Autopilot thread
- Thread starter CMDR EDGEL0RD
- Start date
I am for an auto pilot.
I think there is a lot of confusion between autopilot and automation. As a solo player and observing how the game is structured now--no harm in adding both to improve the player experience. e.g. limpets are an automation tool--especially for those of us that mine.
I enjoy watching auto dock land. 7 Km out Otto knows exactly where to go and attacks the job at angles and speeds a human can't match--especially at an outpost. The GUI needs some work because the auto landing task is 95% complete before the UI shows the pad. In summary; the computer is more efficient at repetitive tasks and there are a lot of zero value time sinks players are exposed to IMO.
I'd be willing to make auto tasks "gamey" or experience based. I land on a planet 20 times, the computer can now land for me or it could at least show me a smart flight path. Fly to Maia once, the computer can do it the next time. Enhance my game experience.
BL: For autopilot.
I think there is a lot of confusion between autopilot and automation. As a solo player and observing how the game is structured now--no harm in adding both to improve the player experience. e.g. limpets are an automation tool--especially for those of us that mine.
I enjoy watching auto dock land. 7 Km out Otto knows exactly where to go and attacks the job at angles and speeds a human can't match--especially at an outpost. The GUI needs some work because the auto landing task is 95% complete before the UI shows the pad. In summary; the computer is more efficient at repetitive tasks and there are a lot of zero value time sinks players are exposed to IMO.
I'd be willing to make auto tasks "gamey" or experience based. I land on a planet 20 times, the computer can now land for me or it could at least show me a smart flight path. Fly to Maia once, the computer can do it the next time. Enhance my game experience.
BL: For autopilot.
Not remotely. Since this is a multi-player game, I’d still have to put up with the problems created by the autopilot: botting, multi-boxing, and the inevitable Netflixers.
I've thought I've come up with ways to solve 1st two problems. And I'm not the smartest person in the world. Again, this question is a question of implementation only.
Secondly, Netlfix gameplay is a personal choise.
And it is a result of bad gameplay mechanics and/or balance choices. Punishing heavy armor builds by disaibling them usage of horses is not a good balance choice, IMO.
And current ship transfer system is a more Netflix solution than AP can ever be.
As for mechanics improvement, I am at loss, honestly, how to improve it without providing any incentives for people which like current state of things to change their ways. I am content with how current system works for exploration and related activities.
Sometimes people forget that recreational activity is the only purpose of games. Monotone labor certainly can have some of it.
But forcing people to indulge in such labor cannot be viewed as improving recreational value for all the people.
edit:
Well, recreational activity is not the only purpose of gaming. Competitive is a thing too. But travel in this game, again, have none of it.
Even if some people think that it have some, adding slower way to do it does not affect any of it.
edit:
To add something in place of current Hutton and ship transfer mechaincs as well as AP, addition of some economical gameplay is one of the solutions. Stock markets are a good start.
Last edited:
... sometimes. Maybe that goes for you more than it goes for me?
And what is there to brag about? This game is basic as it can get save maybe only 'goid slaughter.
*, pull 100 degrees up, max throttle, wait 10 seconds, zero throttle, wiggle a bit until that thingy in the circle will go blue, max throttle, press J, wait 15 seconds, goto *.
Trust me, I play the same game as you do. And I see a place for an autopilot in it.
Final vote. 150 vs 322 people. Overwhelming indeed.
These topics have same reasons against an AP put all over them as that one. Which again, I do not understand.
And I do not know dev's reasoning for that as well.
And somehow people understood that it can differ with implementation. Wonder where they all went? Maybe they just gave up on hope for this game? While all people which were against it then are the same people more or less which are against it now. See the pattern? Maybe search for a compromise as those people as well as I do instead of being stubborn as if your head made of concrete on protecting bad decisions?
By the way, maybe people see a lot of difference between NPC crewman pilot and an AP? I see none, for that regard.
erhm...
Last edited by a moderator:
My biggest gripe in the vein of this topic is that any airport that isn't just a strip of grass with a windsock has an ATC that does real traffic management for every craft that wants to use the facility. That stations in ED don't enforce actual traffic management is pretty silly.
And while FDev might be saying, "Oh, well, we're just keeping the model that Braben/Bell created in the original", yeah, no they aren't. In Elite, Elite+, and Elite 2 you docked the moment you touched the back of the mail slot, and on departure you launched out of the mail slot. There was not flying around inside the station. So it's inspired by the original, but shouldn't be constrained by it at all.
Which means automated docking and launching should be a default feature. One that you can override for things like smuggling, since you don't want to be dallying outside the station and getting scanned. Granted, the whole "call the station for landing approval and then sneak in under silent running" is pretty damn stupid. The comms channels for ATC aren't shared and monitored by system police ships? Ludicrous. Especially since you can scan the contents of a ship remotely. Thus, every station would have scanners on it that would scan ships as they approached. Radar and Lidar work just find even if you aren't producing a heat signature, so it's not like they can't see you coming. Hell, you just called them and asked for permission to land! (FDev has some game mechanics that are just so poorly thought out in terms of being consistent with each other and with the technology.)
As for system-to-system autopilot for routed jumps, and in-system autopilot for flights to a designated target... this is just obviously tech that would exist. That the docking computer exists means that the other features would, also, exist. Launching and navigation are exactly in the same domain as the docking logic. No-fricking-brainer.
Question: Would this destroy the game?
Answer: As currently implemented, it might upset large portions of it. The major concern seems to be botting, of course. I'll tell you straight up that the solution is not to try to ban botting, but rather to require human decision making that isn't dead simple. Choosing the right answer out of four isn't hard if the question and answers are always the same (or nearly the same), even if slightly randomized.
The problem comes down to how simplistic the mechanics of gameplay actually is, when you boil it down. "Pick up these things and transport them here, click the box, and you've influenced the fight." This is easy to automate because it's boring, uninspired, and lacking in real depth.
You foil botters by making the interactions and decisions complex enough that a simple FSM or decision tree can't reliably make the right decision. You throw out missions with difficult choices where it's not just picking a reward, but also juggling possible negative impacts from your decisions.
As far as I can tell I can just pick any reward for any mission and it will never have a truly bad impact on me. (I'm not doing any powerplay stuff, so this might be a naive statement.) There really isn't meaningful story to participate in that can be influenced... at least in a fashion that *matters* on a personal level that could screw up a bot.
Complexity and depth are the key here. Simple gates (like a captcha) are not going to help. There are still people who bot in World of Warcraft despite the Warden actively looking for them. Because the really talented botters are actually professional code developers and assembly language experts, not just kids hacking away with code in their parent's basement.
This is all a very long-winded: yes, auto-pilot and auto-navigation should be a feature. But it should be balanced with complex and nuanced gameplay that prevents simple botting from upsetting the economies and sub-games that people enjoy playing.
And while FDev might be saying, "Oh, well, we're just keeping the model that Braben/Bell created in the original", yeah, no they aren't. In Elite, Elite+, and Elite 2 you docked the moment you touched the back of the mail slot, and on departure you launched out of the mail slot. There was not flying around inside the station. So it's inspired by the original, but shouldn't be constrained by it at all.
Which means automated docking and launching should be a default feature. One that you can override for things like smuggling, since you don't want to be dallying outside the station and getting scanned. Granted, the whole "call the station for landing approval and then sneak in under silent running" is pretty damn stupid. The comms channels for ATC aren't shared and monitored by system police ships? Ludicrous. Especially since you can scan the contents of a ship remotely. Thus, every station would have scanners on it that would scan ships as they approached. Radar and Lidar work just find even if you aren't producing a heat signature, so it's not like they can't see you coming. Hell, you just called them and asked for permission to land! (FDev has some game mechanics that are just so poorly thought out in terms of being consistent with each other and with the technology.)
As for system-to-system autopilot for routed jumps, and in-system autopilot for flights to a designated target... this is just obviously tech that would exist. That the docking computer exists means that the other features would, also, exist. Launching and navigation are exactly in the same domain as the docking logic. No-fricking-brainer.
Question: Would this destroy the game?
Answer: As currently implemented, it might upset large portions of it. The major concern seems to be botting, of course. I'll tell you straight up that the solution is not to try to ban botting, but rather to require human decision making that isn't dead simple. Choosing the right answer out of four isn't hard if the question and answers are always the same (or nearly the same), even if slightly randomized.
The problem comes down to how simplistic the mechanics of gameplay actually is, when you boil it down. "Pick up these things and transport them here, click the box, and you've influenced the fight." This is easy to automate because it's boring, uninspired, and lacking in real depth.
You foil botters by making the interactions and decisions complex enough that a simple FSM or decision tree can't reliably make the right decision. You throw out missions with difficult choices where it's not just picking a reward, but also juggling possible negative impacts from your decisions.
As far as I can tell I can just pick any reward for any mission and it will never have a truly bad impact on me. (I'm not doing any powerplay stuff, so this might be a naive statement.) There really isn't meaningful story to participate in that can be influenced... at least in a fashion that *matters* on a personal level that could screw up a bot.
Complexity and depth are the key here. Simple gates (like a captcha) are not going to help. There are still people who bot in World of Warcraft despite the Warden actively looking for them. Because the really talented botters are actually professional code developers and assembly language experts, not just kids hacking away with code in their parent's basement.
This is all a very long-winded: yes, auto-pilot and auto-navigation should be a feature. But it should be balanced with complex and nuanced gameplay that prevents simple botting from upsetting the economies and sub-games that people enjoy playing.
I see it as more of a managed carpark than an airport. Dealing with unmanaged traffic is a part of that. The traffic controller does try to maintain order, but we the pilots choose to ignore them (at our peril).
Well, sure.. I had my share of docking incidents, but most of them had to do with my speed being over the legal limit and NPCs actually coming out of nowhere and crashing into me. So yea, in that regard I'd be happy even if NPCs were slightly more 'aware'. Once a shieldless NPC sidewinder crashed into my anaconda and died resulting in my instant destruction for 'murder' even though I was just barely over the limit (probably between 100-110) and was trying to stick to the green side, but the sidey was slightly towards the middle on his.. I was kinda scratching my head saying 'whatever happened to the "give way to larger vessels" part..'. Other times (this one happens often) I am going out with my T9, when random NPC Orcas decide it's a good idea to try and come in at the same time, resulting in them being pretty much stuck to the front-side of my ship and being dragged out of the station as I'm leaving.. They're just mindlessly thrusting forwards not realizing, they're travelling backwards.
The problem is, when I'm in smaller ships I do enjoy rushing into the docking bay at high speeds, so even though I'd like a queuing system or some management when in large ships, it would probably bother me more when in smaller ones
The devs might have had some similar thoughts and decided it's an 'okay' compromise? who knows.. Now, this part IS a bit wacky.. Earlier on this page I had a quote here from Michael Brooks stating that there will not be an autopilot, but there will be some assist functionality, but not automated travel. It got moderated (read: deleted) since we were kind of trolling the OP. Anyway, I think that post dated back to before the docking computer was introduced?!? not sure.. so my guess is that the assist functionality he referred to was just that, the DC. As for why there isn't an automated departure? Again, I can only guess, but I think it's because the DC was never intended as a means of helping with the mail-slot, but rather to help find your landing pad and to help find the slot from the outside, especially on coriolis stations where it can be a bit tricky unless you know what to look for. They probably didn't want people to completely avoid passing through the mail-slot and figured they would still force them to do so at least on the way out, where that's the only 'challenging' task. So I think that was merely a way of trying to 'help' people who were complaining about docking being hard and not an actual QoL type of implementation and they wanted those pilots to at least practice some basic flying when leaving the station.
The downside is of course that people who actively rely on them, will have a slightly harder time learning to do it manually. For example there have been mentions in this very thread of how the docking computer is so efficient and pulls off maneuvers that are "humanly impossible".. Not true, I for example can manually dock in way less than half the time it takes the computer to do it and I'm not the best pilot out there, that's for sure
But I can go through the slot at any speed.. forwards.. backwards (FA off drifting) and the limit is pretty much the stopping speed of the actual ship (to prevent hitting the lasers in the back of the station). This is the stuff you don't learn if you rely on the DC and obviously it's optional, but it helps in lots of other areas of the game (like combat for example). When I started the game I hated mail-slots and docking, but now I'm actually enjoying it and can't wait to get to a station just to try to dock more efficiently and faster than last time. With that being said, I don't really have a problem with the DC, I understand that docking can be a pain for new people or a QoL improvement for people doing trading in large ships who CAN dock, but maybe are used to smaller ships and don't like doing it in a T9 or something.. It would be nice if people didn't rely on it too much though, just so we have better pilots. Half of the complaints on the forums are due to pilot error (crashing into stuff getting fines / bounties.. shooting stuff they shouldn't.. etc).
Oh and also, regarding smuggling and silent running.. you're not actually hiding from the station, you're trying to hide from the authority ships scanning you. The station doesn't care as long as you're playing it cool. They have a black market after all and they can change management quite often
So maybe it's not so much the station enforcing the law as the authority ships enforcing the station to take their side if a fight happens. But as long as you don't disobey the station's laws and the authority ships don't order them to fire on you for being a criminal, maybe they simply don't care. That and the fact that if they installed scanners on the mail-slot then that would pretty much remove smuggling game-play alltogether. Now this is imo where the line has to be drawn between 'what could exist in that imaginary universe' and 'what the developers can allow to still keep this as a game that can be somewhat balanced'. So yes, I agree that the technology would probably exist in that future universe, but I also think that's not enough of an argument for the devs to cause themselves a whole set of new problems.
The developers wanted this to be an 'active' game.. so, not a game where you log off and you still progress (like some 3d space shooter version of farmville or other 'games' where you log in once a day to collect on all the progress you made) and that goes for being afk as well. Even if it takes just one button-press to progress, they don't want you to do so, unless you're in front of the computer, pressing that button. And it's not just botting that would be a problem. Completely legit gameplay that involves travel is also an issue. For example think of all the Colonia passanger missions that pay up to 60 million per mission.. You're going camping for the weekend? awesome.. pick up 5-6 of these missions in an Anaconda.. point your ship to Colonia.. hit the autopilot and be on your way. When you come back you're already there.
Now obviously the above scenario can be balanced in form of ships not using the fuel-scoop and running out of fuel or other ways.. etc.. but guess what will happen then? All the people who want to do JUST that will start advocating that if autopilot is already in the game, they might as well make it so it uses the fuel-soop. And they will have all the same 'legit' reasons to advocate for it, like people have now.. For example the most popular ones will probably be: "Autopilot makes sense only for long trips. I can fly my ship inside the bubble, why do I need an autopilot? The long range trips is where it's needed most. It makes sense! the crew of a ship on a long flight has to sleep! It's not realistic that autopilot stops after 2 hours, does it get tired, or what?"
Once that door opens, there's no turning back. So that right there is probably why the developers don't even 'want' to listen to threads like this.. They know very well that you cannot please everyone at the same time and human nature dictates that people always want 'more'.. You give them something? They instantly take it for granted and want more based on that..
Then after a year we'll simply end up with a game where you log in once a day to collect your riches that the NPCs farmed for you and there will be pay-to-win stuff in the store, since the company will have to make a living somehow seeing as they cannot charge 50 quid for a game that plays itself.
That's why I was suggesting earlier to come up with alternatives instead.. I mean.. nobody is stupid here, we all understand that when you do more than a few jumps and all you do is circle the star to scoop and hit the jump button it gets really boring..
Heck.. I've been to Colonia and back with a 27LY range ship... that's 1800 jumps I did across 4-5 days.. Do you honestly believe that I enjoyed every second of it? Especially when I wasn't even interested in what's there at Colonia.. I was simply doing a passenger mission and scanning beacons on the way for money..
So yes, I completely agree that travelling long distances in this game is boring as hell, unless your actual goal IS the travelling and looking at all the planets and stuff.. But when all you see is a star in your face after every jump, after a while you can even tell filename of the texture file they're using for it lol.
Yet I still am strongly against autopilot, simply because of the above mentioned reasons of opening a door that cannot be closed anymore and turning this game into something it never aimed to be.. If something is boring and repetitive.. automating it to where the game is playing itself and you're just watching isn't the answer imo.. Making it less boring and less repetitive would be the proper answer or coming up with alternative mechanics. That's why I suggested ways of faster travel within the bubble.. to engineer systems and the likes instead.. like.. you go to a system nearby.. charge up some super gate possibly powered by a white dwarf or something fancy.. enter.. and drop out at Maia.
Even the above idea has its flaws.. it needs to be perfected and probably plenty of people would be outright against it. But at least it deals with one important aspect: When you're devoting your time to a game and you're sitting down to play the game needs to make sure you CAN devote that time to it.
What I mean by the above: If I want to play this game, I don't want to watch Netflix or be AFK.. I actually WANT to play this game.. and the argument everyone keeps mentioning that 'if you don't like it you can turn it off' is completely invalid, since I just mentioned a couple of lines above that it IS boring and repetitive to me too.. but I dedicated that period of time to the game and I don't wanna watch netflix so automating that process would only leave me with.. what?... staring at the screen for a few hours while my ship flies itself and not being able to use the game? Or should Frontier team up with Netflix and sell the subscription in a bundle with the game?... Have a TV in the cockpit.. like.. do you guys get what I mean? Automating a boring process is not a solution, redeveloping it to be less boring IS.
If that same old star with a different skin wouldn't be jumping in my face after every jump and there was actual meaningful stuff to do and look at while on these travels, they wouldn't be boring anymore and you just might not want an autopilot either.
The game HAS depth.. too much in fact, but not when it comes to travel unfortunately.. (example of depth: Thargoid site scans give you audio messages that if you record with an actual DAW software and turn it into a spectogram, it reveals an image - that area COULD be a bit less deep imo
) You're supposed to shape your own story, so yea.. there isn't a personal story mission, I mean it's a simulator after all.. Though the thargoid stuff is probably sort of a 'main mission' if you like that kind of story, but yea.. you have to really work for it and they're not really giving away too many hints on where to look next..
Also you can't compare botting in MMORPGs to botting in Elite. In games like WoW, there's a separate market for it, because the number one usage of bots is the so called gold selling "industry".. There are "companies" developing the bots to be constantly up to date, since that's how those people make a living.. they sell gold and to get enough gold, they need to automate the process.. Of course that is against the terms of service of the game, but apparently that doesn't seem to stop them..
In Elite, they pretty much prevented the problem, since you cannot trade money.. and jettisoning cargo only works for pocket-change and is more work than actually getting your own gold.. so there can't really be a market for that in ED like.. ever
The only bots we have are the ones seeking some personal gain... they're annoying.. but they're just small fish, so imo that's why Frontier isn't really developing much of an anti-cheat.. and is simply solving them with customer service tickets and temporary bans manually..
Anyway, hope that explains why I don't really like autopilot..
Cheers!
I would disagree on depth: as I mean depth of mechanics, not depth of the thargoid storyline. I'm not really interested in the thargoid thing at all... I'm more interested in trading and building. I want more open universe, not story on rails.
And the open universe has very simplistic mechanics: the trading model nods at real economies without actually modeling actual economies. The mining model is, likewise, very simplistic. It's no more deep than the old arcade game Sinistar, since you can only mine {X} number of units of ore (randomized to the asteroid type) before you have to move on. The mission system and passenger system is, likewise, terribly simple. You never really have to make an seriously meaningful choices in these missions. You take the mission, you do what it says, and you turn it in for the reward you want. Sometimes there is a single, alternative option for completion, but it is just as simplistic as the original mission, just with a different completion criteria. It might include criminal activity, but there's never any meaningful story.
For example, if you took on refugees, and then are threatened by system police for harboring fugitives, but are begged by the passengers for travel to a sanctuary system in violation of the local law. Then you'd have meaningful story... especially if it started a chain of events in which you had *actual* decisions to make that would have lasting impact to your reputation or the state of the universe. But, no, it's super simple. The decisions you make are *not* complex. The results are *terribly* simple. And your place and impact upon the game universe are superficial at best.
This is what I'm talking about in terms of meaningful and complex game mechanics that bots cannot easily handle. It's also a type of interaction that would actually make the game *worth* investing time to pay attention to the details. As it stands, you can just ignore every single alternate mission completion possibility without consequence.
Which returns us to my core thesis: that autopilot breaking the game means that the game is so simplistic that a mindless bot can play it effectively. That points towards shallow and exploitable game mechanics that are, ultimately, not very fun for humans in the long run.
Which, in turn, explains why I play the game for a few weeks and then wander off to play something more enjoyable for a few months, then come back when I wonder if FDev has put in some better content and mechanics, then end up wandering off again. I love the *idea* of the game, but the actual details are... still far short of a truly enjoyable and rewarding experience in the long run. Well, unless you like blowing up thousands of ships. Mindless repetition is what some people love.
And the open universe has very simplistic mechanics: the trading model nods at real economies without actually modeling actual economies. The mining model is, likewise, very simplistic. It's no more deep than the old arcade game Sinistar, since you can only mine {X} number of units of ore (randomized to the asteroid type) before you have to move on. The mission system and passenger system is, likewise, terribly simple. You never really have to make an seriously meaningful choices in these missions. You take the mission, you do what it says, and you turn it in for the reward you want. Sometimes there is a single, alternative option for completion, but it is just as simplistic as the original mission, just with a different completion criteria. It might include criminal activity, but there's never any meaningful story.
For example, if you took on refugees, and then are threatened by system police for harboring fugitives, but are begged by the passengers for travel to a sanctuary system in violation of the local law. Then you'd have meaningful story... especially if it started a chain of events in which you had *actual* decisions to make that would have lasting impact to your reputation or the state of the universe. But, no, it's super simple. The decisions you make are *not* complex. The results are *terribly* simple. And your place and impact upon the game universe are superficial at best.
This is what I'm talking about in terms of meaningful and complex game mechanics that bots cannot easily handle. It's also a type of interaction that would actually make the game *worth* investing time to pay attention to the details. As it stands, you can just ignore every single alternate mission completion possibility without consequence.
Which returns us to my core thesis: that autopilot breaking the game means that the game is so simplistic that a mindless bot can play it effectively. That points towards shallow and exploitable game mechanics that are, ultimately, not very fun for humans in the long run.
Which, in turn, explains why I play the game for a few weeks and then wander off to play something more enjoyable for a few months, then come back when I wonder if FDev has put in some better content and mechanics, then end up wandering off again. I love the *idea* of the game, but the actual details are... still far short of a truly enjoyable and rewarding experience in the long run. Well, unless you like blowing up thousands of ships. Mindless repetition is what some people love.
Which makes me question why you think you know better? No offence but if you were any sort of important you'd not be mostly Harmless and we'd be rushing out the buy your computer game
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Which makes me question why you think you know better? No offence but if you were any sort of important you'd not be mostly Harmless and we'd be rushing out the buy your computer game
You question the importance of his post due to the number of forum posts he's made? Oh dear. I suspect he's been playing the game from the beginning.
With that being said, I don't really have a problem with the DC, I understand that docking can be a pain for new people or a QoL improvement for people doing trading in large ships who CAN dock, but maybe are used to smaller ships and don't like doing it in a T9 or something.. It would be nice if people didn't rely on it too much though, just so we have better pilots. Half of the complaints on the forums are due to pilot error (crashing into stuff getting fines / bounties.. shooting stuff they shouldn't.. etc).
Now this is imo where the line has to be drawn between 'what could exist in that imaginary universe' and 'what the developers can allow to still keep this as a game that can be somewhat balanced'. So yes, I agree that the technology would probably exist in that future universe, but I also think that's not enough of an argument for the devs to cause themselves a whole set of new problems.
The developers wanted this to be an 'active' game.. so, not a game where you log off and you still progress (like some 3d space shooter version of farmville or other 'games' where you log in once a day to collect on all the progress you made) and that goes for being afk as well. Even if it takes just one button-press to progress, they don't want you to do so, unless you're in front of the computer, pressing that button. And it's not just botting that would be a problem. Completely legit gameplay that involves travel is also an issue. For example think of all the Colonia passanger missions that pay up to 60 million per mission.. You're going camping for the weekend? awesome.. pick up 5-6 of these missions in an Anaconda.. point your ship to Colonia.. hit the autopilot and be on your way. When you come back you're already there.
Now obviously the above scenario can be balanced in form of ships not using the fuel-scoop and running out of fuel or other ways.. etc.. but guess what will happen then? All the people who want to do JUST that will start advocating that if autopilot is already in the game, they might as well make it so it uses the fuel-soop. And they will have all the same 'legit' reasons to advocate for it, like people have now.. For example the most popular ones will probably be: "Autopilot makes sense only for long trips. I can fly my ship inside the bubble, why do I need an autopilot? The long range trips is where it's needed most. It makes sense! the crew of a ship on a long flight has to sleep! It's not realistic that autopilot stops after 2 hours, does it get tired, or what?"
Once that door opens, there's no turning back. So that right there is probably why the developers don't even 'want' to listen to threads like this.. They know very well that you cannot please everyone at the same time and human nature dictates that people always want 'more'.. You give them something? They instantly take it for granted and want more based on that..
Then after a year we'll simply end up with a game where you log in once a day to collect your riches that the NPCs farmed for you and there will be pay-to-win stuff in the store, since the company will have to make a living somehow seeing as they cannot charge 50 quid for a game that plays itself.
That's why I was suggesting earlier to come up with alternatives instead.. I mean.. nobody is stupid here, we all understand that when you do more than a few jumps and all you do is circle the star to scoop and hit the jump button it gets really boring..
Heck.. I've been to Colonia and back with a 27LY range ship... that's 1800 jumps I did across 4-5 days.. Do you honestly believe that I enjoyed every second of it? Especially when I wasn't even interested in what's there at Colonia.. I was simply doing a passenger mission and scanning beacons on the way for money..
So yes, I completely agree that travelling long distances in this game is boring as hell, unless your actual goal IS the travelling and looking at all the planets and stuff.. But when all you see is a star in your face after every jump, after a while you can even tell filename of the texture file they're using for it lol.
Yet I still am strongly against autopilot, simply because of the above mentioned reasons of opening a door that cannot be closed anymore and turning this game into something it never aimed to be.. If something is boring and repetitive.. automating it to where the game is playing itself and you're just watching isn't the answer imo.. Making it less boring and less repetitive would be the proper answer or coming up with alternative mechanics. That's why I suggested ways of faster travel within the bubble.. to engineer systems and the likes instead.. like.. you go to a system nearby.. charge up some super gate possibly powered by a white dwarf or something fancy.. enter.. and drop out at Maia.
Even the above idea has its flaws.. it needs to be perfected and probably plenty of people would be outright against it. But at least it deals with one important aspect: When you're devoting your time to a game and you're sitting down to play the game needs to make sure you CAN devote that time to it.
What I mean by the above: If I want to play this game, I don't want to watch Netflix or be AFK.. I actually WANT to play this game.. and the argument everyone keeps mentioning that 'if you don't like it you can turn it off' is completely invalid, since I just mentioned a couple of lines above that it IS boring and repetitive to me too.. but I dedicated that period of time to the game and I don't wanna watch netflix so automating that process would only leave me with.. what?... staring at the screen for a few hours while my ship flies itself and not being able to use the game? Or should Frontier team up with Netflix and sell the subscription in a bundle with the game?... Have a TV in the cockpit.. like.. do you guys get what I mean? Automating a boring process is not a solution, redeveloping it to be less boring IS.
If that same old star with a different skin wouldn't be jumping in my face after every jump and there was actual meaningful stuff to do and look at while on these travels, they wouldn't be boring anymore and you just might not want an autopilot either.
The game HAS depth.. too much in fact, but not when it comes to travel unfortunately.. (example of depth: Thargoid site scans give you audio messages that if you record with an actual DAW software and turn it into a spectogram, it reveals an image - that area COULD be a bit less deep imo
You're supposed to shape your own story, so yea.. there isn't a personal story mission, I mean it's a simulator after all.. Though the thargoid stuff is probably sort of a 'main mission' if you like that kind of story, but yea.. you have to really work for it and they're not really giving away too many hints on where to look next..
Also you can't compare botting in MMORPGs to botting in Elite. In games like WoW, there's a separate market for it, because the number one usage of bots is the so called gold selling "industry".. There are "companies" developing the bots to be constantly up to date, since that's how those people make a living.. they sell gold and to get enough gold, they need to automate the process.. Of course that is against the terms of service of the game, but apparently that doesn't seem to stop them..
In Elite, they pretty much prevented the problem, since you cannot trade money.. and jettisoning cargo only works for pocket-change and is more work than actually getting your own gold.. so there can't really be a market for that in ED like.. ever
The only bots we have are the ones seeking some personal gain... they're annoying.. but they're just small fish, so imo that's why Frontier isn't really developing much of an anti-cheat.. and is simply solving them with customer service tickets and temporary bans manually..
Anyway, hope that explains why I don't really like autopilot..
Cheers!
Totaly understand and share your concerns.
But there is a fine line between having 5-10 minutes to take your breath and leaving PC on for a week. I see AP as former only. Not in any case as the latter.
Neither I am against alternatives. For example, "bus lines" of frigates (like those rescue or prison ships) warping all over the bubble on a schedule. But even then, not having AP would not sit right with me. It is just unnatural. As well as not having customizable UI, fixed weapon zeroing, partial flight assistance, etc. Why all the things I am capable of having on a lousy mobile are unavailable in 3300?
But I am certain that I don't want to play "press J 30 times" game when I'm tired and want to wreck some bad guys before sleep. And I'm again not ok with something instant unless well explained. AP is a good solution, give me whatever to do instead, be it Netflix, GalNet, stock markets, hell just plant Space Invaders somewhere in that 3300 dysfunctional ship computer.
As for passive gameplay, well I, trust me, neither want to play "stay AFK to win" or "Farmvile in spess" game. But I wouldn't call "do something smart then get some profit for some limited time" gameplay an AFK one. That is, as many things (AP included), are questions of implementation.
And, by the way, trader's gameplay is already shallow. So far all you can do is haul biowaste on a T9. That's it. What they gonna do next? Add in Panther Clipper to haul biowaste on? So far stock market as a side activity fits in well and won't change much of existing stuff IF implemented right. And BGS is not changing supply/demand well enough to create some alternative to Slave Imps/something loops. But I am no game designer, I'm a player.
Not even speaking about that King/Admiral of the Rear bull. Just why?
Which makes me question why you think you know better? No offence but if you were any sort of important you'd not be mostly Harmless and we'd be rushing out the buy your computer game
Post count is not a good indicator of the quality of a post, only the quantity
You're sort of describing mass effect
They were one of the first to specifically advertise really hard in-game decisions that have a major impact and cannot be undone giving you that sense of 'there's no true happy ending'.. Ofc others have done similar stuff before, but didn't hype it up all that much and MA is sort of a space game so it fits the context a bit better.. Anyway, isn't it strange that prior to that we didn't really care? Like, games were even more simplistic and linear yet nobody was bothered by that
(wasn't trying to point out anything specific with that.. your post just kinda reminded me of that)
Anyway.. It's theoretically a simulator and in that department it pretty much delivers on an A+ level.. especially in VR.
Been playing the game in VR for the past few weeks and the change in the level of immersion is just stupid.. Like.. even before, I was sort of trying to get in the mood by dimming the lights.. turning off my second monitor and whatnot so it kinda 'feels like' a spaceship, but when you can actually see 3d depth and your cockpit no longer looks like some yellow drawing on the screen and you're free to look around all the time, it makes a huge difference..
Though, even without VR, I think it's pretty awesome from a simulator point of view. If you ever played any other simulators, most of them don't even have this much to do and they're only fun until you try all the equipment available.
But yes, Elite is really trying hard to be something "more" and that's why we have all these problems with it, because we don't treat it as a simulator anymore. We don't even know what to call it anymore (and neither do the devs).. like.. we could say it's some kind of a 'MMO Sandbox space simulator', but even that doesn't cover it entirely.
Obviously that's a good thing, coming out with new stuff is always nice, but it does has its downsides, like the fact that it's trying to be good at way too many things at the same time, which would probably require a much more massive developer workforce in the background to improve all these areas within reasonable amounts of time.
So if we really want to define the main problem, it's just that.. the fact that it's evolving way slower than it should and probably that's why you keep leaving and checking back hoping that 'maybe now?'
But I do think it's going in the right direction and hope that one day we'll have to really try to find the problems remaining. Like I said before, I agree that there 'is' an issue of jumping between stars being too repetitive, but I honestly don't think autopilot would be the answer to that. And definitely not the first 'solution' to try..
And no, instant travel to anywhere wouldn't be good either, that's why I was mainly suggesting something along the lines of artificial versions of neutron stars.. or something that can be explained in the game.. Maybe Palin could analyze some of the new thargoid ships (given that they can travel to-from which-space at will) and figuring out a way to create a stable wormhole between systems (like the Sol-Maia example..).
Then we could have like 5 of these tunnels in the bubble each one from point A to point B of which all would be points of interests like engineer systems and the likes, which would significantly speed up travel related to engineering.. etc without affecting any other form of travel (like exploration).
As I said before, this is just some random idea I came up with and haven't given it much thought so it's not perfect, but it solves your initial problem regarding engineering a Corvette and doesn't require us to go AFK or watch tv so imo. it would be better.
Regarding all the other stuff like Superpower ranks... yea, that's definitely unfinished / broken.. or something was not okay when they made those up
Especially since those fancy superpower ships aren't all that fancy actually.. Now, with engineering.. the Anaconda can pretty much do anything a Corvette can when it comes to combat (the Corvette being more maneuverable isn't true anymore, the only place it moves better is in supercruise), it also has higher damage output potential (the only remaining upside to the Corvette are the hardpoint placements, which can favor fixed weapons, but at these new turning speeds even that doesn't matter much anymore). Regardless, the difference certainly doesn't justify the increased rebuy cost and rank grind. I use my Corvette as a bulk passenger bus lol.. it's better than the Beluga for that job
)) (the Empire would be proud of me).And the Cutter, which was the 'more worth it' ship of the two till now (for trading.. definitely not for combat).. well it just got blown out of the water by a space cow costing less than half as much
Granted, those two navy ships do look beautiful and there are times when I'm thinking I'd take them even if they were worse for a job, just because I like the looks. But maybe that doesn't justify all the rank needed so imo they should really find some other functionality for the ranks besides that.
I'm one of those types that has great interest in history and context, so let's back up a moment and talk about how we got here. Which, of course, means starting off with the ideas that Braben/Bell used when writing Elite in the first place. I haven't researched this, so it's conjecture, but I'm betting good money that they played the tabletop RPG "Traveller" and wrote Elite to match the idea of being a pilot on a Free Trader.
[Context link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveller_(role-playing_game)
The original Elite stuffed you into a Mk3 and set you loose in 5-map-universe "wild west" collection of pseudo-random stations. The governments of those systems was mostly fluff, as aside from the ambient level of pirates the only other impact was on the price of goods and how many Vipers were patrolling. You were most certainly not flying around in a universe where you could identify or join factions, look on the map and see trade routes, or really even have an idea of the structure of life in these systems, except for buying and selling things and shooting other ships.
The most important feature of this is the whole "wild west in space" type of feel, where you as a free trader or mercenary/pirate could fly about and have some fun and build up your reputation and your ship's capabilities. In this type of unstructured universe being a free trader makes perfect sense.
But in the universe of Elite: Dangerous we have established factions, identifiable system allegiances and governments and corporations, and a bubble of civilization surrounded by a huge fringe of "wild west" star systems, and then the vast desolation of the galaxy that is mostly uninhabited. In this context the free trader role is only a tiny slice of how goods and services would be provided, especially within the civilized worlds of the core.
As you're driving down the road this week, please take a look at the trucks, trains, and planes that are hauling around cargo. Do any of the drivers or pilots own the cargo they are carrying? Of course they don't. Speculative investment trading is a fringe activity: it's the guy you know who drives a couple states over at the end of the growing season and picks up a truckload of peaches ripe from the tree to sell on the street corner. Sure, we can think of a few examples of free traders who buy goods at one location, haul them somewhere else, and then sell them in that market, but it's actually pretty rare.
The bulk of cargo transport is contracted service, where the risk is not really absorbed by the transport company at all, as they are insured. Which does raise the question of why ED doesn't have a wealth of financial options, including insurance, to offset the various risks. This is a critical feature of how economies work, and the lack of economic and legal structure that make sense to us is one of the myriad reasons why this game slowly palls over time for anyone who is not seriously invested in the main story-on-rails that is the thargoid menace.
But back to the point: moving tons of goods from system to system as a speculative investment on the part of the single pilot owner is an economic fringe activity. The core mercantile model of ED falls far short for this reason. It feels hollow because it simply is. The depth of gameplay that surrounds this portion of the game is, frankly, less complex than many modern board games that use the topics of transport and merchant trading.
My similar example in the Fantasy MMO realm is any computer game that is based up Dungeons & Dragons rules: I'm not interested in playing that as a long term, open-ended computer game because the actual game mechanics were designed for a paper & dice game. As a result, the mechanics are simplistic to the extreme, and often subject to very odd min/max or exploit strategies since the whole structure of D&D was supposed to be interactive storytelling with simple mechanics for resolving conflict that were broad enough that everyone could enjoy it.
ED isn't a Free Trader game any more. The scope and scale of game that Braben/Bell wrote has been overlaid with a rich and complex far future story, with history that should tie directly back in to the modern day since the Sol system and Earth exists in this universe.
As a space fighter simulator, the game is pretty great. Although, when you get down to it, flying space fighters is a lot of boost and turn, which in and of itself is kind of silly since computer controlled laser turrets are firing beams at the speed of light that, in space, should remain coherent for millions of kilometers since there is only vacuum for it to pass through. Engagement ranges of modern jets is already beyond visual range, and that has been true of sea-born battleships for decades. To imagine it makes any sense to be getting within a kilometer of another space ship in combat is a huge contrivance.
It's because people want to fly a fighter like they do in Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica or any other big screen sci-fi flick. It's fun to do, so the game uses it as the model, and that's okay. But, seriously, a human pilot aiming an entire ship to line up the crosshairs is pretty silly in a hard sci-fi setting. It begins to break down when we are flying ships that are much bigger than fighters. Computers should be doing most of the work for us, because they are already doing it today in such applications, such as navigating a ship or aiming a cannon for optimal trajectory.
It depends upon whether you really want ED to provide a coherent narrative or not. There are plenty of opportunities to find enjoyable gameplay in a game where you are not a free trader or mercenary flying your ship by the seat of his pants. But at the moment the entire model is being forced through that knot hole of design, which brings with it some very odd results.
At times I like to think of the stations we visit as the Free Trade stations and bases that are set up to cater to our crappy little ships. Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, the Amazon Shipping Center Station is loading up a Wal-Mart MegaCarrier with ten million tons of food to ship to nearby systems. The idea that shifting ten thousand tons of cargo makes any kind of dent in a planetary economy of a couple billion people is silly. A single system in the core would likely have a daily economy that moves several billion credits. The few millions that we Free Traders shift is chump change.
So it all depends upon whether FDev wants ED to evolve into a more expansive Sci Fi MMO with deep economies, or whether they give up that crown to Star Citizen (if it ever materializes in a meaningful way) or some other game that decides to go there. I know people will suggest Eve Online for anyone who want to play "Spreadsheets in Space", but that game has its own huge set of deficiencies that make it even more boring.
My thesis here is that FDev is trying to push ED into this larger territory, but they are currently hamstrung by the original model, which is that we are playing a Free Trader, Free Miner, or Free Mercenary/Pirate role. If they're going to do things like PowerPlay they they have to embrace the idea of player corporations, government dynamics, contracts and bidding, system (not universal) stock exchanges, futures markets, joining factions that can be utterly wiped out or grow into dominant control, military operations including real battles for system control and not just story blurbs that we read on galnet, and a lot more.
In this context, and with this level of complexity, the impact of something like autopilot becomes far less. But if we stick with the Free Trader/Merc model, then the impact of autopilot is high, because the time investment in piloting is the gatekeeper to higher level advancement and perks. Let me restate that for emphasis: Time spent piloting is the gatekeeper to higher level advancement. Since the trade model is so simple, the mining model is so simple, and the combat/mercenary/piracy model is (aside from a need to know how to use your weapons against AI) pretty simple, too... the only thing truly necessary to become Elite reputation in various forms is time investment.
Putting an autopilot/autonavigator in the game grates on the nerves of many because it invalidates the "time spent piloting is the gate" model. But let us all understand that this game design is just as arbitrary as "flying space ships like World War 2 airplanes" because that's the experience they are trying to curate and present. Which is fine if that's the game experience that FDev wants to present. But it apparently isn't, exactly, because they're tacking on new game modes, like PowerPlay, that are decidedly not that experience.
You can't have it both ways. Either ED is a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants space sim of Free Trader and Free Mercenary, or it's not. If we're going to get involved in system politics, upsetting factions and influencing commodities, and flying ships that are giant freighters and mini capital ships, then we're going to need something more than the original constraints thrown into the original Elite by Braben/Bell.
And this means not having stick-time investment be the gatekeeper of all advancement. Because eventually a meaningful competitor to ED will come along and provide these options and experiences without the rigid design constraints, and players will likely play the game that provides the most meaningful involvement and enjoyment... without mind numbing repetition.
TL;DR: I used a lot of words.
[Context link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveller_(role-playing_game)
The original Elite stuffed you into a Mk3 and set you loose in 5-map-universe "wild west" collection of pseudo-random stations. The governments of those systems was mostly fluff, as aside from the ambient level of pirates the only other impact was on the price of goods and how many Vipers were patrolling. You were most certainly not flying around in a universe where you could identify or join factions, look on the map and see trade routes, or really even have an idea of the structure of life in these systems, except for buying and selling things and shooting other ships.
The most important feature of this is the whole "wild west in space" type of feel, where you as a free trader or mercenary/pirate could fly about and have some fun and build up your reputation and your ship's capabilities. In this type of unstructured universe being a free trader makes perfect sense.
But in the universe of Elite: Dangerous we have established factions, identifiable system allegiances and governments and corporations, and a bubble of civilization surrounded by a huge fringe of "wild west" star systems, and then the vast desolation of the galaxy that is mostly uninhabited. In this context the free trader role is only a tiny slice of how goods and services would be provided, especially within the civilized worlds of the core.
As you're driving down the road this week, please take a look at the trucks, trains, and planes that are hauling around cargo. Do any of the drivers or pilots own the cargo they are carrying? Of course they don't. Speculative investment trading is a fringe activity: it's the guy you know who drives a couple states over at the end of the growing season and picks up a truckload of peaches ripe from the tree to sell on the street corner. Sure, we can think of a few examples of free traders who buy goods at one location, haul them somewhere else, and then sell them in that market, but it's actually pretty rare.
The bulk of cargo transport is contracted service, where the risk is not really absorbed by the transport company at all, as they are insured. Which does raise the question of why ED doesn't have a wealth of financial options, including insurance, to offset the various risks. This is a critical feature of how economies work, and the lack of economic and legal structure that make sense to us is one of the myriad reasons why this game slowly palls over time for anyone who is not seriously invested in the main story-on-rails that is the thargoid menace.
But back to the point: moving tons of goods from system to system as a speculative investment on the part of the single pilot owner is an economic fringe activity. The core mercantile model of ED falls far short for this reason. It feels hollow because it simply is. The depth of gameplay that surrounds this portion of the game is, frankly, less complex than many modern board games that use the topics of transport and merchant trading.
My similar example in the Fantasy MMO realm is any computer game that is based up Dungeons & Dragons rules: I'm not interested in playing that as a long term, open-ended computer game because the actual game mechanics were designed for a paper & dice game. As a result, the mechanics are simplistic to the extreme, and often subject to very odd min/max or exploit strategies since the whole structure of D&D was supposed to be interactive storytelling with simple mechanics for resolving conflict that were broad enough that everyone could enjoy it.
ED isn't a Free Trader game any more. The scope and scale of game that Braben/Bell wrote has been overlaid with a rich and complex far future story, with history that should tie directly back in to the modern day since the Sol system and Earth exists in this universe.
As a space fighter simulator, the game is pretty great. Although, when you get down to it, flying space fighters is a lot of boost and turn, which in and of itself is kind of silly since computer controlled laser turrets are firing beams at the speed of light that, in space, should remain coherent for millions of kilometers since there is only vacuum for it to pass through. Engagement ranges of modern jets is already beyond visual range, and that has been true of sea-born battleships for decades. To imagine it makes any sense to be getting within a kilometer of another space ship in combat is a huge contrivance.
It's because people want to fly a fighter like they do in Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica or any other big screen sci-fi flick. It's fun to do, so the game uses it as the model, and that's okay. But, seriously, a human pilot aiming an entire ship to line up the crosshairs is pretty silly in a hard sci-fi setting. It begins to break down when we are flying ships that are much bigger than fighters. Computers should be doing most of the work for us, because they are already doing it today in such applications, such as navigating a ship or aiming a cannon for optimal trajectory.
It depends upon whether you really want ED to provide a coherent narrative or not. There are plenty of opportunities to find enjoyable gameplay in a game where you are not a free trader or mercenary flying your ship by the seat of his pants. But at the moment the entire model is being forced through that knot hole of design, which brings with it some very odd results.
At times I like to think of the stations we visit as the Free Trade stations and bases that are set up to cater to our crappy little ships. Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, the Amazon Shipping Center Station is loading up a Wal-Mart MegaCarrier with ten million tons of food to ship to nearby systems. The idea that shifting ten thousand tons of cargo makes any kind of dent in a planetary economy of a couple billion people is silly. A single system in the core would likely have a daily economy that moves several billion credits. The few millions that we Free Traders shift is chump change.
So it all depends upon whether FDev wants ED to evolve into a more expansive Sci Fi MMO with deep economies, or whether they give up that crown to Star Citizen (if it ever materializes in a meaningful way) or some other game that decides to go there. I know people will suggest Eve Online for anyone who want to play "Spreadsheets in Space", but that game has its own huge set of deficiencies that make it even more boring.
My thesis here is that FDev is trying to push ED into this larger territory, but they are currently hamstrung by the original model, which is that we are playing a Free Trader, Free Miner, or Free Mercenary/Pirate role. If they're going to do things like PowerPlay they they have to embrace the idea of player corporations, government dynamics, contracts and bidding, system (not universal) stock exchanges, futures markets, joining factions that can be utterly wiped out or grow into dominant control, military operations including real battles for system control and not just story blurbs that we read on galnet, and a lot more.
In this context, and with this level of complexity, the impact of something like autopilot becomes far less. But if we stick with the Free Trader/Merc model, then the impact of autopilot is high, because the time investment in piloting is the gatekeeper to higher level advancement and perks. Let me restate that for emphasis: Time spent piloting is the gatekeeper to higher level advancement. Since the trade model is so simple, the mining model is so simple, and the combat/mercenary/piracy model is (aside from a need to know how to use your weapons against AI) pretty simple, too... the only thing truly necessary to become Elite reputation in various forms is time investment.
Putting an autopilot/autonavigator in the game grates on the nerves of many because it invalidates the "time spent piloting is the gate" model. But let us all understand that this game design is just as arbitrary as "flying space ships like World War 2 airplanes" because that's the experience they are trying to curate and present. Which is fine if that's the game experience that FDev wants to present. But it apparently isn't, exactly, because they're tacking on new game modes, like PowerPlay, that are decidedly not that experience.
You can't have it both ways. Either ED is a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants space sim of Free Trader and Free Mercenary, or it's not. If we're going to get involved in system politics, upsetting factions and influencing commodities, and flying ships that are giant freighters and mini capital ships, then we're going to need something more than the original constraints thrown into the original Elite by Braben/Bell.
And this means not having stick-time investment be the gatekeeper of all advancement. Because eventually a meaningful competitor to ED will come along and provide these options and experiences without the rigid design constraints, and players will likely play the game that provides the most meaningful involvement and enjoyment... without mind numbing repetition.
TL;DR: I used a lot of words.
Last edited:
rockwater, i like your words and the thoughts behind them.
Nice summary!
Exactly! That's why I said that autopilot would require them to pretty much re-develop the current game and possibly even shift the genre a bit..
And regarding the combat, it's funny as I was just doing the CG in an Anaconda.. and was thinking... if I'm flying this big ship.. that kinda 'feels' like a big ship.. why am I spinning around so much like a wild cat?.. shouldn't I be almost stationary like the capital ships and just choose my targets and fire away while managing my power distribution?
Now obviously I don't want the game to switch completely over to that as I like piloting my fighters / small ships... but having these large ships act pretty much the same way feels kind of unnatural..
So maybe in the future they could either make those large ships (or introduce even bigger ones) that are much stronger, but have this type of gameplay.. so it's not just another somewhat less fragile fighter.. but a mobile no-fly zone with a crew, which on the other hand can't chase you around like a puppy and you'd need wings of vultures to take one down. Anyway, yea, nice summary, especially on the trade part and not to mention that it's not even just a 'couple of billion people'.. I recently installed EDDI for example and always get surprised when he announces the population of random systems I didn't even think were inhabited, let's just say human kind is doing what it does best... spreading
Cheers!
From the first hundred posts.
Is this a new type of material that has been added to the game? How much is it worth in the material trader screen?
OK, more seriously...
The autopilot is already in game... It's only a question of whether players are allowed to access it.... For the time being, the No's seem to have the ear of FDev...
No, I suspect he is just trying to be funny. Perhaps it wasn't really a clever post in hindsight. Just an annoying one.
@Hessfire, if it is endlessly debated, it is clearly because the community is severely divided upon the issue. Not because you are right.
FDev were initially going to have instant transfer. It was only due to an outcry by a section of the community that they consented to transfer delays and transfer costs that these where subsequently implemented with the transfer mechanics. Both of which, I feel, are excessively prohibitive (takes too long and costs way too much). But that is a different issue.
The same people who voted No during kickstarter still control FDev. Simple as that. They have a masochistic side to their natures and feel that by preventing things like an AP and including excessive transfer delays and costs that this makes the game more realistic for them. Personally, I feel that these have the reverse effect for me. Waiting an hour and a quarter for a thruster to ship down to Prof Palin adds nothing but tedium. All I can do during this transfer time is go play something else! It effectively ends my playing session for the evening. If that isn't immersion breaking, tell me what is?
These debates will continue because this is an issue about how the game is fundamentally viewed. I see it as a Game first and foremost and the game mechanics should fit that paradigm. The No voters have an entirely different viewpoint of what this game is to them. Adding Real Life mechanics adds meaning for them, even if it means doing something extremely sub-optimally. Doing hyperspace jumps manually is the only viewpoint that they can construct.
Part of the problem is that the game was setup with a 1:1 galaxy representation. This is of itself fine, but the problem then becames how to navigate within such a vast space (in a reasonable time frame) and still preserve the sense of space and distance. One consequence of this problem is that our ships have a finite jump distance. This is to ensure that the game feels expansive and that 'travelling' to a distant objective requires a hell of a lot of tedium... It's almost a macho endurance thing... as 777Driver alluded to.
The No Voters will never admit this of course, because that dilutes their point of view. They see any means of reducing this sense of space and the difficulties of getting anywhere as inherently part of the games experience, even if this experience is one of total boredom and frustration... They feel triumphant at having endured all of this (wrestling with the very vastness of space and the subsequent endless jumps) and reached an imaginary place called Beagle Point.
Such people scare me because they seem somehow capable of blending reality with an entirely imaginary world and believe that this is somehow Right. The Game is real to them! And that this is the only way that the imaginary world of Elite Dangerous can and should be experienced. And that is why they force their opinion down our throats with complete disregard of our feelings or expectations of the 'Game' vs 'game'.
I am totally disillusioned with the mindset that controls this game. As 777Driver has said, it's largely a case of having to put up with it as I can't see it changing any day soon. But that won't stop me or any other players who see the game for what it is... A Game (an imaginary galaxy that is played in and that has no relationship to real world mechanics). And hence, trying to get more game-centric mechanics included in the game, over RL ones.
I have deliberately avoided the issue of botting the game, because this is a symptom of the No Voters. They made botting 'desirable' to overcome the tedium and monotony that the No Voters insist we endure. If transfer was more readily attainable, botting wouldn't be needed... If we could jump to Colonia or Beagle Point within a minute, what would be the point of botting?
The obvious counter argument to this is going to be, where is the challenge then?... By the game mechanics that you implement such as missions, game objectives and mysteries to solve. It would NOT preclude flying your ship to achieve these game objectives! It only simplifies the process of moving around the galaxy without all the tedium in doing so. But I guess until such mechanics are included, we are stuck where we are. With stupid game mechanics like limited hyperspace jumps instead that require hours of pressing J to get anywhere. Enjoy flying your ship... I hope you find it a fully enriching experience!
Is this a new type of material that has been added to the game? How much is it worth in the material trader screen?
OK, more seriously...
The autopilot is already in game... It's only a question of whether players are allowed to access it.... For the time being, the No's seem to have the ear of FDev...
No, I suspect he is just trying to be funny. Perhaps it wasn't really a clever post in hindsight. Just an annoying one.
@Hessfire, if it is endlessly debated, it is clearly because the community is severely divided upon the issue. Not because you are right.
FDev were initially going to have instant transfer. It was only due to an outcry by a section of the community that they consented to transfer delays and transfer costs that these where subsequently implemented with the transfer mechanics. Both of which, I feel, are excessively prohibitive (takes too long and costs way too much). But that is a different issue.
I think there might be some macho thing about doing jumps manually
The same people who voted No during kickstarter still control FDev. Simple as that. They have a masochistic side to their natures and feel that by preventing things like an AP and including excessive transfer delays and costs that this makes the game more realistic for them. Personally, I feel that these have the reverse effect for me. Waiting an hour and a quarter for a thruster to ship down to Prof Palin adds nothing but tedium. All I can do during this transfer time is go play something else! It effectively ends my playing session for the evening. If that isn't immersion breaking, tell me what is?
These debates will continue because this is an issue about how the game is fundamentally viewed. I see it as a Game first and foremost and the game mechanics should fit that paradigm. The No voters have an entirely different viewpoint of what this game is to them. Adding Real Life mechanics adds meaning for them, even if it means doing something extremely sub-optimally. Doing hyperspace jumps manually is the only viewpoint that they can construct.
Part of the problem is that the game was setup with a 1:1 galaxy representation. This is of itself fine, but the problem then becames how to navigate within such a vast space (in a reasonable time frame) and still preserve the sense of space and distance. One consequence of this problem is that our ships have a finite jump distance. This is to ensure that the game feels expansive and that 'travelling' to a distant objective requires a hell of a lot of tedium... It's almost a macho endurance thing... as 777Driver alluded to.
The No Voters will never admit this of course, because that dilutes their point of view. They see any means of reducing this sense of space and the difficulties of getting anywhere as inherently part of the games experience, even if this experience is one of total boredom and frustration... They feel triumphant at having endured all of this (wrestling with the very vastness of space and the subsequent endless jumps) and reached an imaginary place called Beagle Point.
Such people scare me because they seem somehow capable of blending reality with an entirely imaginary world and believe that this is somehow Right. The Game is real to them! And that this is the only way that the imaginary world of Elite Dangerous can and should be experienced. And that is why they force their opinion down our throats with complete disregard of our feelings or expectations of the 'Game' vs 'game'.
I am totally disillusioned with the mindset that controls this game. As 777Driver has said, it's largely a case of having to put up with it as I can't see it changing any day soon. But that won't stop me or any other players who see the game for what it is... A Game (an imaginary galaxy that is played in and that has no relationship to real world mechanics). And hence, trying to get more game-centric mechanics included in the game, over RL ones.
I have deliberately avoided the issue of botting the game, because this is a symptom of the No Voters. They made botting 'desirable' to overcome the tedium and monotony that the No Voters insist we endure. If transfer was more readily attainable, botting wouldn't be needed... If we could jump to Colonia or Beagle Point within a minute, what would be the point of botting?
The obvious counter argument to this is going to be, where is the challenge then?... By the game mechanics that you implement such as missions, game objectives and mysteries to solve. It would NOT preclude flying your ship to achieve these game objectives! It only simplifies the process of moving around the galaxy without all the tedium in doing so. But I guess until such mechanics are included, we are stuck where we are. With stupid game mechanics like limited hyperspace jumps instead that require hours of pressing J to get anywhere. Enjoy flying your ship... I hope you find it a fully enriching experience!
Off and on, out of developer curiosity, I'd looked for evidence of ab autopilot program for Elite Dangerous, but hadn't found it until this week. After seeing a couple videos on it, it looks like a toy at best given that things like interdictions are common.
It was interesting to finally see a couple video examples of an external autopilot for this game, but I would have to say I'm glad that we don't have an in-game autopilot.
I don't see why some people would be so disturbed about the autopilot(s) which have been developed because I saw no example which was anywhere near sophisticated enough to be used as any kind of exploit except maybe honking systems for exploration. Even doing that AFK would be quite risky I'd think.
I still do enjoy the landing even after many thousands of landings and don't ever use a landing computer (tried maybe two landings with one).
I do wish that long travel could be made a bit more engaging in this game. Maybe any number of potentially deadly mini games (in addition to interdictions and hyperdictions) could be added?
It was interesting to finally see a couple video examples of an external autopilot for this game, but I would have to say I'm glad that we don't have an in-game autopilot.
I don't see why some people would be so disturbed about the autopilot(s) which have been developed because I saw no example which was anywhere near sophisticated enough to be used as any kind of exploit except maybe honking systems for exploration. Even doing that AFK would be quite risky I'd think.
I still do enjoy the landing even after many thousands of landings and don't ever use a landing computer (tried maybe two landings with one).
I do wish that long travel could be made a bit more engaging in this game. Maybe any number of potentially deadly mini games (in addition to interdictions and hyperdictions) could be added?
Last edited:
I feel like adding some more effective and engaging yet more difficult ways of travel would abolish current system.
And anything gets boring with excessive repetition. As getting from point A to point B is the crucial part of this game, this might cause problems.
Imagine, for example, that you would have to complete interdiction minigame for each 100 LY jump.
I am uncertain, really.
But this game might need some variation of traveling systems. Not a single one warped to fit every purpose of travel.
For example, I do not like current navigation speeds around stars relative to distance/size in comparison to speeds around planets.
It is too fast. It hurts sense of scale quite a bit. I do not belive I have to feel claustrophobic around those things.
And this is due to travel system being balanced to fit all purposes. Developers have two parameters to balance: wow factor on hyperspace drop and time to travel. As a result, speed got dumpstered.
We might really need to let go current traveling system, inside the bubble at least. But, if you scroll around this thread, you will see that any changes in the current system might cause concerns.
And addition of autopilot would change nothing for the current system. It is an immersive option for marginal cases.
Last edited: