Back to the drawing board, FD

[Sysmon]

I am advocating choice Sysmon, you appear to advocate restricting choice. It is that simple.

That's oversimplifying the issues at hand though. Games are about restricting choice to set up a framework to play within. Without the restrictions, there is no game. The balance is in-between too much restrictions making the game too hard or cumbersome, and too few restrictions removing the challenge from the game. You seem to argue against one extreme and while favouring the other extreme, with no regard to the actual issue being discussed. So without point or real contribution. I shall therefore refrain from answering your posts from now on, as all they do is derail the discussion.

S

 

[Just Paul]

I find them very interesting - they're hugely powerful in terms of the sheer number of new capabilities they give players access to, many of which have been long standing repeated requests in Suggestions - and yet I can't think of a single reason why I'd want to buy one even if I had the money beyond the minor convenience of it being slightly easier to keep all my stuff in one place.

I put mine in an uninhabitat system not far from Carcosa as an outpost. It's an easy and close respawn point for PvP activities in the system and also a stash-house for some liberated goods without neg effecting the factions I take it from. Where else can you get your own outpost with 27mil running cost and no bgs activities needed, brilliant.

 

[Riverside]

They kind of are. If you want to lay a claim on a system with a ship (and earn a bonus) you must return the data to a static base somehow, and before the other guy too. None of this is necessary anymore. It's not a question of sour grapes, or removal of choice, the game diminishes.

There are reasons for & against open only or single shard play. The rules as they stand allow my opponents to remove all chance of instancing with me, they are not cheating. But via the BGS I can still oppose them, no matter the instance, mode or even platform. And they can oppose me

I meet random other players in the game, some of whom choose to help me. It is my choice, and an advantage I enjoy.

 

[Riverside]

That's oversimplifying the issues at hand though. Games are about restricting choice to set up a framework to play within. Without the restrictions, there is no game. The balance is in-between too much restrictions making the game too hard or cumbersome, and too few restrictions removing the challenge from the game. You seem to argue against one extreme and while favouring the other extreme, with no regard to the actual issue being discussed. So without point or real contribution. I shall therefore refrain from answering your posts from now on, as all they do is derail the discussion.

S

It's a sandbox Sysmon, you can add your own rules for the sake of challenge if you want, just as I do. Or fly about in a G5 corvette complaining that NPCs are easy to kill as others do. It's your choice, it should be up to others to make their own choices. And ADS aside, it is

 

[Winterwalker]

There are reasons for & against open only or single shard play.

It's not a question of shard play, it's a question of play.

 

[Riverside]

It's not a question of shard play, it's a question of play.

No, it's a question of challenge if you want to frame it that way.

 

[Winterwalker]

No, it's a question of challenge if you want to frame it that way.

And the removal of said challenge. This a good thing in your view?

 

[Stelar 7]

consequence-free decommission.

That's not true, there is a cost to decomission, if not as prohibitive as their used to be.

Having said that I'm not seeing the problem. Someone can fly a carrier out, explore, cash in and blow the carrier? Ok they burn fuel to get anywhere and a lot of time for a little exploring money?

It's hardly a credit faucet.

 

[Riverside]

And the removal of said challenge. This a good thing in your view?

I set my own challenges. I try to play in a way that accommodates the way others play. It is my choice to do so.

Very few other games allow the variety of challenge ED does. Most other games I've played really the main challenge is effectively speedruns, which have limited appeal to me. What Nutter has done (that prompted this thread) is effectively a speedrun. Climb a newly accessible mountain, get to the top first & stick your flag on it using the latest technology. Someone may later attempt the same climb without oxygen, or unsupported. Both are achievements with caveats.

 

[Winterwalker]

That's not true, there is a cost to decomission, if not as prohibitive as their used to be.

What's the percentage now?

What Nutter has done (that prompted this thread) is effectively a speedrun.

And that's fine for an experimental. The problem the OP points out though is that this becomes the core game loop, there's is ZERO game incentive to return (or at least dramatically reduced, pending answer to what the percentage is now).

Scott might have died heroically, good for him. But if Admundsen, Shackleton, McReady in fact none of them got back .. was the South Pole actually explored or just died upon? Not exactly progress is it?

 

[kaelys]

Thank you for the mention....

It's like this.. I spent a very long time, probably longer than you spent mining LTD's dreaming of reaching for the stars and finding awesome places....

Then carriers came, my chance to extend on my extreme exploration, my reward? Stunning never seen before views of our galaxy.....

That said, carriers are a explorer curse, you think I decommissioned for a quick win? No No No... I'm truly gutted that I cannot enjoy my carrier. No other playstyle Forces you to mine fuel..... NONE!

Explorers are the only players that should be waving banners..... I've been here far to long to hear the same old poppycock.

Some people get exploration........ and some never will

o7

Umm.... can't you also buy Tritium? And can't you store a bunch in your hold, outside of your fuel tank?

 

[Deleted member 38366]

They kind of are. If you want to lay a claim on a system with a ship (and earn a bonus) you must return the data to a static base somehow, and before the other guy too. None of this is necessary anymore. It's not a question of sour grapes, or removal of choice, the game diminishes.

Well, it's an online Service and you pay Billions for it + considerable fees.
And you still have to return. To the Carrier in that case.

Frankly, I'm quite sour by now about that "Explorers need to return". What's the darn point?

When an Explorer with a Carrier wants to return.... that Carrier shall return.
But the main game is not about the stupid return travel - it's about being out there and getting the job done.

On top, without UC, the Carrier literally wouldn't have even the slightest chance to work the upkeep.
That'd practically kill it in that role - as witnessed by the uniform feedback after Explorers saw Beta1.

Finally.... oh the "removal of choice"? Well, I'm a Carrier Explorer soon departing.
The >choice< would still be there. I don't >have< to sell the Data on the Carrier. Everyone can and is invited to - but noone has to, incl. passing visitors.

 

[Winterwalker]

On top, without UC, the Carrier literally wouldn't have even the slightest chance to work the upkeep.
That'd practically kill it in that role - as witnessed by the uniform feedback after Explorers saw Beta1.

That's understood, which is why the solution would be for a cartographics credit (or similar) with no mention of removing cartographics from carriers.

With a credit you the explorer would not need to return, as cartographics would cover your day to day running but if you didn't get the cartographics back in (eventually) there's a penalty. This ONLY means that getting to a far place (out of range for ships) is not quite enough, you need to get back in ship jump range.

It could for example open up a new role, Carto-Cats (tm) who - if you want to convert credit into cash - could carrier pigeon the data back to a station for you. All it would be intended to do is introduce am exploration penatly if you suicide your carrier back to the bubble.

 

[Riverside]

And that's fine for an experimental. The problem the OP points out though is that this becomes the core game loop, there's is ZERO game incentive to return (or at least dramatically reduced, pending answer to what the percentage is now).

Scott might have died heroically, good for him. But if Admundsen, Shackleton, McReady in fact none of them got back .. was the South Pole actually explored or just died upon? Not exactly progress is it?

Without risk there is no adventure The south pole has been explored, just not by the ones that did not return (edit - this seems churlish, apologies but I am trying to use ED terminology here). They are still remembered because of the adventure. Whether they were successful or not is only a detail of what is still an interesting adventure.

I assume Nutter reached & tagged systems that can only be reached with a carrier. And being able to sell the data on the carrier is the point of contention, but as pointed out already, s/he could have returned & it would just have taken a bit longer. So even if they had returned & sold the data at a regular station, the achievement was still one that could only be achieved with a carrier.

So what's the problem? Who does it affect, except other, slower carrier pilots?

 

[Winterwalker]

So what's the problem? Who does it affect, except other, slower carrier pilots?

One problem is consistency. Who rescued you? You've jumped out of range for any and all rescue ships.
Another is it's incredidibly lame. Suicide travel is an exploit, not a game loop. The last thing the game should do is reward it. So ..

Spoiler

Cartographics Credit : If you want to dump carrier and still get paid above running costs that kept you going tha's fine. Those costs have been deducted from your cartographics credit balance already so transfer the remaining (which now includes tagging) to your fast Anaconda, decommission your carrier, travel and dock .. just like every new player has to if they want to get paid too. ie. an actual game.

 

[sewerratuk]

It's a sandbox Sysmon, you can add your own rules for the sake of challenge if you want, just as I do. Or fly about in a G5 corvette complaining that NPCs are easy to kill as others do. It's your choice, it should be up to others to make their own choices. And ADS aside, it is

Does this mean you would be ok if instant ship transfers and fast SC were implemented as an option for those that wanted it?

 

[Riverside]

One problem is consistency. Who rescued you? You've jumped out of range for any and all rescue ships.
Another is it's incredidibly lame. Suicide travel is an exploit, not a game loop. The last thing the game should do is reward it. So ..

Spoiler

Cartographics Credit : If you want to dump carrier and still get paid above running costs that kept you going tha's fine. Those costs have been deducted from your cartographics credit balance already so transfer the remaining (which now includes tagging) to your fast Anaconda, decommission your carrier, travel and dock .. just like every new player has to if they want to get paid too. ie. an actual game.

Suicidewindering back from colonia is pretty common, I've done PvP 1 to 1s where the other guy suicides back to the dock to get back quicker. The game allows it. I don't do it but it isn't cheating

 

[Winterwalker]

Suicidewindering back from colonia is pretty common, I've done PvP 1 to 1s where the other guy suicides back to the dock to get back quicker. The game allows it. I don't do it but it isn't cheating

Yes .. which is why the OP is not so daft imo. A shortcut is one thing but when it assists in your game progression ..
I think there are solutions and I hope FD look at it. Totally fair to add Cartographics but it was done in a hurry.
o7

 

[Riverside]

Totally fair to add Cartographics but it was done in a hurry.

Yes it was, and I'd be surprised if the full ramifications to all playstyles were considered in depth, but what Nutter did was something pretty obvious & FDev are either okay with it or just didn't care enough to come up with some fiddly way to close what can be argued is a loophole.

I think the 3.3 update was also done in a hurry with an 'I'm sure it'll be fine' attitude too, and the game is not better for it In my view.

In My View. That's the important part.

You think it's bad form, so you don't do it. I have met Cmdrs who think I'm stupid (or similar) for not mining for credits, or not optimising my ships for PvP. Or for not trying to expand one faction as far as it can go or for supporting NPC factions (with cool names) instead of artifically bumping my 'group' up to 10 players & getting a PMF added.

So all the game needs to do is allow for as many different choices as possible, and offer a few achievements to give a new player something they can focus on to give them a feeling of progression. What the game doesn't need to do is make everything a grindy chore with only one way to achieve a goal. It just needs to offer choice, and players will band together or split apart based on how they choose to play.

The hardest part about exploring now is mapping the controls. The challenge is what you set yourself. And the only reason anyone even knows what Nutter did was because they told everyone.

 

[Winterwalker]

Yes it was, and I'd be surprised if the full ramifications to all playstyles were considered in depth, but what Nutter did was something pretty obvious & FDev are either okay with it or just didn't care enough to come up with some fiddly way to close what can be argued is a loophole.

Hopefully what I've described actually adds something.