What's in a narrative?

[Old Duck]

Most of you have read my laments in this week's "protect supplies" community goal thread. The lament boils down to this - it is heavily implied that both CGs revolve around getting supplies for refugees, and yet the bounty hunting CG has nothing to do with protecting supplies. There are no pirates in supercruise (a couple of players notwithstanding), there are no pirate-related signal sources, and with the exception of gankers (which limits "protection" style bounty hunting to the top 1% of Open PvPers), there is basically no threats at all to haulers in this high security system.

Of course players can go and find wanted ships in CZs using a KWS, or they can protect installations that have absolutely nothing to do with the goal of collecting supplies for refugees. Even if there was a HAZRES in the system, this too would have absolutely nothing to do with hauling food from the main star to the far away station.

So back to my point of narrative. Dear Frontier, I propose you plan CGs to match the conditions of a system, or conversely, adjust the conditions of the system to match the narrative. If the narrative is that a convoy of cargo haulers need protecting, then make the reality of the game match this - fill supercruise with NPC pirates and let me as a bounty hunter protect these haulers. In future CGs, I would love a narrative that revolves around protecting installations, because truth be told, this is epic gameplay. It's just gameplay that is totally out of place in THIS community goal. Same goes with HazRes - you could have a CG for miners, with a concurrent CG for bounty hunters to protect miners, which would make farming a RES actually feel tied to the story (even if the player miners are going elsewhere). This is the key - tying the narrative of the CG to the conditions of the CG and vice-versa. It would make a huge difference for those of us who care about such things, and it will not take anything away from those who do not. It's not even hard to do - it just requires a little bit of thought in advance and investigation / tweaking of the system where the CGs take place.

 

[Borko]

Very valid argument. Thank you Mr Duck.

I suspect that FD’s up to two things here. One, they’re rummaging through the dustbin to cobble something together out of existing assets. Two (maybe even the same point), they’re drawing players into less-visited types of gameplay, ie ax combat, guardian stuff.

Is it great? Nope, it isn’t. Nothing we haven’t seen before. But personally, i’ll take it over the year of near-nothing we just had.

Chin up, good sir. Odyssey is on its way!

 

[Retropolitan]

Picking (rather than altering) the system is probably much more likely, but I agree that bounty hunting CGs don't make any sense in systems where you can't find a lot of pirates. I sat one out late last year for that reason even though bounty hunting CGs are my favorite.

 

[Old Duck]

... they’re rummaging through the dustbin to cobble something together out of existing assets.

I'm cool with that, but then make the narratives match those assets. Like I say in OP, I would LOVE a CG where the purpose is to protect installations, the success being measured by bounty vouchers. Sure, it's "cobbled", since a player could just as easily go to a RES to get those bounties, but at least the narrative would match the available assets and gameplay, and for some of us, this is what matters.

Interestingly enough, one of those assets is the medical center, and Frontier could say refugees at a specific medical center are being threatened by "mobs" of anti-immigration civilians, and that's the CG - to protect the hospital from these attacks. The gameplay is already there, Frontier just need to whip up the proper narrative to match.

NARRATIVE MATTERS.

 

[Borko]

NARRATIVE MATTERS

Yes. I’d like to shout that from the rooftops.

 

[Old Duck]

Yes. I’d like to shout that from the rooftops.

Our luck, Frontier will pull CGs again and the forum trolls will be like, "But you told Frontier you hated CGs - it's all your fault they are gone!" Nooooo, that's not at all what we're saying. We LOVE CGs, and that's why we want them to be the best they can be (understanding the current limitations of the game, of course).

 

[BDelacroix]

So wait, landing at a station under the threat of thargoid attack shouldn't be acting like business as usual and get you to bring tons of clothing?

 

[Old Duck]

So wait, landing at a station under the threat of thargoid attach shouldn't be acting like business as usual and get you to bring tons of clothing?

For all the hate the "Gnosis Incident" got, the actual game mechanic of docking with a megaship under attack was awesome, and I'm sad to see it was just a one-off. I'd be all for an evacuation mission where we have to rescue people from a station WHILE it's under attack! The reason Gnosis caused so much salt is because explorers were "promised" one type of gameplay and were bait-and-switched with another. To my point of narrative-based CGs, players would know exactly what they are signing up for ahead-of-time.

 

[Drelthar]

Most of you have read my laments in this week's "protect supplies" community goal thread. The lament boils down to this - it is heavily implied that both CGs revolve around getting supplies for refugees, and yet the bounty hunting CG has nothing to do with protecting supplies. There are no pirates in supercruise (a couple of players notwithstanding), there are no pirate-related signal sources, and with the exception of gankers (which limits "protection" style bounty hunting to the top 1% of Open PvPers), there is basically no threats at all to haulers in this high security system.

Of course players can go and find wanted ships in CZs using a KWS, or they can protect installations that have absolutely nothing to do with the goal of collecting supplies for refugees. Even if there was a HAZRES in the system, this too would have absolutely nothing to do with hauling food from the main star to the far away station.

So back to my point of narrative. Dear Frontier, I propose you plan CGs to match the conditions of a system, or conversely, adjust the conditions of the system to match the narrative. If the narrative is that a convoy of cargo haulers need protecting, then make the reality of the game match this - fill supercruise with NPC pirates and let me as a bounty hunter protect these haulers. In future CGs, I would love a narrative that revolves around protecting installations, because truth be told, this is epic gameplay. It's just gameplay that is totally out of place in THIS community goal. Same goes with HazRes - you could have a CG for miners, with a concurrent CG for bounty hunters to protect miners, which would make farming a RES actually feel tied to the story (even if the player miners are going elsewhere). This is the key - tying the narrative of the CG to the conditions of the CG and vice-versa. It would make a huge difference for those of us who care about such things, and it will not take anything away from those who do not. It's not even hard to do - it just requires a little bit of thought in advance and investigation / tweaking of the system where the CGs take place.

Yep, this is entirely true.

The previous CG's have looked good until now. This is a step back into the old ways of "Chuck basic CG down, write blurb, wander off" which is what made CG's so lame, and the introduction of II's potentially great.

Every single CG needs to have work put into making specific in game elements for it, the CG itself is just the capturing of the interaction with it, it shouldn't be the entire content in and of itself. They need extra elements made for them.

Use. Scenarios. Frontier.

 

[Bottom Hat]

They could have chosen a system with the right bgs states, or tweaked a non-player system so it had the pirate signal sources in it. The higher threat ones.

This wouldn't have fixed the current problem, but it would have made it more like the narrative @Old Duck is describing, and it would have been more fitting for the story.

 

[Old Duck]

They could have chosen a system with the right bgs states, or tweaked a non-player system so it had the pirate signal sources in it. The higher threat ones.

I'm crossing my fingers that Frontier might read this before punching the clock today and make the necessary tweaks to the current system. Just make sure you put in some lower threat pirates in signal sources and supercruise as well, for us noobs

 

[Bottom Hat]

I'm crossing my fingers that Frontier might read this before punching the clock today and make the necessary tweaks to the current system. Just make sure you put in some lower threat pirates in signal sources and supercruise as well, for us noobs

Hell yes to them doing it! I'd have thought it easy enough to tweak and add in the pirate attack state for one or more factions in the system. And to increase the spawn of the conventional USS pirate signals too, so there is a good spectrum of pirate signals. I'd have even thought it easier to do the second part without changing the bgs states, but we'll have to see.

It's a shame that people like Steve Kirby aren't still involved as they were always good at taking suggestions on board that could be perceivable for the CG systems. Let's live in hope mate!

 

[Retropolitan]

Hell yes to them doing it! I'd have thought it easy enough to tweak and add in the pirate attack state for one or more factions in the system. And to increase the spawn of the conventional USS pirate signals too, so there is a good spectrum of pirate signals. I'd have even thought it easier to do the second part without changing the bgs states, but we'll have to see.

Sadly, you don't get much visible pirate presence in a Pirate Attack state; and those great Pirate Activity USS's show up under other conditions and (if memory serves) for less than a full week. I don't think you could say it would be easy to kludge that in there. But... possibly possible?

 

[goemon]

a bit of "history lesson" here:
bounty hunting CGs along bulktrading CGs were introduced, because without them the system would end in lockdown after 3 or 4 ticks (for all the fines and crimes, like accidental npc ramming, but also player-player gameplay).

a better integration into the story or by pushing states notwithstanding!

 

[Old Duck]

Sadly, you don't get much visible pirate presence in a Pirate Attack state; and those great Pirate Activity USS's show up under other conditions and (if memory serves) for less than a full week. I don't think you could say it would be easy to kludge that in there. But... possibly possible?

I confess to being a BGS noob, but there must be a state (perhaps tied to system security) that increases the number of pirates in supercruise.

 

[Bottom Hat]

Sadly, you don't get much visible pirate presence in a Pirate Attack state; and those great Pirate Activity USS's show up under other conditions and (if memory serves) for less than a full week. I don't think you could say it would be easy to kludge that in there. But... possibly possible?

I couldn't say for sure - was just thinking out loud in terms of the right states and so on. But you're right about the type of USS I had in mind. I dunno how easy it would be to fudge it together, and I guess the most difficult thing is making any relevant state last for the CG length.

Also, as goemon says, the BH side is there to balance the trade negative things, but I still live in hope that they could cobble something together with the tools they have. Maybe I'm too optimistic?!

 

[goemon]

I confess to being a BGS noob, but there must be a state (perhaps tied to system security) that increases the number of pirates in supercruise.

... pirate attack does (in supercruise)

USS7 are an effect of civil unrest.

and as fdev have demonstrated in the previous NMLA line, they are able to insert a lockdown bypassing the BGS.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Yea, i would suspect the BH is there to counter the LD.
Might be interesting to see NPC pirates in SC and how that may affect both CG's. They should not just be there for show, but up to no good...surely worth a good trial run at some point, if not this one.

 

[Sublime]

For all the hate the "Gnosis Incident" got, the actual game mechanic of docking with a megaship under attack was awesome, and I'm sad to see it was just a one-off. I'd be all for an evacuation mission where we have to rescue people from a station WHILE it's under attack! The reason Gnosis caused so much salt is because explorers were "promised" one type of gameplay and were bait-and-switched with another. To my point of narrative-based CGs, players would know exactly what they are signing up for ahead-of-time.

This is precisely why none of my ships are ever over-specialized, min/maxed, whatever you want to call it. All my explorers, traders, and miners have some shields, armour, and even some guns where they are able.

I love the idea of having a ship for one purpose and then have something completely unexpected happen where I have to deal with it with the tools I have on hand. It’s a shame this type of gameplay is much more the exception than the norm.

Things like the Gnosis incident should happen a lot more often (minus the station killing people trying to help and other game mechanic fails, obviously).

 

[Stormcrow77]

They started out fine, the CGs did.

But in my opinion, the last two weeks have been clunkers.

The call goes out to protect witch head, just to fly out there and see that its actually unchanged business as normal, no additionalthreat from thargoids than any other thursday....

Then the call goes out to protect these necessary shipments from pirates, yet no actual threat from pirates.

As has been said here, surely there's a way to make this feel more lived in, than having players result to gimmicky game play that has nothing to do with the narrative....

CG's, when done correctly, are some of Elite's finest moments. Let's do that.