2.2's Instant Ship and Module Transport - Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter Kintch
- Start date
- Status
Perpetual motion - the new reality.
Hopefully FD will take account of the results and reconsider
Deleted member 110222
D
Could someone answer me this?
I've seen a few accounts of instant transfer being down to 3D printing. Has FD actually written this down as lore?
BTW, I'm still for a delay, but I need this question answered for a discussion elsewhere.
I've seen a few accounts of instant transfer being down to 3D printing. Has FD actually written this down as lore?
BTW, I'm still for a delay, but I need this question answered for a discussion elsewhere.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If you read Michael's posts in this thread, you'll see where Frontier's thinking seems to be: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/searc...d=283153&contenttype=vBForum_Post&showposts=1
Yeah, and in those threads a lot of people shot major holes in, to quote MB, "the current fiction construct."
Even though I'm against instant transfers I'd have been happier if the explanation was "ships are being transferred by NPC couriers, we are just ignoring the time delay for gameplay reasons". It would still leave a bad taste in my mouth but FD could add the delay later if they wanted/needed to and they could add player missions to mimic what the NPCs would be doing.
Last edited:
From a purely selfish point of view I'm all for it (FDL pilot). From a gameplay point of view I can see it being problematic.
thats my feeling as well. IF they insist on a technobabble explanation, I'll find some way to make it work in my head canon, but I'd rather not have to.
Yeah, but that leads to transporters and I doubt FD wants to go down that road.
I suppose you could limit it to inorganic objects. I don't remember if it's Star Trek canon but I recall ST had twokinds of transporters, a bulk type and a type for organic beings. The difference was described as related to the scan depth. For humans you'd need to scan to a greater depth, due to a need to make a perfect "copy". The bulk one wasn't as fine a scan, just atomic or molecular level, kind of like a replicator.
Then you get the distances involved but that could be explained by having the pilot keep molecular scans of the ships on them. But that then leads to replication, no need for the original, just make copies. Don't see why the ship maker would care, they would charge full price for each replicated ship.
Interestingly enough it wasn't more than a few weeks ago I read an article where UK copyright laws were amended to included physical designs as copyright-able. This was specifically to prevent people from making 3D printed copies of manufacturers designs. It will probably lead to 3D printers needing licenses or limitations on what can be printed. It won't stop knock-offs that are similar but different enough to evade copyright.
Last edited:
But if you can 3D print ships, couldn't you also 3D print every other non-biological commodity in the game? Would there be any purpose to trading if you could just 3D print your robotics / computer parts etc etc?
Looks like I have to clarify. My comment was more like a joke and would be a pretty foul excuse if taken seriously. Point is, if you know a little about the work of Anton Zeilinger (that I blatantly cited) then you know that matter can't be 'teleported' instantly but information can. This alone should have debunked the joke. But maybe even a silly joke might be better than no explanation at all?
I figured you were joking, I just thought I would take it to its logical conclusion.
I think some CMDRs have suggested, don't know how seriously, the idea of teleportation, or at least some kind of new instant transportation method.
It is a sci-fi game so the "development" of an in-game teleportation capability is not beyond the pale. The lore of ED would suggest otherwise.
I haven't had time, for a long time, to keep up with advances in physics, as much as I love reading about that stuff. Thanks for citing Anton Zeilinger, I'll look into his work. Back when I was a kid of 11 I subscribed to Scientific American and was a charter subscriber of Astronomy magazine, I spent most of my free time reading everything I could get on science and engineering. Today I barely have time to read Ars Technica on my phone while eating lunch.
Quite true that gameplay should trump science. It isn't a full on space-sim. I like to think of ED as a galaxy science-fiction simulator.
The corollary is:
Gameplay trumps science fiction. Even the science fiction in the game takes a backseat to the gameplay, as it should from time to time. The escape pod is a prime example, but I think only because there's currently no gameplay between ship destruction and the rebuy screen. There could be but that might have to wait.
Instant ship transfers though, IMO, are not an example of either of the above principles. They are an example of accessibility trumping everything. Instant ship transfer isn't gameplay, it just makes a specific flavor of gameplay, the login, do something now, log out style more easily accessible. Ship transfers with a realistic in-game delay are a welcome addition and would increase accessibility, just to a slightly smaller degree.
As someone that just cleared my save and am suffering through small payout missions and a barely 9 ly jump range I'd like my own gameplay accessibility issues addressed.
Why can't I have a rich uncle fill my account with a nice lump of credits so I can buy a decent ship? It doesn't even have to be enough to buy an Anaconda. I'd be happy with a Python or something similar in cargo space and survivability. That would certainly enhance my gameplay accessibility and I could do more with my precious time.
Well, I don't think it's a matter of opinion whether instant ship transfers are added gameplay. It's a mechanism to make gameplay accessible.
For instance, FD could add jump gates between major centers of the bubble. That wouldn't add gameplay but it would make gameplay more accessible, like getting to certain locations where certain activities pop up, like CGs.
An example of added gameplay would be missions you would get to do for an Engineer, something that Sando mentioned they wanted to do but didn't have time.
Have to differ with you there, Brian. It seems to me you could as easily say that flying from the star to the station should be cut out of the game by adding an instant dock option when you arrive in a system. And some people would prefer that. But flying to the station is the gameplay, and it allows other factors to crop up and produce more. Similarly, by making the player plan his decisions and adding some consequence to them you are opening up gameplay avenues.
Instant ship transport does not add gameplay, it actually reduces it by removing player involvement and potential for greater depth.
The effect it has on the game's atmosphere and credibility is distinct from this but no less dramatic.
Let me tell you a bit of gameplay I did over the weekend... And then let's consider how "immediate" and "delayed" might affect it?
Heading back to a CG, I passed right through an Engineers system I'm current crafting with, and then on to the CG at LFT 133 to do a few runs on the Gold related CG. I would have like to have done a few bounty hunting runs in LFT 133 but I didn't have an appropriate ship there.
With Instant Ship Transportation
Which gives "chompier" more considered and interesting(?) gameplay?
Heading back to a CG, I passed right through an Engineers system I'm current crafting with, and then on to the CG at LFT 133 to do a few runs on the Gold related CG. I would have like to have done a few bounty hunting runs in LFT 133 but I didn't have an appropriate ship there.
With Instant Ship Transportation
- Fly to LFT 133 and do some Gold runs.
- Call over my bounty hunting ship (instantly) and use it.
- Consider if while flying though my Engineers system if its worth me stopping off at the engineer to call some of my other ships over there, so they're there next time I arrive?
- Fly to LFT 133 and call my bounty hunting ship over.
- Do some Gold runs.
- My bounty hunting ship has now arrived so use it.
Which gives "chompier" more considered and interesting(?) gameplay?
Last edited:
Well why not allowing TP from station dirrectly in missions USS ? Or in Extraction site, or CZ? Pfff ÉD is becoming à joke in space...
Agreed - this new emphasis on "playability" appears to be nothing more than an excuse to dumb the game down for the pew-pew brigade. [sour]
I really like this idea. It would make ship transfers possible but keep the distance and cost aspect, which in turn would retain the need for strategy and planning. It would also open up the hiring of NPC pilots to those of us flying ships too small to carry the fighters. My Asp is a two-person ship, so it makes sense to be able to hire an NPC for more than just the fighters. That may come with multi-crew, but for now hiring one of the "spare" pilots on leave at a station to do a ship transfer for you would work well and, presumably the mechanics would be very similar to what is already being developed for the fighters.
It wouldn't bother me at all if this all happened unseen and in the background at this point, although I would love actual ship transportation missions to be available to players in the future. It would give you an opportunity to try out a ship you'd never flown before and even rank up or gain reputation if you were transferring a ship for a celebrated pilot. It could also potentially add a whole new career path and play style to the game.
Whatever the outcome, I really hope the 3D printing idea is reconsidered. Everyone has a strong personal attachment to their ship(s), but this seems to be especially true of explorers. If I can transfer, I want my own ship not a copy of it. I'm glad Michael Brookes addressed the fact their current idea doesn't sit comfortably with this. Hopefully they will come up with something better.
Thanks for reading, I'm new to the forum
Last edited:
Sorry, I should have qualified my statements a bit better. First, off I'm against the idea of instant ship transfers; I do understand how, if you don't like the scope of the galaxy as your playing field you might not enjoy the delay in getting to some activity you want to get involved in or have the right ship to utilize in that activity.
Yes, traveling in this game is gameplay, to some. To others traveling is an impediment to gameplay, where gameplay is defined as those specific activities they wish to participate in.
Ship transfers, whether instant or not, are a measure to increase game accessibility. They aren't gameplay in and of themselves. Unless, I suppose, you are roleplaying and imagining that your ship is being attacked whilst in-transit. I'm not sure I'd qualify things a player imagines in game are really gameplay.
- Status