2.2's Instant Ship and Module Transport - Yay or Nay?

[lysan]

Over reacting much??

It's pretty obviously a barebones feature .. a new feature with space to expand. (( Not trivial to code either. What if you own 100 ships and recall them all, one after another while the others still are en route? Each ship transefer would each need it's own different timer, it's not trivial. ))

Really should be glad we have the option at all (because the current state of play is a pain) .. sure, put the case that there should be a delay (which I agree with) but, to assume the feature is designed to look like magic is just a bit unfair imo. It's just designed to work for now, right on?

There are so many ways this could be solved better and still keep the illusion, and not give any problems to FDEV regarding coding, I'm 100% sure there are many people here who could come up with great solutions.(there already are many)

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

Except that the transporting costs will be most probably higher than the profit from the whole trade. Price differences are not so big.

Money in Elite doesn't mean anything.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

It's not black and white.

It's a game, but FD wants to do a lot to make it alive. That's why they add all these PvE things this year. Sometimes they look for realistic/believable explanation about things (see SIN trader), but sometimes they weight pros and cos and go full 'game' direction.

Still, being bitter about it is a bit pointless. Provide feedback why you feel they should do otherwise - it's better than any rant.

The feedback is there and simple, not a lot to add at this point. And I'm not really ranting, just sayin the obvious that we shouldn't expect from a game anything other then gamey stuff.

 

[raymondo the great]

Confirmed: Upper limit on ship transfer cost, so you can transfer to Jaques.

Whats the upper limit? Did they say?

 

[GeneralIdea1964]

Hey, I just though of a good semi-exploit with insta transfer.
So If I have an assymetric profit trade run, T9, 5 jumps either way, only really profitable in one direction.

I will be able to cut the 5 jumps down to 1 jump for the non profitable leg of the run in an Asp, then just call up my t9 and take the 5 jumps back, with the big payout cargo. Than call up my Asp again.

It's exactly this kind of snide meta gaming where it will see the most use.

hadn't thought of that. would be quite handy. .... Wait NO .... I am all against instant transfer .... darn it!

 

[lysan]

I don't mind it is instant.

But I think leaving some limited time delay would allow FD to consider to make more detailed gameplay around it. It will be hard to take back 'instant' transfer later on (though it still would be possible).

They should follow their own first design, and we need to look no further than the DDF.

 

[Ian Skippy]

The feedback is there and simple, not a lot to add at this point. And I'm not really ranting, just sayin the obvious that we shouldn't expect from a game anything other then gamey stuff.

Yes, they added a feature you dont like. Now there is nothing to expect at all anymore, everything has been decided and the future is grim indeed. Good thing you're not ranting.

 

[PavelKCZ]

There are so many ways this could be solved better and still keep the illusion, and not give any problems to FDEV regarding coding, I'm 100% sure there are many people here who could come up with great solutions.(there already are many)

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



Money in Elite doesn't mean anything.

Well, if money in ED doesn't mean anything, than the whole process of trading via Cutter/Asp shuffling is useless.

P.S. Personally, I would not say that money in ED doesn't mean anything. At least for me

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Money in Elite doesn't mean anything.

Sure, that's why FD had to decrease fuel and repair costs last year </sarcasm>

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Yes, they added a feature you dont like. Now there is nothing to expect at all anymore, everything has been decided and the future is grim indeed. Good thing you're not ranting.

I'm really not ranting, promise! Not sure why everybody thinks I do, do have to be all positive and happy to not count as ranter? ^^

 

[stephen_usher]

I am talking of flying there manually. Raging against instant transfer but being cool with delayed transfer is silly: you just transfer them before you log off and next time you log in its their. It doesnt add any planning or gameplay, just a pointless timer and some extra load on the server.

Please don't think that I'm "raging", merely disappointed and have a preference against it.

There is a planning strategy involved, it makes the player think first whether they want to stick around in that system long enough.

 

[raymondo the great]

The feedback is there and simple, not a lot to add at this point. And I'm not really ranting, just sayin the obvious that we shouldn't expect from a game anything other then gamey stuff.

Gamey stuff that we don't have for "Realism" reasons

Artificial Gravity generators
Instant jumping to destination station from star
Instant jumping of me from sol to Sothis even though an NCP will soon be able to do this
No AutoPilot
No Autolanding on planets (ie all the way from space)

Many more things

Braben spent an hour talking about how realism and having the game underpinned by science was sooooo important to him on Friday.

Then yesterday the devs announced magic transport!

The two don't sit well together!

It's fine to have "gamey" instant transport... but only with all the other gamey things we've already been refused for "realism" reasons!

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

They should follow their own first design, and we need to look no further than the DDF.

DDF is a wishlist, and "pie in the sky" design. Real life is much, much different. They have said that since beginning.

 

[Privata]

One of my issues is , sometimes (and I love FD) is they feel anti gameplay.

They dont want to do module storage because of it being an exploit. however keeping wares and waiting for a good price is not an exploit its realistic economical gameplay.
Ship transfer is okay , but making it instant or cheat (like it should be very , very expensive)

I just hoped , back in 2014 that it would be a very deep game with many options , with risk and reward.

My bottom line is : I am going to try and stay clear of this debate for a while (try , being a key word) and wait for beta and try it out and give my final opinion then.
I hope FD make it fair and not an exploit that skips ship meta

 

[lysan]

The feedback is there and simple, not a lot to add at this point. And I'm not really ranting, just sayin the obvious that we shouldn't expect from a game anything other then gamey stuff.

Tell that to DCS, Arma, Prepar3D, FSX and others!

 

[Ian Skippy]

I'm really not ranting, promise! Not sure why everybody thinks I do, do have to be all positive and happy to not count as ranter? ^^

No, but its a bit more believable when you tone the gloom&doom down a bit. You may really dislike this feature, and consider it breaking immersion or whatever, but there is really no reason to go overboard with the whole "from now on everything will be gamey and MMO etc". It doesnt really add to the feedback either. If we want to influence the devs, we just need to say:

1) What we like about the current idea
2) What we dont like
3) What we suggest instead
4) What the advantages of 'our' ideas are
5) What the disadvantages are (and they are there, so we need to be honest!)
6) Argue why the advantages of our ideas outweigh the disadvantages, while taking into account the different kind of players FD has to cater to.

A blanket "from now on everything will be dumb" isnt helping anything.

 

[Parmo]

They don't need to do a survey. They can see by the numbers they monitor in the background whether people like something or not. When it goes live, if the majority of people are using insta-transfer then it was a success for them. If not, they may change it. We forget that they know how many people are playing their game. They know how many hours a day, how often and what the majority of people are doing and they are moving the goal posts in their game to suite what the numbers point to. The purists may not agree with it and I myself often criticize their road map, but I can't argue with the fact that they know what their customers are doing and not doing. DB gave quite a speech about community driven activities. They want more of this. If people aren't taking part or are avoiding it, they will move the goal posts to try and get people to take part in that activity. One thing we never know but they do, is how many people own the game and how many are playing the game. They know how well the Horizons expansion has done or not done. People refer to ED as a niche game. I don't believe they want it to be a niche game. They want sales, and without sales then development will slow down and we may already be seeing this with the delays that are happening. It could be due to changes in direction that are having to be made to try and increase sales and interest in the game. Just a thought.

I really dis-like RNG in the Engineers but I'm going to have to use as I wish to ensure that I do not fall behind in the arms race. Instant transfer of ships will be used by some players for similar reasoning: because they think other players will use it to advantage.
You are making assumptions on many things including any interpretation of numbers collected.
And how do you know that FD 'know'? They might have the information, big data?, but that does not mean they process it. No one knows what data FD can collect or does collect from player activity and use and how FD uses this data. It could even be ignored.
Using surveys, direct to each player can ascertain the preferences, the likes and dis-likes, the reasoning for these things and it may be less complex to collect, to process and to analyse than looking at the data that may be collected from a PC / Mac / Xbox. Plus the major fact that YOU know that FD are interested in YOUR opinion as YOU got an email from them.
Of course FD want sales but they also want to keep their existing customers, customers that feel that they have a long term attachment to ED and keep on buying stuff from the FD's Store too and expansions.
It's a tough call.
Just many thoughts.

 

[Privata]

Ofcourse, what would be the point of having transfer cost exceed total ship value? You will be able to buy ships at Jacques anyway!

But thats would be great gameplay , do you transfer your good old ship? or go the cheaper route?

It feels that making everything easy , less brainy and just allaround easy is the goal now.

I remeber braben talking about how wonderfull parking your ships at different parts of the galaxy was and how that in itself was a minigame of sorts...

Its FDs game , they do what they want but this seems nothing like the game I backed.

 

[cluelessforumuser65578]

Hey, I just though of a good semi-exploit with insta transfer.
So If I have an assymetric profit trade run, T9, 5 jumps either way, only really profitable in one direction.

I will be able to cut the 5 jumps down to 1 jump for the non profitable leg of the run in an Asp, then just call up my t9 and take the 5 jumps back, with the big payout cargo. Than call up my Asp again.

It's exactly this kind of snide meta gaming where it will see the most use.

24 hour cool down on its use, sorted.

 

[Lobstris]

Ha, every time the same silly thing. "You're using arguments, so you must be white0knight/fanboi/secretly payed by FD". Your reasoning is just deeply inconsistent: You cant claim ship transfer cant be balanced by credits "because people have tens of billions so it doesnt matter" and at the same time make a deal out of a possible price difference between buying new and transporting it. I'm not even saying I like the idea of instant transport myself, but I'd like to see proper arguments and logic being used when discussing things, espescially when we dont know the details yet.

1) What is the gameplay value of having your ships move there when you sleep/work/whatever? What is the practical difference to you if someone at jaqcues has instant or delayed transfer?
2) At what pricepoint do you consider it to be balanced?

But I guess blind rage is the only acceptable viewpoint here...

Who's raging? I was pointing out your consistency in defending decision on these forums borders on trolling sometimes, but hey! There's a range of people out there, so if someone's going to do it it may as well be you.

There has been an awful lot of articulate suggestions throughout the thread, and people arguing both pro and con. For consistency: I oppose ship transfer. period. However I recognise that Frontier are going ahead with it, and the reason for doing it is to allow casual players more freedom, to lower the bar for entry to do activities. OK fine. That can be balanced with credits, both you and I discussed that issue yesterday earlier in the thread IIRC. It doesn't mean that I like the situation at all, but I can accept that, having announced it, they aren't going to go back on it. Probably.

The gameplay value of 'having your ships move there when you sleep/work/whatever' (for long range travel primarily - shorter transfers would ideally be much quicker) is that is satisfies, at least partially, both the calls for access to ships, and the appeal to 'realism'. *Edit* Or not 'realism' but at least maintaining the fiction that your ship is being transferred by another agency.

The 'pricepoint I consider valid'? Well. That's what beta testing is for isn't it? At the moment, and assuming an upper cap, that is far too low for my liking. As is making it low enough that someone can teleport a ship 22,000lys, when the fiction of the game limits ships to 100 or so.

 

[mossfoot]

No, but its a bit more believable when you tone the gloom&doom down a bit. You may really dislike this feature, and consider it breaking immersion or whatever, but there is really no reason to go overboard with the whole "from now on everything will be gamey and MMO etc". It doesnt really add to the feedback either. If we want to influence the devs, we just need to say:

1) What we like about the current idea
2) What we dont like
3) What we suggest instead
4) What the advantages of 'our' ideas are
5) What the disadvantages are (and they are there, so we need to be honest!)
6) Argue why the advantages of our ideas outweigh the disadvantages, while taking into account the different kind of players FD has to cater to.

A blanket "from now on everything will be dumb" isnt helping anything.

QFT. +1

sandro weighed the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that instant was best, we need to show we've done the same if we're going to convince him otherwise.