In game travel - the critical flaw?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I'm torn on that one.

On the one hand I'd love jumpgates.

They would
  • create emergent content
  • provide means of fast travel
  • could work as a credit sink (think about having the same costs or higher as ship transfer)
On the other hand they would
  • make distances meaningless (I know lots of CMDRs who wouldn't bother to go to Colonia because of the distance, imho that is good, not because I don't want those CMDRs in Colonia but because it shows distance HAS still a meaning)
  • would create more emergent content in certain locations (yes that's both pro and con :)) (Explorer's Anchorage, while having a lot of ganking in recent history, was imho an outlier, which could see an increase again for example)
  • they would make some CMDRs feel their travels would be invalidated
In the end I come to my personal conclusion that keeping it as it is is propably the better way.

I think the solution could be the one I mentioned earlier:

  • Only allow jumps to previously visited, inhabited locations.
That way you've always got to make the journey at least once (as with classic 'fast travel'), and you can't just zip to any corner of the galaxy.

Add in risk/reward design aspects like:

  • Skill requirements to navigate down the 'gate', with expensive damage, and potentially death / stranding the result of poor execution
  • Longer transits requiring a prolonged skill game, with greater risks of the above.
You could throw in other desirable aspects like a form of route plotting perhaps, but there's the bones there of a system that could work for both risk-reward players, and time-reward players.

¯\(ツ)
 
No. It's to point out that the pay-off of 'combat ships take ages to get anywhere' is a deeply unfun design decision.

Design decisions can be changed or improved.

It's working as intended. Despite popular opinion to the contrary, games aren't meant to be fun. That is not their sole design consideration. Games are designed for interactive entertainment. A game is fun based entirely on player opinion. For example, not many people find flight sims like DCS fun. I, however, do, because I enjoy practicing my skills at level flight, IFR, takeoffs and landings, etc. Fun is subjective. Is any game you don't consider fun not a game? No, of course not.

The form that game takes depends on the rules of the game, because what really defines a game is rules. The rules here are: combat ships are designed specifically for the role of fighting, and as a result of that specialisation, the sacrifice cargo capacity, jump range, and a host of other attributes. According to the rules of this game, you don't get a ship that's good at everything all at once, and never will, so I suggest you come to terms with that, because those are the rules.

People like to change the rules of Monopoly to suit them as well, but by doing so, you've actually broken the game. Let's not break Elite, which is designed around a specific set of rules. Fast travel is internally inconsistent with such rules. And whilst it's fun to theorise methods of making such rule breaking internally consistent (such as with stargates, as you've mentioned), you're still ultimately talking about breaking the rules, and as a result, you'll get a completely different game.

Think of games as small universes. Our universe has a specific set of laws that cannot be broken. As soon as you change one of those laws, it becomes a completely different universe. There may be universes out there with different laws, but as a result, they probably won't be conducive to human life. The difference here is, if you don't like the rules, you can't just go to another universe.

You can, however, go play another game, if you don't like the rules in this one.
 
tl:dr We did get a kind of fast travel mechanic in the neutron star system - if you can find the sweet spot and the nav computer will plot through them (still a bit of an issue for me at present). The downside to that is the ever present slight risk you will goof the scoop and blow up, losing all your data and of course the need to stop occasionally and repair the FSD plus land to replenish the materials needed.
 
OP wants fast travel? Well, it is here. It's called the hyper/witchspace jump and it actually is the fast travel.

The alternative is loading the ship with fuel tanks and travel in supercruise to the next system.
I would advise him to give it a try, then maybe he will appreciate the real value of the current implementation of hyperspace jumps
This will also solve his issue he has with "starring at the loading screen"
 
Last edited:
OP wants fast travel? Well, it is here. It's called the hyper/witchspace jump and it actually is the fast travel.
The alternative is loading the ship with fuel tanks and travel in supercruise to the next system.
Which doesn't work... like at all.
 
Ok I have to admit that I haven't read all 11 pages, so pls excuse me if my suggestion has already been made, but:

May I suggest to OP the time honored practice of solving problems by throwing money at them?

So you want to have your 17ly jump range combat ship in e.g. Colonia. Simply take a long jump range taxi (Krait Phantom or so), get on the Neutron highway and 2-3 hours of somehow risky game play later you are there. Not too many jumps (80 or so).
Then you spend about the value of your combat ship and transfer it to Colonia. Three days of totally unrepititive real life later you have your tank with you 😎
 
When I think about it, there are actually ships that can jump much further in the game. Megaships and also stations. The only thing I could imagine in terms of travel, would be a network of megaships that take you to places like Colonia on regular schedules, much like we can book a ride on the Gnosis by being docked when it jumps.
 
It's working as intended. Despite popular opinion to the contrary, games aren't meant to be fun. That is not their sole design consideration. Games are designed for interactive entertainment. A game is fun based entirely on player opinion. For example, not many people find flight sims like DCS fun. I, however, do, because I enjoy practicing my skills at level flight, IFR, takeoffs and landings, etc. Fun is subjective. Is any game you don't consider fun not a game? No, of course not.

Of course fun is subjective. It's interesting that the entertainment you describe involves skill though. The issue I'm critiquing doesn't. I wonder if there's a connection ;)


The form that game takes depends on the rules of the game, because what really defines a game is rules. The rules here are: combat ships are designed specifically for the role of fighting, and as a result of that specialisation, the sacrifice cargo capacity, jump range, and a host of other attributes. According to the rules of this game, you don't get a ship that's good at everything all at once, and never will, so I suggest you come to terms with that, because those are the rules.

It's a game. The rules are mutable.

You don't find it ironic that the players that are probably least inclined to long-form transit are given the longest transit times within the bubble?

I agree that exploration range trade-offs should persist. Which is why I'm suggesting solutions that preserve that aspect.

Ultimately the negative outcome of '20 jumps to reach a shop that may not have what you want in stock' still needs addressing, because it is awful gameplay. I'd go as far as to parrot the OP and say 'objectively' awful gameplay ;)


You can, however, go play another game, if you don't like the rules in this one.

Nope I'm staying mate, because the game advertised itself to, and seeks to support, many playstyles, including my own. And I'll keep pitching win-win ideas that address poor gameplay experiences within the game for my playstyle, while also bearing other gameplay styles in mind. Even though many time-to-reward / explo players such as yourself never return the favour. Here's my latest :)

A Skilled 'Wormhole' Jump To Previously Visited Nav Beacons Would Improve The Game [DISCUSS]
 
Last edited:
I suppose jumping has alays been part of Elite (7LY is I remember right in the first version), so the broken game design has been there since the 80s, I guess that is the reason it is was it is.
I'd disagree that it was originally 'broken'. I'm excluding 1984's Elite because that was basically just testing the water as to whether an open-ended space game would make any headway with the gamers of the time. Part of my issue with ED is that it takes too much of its mechanics from a game that fit into a few kilobytes on a ZX Spectrum.

But for me at least, the FE2/FFE model for interstellar travel was interesting and innovative: you have a ship of a certain mass, and a drive with a certain maximum jump range. To jump that maximum range always took seven days, because of physical laws of some kind. Shorter jumps took a proportionally smaller fraction of that seven-day maximum.

This meant that a certain amount of calculation was necessary, if you had a courier mission requiring you to arrive by a certain date and time, you had to factor in not only the jump time, in hours or days - maybe even weeks if you're doing multiple jumps - but also the real-time cost of accelerating and decelerating once you arrive in the target system: with sublight engines capable of developing several G of thrust, and even with no practical top speed (as there wouldn't be in space, yes I'm still bitter about it), it still took time to cross the massive distance to the planet or station you were looking for.

And that's before accounting for the mass of any cargo you're carrying, which will impact the jump time and range and fuel cost.

No, the FE2/FFE system wasn't broken. It meant having to manage your travels, rather than just point and click and arrive pretty much instantaneously.

What brought that about was, obviously, the addition (the crowbarred and uncalled-for addition, in my view) of multiplayer. Elite games had previously never been multiplayer experiences, but I presume FDev wanted a slice of that tasty and moist Live Services™ cake - hence the early abandonment of the true offline mode and the need for us all to be permanently connected. But multiplayer meant that everyone had to be in time sync, and that meant there could be no 'Stardreamer' time acceleration as we passed hours or days in witch-space. So travel had to become instant - or at least as instant as the loading process could handle. So Supercruise now gets us across systems in a matter of real-time minutes; and the 'Frame-Shift Drive' was invented which, in lore, magically bypasses the constraints of the old witch-drives and meant that the Galaxy became functionally tiny. Hence the original First Great Expedition being a bit of a damp squib since Sagittarius A* is a lot easier to get to than was originally assumed (disclaimer: I've never been myself but that's largely down to being bored witless by the prospect).

But to have gone to Sag A* in Frontier or First Encounters? Did anyone actually do that? Even using the early triangulation jump-range bug? How long did that take?

The Galaxy was so much bigger then.

It's a subjective thing, as these things often are. But for my money, travel in the Elite franchise wasn't broken until multiplayer came along and broke it.

----
PS: Just for the record, I think 'frame-shift drive' is an awesome name for the system. Whoever came up with that deserves a bun at least. It's the mechanic I think has negatively impacted the game, not the name.
 

Lestat

Banned
No. It's to point out that the pay-off of 'combat ships take ages to get anywhere' is a deeply unfun design decision.

Design decisions can be changed or improved.
Oh another Combat ship excuse. Why not pay to have them shipped and use a faster ship? How many ships can we have? And how much money can someone earn in a day?
 
Just with the difference, that E:D isn't a RPG game. It's a simulation.
What do you expect from removing travel? Just think about missions, exploration and trading. If you remove the travel between buying and selling cargo, there's just a click-game left like the ones you can find on facebook and anywhere else on browsers.

I guess this is really not the right game for you. Elite is about travelling through space mainly. Everything else which Elite offers is just stuff that happens DURING travelling through space.
 
Its a tradeoff you can have no jumping to new systems in tiny little games. Something like ED with its 1.1 galactic scale map and so many options for where you decide to jump next makes pre-loading of likely systems impractical. There isn't any practical alternative that wouldn't shrink the galaxy which is one of ED's main selling points.

I do speed runs on A-B long journeys, fit a good scoop and do it all constant full throttle trying to shave a few seconds off every jump. It can go catastrophically wrong which is always good for a laugh. Any other journey I let myself get distracted by anything that looks fun.

The game is what it is. You can't change that so there's no point worrying about it.
 
I think a good comproise could be to being able to send your ship to Colonnia or other far away key areas for a price/time. Similar to sending ships to other locations.
 

Lestat

Banned
I think a good comproise could be to being able to send your ship to Colonnia or other far away key areas for a price/time. Similar to sending ships to other locations.
Some players have an issue with this. To have a Fast ship to get to Colonia in 107 Jumps or less and have a Combat ship waiting for them. I think it better let them wait because some players could have issues on this one. I think the current setup with ship transfer is the best idea.
 
No. It's to point out that the pay-off of 'combat ships take ages to get anywhere' is a deeply unfun design decision.

Design decisions can be changed or improved.

Its a design decision that makes perfect sense though. What you are suggesting doesn't. A small ship that is built light as a feather is obviously going to jump further than a giant battleship that can take out small moons.


Making them both jump the same/similar distance would completely undermine the need for smaller lighter ships in the first place. There would be no need for them to even exist at that point. Because given the option between small tin can or flying fortress that both have the same jump range the vast majority of people are gonna take the fortress.


But with the way that ED works right now there is a balance and that balance is the jump range and the survivability. The more jump range you have the less survivability you have. The more survivability you have the less jump range you have. And thats fine. Its balanced. It works. What you are suggesting is throwing that balance out the window just because you are having a hissy that your fully outfitted combat ship doesn't jump as far as a tin can Asp or stripped down Anaconda.
 
On the other hand travelling anywhere in the game should take infinitely long...your post is a failed reductio ad absurdum of course...
I think a good comproise could be to being able to send your ship to Colonnia or other far away key areas for a price/time. Similar to sending ships to other locations.

Yes a more capable ship delivery system would be great.

We should be able to order the ships in our fleet to be delivered from any station to any station, no matter in which station we ourselves presently are.
 
Its a design decision that makes perfect sense though. What you are suggesting doesn't. A small ship that is built light as a feather is obviously going to jump further than a giant battleship that can take out small moons.

I have to disagree, because it depends on the fluff and rules of the fantasy technology used in the game.
A bigger ship might be able to install vastly superior jumpdrives with a much better jump/mass ratio than smaller ships.
We already see this principle used in the game currently with megaships.
 
Its a design decision that makes perfect sense though. What you are suggesting doesn't. A small ship that is built light as a feather is obviously going to jump further than a giant battleship that can take out small moons.


Making them both jump the same/similar distance would completely undermine the need for smaller lighter ships in the first place. There would be no need for them to even exist at that point. Because given the option between small tin can or flying fortress that both have the same jump range the vast majority of people are gonna take the fortress.


But with the way that ED works right now there is a balance and that balance is the jump range and the survivability. The more jump range you have the less survivability you have. The more survivability you have the less jump range you have. And thats fine. Its balanced. It works. What you are suggesting is throwing that balance out the window just because you are having a hissy that your fully outfitted combat ship doesn't jump as far as a tin can Asp or stripped down Anaconda.

I'm not suggesting equalising the jump ranges though. The pitch I've linked above preserves those aspects, but allows for convenient (if risky) 'get me to the action' gameplay within the bubble primarily. The superior exploration potential of explo-builds would be preserved.

It's not a hissy fit. I'm just critiquing a poor gameplay experience. While suggesting solutions which shouldn't impact alternate game styles, such as explo.
¯\(ツ)
 
I have to disagree, because it depends on the fluff and rules of the fantasy technology used in the game.
A bigger ship might be able to install vastly superior jumpdrives with a much better jump/mass ratio than smaller ships.
We already see this principle used in the game currently with megaships.
That doesn't address the fact that it would make smaller ships obsolete. There would be no reason to ever use them outside of wanting a bit more speed or mobility, but in ED speed/mobility will only get you so far.
 
Yes a more capable ship delivery system would be great.

We should be able to order the ships in our fleet to be delivered from any station to any station, no matter in which station we ourselves presently are.

I use to be all for getting the ability to push ships (and modules) forward but starting to have my doubts on it. Going by some of the threads I have read here in DD where Commanders can't even manage the basics then jump here and complain I can see too many dangers with shipping forward. Players would send their ships to the wrong station because they didn't check the spelling, tried to send large ships to platforms, send their ships to the right station then decide they don't want to go there. The result - more complaints to Customer Service demanding FD magically fix a self inflicted problem and more 'FD sucks' threads here.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom