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

[Frambitam]

Of course it wouldn't break the servers.

I was being polite

 

[Verax]

I'm not trolling at all. I'm just sick and tired of the player base thinking it gets to pick and choose which elements of realism they'd like incorporated into the game. Scooping fuel may not be instantaneous but I can refill all 20 tons of fuel on my Anaconda in a single click. I can rearm all 5000+ rounds of MC ammo in a single click, all 100+ missiles in a single click for an operation that, logically, would take almost an hour to accomplish in real life analogies.

Theoretically, the ships could be on station already and through a middleman you have effectively sold the ship in whatever station you left it in and established ownership of a new ship in the current station. Who cares? Why anyone cares is beyond me. This is a video game, not a real life simulation or even an accurate space simulation (Beyond the galaxy map at least, which is probably the best attempt at accurate portrayal of the stars in quite some time).

I mean, hell, if you want realism. You should be burned to a crisp while you sit in the coronal ejection of a sun, sipping hydrogen. Any arguments for more realism are daft.

Excellent points.

 

[VerticalBlank]

We NEED it to be based on ship stats. Else everyone will just D rate their fsd in their corvette for heat management and laugh at insta transfer.

Make it plot the course. (Using current jump range) Then take number of jumps and multiply by 75 seconds each jump. At the end of that timer, have it appear outside the station and dock. After docking, it's available.

And who WOULDNT love to see their ship show up and fly through the slot. You see it and go "that's mine!"

Instant is game breakingly bad.

Exactly. X2 and X3 did it this way and it was great. Yes, I know that was a single-player game but the server already knows the locations of all my ships and it already runs timers for all my missions, fines and bounties. All the pieces are in place.

 

[Privata]

Immersion is subjective.

What you really need probably is to go outside sometimes.

Oh thats nice.
Why the random insult? you dont know me , you dont know if I go out?

Yeah I go out , I have a job and a fiancee with mental issues. I like my real life.

But I am a nerd , and this sort of stuff matters to me - alot.

I backed the game based on the hope it would be a heaven from normal games , a slow game.
When I saw mission timers in real time , slow movement in space , and all that it was my dream game.

 

[Verax]

With none of these figures representing 100% of the playerbase, or even 100% of people who took the poll. It's a multiple choice tickbox poll, and likely many people picked several of the options, or less than they intended. I mean, we've got 69% saying they want transfers, and 2% saying they don't, so I guess there's another 29% voting for "I'm bad at reading the entire thing before clicking."

Exactly. They're just trying to manufacture a "majority" so they can make the false case to Frontier that "most people don't think it should be instant."

From what I've seen on Reddit and Facebook communities, it seems to be a different story.

 

[Lobstris]

There is not one point that they've made against this feature that can stand up to a logical analysis. They're just spiteful, that's all.

And THERE. We get to it. That's the argument I've had all day from elements of the PvP crowd on social media. Supposedly, anyone who uses the 'realism' or 'immersion' argument is "spiteful and hate PvP players". And that's our motivation and secret agenda for doing this. Sigh...

No. No. No. Nothing against PvP at all. I believe that open should be the primary, preferred mod of play. But it should be bound by a set of rules. Yes, the rules are mutable, and ultimately Frontier's decision, but if you are going to sell a space sim with a one-to-one galaxy, baed on three previous games where jump ranges are limited, then that implies travel, and some kind of balancing of travel/travel distances. That was the game I was sold. That was what I backed. If you want to attribute 'spite' or 'hatred of PvP' as the motive you are dead wrong. And I think you'd find a similar sentiment across a lot of both 'old timers' and 'newcomers'.

I do wonder why other contentious alternatives weren't considered (e.g. wormholes, tripling jump range on all ships, whatever - things that could at least be attempted by some sci-fi handwavium) and presented by the Devs for community discussion, before going for the 'obvious' option? (Aside from the fact that insta-travel via database update seems to be the minimum dev time element).

 

[Sans Daring]

Things that are instantaneous in this game:

-Refueling
-Repairing
-Rearming
-Getting out of and into new ships on pads hundreds of meters apart.

Stop crying for immersion when it's already lost.

This is an argument academics fight over - what is a game? Narrative immersion or engaging gameplay? The bottomline, as with things lacks a definitive answer and is more contextual to the player than the game they are playing. Refueling, repairing, rearming, pads etc are not immersion breaking because they engage the gameplay. They are moments that whether they're 2 seconds or 4 minutes will make no difference in 95% of instances. You can thereby reduce them as their common and remove the "realism" to apply the gameplay to flow and allow players to immerse themselves in the aesthetics that do matter.

Ship deployment being instaneous is not the same because it does seriously affect gameplay and system mechanics throught Elite. It changes how you play the game, dilutes it even. Yes people may vote for it on reddit, but equally, I've seen people grind Engineers until they've done it all, and now say they're bored... well didn't you see that coming? What we want doesn't always equate to what we will find enjoyable. Being able to insta-ship at any point in Elite changes how we play. It is reductive to the roles we take on, for at any point we can switch roles to the Max. We don't consider the world as real anymore because something has come in that takes the real out in a signifcant, not minor way.

It's like a film. We will let certain things go in a film because they're inconsquential or in the spirit of that genre. We can enjoy watching Indy leap between trucks, sliding beneath them and accept it because that's the spirit of the film's universe. If we saw that in the Wire, we might feel it weakens the show. Insta-ship movement would work probably for a strategy app game, but in Elite, it doesn't fit how the rest of the world is structured.

And of course, like a film, we do let small things pass us by when it suits. We can let go aliens in a sci-fi speaking English, but we have a real issue when Han shoots first, or an ex-stormtrooper can weild a lightsaber perfectly when convienient. My point is all forms of entertainment have immersion breaks we accept. We don't have to see our heroes in the toilet to know what they've done when they've gone to the restroom - we can jump that point easily, just as we can have a fast refuel. We'd be irritated if the hero could suddenly just found a perfect vehicle in the desert, or escaped an occupied country with few encounters, because it just doesn't fit with the world we're given.

On so many levels this is wrong, I find it very hard to see the arguments why its right bar "I want it, you don't, go away cos I want it". It changes everything in a way a fast refuel does not.

I'm hoping these are ideas FDev have not really considered and will think about their broader issues. Especially as it will affect how we treat our ships - especially our fleet. As has been said, you'll need really only two top ships, the rest are candy. One that goes far, one that is suped up in arms. The rest don't matter, just max out for a fee at any station. That to me suggests it could affect the worth and long scale value of the Engineers. Maybe something that is more obvious player side.

 

[Verax]

Oh thats nice.
Why the random insult? you dont know me , you dont know if I go out?

Yeah I go out , I have a job and a fiancee with mental issues. I like my real life.

But I am a nerd , and this sort of stuff matters to me - alot.

I backed the game based on the hope it would be a heaven from normal games , a slow game.
When I saw mission timers in real time , slow movement in space , and all that it was my dream game.

I don't really care about your dream.

FD is making a viable product and you can still play it just the way you dreamed. No one is forcing you to use the feature and you'll never be informed when other people do.

 

[CMDR Redcrest]

Yes, I just called Amazon because I want my new laptop NOW. For some reason, due to the laws of our universe, they insist on delivering it to me taking a finite amount of time. The rules of the Elite universe does not permit teleportation, or why would any spaceships be needed?

You'll still need a space ship! You know to fly and have FUN.
People are not going to stop needing a space ship.
It's a GAME.
Right now I'm in an AspE 8k lyrs from the bubble.
This is what I'm doing for fun at the moment. I want to deliver my exploration data to a particular station when I return. Then I want to fly my Conda or Viper IV or Python or whichever ship of the fleet I desire. It would be fun to have that ship transfered when I get back without having to wait so I can get straight on with the next thing I want to do for FUN.
Waiting around is not fun.
If folk want to wait around for a large vehicle then they may do so in a wind swept train station noting down the numbers of the 8:15 from Stoke if they so desire.
Not my idea of fun.
You wana wait for your ship to be delivered? Fine have it delivered and wait your own arbitrary time before you fly it.
I want to play the game my way, you are free to be play your way.
I won't impede you and nobody should be trying to impede my enjoyment by imposing stupid rules for the sake of 'realism'

 

[Yaffle]

This is an argument academics fight over - what is a game? Narrative immersion or engaging gameplay? The bottomline, as with things lacks a definitive answer and is more contextual to the player than the game they are playing. Refueling, repairing, rearming, pads etc are not immersion breaking because they engage the gameplay. They are moments that whether they're 2 seconds or 4 minutes will make no difference in 95% of instances. You can thereby reduce them as their common and remove the "realism" to apply the gameplay to flow and allow players to immerse themselves in the aesthetics that do matter.

Ship deployment being instaneous is not the same because it does seriously affect gameplay and system mechanics throught Elite. It changes how you play the game, dilutes it even. Yes people may vote for it on reddit, but equally, I've seen people grind Engineers until they've done it all, and now say they're bored... well didn't you see that coming? What we want doesn't always equate to what we will find enjoyable. Being able to insta-ship at any point in Elite changes how we play. It is reductive to the roles we take on, for at any point we can switch roles to the Max. We don't consider the world as real anymore because something has come in that takes the real out in a signifcant, not minor way.

It's like a film. We will let certain things go in a film because they're inconsquential or in the spirit of that genre. We can enjoy watching Indy leap between trucks, sliding beneath them and accept it because that's the spirit of the film's universe. If we saw that in the Wire, we might feel it weakens the show. Insta-ship movement would work probably for a strategy app game, but in Elite, it doesn't fit how the rest of the world is structured.

And of course, like a film, we do let small things pass us by when it suits. We can let go aliens in a sci-fi speaking English, but we have a real issue when Han shoots first, or an ex-stormtrooper can weild a lightsaber perfectly when convienient. My point is all forms of entertainment have immersion breaks we accept. We don't have to see our heroes in the toilet to know what they've done when they've gone to the restroom - we can jump that point easily, just as we can have a fast refuel. We'd be irritated if the hero could suddenly just found a perfect vehicle in the desert, or escaped an occupied country with few encounters, because it just doesn't fit with the world we're given.

On so many levels this is wrong, I find it very hard to see the arguments why its right bar "I want it, you don't, go away cos I want it". It changes everything in a way a fast refuel does not.

I'm hoping these are ideas FDev have not really considered and will think about their broader issues. Especially as it will affect how we treat our ships - especially our fleet. As has been said, you'll need really only two top ships, the rest are candy. One that goes far, one that is suped up in arms. The rest don't matter, just max out for a fee at any station. That to me suggests it could affect the worth and long scale value of the Engineers. Maybe something that is more obvious player side.

That was ... eloquently put.

Also correct.

 

[Deadspin]

Its more about beliavablity then realism, a hard and very subjectiv to track down thing. So I can understand your point, tough it shouldn't be hard to understand that some think a Corvette with 1Ly jumprange making 22'000 LY in one second is maybe a bit too far to be put in a kind of believable construct. Surley it cant be hard to understand why refueling and that isn't quite the same for some, no?

And the complete lack of gravity mechanics (aside from struggling FSDs in gravity wells) doesn't hit on your believable scale?
Cargo containers that spin for one hundred meters when bumped in space and, without control jets to stabilize them, come to a rest against the laws of physics and space?
Pilots that somehow survive their canopies being shot out and are not ripped to shreds by debris coming through the now gaping hole in their cockpits?

There are a lot of points in this game where "believability" is shunned for proper game mechanics. Instant ship and module transfers would be one of many that already exist. This just brings me right back to the picking and choosing bit. Players are scared of being griefed, which is the second most overwhelming theme of this entire thread, because god forbid someone brings a combat ship to where most players have only taken lightly armed/armored scout ships of a sort. We have solo and PG if people are worried about coming across a potentially hostile player.

I'm not saying it won't happen but this forum feeds the trolls more than any other place, including reddit, with their cries of anguish over losing a ship. If you don't want trolls, stop feeding them. This thread is a buffet.

 

[Wolfechu]

And THERE. We get to it. That's the argument I've had all day from elements of the PvP crowd on social media. Supposedly, anyone who uses the 'realism' or 'immersion' argument is "spiteful and hate PvP players". And that's our motivation and secret agenda for doing this. Sigh...

No. No. No. Nothing against PvP at all. I believe that open should be the primary, preferred mod of play. But it should be bound by a set of rules. Yes, the rules are mutable, and ultimately Frontier's decision, but if you are going to sell a space sim with a one-to-one galaxy, baed on three previous games where jump ranges are limited, then that implies travel, and some kind of balancing of travel/travel distances. That was the game I was sold. That was what I backed. If you want to attribute 'spite' or 'hatred of PvP' as the motive you are dead wrong. And I think you'd find a similar sentiment across a lot of both 'old timers' and 'newcomers'.

I do wonder why other contentious alternatives weren't considered (e.g. wormholes, tripling jump range on all ships, whatever - things that could at least be attempted by some sci-fi handwavium) and presented by the Devs for community discussion, before going for the 'obvious' option? (Aside from the fact that insta-travel via database update seems to be the minimum dev time element).

Not a PvP player by any means, couldn't care less about PvP implications. Still think people on this thread are losing their minds over this fairly minor change. As people have been saying, outside these forums, a lot of players seem to be shrugging and saying "OK, fine" or even, god forbid, like the change. Here it's apparently a personal disaster that forever ruins any semblance of realism the game has, and FD are literally leaning through the monitor and slapping them in the face.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

I don't really care about your dream.

FD is making a viable product and you can still play it just the way you dreamed. No one is forcing you to use the feature and you'll never be informed when other people do.

You really are just selfish, you're just arguing in any way you can to get what you want and do not care about what anyone says. Are you a politician?

 

[Verax]

And THERE. We get to it. That's the argument I've had all day from elements of the PvP crowd on social media. Supposedly, anyone who uses the 'realism' or 'immersion' argument is "spiteful and hate PvP players". And that's our motivation and secret agenda for doing this. Sigh...

No. No. No. Nothing against PvP at all. I believe that open should be the primary, preferred mod of play. But it should be bound by a set of rules. Yes, the rules are mutable, and ultimately Frontier's decision, but if you are going to sell a space sim with a one-to-one galaxy, baed on three previous games where jump ranges are limited, then that implies travel, and some kind of balancing of travel/travel distances. That was the game I was sold. That was what I backed. If you want to attribute 'spite' or 'hatred of PvP' as the motive you are dead wrong. And I think you'd find a similar sentiment across a lot of both 'old timers' and 'newcomers'.

I do wonder why other contentious alternatives weren't considered (e.g. wormholes, tripling jump range on all ships, whatever - things that could at least be attempted by some sci-fi handwavium) and presented by the Devs for community discussion, before going for the 'obvious' option? (Aside from the fact that insta-travel via database update seems to be the minimum dev time element).

I don't believe you at all.

Travel in 1:1 scale isn't ruined by this at all. This is an optional QOL feature for people that don't want excessive travel timesink for the simple task of repositioning their fleet. There's nothing wrong with that and it affects no one who doesn't want to utilize the feature.

 

[Gimi]

If Frontier won't reconsider this (I don't expect them to, they probably knew this would be controversial but went with it anyway), an idea would be to introduce a module you need to put on your ship (so you would need to prep them for transfer) much like the Galaxy Hyperdrive from the old Elite. It's expensive and a one off, so it burns up when used. Causes so much radiation that it can't be used with a crew and is fitted externally so it doesn't take up a slot. Combine that with a short delay and you have a plausible (sort of) solution.

 

[Privata]

I don't really care about your dream.

FD is making a viable product and you can still play it just the way you dreamed. No one is forcing you to use the feature and you'll never be informed when other people do.

It changes the ship ballance and powerplay meta.

It changes the narative in systems like the one jaques is in.

ignore my dream , no one should care , however the original vision , the one that made me and others back the game did not include magic

 

[Deadspin]

....

You really think he wielded that lightsaber perfectly? C'mon now.

(Full reply coming later as I'm actively involved in BGS manipulation at the moment)

 

[Bomba Luigi]

And the complete lack of gravity mechanics (aside from struggling FSDs in gravity wells) doesn't hit on your believable scale?
Cargo containers that spin for one hundred meters when bumped in space and, without control jets to stabilize them, come to a rest against the laws of physics and space?
Pilots that somehow survive their canopies being shot out and are not ripped to shreds by debris coming through the now gaping hole in their cockpits?

There are a lot of points in this game where "believability" is shunned for proper game mechanics. Instant ship and module transfers would be one of many that already exist. This just brings me right back to the picking and choosing bit. Players are scared of being griefed, which is the second most overwhelming theme of this entire thread, because god forbid someone brings a combat ship to where most players have only taken lightly armed/armored scout ships of a sort. We have solo and PG if people are worried about coming across a potentially hostile player.

I'm not saying it won't happen but this forum feeds the trolls more than any other place, including reddit, with their cries of anguish over losing a ship. If you don't want trolls, stop feeding them. This thread is a buffet.

Hmm, okay you don't understand, I really tought its easy to understand even when you may not agree.

Also funny how Solo/open/group thing now seems to come in, you never expect the spanish inquisition! not sure what it has to to with the topic tough, its also not about PvP or hostile players never cared about that and never will.

 

[Verax]

You really are just selfish, you're just arguing in any way you can to get what you want and do not care about what anyone says. Are you a politician?

Not yet. Heh.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Traveling in one of those ships I'd actually want to move is a complete non-issue.
Is there really anything dangerous or exciting in a 2000 jump trip in a corvette. That thing can equip the biggest fuel scoop, biggest shields, highest firepower and biggest repair kit *at the same time*. (conda and cutter are not that far off).
It's literally the lowest risk activity in the entire game.
It's literally a 10 hour snoozefest.
Traveling in a taxihauler (or asp) to the place you sent the vette is the "gameplay value" and that wasn't even touched.