I don't get your point. Michael said it's a low priority feature:
I am merely pointing out that a lot of players seem to care enough about it, so FD may want to reassess it's priority.
The Galaxy - Is its size now considered to be a barrier to gameplay by the Developers?
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
I don't get your point. Michael said it's a low priority feature:
I am merely pointing out that a lot of players seem to care enough about it, so FD may want to reassess it's priority.
I would argue that SCBs added depth. but I never used one outside of CQC
Well, for that reason I make a conscious choice which ship to fly, and the Python is my most often flown ship; I could afford an A-grade Anaconda, but I don't, I take the Python for the flexibility to use outposts and accept that it is weaker, hauls less cargo and jumps not nearly as far. That choice and its drawbacks get basically neutralized if ships can be transferred instantly anywhere with a shipyard and I would be technically better off just having both ships and switch instantly on a whim.
But alas, we are turning in circles, while FD stand firm on the matter. So to repeat: I implore you, Michael, keeper of the lore, to not include any official explanation, make the lore pretend ship transfer takes proper time and some hired pilot to perform it. Don't treat instant transfer as anything but a convenience game mechanic, just like instant repair and instant refuel.
Last edited:
LOL, at this rate of implementing (even good) ideas in a way, there will be no 3.0...
Last edited:
To explain the joke, it's a resistor in parallel with a short circuit which makes the resistance meaningless. Not an inductor coil. Otherwise that would imply that some of the resistance is imaginary, lol. Which is of course is the counter joke.
But FD said they had a working version with a delay and two options
Expensive and fast or cheap and slow.
Yet they go for the dumbed down GTA in space version
Instant repair IS an abomination.. I think it is one of the most features in the game at present. Along with INSTANT EXPERIMENTAL UPGRADES. Your straw man argument doesn't cut it, though because this is NOT the thread to discuss repair, nor for me to discuss RNgineers. Make your own thread.
Last edited:
I guess it all depends on what you think Elite: Dangerous is. It seems many here on the forums regard it as a sciency space-sim. Personally I think that's complete bullocks for a multitude of reasons. It's a spaceship game, and not a great game either, though they're trying to make it more enjoyable one step at a time. Instant ship management doesn't make sense in a sciency space-sim, but it makes tons of sense in a good spaceship game.
I have been a defender of ED from the start...
But magic ship transfer is just terrible and more steps in this direction could force me to leave.
And that makes me sad because ED is unique , even with all its flaws its amazing.
But ship transfer cuts so much from the game that I loved... the feeling of being able to be lost , needing to plan and think - gone.
Example : today I played and I was in my FDL far from home , its going to take a while before I get back (and that is not only gameplay but its a story !)
By having instant transfer we cut gameplay and player built narative options out of the game
Last edited:
Nanofiller, deployed by special automatic system.
Totally can buy that.
We are talking about distance here.
They are deliberately making us play it their way.
Like in I-War,
where they simply plugged the holes
with self-hardening resin?
Good times, but very gamey
to get the ship health back to full multiple times
over and over.
Seems to be a feature for E: D nowadays...
Last edited:
Me too. I'm with your majority then. I hope that this majority exerts an influence on FD.
that's maybe true for you, but some of us can see when they are in the minority (even if they think that their way is better)
there have been a lot of discussions around in which I've realized that a feature that I wanted was hated by most or that something that I hated was loved by most.
it's really easy to notice when you are in the minority or the majority when the difference is so obvious.
that doesn't means that you're "wrong" or "right", but damn, you must be blind to not see which side of the argument represent the majority of players here.
Last edited:
And instantly too!
Completely, 100% agree with you on the first part - it's a spaceship game.
However, good games are internally consistent ... ED is not consistent.
I noticed that a lot over the year.
They love to add amazing ideas and clever gameplay but with only ONE way of doing it.
Engineer good that serve no purpose other than crafting.
even if they could have added a way of selling them making brand new gameplay : salvage !
or ramming skimmers
It makes me wonder , when we get FPS will humans be imune to ships? because they dont want us to run them over?
Its a shame , there is a lot of mechanical handholding