I have been thinking this too. 2.1 didn't exactly go off without a hitch. And that's not just the delay. That and GamesCon... I think they wanted a bagful of "wins".
2.2's Instant Ship and Module Transport - Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter Kintch
- Start date
- Status
I have been thinking this too. 2.1 didn't exactly go off without a hitch. And that's not just the delay. That and GamesCon... I think they wanted a bagful of "wins".
So in other words you're saying you'd tie the ships arrival time to the ticking of the BGS?
Oh boy. I've heard some madness in this threadnaught but you sir, you may have the cake right here. That means someone who sends their ship one min before BGS tick gets near instawarp, but one min AFTER bgs tick gets a 23h 59m wait.I can't think of a more stupendously -bad- design idea, and that includes RNGineers!
this isn't bad idea. Can be used also much less (max 200ly distance).
AWS, and you're discussing some fairly complicated concepts, I know it might seem simple to you, but I can assure you, it's not.
![[VR] Marrs](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/79/79007.jpg?1634042868){kind=avatar}
Are saying anything goes? Everyone has a line. Just because absurdities exist in the game doesn't mean more absurdities can be piled on with no detrimental effect.
Would instant transfer for range below 300 lyr and 1h/2K lyr above it be an acceptable
compromise ?
I mean, no Jacques instant fleet transfer, while still retaining the Coop benefits in the bubble ?
We can roleplay small distance zero time as having ordered the ship before starting the play session.
The famous "Just use your imagination" argument that is so popular arround here. XD
compromise ?
I mean, no Jacques instant fleet transfer, while still retaining the Coop benefits in the bubble ?
We can roleplay small distance zero time as having ordered the ship before starting the play session.
The famous "Just use your imagination" argument that is so popular arround here. XD
Last edited:
Agreed and that's the thing about Elite: it's a nice blend between simulation and game. I don't think it was ever meant to be placed at either ends of the spectrum but rather be somewhere in the middle leaning towards sim but making concessions for gameplay purposes.
If it was full-on simulator, aside from the time it would take to make realistic repairs it would also take time for other things like refuelling or rearming or simply loading and unloading cargo.
And then there would be managing almost all of the ship systems as if it was one of the DCS modules like A-10C (which I love flying, but that's besides the point and is its own thing
).I have to agree and I'm wondering what "potential exploits" might arise from something like this.
The only one I could think of is not possible since you cannot store cargo on a stashed ship, so you wouldn't be able to load a T-9 with goodies, make the trip in an Asp and then have the T-9 transferred.
Last edited:
They did that? Wow, just wow. Not sure I even want to watch the livestream any more if that's what happened. How incredibly unprofessional.
And what if the computation was done client side, just like the current route plotter, and it simply sends a timestamp to the server?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Fair enough.
The timed transfer could instead be treated as a sale/purchase combination - selling at the current station and purchasing remotely (not so very different from being able to sell ships remotely) with a "delivery date/time" / "docking date/time" set appropriately.
What a slap in the face!
If you want to be accurate, CPU and Database overhead on the AWS, your idea would be exponentially more expensive, the second idea costs no CPU and no Database to run (it's stateless). I'm not going to spend all day explaining to people why, because even trying to explain little bits HERE ended up with people not getting what I said right, but suffice to say, it's a lot more complex than just "Calculate herp derp done"
Naturally you do something else, but in this context it would be to watch other programmes until the show you want to see comes on. If you don't want to watch other programmes you go and do something else unrelated to TV. Translate that to playing a game and it means not playing the game, hardly a desirable outcome for a game developer nor a satisfying one for a gamer. Change the term from 7.5 hours to the 1 hour you have free and you may well be forced to do something you don't want to do if you want to play the game. For a good proportion of people that will become not playing the game.
Granted you can't pander to absolutely everyone's whims and restrictions are important but there's a tradeoff somewhere and it is up to the devs to figure out where the balance is.
Whether you think it funny or not it's a concern to players, otherwise you wouldn't have a good proportion of 3000 posts on the broad topic.
I haven't been to Jaques in a high-combat ready FdL but that sounds like a lot of fun, especially if I'm not the only one who can do it. Not sure how flying Robigo/Sothis missions would be changed by being able to transfer a ship - I fly out in a long range ship and then slowboat my mission back, or I just use a long range ship the whole time, again, doesn't affect me if others do this.
God, yes, I've done PowerPlay but I wish I hadn't. PowerPlay is an example of really poor game and challenge design that Frontier is becoming very good at finding new and inventive ways to create. Instant ship transfer is a mechanic designed to enable fun and better opportunities.
I would not be opposed to very small delays on ship transfers, but only because right now I have had times where I have gone "oh, I'm gonna have to transfer this ship in order to put this module on it. . . nevermind" and stopped playing, and this would at least let me go "I guess I'll do it tomorrow" when I go to play elsewhere. Some people have to do this game an hour at a time, and putting arbitrary waits on things doesn't increase fun.
It's a game, and for me, all design decisions, every single one, should be based first on whether or not it enables fun or restricts it. If it restricts fun, there has to be a compelling reason (gameplay balance, affecting other players, etc). Because Frontier refuses to implement anything like a real player economy allowing module or money transfer in game, there's very little reason to ever restrict things for affecting "the galaxy" or the economy or something, because the game is designed to remove player agency and ensure that individuals can have little to no effect on the galaxy. So really only balance reasons matter here.
So far as I'm concerned, 2.2 is looking like a perfect update, adding quality of life things (storage of modules, ship transfer, and so on), and even the fighters, which I fully expected Frontier to botch and would have lost money on, are going to be craftable/replaceable on the ship, which was something I felt strongly was absolutely important.
So ship transfer is good, great even. Instant enables the most fun, if there has to be some kind of time limit arbitrarily it's something that should be added later, when exploits present themselves, and not right out the gate. Laws and restrictions should be a response to things that have happened, not preemptive, especially when the stakes are so low.
God, yes, I've done PowerPlay but I wish I hadn't. PowerPlay is an example of really poor game and challenge design that Frontier is becoming very good at finding new and inventive ways to create. Instant ship transfer is a mechanic designed to enable fun and better opportunities.
I would not be opposed to very small delays on ship transfers, but only because right now I have had times where I have gone "oh, I'm gonna have to transfer this ship in order to put this module on it. . . nevermind" and stopped playing, and this would at least let me go "I guess I'll do it tomorrow" when I go to play elsewhere. Some people have to do this game an hour at a time, and putting arbitrary waits on things doesn't increase fun.
It's a game, and for me, all design decisions, every single one, should be based first on whether or not it enables fun or restricts it. If it restricts fun, there has to be a compelling reason (gameplay balance, affecting other players, etc). Because Frontier refuses to implement anything like a real player economy allowing module or money transfer in game, there's very little reason to ever restrict things for affecting "the galaxy" or the economy or something, because the game is designed to remove player agency and ensure that individuals can have little to no effect on the galaxy. So really only balance reasons matter here.
So far as I'm concerned, 2.2 is looking like a perfect update, adding quality of life things (storage of modules, ship transfer, and so on), and even the fighters, which I fully expected Frontier to botch and would have lost money on, are going to be craftable/replaceable on the ship, which was something I felt strongly was absolutely important.
So ship transfer is good, great even. Instant enables the most fun, if there has to be some kind of time limit arbitrarily it's something that should be added later, when exploits present themselves, and not right out the gate. Laws and restrictions should be a response to things that have happened, not preemptive, especially when the stakes are so low.
Hmm, that's another angle to attack the "I want to do some combat now", same solution as people who want to switch from spellcaster to tank, allow more than one character. Seriously, besides selling more copies, why not let everyone have 2 or 3 commanders? Then people could have a combat focused commander ready at all times. Yea, it takes away some amount of commitment (well, it doesn't, it just makes it an option without multiple accounts) but it'd be a better solution that teleporting ships.
Except then you're creating multiple database entries, firstly you're creating a ledger for the sale of ship A, moving ship A to the purchase ledger (and both of these will need to reconcile just in case the ship bugs out and loses engineered mods or whatever) with a discrepancy for the "fee" of moving the ship across, along with a timestamp for the sale and a DEFERRED timestamp for the purchase in the future AND then you'll need a server-side scheduler to keep track of when that deferred sale can go live (because again, you don't trust the client at any step along any of this).
Which means we're back to a stateful situation.
I'm quoting this so people can read it again, it's that good.
You know about the Arena mode, I'm sure. So we dont need to destroy the gameplay just so you can blow off some steam
Last edited:
So in other words you're saying you'd tie the ships arrival time to the ticking of the BGS?
I can't think of a more stupendously -bad- design idea, and that includes RNGineers!
If you agree that the instant ship transfer is a stupendously -bad- design idea, I will agree that RNGineers are likewise
- Status