Add some more difficult landing pads.

[DemiserofD]

The current landing pads are good and all, but they're pretty easy to land at. Even the most difficult - which is to say, burning stations - still have rotational correction.

I'd love to see some stations that had no rotational correction. Or maybe, you needed to dock on the OUTSIDE of the spinning station, rather than the inside. Or perhaps, you need to dock where the slot is, so your whole ship needs to be rotating with the station, Interstellar-style. Or hey, what about a station built under a custom-built mountain that's an overhang? You can't do that with terrain generation, but you could make a custom mountain that does it.

Any new piloting challenge is always fun!

 

[DemiserofD]

In general, I agree. However, rotation correction is already a challenge for FAOff pilots, simply because they don't have it. This was introduced some time ago, with most commanders initially thinking it was a bug. Meanwhile, I think it's the right thing when flying without assist (and was a bug all the time before). And those who fly with assist better not even talk about extra challenges, because that is not really credible.

I dunno, FA off is more of a self-imposed challenge, most of the time. It's like inverting your controls; yes, it's hard, but it's not the game imposing that difficulty, if you can appreciate the distinction.

That's why I'd prefer challenges that are different from just that. They'd still be harder for FA off(probably, though in some cases less than you might think. Some things are actually easier in FA off, in my experience), but they'd also be harder than standard pads for FA on, so everyone wins, really.

 

[HRDiagram]

I'd love this for two reasons:
-new challenges
-new complaints about how hard it is and calls to add an IWIN button

 

[zikolach]

The current landing pads are good and all, but they're pretty easy to land at. Even the most difficult - which is to say, burning stations - still have rotational correction.

I'd love to see some stations that had no rotational correction. Or maybe, you needed to dock on the OUTSIDE of the spinning station, rather than the inside. Or perhaps, you need to dock where the slot is, so your whole ship needs to be rotating with the station, Interstellar-style. Or hey, what about a station built under a custom-built mountain that's an overhang? You can't do that with terrain generation, but you could make a custom mountain that does it.

Any new piloting challenge is always fun!

I would like to see more stations in asteroid belts/rings. Not only those ones having normal airlock as any other station. But maybe with similar landing pads as FCs have.

Don't remember where I read it - there was something about pirate base under planet surface with only airlock positioned on the surface - so the pilot had to target ship directly to the surface to pass airlock. It could be fun too having such base on extreme gravity planet.

 

[ethelred]

Maybe not the pad itself but getting there.

Like a burning station but actually hazardous like a radiation leak making it a race against the clock.

Alternatively sth for smaller ships only to do, like flying through wreckage or a cave like structure - something that really tests flying skill.

You wouldn't even need too much of a reward at the other end - just an online and updated leader board per ship class.

 

[Brrokk]

Just a quick addendum... Is there any challenge in ED that is NOT self-imposed? Rhetorical question, ok. Or what makes you think that FDev could move away from its almost fanatically enforced principle of optionalism - one of the very few truly consistent aspects of ED, of all things?

Some people like overcoming huge challenges against the odds. Others just like flying spaceships. FD's strategy gives both groups what they want; why would they change it?

 

[Brrokk]

You are forgetting those players who see challenges as an integral part of gameplay. Making them optional corrupts that element. Clearly, those who don't value challenges have no trouble whatsoever accepting that. It's like saying one chess player plays by himself, but his opponent is allowed to use an engine. That would immediately destroy the game (and would in this case never be tolerated). Ok, now that's a drastic and admittedly rather absurd illustration, but what else could I try to get across this point? Or in other words: Both approaches are of course perfectly legitimate - but not in one and the same game. Another illustration, closer to our game, would be an ironman mode. Self imposed ironman in Open would be like playing by two different rule sets in one and the same mode. It never can work and that's why very few (I know, there are one or two exceptions, the great Isinona tried this a while ago, but not for too long) are actually trying it. I bet, if only we had a dedicated ironman mode, it would be way more popular.

Sometimes it is really depressing to have to explain the basic ABC of good game design.

Sorry, this isn't going to seem polite, but you force me to it. Self-imposed ironman in Open is perfectly fine; I've read accounts by people who do it.

Besides the players who want to overcome challenges and the players who just want to chill, there's unfortunately a third kind: the players who want the "chilled" players to face more challenge. They're just after controlling other people's gameplay, in the game those other people bought, no less. I don't respect them. Luckily, FD don't take much notice of this attitude.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

You are forgetting those players who see challenges as an integral part of gameplay. Making them optional corrupts that element. Clearly, those who don't value challenges have no trouble whatsoever accepting that. It's like saying one chess player plays by himself, but his opponent is allowed to use an engine. That would immediately destroy the game (and would in this case never be tolerated). Ok, now that's a drastic and admittedly rather absurd illustration, but what else could I try to get across this point? Or in other words: Both approaches are of course perfectly legitimate - but not in one and the same game. Another illustration, closer to our game, would be an ironman mode. Self imposed ironman in Open would be like playing by two different rule sets in one and the same mode. It never can work and that's why very few (I know, there are one or two exceptions, the great Isinona tried this a while ago, but not for too long) are actually trying it. I bet, if only we had a dedicated ironman mode, it would be way more popular.

Sometimes it is really depressing to have to explain the basic ABC of good game design.

It's been years since I took a rebuy that wasn't a direct result of me knowingly sticking around after the point where I shouldn't have done. Ironman mode isn't worth adding given that rebuys are avoidable in every instance.

As to the OPs idea, sure why not- it'd make things interesting, especially if we could have some broken stations around the place to explore.

 

[Nadreck]

Just wait until we have waterworld/ELW landings, then try that in a hurricane.

 

[theBreadSultan]

Sure, as long as I can land them with auto-dock.

Manual landing via cloud gaming with a really bad ping is not fun

 

[DemiserofD]

Sure, as long as I can land them with auto-dock.

Manual landing via cloud gaming with a really bad ping is not fun

How do you manage in burning stations, where Auto Dock already doesn't work?

 

[theBreadSultan]

How do you manage in burning stations, where Auto Dock already doesn't work?

In general I do burning stations with my armour built type 10, fitted with heatsinks.

It's already got amazing thermals so you can sit and empty the stations with every pass, and it's the timer that kicks you put of the station (or pad loitering - "lore")

But with game streaming on a bad connection I wouldn't bother. I could tether to my phone for 5g, but I only get 50gb on the free SIM I get with my fibre, and x-cloud uses about 2gb an hour.

I don't mind using the data if I'm playing aoe4 or cyberpunk on my shadow, but for elite, given the low apm and low stakes gameplay, doesn't feel like it's worth the data

 

[whothe]

The current landing pads are good and all, but they're pretty easy to land at. Even the most difficult - which is to say, burning stations - still have rotational correction.

I'd love to see some stations that had no rotational correction. Or maybe, you needed to dock on the OUTSIDE of the spinning station, rather than the inside. Or perhaps, you need to dock where the slot is, so your whole ship needs to be rotating with the station, Interstellar-style. Or hey, what about a station built under a custom-built mountain that's an overhang? You can't do that with terrain generation, but you could make a custom mountain that does it.

Any new piloting challenge is always fun!

Have you tried flying FA off? Your post makes me think not, at least not a lot. Apologies if thats not the case, but if you dont, you should!

'I'd love to see some stations that had no rotational correction.' - You know you can toggle it off right?

There is no rotation correction when flying FA off, you already DO have to match station rotation with your ship. There might not seem to be a lot of drift because you are in the center, but it is already there.

Slapping exterior landing pads on spinning stations might be 'a challenge' for FA on pilots as they fight their ships AI to land on the pad, but that would be due to the game settings, which can be turned off.

Flying FA off around trenches on a coriolis station, or the different structures on an orbis station seem like similar exercises to what you are asking for in terms of 'piloting challenge'.

 

[Hydrino]

The current landing pads are good and all, but they're pretty easy to land at. Even the most difficult - which is to say, burning stations - still have rotational correction.

I'd love to see some stations that had no rotational correction. Or maybe, you needed to dock on the OUTSIDE of the spinning station, rather than the inside. Or perhaps, you need to dock where the slot is, so your whole ship needs to be rotating with the station, Interstellar-style. Or hey, what about a station built under a custom-built mountain that's an overhang? You can't do that with terrain generation, but you could make a custom mountain that does it.

Any new piloting challenge is always fun!

For fun I could support, but logically, why would this make any sense in the game world?
Also, rotational correction is handled by the ship, not the station or landing pad (except once magnetic pad restraints turn on and ship turns off).

 

[DemiserofD]

For fun I could support, but logically, why would this make any sense in the game world?
Also, rotational correction is handled by the ship, not the station or landing pad (except once magnetic pad restraints turn on and ship turns off).

It would need to be under specific circumstances. Maybe a powerful electrical fault or storm is scrambling the ship's sensors, so you need to come in manually. Or an outpost is tumbling out of control, and it's beyond the capabilities of the autodock.