2.2's Instant Ship and Module Transport - Yay or Nay?

[TheSisko]

Now we can hire NPC crew (with up to 3 of them on shore leave and 1 active on the ship), it would be more believable if you could get them to move the ships for you. They would then disappear from that station for duration of the transfer.

If I'm paying them they should get to work moving my stuff, lazy shore-leave buggers.

 

[Red Anders]

What I'm saying is I think you're defining "average" as your own experience, when it isn't.

That's really funny because my initial post made it as clear as day that I'm not.

 

[VerticalBlank]

Aside from the game balance issues it introduces, it's a slippery slope.

Throughout the DDF and even up until now, we've had FD resolutely sticking to their guns on what ED was supposed to be - backed by DBOBE and Sandro in statements/videos etc waxing lyrical about the supposed tennets of the universe ED was set in and why some things couldn't exist.

You can go back and read the DDF archive post where Sandro and others flat out state that they wanted people to identify with their ships, and didn't envisage players owning many ships, they should be expensive, and difficult to obtain to build a sense of ownership - hence, transfer wasn't needed, hell even multiple ship ownership was dismissed for the longest time.

But in a single gamescom video - *poof* all that has gone - Sandro now wants people to own lots of ships and move them around the galaxy instantly. It's the U-turn I find most disaapointing.

Indeed. The disconnect between what Braben and Sandro have been saying this week is so huge that I'm beginning to wonder if they are still talking to each other.

 

[CMDR Redcrest]

1: nobody is forcing you to become a chineese gold farmer ... the game is suppose to be a space sim you have tons of other things to do.
And you are acting the same way as someone playing the sims who think playing the game a grind and just want unlimited money to build his house... exept that the sims is a single player game.

2: you must also have a chance to lose your ship, just like you can be assaulted by pirate while your are traveling.and the time for sending the ship MUST BE realistic! not shorter nor longer. If the system pack your ship (by disassembling it) into a freighter then yea, it will travel at the speed of a freighter, but if your ship will be piloted by the NPC (have your ship no security at all?)and let s say, its a vulture: It will take a LONG TIME to reach its destination... but hey! at least you can do somethign else while you wait. (i prefer the 1st choice because it will be faster AND that also mean we could do it ourself if we have a ship with enouth cargo space)

3:the point of having different type of ship, some made for combat and combat only (like vulture and its awfully small jump range) and other more balanced like the asp or anaconda who can do great in both world (well conda is even better than type9 but well ...) is for you to make choice. or setting up logistic. (ex: i saw a reddit post where the guys made many vulture fully fit all across the bubble and used a special long range asp explorer to cross the different front in the bubble when doing powerplay.)
combat ship aren t suppose to be multipurpose, that s why they are so good in what they do. if you dislike a ship because he is short range and you dont want to fly it: don t buy it.


4: your argument is invalid. you know why ?because it s an multiplayer ONLINE game. i m already kind of mad to see that the powerplay can be done in solo (doing something while nobody can counter you effectivly is basically cheating imo thus it should be deactivate in solo mode). but the fact that you are in an online and multiplayer game mean that if you want to stay "competitive" you must use what other do, that s why exploit are bans and fixed in online game unlike solo game. that s why you can t simply open the save fille and add 100000000000 credits like i do in starpoint gemini.

My argument is not invalid. It breaks nothing. I'm still gona run missions and jump from station to station in whatever ship I want to use. People can still interdict etc etc. It changes the game not one iota. People are still going to need to use their ships once they've been transported.
The only way this would break anything is if people are gona transport their ships and leave their ships in the station! If your go a leave it in the station forever more there's no point having the damn ship in the first place.
Further to your point about 'chinese gold farming' I made the vast bulk of my money without doing Robigo (or similar stations) runs. I made my money bounty hunting, in combat zones, rare trading, trading and missions. I don't wana give myself money for the sake of it like you said you in Civ5 that defeats the purpose of the game. This instant transfer is not the 'win button' some claim.
It's a quality of life change that you can use or not.

 

[Jack Schitt]

​

 

[Parmo]

Looking at this thread's poll, and the forum in general, it seems there are 2 ED communities:
1. Those that see 'realism', a consistent logic and lore etc. as an attribute of good gameplay.
2. Those that see 'realism' as an impediment to good gameplay.

I just feel that FD are favouring those in 2. It's seems to be a trend now.
There is a 3rd group which are those people who are potential customers of ED. FD is using game features given to favour group 2 in order to secure more customers. Customers who are persuaded by these features to buy ED will, the logic goes, be in category 2.

Those in 1. will wither away, their vision for ED dying of a 1000 little cuts - it won't be instant.
So sad.

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Aside from the game balance issues it introduces, it's a slippery slope.

Throughout the DDF and even up until now, we've had FD resolutely sticking to their guns on what ED was supposed to be - backed by DBOBE and Sandro in statements/videos etc waxing lyrical about the supposed tennets of the universe ED was set in and why some things couldn't exist.

You can go back and read the DDF archive post where Sandro and others flat out state that they wanted people to identify with their ships, and didn't envisage players owning many ships, they should be expensive, and difficult to obtain to build a sense of ownership - hence, transfer wasn't needed, hell even multiple ship ownership was dismissed for the longest time.

But in a single gamescom video - *poof* all that has gone - Sandro now wants people to own lots of ships and move them around the galaxy instantly. It's the U-turn I find most disaapointing. What's next, AI? And there's not supposed to be artificial gravity in ED - but if it's open season on design decisions - why not just have it?

Because it's fun, because now you won't have to spend ages trawling back and forth rebuying little ships to move bigger ships around, instead now you'll just buy your bigger ships and teleport them to where you need them to be. Less inconvenience, and less little ships cluttering up the landscape, since it's a stateless transfer, I can foresee a lot of the little ships that were used as ferries to get around to pick up and move those bigger ships around being sold, that means a drop in load on the FDev servers as well. It's win win for them.

If they can U-Turn on ship teleporting which has been so staunchly dismissed until now, where's our market data for stations other than the one we're at? I can teleport a ship across the galaxy, I can communicate with others over infinite distances, but I can't see what price commodities are at in different stations? Not even in the same system?

They u-turned on offline play, they have so many inconsistencies in the game it's not funny, we still have to resort to excel sheets and third party sites to even manage the most basic of trading tools, implementing even these simple features would be welcomed with rapturous applause by now, but do they? Newp. You want to complain about teleporting ships, get back to me when they've made good on other parts of the DDF, restored offline functionality and made Powerplay, Engineers, Mining and Missions a lot less terrible. THEN you can start screaming the house down about teleporting ships, but right now this is a bit like watching people complain about the lightbulb that blew when the oven stopped working, the plumbing leaks and the front door has a hole in it.

It would seem to me that if they implement insta-transfer as described, they can't hide behind any plausible "because that's how it is in the universe" decision any more, as they've just contradicted their own design for "gameplay reasons".

imho, being able to see market data from other stations before you set out would add more gamplay than insta-ship warp. But at least now all you need is an AspX, and then only summon your Condie/Cutter when you find something worth buying

Then that's how it's going to be - Sandro was very clear that there won't be a time delay, only a cost wall, so prep your ships accordingly, if you don't like it, then maybe this isn't the game for you.

Yeah, I may be slightly bitter, but like I've said, watching this threadnaught unfold is like being on the outside of what happened with the offline mess, now I'm one of the ones NOT being affected, it's actually rather refreshing

 

[Noogillim]

How do your NPC crew get instaported if they are people then they can't travel with the ships, do they always stay in your active ship even a single person ship? Sandro said they'll be on shore leave (or some such) so you insta move your ships, fly to where your crew were in a big enough ship, then fly back to where you sent your ships to??

If ships were actually shipped to you then the crew could come with them, ah hold on you can only put empty ships into storage.


Seems like a last minute idea not quite thought through.

Now with the aid of Crowd thinking the issues have started to surface - erm do we get paid for this?

 

[Connolly91]

Because it's fun, because now you won't have to spend ages trawling back and forth rebuying little ships to move bigger ships around, instead now you'll just buy your bigger ships and teleport them to where you need them to be. Less inconvenience, and less little ships cluttering up the landscape, since it's a stateless transfer, I can foresee a lot of the little ships that were used as ferries to get around to pick up and move those bigger ships around being sold, that means a drop in load on the FDev servers as well. It's win win for them.



They u-turned on offline play, they have so many inconsistencies in the game it's not funny, we still have to resort to excel sheets and third party sites to even manage the most basic of trading tools, implementing even these simple features would be welcomed with rapturous applause by now, but do they? Newp. You want to complain about teleporting ships, get back to me when they've made good on other parts of the DDF, restored offline functionality and made Powerplay, Engineers, Mining and Missions a lot less terrible. THEN you can start screaming the house down about teleporting ships, but right now this is a bit like watching people complain about the lightbulb that blew when the oven stopped working, the plumbing leaks and the front door has a hole in it.



Then that's how it's going to be - Sandro was very clear that there won't be a time delay, only a cost wall, so prep your ships accordingly, if you don't like it, then maybe this isn't the game for you.

Yeah, I may be slightly bitter, but like I've said, watching this threadnaught unfold is like being on the outside of what happened with the offline mess, now I'm one of the ones NOT being affected, it's actually rather refreshing

That argument is such bull. Up until now, Elite has catered for those with more of a sim leaning. Part of the whole premise of Elite Dangerous is 'space is huge. Go blaze your own trail'. Space being huge and a realistic-ish representation of the galaxy was Elite's number one premise and was a unique selling point. They are completely doing a u-turn with this. People bought this game because they bought into the sim and realism and FD seem to now be moving away from what was advertised and promised.

You can't then say 'lol k this isnt the game 4 u then' when for 2 years, it has been the game for us, and one stupid decision is making it into a game that isn't for us.

 

[CMDR Martin Dooley]

Personally, I feel an instant transport would break the immersion that game is built around. Though, I understand that certain gameplay features are just nice to have and are needed for people to enjoy the game further. So, if it helps the game out in the long run... add the feature and please the people.

I'm voting for 'large fraction of time' transport. At least that way both parties can be somewhat happier with the addition.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

Looking at this thread's poll, and the forum in general, it seems there are 2 ED communities:
1. Those that see 'realism', a consistent logic and lore etc. as an attribute of good gameplay.
2. Those that see 'realism' as an impediment to good gameplay.

I just feel that FD are favouring those in 2. It's seems to be a trend now.
There is a 3rd group which are those people who are potential customers of ED. FD is using game features given to favour group 2 in order to secure more customers. Customers who are persuaded by these features to buy ED will, the logic goes, be in category 2.

Those in 1. will wither away, their vision for ED dying of a 1000 little cuts - it won't be instant.
So sad.

I bought a lifetime pass and am regretting it. I now have no way to exercise my consumer choice.

 

[NeilF]

Based on the reactions on the thread, they will change, certainly

I hope so. As I said before I think a logical time delay for ships to arrive adds in a nice penalty/consideration even if that time is less than it would normally take.

But I fear it'll stay as described now as it's the simplest mechanic.

 

[Privata]

Because it's fun, because now you won't have to spend ages trawling back and forth rebuying little ships to move bigger ships around, instead now you'll just buy your bigger ships and teleport them to where you need them to be. Less inconvenience, and less little ships cluttering up the landscape, since it's a stateless transfer, I can foresee a lot of the little ships that were used as ferries to get around to pick up and move those bigger ships around being sold, that means a drop in load on the FDev servers as well. It's win win for them.



They u-turned on offline play, they have so many inconsistencies in the game it's not funny, we still have to resort to excel sheets and third party sites to even manage the most basic of trading tools, implementing even these simple features would be welcomed with rapturous applause by now, but do they? Newp. You want to complain about teleporting ships, get back to me when they've made good on other parts of the DDF, restored offline functionality and made Powerplay, Engineers, Mining and Missions a lot less terrible. THEN you can start screaming the house down about teleporting ships, but right now this is a bit like watching people complain about the lightbulb that blew when the oven stopped working, the plumbing leaks and the front door has a hole in it.



Then that's how it's going to be - Sandro was very clear that there won't be a time delay, only a cost wall, so prep your ships accordingly, if you don't like it, then maybe this isn't the game for you.

Yeah, I may be slightly bitter, but like I've said, watching this threadnaught unfold is like being on the outside of what happened with the offline mess, now I'm one of the ones NOT being affected, it's actually rather refreshing

Thats why I hate it.
It makes it so you dont need to plan , think or anything like that.

It removes scale , and the sense of ''going on trip'' now space is going to be the same all over.
Before when I went to see my friends in imperial space I went in my weak exploration ASP , I felt different. but not anymore ! everything is going to be the same no matter where you are.


Remember that awesome moment in A new hope when han uses magic to change his YT-1300f into an executor class super star destroyer ! so awesome , and when rey and finn just used magic to use a firespray that was docked 900LY away instead of that old YT-1300f ?

Those moments are what makes science fiction and fantasy so cool , when logic falls apart and there is no story to tell.

I guess 2.5 will make combat in QTEs?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I hope so. As I said before I think a logical time delay for ships to arrive adds in a nice penalty/consideration even if that time is less than it would normally take.

But I fear it'll stay as described now as it's the simplest mechanic.

I dont think so. if they do its great.

But currently they never have changed something to make it more realistic or immersive.
The only changes they ever make is to make the game easyer

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

That argument is such bull. Up until now, Elite has catered for those with more of a sim leaning. Part of the whole premise of Elite Dangerous is 'space is huge. Go blaze your own trail'. Space being huge and a realistic-ish representation of the galaxy was Elite's number one premise and was a unique selling point. They are completely doing a u-turn with this. People bought this game because they bought into the sim and realism and FD seem to now be moving away from what was advertised and promised.

You can't then say 'lol k this isnt the game 4 u then' when for 2 years, it has been the game for us, and one stupid decision is making it into a game that isn't for us.

It's Frontier's game. Not your game. If they want to put this feature in because they feel it will make it more accessible and cut down on needless travel grind, that's *their* decision to make. I've already pointed out repeatedly that Sandro stated it has to be "stateless", which means timers are a no go, so it's a credit wall at best. You might not like it, but it's their vision.

These arguments might sound vaguely familiar, that'd be because they're usually used to chew out people who come to these forums with new ideas or different opinions. The irony of them being entirely valid now is not lost on me

 

[Metharius]

Just on that, you may recall that Frontier had 'fast travel mechanics' via use of the time acceleration feature, so it's not as if it's entirely without precedent. Even back then there was clearly an attempt to balance the focus of the game between elements that have a semblance of realism and ones which encourage play.
.

frontier was a SINGLE PLAYER game. therefore no one give a pankake if you use it or not, juts like no one give a dam if you manipulate your save file to have unlimited credits in a single player game.
here it s an online multiplayer game.
just like i said before, i m was already sad to see that powerplay feature are not deactivate in solo mode, and now this ....

why did the dev sold me a space sim when they are readit to put in on the table of casualisation ....
i mean look at this reddits guy
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...e_community_think_about_the/d6qkbo1?context=3

"I'm perfectly fine with it. This game has enough 'takes forever for the sake of taking forever' moments."
it s supose to be a space sim... yet he doesnt what the simulation aspect; aka: be realistic.
would he dare saying this while playing euro truck or online flight simulator X?


this is EXACTLY like dunjon/raid finder in mmorpg.
it will simply KILL the game. and powerplay will be the 1st to fall apart.
this game is about piloting, exploring and chosing ship based on what you want it to be.
i check a french forum thoses who liked it was because they coulnt stand how short range their FLD was .... but that s the main point of having specialize ship.
(i could give more explanation but then my post will have to be approved by moderator...)

edit: to all thoses who like this ideas of instant or short delay ship transfer and are like "my time is precious":
what part of "space simulation" did you not understood when you bought the game ? (is this due to the xbox one release ?!)

 

[saremun]

It's Frontier's game. Not your game. If they want to put this feature in because they feel it will make it more accessible and cut down on needless travel grind, that's *their* decision to make. I've already pointed out repeatedly that Sandro stated it has to be "stateless", which means timers are a no go, so it's a credit wall at best. You might not like it, but it's their vision.

These arguments might sound vaguely familiar, that'd be because they're usually used to chew out people who come to these forums with new ideas or different opinions. The irony of them being entirely valid now is not lost on me

Well since that is the case then why not implement the insta jump to object in space,I end up spending a lot of time when iam exploring just because i have to fly 400kls to scan a system let alone trading with Stations which are placed 40k from the star, why don't have that since we want to save the people's time in this game?

 

[The Lavian]

Back when I played X2, if you sent for one of your other ships, it came to you in real time. It seemed quite realistic, and because you knew that this was how it worked, you alowed for it.

David Braben has always been big on the scientific accuracy of the game and to me, this is one of it's strongest points. Instantaneous transfer of anything through space with total disregard for the laws of physics will go a long way towards breaking the believability of the game, and I have serious doubts as to whether Mr Braben supports this.

Waiting for your ship certainly didn't break the gameplay in X2, so why should it do so in ED?

 

[Artorias]

Is it so hard to believe that the "transfer" is actually the ship being deconstructed/reconstructed at the new station? Bear in mind that every station already has the ability to instantly rebuild your ship when you die...

I suppose all those people arguing for "realism" also believe re-spawning should take around 20 years of real-time whilst a new pilot is grown, too?

 

[Lobstris]

Funny thing is that results of the subreddit pool is almost opposite to the pool here.

Because it only has two options. Most people here are fine with 'transfer', but aren't fine with 'instant transfer'. The reddit poll *may* have had a different result with more options added or different phrasing - psychologically 'transfer' wins, 'instant' is of secondary importance. This is why we have professional pollsters and agencies, to determine a representative sample, and conduct non-biased polls.

 

[jasonbarron]

It's Frontier's game. Not your game. If they want to put this feature in because they feel it will make it more accessible and cut down on needless travel grind, that's *their* decision to make. I've already pointed out repeatedly that Sandro stated it has to be "stateless", which means timers are a no go, so it's a credit wall at best. You might not like it, but it's their vision.

These arguments might sound vaguely familiar, that'd be because they're usually used to chew out people who come to these forums with new ideas or different opinions. The irony of them being entirely valid now is not lost on me

The fact that this feature is stateless has not been lost on me since the first time I deployed my SRV after Horizons released, opened my gal map and noticed my Asp sitting snuggly at the last station I'd been docked at roughly 200 LY's away. All Fdev is doing is reskinning this "feature." That's why the only answer to the poll (for me, anyhow) is "No, I don't want ship transfer."

As far as it being Frontier's game...obviously, they're just pandering to the lowest common denominator to please the biggest group of players/possible buyers; there is simply no way this feature is coming from any desire on their part beyond sales. Not that that's some small thing, but let's not gild the lilly, shall we?