Make them more dangerous and you KILL long time exploring PERIOD! Why you ask? Math ... if you have a percentage of deadly stars that hurt your hull more than it does now, even if it is a small percentage it will hit anyone who explores a couple of thousand stars. This is a simple math fact. This kind of stupid request only ever gets voiced by people who never flew out of the inhabited space.
Stars are no where near hot or dangerous enough.
- Thread starter GraXXoR
- Start date
That's the point here I think... sure you can hand wave it away and justify it but by doing so you're throwing away a chance to add more game conten to an area that's currently nothing but a minor convenience. Isn't more game exactly what we want?
For those stupid people who've not flown out of inhabited space, please enlighten us. Why are stars "out there" more dangerous than stars in the bubble?
Last edited:
Well, I have yet to find a close binary starsystem in the bubble. Think of how much fun it is to jump into a binary neutrostar system that are so close together that you drop out of Frameshift immediately and your heat going up immensly. Now put something into the mix that contains sometimes weeks of exploration data and you can imagine what the problem is. Every explorer had those close calls some of them even fatal but they are indeed very rare as you need to fly not only into a close binary system but also those stars have to be in a rare stand to each other.
But lets say you make stars more dangerous lets say 1 in 1000 jumps get a random desaster, it won't be much of a big deal for a bubble pilot but for an explorer scanning 10000s of systems this event will occur and all is lost. Who will explore when he knows that his data will be lost anyway?
But lets say you make stars more dangerous lets say 1 in 1000 jumps get a random desaster, it won't be much of a big deal for a bubble pilot but for an explorer scanning 10000s of systems this event will occur and all is lost. Who will explore when he knows that his data will be lost anyway?
Last edited:
They're not more dangerous -- there is very little danger exploring outside the bubble, but a few wrong moves can wipe out (literally) months of progress. This may have been why stars got nerfed originally. IMO the element of danger should have been kept but with some way of mitigating loss of exploration data in the event of death. Long distance trips at the moment are more about maintaining your concentration (& sanity) than any real danger*
So yeah, make stars more dangerous but add some way of mitigating loss for explorers.
*(all the hull/module damage I seem to take when out exploring is due to becoming distracted and not paying attention during jumps.)
![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
@ Andragon: But wouldn't be the solution here to prevent such random disasters by changing the game code accordingly? A danger that is purely random based (unlucky star constellation) would be replaced by a danger that can be overcome by skill (scooping). Sounds like a worthwhile and fun improvement to me.
I don't think you should imply that an interesting new game mechanic necessarily is implemented without changes in other aspects of the game.
I don't think you should imply that an interesting new game mechanic necessarily is implemented without changes in other aspects of the game.
Last edited:
That would be awesome. I'd keep passive scooping at a distance for those players who are risk-averse (especially explorers who have much to lose if they've been scanning for weeks or months) but limit it to a small fraction of the scoop's capacity. Have the scoop only reach its full rate if you're prepared to "fly the pipe, five by five" and dodge the prominences. It would make long-range smuggling missions more interesting too, if the odds of authority ships arriving were tied to the length of time you remain in a system. Do you hang around and slowly top up, risking interdiction? Or do you scoop-and-go, risking a fiery death?
Now I come to think of it, I don't remember ever scooping from anything in Frontier or FFE. Fuel was just so cheap, and available. I don't think I ever even fitted a scoop at all, because salvaging from destroyed enemies was a waste of time too. And exploration for the sake of it was pointless because the ship would start to break down after a year of game time without maintenance. Fuel was never the limiting factor.We kind of had this in a way with Elite 2 and scooping from Gas Giants. Many Panther Clippers imploded to their doom to bring us this information.
In classic Elite I had scoops for cargo retrieval, of course. But I rarely scooped fuel in that game either unless I accidentally shot the station before docking and became persona non grata. Scooping was the only way to get enough fuel to leave the system.
They're no more dangerous individually, but the potential losses from aggregated damage are greater for someone who's sitting on millions of potential credits in exploration data.
Source please? I'd like to see that myself.
I don't think many knew that you could actually go exploring in Elite 2, but you needed a fuel scoop to do so. The Python and Boa were both excellent exploration vessels, provided your drive didn't break down and you get stranded. For the bubble, military drives pretty made scooping not only uneccessary but impossible since you needed to buy radioactives from a star port.
I made the long trudge through deep space visiting all the interesting looking giant stars as well as Beta Lyrae. Fuel scooping was pretty much mandatory.
As explained earlier, the corona has a high temperature, but low energy density, and it's the energy that does the damage not the temperature. Explorers run a LOT of star systems in between station visits, if you make stars just 5% more dangerous then this rapidly makes it impossible for anyone to explore beyond a much shorter run without standing a statistical certainty of destruction - try multiplying 1 by itself repeatedly, then do the same for 1.05, and you'll see the difference.
Reflective armour would make more sense than shields as protection, it's the radiated star's energy that's heating you up, and reflecting it away from the ship reduces the amount being absorbed by it...shields quite clearly do not prevent light transmission, as you can see out of the cockpit.
Witchspace exit with zero throttle decelerates, it is not an instant stop. It does it very quickly.
I think like many other ideas on here, people with one agenda are ignoring the rest of the community - if you think through the consequences, upping the danger to any extent will probably severely impact on those who wish to explore, by making it rather more likely they'll get killed and also by greatly slowing down their refuelling - whilst playing a game mode that is already, I think many would agree, a bit like watching paint dry! I do not think the perceived improvement to immersion would compensate for the loss of, or at the least nerfing of, one of the main player roles in the game.
Just my 2c of course.
Dave
Reflective armour would make more sense than shields as protection, it's the radiated star's energy that's heating you up, and reflecting it away from the ship reduces the amount being absorbed by it...shields quite clearly do not prevent light transmission, as you can see out of the cockpit.
Witchspace exit with zero throttle decelerates, it is not an instant stop. It does it very quickly.
I think like many other ideas on here, people with one agenda are ignoring the rest of the community - if you think through the consequences, upping the danger to any extent will probably severely impact on those who wish to explore, by making it rather more likely they'll get killed and also by greatly slowing down their refuelling - whilst playing a game mode that is already, I think many would agree, a bit like watching paint dry! I do not think the perceived improvement to immersion would compensate for the loss of, or at the least nerfing of, one of the main player roles in the game.
Just my 2c of course.
Dave
Last edited:
I think you might be over exaggerating the extra danger. We all learnt how far away to scoop, we all learn to watch out for T-Tauris
Isn't it just like that? You apply a little more caution for a while nudging in to fuel scoop, it happens a little slower, you learn and carry on with life? There's no insta-death required.... it's not like you HAVE to get to under 1Km from a black hole. Heck you jump into neutrons at 0.22ls but can scan them from 5....
Isn't it just like that? You apply a little more caution for a while nudging in to fuel scoop, it happens a little slower, you learn and carry on with life? There's no insta-death required.... it's not like you HAVE to get to under 1Km from a black hole. Heck you jump into neutrons at 0.22ls but can scan them from 5....
Last edited:
Ummmm, wouldn't we get even more threads asking for a buff of jump range for combat ships if scooping fuel took even slightly longer than it does now.
You write: "whilst playing a game mode that is already, I think many would agree, a bit like watching paint dry"
Isn't this exactly, what the proposed idea tries to change? Bringing some excitement to exploring?
Is exploring really about surpassing as much distance as possible in as little time as possible? Isn't it more about the travel itself and the experiences you make during this travel (which are limited enough, currently)?
Believe me, I have done some exploring, left my tag on some systems. Not too many, I have to admit, as exploring in it's current implementation isn't really for me. (This might change with my soon to arrive VR headset, I guess, but this doesn't belong here...). I still traveled several tousands of light years - and my equipped AFMU never came to an use.
The point is: the game will change! Your statment might be true at the moment, but you seem to ignore the evolving character of the game. We won't be left alone with an increased possibility of damage, we will get the opportunity to counteract, as well: At some point in the future, we will be able to leave our chair, roam the ship and even exit it. One very likely activity will be repairing the ship, then.
But repairing from what? Battle dammage? This will be better/faster done at space ports.
No, repairing our ship will be an explorer's activity! Something terrible happend during your trip? Well, go gather some material and better bring those thrusters (or whatsoever) on-line again! (A mining laser might be a needed equipment in the future. I would love it!)
There is so much potential for adventure and storytelling!
But for this, we will need some actual danger! Like, for example, while fuel-scooping.
Last edited:
To be fair, a few thousand light years is not really enough to really see the balancing act here. I fully admit that even though I am currently 130,000 LY into a trip, my hull is still at 95% and my most damaged module is 98%. However, there would have been a lot more damage if I wasn't very careful and quite experienced. I don't land on planets over 2G and I know what I'm doing these days. I have had a crash out of SC once on this trip when screwing up a scoop but I received only 2% hull damage and no module damage which might indicate its all too easy. However, the first time this ever happened to me, on a previous trip, I lost my ship because I hadn't learnt how to deal with it.
it's very similar to how NPC's are easy cannon fodder but they aren't when you start out. You have to learn your trade.
Also, remember another thing, nobody in this game takes the risks that explorers do. Out in the black, every percentage loss to your hull is a bigger and scarier step towards you losing your last three or four months game progress.
Last edited:
100% Agreed!
In the future there is no RADIATION danger, but there is heat danger! ))
By the way... Mirrored Surface Composite should give additional protection against star heat!
Have you tried flying at several times the speed of light in the dark?!If you're worried about the heat of the suns why not just go at night time?
I think there's a certain irony in arguing about realism in a game where every trip exceeds lightspeed. If we've invented a means to warp space and thus confound Einstein, then I really don't see why we wouldn't also have relatively safe star scooping.
Whilst the idea that this makes exploring more interesting does hold a charm of its own, that really only works if your other ideas are put in place at the same time - there's nothing charming about increasing the risk to the point that nobody gets very far. In my view a large part of the exploring idea is that you are going out to explore the further reaches, looking for sights nobody else has ever seen...not going to happen though if the ships get too battered too quickly.
If we're going to play at being realistic (by which we mean 'what seems to make sense, based on current understanding') then IF you make stars more dangerous, then let's come out of witchspace running a safe distance orbit of the target, rather than pointing straight at it, then at least if you decide to scoop and screw up it was a deliberate decision to head into the outer layers. I would also expect to have some sort of 'distance to core' gauge to refer to, with markers to show safe/danger distances, as it's the work of moments (or darn well ought to be) to classify a star type and call relevant parameters up from the computer.
Dave
Whilst the idea that this makes exploring more interesting does hold a charm of its own, that really only works if your other ideas are put in place at the same time - there's nothing charming about increasing the risk to the point that nobody gets very far. In my view a large part of the exploring idea is that you are going out to explore the further reaches, looking for sights nobody else has ever seen...not going to happen though if the ships get too battered too quickly.
If we're going to play at being realistic (by which we mean 'what seems to make sense, based on current understanding') then IF you make stars more dangerous, then let's come out of witchspace running a safe distance orbit of the target, rather than pointing straight at it, then at least if you decide to scoop and screw up it was a deliberate decision to head into the outer layers. I would also expect to have some sort of 'distance to core' gauge to refer to, with markers to show safe/danger distances, as it's the work of moments (or darn well ought to be) to classify a star type and call relevant parameters up from the computer.
Dave
Last edited: