If someone really has a problem with things transferring immediately, they can impose a timer on themselves and wait for it to count down so they have the joy of waiting for something.
Self-imposed constraints in a multiplayer game just handicap one's self without addressing any underlying problem with verisimilitude. Global (or nearly so) constrains present gameplay challenges to be overcome.
Would your immersion be maintained if there was a suitably believable in-universe explanation for instant transfers?
No such possible explanation. Several things in the game already violate any sense of internal consistency, generally at the expense of gameplay, and I using them them as precedent for more holes will not make my game better.
Do you want them to add a 3 hour cooldown on death while someone hand builds you a new ship or are you OK with the station creating a new ship from thin air for that but not for people who want to use it?
I'd be ok with 'death' being actual death and imposing an account reset for those not able to eject and be recovered in real time, as long as that constraint applied to everyone.
That everyone is playing by the same rules is much more important than the specifics of those rules, but in general, I strongly prefer the more simulationist approach.
Except our ARX ships and dead CMDRs
Aye.
Telepresence.
I'm all for the removal of Arx, the refunding of all money spent on Arx, and the complete removal of telepresence in favor of physical multi-crew only.
It did come out pre-space-legs, we could theoretically remove telepresence (aside from drone fighters) and require multi-crew to be physically present. It'll be fine.
SLFs used to have life support modules (and landing gear, but that's another story) and were clearly intended for physical crew. Indeed, why would a combat done waste mass and power on a cockpit/life support and holographic projectors? Telepresence for SLFs is almost as absurd as the Fighter Hangar's blatant violation of the conservation of matter.
Given that ship transfer was not possible when the game launched, that then begs the question: why is the delay on ship transfer considered to be an impediment to playing now that ship transfer is possible at all - when it was not possible for the first year and a bit of the game's lifespan?
I very much miss the logistical constraints imposed by the lack of ship transfer. Added another dimension to combat and was a consideration that influenced ship choice and loadouts, in a postive way.
Sometimes I think they should've kept the original idea of only one ship at a time. Wouldn't have to worry about transfer then.
I have nothing against the personal ownership of multiple vessels, but such was a major missed opportunity for applying some rational constraints that could have gone a long way toward balancing the pseudo economy and providing more gameplay.
Landing pads/docking space should be extremely expensive, especially anywhere with a large amount of traffic. The rational way around this would be to leave one's extra ships, unpowered and adrift; which could make them vulnerable to destruction, sabotage, or theft...depending on how lazy the CMDR hiding them was when it came to prioritizing convenience over security.
My game has never been enhanced by waiting out a timer.
Time and space are obstacles, but obstacles aren't problems for gameplay, they are gameplay. 'QoL improvements' that diminish the effect of time and space have erased a large portion of the game that I used to enjoy most.
In the past my game was frequently enhanced by competing, logistically, with my character's opponents. For example my willingness to move a combat FDL fifty jumps to a theater of operations when said opponents opted for FASes (which could travel further before needing to compromise combat effectiveness) was often all the edge I needed. Other times, I was bested by those who had a better feel for local outfitting and could get where I was going first, then swap out fuel tanks/scoops for SCBs and HRPs. Later changes isolated combat effectiveness to a narrow subset of the gameplay, and skill sets, that it had previous encompassed.
I hate tanky battles of attrition and that is exactly what elite PvP is if both players are prepared for it (and I don't like seal clubbing either)
1v1 and small wing TTKs are roughly an order of magnitude higher than they were in the early game.
As for preparation, even, or perhaps especially, when I was a fairly hardcore PvPer, I preferred outcomes that were largely decided by preparation and planning. Now they demand an entirely different kind of patience and emphasize a very different skill set.
Indeed we did - however, like the result of the ship transfer poll that Frontier ran, some players don't like the answer.
That's because the answers are frequently wrong.
I think in such discussions, the "realism" arguments fall very short. In addition to the transfer mechanics, we have:
- FTL travel
- FTL communications
- Omniscient C&P
- Instantaneous refueling, restocking, repairing
- Zero-time cargo shifting (792t in an instant by... kryptonian Oompa-Loompas?)
- Death teleportation
- Telepresence in SLF and SRV
- Prebuilt ship deployment on-the-go
- Aether-based newtonian normal space with speed restrictions in... vacuum?
- The Armstrong Moment vs. The Concourse Run
- Personal TARDIS pockets for a boatload of materials, weapons, suits
Nothing very realistic or immersive IMHO.
I don't want to see that list get any longer. I'd prefer to start checking features off that list, except those that are absolute necessities for the depiction of the setting and related gameplay. Namely, everything except the first two can go.
I also want to reiterate that verisimilitude and realism aren't the same thing. Even high-fantasy settings benefit from internally consistent sets of constraints and can be highly immersive if they feel like they make sense...even if they include a million things that are categorically impossible in reality.
Please donāt use SCO, itāll make systems feel much smaller
I'd prefer SCO didn't exist either, but since it does, it's functionally mandatory for some tasks.
That's the problem with multiplayer games...nothing exists in a vacuum and the broader the appeal is the more it has to appear to a lowest common denominator. Which is why we have unlimited money, zero consequence, half-the-game-plays-itself, gameplay.
So the guiding principle is what HG finds acceptable is acceptable?
The guiding principle for the individual is whatever the individual finds acceptable is acceptable.
The guiding principle for Frontier is whatever the accountants find maximizes revenue while minimizing expense is acceptable.
. In all seriousness, compromises have to be made everywhere. SCO I found to be an acceptable one. Prebuild ships, meh, whatever, borderline. Instant ship transfer is a step too far for my taste. YMMV of course.
) of the Plimsoll line, I suggest Frontier immediately institute the Grokenburger line
