Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 78

Thread: Exiting Hyperspace appears to have changed

  1. #61
    I don't think I like this feature. It waists my time when trying to fuel scoop.

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by knowles2 View Post (Source)
    best comment on this thread. Frontier should be working on making flying more dangerous and risky and skilled fall, not less, they already dumb the navigation part of the game down. One of the best moments in the game for me was figuring out how to get to Sol in a sidewinder and automatic routing would only calculate like a hundred light years and being successful, eventually. It took me all day!
    There's a difference between the concept of risk and reward and the concept of annoyance and grind. The line between the two is very thin and has to be threaded carefully. Should flying be more dangerous and require more skill? I'm not sure what sort of skill it should require. Right now you move your ship around using your joystick (or mouse) and some secondary controller, which is dexterity based, but also pretty straight forward. I don't really know how you can make it more skill demanding (or less skill demanding). It is what it is. More key combos to use? What for? Less responsive ships so you need faster reaction time? What for? Just like in RL, most of everyday stuff we do in these ships is simple enough to quickly get a grasp of. Just like in RL, difficulty level goes up when we engage in combat. And that, in my opinion, is fine. Requiring simple activities, such as flying your trade route, take-off and landing, to be difficult, makes no sense.
    As for navigation, even if it allows you to plot 20k Ly, it won't take you, say, from Eranin to Sol in the starting sidewinder (not mentioning Sol requires a permit, so there's that). This is because the starting Sidey has a miserable jump range (unless you upgrade it, but then it's not a starting Sidey any more). That was the first route I tried to plot and the nav system back then couldn't find me the route with that jump range. But even when you want to plot your route manually and enjoy doing so, doesn't mean everyone else wants to do that as well.
    Anyhow, not that I really care if we jump out close to the stars or further away nor am I afraid of getting too close. I probably prefer to jump out reasonably close, so I don't waste time getting within the scooping range. But I don't think that jumping out close to the star was actually more dangerous. Never had any issues with that, this including white dwarfs or binaries, back when they could be quite unpleasant. So it's not like they changed something that actually was dangerous or required more skills.

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by Gryphorim View Post (Source)
    As I understand it, this change was made to prevent the edge cases of unavoidable damage from being suddenly too close to a binary or worse.
    The mechanics should definitely be set up in such a way as sloppy piloting leads to incremental wear to your ship, but it should not be causing cases where even the most careful pilot takes damage due to bad luck.
    The damage is not unavoidable. That comes down to whether people bother to carry heat-sinks or not. Sometimes the game can eject you into a star, but that is rare, and part of the risk. Sometimes you are going to get shoved in between 3 stars and heat damage should be an expected outcome without mitigation. So mitigate it; don't remove it.

    If people don't bother to take steps to reduce heat profile - eg turn crap off, using engineering when available, or just use heatsinks (because that's what heatsinks are useful for - heat) then that's on the pilot. The galaxy shouldn't be sanitised because a few commanders cannot live with the appalling horror (shame?) of about 2-3% module damage because the game has ejected them into a trinary system. Why are they even exploring?

    I won't ever agree with this decision; it is a poor one, for reasons that can be mitigated already. Fix the bugs, where or if they exist, not the chance of random encounters with interesting star clusters. I mean we are parked so far from such stars now, as for it to be genuinely laughable.

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    The damage is not unavoidable. That comes down to whether people bother to carry heat-sinks or not. Sometimes the game can eject you into a star, but that is rare, and part of the risk. Sometimes you are going to get shoved in between 3 stars and heat damage should be an expected outcome without mitigation. So mitigate it; don't remove it.

    If people don't bother to take steps to reduce heat profile - eg turn crap off, using engineering when available, or just use heatsinks (because that's what heatsinks are useful for - heat) then that's on the pilot. The galaxy shouldn't be sanitised because a few commanders cannot live with the appalling horror (shame?) of about 2-3% module damage because the game has ejected them into a trinary system. Why are they even exploring?

    I won't ever agree with this decision; it is a poor one, for reasons that can be mitigated already. Fix the bugs, where or if they exist, not the chance of random encounters with interesting star clusters. I mean we are parked so far from such stars now, as for it to be genuinely laughable.
    Then feel free to fly towards danger if you wish, but forcing players out of hyperspace into immediate danger isn't fun or interesting gameplay.

  5. #65
    Personally I reckon this should have been in from the start, considering the level of tech in the game I'd say it is quite reasonable to expect the navigation system to be able to detect binary systems and drop you at a safe distance. I couldn't count the number of times I have flown through a star when exiting hyperspace, always seemed like a bug.

    With all that being said we should also have an option to override safety nets, have never been a fan of the forced emergency drop out near stars. Elite dangerous needs more hazards in space, genuine anomalies to discover, they are on the right track with neutron stars.

    Let's be honest here, the only reason we want the danger of exiting witchspace between binary's is because it is currently the only holy ---- moment we get out in the black.

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by 777Driver View Post (Source)
    Let's be honest here, the only reason we want the danger of exiting witchspace between binary's is because it is currently the only holy ---- moment we get out in the black.

    True. It's like Frontier sat down and said "How can we make exploration even more boring than it already is? I know! Let's remove one of the only real dangers of exploring, the single most adrenaline inducing part of it!".


    Next update will remove hull damage from Emergency Stops and FSD damage from neutron jumps, two new QoL changes designed to improve the experience of exploration! I wouldn't be surprised to see all ships get Improved Landing Computers as standard equipment soon either, making crash landings impossible and ensuring that all planet landings from now on are perfectly safe, because currently it's just too easy to damage your hull when landing. Coupled with that Frontier will change the Stellar Forge to make 4G's the new maximum planet gravity, thereby ensuring that all ships can safely land on all planet surfaces because forcing the player to look at the gravity numbers and make decisions as to whether it's safe to land or not just isn't very fair.


    There are still plenty of ways in which Frontier can change exploration to make it more accessible to everyone! Maybe in S3....

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by 777Driver View Post (Source)
    Personally I reckon this should have been in from the start, considering the level of tech in the game I'd say it is quite reasonable to expect the navigation system to be able to detect binary systems and drop you at a safe distance. I couldn't count the number of times I have flown through a star when exiting hyperspace, always seemed like a bug.

    With all that being said we should also have an option to override safety nets, have never been a fan of the forced emergency drop out near stars. Elite dangerous needs more hazards in space, genuine anomalies to discover, they are on the right track with neutron stars.

    Let's be honest here, the only reason we want the danger of exiting witchspace between binary's is because it is currently the only holy ---- moment we get out in the black.
    Flying through a star, although amusing, is an immersion breaker. Christ I'm actually talking about bloody immersion non-ironically, I can't believe this. I would have thought/hoped that there would be a way to address that (since they seem to have decided to do so, no idea why because I can't even recall the last time I saw someone complain about it) only without it requiring us to be dropped far away from binaries. After all we may not 'know' what is coming in the system we're jumping to but the game clearly does. As you say, that moment where you drop out blasting through the corona of the secondary star and end up scooping the one behind you is one of the few real panic moments in exploration and the game is better for them in my opinion.

    Originally Posted by Gryphorim View Post (Source)
    As I understand it, this change was made to prevent the edge cases of unavoidable damage from being suddenly too close to a binary or worse.
    The mechanics should definitely be set up in such a way as sloppy piloting leads to incremental wear to your ship, but it should not be causing cases where even the most careful pilot takes damage due to bad luck.
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    The damage is not unavoidable. That comes down to whether people bother to carry heat-sinks or not. Sometimes the game can eject you into a star, but that is rare, and part of the risk. Sometimes you are going to get shoved in between 3 stars and heat damage should be an expected outcome without mitigation. So mitigate it; don't remove it.

    If people don't bother to take steps to reduce heat profile - eg turn crap off, using engineering when available, or just use heatsinks (because that's what heatsinks are useful for - heat) then that's on the pilot. The galaxy shouldn't be sanitised because a few commanders cannot live with the appalling horror (shame?) of about 2-3% module damage because the game has ejected them into a trinary system. Why are they even exploring?

    I won't ever agree with this decision; it is a poor one, for reasons that can be mitigated already. Fix the bugs, where or if they exist, not the chance of random encounters with interesting star clusters. I mean we are parked so far from such stars now, as for it to be genuinely laughable.
    In terms of the risks in dropping close to binaries, I can't be bothered logging in to check exactly how far I've travelled and how many jumps I've done but I hit Elite in exploration before passenger missions contributed to exploration rank, so that should at least confirm I've done some miles. From memory my furthest distance from the starting system is about 40K LY.

    I can tell you without logging in exactly how much cumulative heat damage I have taken to ship modules from dropping into close binary systems since the day I started playing. 3% per module. The reason I can remember it is that it has happened exactly once since October 2015, out of the literally hundreds of close binary systems I've jumped to. So either I'm incredibly lucky, or the risk for someone who pays attention to the game when playing it is infinitesimally small. On my last longish trip, which covered over 100K LY, I returned home with my power plant at 97% and my hull at 98%, neither of which were due to dropping in too close to a star, and no other damage.

    I'm really pretty dismayed about this change. I can't see what purpose it serves.

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by Aldaris View Post (Source)
    Then feel free to fly towards danger if you wish, but forcing players out of hyperspace into immediate danger isn't fun or interesting gameplay.
    .. what immediate danger? You can sit there for about 15 minutes before your ship will explode. Death via heat is about as s-l-o-w as it gets. Good lord; I can kill myself faster just accidentally boosting into a planet surface; the rare super hot jump in does not even come close. And you aren't "forced"; the game doesn't "force" you into the star.

    The drive disengages after n jump period (instance load) and you arrive in-system. This is normal. The only thing that 'forces' players out of hyperspace, are flower people. What isn't normal, is implicitly expecting arrival in a trinary system, between stars, to be abnormal. The drives are designed use the mass of stars as the anchor point.

    So us popping out the stellar equivalent of one side of Texas, when we targeted the other, just doesn't make any sense. Sorry, can't agree. And as much as I understand frontier's choice in this, it is a poor one.

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by 777Driver View Post (Source)
    Personally I reckon this should have been in from the start, considering the level of tech in the game I'd say it is quite reasonable to expect the navigation system to be able to detect binary systems and drop you at a safe distance. I couldn't count the number of times I have flown through a star when exiting hyperspace, always seemed like a bug.
    The W-T-F moment of knocking through a star (with the loud collision noise) does tend to snap one to attention. As does jumping in between trinarys. But the degree in which heat and risk is being removed from exploration, so that it is now basically just tourism, isn't good. Give me ways to mitigate it, so I have at least some illusion of choice, that's cool.

    If we're going with the notion that we know the star is there, but we don't specifically know the system structure until we arrive (because this requires a honk to validate); how does the system implicitly know there is danger, before we arrive?

    Either the honk is a game mechanic, and so is the jump in point, or it's based on reality in which case we can extrapolate some degree of understanding based on available data, but this is not going to guarantee we can reliably arrive safely every single time and upholds the notion we have to honk to actually validate extrapolated data. Otherwise it's all just a grab-bag of random mechanics and nothing means anything (which, really, it is at this point).

    tl;dr - sucking actual or statistical anomalies and events out of the game isn't always a positive win.

  10. #70
    Jumping through a star is possible. When entering hyperspace your ship creates a subspace bubble which punches a hole in n-space (colloquially, hyperspace) and creates a wormhole to your destination in realspace. At the other end, as you exit n-space your ship collapses the wormhole by splitting off the subspace bubble (it is what keeps the wormhole stable as you travel through it, and you don't want to be caught in a collapsing wormhole without being surrounded by a subspace bubble unless you enjoy being crushed into a singularity). This is why on exit your ship is still in frameshift drive.

    It is possible for your ship to split off from the wormhole just as its trajectory crosses a star in realspace. For a brief fraction of a moment, your ship and the star are actually superimposed. However the star's gravity field's inverse effect on the wormhole and the momentum of the ship at jump (you do not slow down, or speed up inside hyperspace. Velocity and direction have no meaning there. You emerge at the speed and vector at which you entered) carries you just beyond it before you fully emerge.

    This is why your ship won't allow you to jumps until you throttle up. You want to be on the move as you exit hyperspace in the rare case you end up emerging right inside a star. This should be rare as the Danylkiev limit of a gravity well will normally deflect a wormhole exit --it would be like landing smack centre on top of a marble and staying balanced there without immediately rolling off to the side-- but a moving ship reduces the chances to pretty much zero. It also keeps you from being captured in the star's gravity well if you happen to emerge very close to it.

  11. #71
    I hate this change as well. Exploring will become even more boring, no adrenaline holy cow moments at all. And also the reason why heatsink synthesis had ingredients you could only get from the bubble was so that explorer wouldn't be self sufficient. But we will not need heat sinks anymore so we are even more self sufficient.

    The whole thing makes no sense.

  12. #72
    It makes no sense. FD seems to lack a game designer.

    A game designer is not the same as a coder or a graphics/sound designer or the story writer. They are the person who designs the game rules, and makes sure everything is inherently logical and consistent. They would be an experienced D&D board game geek. They would be familiar with a range of logical board games. They would often have a background in mathematics e.g. game theory.

    Basically, ED consists of four games: combat, trade/missions, mining/crafting, exploration.

    These four games are set in the same universe (environment + narrative).

    Each of these four games has its own set of challenges, basic game rules and reward structures.

    Because they are set in the same universe, those rules and reward structures need to logically interact to create the coherent game experience of ED.

    For exploration for instance, the challenge is: Go and travel as far as you can. The basic game rule is: The further you go, the harder it gets. Every rule has to reflect that. The challenge has to get tougher as you go further, but ultimately also always be doable of you're skilled enough: source, collect and manage resources, maintain and repair your ship, plot your route strategically and fly in a skilled manner. The only limit should be the limits of your own skill. A good game keeps you busy, and keeps pushing you.

    Hence tying HS synthesis to the bubble is bad game design. It suggests an explicit limit on how far explorers can go that player skill cannot overcome (unless HS are completely ignored as a resource, which makes them pointless. Which is another bad game design: don't include anything that does not have a function). A good game should always suggest that the only limit to progress is the player's own skill (that doesn't mean it cannot become inhumanly tough, but the possibility should always be there).

    The rewards have to be small but frequent, each inciting you to just push on a bit further. So the reward is not just distance gravelled and systems discovered, but also the beautiful vistas that you come across. This is why I keep saying that the visual art of the stellar forge is really important.

    Games design is not done by committee, as seems to happen in FD; it is done by a specialist professional.

  13. #73
    seeing so many complaints about this change,
    i wonder how many have yet complained that you NEVER drop directly inside the cone of a WD or NS

    personally, i would like if ships like the T9 would drop a few ls further away from ANY star, especially those white and brown dwarfs with the event horizon that is NOT displayed when you really need it

  14. #74
    Originally Posted by CMDR QUANTIS TRAP View Post (Source)
    I don't think I like this feature. It waists my time when trying to fuel scoop.
    I agree, I prefer it when new features ankle my time instead

  15. #75
    Originally Posted by Bunkerkind Anni View Post (Source)
    seeing so many complaints about this change,
    i wonder how many have yet complained that you NEVER drop directly inside the cone of a WD or NS

    personally, i would like if ships like the T9 would drop a few ls further away from ANY star, especially those white and brown dwarfs with the event horizon that is NOT displayed when you really need it
    Whatever the behavior it should be consistent.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast