Why does my SRV have such terrible traction?

FoxFire Ayderan

F
I thought it was because I was on low gravity moons and planets.

But, yesterday I was on a planet with 2.3x gravity and the SRV traction was still abysmal, even at relatively low speeds, and particularly once you lose traction, trying to regain it, even while the throttle is low and the speed indicator is like on 6, good luck trying to get back into straight and controlled travel.
 

Chris Simon

Chris Simon
It's all about getting used to it and the controller you use.
I freely admit that when comes to KB+Mouse, unlike the ships, SRV is almost uncontrollable. If you have a decent joystick, it's very much controllable.
 

Kitfox

Kitfox
You have a better chance of catching and countering the rear end sliding out in a Ford Capri on sheet ice than you do with the Scarab.
 

CMDR ANCALAGON

C
The rear wheels turn opposite the front wheels, so is prone to spin outs if not careful. However, if you spend some time with it and get the feel down, these spinouts will become fairly infrequent.

If you want to stay "full throttle", learn to use your boosters, don't accerate while landing, and keep the wheels as staight as possible at all times (while at speed).

The actual traction is actually pretty solid considering the thing can climb near vertical surfaces.
 

d8veh

d8veh
They designed the SRV with beautiful handling, then decided that it looked better with the cockpit at the other end. If you drive it backwards, it handles perfectly, so if you ever need to run away, always go backwards.
 

Jimbodiah

Jimbodiah
You can actually drive steeper slopes backwards than forwards. Logic! Climbed a mountain with it at 70° in reverse where forward it would stall at 60-65°
 

Devari

D
FoxFire Ayderan said:
I thought it was because I was on low gravity moons and planets.

But, yesterday I was on a planet with 2.3x gravity and the SRV traction was still abysmal, even at relatively low speeds, and particularly once you lose traction, trying to regain it, even while the throttle is low and the speed indicator is like on 6, good luck trying to get back into straight and controlled travel.
Click to expand...

I've done extensive SRV driving in difficult locations (mostly from base runs on high-G worlds to get MEF) and I discovered that the SRV actually has better traction going backwards than it does going forwards. This was quite surprising given that there is actually a dual set of wheels on the front which you would expect to give better forward traction but I've encountered numerous steep slopes that I could slowly drive up going backwards but couldn't make any progress by driving forwards. I've noticed that these tendencies are consistent on both low-G and high-G planets so it doesn't only occur under conditions of low gravity affecting the traction, especially since the SRV has thrusters that continually provide the necessary downforce to allow it to drive on the very low-G planets (i.e., 0.03 g).

It really makes no sense other than FD intentionally designing the SRV with poor traction and steering capabilities. I even remember a poster mentioning that he believed the SRV was given performance characteristics of a rear-wheel drive vehicle which would explain the difference in forward vs. reverse traction. A RWD drive power bias would also explain the excessive tendency for the vehicle to suffer oversteer so readily with any loss of traction. In fact I wouldn't be surprized if the SRV performance was based entirely on RWD characteristics because the oversteer is so noticeable even during low-speed turns. Even if there is some power being supplied to the front wheels it clearly doesn't provide performance anywhere near close to what you would expect with a symmetric AWD setup or even a FWD system.

I suspect that FD decided they wanted driving the SRV to be a "challenge" and gave it handling and performance characteristics which are intentionally sub-optimal for off-road use, i.e., a predominantly RWD bias. I happen to drive an AWD car that has a RWD power bias under optimal conditions but sends power to all four wheel as needed when wheel slip is detected so I have a very good idea of how the SRV should drive if it were designed to perform properly under low-traction conditions. Unfortunately like many other aspects of Elite gameplay the SRV performance isn't designed with any sense of logic or realism for an off-road vehicle. It's just another frustrating learning curve that players need to deal with if they want to access the gameplay that is artificially locked behind SRV use (i.e. Engineers and mat synthesis).
 
Last edited:

CMDR ANCALAGON

C
Devari said:
I've done extensive SRV driving in difficult locations (mostly from base runs on high-G worlds to get MEF) and I discovered that the SRV actually has better traction going backwards than it does going forwards. This was quite surprising given that there are actually a dual set of wheels on the front which you would expect to give better forward traction but I've encountered numerous steep slopes that I could slowly drive up going backwards but couldn't make any progress by driving forwards. I've noticed that these tendencies are consistent on both low-G and high-G planets so it doesn't only occur under conditions of low gravity affecting the traction, especially since the SRV has thrusters that continually provide the necessary downforce to allow it to drive on the very low-G planets (i.e., 0.03 g).

It really makes no sense other than FD intentionally designing the SRV with poor traction and steering capabilities. I even remember a poster mentioning that he believed the SRV was given performance characteristics of a rear-wheel drive vehicle which would explain the difference in forward vs. reverse traction. A RWD drive power bias would also explain the excessive tendency for the vehicle to suffer oversteer so readily with any loss of traction. In fact I wouldn't be surprized if the SRV performance was based entirely on RWD characteristics because the oversteer is so noticeable even during low-speed turns. Even if there is some power being supplied to the front wheels it clearly doesn't provide performance anywhere near close to what you would expect with a symmetric AWD setup or even a FWD system.

I suspect that FD decided they wanted driving the SRV to be a "challenge" and gave it handling and performance characteristics which are intentionally sub-optimal for off-road use, i.e., a predominantly RWD bias. I happen to drive an AWD car that has a RWD power bias under optimal conditions but sends power to all four wheel as needed when wheel slip is detected so I have a very good idea of how the SRV should drive if it were designed to perform properly under low-traction conditions. Unfortunately like many other aspects of Elite gameplay the SRV performance isn't designed with any sense of logic or realism for an off-road vehicle. It's just another frustrating learning curve that players need to deal with if they want to access the gameplay that is artificially locked behind SRV use (i.e. Engineers and mat synthesis).
Click to expand...

FDEV intentionally designed the SRV with poor driving and steering capabilities. Not that maybe they were going for something and it didn't work out the way they intended...no, it had to be deliberate sabatoge to troll players. You know this, because you dive a Subaru.

Citation needed.
 

FoxFire Ayderan

F
Devari said:
I've done extensive SRV driving in difficult locations (mostly from base runs on high-G worlds to get MEF) and I discovered that the SRV actually has better traction going backwards than it does going forwards. This was quite surprising given that there is actually a dual set of wheels on the front which you would expect to give better forward traction but I've encountered numerous steep slopes that I could slowly drive up going backwards but couldn't make any progress by driving forwards. I've noticed that these tendencies are consistent on both low-G and high-G planets so it doesn't only occur under conditions of low gravity affecting the traction, especially since the SRV has thrusters that continually provide the necessary downforce to allow it to drive on the very low-G planets (i.e., 0.03 g).

It really makes no sense other than FD intentionally designing the SRV with poor traction and steering capabilities. I even remember a poster mentioning that he believed the SRV was given performance characteristics of a rear-wheel drive vehicle which would explain the difference in forward vs. reverse traction. A RWD drive power bias would also explain the excessive tendency for the vehicle to suffer oversteer so readily with any loss of traction. In fact I wouldn't be surprized if the SRV performance was based entirely on RWD characteristics because the oversteer is so noticeable even during low-speed turns. Even if there is some power being supplied to the front wheels it clearly doesn't provide performance anywhere near close to what you would expect with a symmetric AWD setup or even a FWD system.

I suspect that FD decided they wanted driving the SRV to be a "challenge" and gave it handling and performance characteristics which are intentionally sub-optimal for off-road use, i.e., a predominantly RWD bias. I happen to drive an AWD car that has a RWD power bias under optimal conditions but sends power to all four wheel as needed when wheel slip is detected so I have a very good idea of how the SRV should drive if it were designed to perform properly under low-traction conditions. Unfortunately like many other aspects of Elite gameplay the SRV performance isn't designed with any sense of logic or realism for an off-road vehicle. It's just another frustrating learning curve that players need to deal with if they want to access the gameplay that is artificially locked behind SRV use (i.e. Engineers and mat synthesis).
Click to expand...

Honestly that wouldn't surprise me in the least. A lot of Elite seems to be designed to unnecessarily introduce 'challenge' because otherwise there was little else to make the game engaging. Unfortunately artificially induced challenge is more frustrating than it is fun and engaging. (e.g. An obstacle course, with a responsive and well controlled vehicle, is a fun and engaging challenge. An easily navigated course that is made difficult by giving you a vehicle that drives like crap, is not fun and engaging.)

But yeah, now that people mention it, I do recall noticing how much easier it was to drive the SRV backwards, including up steep inclines. I thought it was just in my head, or even that I was somehow cheating fate, because surely as I drive backwards something terrible will happen and surely the control should be the same or worse than forward and just hasn't taken effect yet.

What are the odds of FDev changing the drive characteristics to give us the backward control for going forward instead?
 

Devari

D
CMDR ANCALAGON said:
FDEV intentionally designed the SRV with poor driving and steering capabilities.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. The same as they intentionally designed other unnecessarily poor gameplay decisions into the game for an artificial sense of "challenge".

CMDR ANCALAGON said:
Not that maybe they were going for something and it didn't work out the way they intended...
Click to expand...

Right, because they've had nearly two years now since 2.0 launched to "fix" the SRV handling if it were not intended and have clearly chosen not to do so. If that doesn't clearly indicate to you that the poor SRV handling characteristics are intentional then nothing will.

CMDR ANCALAGON said:
no, it had to be deliberate sabatoge to troll players.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about trolling? I'm simply referring to bad game design here.

CMDR ANCALAGON said:
You know this, because you dive a Subaru.
Click to expand...

No, I don't actually drive a Subaru. They use a symmetric AWD system and would not be particularly relevant to a discussion about AWD vehicles with a RWD bias. I could explain the differences in detail but considering the nature of your post I probably wouldn't expect you to understand them.

CMDR ANCALAGON said:
Citation needed.
Click to expand...

I don't think the word "citation" means what you think it means.
 
Last edited:

CMDR ANCALAGON

C
Devari said:
Yes, they did. The same as they intentionally designed other unnecessarily poor gameplay decisions into the game for an artificial sense of "challenge".



Right, because they've had nearly two years now since 2.0 launched to "fix" the SRV handling if it were not intended and have clearly chosen not to do so. If that doesn't clearly indicate to you that the poor SRV handling characteristics are intentional then nothing will.



Who said anything about trolling? I'm simply referring to bad game design here.



No, I don't actually drive a Subaru. They use permanent (i.e., symmetric) AWD and would not be particularly relevant to a discussion about AWD vehicles with a RWD bias. I could explain the differences in detail but considering the nature of your post I probably wouldn't expect you to understand them.



I don't think the word "citation" means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Hey, just show me proof that FDEV intentionally designed the SRV with poor driving and steering capabilities, and that you're not just talking out of your butt, and I will be on my way.

Also, the idea that there is some "steep learning curve" that gameplay is being "artificially locked behind" the simple task of driving the SRV is silly. Is it prone to spin outs if turning at high speeds? Yes. Is it diffiicult to learn to not make sharp turns while accelerating? No. Even if a player spins out, are they unable to access any outcrops until they pass the basic skills test? No.

SRV handling is not the topic here anyway. You made a claim that FDEV took deliberate actions to make the SRV handle poorly, and that gatheing materials and synthisis are "locked" behind the SRV, so provide proof of FDEV's reasoning behind imposing artificial nerfs to the SRV handling, or any materials, synthisis, or engineering that cannot be accomplished without an SRV. I expect no less from you than you demand of others, so where is your proof?
 

Devari

D
CMDR ANCALAGON said:
Hey, just show me proof that FDEV intentionally designed the SRV with poor driving and steering capabilities, and that you're not just talking out of your butt, and I will be on my way.
Click to expand...

You don't need to "prove" something when discussing aspects of game design that are self-evident.

What you're suggesting is like having someone criticise aspects of a movie and asking them for "proof" that the movie designers "intentionally" made those decisions. Of course they did, they made the movie. Asking for "proof" that the decisions were intentional is so ridiculous it's almost not worth me even replying to such a nonsensical request for "proof".

You're also missing the entire point of the criticism. When a game designer makes a bad decision that results in frustrating gameplay and that decision is criticized that's not the same as saying they intentionally wanted to frustrate players. It's more likely a result of it being easier for a game designer to take shortcuts and use artificially frustrating gameplay to substitute for a well-designed gameplay that provides a meaningful challenge.

There are many other examples of FD making similar design decisions in Elite, but if you need to ask for "proof" that they intentionally made those decisions you quite simply wouldn't understand the nature of the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom