The Galaxy - Is its size now considered to be a barrier to gameplay by the Developers?

[Deadspin]

So you actually think that encouraging players to suicide their way back from a CG is a good design decision for the game and something that FDev want to encourage?

You don't have to look far to refute that statement. If Player A has hundreds of millions of credits they can easily buy an A-combat ship of their choice. That's probably quite handy for dominating a player who's still trying to make money to upgrade their ship.

News Flash, They already do the suicide trick. Ship transfers wont impact it. That is one of the most popular combat runs in Horizons is just based around suiciding in a sidewinder with dummy fire missile runs against ground stations.

You are also assuming that new players to the game will somehow know all the tips, tricks, and knowledge of how and why to play this game. You are also assuming that every person out there is dishonest and only looking for ways to game the system. You are also assuming that everyone who plays this game only plays it for the in game currency.

Zambrick did a pretty darn good job of refuting your refuting but I'll add that we have these little buttons for things called "Solo" and "Private Group" that pretty much negate any aggressive action by another player. There's been quite an argument about their continued existence since the game became playable. So no, having a fat wallet to support a fat combat ship still doesn't give you power over other players, not by a longshot.

I would have thought that the intention behind the feature did not include encouraging players not to play in Open.

You know as well as I do that nobody needs encouragement to avoid open. This forum is stocked full of people who avoid it and almost any other player interaction at all costs, lest it cost them their pretty ships. Just moving into a 20ly range of a CG turn-in hub is all the encouragement most people need to switch modes.

actually no, because the cargo is transferred in the first run (with the cargo ship).

Thank you, but you are now the fourth person to explain to me what was already explained by the person I questioned originally.

Again, I leave you with this fact: We don't know how it's going to work yet, just that Frontier is working on it. Can we stop with the assumptions?

 

[jprelph]

No, no. You can swap into any ship you have already spent the time and effort building. This may be the perfect ship for that mission, in which case, well done you for building it ahead of time with all that time/effort you spent. Just because you can move your ships around does NOT mean you don't have to work to get them in the first place.

How is that "No, no"? It does reduce the depth - without question, you're taking away an entire metric you need to balance against - FSD range. But it's not just that, because then you reduce mass and you reduce power usage. Suddenly it's easier to build a "perfect" FdL for combat with no compromises. Are you honestly arguing that being able to instantly have the perfect tool for every situation doesn't suddenly make the game less challenging?

Combat ships should not need to jump.

In which case you're denigrating the entire concept of multi-role ships - which again reduces the depth of the game.

 

[Zambrick]

Hi Michael,

This affect on PP doesn't require cargo to be transferred - if I'm hauling fort packages out from Rhea to Shenggan the ship only needs to carry cargo on the outward leg, so instead of Rhea > Shenggan > Rhea in my T9 it becomes:

• Rhea > Shenggan (T9, full of fort and drop that off)
• Transfer empty taxi-Asp from Rhea to Shenggan
• Fly back to Rhea in 1/3 of the time, with less risk
• Transfer my T9 (which is sat in Shenggan and empty) back to Rhea
• Repeat

Suddenly fort becomes ~30% faster with significantly less risk - and it also skews it to the established players for whom cost isn't an issue. New PP players are going to have less of a chance to affect the outcome of fort/prep etc. because the big spenders will be able to increase their speed by a significant amount by shuffling ships around in this way. CGs will be similarly affected - the big spenders (for whom any price isn't really an issue) can do something like the above.

Accept for the fact that you will be losing a large percentage of your money each time you have to buy and sell the asp. Also assuming that both locations sell Asps and the required mods to make those trips faster. You are describing a perfect scenario in an imperfect universe. At the same time you are just loosing money each time you transfer ships and the loss on re selling your ASP.

 

[nrage]

.... only if the player can actually be bothered / considers themselves as having a chance against / wants to reward the gankers with some slightly more challenging PvP....

Not all players want to get involved in PvP.

Sure, and as always E lets the player chose. My point was, the worst case scenario is that with the introduction of ship transfers nothing changes WRT PvP combat between traders & pirates/gankers/etc. But, with transfers there is at least a small chance of increased PvP (for those that want it).

 

[Dim Reaper]

News Flash, They already do the suicide trick. Ship transfers wont impact it. That is one of the most popular combat runs in Horizons is just based around suiciding in a sidewinder with dummy fire missile runs against ground stations.

Don't need the news flash, I realise this goes on. Ship transfers will impact on it because it will make this more widespread. As I said earlier: "So you actually think that encouraging players to suicide their way back from a CG is a good design decision for the game and something that FDev want to encourage?" Just because it happens now does not mean that we should add another game mechanism to make it more widespread.

You are also assuming that new players to the game will somehow know all the tips, tricks, and knowledge of how and why to play this game. You are also assuming that every person out there is dishonest and only looking for ways to game the system. You are also assuming that everyone who plays this game only plays it for the in game currency.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what I'm assuming. The majority of players don't look for ways to game the system, they just want to play the game. But there is always a minority who will try to game the system e.g. People taking slave transport missions at Robigo and then selling the slaves on the black market so they don't need to travel, people buying discounted parts from Founder's World and selling them for the discount difference, players firing missiles in a starport to activate another player's point defence and so on. We really don't need FDev to add another potentially exploitable system and then have to go back and change it later, taking time away from other features that could be coded instead.

 

[Winterwalker]

Oh man, now you've done it! I demand FD implement Lynx Bulk Carriers and LRCs ASAP!

I know, the lore says they can't jump far, but since we are messing around with lore anyway, just do it!

Concept Art .. for Lynx Bulk Carriers and LRCs (ED 2016)

Spoiler

OK OK I'm sorry ...

But it IS Friday, I dislike instant transfers (fairly intently) and I did try to choose a big one.
Data Traveller 32GB .. alternate memory sticks are also available.

 

[Javert]

MB already explained this. In Elite power is cheap and manufacturing things in bulk is cheaper than 3D printing. 3D printers are a general solution (they can print many things) but it's always cheaper (for bulk construction) to build a specific solution (up front cost) and then use it many times over (lower production costs per unit). This is why there are stations manufacturing things which need transporting, because those goods would undercut any supply of printed stuff, even if it was printed locally.

If you use this explanation, it follows that the ship summoning would have to be very expensive.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You know as well as I do that nobody needs encouragement to avoid open. This forum is stocked full of people who avoid it and almost any other player interaction at all costs, lest it cost them their pretty ships. Just moving into a 20ly range of a CG turn-in hub is all the encouragement most people need to switch modes.

Which probably has something to do with the forms of interaction on offer....

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Could even get Amazon to sponsor 34 century one-click next-second deliveries LOL!

Too slow. I want it now.

 

[Kerrash]

The only other option at this point would be to not include the feature until a viable alternative can be implemented (which will take time)
I don't have the empirical data to backup the point, but I would argue that more players would benefit than those who are 'upset' by the idea.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Sure, and as always E lets the player chose. My point was, the worst case scenario is that with the introduction of ship transfers nothing changes WRT PvP combat between traders & pirates/gankers/etc. But, with transfers there is at least a small chance of increased PvP (for those that want it).

I disagree, slightly - the worst case scenario with the introduction of ship transfers facilitates PvP while, due to the fact that cargo must be flown, it does nothing for trading (except maybe only requiring the trader to carry cargo on the more profitable leg of the circuit).

 

[Cosmo]

The only viable alternative at this point would be to not include the feature until a viable alternative can be implemented (which will take time)
I don't have the empirical data to backup the point, but I would argue that more players would benefit than those who are 'upset' by the idea.

THe viable alternative is simply implementing ship transfer, but NOT make it instant.

 

[jprelph]

Accept for the fact that you will be losing a large percentage of your money each time you have to buy and sell the asp. Also assuming that both locations sell Asps and the required mods to make those trips faster. You are describing a perfect scenario in an imperfect universe. At the same time you are just loosing money each time you transfer ships and the loss on re selling your ASP.

This isn't about buying and selling ships - this is about the instant ship transfers, so whether the shipyards at both locations sell Asps is irrelevant. Also, as has been mentioned, a lot of established players have several billion saved up so any cost for the ship transfers only penalises new/casual players who don't have that much.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

MB already explained this. In Elite power is cheap and manufacturing things in bulk is cheaper than 3D printing. 3D printers are a general solution (they can print many things) but it's always cheaper (for bulk construction) to build a specific solution (up front cost) and then use it many times over (lower production costs per unit). This is why there are stations manufacturing things which need transporting, because those goods would undercut any supply of printed stuff, even if it was printed locally.

Instant 3D printing needs to look an awful lot like this:

Energy to matter conversion in a cheap energy universe seems an awful lot cheaper than manufacturing and transport

 

[Robert Maynard]

The only other option at this point would be to not include the feature until a viable alternative can be implemented (which will take time)
I don't have the empirical data to backup the point, but I would argue that more players would benefit than those who are 'upset' by the idea.

I would agree - better to sit back and re-assess (and re-design if necessary) than plunge forward with the introduction of a feature which, once in place (i.e. instant transfer), will be near impossible to change.

 

[Dipso]

We really don't need FDev to add another potentially exploitable system and then have to go back and change it later, taking time away from other features that could be coded instead.

This.

 

[Julio Montega]

The only other option at this point would be to not include the feature until a viable alternative can be implemented (which will take time)
I don't have the empirical data to backup the point, but I would argue that more players would benefit than those who are 'upset' by the idea.

That will be the case, but you forget an argument to that.
If you change a mechanic, players have gotten used to,
in this case insta-port-a-shunz, you leave a sour taste in their mind.
As you did with those people wishing for a sensible implementation in the first place.

You actually just take the course of doubling the salt to mine,
if you pardon the metaphor.
Engineers is a prime example, as is powerplay.

 

[Cosmo]

Instant 3D printing needs to look an awful lot like this:

http://www.nakedauthors.com/uploaded_images/Coffee_replicates_then_mug-788830.jpg

Energy to matter conversion in a cheap energy universe seems an awful lot cheaper than manufacturing and transport

Newsflash, a standard transporter in Star Trek has a maximum range of 40,000 km.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

There's not a single Star Wars movie where ships can be teleported or 3D printed instantly. Do you know why? Because it doesn't exist in teh Star Wars universe. It's called consistency and keeping it believable.

And if there was an ED film, i'm sure they wouldn't show ships being teleported or 3D printed instantly. Nor would they in the books. I fail to see your point here.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

MB already explained this. In Elite power is cheap and manufacturing things in bulk is cheaper than 3D printing. 3D printers are a general solution (they can print many things) but it's always cheaper (for bulk construction) to build a specific solution (up front cost) and then use it many times over (lower production costs per unit). This is why there are stations manufacturing things which need transporting, because those goods would undercut any supply of printed stuff, even if it was printed locally.

On the other hand, if I insta-Summons my golden Anaconda the Low Gravitas Warning Signal to where I am, it's no longer my original ship, it's some 3D-printed clone of it and there goes any attachment I had to it (which would be even more if we had ship naming implemented).

Mr Brookes - please kill the 3D-printed clone idea. Kill it with fire before it lays eggs!