No. If you're going to add a delay, just don't bother adding the feature at all, it's pointless
Yes for sure.
The 'bonus' for me in ship transfers is not so much wanting a ship at my location instantly, it's having a ship I need there (or anywhere for that matter) together with the ship I'm currently in without me messing about all night parking ships, buying taxi's, and flying low jump range ships across the galaxy to find that my valuable time for the night has been lost.
What ship transfers give you is the ability to carry on playing the game and doing enjoyable stuff while someone else couriers your other ship to somewhere that you will need it soon. This can take as long as me flying it for all I care it just means that I don't have to do the logistics of moving it personally and arranging taxi ships. Taking time to transfer the ships would be better in IMO as then it can't be used as a fast travel mechanic to abuse and still allows 'real' none magical gameplay.
Another thought is, to move out to say Jaques new bubble. I can now fly out there and order my other ships to be delivered there also to start my new life. That is impossible currently and with no shipyard at Jaques to buy new ones to replace the ones left behind.
No. If you're going to add a delay, just don't bother adding the feature at all, it's pointless
Yes, transfer should have a delay, or at the very least, a meaningful cooldown. How the devs could not see the consequences of an unrestricted instant travel option in a space sim is quit disheartening to put it mildly.
That clearly is not true,
Current Situation :- you have to fly form where you are get your ship and fly to where you want to be.
Ship Transfer /w delay - you order the ship it arrives where you want it - 50% time saving (providing it was a long delay, many would be happy with slightly shorter).
Ship tranfer with a delay is still a QOL improvement on what we currently have, no ship transfer. as I said in the mega thread, if Frontier had announced it with a delay, most of you would have been happy with that. Sadly, after the stream many of you have heard the word 'instant' and can't see past it. I am really struggling to remember all the threads and posts with 'must have instant ship transfer' requests before the stream, so why exactly is it a must have now? Also, again repeated by many in the mega thread, if you CHOOSe to sit there doing nothing waiting for your ship to arrive, (if there was a delay), that is all on you, you are in a ship you can use, you could buy a 'make-do' ship for a different role, anything you like, if you would choose to sit twiddling your thumbs, waiting, more fool you.
Delay please.
If my ship is ten jumps away. Let it take ten jumps to arrive. (Saving me ten jumps to go and get it)
This feels good and correct...no magic...no struggling to justify incomprehensible science...
Flimley.
if you CHOOSe to sit there doing nothing waiting for your ship to arrive, (if there was a delay), that is all on you, you are in a ship you can use, you could buy a 'make-do' ship for a different role, anything you like, if you would choose to sit twiddling your thumbs, waiting, more fool you.
Yes, we should definitely introduce new features and immediately hamstring them so they can't live up to their full potential. If you'd like to read up to one of my last posts in this very thread, you'll find some real in-game examples of why having it be instantaneous is all that really makes sense except in other edge cases.
-
Either way it will be an improvement over no ship transfers...just a sadder, less useful improvement if we have to arbitrarily wait to have the ship.
But as Morghan pointed out the whole transfer delay is nothing more than a roleplaying solution anyway. My ship won't actually be travelling, it won't appear in any mode, on anyone's scanner, ever. You won't be sitting there and watch it dock and drop into a hangar. It will just disappear from one station and appear at the other, the transfer is all in your head. For some reason it requiring a delay to show up at the other end makes that all better? I'm not buying it. As far as flying 55Ly anacondas to move FdLs, adding a delay will not change that, you'll just force a bunch of players to sit there and wait. The delay is nothing more than a chastisement.
They will eventually concede that the 55LY Anaconda meta will make all jump ranges irrelevant, and they will likely make all jump ranges the same via some new tech advancement lore.
That's not true if you take Exploration into account, jump range are then still relevant.
Would people enjoy the game more? Is that the consequence? Heaven forbid!
There is a need for this poll here on the forums as well since there is not a clear distinction of community preference made in other polls elsewhere, i.e., the mega thread. (I've read most of it most of the way through, but it's an uphill battle trying to keep up. My goodness we're a passionate bunch!)
It is clear that most of the community seems to prefer some form of ship transfer or are indifferent about it, so that is not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss that, please use the thread linked to above.
So, simple and direct... Which would you prefer? (Again, if you'd prefer some other solution or don't want ship transfers at all, please use the mega thread to voice your opinions and concerns.)
Thanks!
The consequences I'm referring to have nothing to do with realism, it is a matter of balance, as it was explained a thousand times in the threadnaught. You didn't, as far as I know, provide a way to prevent the fact that haulers / asps / condas will become the virtual carriers for specialized ships, making the range of the ships a useless feature and introducing an unseen imbalance in the game.
A simple cooldown would solve this problem, and yet you refuse it : why ? Can you explain what scenario need multiple instant transfers in a game session, when this feature is supposedly introduced to help casual players who play maybe 3 hours a week ?
In fact, a cooldown wouldn't change anything for casual players (still instant delivery) but would prevent exploits.
I know you, you're not an exploiter so, really, I don't understand why you can't even discuss this option ?