Oh shut the fanboi up...OP is right, jump range is simply a way to induce more tedium in the game.....forces me to waste my precious game time watching loading screens and docking/scooping for fuel. Its a time sink PERIOD.
Balancing Ships with Jump Range creates Tedium
- Thread starter Blackcompany
- Start date
Oh shut the fanboi up...OP is right, jump range is simply a way to induce more tedium in the game.....forces me to waste my precious game time watching loading screens and docking/scooping for fuel. Its a time sink PERIOD.
I have already stated before that dedicated exploration ships (not multiroles) should be the exception. What is and isn't considered fine is subjective. Some will think 15LY is fine, others think 30LY is required. That's not the point, the point is that the jump range should not be part of the balance equation between ships. If jump range have to be part of the equation because there is nothing else to balance with, then that part of the game is badly designed and needs to be changed.
It's almost as if Frontier wanted to discourage people from fighting. I agree with your comments. I will sometimes make trips of over 20 jumps with my Corvette to go undermining in a system or participate in a combat CG. What do those short jumps do? Just have me waste more time looking at the stars. I just don't understand the argument that "nobody is forcing you to do it". What a stupid idea. Of course, I'm not complaining that someone is forcing me. But to do the things I like, I have to go through those jumps and hoops. What does that bring to my game? Just frustration. 20 jumps, that's roughly 20 minutes. And if I want to go back to my "home" system to start delivering fortification for PowerPlay, that's another 20 minutes for close to 3/4 of an hour jumping, charging and jumping. At least, I have the option to fit an additional fuel tank so that I don't need to scoop that often. It cost me an internal slot that I could have used for an additional hull reinforcement package but that's my decision, that's my choice. The jump range, on the other hand, I can't do anything about it. Yes, I did engineer my Corvette for increased jump range. I had a pretty good grade 5 roll with over 53% increase over the standard output. But that still translate to a bit over 17ly unladen. So, since it's just borderline with what I can tolerate, then I choose to make those trips.
However, one of the ship I like the most is the Fer-de-Lance. I wish I could use it sometimes for combat CGs. But the best I could do with the jump range is 16.23ly. I don't know but somehow, after doing trips to see engineers, it seems that there is somewhat noticeable difference between a route that can do 17 ly and one that can do 16. Because, don't make any mistake. Even though I can do 16.23ly, I will rarely do a jump close to that distance. More like 12, 13 and 14. 15 if I'm lucky. So, since I have the Corvette that is slightly better and that I enjoy, I will take it instead of the FdL. So, in my case, I choose a ship I like a bit less because it would be too time consuming using the ship I like most. For what purpose, I ask you? Combat ships don't have to be "balanced" by the jump range. They already suffer usually from limited internal compartments, tiny fuel tank and power limitations. They don't need an additional limitation to be "balanced", IMHO...
Ohh I get the problem.
You have to think about what you're doing beforehand. Sounds like a real problem.
Going 150 LY doesn't take a full hour, even in a Corvette. Ignoring that hilarious fact that the Vulture, the source of this thread, can have pretty good jump range, you're trying to use random numbers to prove a point? Where does 4 million vs 3 million come from? Do faster ships have a travel time of exactly 0? Combat ships have a travel time of exactly 1 hour?
Your whole example falls apart with any...anything.
Blackcompany
Banned
The numbers I gave were just a hypothetical example for what a player might come across with regards to speed vs combat effectiveness, just a series of ballpark estimates as a point of reference. Corvettes kill things faster and more effectively than faster ships, such as an Asp or a Diamondback or even an Anaconda; it might give 4v3 million, it might be 5v2 million, it all comes down to your loadouts, mods, preferred targets as well as simply what the environment decides to throw at you. However, a Corvette with a maximum jump range of less than 15ly (unmodded A-grade corvettes with full combat load are about 11.5ly), particularly if it doesn't have a fuel scoop or additional fuel tanks to save space for additional combat equipment, will certainly take far longer to get anywhere than a longer-range ship. It might not be 1 more hour to get somewhere compared to a faster ship, but it will take longer, and that's the principle here.
Which brings in the question: Are you willing to spend the extra time on travelling? Is it worth it? Some people aren't willing to put the time and effort in to get the slower ships around and would rather use the faster ships, sacrificing potential upon arrival for the ability to spend more time at the destination. Others, however, are willing to put the time and effort in to bring their unstoppable yet glacial vessels to bear, sacrificing a bit of time at the destination in exchange for greater combat potential.
Traders see the exact same tradeoff (pun not intended). Many traders have to make the choice between ships with good cargo capacities vs those with good jump ranges, is it better to haul 40ish tonnes of goods in a DBX with a journey of 3 jumps on a decent traderoute or to haul a 100ish tonnes in 5 jumps with a T6? Depending on what you prefer as well as the availability of rare goods and data delivery missions, the answer of which one is "best" can vary.
And I don't quite get your italicised usage of "think", it seems to me almost like you consider giving players meaningful and impactful decisions that they have to think their way through rather than just automatically getting the best of everything at once is a problem.
So, what's the intended goal of having combat ships with awful jump range? Discourage players from using them to do any long range trip (e.g. going to a combat-based CG)? What's the point? You force those who fly combat ships to use other ships so that those other ships have some purposes? That seems like a terrible game design, IMHO.
Last edited:
It's not just combat ships either. The Beluga was supposed to be THE tourist vessel of choice. Well shouldn't a top line tourist vehicle have a better jump range than an ASP? It's clearly not meant for combat outside of ramming sillyness, so why can it not jump further than an Asp or stripped down conda?
I was ready to sell off my fdl, vulture, and asp to outfit one for exploration... but its range is so terrible despite that's supposed to be where it excels (glorious canopy/cockpit view).
I was ready to sell off my fdl, vulture, and asp to outfit one for exploration... but its range is so terrible despite that's supposed to be where it excels (glorious canopy/cockpit view).
Yeah, kinda agree here. Although of all my ships, it's the second best one after my Anaconda at a bit over 30ly. Still, for long range passenger missions, specially the high paying ones that require luxury cabins, you would expect a better jump range.
And don't get me started with the Orca...
Why wouldn't trade ships have some of the best jump ranges? Fuel economy and time efficiency is important for profiteering.
FDev's use of jump range as a balance factor is nonsensical.
Last edited:
No. They are built for endurance and luxury not speed, much like an actual cruise ship. You should be comparing the Beluga to the Orca, not the Beluga to the Asp Explorer.
Two things already mentioned:
1) Any ship in this game can have good jump range
2) Combat ships dont need jump range
Also dont pretend this is anything other than begging for more jump range on your favourite ship. That's what this is about.
Last edited:
Fuel economy is why back in 2010 real freighter captains were told to slow down to save on those fuel costs, according to an LA Times article. You in fact do need to choose between fuel economy and time efficiency, a balance of both does not see you getting where you want to go in the fastest time but it also does not cause extra fuel.
For me, jump range and speed has always been a factor in space games so I've really never seen this as a big issue. Freighters have always been slow and bulky but able to carry the most cargo, which ends up being more efficient in the long run if all you are looking to do is trade.
Last edited:
Blackcompany
Banned
And still no one has come up with an actual REASON why combat ships cannot have more jump range.
Want to know why this genre of game died for 20 years? Because its a niche game full of fans who argue in favor of massive, time sink inconvenience for the sake of what they mistakenly think is some sort of realism.
New flash: In pure game play mechanics, Jumping isnt traveling. Its literally loading from one level into another. Its going down the pipe in Mario. Using the Fast Travel mechanism in any open world game.
So in Skyrim, if all I have is an Iron Sword, I should only see one loading screen when I travel from one dungeon to another, yet, once I find a powerful weapon, I should have to wait through exponentially more loading screens to get where I am going? For the sake of balance?
Because that is LITERALLY what a lot of you are arguing IN FAVOR OF. More loading screens for the sake of more loading screens.
As someone else said: If take arbitrarily limiting combat ships, in order to make other ships useful, what you have isnt balance. Its a poorly designed game. And once you get beyond the flight models and sound, Elite is one of the most poorly designed games in modern video gaming. In terms of supporting mechanics, its basically time sink, free to play Clicker with a very pretty interface. And some people want MORE of that.
Because if they were given Asp level jump ranges when fully loaded with weapons and armor, no one would fly anything else unless they wanted max cargo for trading. It's there for exactly the reason you don't like it, balance. If you like, I'm sure you could research some engineering reason why someone would have to leave jump range as a compromise. Perhaps with all that extra weight, armor and thruster power, there just simply isn't enough design space for a drive big enough to launch them as far. You really could logic your way into the answer, you just aren't willing to do so.
I'm not a huge fan of loading screens either, but the balance makes sense to me. I already do the "Well, this ship can do x so the rest are useless for x" leaps. Anacondas and Pythons are extremely popular for a reason. If you create a scenario where a Federal Corvette or Cutter has the same jump capability as the Anaconda or Asp, everything else becomes useless and these ships become the end game that Elite isn't supposed to have.
Last edited:
Because if you don't pull out the hyperbole by implying that people are asking for 30+ly jump ranges fully loaded, you have no functional argument.
IS it hyperbole? Seems to be the spirit of the OP, even if the cost was rebalancing all the ships in the game around this increase.
Yes, it's hyperbole. No one ever asked for Explorer ship levels of jump range, that's just you jumping to conclusions.
20ly minimum for any A-fit ship, 40ly maximum for any engineered Explorer fit ship. Tune jump ranges to that spectrum and everyone benefits, even if they think they're getting shafted.
Well, you have people in the thread saying the Vulture, which is where this thread started, can already do 20-25ly... is 30+ not the next step? The thread is also saying that we shouldn't balance around jump range at all, so if we shouldn't and don't, why not just give every ship 30+ and call it a day?
You might feel you have compelling reasons why it should be how you are describing it, but the OP's idea of why it is and shouldn't be doesn't seem to have evolved past what I'm saying.
Last edited:
Same reason why trading ships can't have better hardpoints.
Last edited: