Shield Regeneration Lasers

[NeilF]

Of course, it raises this issue of balancing...

We're already well beyond Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Lizard, with PvE and PvP rewarding very different builds (never the twain shall meet for some unfortunate reason), and have shields, hull reinforcement and shield cells still in flux in attempt to get some sort of balance, and now we'll get more things (modules/mechanics) to balance?

Going to be interesting...

 

[Ian Skippy]

And this and other example leads be to question, why should I even still assume that FD would set this up any better?

Or even more importantly: why is it anyone but your problem what you assume? If you wanna assume the worst and go ape about your own imaginations, have fun. Sounds like a drag to me, but to each his own...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Of course, it raises this issue of balancing...

We're already well beyond Rock, Paper, Scissors, Spock, Lizard, with PvE and PvP rewarding very different builds (never the twain shall meet for some unfortunate reason), and have shields, hull reinforcement and shield cells still in flux in attempt to get some sort of balance, and now we'll get more things (modules/mechanics) to balance?

Going to be interesting...

Dont forget missile rebalancing. HRP meta may become just an option rather than the Law. Scary stuff indeed! :d

 

[lysan]

It's probably just a matter of catharsis. Speaking about it is better than just brooding in silent frustration.

SNIP

I agree, people raise their voice for a reason (mostly). I'm not that worried about the SRL (Shield recharging laser), my "concerns" are more in a general direction.

Let us use an example we all know, gravity. In ED gravity comes form rotation, it can be artificial objects or natural formed objects. We all agree this is how this is made. In other games, they have gravity generators (like in Star Trek) to me this is questionable feature, because its (with our current understanding) weird. We collect space canisters with limpets, and open cargo hatches, however we can't have tractor beams? So to keep the consistency the red dotted line must be kept intact.

That is my only concern.

 

[babelfisch]

http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-sc...ulsion-system-that-could-reach-mars-in-3-days

Spacemagic.

 

[Red Anders]

This game was suppose to be closer to science than arcade games (according to David Braben) so its very important to keep it that way. Otherwise we will end up with a lot of feature that is just a waste of development time.

Yet as at least one game designer has pointed out on these forums on more than one occasion, the game is not supposed to be a hard science game.

'Closer to science than arcade games' does not mean that the game is going to be firmly rooted in science and only deviate from it very occasionally, it means that many design choices will have to be a balance between science and entertainment because the first thing FD are trying to do is make an entertaining game. There may be a market for a pure hard science game out there, in fact I'm sure there is, but if it's more than 10% of the people who play E D I would be astonished. That isn't going to pay the bills.

That's why (for example) I can drive round a planet and find a meteorite on the surface which is billions of years old, yet is rich in polonium (longest half life of any polonium isotope is about 125 years...) and then drop it in my fuel tank (or refine it in some way using some completely unspecified tech) along with some other ores and increase the efficiency of my ships FSD. Because yeah, science.

 

[Mike Evans]

<snip>

Exactly this^

 

[Barking_Mad]

Holy molly that's going to be a lot of threads, might need a new sub-forum for it.

Oh you tease.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Holy molly that's going to be a lot of threads, might need a new sub-forum for it.

Please, at least in the beta forums. Will make it easier to discuss balance and test the modules out

We are gonna have access to the modules in beta without having to grind missions/scour the galaxy/ruin the surprise of engineer locations right??

Really hope this won't be like the PP weapons fiasco

 

[hunvagy]

That's why (for example) I can drive round a planet and find a meteorite on the surface which is billions of years old, yet is rich in polonium (longest half life of any polonium isotope is about 125 years...) and then drop it in my fuel tank (or refine it in some way using some completely unspecified tech) along with some other ores and increase the efficiency of my ships FSD. Because yeah, science.

The last bit is an easy one

Other then that +1 to all that's said.

 

[lysan]

Yet as at least one game designer has pointed out on these forums on more than one occasion, the game is not supposed to be a hard science game.

'Closer to science than arcade games' does not mean that the game is going to be firmly rooted in science and only deviate from it very occasionally, it means that many design choices will have to be a balance between science and entertainment because the first thing FD are trying to do is make an entertaining game. There may be a market for a pure hard science game out there, in fact I'm sure there is, but if it's more than 10% of the people who play E D I would be astonished. That isn't going to pay the bills.

That's why (for example) I can drive round a planet and find a meteorite on the surface which is billions of years old, yet is rich in polonium (longest half life of any polonium isotope is about 125 years...) and then drop it in my fuel tank (or refine it in some way using some completely unspecified tech) along with some other ores and increase the efficiency of my ships FSD. Because yeah, science.

I agree, however as I wrote there is a fine line, there are things we as players can accept more that other mechanics.

Take the light saber in Star Wars, its completely bonkers, however we say, well ok its a light saber thingy and we accept it.
However jar jar binks was just an irritating creature and was not accepted at all (however could very well exist somewhere in the universe). You need to understand the target group you want to sell your idea too. In SW they completely lost directional sense. I just hope this is not the case with ED, that's all, and my only point here.

Carry on.

EDIT:

Oh BTW, DB did overrule his own devs when they designed the galaxy, if not we would have had a NMS universe, and I for one would not been playing that game.

 

[shadragon]

"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" - OddBall (Kelly's Heroes)

Another 19 pages of speculation plus the inevitable FUD. Once the Beta arrives we'll get to see the implications of this new mechanic. There's at least 29 other enhancements as well. Talking without any actual facts just makes you qualified to be a FOX news reporter.

 

[lysan]

Don't be coming in here with your facts and stuff.

This thread is for people who want to fly off the handle and bring in the end of days with only a brief outline of a module to go on as evidence.

If that was directed to me, I will just say that I was not negative, I just ask some questions and raised a concern, that's all.

And regarding what he commented on, well maybe they should listen more to what is actually communicated from DB himself.

https://youtu.be/v7jP2drkUXE?t=1m4s

 

[Insomnia]

Yet as at least one game designer has pointed out on these forums on more than one occasion, the game is not supposed to be a hard science game.

'Closer to science than arcade games' does not mean that the game is going to be firmly rooted in science and only deviate from it very occasionally, it means that many design choices will have to be a balance between science and entertainment because the first thing FD are trying to do is make an entertaining game. There may be a market for a pure hard science game out there, in fact I'm sure there is, but if it's more than 10% of the people who play E D I would be astonished. That isn't going to pay the bills.

That's why (for example) I can drive round a planet and find a meteorite on the surface which is billions of years old, yet is rich in polonium (longest half life of any polonium isotope is about 125 years...) and then drop it in my fuel tank (or refine it in some way using some completely unspecified tech) along with some other ores and increase the efficiency of my ships FSD. Because yeah, science.

True, but some directions ED is taking will upset science geeks. Other directions will will make us gamers happy.
It's a very fine line. I for one don't care about how space stations rotate to achieve gravity; it just limits the space station designs. It's also not coherent with the ability to travel faster than light or the fact that we don't have tractor beams. Mixing up hard science in ED while trying to maintain a satisfactory level with the casual gamer might be a bad step.
Science fiction will always be more attractive from a game perspective than pure science IMO, which is why I think healing lasers is a step in the right direction.

 

[Khelder]

I agree, however as I wrote there is a fine line, there are things we as players can accept more that other mechanics.

Take the light saber in Star Wars, its completely bonkers, however we say, well ok its a light saber thingy and we accept it.
However jar jar binks was just an irritating creature and was not accepted at all (however could very well exist somewhere in the universe). You need to understand the target group you want to sell your idea too. In SW they completely lost directional sense. I just hope this is not the case with ED, that's all, and my only point here.

Carry on.

EDIT:

Oh BTW, DB did overrule his own devs when they designed the galaxy, if not we would have had a NMS universe, and I for one would not been playing that game.

I can't rep you so I'll agree and add a bit.

I realise that the game needs to evolve and new features need to be added. I always think of Elite as being a little bit special, though. There is that line and I'd love to see Elite lean towards a more serious tone. To be a little bit different, perhaps. I'm not sure how to word it. There's a difference between stretching scientific reality and things being "gamey".

That so many people seem to be able to fit this potential new modification to a "standard" role ("Oh, I can be a healer now.") bothers me. It's not different. It's just like everything else.

I'm actually more worried about how things will go in years to come. I would love to land on planets with atmosphere, but fear one day finding random life forms on every single one - taking a bit away from the "lonely universe" vibe. I'm nervous about progression to FPS - I've seen bits of demos from other space sims. If I want to play CoD, I'll play CoD.

I feel this is even strange coming from me who is currently building features in my third party app to coordinate racing events. I think this will be a great tool for those interested in racing. However, I wouldn't really want to see features like that as a standard part of the game itself. It doesn't fit.

This particular feature isn't absolutely critical for me. But the thread was started to discuss that particular feature, so that is what's being discussed. It's not doom and gloom. Perhaps my hopes for the game don't really match FD's vision. I'm just a little bit concerned.

 

[TomP]

I just want an engineer who can take the silencer off my Cobra. Then I'll wait until the middle of the night and spend hours revving it up outside Jameson Memorial.

And I want a V12 engine in my Sidewinder.

And a leatherette interior for my Fer-de-Lance.

And red lasers. Because science.

 

[[VR] Deggial]

Clerics in space – can you help me getting this sorted?

I don’t get it!

And no, I don’t mean the hinted shield recharging laser. I mean player’s reactions and their referencing to fantasy games.

Let me try to get this straight:

1) There are existent, real world, physic-based effects.
Like the transmission of energy via some sort of energy ray (be it micro-wave or laser beams). Real physicists think about the possibility to transmit space-gathered solar energy to earth using this technology or the use of lasers to propel a small probe to 20% of the speed of light so it can reach Alpha Centauri in 20 years.
Obviously, there are batteries and capacitators, able to store energy in order to set it free when needed.

2) Then there are fantasy roleplaying games.
They take these technical concepts and try to apply them to a non-technological fantasy world and “humans” (more or less) instead of technical constructions. As living creatures simply don’t work in the same way as technological artifacts, some weird sort of “magic” is introduced: “Clerics” pray to their gods in order to “recharge” other player’s energy and life via godly rays. Fantastic “potions” are used instead of batteries in order to mimic the technological effect on living creatures.
Okay, so far, so good. There is nothing to say against a good fantasy setting! I like it, too.

3) But then, there is this technology based Sci-Fi game with spaceships. Its developers introduce (at least somehow) reasonable game mechanics that are (at least somehow) based on existing, real physics. As always, there is a certain stretch, as we still speak about a game and not real physics. But at least the fundamentals are reasonable.

And what is the first thing, people do? They complain that this space game uses “magic healing beams” and “magic shield potions”!
This is such a twisted argumentation! The fact that you are used to those magic fantasy games as they dominate the gaming market and you recognize some mechanics they use doesn’t mean they are originated in these genre!

“Magic” mimics technology, not vice versa! And now, please STOP this nonsensical comparisons!

 

[Insomnia]

<snip>... I'm just a little bit concerned.

I'm on the other side of the coin. I'm worried that ED is too serious for me and it'll end up being this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Euro_Truck_Simulator_2_driver_view_screenshot.jpg
And please, leave CoD alone. ED will NEVER EVER be CoD. Thankfully.
It will never be WoW either.

And now, please STOP this nonsensical comparisons!

This deserves so much rep.

 

[Sugarat]

("Oh, I can be a healer now.")

Of all the things said in this thread this is what bothers me most..

based on the (limited) information we currently have, the modification doesn't appear to create a new "role", but merely modifies an existing weapon to add the new functionality ..

the "healer" tag being added as a derogatory term to devalue the work done by FD is unfair imo..

 

[EUS]

New wing meta
1x scb/hull tank Cutter w/healing beams
2x tank Corvettes with huge beams/multicannons

 

[Khelder]

I'm on the other side of the coin. I'm worried that ED is too serious for me and it'll end up being this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Euro_Truck_Simulator_2_driver_view_screenshot.jpg
And please, leave CoD alone. ED will NEVER EVER be CoD. Thankfully.
It will never be WoW either.

That's fair enough. Different people will want different things. As for the comparisons...

The bits I saw of other space sims FPS shooter play, the first thing that came to my mind was CoD. It takes everything absolutely massive and bold and beautiful about the huge universe and takes it all back down to shooting at each other in corridors with automatic weapons. I can't really say what ED would be like because they haven't even taken first steps in that direction - that I'm aware of.

I did play a little bit of WoW - not a great deal. I remember an awful lot of "Go to this place and kill X of these things." Go to the place. Keep clicking until you've killed X things. Every now and then a Level 80 whatever would just come along and kill me because... LOLZ? I don't want to pick on ED in that way though, but I didn't bring WoW into it.