Why not use Telepresence for Conflict Zones?

[DemiserofD]

Why would a robot need you to run it and how did it get your gear?

Well, AI is illegal, so presumably a human controller would be more effective than whatever basic software is legal. As for how it got your gear, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, all the engineering effects are available to the military, just not to civilians. So they'd be perfectly capable of synthesizing whatever you've been allowed access to.

I don't like the drop ship scenario how it is now, but it feels "real" in how much time it takes to get there, that real soldiers are going into battle and I am dropping in with a group of folks I need to protect. The battle should be more ongoing and not in "battle won" or "battle lost" mini events. It would be cool if, after your "battle won" you had the option to board the drop ship and be taken to another outpost where you provide reinforcement to an ongoing conflict. This can continue until you've had enough.

Verisimilitude is important I'll grant you, but not at the cost of good gameplay. The current design leans so heavily in the direction of 'realism'(I quote it because almost anything can be justified in a far-future scifi universe, and even realistic games can come up with realistic justifications to avoid wasting your time) that it becomes inaccessible to the majority of more casual players, which is exactly the audience FPS should be the most open towards.

Personally, the idea of slaughtering hundreds of people the way you do in CZs actually breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. You've got these guys in G5 armor and weapons who are falling like flies and running straight into enemy fire; behaving not like people, but like robots.

I am against being in two places at once. Could you be in your ship in a haz res doing basically afk farming, or waiting for the timer to get more rare goods or power play items while fighting a conflict zone battle on the ground elsewhere? Or do you want to have the option from the main menu?

Not from the main menu; it's important that it feels connected to the universe, to give combat weight and meaning. That's one of the major failures of CQC, it feels completely disconnected from the ingame universe, so while it feels fun, people don't feel any reason to participate long-term.

That said, I wouldn't be averse to some sort of distance matchmaking option, similar to what CQC has. Say you've been fighting for a faction in a war this week, and a few players have joined a battle in Open, it could send you a message asking if you'd like to join in. For solo content you'd have to go to the station and join in via station simulator pod, like you'd do for on-foot combat.

 

[Fizzatron]

Isn't that mechs from StarField ..... Runs for cover

Titanfall 2 I believe. I should have said Mechs, in fact I'm going to edit ma post.

 

[Schmack]

Well, AI is illegal, so presumably a human controller would be more effective than whatever basic software is legal. As for how it got your gear, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, all the engineering effects are available to the military, just not to civilians. So they'd be perfectly capable of synthesizing whatever you've been allowed access to.

Who pilots the drones at settlements when you've killed everyone on the base? I'd say AI does that. Same with giving landing clearance after no one is alive to do so, or filling and repairing your ship under the same circumstances. Who pilots skimmers at remote sites that guard random canisters? Who launches your ship and lands it where you are when you have no crew on board and no autopilot? There seems to be plenty examples of AI like behavior in the game, despite the narrative.

But, if you're going to drop into a telepresence robot, you should have the same loadout the other soldiers have. Otherwise you're stacking the deck in your favor using self serving handwavium. If you want to use engineered buffs in the fight, you have to go there yourself. That's my preference.

Verisimilitude is important I'll grant you, but not at the cost of good gameplay. The current design leans so heavily in the direction of 'realism'(I quote it because almost anything can be justified in a far-future scifi universe, and even realistic games can come up with realistic justifications to avoid wasting your time) that it becomes inaccessible to the majority of more casual players, which is exactly the audience FPS should be the most open towards.

I agree, but there's a fine line to walk where "not wasting your time" crosses over into instant travel and thus a smaller galaxy. Starfield is a great example of this. You could choose to take longer, but if you can bypass it then not doing so would actually be less realistic, assuming all the game characters get the same options.

Personally, the idea of slaughtering hundreds of people the way you do in CZs actually breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. You've got these guys in G5 armor and weapons who are falling like flies and running straight into enemy fire; behaving not like people, but like robots.

The NPCs are robots/AI for intents and purposes. You'll always have the only human thinking advantage over the NPCs, and you either want to continue to play pew pew or you don't. If you want it to last longer, don't engineer your gear. To paraphrase Feynman, you'll have a bigger checkerboard with a lot more of the same simple moves. You won't have more complexity. The game has almost always been mostly about time sink. Almost all if not all of the ranks and upgrades are challenges to withstand a set of actions repeated until they are long past interesting and mostly past fun. This is if you chase rank and upgrades. If you just play then rank comes as a byproduct. I am rambling.

Not from the main menu; it's important that it feels connected to the universe, to give combat weight and meaning. That's one of the major failures of CQC, it feels completely disconnected from the ingame universe, so while it feels fun, people don't feel any reason to participate long-term.

So you're saying you'd have to be in the same system? You just don't want to supercruise to the site? I guess I can see the utility there, but if I was calling in my friends I'd want them to bring their firepower, not spawn in a random NPC grade ship.

I think going to the planet surface is a vital part of the gameplay. The solution probably exists in having the ability to drop from super cruise to a conflict zone beacon, like when wings were introduced and you could drop from the main navigation beacon position to your wingmate's position. I don't know if that's still a thing but it created some really easy trading scenarios.

That said, I wouldn't be averse to some sort of distance matchmaking option, similar to what CQC has. Say you've been fighting for a faction in a war this week, and a few players have joined a battle in Open, it could send you a message asking if you'd like to join in. For solo content you'd have to go to the station and join in via station simulator pod, like you'd do for on-foot combat.

The station in that system, as affecting the BGS of that system without even being there seems too hard to counter.

 

[Jack Winter]

I'm still thinking that this would make the game more shallow..

Due to logistics there are many players that will ignore conflicts in certain settlements and even complete wars due to travel distances or no convenient Frontline.

I guess some of us want less travel and more and faster action and others see this as making the game more shallow and arcade like.

Not that I'm for long travel times and against changing the game, still making it more arcade like would IMO be a mistake and diminish the game that we have.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

 

[aRJay]

…

Verisimilitude is important I'll grant you, but not at the cost of good gameplay. The current design leans so heavily in the direction of 'realism'(I quote it because almost anything can be justified in a far-future scifi universe, and even realistic games can come up with realistic justifications to avoid wasting your time) that it becomes inaccessible to the majority of more casual players, which is exactly the audience FPS should be the most open towards.

…

The thing is the FPS is a part of Odyssey which is an aspect of Elite Dangerous not a standalone game in its own right, giving it an even more different character and feel from the rest of the game than it has already.
Elite Dangerous is an established game with its own character and ‘realism’ too great a change in those and you might as well have a different game.

 

[Fizzatron]

I'm still thinking that this would make the game more shallow..

Due to logistics there are many players that will ignore conflicts in certain settlements and even complete wars due to travel distances or no convenient Frontline.

I guess some of us want less travel and more and faster action and others see this as making the game more shallow and arcade like.

Not that I'm for long travel times and against changing the game, still making it more arcade like would IMO be a mistake and diminish the game that we have.

That's the thing, I don't think either position is unreasonable per se, the question is how to balance the two.

As far as fast travel goes I think that's a no go from the get go, the way to speed up proceedings would be to keep players geographically close so that redeployment is as quick as it reasonably can be.

Having a dockable megaship parked in orbit above a moon that has onfoot CZs, or better yet 20km up with a fast deployment mechanic, acting as a muster/spawn point sounds good, but some of these factions are hardly rich enough to afford megaships, and of course there'd preferably be one for each side, so maybe a new military barge that's a bit more rough and ready would suffice in that way?

The other possible improvement would be communicative, for example, let players bookmark factions to receive updates on status including some lead time to when a conflict starts. That way interested parties could be forewarned something is going to happen and prepare accordingly.

 

[Fizzatron]

The thing is the FPS is a part of Odyssey which is an aspect of Elite Dangerous not a standalone game in its own right, giving it an even more different character and feel from the rest of the game than it has already.
Elite Dangerous is an established game with its own character and ‘realism’ too great a change in those and you might as well have a different game.

If there was a practice/fun arena to do FPS training etc., then I think telepresence could work as way to keep things moving quickly in that way, though I'm talking about controlling robotic avatars for the purposes of training/fun from within the facility that these arenas populate in the game. In other words, I'd still say that players should have to be physically present in the vicinity.

 

[DemiserofD]

Who pilots the drones at settlements when you've killed everyone on the base? I'd say AI does that. Same with giving landing clearance after no one is alive to do so, or filling and repairing your ship under the same circumstances. Who pilots skimmers at remote sites that guard random canisters? Who launches your ship and lands it where you are when you have no crew on board and no autopilot? There seems to be plenty examples of AI like behavior in the game, despite the narrative.

But, if you're going to drop into a telepresence robot, you should have the same loadout the other soldiers have. Otherwise you're stacking the deck in your favor using self serving handwavium. If you want to use engineered buffs in the fight, you have to go there yourself. That's my preference.

I agree, but there's a fine line to walk where "not wasting your time" crosses over into instant travel and thus a smaller galaxy. Starfield is a great example of this. You could choose to take longer, but if you can bypass it then not doing so would actually be less realistic, assuming all the game characters get the same options.

The NPCs are robots/AI for intents and purposes. You'll always have the only human thinking advantage over the NPCs, and you either want to continue to play pew pew or you don't. If you want it to last longer, don't engineer your gear. To paraphrase Feynman, you'll have a bigger checkerboard with a lot more of the same simple moves. You won't have more complexity. The game has almost always been mostly about time sink. Almost all if not all of the ranks and upgrades are challenges to withstand a set of actions repeated until they are long past interesting and mostly past fun. This is if you chase rank and upgrades. If you just play then rank comes as a byproduct. I am rambling.

So you're saying you'd have to be in the same system? You just don't want to supercruise to the site? I guess I can see the utility there, but if I was calling in my friends I'd want them to bring their firepower, not spawn in a random NPC grade ship.

I think going to the planet surface is a vital part of the gameplay. The solution probably exists in having the ability to drop from super cruise to a conflict zone beacon, like when wings were introduced and you could drop from the main navigation beacon position to your wingmate's position. I don't know if that's still a thing but it created some really easy trading scenarios.

The station in that system, as affecting the BGS of that system without even being there seems too hard to counter.

The thing is, flying to the system is gameplay; sitting in the Vulture waiting to get there for 5+ minutes is not. So I'm perfectly fine with making players fly to the system in most cases, but not with the vulture ride at the end. Offering to let players telepresence in from greater range should be a rare exception, one designed to encourage players to meet and fight each other, something the game is currently not very good at achieving.

And when it comes to personal gear, I think this is something that should be handwaved for the sake of preserving player progress. I also think there should be special zones where you can only use standardized gear, but they should be the exception, not the rule. The last thing you want to do is punish your players for doing the hard work of getting better equipment.

---

The current system is time-consuming and rarely lets players meet unless they deliberately set out to do so.

I would like a system that respects player time and encourages/helps players to meet and fight.

 

[Schmack]

The thing is, flying to the system is gameplay; sitting in the Vulture waiting to get there for 5+ minutes is not. So I'm perfectly fine with making players fly to the system in most cases, but not with the vulture ride at the end. Offering to let players telepresence in from greater range should be a rare exception, one designed to encourage players to meet and fight each other, something the game is currently not very good at achieving.

I just land, dismiss my ship and get after it. When it's over I recall my ship. I don't bother using the Vulture. The only reason I visit Frontier Solutions is to see where the high intensity zones are.

And when it comes to personal gear, I think this is something that should be handwaved for the sake of preserving player progress. I also think there should be special zones where you can only use standardized gear, but they should be the exception, not the rule. The last thing you want to do is punish your players for doing the hard work of getting better equipment.

---

The current system is time-consuming and rarely lets players meet unless they deliberately set out to do so.

I would like a system that respects player time and encourages/helps players to meet and fight.

You're asking for a completely different game. It's not punishment, you can fly there and use your gear all you want. You cannot use your engineered ships in CQC, and that's not a punishment. It's to level the playing field. You want to drop down in a robot with no risk to yourself, have all your engineered weapons and such. Why even need a robot? If your weapons can magically appear, why can't you just magically appear? Then you can magically disappear?

 

[DemiserofD]

I just land, dismiss my ship and get after it. When it's over I recall my ship. I don't bother using the Vulture. The only reason I visit Frontier Solutions is to see where the high intensity zones are.

Sure; if you want to do that, that's perfectly fine. That doesn't do anything to fix the problem of sitting in a vulture for 5+ minutes, though.

You're asking for a completely different game.

No? This game already has telepresence. I'm asking for this game to use its existing tech in a way to make a better experience for everyone, especially the FPS crowd.

It's not punishment, you can fly there and use your gear all you want.

Being forced to go to waste a significant amount of time to use your own gear is punishment. You are punishing them with a significant wait time, and forcing them to choose between having being weak or being bored.

It's terrible game design to make players choose like that. Let them have fun AND be powerful.

You cannot use your engineered ships in CQC, and that's not a punishment.

Yes you can. You unlock engineered ships in CQC as you play. It's an entirely different engineering system, but that's perfectly fine.

Bear in mind, I am perfectly fine with a separate type of CZ where ALL players are limited to non-engineered equipment, to even the playing field. The one thing that would objectively be terrible is CZs where you can be completely overpowered via engineering, but only if you fly there manually. That would be horrid. It would be boring for the engineered players, and unfun for the telepresence players, and just miserable overall.

Why even need a robot? If your weapons can magically appear, why can't you just magically appear? Then you can magically disappear?

They're not 'magically' appearing; they're being synthesized rapidly in the same way as your ship is rapidly synthesized after it's destroyed, and the same way your equipment is rapidly synthesized when you die on foot. It's utilizing the existing gameplay mechanics in a lore-consistent manner.

By contrast, we know that assassination still works, so we know we can't synthesize human bodies. Therefore, it would be more lore-consistent if we were telepresencing into robots, compared with the current version.

 

[Schmack]

Sure; if you want to do that, that's perfectly fine. That doesn't do anything to fix the problem of sitting in a vulture for 5+ minutes, though.

Sure it does. Avoiding it does everything to fix it. You have two ways to get to the fight; your ship or theirs. If you want to avoid theirs, take yours. Perhaps the Frontier Solutions game play isn't desirable, I've done it once to see what it was like and I enjoyed it mostly. I won't do it again just because the ride is longer than the fight, but it's pretty cool.

No? This game already has telepresence. I'm asking for this game to use its existing tech in a way to make a better experience for everyone, especially the FPS crowd.

What part of this game lets you take your existing loadouts into a telepresence activity through hand wavium? You're using a lot of opinion to call it "better for everyone". I think plenty here would disagree with you. Better for you, perhaps.

Being forced to go to waste a significant amount of time to use your own gear is punishment. You are punishing them with a significant wait time, and forcing them to choose between having being weak or being bored.

So going there yourself is a waste? Or do you mean taking the Frontier drop ship? That's part of the game play if you choose it. Else fly there. Simple actually.

It's terrible game design to make players choose like that. Let them have fun AND be powerful.

As I said, a different game. What part of this game lets you engage in combat risk free and collect bonds, use your own gear and puts you into a battle instantaneously? None. If you want to get to a specific settlement, you can fly or take Apex. If there's a war you can fly or take a drop ship. That's how it should be. CQC should be better though plus we should be able to go into mini game CQB with our on foot loadouts and practice there.

Yes you can. You unlock engineered ships in CQC as you play. It's an entirely different engineering system, but that's perfectly fine.

You cannot use your engineered ships in CQC, that's what I said. If you're going to argue at least don't move the goalposts. I'd be fine with a similar system with on foot combat, but not for conflict zones that affect BGS. No easy buttons. It's easy enough already.

Bear in mind, I am perfectly fine with a separate type of CZ where ALL players are limited to non-engineered equipment, to even the playing field. The one thing that would objectively be terrible is CZs where you can be completely overpowered via engineering, but only if you fly there manually. That would be horrid. It would be boring for the engineered players, and unfun for the telepresence players, and just miserable overall.

Wouldn't make sense to be flying an engineered ship and see a conflict zone you cannot enter because you have engineering. Again, you seem to be looking for point and click customized game play, not this game.

They're not 'magically' appearing; they're being synthesized rapidly in the same way as your ship is rapidly synthesized after it's destroyed, and the same way your equipment is rapidly synthesized when you die on foot. It's utilizing the existing gameplay mechanics in a lore-consistent manner.

"And when it comes to personal gear, I think this is something that should be handwaved for the sake of preserving player progress." -You

This is basically saying "magically make it happen". But that point isn't important. In the two examples you list, you're present in both situations. When you telepresence appear into another players ship, does his ship suddenly have your ship's engineering? Of course not. If you're going to remote into a bot, you have what the bot has. I remote in all the time to systems in labs across the country. When I do I am limited to using what they have, not what I have. If I want to use what I have, I am required to go there in person. Your suggestion is to have all the power and none of the risk.

By contrast, we know that assassination still works, so we know we can't synthesize human bodies. Therefore, it would be more lore-consistent if we were telepresencing into robots, compared with the current version.

Again, different game.

 

[DemiserofD]

I won't do it again just because the ride is longer than the fight, but it's pretty cool.

It's odd that you admit this, and yet seem to think it's fine.

There is a fundamental problem here: if players can get to the fight faster by closing down the game and booting up another game, they will.

As I've said before, I'm open to alternatives, but the current situation is clearly not acceptable.

What part of this game lets you take your existing loadouts into a telepresence activity through hand wavium? You're using a lot of opinion to call it "better for everyone". I think plenty here would disagree with you. Better for you, perhaps.

This is, after all, a suggestion. The tech exists; we are able to rapidly synthesize replacement equipment, and we have the ability to telepresence. The ability to combine these two is not at all a stretch.

As for who thinks things are good; please remember, this is a suggestion meant to attract the players who aren't playing. After all, they don't need to attract existing players; they're already here!

I invite you to consider why players don't play, and try to figure out ways to attract them. That's my goal. Sure, it benefits me too, but that's because I'm one of those players.

So going there yourself is a waste? Or do you mean taking the Frontier drop ship? That's part of the game play if you choose it. Else fly there. Simple actually.

If you choose to fly there yourself, you should be able to do so. But there is no reason to give any advantage for doing so. Not only do I think players should get their full suite of equipment on arrival, there really should be SRVs available to drive on-site, as well.

Other FPS games do it; it's really the bare minimum we should be accepting. Because if this game can't match other games, again, people won't play it. And if new players won't buy it, it dies, and we're all SOL.

Wouldn't make sense to be flying an engineered ship and see a conflict zone you cannot enter because you have engineering. Again, you seem to be looking for point and click customized game play, not this game.

Nah, don't get me wrong; they definitely shouldn't appear in open space. That would be frustrating, and after all, avoiding frustration is one of the main points of this suggestion!

The objective here is to establish fair and balanced gameplay. Outsiders are not going to be interested in a game where they need to grind for hundreds of hours to not get oneshot by experienced players. Offering a balanced option for newer players is really the bare minimum of what we should be doing.

Your suggestion is to have all the power and none of the risk.

Sure. Who cares? There's no risk anyway; players have trillions of credits. If there's already no risk, then we should be focusing on maximizing fun, not twisting our hands over a ship that has already sailed.

The real risk(and fun) should be losing the CZ, and the ensuing changes in the universe that may result.

Again, different game.

Uh, no, pretty sure that's still this game.
Honestly, I really don't understand your viewpoint here. You're trying to justify yourself based on canon(that doesn't support you) and precedence(which can be changed), rather than trying to picture how the game can be better.

Try to remember; this game is not exactly at peak popularity right now. A big part of that is how much time it wastes to do anything. Don't you want this game to be accessible to new players? Don't you want the playerbase to grow?

If you want that, the game must change. If it doesn't, it will only continue to do what it currently is doing; slowly dying.

 

[aRJay]

It's odd that you admit this, and yet seem to think it's fine.

I think it is odd you think travel should take no longer than a click.
People are odd get used to it.

There is a fundamental problem here: if players can get to the fight faster by closing down the game and booting up another game, they will.

They aren’t, if they are switching games they are switching fights.

As I've said before, I'm open to alternatives, but the current situation is clearly not acceptable to me.

FTFY

This is, after all, a suggestion. The tech exists; we are able to rapidly synthesize replacement equipment, and we have the ability to telepresence. The ability to combine these two is not at all a stretch.

As for who thinks things are good; please remember, this is a suggestion meant to attract the players who aren't playing. After all, they don't need to attract existing players; they're already here!

There is a saying ”don’t trample on your existing friends to make new ones”
They also don’t need to drive off existing customers in an attempt to possibly attract new ones.

I invite you to consider why players don't play, and try to figure out ways to attract them. That's my goal. Sure, it benefits me too, but that's because I'm one of those players.

Probably because they didn’t like the game enough.

If you choose to fly there yourself, you should be able to do so. But there is no reason to give any advantage for doing so. Not only do I think players should get their full suite of equipment on arrival, there really should be SRVs available to drive on-site, as well.

There is also no reason to give the telepresences more of an advantage than the instant travel gives them so they should get less than their best kit.

Other FPS games do it; it's really the bare minimum we should be accepting. Because if this game can't match other games, again, people won't play it. And if new players won't buy it, it dies, and we're all SOL.

Yes but it isn’t a mere first person shooter, it is a much wider scope game one small part of which allows shooting on foot.

Nah, don't get me wrong; they definitely shouldn't appear in open space. That would be frustrating, and after all, avoiding frustration is one of the main points of this suggestion!

The objective here is to establish fair and balanced gameplay. Outsiders are not going to be interested in a game where they need to grind for hundreds of hours to not get oneshot by experienced players. Offering a balanced option for newer players is really the bare minimum of what we should be doing.


Sure. Who cares? There's no risk anyway; players have trillions of credits. If there's already no risk, then we should be focusing on maximizing fun, not twisting our hands over a ship that has already sailed.

The real risk(and fun) should be losing the CZ, and the ensuing changes in the universe that may result.

Uh, no, pretty sure that's still this game.
Honestly, I really don't understand your viewpoint here. You're trying to justify yourself based on canon(that doesn't support you) and precedence(which can be changed), rather than trying to picture how the game can be better.

The problem is what you think of as better doesn’t match everybody else’s idea of better.

Try to remember; this game is not exactly at peak popularity right now. A big part of that is how much time it wastes to do anything. Don't you want this game to be accessible to new players? Don't you want the playerbase to grow?

If you want that, the game must change. If it doesn't, it will only continue to do what it currently is doing; slowly dying.

I want this game to be successful enough to continue, not some game about people doing everything by telepresence all across the galaxy while lying plumbed into a pod.

 

[Fizzatron]

Other FPS games do it; it's really the bare minimum we should be accepting. Because if this game can't match other games, again, people won't play it. And if new players won't buy it, it dies, and we're all SOL.

I would like to think that some FPS players would find themselves engrossed in the FPS aspect of Odyssey but I think all of your concerns would be addressed by having a CQC like arena incorporated into the game where things like telepresence/robots/instant loadouts are easily explained by it being a sport or something. Other than that, my belief is that the amount of changes to Elite to accommodate FPS oriented players would be too great to capture what is already a well served segment of the gaming population, it's not like FPS players are concerned with being a niche. So for me it would be a large change with the reward not easily guaranteed. Also, let's not forget that if Frontier went deeper into trying to capture the FPS market, then some upgrades to the combat system would also be needed.

As I've said before, I'm open to alternatives, but the current situation is clearly not acceptable.

I think having a closer spawn point once you are there to keep things moving, as we spoke about earlier is the best way to compromise in this regard and would keep the overall game intact also. However, I still would doubt that FPS players are going to go for that either, if that's who you are wanting to attract to the game? The best thing would be to do what I said above already, make an Arena shooter that is in the game, can appeal to FPS players with the minimum of fuss but also put them in the game to wander around and enjoy if they decide to; the possibility of having tournaments/seasons that feature arenas in different parts of the bubble (selected for great settings and backdrops) could also encourage that. The prizes could be pre-engineered modules and things like that.

Lastly, I don't think it was Frontier's intention to directly court the FPS market, that's someone else's narrative which is usually used as a strawman to paint Odyssey as a failure for trying to be something it actually wasn't.

 

[Schmack]

It's odd that you admit this, and yet seem to think it's fine.

I think it's avoidable by flying to the planet. For that reason it's fine. I don't want to jump to Beagle Point either, but the way to do it is fine. It's an aspect of the game some might choose to experience. If your only choice is to go sit in a pod and be transported to a robot, that's not even Elite Dangerous. ED has always been about the chore of getting there.

There is a fundamental problem here: if players can get to the fight faster by closing down the game and booting up another game, they will.

As I've said before, I'm open to alternatives, but the current situation is clearly not acceptable.

Fine, other games are available. We don't need to save the game for them. The slippery slope here is obvious. It's not acceptable to you. That's different than just universally not acceptable. I'd guess the large majority of players who engage in conflict zone battles fly there themselves. If you choose the least desirable route, that's your choice. It doesn't mean the least desirable route needs to change.

This is much like having a 50LY range FSD and complaining because the economical route takes too long. You're intentionally bypassing the obvious solution and it's not called "Frontier".

This is, after all, a suggestion. The tech exists; we are able to rapidly synthesize replacement equipment, and we have the ability to telepresence. The ability to combine these two is not at all a stretch.

If Frontier solutions was the only way to get into ground combat, I'd get it. There are other options. I think you want to avoid super cruise in your own ship as much as in the drop ship. Avoiding super cruise times has never been an accepted reason for game changes. What is the game play between the main star and Hutton Orbital? Nothing, after maybe a pirate evasion it's all star screen from there, forever. You can say that's the cool part and you don't have to choose it an I'd agree. I wouldn't sign on to a way to bypass it though.

Sure it's a suggestion. I just think it's a bad one for bad reasons. That's my opinion.

As for who thinks things are good; please remember, this is a suggestion meant to attract the players who aren't playing. After all, they don't need to attract existing players; they're already here!

I invite you to consider why players don't play, and try to figure out ways to attract them. That's my goal. Sure, it benefits me too, but that's because I'm one of those players.

Again, I don't see any need to save the game. I think suggestions should be to put things into the game that are beneficial but attracting players to save the game is so old hat. I don't care why players don't play. I play Solo so I've never seen one anyhow.

If you choose to fly there yourself, you should be able to do so. But there is no reason to give any advantage for doing so. Not only do I think players should get their full suite of equipment on arrival, there really should be SRVs available to drive on-site, as well.

The idea doesn't work, but if it did it would only work the robots had default loadouts. You cannot both have your cake and have eaten it. Also you shouldn't call it an advantage to use what you brought to the fight. If you use telepresence, you didn't bring anything to the fight but your skills and you're just controlling something that is in the fight. The advantage is even as one person has their weapons and you have no risk to yourself, just a robot you can continue to respawn in.

Other FPS games do it; it's really the bare minimum we should be accepting. Because if this game can't match other games, again, people won't play it. And if new players won't buy it, it dies, and we're all SOL.

These aren't important reasons imo. If people don't like the game they can stop playing it. If the developers want to bypass the gameplay they developed for Odyssey they can. Our opinions won't change that nor should they.

Nah, don't get me wrong; they definitely shouldn't appear in open space. That would be frustrating, and after all, avoiding frustration is one of the main points of this suggestion!

Again, different game.

The objective here is to establish fair and balanced gameplay. Outsiders are not going to be interested in a game where they need to grind for hundreds of hours to not get oneshot by experienced players. Offering a balanced option for newer players is really the bare minimum of what we should be doing.

I am not selling the game. I am playing it. I couldn't care less how it looks on the shelf.

Sure. Who cares? There's no risk anyway; players have trillions of credits. If there's already no risk, then we should be focusing on maximizing fun, not twisting our hands over a ship that has already sailed.

Maximizing fun is different for different people. You should focus on maximizing your fun. If that aspect of the game is too toxic and the alternative is unacceptable, avoid conflict zones. It's really easy.

The real risk(and fun) should be losing the CZ, and the ensuing changes in the universe that may result.

Losing the CZ wouldn't affect your game at all. You seem to want a customized CZ that you can play without leaving the station. As you said, there are games that offer something like that. You should explore those. I am not being snarky. I've left this game to play other games several times.

Uh, no, pretty sure that's still this game.
Honestly, I really don't understand your viewpoint here. You're trying to justify yourself based on canon(that doesn't support you) and precedence(which can be changed), rather than trying to picture how the game can be better.

I have been playing the game since 2015. I know what is and what isn't the game. I am not relying on canon. You want a different game, not just a tweak or cool feature. What you're suggesting is a complete overhaul of the conflict zone mechanics, based purely on an individual wish. I can wish our ships would fly under water on Water Worlds but if I made that suggestion I would probably see a few comments about even entering the atmosphere of a WW, having water and then why would you want a ship to fly underwater? Then I could add something like "I want to have underwater stations and settlements and my own residence". That's a different game.

Try to remember; this game is not exactly at peak popularity right now. A big part of that is how much time it wastes to do anything. Don't you want this game to be accessible to new players? Don't you want the playerbase to grow?

If you want that, the game must change. If it doesn't, it will only continue to do what it currently is doing; slowly dying.

I don't care how popular it is. There are plenty popular games. Nothing stops you from playing them (price and platform notwithstanding).

Before any of your suggestions could change on foot combat experience, the lower hanging fruit would need to be explored, like having a conflict zone on foot that isn't so cookie cutter. Drop ship, guys run aimlessly to a point, you kill them all. Another drop ship, rinse and repeat. There's no increase in difficulty, no one drops in with an SRV on the NPC side, no boss fight, nothing. Just grind out the same few moves as long as you can. That could be fixed. Then maybe the trip in the Vulture would provide more anxiety.

 

[DemiserofD]

I believe bad arguments on behalf of detractors is as strong an argument in support of a suggestion, as good arguments are on behalf of supporters.

This being the case, and not having seen a single credible argument thus far, I'm just going to let this thread stand as it is. Outsiders can read what's been said and make up their own minds.

But I'll reiterate; this idea uses only canonical technology and, I firmly believe, would benefit the playerbase as a whole substantially, at no real cost to the existing players, other than, perhaps, their irrational pride in their ability to weather the unnecessarily frustrating.

 

[Jack Winter]

At the risk of repeating myself.. Unless I have misunderstood something, your change will change how players interact with BGS wars. I'm not sure that's a good idea at all, IMO it would make the game more shallow. Personally I'd prefer logistics to have an even bigger impact on game play.

 

[Riverside]

At the risk of repeating myself.. Unless I have misunderstood something, your change will change how players interact with BGS wars. I'm not sure that's a good idea at all, IMO it would make the game more shallow. Personally I'd prefer logistics to have an even bigger impact on game play.

Depth doesn't change with this proposal and as far as the BGS is concerned it remains a level playing field & in situations where some stations are far from the preferred ground CZ POI it encourages the use of any dock in the system equally since there would be no difference in the travel time. The telepresenced Cmdr would gain an advantage over those that choose to fly there themselves the first time, reversing any advantage (in terms of travel time) between someone starting out at a station vs one starting out landed near the CZ POI.

It will make 'instant action' gameplay more accessible to those less patient by allowing those players to skip a very dull part of the game being taxied to the scenario, removing an advantage more experienced players who plan ahead. I don't have a problem with this.

Telepresence technology certainly has a 'slippery slope' aspect to it that makes one wonder why the whole game isn't just done remotely. The answer of course is that we are, just not in-universe. It's used to plaster over the 'magic' that allows an otherwise plausibly consistent game universe to skip boring parts.


Having read through the thread it seems the main objection is to the idea of telepresence in principle rather than any great desire for dead time as a passenger in an NPC ship.

 

[Jack Winter]

It would most certainly give players using Frontline Solutions a handicap as far as travel time is concerned.

I'm not particularly for long travel times, nor against change. In fact sometimes I find travel time excessive and annoying. Still they are a big part of the game and influence decisions taken, so giving people "instant travel" would surely change the game..