent. I don't mind being the bad guy tbh but even in that case, I'd like to know why the faction I'd chosen to support wanted to kill civilians. I suppose I could read my minor factions description but guess what? It's a single sentence that tells me virtually nothing of significance.

I don't have an issue with procedural generation or a sandbox in general but I find Elite's to be way too shallow for me. It's as if I am expected to just fill in the gaps with my imagination. It had occurred to me that perhaps that's what the devs intended. Unfortunately, roleplaying is not my thing. Roleplaying is something I did as a kid before I discovered video games.

Note: I have typed this on little sleep so forgive any typos and/or incoherencies.

There are no 'good factions', some are just more evil than others. Look at it like this: while whatever country you live in may be 'objectively' better than some horrible dictator-run craphole, I can bet you that your government has done some nasty spec-ops for reasons you dont want to know either. Same in ED: if you dont like to see how the sausage is made, dont do the spec ops.

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

The last time I played this game, I was doing missions for a democratic, Alliance affiliated, minor faction. Virtually all of the missions I had taken from this minor faction seemed like missions for a relatively good cause, or at least one that wasn't immoral, if you will. Eventually I earned the highest level of reputation with this faction.

I took on a spec ops mission and when I arrived at my destination, the mission called for me to kill civilians. All I could think was "why?". I mean, what are this factions' motivations? Of what importance are these civilians? I was under the impression that this faction was halfway descent. I don't mind being the bad guy tbh but even in that case, I'd like to know why the faction I'd chosen to support wanted to kill civilians. I suppose I could read my minor factions description but guess what? It's a single sentence that tells me virtually nothing of significance.

I don't have an issue with procedural generation or a sandbox in general but I find Elite's to be way too shallow for me. It's as if I am expected to just fill in the gaps with my imagination. It had occurred to me that perhaps that's what the devs intended. Unfortunately, roleplaying is not my thing. Roleplaying is something I did as a kid before I discovered video games.

Note: I have typed this on little sleep so forgive any typos and/or incoherencies.

So many soldier are depending on mental care because of that. "Why did my governement ask me to kill civilians / Innocents". There is no governement that doesn't actually does this. How virtuous, democtratic or whatever they may Claim to be. And don't expect them to explain the Background to any of those poor chaps. Unfortunately, I don't see any inconsistency here.

On the other Hand, a Little bit of RP in Elite is really advised for. It makes life sooo much easier

 

[Shiro Akai]

the mission called for me to kill civilians. All I could think was "why?". I mean, what are this factions' motivations? Of what importance are these civilians?

Simple - it's more "profitable" to maim the opponent than to kill the opponent.

Instead of giving you wet jobs/assassination of politics, soldiers, etc. they order you to kill civilians. Morally questionable but there's a logic behind it. When you kill civilians then the rest of populace will turn insecure. They will fear opposing faction (your employer), they will ask for actions to be taken, to protect them against such and further actions. If situation will continue, no actions taken and more civilians are killed - riots may start. People will rebel against slacking government.

In a monolithic society cracks will start to appear. Rulers of a faction will have another problem to deal with (apart from open war front with your faction). They will have to face rage of their own people. Divide and conquer, does it ring a bell? This is what your faction - with killing civilians - is aiming to achieve. To stir, to make chaos in the enemy ranks. The more problems they have, the easier to conquer them.

And how to cause problems?
- Sabotage their infrastructure (they will gather in common effort to repair it)
- Steal their valuable data (this will give them cause to fight you)
- Assassinate their leaders (and make them martyrs for the cause, against you)
- Block their trade (and give them another reason to stand against you)
- Kill civilians (and make people angry with a chance of that anger being aimed toward their own)

So, for you killing innocent civilians is pointless. But in a greater scheme - one of the ways to achieve long term goals. Tough it may sound but civilians doesn't matter, they are just means to win the war.

Keeping morality out of the equation, that is.

 

[babelfisch]

Simple - it's more "profitable" to maim the opponent than to kill the opponent.

Instead of giving you wet jobs/assassination of politics, soldiers, etc. they order you to kill civilians. Morally questionable but there's a logic behind it. When you kill civilians then the rest of populace will turn insecure. They will fear opposing faction (your employer), they will ask for actions to be taken, to protect them against such and further actions. If situation will continue, no actions taken and more civilians are killed - riots may start. People will rebel against slacking government.

In a monolithic society cracks will start to appear. Rulers of a faction will have another problem to deal with (apart from open war front with your faction). They will have to face rage of their own people. Divide and conquer, does it ring a bell? This is what your faction - with killing civilians - is aiming to achieve. To stir, to make chaos in the enemy ranks. The more problems they have, the easier to conquer them.

And how to cause problems?
- Sabotage their infrastructure (they will gather in common effort to repair it)
- Steal their valuable data (this will give them cause to fight you)
- Assassinate their leaders (and make them martyrs for the cause, against you)
- Block their trade (and give them another reason to stand against you)
- Kill civilians (and make people angry with a chance of that anger being aimed toward their own)

So, for you killing innocent civilians is pointless. But in a greater scheme - one of the ways to achieve long term goals. Tough it may sound but civilians doesn't matter, they are just means to win the war.

Keeping morality out of the equation, that is.

While this perfectly fits into ED, I still believe that factions should be more nuanced. There could be mission types that are only available to certain faction types.

 

[Ian Skippy]

While this perfectly fits into ED, I still believe that factions should be more nuanced. There could be mission types that are only available to certain faction types.

Isnt that already so? Anarchy/dictators offer very different things that democratic tourist systems? Sure, the more middle-of-the-road factions can be more differentiated, thats fair.

 

[babelfisch]

Isnt that already so? Anarchy/dictators offer very different things that democratic tourist systems? Sure, the more middle-of-the-road factions can be more differentiated, thats fair.

I believe that's cause by the economy type rather than the faction type, could be wrong though.

 

[trollson]

.(the ones that still play AD&D 2nd edition because newer d&d rules are too "gamey"mechanics)

Theres a second edition?

It's as if I am expected to just fill in the gaps with my imagination. It had occurred to me that perhaps that's what the devs intended.

The b**tards! We've paid them good money to outsource our imagination. I for one got rid of mine after buying Elite...

 

[jasonbirder]

the ones that still play AD&D 2nd edition because newer d&d rules are too "gamey"mechanics)

Ugh Heathens...what's wrong with Runequest and/or Pendragon?

 

[Snarfbuckle]

On the other Hand, a Little bit of RP in Elite is really advised for. It makes life sooo much easier

That's why i play powerplay like a long episode of Monthy Python.

Arissa Lavigny-Duval = No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

"Ok, that's 150 tonnes of corruption reports to this little mining colony of 150 000 souls..."

"Only 100 kilograms of storage data filled with incriminating evidence of their criminal ways for each man, woman and child here, i hope it's enough to uncover their dastardly ways"

"No, no, little 2 year old Timmy is a hardened criminal according to these 2739 digital case files, he is apparently engaged in trafficking all of his preschool buddies into the diamond mines of acherons moon and prostitution to the Thargoids."

"Oh dear...he also sell drugs and is a hardened gun runner...tsk, tsk..."

"Allright, send in the fleets of Judge Dredd clones, time for some summary executions."

"Timmy dear, can you come out hear for a minute..."

 

[Iskariot]

The last time I played this game, I was doing missions for a democratic, Alliance affiliated, minor faction. Virtually all of the missions I had taken from this minor faction seemed like missions for a relatively good cause, or at least one that wasn't immoral, if you will. Eventually I earned the highest level of reputation with this faction.

I took on a spec ops mission and when I arrived at my destination, the mission called for me to kill civilians. All I could think was "why?". I mean, what are this factions' motivations? Of what importance are these civilians? I was under the impression that this faction was halfway descent. I don't mind being the bad guy tbh but even in that case, I'd like to know why the faction I'd chosen to support wanted to kill civilians. I suppose I could read my minor factions description but guess what? It's a single sentence that tells me virtually nothing of significance.

I don't have an issue with procedural generation or a sandbox in general but I find Elite's to be way too shallow for me. It's as if I am expected to just fill in the gaps with my imagination. It had occurred to me that perhaps that's what the devs intended. Unfortunately, roleplaying is not my thing. Roleplaying is something I did as a kid before I discovered video games.

Note: I have typed this on little sleep so forgive any typos and/or incoherencies.

I would advise FDev to use the Powers from Powerplay for gameplay mechanics outside of the Powerplay territory grab.
These PowerPlay characters are much more interesting and would be perfect for use in personal roleplaying even for those who are not really into such a thing like me.
Fdev could tie these powers in with the piracy mechanic through Letter's of Marque, and with the Bounty Hunt mechanic through Bounty hunt licenses.
And these Powers might also issue special missions to gain rep with them.

I posted a more detailed proposal somewhere else.

If/when FDev decides to remove powerplay completely from Solo and Group gameplay the above becomes even more necessary than it already was. It would give more depth to the Elite galaxy.

 

[Vedmo]

The last time I played this game, I was doing missions for a democratic, Alliance affiliated, minor faction. Virtually all of the missions I had taken from this minor faction seemed like missions for a relatively good cause, or at least one that wasn't immoral, if you will. Eventually I earned the highest level of reputation with this faction.

I took on a spec ops mission and when I arrived at my destination, the mission called for me to kill civilians. All I could think was "why?". I mean, what are this factions' motivations? Of what importance are these civilians? I was under the impression that this faction was halfway descent. I don't mind being the bad guy tbh but even in that case, I'd like to know why the faction I'd chosen to support wanted to kill civilians. I suppose I could read my minor factions description but guess what? It's a single sentence that tells me virtually nothing of significance.

I don't have an issue with procedural generation or a sandbox in general but I find Elite's to be way too shallow for me. It's as if I am expected to just fill in the gaps with my imagination. It had occurred to me that perhaps that's what the devs intended. Unfortunately, roleplaying is not my thing. Roleplaying is something I did as a kid before I discovered video games.

Note: I have typed this on little sleep so forgive any typos and/or incoherencies.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are most definitely role playing when you're picking missions for specific factions & governments based on morals for your space pilot and become concerned when their isn't justification for killing imaginary civilians. You're just the type of RPer who wants more of the story given to them (nothing at all wrong with that!).

For the record: My 2E D&D group just recently moved on to 3E, not 3.5 mind you, 3.0

 

[Jex =TE=]

There is no governement that doesn't actually does this.

Iceland?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Iceland?

You dont want to know about those horrible experiments they did on Greenland.

 

[CMDR-AD]

Elite presents players many choices, many of them are ethical for flavor and/or interest. I've never committed much to any particular minor faction type, but from what I've seen most are quite similar. Some do worse things hidden under the table, while others do the same in plain view.

Personally, I do maintain a general character or "role" for my CMDR. The play choices and missions I accept are governed by this set of self-imposed rules.

The easiest way to ignore most of these "personal narrative" type choices, is to play as a mercenary.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Instead of making 100 factions and stations that matter, frontier made 100 000 wich mean nothing to nobody except the diehard roleplayer.(the ones that still play AD&D 2nd edition because newer d&d rules are too "gamey"mechanics)

AD&D became a game for Rules Lawyers after 2nd Edition because there just too many arguments started by Rules Lawyers insisting on "it says, on page (#), paragraph (letter), line (#), that this has to be resolved in the following manner..." so more and more and new and more detailed rules were written and sold to accommodate these people. Me, I just ejected them from the games I ran, because it says on page (#), paragraph (letter), line (#), that the DM is the final arbitrator. And when you argue, you lose.

 

[Deleted member 147460]

Instead of making 100 factions and stations that matter, frontier made 100 000 wich mean nothing to nobody except the diehard roleplayer.(the ones that still play AD&D 2nd edition because newer d&d rules are too "gamey"mechanics)

I passionately and wholeheartedly agree with this.