[Feedback] Once again, docking computer should not be module.

[Lucian667]

Tons of things in this game make no sense. That doesn't stop them from having a positive impact on fun.

Sadly that's very true but I really dont see it as an argument for not changing 'game software' like the DC. Oh nothing in this game makes sense so we should just give up. No, we should keep trying to improve the game one silly, broken system at a time if necessary. There are also plenty of things in ED that are realistic, still lots of fun and do make sense. There's really no reason that the whole game cant be like that, the things that dont make sense are just bad, lazy game design.

Ah-I see your wisdom, young grasshoppa. By blinding yelling "It's stoopid!" repeatedly, you do indeed make something look stupid.

Apparently not, it seems you can say that trade-offs are good but a computer program taking up the same space as 2 tons of cargo is utterly ridiculous as many times as you like and people will still retort with "Dun take away muh sacrifices!!". There's no cosmic law that sacrifices have to be brain-dead stupid, its possible to have game sacrifices that ALSO make sense and that's what I believe we should be striving for with all aspects of this game, not just the DC.

 

[StiTch]

The reasons for it being stupid have beem covered quite thoroughly over the course of this thread. But to your benefit I'll recap - even it it were it own dedicated computer rather than just software, as you'd expect, computers the size of rooms haven't been a thing for 50 years.

*sigh* and I will recap that if you are looking for realism, you are playing the wrong game.

Do you think in over a millennium, with self-sufficient space navigating spacecraft, our weaponry would be the peashooters we have now and not just missiles that blow up small moons? Would have no backup to a blown canopy that is made of glass to begin with? Would be limiting ships to 4 utility slots because it's balanced?

How long do you want me to go on with this list? ED calls itself a space simulator, but it's as much of a simulator as CoD is a war simulator. There is no realism, there cannot be any realism unless we discover time travel and peek into the future at what technology we have available, and any arguments saying the game should be a certain way because it is "realistic" need to be immediately discarded.

Game changes must revolve around balance, and if you would like a tool that flies your ship for you and lets you remove the trickiest part of flying a lumbering trade ship for instance, you will be expected to make that sacrifice. Suck it up or learn to fly without depending on it. People might just learn to deal with basic interdictions if they have their hands on the HOTAS to do more than just aligning for hyperspace jumps.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently not, it seems you can say that trade-offs are good but a computer program taking up the same space as 2 tons of cargo is utterly ridiculous as many times as you like and people will still retort with "Dun take away muh sacrifices!!". There's no cosmic law that sacrifices have to be brain-dead stupid, its possible to have game sacrifices that ALSO make sense and that's what I believe we should be striving for with all aspects of this game, not just the DC.

As above, it is indeed ludicrous, but only as ludicrous as a ship being part of "the big three" having a mass of 400T. If you based this game on realism, it would fall apart. Really that simple. So stop with it and make the changes based on what gives you the best game. If I wanted pure realism, I'd go back outdoors, where everything is as realistic as it gets

 

[Lucian667]

As above, it is indeed ludicrous, but only as ludicrous as a ship being part of "the big three" having a mass of 400T. If you based this game on realism, it would fall apart. Really that simple. So stop with it and make the changes based on what gives you the best game. If I wanted pure realism, I'd go back outdoors, where everything is as realistic as it gets

Nobody, at least nobody that I know of wants pure 100% realism, but ED is famous (or possibly infamous) for also including some sort of small nod to reality. I believe its one of the most appealing things about the game. You can see it with the realistic planetary distances and orbits, it adds an enormous amount to the game for many people. They didn't have to do that, nobody forced them, but they made it both fun AND semi-realistic and people loved it.

By all means make the game mechanics fun, make them involve interesting trade-offs but ALSO include a token nod to realism so that our intelligence's are not insulted. This can and has been done many times in the game and there have been many good suggestions on this thread about how DC's and other software could involve sacrifices without being ridiculously dumb. I think most of us here are fine with sacrifices as long as they at least make some small degree of sense. I'm not after full realism, I just want to avoid complete stupidity.

 

[BigBANGtheory [VR]]

Game changes must revolve around balance, and if you would like a tool that flies your ship for you and lets you remove the trickiest part of flying a lumbering trade ship for instance, you will be expected to make that sacrifice. Suck it up or learn to fly without depending on it. People might just learn to deal with basic interdictions if they have their hands on the HOTAS to do more than just aligning for hyperspace jumps.

Docking is not tricky after you've got some experience under your belt, just like long range travelling. Make it tricky and challenging then I'd see some sense in this pov.

 

[StiTch]

Nobody, at least nobody that I know of wants pure 100% realism, but ED is famous (or possibly infamous) for also including some sort of small nod to reality. I believe its one of the most appealing things about the game. You can see it with the realistic planetary distances and orbits, it adds an enormous amount to the game for many people. They didn't have to do that, nobody forced them, but they made it both fun AND semi-realistic and people loved it.

By all means make the game mechanics fun, make them involve interesting trade-offs but ALSO include a token nod to realism so that our intelligence's are not insulted. This can and has been done many times in the game and there have been many good suggestions on this thread about how DC's could involve sacrifices without being ridiculously dumb. I think most of us here are fine with sacrifices as long as they at least make some small degree of sense. I'm not after full realism, I just want to avoid complete stupidity.

Nope. Sorry. We can develop "realistic" graphics and we can make the game immersive, but there is no realism in anything that's actually gameplay based, and it can never be the deciding factor for changes. Any and all discussions on the matter have been "I want my ship to dock itself so I don't have to, but also don't want sacrifice, so we'll suggest a change that pretends there's a hint of balance but we really just want the ship to help us be lazy".

Docking is not tricky after you've got some experience under your belt, just like long range travelling. Make it tricky and challenging then I'd see some sense in this pov.

*ahem* trickiest. Please pay attention to detail. And if you want more challenge leave FA-Off permanently and dock trade ships in this manner

 

[Lucian667]

Nope. Sorry. Any and all discussions on the matter have been "I want my ship to dock itself so I don't have to, but also don't want sacrifice, so we'll suggest a change that pretends there's a hint of balance but we really just want the ship to help us be lazy".

Well that's definitely not what I want or what I've been saying. I like the idea of sacrifice, I definitely agree that there should be real trade-offs, I just cant believe that the only way to achieve them is to insult peoples's intelligence with a very stupid unintuitive mechanic. The mechanics can also make sense in ADDITION to being good for gameplay, and to suggest that it isn't possible is just defeatist IMO, it just takes a little more thought and effort to achieve.

 

[Kyokushin]

Dockin computer should not be a module and should not have over 1t mass. It should be integrated in all ships, just a feature. Even moder smartphone have enough power to be the docking computer, so XXX century cant?

 

[Innigo]

*sigh* and I will recap that if you are looking for realism, you are playing the wrong game.

Do you think in over a millennium, with self-sufficient space navigating spacecraft, our weaponry would be the peashooters we have now and not just missiles that blow up small moons? Would have no backup to a blown canopy that is made of glass to begin with? Would be limiting ships to 4 utility slots because it's balanced?

*SIGH* Do you think one aspect of a game not being realistic justifies another aspect of the game not being realistic? Would it be reasonable to introduce wizards on broomsticks? Afterall, it's no less realistic than spaceships that are limited to a top speed in space.

The "ah but this bit isn't realistic either" argument is a complete non-starter I'm afraid.

How long do you want me to go on with this list?

Oh you should never has started since it's doesn't qualify as a valid point. One non-realistic aspect of a game does not justify another non-realist aspect. Just as one bad mechanic doesn't justify another bad mechanic. Or one bug doesn't justify another bug? One bad animation doesn't justify another bad animation. Do you need me to go on?

Game changes must revolve around balance, and if you would like a tool that flies your ship for you and lets you remove the trickiest part of flying a lumbering trade ship for instance, you will be expected to make that sacrifice. Suck it up or learn to fly without depending on it. People might just learn to deal with basic interdictions if they have their hands on the HOTAS to do more than just aligning for hyperspace jumps.

*sigh* Can ANYONE explain what a docking computer has to do with balance? And you make the silly assumption that because I am championing a DC not taking up a slot it must be because I use it and can't land. A ridiculous and utter wrong assumption. I NEVER use a docking computer and, for the record, am currently flying the biggest ship in the game. I have landed manually many, many thousands of times and am BORED of landing, but according to you, for the sake of balance (in some way no one - including you - will elaborate on) in order to be less bored I must sacrifice something else. Since the smallest slot in a Beluga is class 3 it's a bit galling fitting a class 1 module.

As above, it is indeed ludicrous, but only as ludicrous as a ship being part of "the big three" having a mass of 400T. If you based this game on realism, it would fall apart. Really that simple. So stop with it and make the changes based on what gives you the best game. If I wanted pure realism, I'd go back outdoors, where everything is as realistic as it gets

One element of bad design does NOT justify another element of bad design. Please try to remember this.

- - - Updated - - -

We can develop "realistic" graphics and we can make the game immersive[/I], but there is no realism in anything that's actually gameplay based, and it can never be the deciding factor for changes.

So, you'd be quite happy with wizards on broomsticks flying through space. Now, let's see you object to this WITHOUT referring to realism to some degree.

 

[StiTch]

So, you'd be quite happy with wizards on broomsticks flying through space. Now, let's see you object to this WITHOUT referring to realism to some degree.

Challenge accepted...because I bought a space ship game and not a psychedelic Harry Potter experience-in the same way pac-man wasn't realistic, but when people stood at an arcade machine to play it they didn't expect a game about wizarding exams.

Well that wasn't a challenge after all. What a stupid question lol.

If you don't like docking, that's your problem. I don't like the engineers, but I ain't gonna whine until they get taken out. If you need to use one because you choose to fly a large ship and that's difficult to dock with, that's balance because you need help handling a ship/loadout you chose - the "dark side" of "play how I want" that people conveniently forget about. If you're just lazy, then that is really not FD's problem. I enjoy the docking process, many others don't have a problem with it, and you cannot write a game that pleases everyone...some will have views that directly oppose others, and based on that some will clearly complain about just about anything.

 

[jacozilla]

Challenge accepted...because I bought a space ship game and not a psychedelic Harry Potter experience-in the same way pac-man wasn't realistic, but when people stood at an arcade machine to play it they didn't expect a game about wizarding exams.

Well that wasn't a challenge after all. What a stupid question lol.

If you don't like docking, that's your problem. I don't like the engineers, but I ain't gonna whine until they get taken out. If you need to use one because you choose to fly a large ship and that's difficult to dock with, that's balance because you need help handling a ship/loadout you chose - the "dark side" of "play how I want" that people conveniently forget about. If you're just lazy, then that is really not FD's problem. I enjoy the docking process, many others don't have a problem with it, and you cannot write a game that pleases everyone...some will have views that directly oppose others, and based on that some will clearly complain about just about anything.

You're equally guilty and can be conveniently labeled as "lazy" as well. Unless you claim you never, not once, use FA On some portion of the time, you are using a directly integrated, automated function that auto corrects, thrusts, and modulates engines to avoid having to truly manually fly via actual space mechanics.

FA On is directly integrated with no need for module slot. DC is exact same situation except...wait for it..requires module slot.

Using your own faulty and imbecilic logic, you must be lazy or not know how to fly your ship manually. Must be too hard to learn and you never did right? Glad that is settled. You don't use a DC but you never learned to fly your ship manually without FA On, or you're just lazy and use FA on.

 

[StiTch]

You're equally guilty and can be conveniently labeled as "lazy" as well. Unless you claim you never, not once, use FA On some portion of the time, you are using a directly integrated, automated function that auto corrects, thrusts, and modulates engines to avoid having to truly manually fly via actual space mechanics.

FA On is directly integrated with no need for module slot. DC is exact same situation except...wait for it..requires module slot.

Using your own faulty and imbecilic logic, you must be lazy or not know how to fly your ship manually. Must be too hard to learn and you never did right? Glad that is settled. You don't use a DC but you never learned to fly your ship manually without FA On, or you're just lazy and use FA on.

No, because....yet again...the gameplay was intended like this. Fa-Off was stated somepoint back by a Dev as not intended to be something you use by default, but instead for quick bursts to gain an advantage in combat or for the experience/kudos if more devoted.

You were, on the other hand, intended to dock your ship with the option to take a hit to a single internal slot and have something try and do it for you. You are even warned to keep control over your ship during this time as accidents can happen while using the DC. Clearly it is not here to be a "don't make me have to dock again" button.

I'm not interested enough in this tbh. It's come up enough and inevitably is just the whining of people that want half the game played for them. Have not seen a single reasonable argument for this - just "docking is a waste of mah time!"

Well...isn't that was gaming is on the whole?

 

[MikeK73]

I have an idea that should make everyone happy. Make the DC standard equipment that can be toggled on and off. If you decide to toggle it off you would gain the option to add a large decal to the exterior of your ship (maybe with lights?). This way those that want to use the DC can, and those that don't can show off their gigantic members to the rest of us. It would be a win-win.

 

[othr]

No, because....yet again...the gameplay was intended like this. Fa-Off was stated somepoint back by a Dev as not intended to be something you use by default, but instead for quick bursts to gain an advantage in combat or for the experience/kudos if more devoted.

You were, on the other hand, intended to dock your ship with the option to take a hit to a single internal slot and have something try and do it for you. You are even warned to keep control over your ship during this time as accidents can happen while using the DC. Clearly it is not here to be a "don't make me have to dock again" button.

I'm not interested enough in this tbh. It's come up enough and inevitably is just the whining of people that want half the game played for them. Have not seen a single reasonable argument for this - just "docking is a waste of mah time!"

Well...isn't that was gaming is on the whole?

This, if you like docking, you can, if you don't you don't have to. Why 11 pages of this stuff, seriously.

 

[StiTch]

This, if you like docking, you can, if you don't you don't have to. Why 11 pages of this stuff, seriously.

As I said, I don't like engineers. Does this mean I should petition to have them removed?

Yet again, not one cohesive argument outside of "I want, give me now".

 

[Hessfire]

How about PHYSICAL INABILITY?!?

As I have stated before - on multiple threads - the damage to my body, created by someone so self-absorbed as to think themselves above BASIC TRAFFIC LAWS, has left me with peripheral neuropathy and fine motor tremors. I would LOVE to be able to dock manually, but my hands and arms are constantly shaking (when I can feel them). For the first few weeks I had to have my wife perform any docking for me until I was able to purchase a DC for my first ship. While I still have to manually take my ship out of dock myself, the DC has saved me tons of hours worth of playtime as it is now possible for me to land and turn in my missions.

So no, I am not lazy, I am playing the game as intended. I recognize that this may not fit into your worldview that DC = LAZY, but there you are. I am not arguing the "I want, give me now" but it would be nice to not be further penalized (in a GAME) for limitations INFLICTED upon me in RL. And to have some self-important hat insinuate that I am "LAZY" is quite frankly beyond insulting.

 

[StiTch]

How about PHYSICAL INABILITY?!?

As I have stated before - on multiple threads - the damage to my body, created by someone so self-absorbed as to think themselves above BASIC TRAFFIC LAWS, has left me with peripheral neuropathy and fine motor tremors. I would LOVE to be able to dock manually, but my hands and arms are constantly shaking (when I can feel them). For the first few weeks I had to have my wife perform any docking for me until I was able to purchase a DC for my first ship. While I still have to manually take my ship out of dock myself, the DC has saved me tons of hours worth of playtime as it is now possible for me to land and turn in my missions.

So no, I am not lazy, I am playing the game as intended. I recognize that this may not fit into your worldview that DC = LAZY, but there you are. I am not arguing the "I want, give me now" but it would be nice to not be further penalized (in a GAME) for limitations INFLICTED upon me in RL. And to have some self-important hat insinuate that I am "LAZY" is quite frankly beyond insulting.

Serious respect for what you're going through man. But I am really sorry, a) FD cannot account for everything - you said it yourself, it is physical and the devs cannot help this - and b) given that you still have the option.

Are the FD devs terrible, self-important people because there isn't a version of ED controlled by brainwaves for those more handicapped?

 

[Hessfire]

No, truth be told I am responding to your assertion that there was not "one valid argument" to having the DC as a software update. To me the DC is a necessity, one which I will have fit into every ship I own.

As for FD being evil - not even in the slightest. I bought this game as it hearkened me back to my youth (played Elite on Apple ][ back in the 80s). I was emboldened to see that a DC was available, and worked my tail off to get the cash together and fit it (so my wife did not have to land for me). FD have made a brilliant and beautiful game that I sincerely enjoy, and the control setup is the most friendly to those of "limited physical means" as is possible.

My argument is with those that constantly intimate that if one uses the DC they are "lazy" and need to "git gud", as for some of us there never will be a "git gud" - its just not in the cards.

I apologize if I came off a bit harsh in my post, but dealing with the daily snide comments, derision, and outright scorn of those not in the know is an ongoing process and a hard road to walk. Not saying I won't slip up in the future, just that I will keep trying to do and be better.

Back on topic, I think that having the DC reduced to a program that is uploaded to the flight computer of the ship is an acceptable idea, but it will lead to the argument that the same could be said of the DDS and ADS being programs loaded into the sensor suite as well. Where will this end??

 

[Lucian667]

Back on topic, I think that having the DC reduced to a program that is uploaded to the flight computer of the ship is an acceptable idea, but it will lead to the argument that the same could be said of the DDS and ADS being programs loaded into the sensor suite as well. Where will this end??

As ED develops further its bound to come up with more "ship programs" that are just software but will still be awkwardly crammed into the module system because the module system is the one and only way of handling ship modifications despite the fact that it makes zero sense for software to take up tons of space. It will be a lot easier for them in the long run if they create some kind of system for dealing with ship software that doesn't require module space but still requires some sort of trade-off or sacrifice.

Perhaps it would work if the ship's computer was a core module just like thrusters or a power plant. You'd start off with version 'E' which is very limited in which programs it could run so that you'd need to upgrade to a 'B' or 'A' class computer to run the DC program (which would also have to be bought separately). So that would be mission accomplished, sacrifices must still be made, its no longer stupid and sounds vaguely feasible (at least enough to suspend disbelief) and as an added bonus it establishes a credible method for handling ALL current and future ship software, not just the DC. You just rate future software from 'E' to 'A' depending on how powerful the matching computer system needs to be to run it. Win, win.

 

[Hessfire]

Not a bad idea. In fact you could expand it a bit further with each Computer upgrade allowing for an increase in data capacity (for those Engineer Data items). This could also allow for more efficient Turret control and more detailed information coming from scans.

Just my 2cr...but I think we may be on something here...

 

[ZiggyGG]

I personally like to use docking computer on various ships because I can do other stuff while my ship is docking and I don't have much time for play. But I must agree that it's not worth entire module and it should be included in all ships as external lights do to be switchable for commanders.