In game travel - the critical flaw?

[voidwalker]

Relevant: In the combat scenario you have multiple layers of agency, from loadout to engagement choice to combat execution.

Irrelevant. You didn't address my point. Not even remotely. Your argument was based on the premise that something isn't fun. It doesn't matter if it's fun or not. That's entirely unrelated to the rules.

Hello, this is a computer game where travel at multiples of c.

There is always a balance between gameplay and realism, even in pseudo-sims.

And having acknowledged this and explained how and why FDEV try to keep unrealistic creations to a minimum, your objection is moot. It would be easier to program static stations and pretend they have artificial gravity. Instead, they made spinning ones, because that's more realistic. You don't get it. This isn't about precisely simulating reality, it's about being as realistic as possible, and when given multiple choices on how to do something in the game, they're always going to opt for what's the most realistic, not what's most 'fun'.

You are self-interested, I agree.

Everyone is. Welcome to reality, where there's really no such thing as altruism. Even the man who donates anonymously does it for his own sense of self-satisfaction.

The irony is that I respect the differing desires and playstyles of others, hence the balancing within the ideas that I pitch.

You clearly have no interest in mine at all.

You do not return the favour. I am used to this from the more defensive advocates of the time-to-reward / explo / low-stimulus communities.

You haven't done me any favours. Your idea doesn't do me any favours. So I don't owe you any in return.

Can you explain how the above wormhole pitch would negatively impact your playstyles? Beyond the sheer horror of it not being rigidly scientific.

I already have. Multiple times. It's inconsistent with the rules of Elite. That breaks my playstyle.

That would at least approach constructive interaction. As opposed to these wooly diatribes about rules being rules.

There's been nothing constructive about any of your interactions. You simply can't handle the idea that your idea might be a bad idea. You can't handle the thought that people don't like it, and you can't even conceive the fact that people might not care about the same things you care about, or horror, the fact that they are in no way obliged to care about the things you care about. The reality is, the only thing that matters is the rules of the game. My playstyle doesn't matter. Your playstyle doesn't matter. The rules matter.

Because once again, it's the rules are what define playstyle, not the other way around. That's just bad game design.

 

[Para Handy]

I've heard tell of a Braben quote ruling them out but have yet to find it. If you can link me to it I'd appreciate it.

Elite Dangerous - David Braben Answers Questions | PDF | Computing And Information Technology | Leisure

David Braben, CEO Frontier Developments plc. answers questions regarding Elite Dangerous

www.scribd.com

Colonel Kenney: “One interesting question I have. Much of the galaxy will take us a very long time to get to. Are there any plans of implementing any sort of “shortcuts” to different parts of the galaxy suchas wormholes? Like something extremely rare but there are some hidden around for us to discover etc? Like how can we explore the center of the galaxy if it would take a year of gameplay to get there etc?”

No, we’re not planning to implement shortcuts. For me, one of the attractions is it IS a big achievement to travel a long distance. I like the idea of the occasional meeting of a player far far out in the galaxy as a chance encounter. We do plan to seed things of interest out there too.

 

[voidwalker]

Elite is an evolving game. Its rules will change. Maybe it's not for you?

Of course Elite is an evolving game. You're assuming, though, that such evolution means the rules MUST change. You're apparently unfamiliar with the fact that even evolution itself has a set of rules that never ever change. Everything changes according to the rules, sure, but the rules themselves never change. The best games, the ones that have stood the test of time, such as ancient board games like marjong and chess, and various sports, the rules simply don't change.

Oh but I'm not even talking about the 'rule' rules, like 'pawns can only move one square forward' rules. I'm talking about the rules that establish the premise of the game. They're like laws of physics. So let's call them that: laws, laws around which the rules are constructed, and by which the game is defined functionally, in the same way that a universe is defined functionally by the laws of physics, laws such as thermodynamics and special relativity.

I tend to find that hardly anyone understands that all games have an underlying set of rules. Let's use Xcom as an example. In xcom, the rules are simple. You're outgunned, outnumbered, fighting against an alien invasion with superior technology with little more than unflinching human spirit. Those rules establish the game's themes, and those themes help establish the 'rule' rules by which it's played. THOSE rules can change. The rules underlying those rules, however, or that game's 'laws of physics', they don't change. You change those, and you change the game. That's why so many attempts at Xcom spinoffs failed. Badly. For example, The Bureau changed the rules pretty badly. Getting alien technology was way too easy. It's meant to be hard. Like, you're going to lose a lot of people trying to acquire it hard. It was internally inconsistent. It's also part of why Fallout 76 was poorly received, because they retconned previously established rules, and it's also why the new Star Wars movies have been panned by fans that have followed the story since '77, such as myself, because again, they retconned previously established rules. And not just the rules established by the books, but rules established in the OT as well.

But you're right, maybe it's not for me. If it gets any more dumbed down than it already is, such as actually implementing your bad ideas, it certainly won't be for me, and I'll go find something else. It's not like there aren't thousands of great games out there to choose from. Hell, might even crack open Xcom 2: War of the Chosen for another Iron Man playthrough. That's always fun.

 

[Stealthie]

Yes I figured that's one reason guys like yourself are really objecting, but it's nice to hear it stated

Not sure what you mean to imply by that.

I'm pointing out that a balance exists and that what you're asking for would skew that balance in favour of the gameplay you prefer.

If somebody came along and suggested that the weight of armor should be reduced so that exploration ships can be armored more easily, or that all ships should be fitted with cargo space by default, do you suppose I'd support that?

Cos, I wouldn't.

In each case, asking for a change is asking for the balance of the game to be skewed in favour of one thing or another.
The whole point of the game, as it stands, is that players are forced to make some level of compromise.
To want that to change is to want the game to be fundamentally skewed toward one type of gameplay, at the expense of all others.

 

[VR Golgot]

Elite Dangerous - David Braben Answers Questions | PDF | Computing And Information Technology | Leisure

David Braben, CEO Frontier Developments plc. answers questions regarding Elite Dangerous

www.scribd.com

Colonel Kenney: “One interesting question I have. Much of the galaxy will take us a very long time to get to. Are there any plans of implementing any sort of “shortcuts” to different parts of the galaxy suchas wormholes? Like something extremely rare but there are some hidden around for us to discover etc? Like how can we explore the center of the galaxy if it would take a year of gameplay to get there etc?”

No, we’re not planning to implement shortcuts. For me, one of the attractions is it IS a big achievement to travel a long distance. I like the idea of the occasional meeting of a player far far out in the galaxy as a chance encounter. We do plan to seed things of interest out there too.

Nice one

That definitely rules out wormholes outside the bubble. I'd say it's less of a veto on inter-bubble though. Think there's some wiggle room there.

 

[VR Golgot]

You simply can't handle the idea that your idea might be a bad idea

I'm absolutely fine with that. I'm actively seeking constructive criticism.

Unfortunately all I'm getting from you is some stream of consciousness rants about internal consistency which are (ironically) internally inconsistent, deeply subjective to boot, and nigh impossible to parse down into a coherent position which I can engage with. Congratulations.

 

[Stigbob]

Nice one

That definitely rules out wormholes outside the bubble. I'd say it's less of a veto on inter-bubble though. Think there's some wiggle room there.

You can cross the bubble in minutes, I don't really see any point.

 

[VR Golgot]

You can cross the bubble in minutes, I don't really see any point.

Not in a combat ship. I proposed a wormhole approach that could resolve that without making them explo kings.

 

[VR Golgot]

Not sure what you mean to imply by that.

I'm pointing out that a balance exists and that what you're asking for would skew that balance in favour of the gameplay you prefer.

If somebody came along and suggested that the weight of armor should be reduced so that exploration ships can be armored more easily, or that all ships should be fitted with cargo space by default, do you suppose I'd support that?

Cos, I wouldn't.

In each case, asking for a change is asking for the balance of the game to be skewed in favour of one thing or another.
The whole point of the game, as it stands, is that players are forced to make some level of compromise.
To want that to change is to want the game to be fundamentally skewed toward one type of gameplay, at the expense of all others.

I was pointing out your example didn't have any great relevance to my pitch. Hence was poor grounds for objection.

If you can come up with an actual reason why your gamestyle would be impacted then I'm all ears.

 

[JoeDavidson456]

I could imagine as the timeline of the game progresses that a hotshot engineer comes up with a hyper-hyper-space mode of travel -- as one person above said, perhaps thru worm holes. It might be cool to implement say 20 or 30 worm holes, to provide a broken and incomplete, yet still helpful way to travel say 15,000 LY at a time... So many possibilities... I've heard a couple of interviews with the CEO of Frontier and he likes to say there is thus far only one big lie re: current science: faster than light travel. So perhaps this is why he hesitates to add worm holes...

 

[S3B4ST13N]

He also said they wouldn't be adding guilds (I can't recall where I heard it, I think it was on a stream; quite a while ago). I've taken to taking what he says with a pinch of salt; as it's possible (likely with enough demand) for Frontier to depart from previously held positions.

Elite Dangerous - David Braben Answers Questions | PDF | Computing And Information Technology | Leisure

David Braben, CEO Frontier Developments plc. answers questions regarding Elite Dangerous

www.scribd.com

Colonel Kenney: “One interesting question I have. Much of the galaxy will take us a very long time to get to. Are there any plans of implementing any sort of “shortcuts” to different parts of the galaxy suchas wormholes? Like something extremely rare but there are some hidden around for us to discover etc? Like how can we explore the center of the galaxy if it would take a year of gameplay to get there etc?”

No, we’re not planning to implement shortcuts. For me, one of the attractions is it IS a big achievement to travel a long distance. I like the idea of the occasional meeting of a player far far out in the galaxy as a chance encounter. We do plan to seed things of interest out there too.

 

[Stigbob]

Not in a combat ship. I proposed a wormhole approach that could resolve that without making them explo kings.

With ship transfer thats already sorted, use a jump taxi and just transfer it in.

 

[VR Golgot]

With ship transfer thats already sorted, use a jump taxi and just transfer it in.

Crazy price tag attached for a combat Conda. Have been chatting about this too

 

[Stigbob]

He also said they wouldn't be adding guilds (I can't recall where I heard it, I think it was on a stream; quite a while ago). I've taken to taking what he says with a pinch of salt; as it's possible (likely with enough demand) for Frontier to depart from previously held positions.

He said he didn't like player guilds because they tend to behave like Mafiosi.

If you look at the way squadrons have been implemented (and modes) they support BGS factions without directly controlling them they also can't set who can and cant land at stations and use services and such. So the worst aspects of guilds such as enforced membership, demanding fee's, putting up "NO GURLS ALOUD" signs, imposing themselves on unwilling randoms passing through just don't work. It all remains entirely optional for players.

We have guilds but they are detached from the more toxic end of the spectrum.

Squadron carriers will be the same I'd imagine, executive control of mobile resupply/mission ships. You wont be able to plonk it outside your enemies letterbox with the guns set to moider mode, you'll be able to deploy it to a system you are expanding into/fighting over.

 

[Stigbob]

Crazy price tag attached for a combat Conda. Have been chatting about this too

Easy come easy go.

 

[ChrisF0001]

Good grief, is this thread still going? Well, I feel a rambling story coming on...

Just to follow up on something Voidwalker said, I do find it interesting that gameplay often comes at least as much from what you can't do as what you can do.

Personally, I admit, I use a docking computer on almost every ship, because I find manual docking tedious and annoying and probably the one thing in the game I'd call most like a 'grind'. Sometimes I start to think, wouldn't it be great if every ship had a built-in docking computer that didn't use up a slot? A lot of my ship builds would become perfect instantly!

And you know what? It wouldn't be great at all, for that exact reason. Whether or not to throw away a slot on a DC for my personal convenience is a choice that I have to make, and more choices to make means a more interesting game. Regarding crossing the bubble in a combat ship - well, I'm now saving up for a Corvette, and gosh, that jump range is awful. Moving that around is going to be painful - but hey, I could fit a Guardian FSD Booster, or a much bigger fuel scoop, or even another fuel tank. That would make moving around much easier! But, it would make the ship less combat-ready! Perhaps I could buy an alternative set of modules, fly to wherever the CZs are with the travel-build, then pull the modules over and refit to a combat build? Maybe, but it costs money and time and is a bit tedious. Or I could fly the whole way in the combat loadout. Decisions, decisions! And what's that? Gameplay, that's what that is.

I think travel times are just fine as they are, for many reasons. Including that one.

 

[Para Handy]

Nice one

That definitely rules out wormholes outside the bubble. I'd say it's less of a veto on inter-bubble though. Think there's some wiggle room there.

Between (inter) what bubbles? Between Colonia and the Bubble? Or do you really mean "intra-bubble" to which I throw my hands up in dismay.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

Unfortunately the Twitch video is no longer available, however someone was nice enough to quote part of what he said:

He said he didn't like player guilds because they tend to behave like Mafiosi.

If you look at the way squadrons have been implemented (and modes) they support BGS factions without directly controlling them they also can't set who can and cant land at stations and use services and such. So the worst aspects of guilds such as enforced membership, demanding fee's, putting up "NO GURLS ALOUD" signs, imposing themselves on unwilling randoms passing through just don't work. It all remains entirely optional for players.

We have guilds but they are detached from the more toxic end of the spectrum.

Squadron carriers will be the same I'd imagine, executive control of mobile resupply/mission ships. You wont be able to plonk it outside your enemies letterbox with the guns set to moider mode, you'll be able to deploy it to a system you are expanding into/fighting over.

 

[Para Handy]

Unfortunately the Twitch video is no longer available, however someone was nice enough to quote part of what he said:
View attachment 126628 (from the picture: "Anything beyond a friends group doesn't feel right.")

Surely a squadron IS a friends group?

 

[Stigbob]

Unfortunately the Twitch video is no longer available, however someone was nice enough to quote part of what he said:
View attachment 126628

The "they tend to behave like Mafiosi" quote is straight from the horses mouth, no idea if it was the same interview with DBOBE. I think what we have works for factions and randoms, like the linked modes its really clever design pretty unique to ED.