Yeah, that's kind of my point. They exist in settlements to beef up defences somewhat, but for gameplay reasons are avoidable. Challenges are good and you don't have to involve making an area an impossible kill zone to have a sense of logic to it.
Expanding on foot gameplay
- Thread starter Woakes
- Start date
mechanically, no. it would be cool for it to be available for all targets, just different consequences if youre the one boarded vs a NPC is boarded.
Last edited:
Player ships being boarded by other players?
Yes, I'd agree here that it should be possible to board another players ship. Practically however, I think this would be significantly more difficult to do than with an NPC.
It would be another reason to play in solo/PG imo. Were there not issues in that other game when this kind of things happened?
People who dont like pvp will do that anyway. No reason to disable it for the rest of us. Just have the negative consequences of being boarded as a player be reasonable.
Dealing with passengers.
I was referring to the ones dotted around settlements, but yes, definitely need some in ships for that reason.
This is the forum, of course not!
1. Salvageable ships and SRV vehicles already exists.
2. Subterranean floors adds nothing more than multiple floors + rooftops gameplay already does.
3. Mission chaining isn't terrible but really a very similar game loop already exists. Take 5 missions complete them all then turn them in for reward.
4. Grenades and gunfire can already be used for distraction, I do it all the time.
5. Building things already exists and could just be added to the build list, assuming Fdevs wanted to do this as game play. Also ship repairs exist and only needs a minor change to solve the dead ship issue; for example, an eject button to discharge you into space, die, respawn or new ship repair options. This doesn't need ship interiors.
6. We can already rank up in various areas of game play, I remember becoming a gunslinger for some reason.
7. The ongoing request for ship interiors keeps having the same argumentative form and tone. I really want ship interiors; now what reason can I conceive for their existence. This is the same notion that I really want a tool that looks like an elephant so let's build it and despite that it has an abundance of internal gears and external gauges I think we should make it and sell it as a hammer because who could deny how much use they could get from a hammer.
Let me contrast this to a well conceived idea. How do we get players to feel the sense of dread that space travel should have? Perhaps we have them exit a space jump with a sun extremely close to their ship that requires immediate maneuvering to avoid solar destruction of said ship. Perhaps to further heighten this fear we make it necessary for them to stay close to this sun to refuel their ship. Finally, we make this fuel scooping a great time and place place for them to get ganked!
This is a lot of poo pooing someone's earnest idea for no reason.
Salvageable ships and srvs can barely be said to be in the game. There's wrecked ones yes, but you don't salvage them. You take a couple components out of a panel or two.
Yes people want ship interiors because they have cool ideas for them. Oh no! The game might get better! Can't have that can we.
More game play loops would be a good thing for the game.
Last edited:
"4. Grenades and gunfire can already be used for distraction, I do it all the time."
And not just as a distraction. Sit in an SRV outside a settlement and start shooting. Lots of the npcs will come running to the sound of the guns. Easy to shoot.
Want to clear a big building but do not want to go room to room looking for the npcs to shoot? Use a noisy weapon inside, and again they will come running. And get shot.
And not just as a distraction. Sit in an SRV outside a settlement and start shooting. Lots of the npcs will come running to the sound of the guns. Easy to shoot.
Want to clear a big building but do not want to go room to room looking for the npcs to shoot? Use a noisy weapon inside, and again they will come running. And get shot.
"Better" is a very subjective concept.
Suggestions are, in general, made to support an individual's concept of what they might consider better - quite often qualified by an "Everyone would like to...", when, this mythical "Everyone" couldn't even agree what time to have dinner...
Don't you think the game has gotten "Better" this last year, and is the forum up in arms about those improvements?
It isn't that there could be more gameplay loops but rather that any change in the game always come at the cost of other ideas that truly bring new gameplay and doesn't just rehash old game play loops we already have.
Colonization brought a major change to the game. If we had to settle for a bunch minor game changes to existing gameplay, the game would be far lessor for it.
As to ship interiors, my statement about them stands. It is poor design to want to make something so badly that you come up with poorly conceived ideas to justify something's creation. Find a problem first or conceive of a game play loop first THEN decide what you need to build to make it happen; not the other way around.
The earnestness of someone's idea does not make it a quality idea. I would guess most people are earnest about their ideas but this has no bearing on the quality of those ideas.
Youre simply wrong. There's plenty of examples of entire video games being made where they go "we want to create this, what game loops can add to it?"
The Devs wanted walking in ships; the solution was created first and the problem it was supposed to solve came second. So let's look at the outcome of this design strategy:
The outfitting and shipyard modules on carriers are nearly pointless, as these game play loops occur almost exclusively in stations. These modules reek of, 'we are making walking in ships and we need some reason why it is being added to the game'.
Yes, the bartender is nice and so too is exobiology.
This means that half the modules are largely pointless and highlights the problem of creating a solution before you define the need.
Furthermore, it highlights the actual problem of justifying walking in ships for EDO.
And it was poorly balanced numbers wise. Something that can be fixed. (If the devs did a balance pass, which admittedly they are not good about doing)
I'm not sure your argument follows logically. you're highlighting balance/quality issues from Fdev's development. By your logic nothing should be added, because look at what happened with (insert example of Fdev bungle here)
No, im highlighting what happens when you come to a solution before you define a problem and it is also specific to walking in ships not a random something that is in the game.
Last edited:
The problem is that ship interiors are unutilized space that have a lot of potential. That much is obvious. Doesn't matter if thats a problem for you or not. It would add a lot for enough people and solve that problem for them, so solutions have value.
The Fdevs have limited resources to spend fine-tuning ideas after they get into the game. This is one of the more compelling reasons to state a clear and concise problem and then find a definitive solution as this leads to less extraneous and poor design decisions.