Please don't lower de cost. We'll only see Anacondas and ASPs through the galaxy if ship transfer is easy...
***POLL NOW CLOSED*** IMPORTANT, OFFICIAL SHIP TRANSFER POLL
- Thread starter Sandro Sammarco
- Start date
- Status
Please don't lower de cost. We'll only see Anacondas and ASPs through the galaxy if ship transfer is easy...
I worry this entire poll is methodologically flawed, as many people have pointed out...
People who want a change are active participants. They're going to work to get the change they want. They're going to be paying attention to things regarding that change. Voter turnout will be very high among that empassioned constituency.
People who don't want a change may not have their voices heard, because they may not be paying attention to the issue. Its already been decided as far as they know, and they may not realize its even up for debate again until the vote is already over. In which case you've solved nothing, you've just switched the positions of both sides, and then the forums will be filled with an empassioned instant-transfer constituency pushing vocally to have the change reverted. At the very least, the vote should have been announced in advance so people could be aware of it and expecting it...
We shouldn't have to actively affirm that we want something left alone. It should be assumed that most people who don't express an opinion are satisfied with the existing status quo. Unless voting is mandatory for everyone, you're going to have a *strong, strong* sampling bias in these results.
edit: ESPECIALLY with the stated benchmark that the "instant" vote has to be an overwhelming majority to cancel the change. That's not fair. It should be the other way around - it should be the "delay" vote that needs a strong majority to demonstrate that a plurality of players want a delay, to compensate for the poll being skewed towards that side. An equivocal result should indicate a conservative outcome, ie keep it the way its been planned thus far.
People who want a change are active participants. They're going to work to get the change they want. They're going to be paying attention to things regarding that change. Voter turnout will be very high among that empassioned constituency.
People who don't want a change may not have their voices heard, because they may not be paying attention to the issue. Its already been decided as far as they know, and they may not realize its even up for debate again until the vote is already over. In which case you've solved nothing, you've just switched the positions of both sides, and then the forums will be filled with an empassioned instant-transfer constituency pushing vocally to have the change reverted. At the very least, the vote should have been announced in advance so people could be aware of it and expecting it...
We shouldn't have to actively affirm that we want something left alone. It should be assumed that most people who don't express an opinion are satisfied with the existing status quo. Unless voting is mandatory for everyone, you're going to have a *strong, strong* sampling bias in these results.
edit: ESPECIALLY with the stated benchmark that the "instant" vote has to be an overwhelming majority to cancel the change. That's not fair. It should be the other way around - it should be the "delay" vote that needs a strong majority to demonstrate that a plurality of players want a delay, to compensate for the poll being skewed towards that side. An equivocal result should indicate a conservative outcome, ie keep it the way its been planned thus far.
Last edited:
Thanks for asking, FD. I think a minimal time transfer is necessary to not break immersion too much.
There is and it's "instant".
Anything else is just wasting everybody's time. I mean, be honest, what are you going to do once you've decided to change ships and have pressed the button to have it transported? Either alt-tab or log out entirely until the transport is done in the majority of cases, which is compelling gameplay. Anyone who says the counter to this argument is "players should be rewarded for planning ahead" actually means "players should be punished for not taking the game as seriously as I do" and genuinely doesn't understand the purpose of entertainment software.
The range check on the original idea was there, it was a credit check.
Distance and ship value increases cost.
Because it's a credit check it scales with the player (which is awesome). Because it's a credit check then it's self limiting, use it too much and you run out of credits (again, awesome).
Sure, players with absolutely loads of money will eventually move beyond these limits, but IMO they deserve to.
Frontier, please don't mess with this feature.. adding a delay ruins it, IMO.
An argument against instant is the fact that we could, build a high jump range ship, stripped out, just to do that one task and then call a slower ship, instantly.
GREAT SANDRO!!! HUGE THANK YOU!!!
I have a question, if Implemented ( I HOPE SO
), will FSD matters on the time delay? I mean will be faster to have an Anaconda against a Corvette?
I have a question, if Implemented ( I HOPE SO
), will FSD matters on the time delay? I mean will be faster to have an Anaconda against a Corvette?
Holy crap!
Real, actual logical thought!
Be gone! You are not welcome here!
(I agree with you 100%)
Oh my. That surely makes you unique in this community.
You have a house? Luxury!
Ziggy whishes he was a retiree Stardust.
I don't play the game for the loading screens. I play the game so I can dunk on the BGS and wook pubbies. It is my reason for logging in.
Excellent point. Or do they have in mind the ship being freighted to the destination by a cargo vessel?
Deleted member 110222
D
I have voted for a delay, despite my initial comments. I changed my mind big.
And yes, I want to transfer a fair few modules to Jaques later.
And yes, I want to transfer a fair few modules to Jaques later.
Nah - you don't get it.
As we all know the vocal minority are always the people that don't agree with me...
This is true for every possible interpretation of who "me" acutally might be.
Last edited:
I voted for the delay. I'd love it if, at the appropriate time, you'd see your ship arrive and dock as well (extra level of immersion) but understand if that's asking for the moon on a stick
Thanks for re-thinking this one, guys. It wasn't a deal breaker obviously but Elite isn't an insta-arrive kind of game and never has been (that's one of the appeals for me personally) ...just like you don't have a "land on planet" button
P.S. Giving us the Moon on a stick is an awesome idea... give it some thought
Thanks for re-thinking this one, guys. It wasn't a deal breaker obviously but Elite isn't an insta-arrive kind of game and never has been (that's one of the appeals for me personally) ...just like you don't have a "land on planet" button
P.S. Giving us the Moon on a stick is an awesome idea... give it some thought
Personally Id like to be able to nominate where my ship should be sent to, bt I realise that's probably not on the cards and would require a delay and more work even if it was....
So it might be too late for suggestions, and an idea like this might have already been suggested here (sorry i'm a Reddit guy) but what about a mix of both. So instant transfer but you can only transfer to a new station type, a Transport Hub (could even give it a cool name like the Pilot's Federation Transport Hub or something). So the delay in the transfer isn't just a number ticking down, it's you physically getting to a Transport Hub to make the request and pick up of the ship. These Transport Hubs wouldn't be in every system, but there would be a lot of them scattered all around the bubble to form a sort of lattice transport network. Maybe even have them look different, maybe a bunch of ships docked on the outside or something.
Why would they? Just do missions with your current ship while waiting.
- Status