So QoS gets sacrificed. . . for what?

Why are QoL features denied to players?
I'm talking about autopilot, cargo storage, adequate fire grouping, and rotational thrusters only flight assist functions.
Difficulty? It is a SIMULATOR game, not a COMPETITIVE type game like football or dota or something where it's acceptable to have rules which make
no obvious sense. You cannot have artificial difficulty in a simulator, in fact, you have to keep EVERYTHING which contradicts common sense to a minimum. Otherwise, it's
just immersion breaking. There is a lot of ways to achieve difficulty without imposing some kind of badly designed artificial restrictions.

Autopilot?
We have autopilots on space crafts, planes, ships. Heck, we about to have autopiloted cars on the roads.
Why the hell we don't have autopilot on spaceships in 3303? Lol, FD even takes down external scripts which achieve that function (on a year 2k something PC).
It could be slower than manual jumps, it could stop on unexplored systems, plus you cannot go AFK cause you will loose your ship for sure to interdictions or objects close to the main star otherwise.
And if people don't want to use it, they could choose not to.
So why the heck no autopilot? Artificial difficulty? I've told all I think about that.

By the way, this is the main reason I'm posting anything, cause now since stars do pop in off jump looking like glowing puddles of vomit jumping from system to system became a chore more than ever, and killed any desire to go explore a bit.

Cargo storage? You can't even store limpets in ships??? I understand not allowing to leave T9 full of imp slaves docked, in fact, a lot of wares should have an expiration timer as they are without any storage, but what could be wrong with polymers or something while going to take some time in RES with a Vulture?
Market manipulation prevention? Markets are goddamn instanced to each player. In fact, the whole economy in this game is a joke. Communists came to power on earth at the year 2500 or something?
And even cargo system itself is plausible at very best (1-unit to 1-ton ratio). Limpets weighting a ton may be somewhat realistic,
but "Agricultural liberation" of SIX TONS of HOSTAGES??? Salvage ONE TON of assault plans? Wat?...

Two fire buttons? "Excellent game design"? Lol, don't even want to talk about this. You can have that in that CQC stuff, not in the actual sim.

Partial flight assists? Same as above. And simulation wise lack of it cannot be explained by the difficulty of calculation since we have full FA on by default.


I can go on and on. These were the most painful flaws.
Is it game designers who are immature, or most of the player base which they listen to?

(Yea, its QoL, too many routers in my life [noob])
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The Devs are on record as considering that E: D is a game first and foremost.

The cargo storage / auto-pilot / fire-button / partial flight-assist complaints from some players are not new and have had little or no effect on the direction of development.
 
I don't think you know what QoS means.

I am also going to point out that tackling several steadfast areas on Elite, with the automatic assumption you are right and anyone disagreeing is stupid, is going to land this thread in a bad and very unconstructive place very quickly.

Good riddance if you ask me. "I want, I want, I want..." ad nauseum. There are established reasons to not have, for instance, more than two fire buttons - which I wholeheartedly agree with-and if "having two is stupid because OH MY GOD JUST SO STUPID" is the best you can do to convince FD to seeing your way despite a wall of excellent reasoning on their part...yeah, this thread deserves to die with the rest. "You don't want to talk about it"? Neither do we :)
 
Last edited:
So...

Autopilot: literally the entire game is based on the fact that you are flying a spaceship. Yes, there's no future-tech reason why autopilot doesn't exist, but from a gameplay POV there is. You're the pilot. Fly your own goddamn ship.

The 'only a primary and secondary weapon per firegroup' is, I think, to keep the playing field level, or to try to at least. It means that people with expensive flightsticks aren't at a competitive advantage over someone with an Xbox-like controller, or even mouse+keyboard.




Incidentally, when you would like some positive feedback or questions answered it helps not to come across as a whiny entitletard.
 
Good riddance if you ask me. "I want, I want, I want..." ad nauseum. There are established reasons to not have, for instance, more than two fire buttons - which I wholeheartedly agree with-and if "having two is stupid because OH MY GOD JUST SO STUPID" is the best you can do to convince FD to seeing your way despite a wall of excellent reasoning on their part...yeah, this thread deserves to die with the rest.

Excellent reasoning?
I'm reading forums and wonder: what is reasoning behind supporting those decisions?
Feels like reason is just some getting some food for inner troll.

ED is not a simulator, it's a science-fiction game based in a simulated galaxy.

Well that could explain a lot, yet still this game is closest thing we have to a space sim and I want it to get better at that.

- - - Updated - - -

So...

Autopilot: literally the entire game is based on the fact that you are flying a spaceship. Yes, there's no future-tech reason why autopilot doesn't exist, but from a gameplay POV there is. You're the pilot. Fly your own goddamn ship.

The 'only a primary and secondary weapon per firegroup' is, I think, to keep the playing field level, or to try to at least. It means that people with expensive flightsticks aren't at a competitive advantage over someone with an Xbox-like controller, or even mouse+keyboard.




Incidentally, when you would like some positive feedback or questions answered it helps not to come across as a whiny entitletard.

Jumping from system A to system B 50+ times a game session is not challenging (exept maybe in a T9). And is not the reason I bought the game.
Dont know a thing about controllers honestly, as for KBM i have no troubles with 5-7 fire triggers, at 3 button mouse.
 
Last edited:
Excellent reasoning?
I'm reading forums and wonder: what is reasoning behind supporting those decisions?
Feels like reason is just some getting some food for inner troll.

Okay so on the subject of two fire buttons only:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...oups-please!?p=1828787&viewfull=1#post1828787

"This isn't going to happen. We've chosen to use a two trigger system and as a result we've based a lot of the UI layout and functionality around this concept. We would not add another fire button unless we also redesigned the way the hud works to accommodate the fact that you can't just do a left/right split to show which weapons belong to which trigger. Likewise we'd need to extend the functionality of the fire group UI to add the new trigger. Having two triggers forces you to group weapons sensibly and to utilise the fire group switching functionality skilfully to maximise your ability in a fight. It also doesn't penalise those players that don't have access to extra buttons they could bind to a third trigger when such an option would be considered integral if it was available. "



https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...up-3-control?p=3793018&viewfull=1#post3793018

"I see you're a star player at the hyper-bole scoring touch downs for both teams.

You may want this button but we do not. We've explained our reasons multiple times, you may not agree with them but that makes them no less valid. If we want players to have to perform a minor skill test of tuning and switching between fire groups to make use of multiple conflicting hard point choices then that is our prerogative. It is a useful balancing measure to ensure the ships with umpteen hard point slots are more difficult to use when you have unique weapons and systems spread across them. It makes the HUD cleaner and less cluttered. It works extremely well on control pads and even joysticks that surprisingly often lack more than one dedicated trigger button. Mouse controls work well with it. It requires less button presses to cycle through fire group options. "



Which I agree with 110%, and notably using two fire buttons and groups makes the game more exciting for me. I'd hate to have a different button bound to everything I use.

The assumption that you're right and FD somehow entirely failed to consider your point of view is the only trolling I see.
 
Last edited:
Jumping from system A to system B 50+ times a game session is not challenging (exept maybe in a T9). And is not the reason I bought the game.

That's a large part of what the game is though, so I don't know where you're going with this.

You want an autopilot. Then someone else will want trade data to be available outside systems. Then someone else will want auto-trading functionality. And eventually the entire game is playing itself while you just sit there and watch...

Dont know a thing about controllers honestly, as for KBM i have no troubles with 5-7 fire triggers, at 3 button mouse.

Not the point. The point is that every control system out there has at least two fire buttons. They have to cater to the lowest common denominator, otherwise it becomes pay-to-win for people that can afford expensive HOTAS setups.

Long story short: get used to two triggers and multiple fire groups, because that isn't going to change any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Okay so on the subject of two fire buttons only:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...oups-please!?p=1828787&viewfull=1#post1828787

"This isn't going to happen. We've chosen to use a two trigger system and as a result we've based a lot of the UI layout and functionality around this concept. We would not add another fire button unless we also redesigned the way the hud works to accommodate the fact that you can't just do a left/right split to show which weapons belong to which trigger. Likewise we'd need to extend the functionality of the fire group UI to add the new trigger. Having two triggers forces you to group weapons sensibly and to utilise the fire group switching functionality skilfully to maximise your ability in a fight. It also doesn't penalise those players that don't have access to extra buttons they could bind to a third trigger when such an option would be considered integral if it was available. "



https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...up-3-control?p=3793018&viewfull=1#post3793018

"I see you're a star player at the hyper-bole scoring touch downs for both teams.

You may want this button but we do not. We've explained our reasons multiple times, you may not agree with them but that makes them no less valid. If we want players to have to perform a minor skill test of tuning and switching between fire groups to make use of multiple conflicting hard point choices then that is our prerogative. It is a useful balancing measure to ensure the ships with umpteen hard point slots are more difficult to use when you have unique weapons and systems spread across them. It makes the HUD cleaner and less cluttered. It works extremely well on control pads and even joysticks that surprisingly often lack more than one dedicated trigger button. Mouse controls work well with it. It requires less button presses to cycle through fire group options. "



Which I agree with 110%, and notably using two fire buttons and groups makes the game more exciting for me. I'd hate to have a different button bound to everything I use.

The assumption that you're right and FD somehow entirely failed to consider your point of view is the only trolling I see.

My point of view is that those restrictions is not logical for a simulator. A10 pilot can fire each of his armaments separately since 1970s.


minor skill test of tuning
Oh I passed those.
I almost covered partial FA off issue with minor tests of tuning. . . needs more work. profiles for each ship and weight configuration.
Why this is not pilot's lefthand computer though?

All of it kills immersion. Thats my point.
 
That's a large part of what the game is though, so I don't know where you're going with this.

You want an autopilot. Then someone else will want trade data to be available outside systems. Then someone else will want auto-trading functionality. And eventually the entire game is playing itself while you just sit there and watch...

If autopilot going to far risk gets multiplied. So it is a risk -reward.
For example I want to read GalNet while jumping, plan some new trade routes, find a new conflict to fight in.
First space sim I played was X3, there you have 1 to 200 autopiloted traders while you doing all the fun stuff, so I cannot help but to take this as an expample.
 
Last edited:
OP - you mean QoL i think.

But afraid you will have to accept there are some things the devs don't want due to gameplay reasons. You might disagree, but disagreeing doesn't change their stance on these things.... especially these things, which had been done to death a dozen times.
 
Ship pretty much auto-pilots itself already though, it doesn't stop you doing anything.

Point in a direction and off you go, not like you have to turn corners or navigate a round-a-bout is it.

Unfortunately often people want auto-pilot so they can AFK the game.
 
Last edited:
If autopilot going to far risk gets multiplied. So it is a risk -reward.
For example I want to read GalNet while jumping, plan some new trade routes, find a new conflict to fight in.
First space sim I played was X3, there you have 1 to 200 autopiloted traders while you doing all the fun stuff, so I cannot help but to take this as an expample.

[shrug] this isn't X3 (and yes, I've played that as well).
 
OP - you mean QoL i think.

But afraid you will have to accept there are some things the devs don't want due to gameplay reasons. You might disagree, but disagreeing doesn't change their stance on these things.... especially these things, which had been done to death a dozen times.
\

Yea... I am a system admin, too many routers with QoS setting [noob]
 
Okay so on the subject of two fire buttons only:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...oups-please!?p=1828787&viewfull=1#post1828787

"This isn't going to happen. We've chosen to use a two trigger system and as a result we've based a lot of the UI layout and functionality around this concept. We would not add another fire button unless we also redesigned the way the hud works to accommodate the fact that you can't just do a left/right split to show which weapons belong to which trigger. Likewise we'd need to extend the functionality of the fire group UI to add the new trigger. Having two triggers forces you to group weapons sensibly and to utilise the fire group switching functionality skilfully to maximise your ability in a fight. It also doesn't penalise those players that don't have access to extra buttons they could bind to a third trigger when such an option would be considered integral if it was available. "



https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...up-3-control?p=3793018&viewfull=1#post3793018

"I see you're a star player at the hyper-bole scoring touch downs for both teams.

You may want this button but we do not. We've explained our reasons multiple times, you may not agree with them but that makes them no less valid. If we want players to have to perform a minor skill test of tuning and switching between fire groups to make use of multiple conflicting hard point choices then that is our prerogative. It is a useful balancing measure to ensure the ships with umpteen hard point slots are more difficult to use when you have unique weapons and systems spread across them. It makes the HUD cleaner and less cluttered. It works extremely well on control pads and even joysticks that surprisingly often lack more than one dedicated trigger button. Mouse controls work well with it. It requires less button presses to cycle through fire group options. "



Which I agree with 110%, and notably using two fire buttons and groups makes the game more exciting for me. I'd hate to have a different button bound to everything I use.

The assumption that you're right and FD somehow entirely failed to consider your point of view is the only trolling I see.

You can set up your fire groups in a way that: FG1: Fires 2 pulse lasers, FG2: Fires 3 pulse lasers. Instead of having 2 keys where you shoot 2 or 3 lasers in just one fire group. Essentially the same, but for reasons unknown the functionality is disabled.

TL;DR: We're limiting options because consoles do not have as many buttons as PC can have, and adding more would require us to, ugh, work.
 
Back
Top Bottom