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

[Mohrgan]

I know you're desperate to make out that instant ship transfers have no effect other than on RP and immersion - but they do. Please stop dismissing the legitimate complaints about instant transfers as though it's only an RP issue and doesn't affect game mechanics or how other people play the game (because for the competitive aspects it does).

For me, that's just how I see it. I find the claims of disastrous effects to game play wholly dismiss-able. I will retain the right to see things as I do. I welcome you to do the same. Why should I be desperate? The gods are on my side in this. Your side has to convince them to change their plans.

As to the competitive aspects you mention, balance is assured as every Commander has equal access to the feature. No one can find an advantage simply because the game shifts a bit. Equal access assures fairness, and balance.

 

[Julio Montega]

I am currently going at 598C, towards a distant (200K LS away) star in a system that I am mapping. I know what you mean. Despite the DDF being smug about getting supercruise rather than mini jumps to PoIs into the game, FD did not get the balance right really.

Yea, I was over Supercruise pretty quickly. Still remains one of my lowest rated elements of the game. Some people LOVE it though, good on them I suppose.

I enjoy a good supercruise transit...as long as it doesn't last more than like 5 minutes at a time

The only SC travel that was a bit too long was the run to Hutton. But then that gave me time to get get to the galley and ship's laundry!

If you touch SC speeds remember that you touch interdictions
and player to player interaction aswell.

 

[jprelph]

For me, that's just how I see it. I find the claims of disastrous effects to game play wholly dismiss-able. I will retain the right to see things as I do. I welcome you to do the same. Why should I be desperate? The gods are on my side in this. Your side has to convince them to change their plans.

As to the competitive aspects you mention, balance is assured as every Commander has equal access to the feature. No one can find an advantage simply because the game shifts a bit. Equal access assures fairness, and balance.

It would be significantly more respectful in a discussion forum if you explained why you didn't agree with claims that it would affect gameplay rather than to just instantly dismiss them - to do so is highly arrogant. i didn't say it would "disastrously" affect gameplay either - just that it will affect gameplay and that's the point.

The reason I mentioned competitive aspects is that you and others have taken the position that "if you don't like it, don't use it" - but that doesn't work if you're competing in something like PowerPlay where by not using the feature you would be at a significant disadvantage. You can't say use of the feature is up to each individual commander and at the same time say that it's access ensures fairness because the point is that the RP'ing commander no longer has a choice if they want to compete on a level playing field.

In the end though I don't know why you're on a discussion forum if you're not going to discuss but simply post why other people's opinions aren't even worthy to deign a response from one so learned and wise.

 

[Mohrgan]

It would be significantly more respectful in a discussion forum if you explained why you didn't agree with claims that it would affect gameplay rather than to just instantly dismiss them - to do so is highly arrogant. i didn't say it would "disastrously" affect gameplay either - just that it will affect gameplay and that's the point.

The reason I mentioned competitive aspects is that you and others have taken the position that "if you don't like it, don't use it" - but that doesn't work if you're competing in something like PowerPlay where by not using the feature you would be at a significant disadvantage. You can't say use of the feature is up to each individual commander and at the same time say that it's access ensures fairness because the point is that the RP'ing commander no longer has a choice if they want to compete on a level playing field.

In the end though I don't know why you're on a discussion forum if you're not going to discuss but simply post why other people's opinions aren't even worthy to deign a response from one so learned and wise.

I have posted extensively on all the matters you mention. I can see no reason to repeat my self. You offered no 'effects to game play' in your most recent response, and no one called you rude. I knew what you meant.

I have not taken the position that 'if you don;t like it, don;t use it'. I've never typed that once. What I have said was; that any deviation from having transfers in the hands of the Commanders, would put that mechanic behind the scenes. And, that anything taking place behind the scenes should bow to convenience, yes convenience. Just as the re-spawn and Hyper Jump mechanics do.

There is no reason for all players in a game to carry the burden of other's RP. That is a matter for the individual Commander to sort out. If my RP has issues with the silly names given to the NPC's, should I be able to demand they be removed? No, I think not.

When you discuss, you're not expected to remind the audience of all the other arguments being made in the debate. You make your point, and let others do the same. That is my advice to you. You'll note, that the very first words I wrote in post # 1720, my most recent return to this thread, were "The way I see it". That should more than suffice to indicate that I was expressing my opinion. I'm not the one trying vainly to exclude another's opinion in this discussion.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

The way I see it, what counts is the travel of the Commander. Not the ships. Unless there are going to be Commanders delivering ships, protecting them, and/or having a reason to attack them, it's non-gaming. It's behind the scenes, and we shouldn't be burdened with cosmetic delays created for 'immersion' or 'RP'. Leave those issues where they belong; in the hands of each individual Commander.

I think many of us would like to see "Commanders delivering ships, protecting them, and/or having a reason to attack them" but see instant ship transfer as a dead end which could mean those gaming aspects could never be added.

And please, don't be so dismissive about immersion and RP, to some (many/most?) players it's a very important part of playing and a fully valid play style. At some point, as immersion is slowly destroyed, it gets harder to justify playing that style.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

If you touch SC speeds remember that you touch interdictions
and player to player interaction aswell.

It is almost the other way around. We have the supercruise speeds because FD wanted to provide a mechanism (interdictions) to enable interaction. The problems as I see it, are more at the long distance end of the spectrum, though explorers would love it if acceleration and deceleration were quicker, scanning was a little faster and started a little further away from the body, all of which would decrease the time to scan a system, whilst maintaining the same process.

 

[Mohrgan]

I think many of us would like to see "Commanders delivering ships, protecting them, and/or having a reason to attack them" but see instant ship transfer as a dead end which could mean those gaming aspects could never be added.

And please, don't be so dismissive about immersion and RP, to some (many/most?) players it's a very important part of playing and a fully valid play style. At some point, as immersion is slowly destroyed, it gets harder to justify playing that style.

I would welcome those aspects of game play, and fully expected them. But, if the activity is going to be out of the Commanders hands, let it serve it's intended purpose fully. I don;t see including the instant transfer now, will forever exclude that type of content. Maybe the call here should be to bring that into the game, rather than deny the current idea.

I don;t dismiss RP, I have my very own that is built upon as I play. I need the 'Backstory' narrative I create to bring meaning, and make choices in the game. What I don;t do is burden others with my personal preferences. I take it upon myself to equalize the reality of the game, to my vision of the game. And, I pretty much expect others to do the same.

 

[jprelph]

I have posted extensively on all the matters you mention. I can see no reason to repeat my self. You offered no 'effects to game play' in your most recent response, and no one called you rude. I knew what you meant.

I have not taken the position that 'if you don;t like it, don;t use it'. I've never typed that once. What I have said was; that any deviation from having transfers in the hands of the Commanders, would put that mechanic behind the scenes. And, that anything taking place behind the scenes should bow to convenience, yes convenience. Just as the re-spawn and Hyper Jump mechanics do.

There is no reason for all players in a game to carry the burden of other's RP. That is a matter for the individual Commander to sort out. If my RP has issues with the silly names given to the NPC's, should I be able to demand they be removed? No, I think not.

When you discuss, you're not expected to remind the audience of all the other arguments being made in the debate. You make your point, and let others do the same. That is my advice to you. You'll note, that the very first words I wrote in post # 1720, my most recent return to this thread, were "The way I see it". That should more than suffice to indicate that I was expressing my opinion. I'm not the one trying vainly to exclude another's opinion in this discussion.

You say you are no reason in repeating yourself yet you have chosen to repeatedly dismiss arguments that there are gameplay issues and to further belittle any RP or immersion arguments. It's interesting that on those issues you do see value in repeating yourself, almost verbatim.

I'll leave you to your self evident superiority.

 

[Julio Montega]

It is almost the other way around. We have the supercruise speeds because FD wanted to provide a mechanism (interdictions) to enable interaction. The problems as I see it, are more at the long distance end of the spectrum, though explorers would love it if acceleration and deceleration were quicker, scanning was a little faster and started a little further away from the body, all of which would decrease the time to scan a system, whilst maintaining the same process.

Upping the scanning range of bodies based on the type of
scanner you have (standard discovery/advanced etc.)
and being tied to the basic sensors of the ship (rating e to a)
would allow for sensors to have a use at all and i would support that.

You could also argue for engineer modding disco-scanners,
by adding research we got from the UAs and UPs and
that again would be totally o.k. for me

Afaik interdiction range is based upon a multiple factor of the
interdicting ship's speed. If you up the SC speed acceleration and top speed,
be it within the mass-shadow of a body or outside it, that would lead
to some weird long range interdictions.

 

[Godsailsaqueen]

Yea, I was over Supercruise pretty quickly. Still remains one of my lowest rated elements of the game. Some people LOVE it though, good on them I suppose.

I enjoy a good supercruise transit...as long as it doesn't last more than like 5 minutes at a time

It's also one part of the game which I dislike the most, and yet I would be mad if they removed it, I don't know how they could do without and I don't want to be insta-warping into every POI either, cuts all "spacey" feeling.
My initial problem with SC is that you don't get this feeling of travelling. Some do, and I find ObsidianAnt's attitude really refreshing, he genuinely likes to move around and "explore". I would love to, and I would prefer them to go in this direction, making it feel more compelling - part of why I don't like the instant transfer which is, I think, a slight cut to the need of travelling with your ship in the first place and a sign of them giving up a bit on the journey side of things.
Actually they've proven me wrong a bit, the neutron star change would be the kind of thing I want, applied to far more gimmicks, places and elements - give the word "navigation" its true significance. Space hazards!

But I can understand that the whole jumping and supercruising is not appealing and some want to skip it as much as they can. It does not convey a sense of distance, unless you're jumping to the other side of the galaxy where pretty much nothing happened until... maybe now ; 90% of the missions you take are literally at 1.30 minute from your position (which makes the passenger liner thingy seem a bit out of place for short destinations).
You don't live a space adventure when you're jumping around, except for rare precious moments. Interditictions are all that happen, and they're so predictable. Nothing really compelling happens, and if you can't stand how supercruise handles you likely won't ever visit a USS.

You're just going in a straight line... Waiting for it to pass... sitting in your cockpit, just too short a journey for you to plan other things or read galnet, just too long for you to not get bored, too "jumpy" to have a consistent rhythm and feeling you're actually travelling through an open, consistent universe, but just tiny parcels of it. It's the realm of necessary evil supercruise and technical limitations : these moments make the game more shallow to me than it really is. In fact I think it's not shallow at all but eh... too long a post already.

 

[Mohrgan]

You say you are no reason in repeating yourself yet you have chosen to repeatedly dismiss arguments that there are gameplay issues and to further belittle any RP or immersion arguments. It's interesting that on those issues you do see value in repeating yourself, almost verbatim.

I'll leave you to your self evident superiority.

My opinion is; that there will be no advantage to any group of players, or individual player, because of universal access. A feature like the one intended is self balancing. That is my opinion. I don;t have to accept, nor repeat the other arguments. That's up to those that hold that opinion to do. I don;t see you embracing my opinion. Why should I reward yours?

You are not even arguing against my points, you are just mad that I make them. I'll be happy to not be asked to justify my opinion to you anymore. Fly safe Commander. o7

 

[ChaosCloud]

The way I see it, what counts is the travel of the Commander. Not the ships. Unless there are going to be Commanders delivering ships, protecting them, and/or having a reason to attack them, it's non-gaming. It's behind the scenes, and we shouldn't be burdened with cosmetic delays created for 'immersion' or 'RP'. Leave those issues where they belong; in the hands of each individual Commander.

How about a compromise with this in mind then?
I for example would for once prefer the immersion over the "GIV NAO" aspect, mainly because I rarely relocate ships and am therefore not in a hurry to get them to me, so I'd take them being flown over by an npc at like 10ly / minute (or less for all I care).
Now let's call that the "budget option".

Then we have the "teleportation option" (however they flavortext it ingame, even 3d printing ain't THAT fast) which would cost you for example atleast a rebuy or more.

With this both sides would be happy, the immersion crowd can get a cheap courier service and the givnao crowd can whine on the forums that they can't afford teleporting their fleet all across the everythings 10x a day :3

If you touch SC speeds remember that you touch interdictions
and player to player interaction aswell.

As if interdictions can become any worse.
Most of the time am I losing against ship's which should perform worse in SC than mine, either being less agile than me or simply way too small, like a fricking sidey or eagle vs ASPX / Python, or if I am for once about to win, they just do the 180 glitch and make me insta-lose because the vector flips.
Or they just teleport across half the system when I drop early with them far away. Fun times.

Though I guess it's kinda balanced when it's player vs player interdiction, dunno. Regarding npcs though, pfff.

 

[Julio Montega]

My opinion is; that there will be no advantage to any group of players, or individual player, because of universal access. A feature like the one intended is self balancing. That is my opinion. I don;t have to accept, nor repeat the other arguments. That's up to those that hold that opinion to do. I don;t see you embracing my opinion. Why should I reward yours?

You are not even arguing against my points, you are just mad that I make them. I'll be happy to not be asked to justify my opinion to you anymore. Fly safe Commander. o7

If you put in a feature that affects all and everyone,
by being there, by the ability to be used in certain ways,
that implies that there is an optimal use.

How can a feature be self balancing if the community is based on people
of different walks of life and takes on the game and not pre-programmed robots
that think in one-way directions?

E.g. if there is a feature included it has an effect on the competitive aspects of the game,
be it PvP or CMDRs competing being in the top 5% of a cg.
They then will be forced to adapt to an optimal use,
or simply have worse chances attaining the desired top 5%.

As if interdictions can become any worse.
Most of the time am I losing against ship's which should perform worse in SC than mine, either being less agile than me or simply way too small, like a fricking sidey or eagle vs ASPX / Python, or if I am for once about to win, they just do the 180 glitch and make me insta-lose because the vector flips.
Or they just teleport across half the system when I drop early with them far away. Fun times.

Though I guess it's kinda balanced when it's player vs player interdiction, dunno. Regarding npcs though, pfff.

As i see it nowhere is taken into consideration what way the victim in interdictions
is flying. The interdiction vector is stale and pre-designed not dynamic allowing evasive maneuvers,
unless there are the mentioned instancing lags.

 

[Godsailsaqueen]

How about a compromise with this in mind then?
I for example would for once prefer the immersion over the "GIV NAO" aspect, mainly because I rarely relocate ships and am therefore not in a hurry to get them to me, so I'd take them being flown over by an npc at like 10ly / minute (or less for all I care).
Now let's call that the "budget option".

Then we have the "teleportation option" (however they flavortext it ingame, even 3d printing ain't THAT fast) which would cost you for example atleast a rebuy or more.

With this both sides would be happy, the immersion crowd can get a cheap courier service and the givnao crowd can whine on the forums that they can't afford teleporting their fleet all across the everythings 10x a day :3

I would like having this choice between 2 options, time consuming or credit consuming. That would be grand. Nice idea IMO

 

[Ironwolf]

I think "lowering the barriers to gameplay" is about promoting social gameplay.
They want this game to be entertaining.

Everyone has their own idea about fun.

 

[jprelph]

My opinion is; that there will be no advantage to any group of players, or individual player, because of universal access. A feature like the one intended is self balancing. That is my opinion. I don;t have to accept, nor repeat the other arguments. That's up to those that hold that opinion to do. I don;t see you embracing my opinion. Why should I reward yours?

You are not even arguing against my points, you are just mad that I make them. I'll be happy to not be asked to justify my opinion to you anymore. Fly safe Commander. o7

Ive already replied directly to you in another thread addressing your points directly. You chose to ignore that and simply post almost exactly the same again - despite the fact that I explained why this increases the gap between rich/experienced players and despite the fact that I explained how this favours hauling/fortifying over PvP play styles. I've addressed your points directly, you ignore the explanations and just keep posting "people are only cry babies about RP/immersion".

This feature isn't self balancing - it's easily explained why and I have done that. If you want to dismiss those points off hand then do so, but don't pretend that the argument hasn't been made and don't pretend that that's not what you're doing.

 

[Julio Montega]

I think "lowering the barriers to gameplay" is about promoting social gameplay.
They want this game to be entertaining.

Everyone has their own idea about fun.

I share your sentiment there.
When pp hit, it was the people keeping me in a power,
together achieving a goal.
If the galaxy simulation is stale and lifeless,
as it is imo currently, you need social aspects to be the focus,
not convenience features that cause another uproar.

 

[Jypson]

If you touch SC speeds remember that you touch interdictions
and player to player interaction aswell.

As a Solo player, absolutely fine with that I wouldn't want to get rid of SC all together, but I could stand for a 5-10X increase to accel/decel rates [up] Or at-least a mini jump to neighbor stars in the same system.

Not a universal request I'm sure, but what is?

 

[Mohrgan]

If you put in a feature that affects all and everyone,
by being there, by the ability to be used in certain ways,
that implies that there is an optimal use.

How can a feature be self balancing if the community is based on people
of different walks of life and takes on the game and not pre-programmed robots
that think in one-way directions?

E.g. if there is a feature included it has an effect on the competitive aspects of the game,
be it PvP or CMDRs competing being in the top 5% of a cg.
They then will be forced to adapt to an optimal use,
or simply have worse chances attaining the desired top 5%.

Because it's the same with ships, modules, and credits. Each player has to use the game's mechanics in the way they feel most appropriate. Because everyone has the same access to a feature means that anyone can use it in the same ways, or differently as they see fit. A feature is self balancing when there is no differing restrictions to it's use. Ship transfer will be accessible to everyone. No imbalance. I'm not saying there will be no change in the games dynamics, just that there will be no inherent unfairness built into the feature.

Players already have to adapt to issues. The Commander with the best ship potentially has the advantage. We accept that. The Commander with the most time potentially has the advantage. We accept that. We just have to accept that some players do have advantages over us, as individuals but, to blame the feature you have to be able to point out how it gave the advantage to any player. Universal access offers complete fairness.

 

[Godsailsaqueen]

I think "lowering the barriers to gameplay" is about promoting social gameplay.
They want this game to be entertaining.

Everyone has their own idea about fun.

Yes, and in the best world one style of fun should never be detrimental to the other... That is why having two options would be a nice compromise because in this case, the two sides can't marry. Sure, I've read my lot of "then pretend you have to wait" in this thread but that's not how the mind goes, you need limitations in a game, you need a set of rules, or sometimes you can't resist exploiting what you could consider a flaw.