Last edited:
Universe Wide Chat... Why Is It Not A Thing?
- Thread starter zsharpes
- Start date
Great, so we have entangled pairs! Woo!.... um.... except...
1. Pairs have to be transported manually.
2. Every person/station/planet has to have one end of a pair.
3. Every person/station/planet has to have a pair of everyone they want to talk to.
So, if there were 1,000,000 players you would need to have 1,000,000 pairs of entangled comms.
Clearly, not practical.
One solution would be to have some sort of Intergalactic mesh network so that a message would get propagated across the universe using the Mesh. It is not unlike our current Internet in scope.
If this would work or not is dependent on how much bandwidth the quantum pairs actually have. The Ansible was first described by Ursula De Guin in the 60s (Rocannons world?) had the bandwidth of a fast Morse code operator. Clearly ours might be faster, but the slower they are the more system lag you have, or the more node interlink you need.
Last edited:
Personally I don't like Friends chat, System chat - or even the concept of Galnet. This game was supposedly inspired by the Age of Sail, and they didn't even have the telegraph back then. Accurate and timely information was almost impossible to come by, and therefore very valuable. A highly interesting potential area of gameplay was cut off by people's desire for metagaming. I still think that kind of data sharing is basically cheating. It's doubtless an unpopular idea, but nobody has actually offered a good counter-argument. They've said "deal with it" or "the internet exists", sure - but nothing that offers any real justification. Still, I get that my view is probably a minority one, so I'll just regard it as a missed opportunity.
I've heard those sides of the arguments as well. Particularly with trade data sharing where some players feel that the discovery is more fun than the doing. I, personally, don't feel that way. Each to their own. But here are some of my thoughts:
- Limitations around communication are not exactly consistent within ED.
- 'Accurate' science isn't exactly a limitation either. Otherwise, we wouldn't have FSD, limited laser weapons, or even be able to survive the G-forces in our ships I believe.
- Given that limitations aren't consistent and there is no absolute requirement to follow science all of the time... there is no reason why some form of improved communications could not be achievable.
- Given human's general entrepreneurial spirit and overall desire to share (over-share mostly) information, if some sort of communications were available, you can be sure someone would be using it to spread information.
- Hiding (lore-limiting) information makes it very difficult from a gameplay perspective to get people involved. I know there have been plenty of times where I may have found half an hour in days to have a quick play. I might decide to do a trading run or two. I (personally) don't particularly want to spend my precious time flying around station-to-station and scribbling down numbers on a notepad just to find a trade run. CGs would be even worse! How would any of these events work if every player had to stumble across them themselves and weren't allowed to share information?
True. Not great, but true. I think that is a consequence of the metagamer, however.
One could easily say that Warping or Frame Shifting requires the generation of a bubble like the Alcubierre drive, so requires a physical device to translate between locations, which you can't achieve with unaccompanied data signals.
However, that allows for data ships like a kind of intergalactic Pony Express, with all kinds of possible mission-related hijinks - and that still leaves the door open for Galnet's continued existence, even without the ability to do FTL data.
You basically said that already. I think it goes against the concept of the game as it was defined in the early days, and I feel that's in large part down to a culture that packages up 2 minutes of spoilers and calls it a movie trailer - and then calls the movie "predictable" when they see it.
Yes, so no explorer would ever need to risk returning to the bubble to sell their map data again. No trader would ever have to risk traveling without instant access to 100% accurate trade data for any possible destination. Sounds exciting...
I don't see any reason to oppose any in-game activity, if the ability or any necessary functionality for doing so is provided within the world of the game. If that ability is not included, I tend to conclude that the activity it would have enabled isn't really part of the game, and that doing so lies outside the rules of the game as defined by what is possible without PEDs (Performance Enhancing Datasets). If the tools to do whatever it is you want to do (but currently can't without external methods) are added by FDEV, then by definition that activity must now be part of the game. Tacit approval of external tools is just a copout to me, for both players and devs. In my opinion, if the devs want people to organise or share data, FDEV need to include the means to do so in their game. Otherwise, what's really so different about actual hacking, other than boilerplate EULA mumbo-jumbo?
As it turns out, I think FTL data transmissions are in the lore - at least according to Michael Brookes. I think there are some logically inconsistent restrictions in place, however, to justify why the market for Cartography data and Trade data is not obsolete.
U
You could easily say that. But as it's based on a theoretical device, it's still basically science fiction at this point. So including or excluding FTL data (also science fiction) comes down to a pure choice really.
Having said that, I actually like the concept of data sharing without FTL transmission. I am currently planning a project (very early stages) that should be a bit of a compromise. I don't know how successful it will be, but I like the idea.
A note on the Intergalactic Pony Express... one of the things that I loved about the data sharing sites is that I had a chance to participate in it. It wasn't an in-game mission. I didn't get rewarded for it. But it was fun purposefully going to stations that weren't yet listed fully and entering in data for them. I was an unofficial data collector. Currently, influencing trade data is completely out our control in-game.
Well, explorers can still do their thing. I'm not exactly sure how that works in-game, though. I can pay for exploration data. But what if someone updates that data (which I assume happens when scans are done)? I guess I just get instant updates... regardless of where I am.
Trade data, yes, you have a lot more information at your fingertips. And I like that. Sorry. But even then, being player generated, it's not always current... or accurate.
I think there is a big difference between sharing information (or using a mouse instead of a HOTAS, or using voice commands, or Teamspeak, or whatever) and intentionally exploiting architecture (network manipulation/combat logging) or true cheats (directly manipulating the client software in order to achieve an advantage). But I can understand if you want to play the game as purely (couldn't think of a good word) as possible.
You could easily say that. But as it's based on a theoretical device, it's still basically science fiction at this point. So including or excluding FTL data (also science fiction) comes down to a pure choice really.
Having said that, I actually like the concept of data sharing without FTL transmission. I am currently planning a project (very early stages) that should be a bit of a compromise. I don't know how successful it will be, but I like the idea.
A note on the Intergalactic Pony Express... one of the things that I loved about the data sharing sites is that I had a chance to participate in it. It wasn't an in-game mission. I didn't get rewarded for it. But it was fun purposefully going to stations that weren't yet listed fully and entering in data for them. I was an unofficial data collector. Currently, influencing trade data is completely out our control in-game.
Well, explorers can still do their thing. I'm not exactly sure how that works in-game, though. I can pay for exploration data. But what if someone updates that data (which I assume happens when scans are done)? I guess I just get instant updates... regardless of where I am.
Trade data, yes, you have a lot more information at your fingertips. And I like that. Sorry. But even then, being player generated, it's not always current... or accurate.
I think there is a big difference between sharing information (or using a mouse instead of a HOTAS, or using voice commands, or Teamspeak, or whatever) and intentionally exploiting architecture (network manipulation/combat logging) or true cheats (directly manipulating the client software in order to achieve an advantage). But I can understand if you want to play the game as purely (couldn't think of a good word) as possible.
Last edited:
Yes Indeed it could be Practicle...
Of Cource at least one Entangled Proton, Photon or which ever Particle Componennt winds up working in the end would need to be carried for Each and Every QuanComm (TM) Tranceiver installed in every Ship or Broadcast Site...
It is Infinitely more believable that Manufacturing Technology will have increased enough in 1200 or so years from today, allowing the manufacture of Quantum Communications... As apposed to Reliable AND Inexpensive Jump Deives and FTL Drives...
How much Space and Weight capacity do you reckon each Proton would require?
I think you aim Too Low with 1,000,000 Units...
I wouldn't take a contract for less than 100 Billion Units...
Manufacturing costs would be a Drop N He Bucket compared to the Return my Corporation would Realize... And it would keep my Massive Fleet of Imperial Trade Ships busy for nearly a Whole Month.
Of course the Military Grade QuanComm (TM) Units would be Restricted to Imperial Use ONLY...
Have Fun Storming The Castle...
Happy Hunting CMDR's
-gus
(Insert Maniacal Laugh Track Here)
Last edited:
I find it very poor that the only arguments against having improved in-game comms are:
1) Spam, people telling jokes and general normal human interactivity in a public comms channel is bad m'kay.
2) Its not real m'kay.
As we know humans are resistant to change - and fear it.
I fear the power behind the throne - those with hidden agendas, and thread posting by proxy.
In my opinion the lack of available in-game human interaction within ED is a flaw - which over time has and will have a negative impact on the developers/publishers revenue (even if it is seemingly currently saving resources by non-implementation..).
I played Elite in the 80's (I even programmed a ZX81 with moon-lander) so I have lived in the zeitgeist of the original game. Ian and David (or who knows maybe their publishing advisers) were wise enough to communicate with every CMDR using the medium of a novella to define lore, and give a holistic human sense of experience to their creation - this inspired CMDRs to explore the seeming boundless horizons of Elite. (Even though I never saw a generation ship... and did you see what I did there, I used the word "HORIZONS"... Muhahahaha...!!!).
Back to being SERIOUS...
This lore, meaning and human sense of experience within gaming (especially online gaming) is no longer looked for in novellas, the majority of gamers do not want to read fluff, let alone read forums - unless they have specific questions and want to understand the minutia of how to make things moar shinny, to have even moar shinny and be at one with the shinniness, Amen.. However, gamers do still look for lore, meaning and sense of human experience within a gamefrom the most natural source - OTHER PLAYERS -IN-GAME... (That's read between the lines for CHAT - CHANNELS btw...).
To any devs: any ideological Elite Dangerous development theme or ethos which prohibits humans being the focus of your game will lead to fail - to be honest the lack of immediate humanity in Elite Dangerous is startling considering ED is the human conquest of space - currently ED makes me feel like I am the CMDR of a flying calculator with added nice shinny.
Thank you for your time.
CMDR STINKFISH
(The best part of a chicken is it's skin)
1) Spam, people telling jokes and general normal human interactivity in a public comms channel is bad m'kay.
2) Its not real m'kay.
As we know humans are resistant to change - and fear it.
I fear the power behind the throne - those with hidden agendas, and thread posting by proxy.
In my opinion the lack of available in-game human interaction within ED is a flaw - which over time has and will have a negative impact on the developers/publishers revenue (even if it is seemingly currently saving resources by non-implementation..).
I played Elite in the 80's (I even programmed a ZX81 with moon-lander) so I have lived in the zeitgeist of the original game. Ian and David (or who knows maybe their publishing advisers) were wise enough to communicate with every CMDR using the medium of a novella to define lore, and give a holistic human sense of experience to their creation - this inspired CMDRs to explore the seeming boundless horizons of Elite. (Even though I never saw a generation ship... and did you see what I did there, I used the word "HORIZONS"... Muhahahaha...!!!).
Back to being SERIOUS...
This lore, meaning and human sense of experience within gaming (especially online gaming) is no longer looked for in novellas, the majority of gamers do not want to read fluff, let alone read forums - unless they have specific questions and want to understand the minutia of how to make things moar shinny, to have even moar shinny and be at one with the shinniness, Amen.. However, gamers do still look for lore, meaning and sense of human experience within a gamefrom the most natural source - OTHER PLAYERS -IN-GAME... (That's read between the lines for CHAT - CHANNELS btw...).
To any devs: any ideological Elite Dangerous development theme or ethos which prohibits humans being the focus of your game will lead to fail - to be honest the lack of immediate humanity in Elite Dangerous is startling considering ED is the human conquest of space - currently ED makes me feel like I am the CMDR of a flying calculator with added nice shinny.
Thank you for your time.
CMDR STINKFISH
(The best part of a chicken is it's skin)
To be fair, spam is a very real concern. Fortunately, there would (should) be the option to just turn it off. But that kind of defeats the purpose. I would love if everyone always played computer games with at least some semblance of roleplay. But, unfortunately, that is not always the case.
The additional cost of implementing such a system (I'm talking ongoing bandwidth, not development) is not to be sneezed at either. That's if it's heavily used.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Spam could well make a global text chat totally useless - it would probably scroll by on the screen too fast to be intelligible, rendering it meaningless.
Global voice chat (if such a thing were ever to be considered) would be similarly unintelligible - many overlapping voices, many languages - and a few players with open-mic and loud music in the background....
This is why on multiple threads reference this topic people have suggested multiple chats: Clan/Sector/Trading/Mission/Player run chat channels - and moderation is easy - plenty of MMORPGS rely on the COMMUNITY (formed on chat channels) to police spam and report it to moderators.
most dont ask for a local or global chat , but just chat rooms who you can make and join. and if we had a real global / local chat you can just minimize or close it and let other have their fun.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Moderation of real-time communications would seem to me to only be possible if those communications are stored in some way to be reviewed - adding to the storage burden for the game for text, rather more so for voice. Voice comms would be particularly difficult to moderate - unless each separate input was recorded separately to allow the individual being complained about to be identified....
Then there's the additional cost of 24/7 moderation of in-game comms (needs to be real-time to stop the toxic players polluting it as quickly as possible)....
.... and probably multiple moderators online at a time as it's unlikely that one would be able to understand all the languages of our player-base.
Sounds expensive.
That is actually true. The game seems empty, even if it is not!
Anyway our solution is, IMHO, not good at all.
I dont want another game full of players spamming stupid things in a chat i never ever read.
My 2 cents is to add a way to "see" other players in same system (even for players in solo mode), so you could be able to talk to them, switch to open if you want to and team up! that could really improve cooperation and feeling of being part of a live universe!
Could work, just as an example, another folder in the chat panel where all players in the system are listed!
Twitter in space, dear god no.
The old game Captain Blood had a good idea with the pictogram-based communication interface, IMO.
With careful thought one could come up with a solution based on that which is simpler, restricts the scope of inter-pilot communications to stuff that maintains immersion for all players, and (as an added bonus) is language-agnostic. No need for mods or translations.
With careful thought one could come up with a solution based on that which is simpler, restricts the scope of inter-pilot communications to stuff that maintains immersion for all players, and (as an added bonus) is language-agnostic. No need for mods or translations.
I agree a perfect Player Comms System would be expensive - but what players are generally suggesting is a cheaper, more segmented (topic/area related - not global) TEXT communication/chat system - that incorporates player / volunteer moderation. I agree stored text logs for this would be needed, and overall moderation would still need to be carried out by ED - especially where people are suspected of illegal EULA infractions. For non-legal infractions like SPAM, all you need to do is clearly define the rolls of volunteer moderators, so that they simply "mute" spammers for a selected period of time, e.g. longer times for trying to sell in-game currency etc. If players that feel there is a community to protect then they doubly LOVE to be given the MUTE-GUN, which is also why volunteer selection needs to be done on a one to one basis, and training is current..
Languages would be an issue granted, but i would bet there are other mmorpgs that have a model that could be copied e.g. where specific language channels are implemented and moderated by the community.
Obviously a business case would have to be made - I don't audit Frontier's finances, but I am sure some short-term compromise could be made, and based on it's progress - further improvements could be carried out. Currently Player to player communications are a weak point in ED's concept, there is no arguing this, and even something as simple as a player operated text bulletin board in-game would be an improvement.
As with any product process that starts successfully, i am sure Frontier/ED have defined their goals and and have a robust road-map. However status-quo (not the band) is the enemy of any product on any free-market - and I would hope some ED budget has been allocated to monitor/register current processes and customer satisfaction - with the aim of continuous improvement. It is my frequent experience that millions (billions globally) of earth credits are lost in customer dissatisfaction and damage-control on many earth commodities due to production activities having process priority, and circumventing quality gates and processes - albeit usually with good intentions to both employer and customer....
WE WANT TO TALK TO EACH OTHER...!!
The ED COMMUNITY can help Frontiers make this happen - but the community has been muted in-game....
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed it would - and it would need to be around an implementation that was integrated into the ship HUD (unless players want to move to a different game view to communicate) - assuming that every player owns a second screen is not a realistic option in this case.
If channels were able to be created at will, how would they be assigned volunteer moderators? (if there were any that were prepared to moderate that particular channel, of course)
Also, moderation of chat would impact on some players playing the game - the volunteer moderators would need to be watching the chat....
Having seen how many Moderators it takes to moderate a live-stream chat (with c.2,000 viewers - not all participants in the chat) and the speed at which the comments rattle past, I don't envy the job of those who would volunteer to moderate an in-game text chat channel.
Last edited: