Transfer modules and ships to remote locations

crossxfire007

C
Currently, we can transfer modules and ships to our location. It would be nice if we could send ships and modules to a different location as well.

This could really help gameplay as we could send our ship and modules, especially combat ones, to a location in advance before travelling there, maybe do something else on the way.

This could also tie into engineering. Maybe we could send our modules to the engineer and then do the entire engineering remotely, before transferring them back.
 

Stabby_Dave

Stabby_Dave
First part - already been suggested. Do a search and you'll find the arguments.

Second part - if you pin the blueprint, you can already engineer it remotely (apart from experimental effects).
 

Miklos Atreides

Miklos Atreides
I remember somehow this was already discussed years ago, when ship transfers were introduced.
There were a lot of trouble around that and finally this proposal was skipped for reasons as like sending your expensive ships out of risk to
remote station and follow in a small one there. In my opinion it hinders also the intended gameplay to remotely full engineer modules.

Regards
Miklos
 

Sylow

Sylow
Miklos Atreides said:
I remember somehow this was already discussed years ago, when ship transfers were introduced.
There were a lot of trouble around that and finally this proposal was skipped for reasons as like sending your expensive ships out of risk to
remote station and follow in a small one there. In my opinion it hinders also the intended gameplay to remotely full engineer modules.

Regards
Miklos
Click to expand...

In the end what's the difference between sending your expensive ship, then following in a small one, compared to flying to the destination in a cheap ship, then have your expensive ship delivered there?

The interesting difference is on the gameplay side.

1. Fly there, then order the other ship to be delivered.

In this scenario, the incentive is to fly to the destination in the most efficient way. Then order the other ship to be delivered. While it is on way, you have downtime. Which many players answer by logging out and playing another game.

2. Send ship ahead, then follow it in another one.

In this scenario, there is no hurry to get to the destination. You still have to travel there, but as you know that the other ship takes a while, you can take your time while traveling, scan some systems, do some exploration. When you arrive, your other ship is there, waiting for you.

The deciding difference thus is that one method encourages you to stay in game, while the other one encourages you to log off and come back later. Which one is better for the game anybody can conclude for himself, but consider that any time spent in another game gives that other game the time to win the player over, possibly never to return.
 

Miklos Atreides

Miklos Atreides
Sylow said:
In the end what's the difference between sending your expensive ship, then following in a small one, compared to flying to the destination in a cheap ship, then have your expensive ship delivered there?

The interesting difference is on the gameplay side.

1. Fly there, then order the other ship to be delivered.

In this scenario, the incentive is to fly to the destination in the most efficient way. Then order the other ship to be delivered. While it is on way, you have downtime. Which many players answer by logging out and playing another game.

2. Send ship ahead, then follow it in another one.

In this scenario, there is no hurry to get to the destination. You still have to travel there, but as you know that the other ship takes a while, you can take your time while traveling, scan some systems, do some exploration. When you arrive, your other ship is there, waiting for you.

The deciding difference thus is that one method encourages you to stay in game, while the other one encourages you to log off and come back later. Which one is better for the game anybody can conclude for himself, but consider that any time spent in another game gives that other game the time to win the player over, possibly never to return.
Click to expand...

Scenario 1 works as well the other way round. While waiting for your ship at destination, do some other things. In the old times there was a high intense debate about how ship transfer is to be done. I remember there was also a big discussion on instant transfers in this conjunction as well. I do not remember each and every argument for and against the ship transfer mechanic and how it is to be done best.

Finally the result is what we see today. Which arguments had influence to the developers decisions is a business secrect kept by FD. I am good with this as it is, even if others may see a lot of room for improvement. At the end I think this is a more strategic thing, where you are unable to get everyone happy, but a decision was to be taken where most of involved people can accept a form of compromise.

Regards
Miklos
 

Sylow

Sylow
Exeider said:
I support outbound transfers but only to places youve been before. And by been to, i mean actually landed at not just flew by
Click to expand...

In the end it makes no difference. I mean, would sending be possible, i could send my whole fleet to Colonia. I would still have to fly there myself to be able to use them.
 

Rebel Yell

Rebel Yell
Given the number of ships, modules, engineering mods and experimentals we have... I believe the whole outfitting interface and module storage need a COMPLETE rework. I am not saying about the hidden stats we have to find on 3rd party websites, but I mean the need of being able to build ships faster (yes, I give up on the hardpoints animations) and in a most efficient way, i.e. no micromanage all modules and builds with duplicates and the use of LOADOUTS. This has been also said, suggested and begged with no answer so far...
 

Sylow

Sylow
Miklos Atreides said:
Which arguments had influence to the developers decisions is a business secrect kept by FD.
Click to expand...

The answer to that it rather easy. The "transport to my position" function is built into the station UI and done. A "ship to destination" function would have required the game to open the galaxy map so you select your target system, then switch to the system map to select the destination station, then return all of that back to the sending function.

The information that it's not a route planing for your ship, but rather getting data for sending your ship, would have had to be handed over several times. It would probably have required to upgrade several function calls. So: it would have been a little more work.

Considering other things happening at that period of the games development, I consider it very plausible that "it's less work" is the one and only reason why the function is designed as is.
 

crossxfire007

C
Stabby_Dave said:
First part - already been suggested. Do a search and you'll find the arguments.

Second part - if you pin the blueprint, you can already engineer it remotely (apart from experimental effects).
Click to expand...
I thought there was no harm in bringing it up. It would be incredibly useful. And when I said engineering completely, I meant the exp effects. Having to visit each engineer for those is painful.
 

crossxfire007

C
Sylow said:
In the end what's the difference between sending your expensive ship, then following in a small one, compared to flying to the destination in a cheap ship, then have your expensive ship delivered there?

The interesting difference is on the gameplay side.

1. Fly there, then order the other ship to be delivered.

In this scenario, the incentive is to fly to the destination in the most efficient way. Then order the other ship to be delivered. While it is on way, you have downtime. Which many players answer by logging out and playing another game.

2. Send ship ahead, then follow it in another one.

In this scenario, there is no hurry to get to the destination. You still have to travel there, but as you know that the other ship takes a while, you can take your time while traveling, scan some systems, do some exploration. When you arrive, your other ship is there, waiting for you.

The deciding difference thus is that one method encourages you to stay in game, while the other one encourages you to log off and come back later. Which one is better for the game anybody can conclude for himself, but consider that any time spent in another game gives that other game the time to win the player over, possibly never to return.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I had in mind. Scenario 2 is ideal. I noticed this especially in this combat CG, and earlier when I was looking for systems at war. I can't fly 200ly in my vulture, so I had to fly there in my dbx and order my ship in. Sending a ship ahead means that I can plan, visit an engineer or mat trader or explore along the way. In scenario 1, you need to get there first, order the ship over and then do something in the limited time while the ship is in transit. I watched TV.
 

crossxfire007

C
Exeider said:
I support outbound transfers but only to places youve been before. And by been to, i mean actually landed at not just flew by
Click to expand...
The way I looked at it, you would have to select a destination station. You can only access the system info for the systems you have been to, or purchased info for, just as it currently is in game. Restricting it to only stations you have landed at previously is an interesting thought, though that would mean they would have to track that.
 

crossxfire007

C
Sylow said:
The answer to that it rather easy. The "transport to my position" function is built into the station UI and done. A "ship to destination" function would have required the game to open the galaxy map so you select your target system, then switch to the system map to select the destination station, then return all of that back to the sending function.

The information that it's not a route planing for your ship, but rather getting data for sending your ship, would have had to be handed over several times. It would probably have required to upgrade several function calls. So: it would have been a little more work.

Considering other things happening at that period of the games development, I consider it very plausible that "it's less work" is the one and only reason why the function is designed as is.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought of it to this scale! I only thought they could implement something simple like how we can select stations we know of in nearby systems in the compare page of the commodity market.
 

Sylow

Sylow
crossxfire007 said:
I hadn't thought of it to this scale! I only thought they could implement something simple like how we can select stations we know of in nearby systems in the compare page of the commodity market.
Click to expand...

Which would have been even more work. A whole new format with all the stations according to the given criteria. Keep in mind, this was implemented before the upgrade of the commodity market. [That's why that upgrade at that time really surprised me. ED had quite a long period of "minium effort implementations". ]
 

Exeider

Exeider
crossxfire007 said:
The way I looked at it, you would have to select a destination station. You can only access the system info for the systems you have been to, or purchased info for, just as it currently is in game. Restricting it to only stations you have landed at previously is an interesting thought, though that would mean they would have to track that.
Click to expand...
they already do, one of the hidden stats is stations landed at and markets traded in. One of the engineer unlocks requires you trade with something like 25 or 50 different markets or something like that. It's also in your Codex flight logs, and if you use Inara the API also has that in it's data stream, so it's definitely tracked already.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Since a Fleet Carrier lets you transfer an unlimited number of ships and modules from almost any bubble system to almost any bubble system for a few million credits and fifteen minutes, I don't see why doing it without a Fleet Carrier needs more limitations on where you can send them beyond the existing ship transfer ones of:
- relatively slow
- relatively expensive
- takes a lot of messing around with the interface to transfer multiple things
 

Sylow

Sylow
Ian Doncaster said:
Since a Fleet Carrier lets you transfer an unlimited number of ships and modules from almost any bubble system to almost any bubble system for a few million credits and fifteen minutes, I don't see why doing it without a Fleet Carrier needs more limitations on where you can send them beyond the existing ship transfer ones of:
  • relatively slow
  • relatively expensive
  • takes a lot of messing around with the interface to transfer multiple things
Click to expand...

You have a good point there. With Fleet Carriers around it can even be reasoned that some of the restrictive aspects of ship and module transfer could be strongly reduced without breaking anything.
 

Factabulous

Factabulous
Ian Doncaster said:
Since a Fleet Carrier lets you transfer an unlimited number of ships and modules from almost any bubble system to almost any bubble system for a few million credits and fifteen minutes, I don't see why doing it without a Fleet Carrier needs more limitations on where you can send them beyond the existing ship transfer ones of:
  • relatively slow
  • relatively expensive
  • takes a lot of messing around with the interface to transfer multiple things
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the reason we don't have it is the cost / complexity of the UI. Now that FC have a modified Galmap to allow jumping you could do the same for modules / ships. Though as you say - it would be klunky for multiple moves. I'm also not convinced it would help - those who aren't organised enough to work with the current system would probably still struggle with transfer times IMHO.

(And not sure about your 15 minutes - whenever I want a ship it's invariably 30-50 minutes away :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom