Black holes should kill you if you fly into them

I'm just puzzled why it is such an important detail. Do people actively try to fly into stars as well?

No they do not, because FD made stars in ED behave kinda like . . . stars. People wouldn't give a toss about flying into stars if FD made them a fancy sprite with a collision box . . . like they did with black holes.

Are you equally puzzled stars weren't treated the same?
 
When I first started engineering and was heading to Maia for those dirty thrusters I was looking forward to the black hole I’d heard was there. I had no idea what they were like in game, had never seen one.

In preparation I dropped into a few different stars to see what happened, how long my ship could last, and how to get away, loosing some ships in the process (mostly to neutrons).

I was excited as I approached the black hole, having no idea if I had any chance of survival, fully willing to eat a rebuy for science.

What a let down.

I’m with you on no inescapable or wormhole nonsense, and I would like it if they damaged your ship and were hard to escape should you get too close.

I’d actually be fine if black hole ship destruction meant character reset too, but wouldn’t expect that to ever actually be implemented.

Ship destruction yes... Character NO... thats even more harsh than EVE.
 
I like that some people are demanding a games company produce a more "realistic" version of a phenomenon scientists are still trying to understand.
 
I like that some people are demanding a games company produce a more "realistic" version of a phenomenon scientists are still trying to understand.

Said scientists aren't trying to understand whether they are dangerous or not. No one is asking to discover the deep physics underlying black holes in ED, or what happens to your ship's subatomic particles after it is annihilated.
 
Yeah, when I saw my first black hole I was disappointed. Everything in this game looks so beautiful in it's own way and the black holes are... just a lazy effect. A black hole should be dangerous and scary if you saw it. I just wished that it would be looking more like the one in the movie Interstellar. And yes, they have to destroy your ship and should be very dangerous with their gravity.
 
Said scientists aren't trying to understand whether they are dangerous or not. No one is asking to discover the deep physics underlying black holes in ED, or what happens to your ship's subatomic particles after it is annihilated.

right but my point is we still don't know /if/ a ship would be annihilated by getting too close.
 
right but my point is we still don't know /if/ a ship would be annihilated by getting too close.

the real point is, it's been exactly this way for over 5 years. it's been disappointing for all of that time and requested by the players to be improved. Fdev DNGAF and it isn't happening.

If we ever were to get something like hazards in space, i think the first one that requires the least amount of work is radiation zones/belts. Radiation can be treated similar to heat but cause different damage, be sourced in different ways (doesn't require a heat source), and be lethal in ways that heat cannot. And while this can be treated as invisible in most places, we can also render it as cloud/jet/belt of ionized plasma etc to give it some visuals ...introducing strategy and gameplay and risk where there was none before.

i could imagine such things being bright in non-optical wavelengths (another visual mode other than night vision to see it) and could make things such as black holes way more interesting to look at and interact with (but also pretty much anything in the galaxy more interesting).
 
Last edited:
The problem with making exploration dangerous is that some explorers are out there for months or years at a time. Such people would never make it back if there was even slight unpredictable danger on each jump. Even a tiny chance of unpredictable destruction on each jump would build over hundreds of thousands of jumps to a near certainty of destruction. The only thing that makes this kind of gameplay viable is that the dangers are predictable: you only die if you do something daft. In other words, avoiding the danger requires alertness and skill, not luck.
 
The problem with making exploration dangerous is that some explorers are out there for months or years at a time. Such people would never make it back if there was even slight unpredictable danger on each jump. Even a tiny chance of unpredictable destruction on each jump would build over hundreds of thousands of jumps to a near certainty of destruction. The only thing that makes this kind of gameplay viable is that the dangers are predictable: you only die if you do something daft. In other words, avoiding the danger requires alertness and skill, not luck.

No, you could make it so you only risk death if you want something that is rewarding. All high value rewards would be behind things that require the player to utilize skill and ability to overcome such hazards to get at that reward.

Nobody is suggesting surprise death at the other end of a jump (at least nobody seriously). Players could operate "safely" in exploring and just not get much exploring done of value. Those who take the risk, can get reap the rewards and fame.
 
No, you could make it so you only risk death if you want something that is rewarding. All high value rewards would be behind things that require the player to utilize skill and ability to overcome such hazards to get at that reward.

Nobody is suggesting surprise death at the other end of a jump (at least nobody seriously). Players could operate "safely" in exploring and just not get much exploring done of value. Those who take the risk, can get reap the rewards and fame.
The maths would be the same though. "Taking the risk" would amount to relying on luck; that's the meaning of risk. If you did that thousands of times you'd strike it unlucky eventually.
 
Even a tiny chance of unpredictable destruction on each jump would build over hundreds of thousands of jumps to a near certainty of destruction.

No one has proposed that black holes should destroy you immeduately upon jumping into the system it inhabits. Only that flying right up to them should do something. That's how it works with every single star that explorers jump to, and that has panned out dandy.
 
It would be good to add more risk to exploration and especially around Black holes and other stellar phenomena.

Make exploration more like 14/15th century "drinking our own wee/half the crew dies on the trip" voyages of discovery, rather than exploring a new city with a Rough Guide as it is now.

But, with Beagle, Sgr A* etc all tagged it would only make sense with a galaxy wide reset and that ain't gonna happen.
 
Are you equally puzzled stars weren't treated the same?
You misintepret me - I'm not puzzled why FDev did what they did, I'm a bit surprised that people find this such an important detail considering the lack of gameplay significance. But of course people are entirely free to feel that it is an important detail!
 
The problem with making exploration dangerous is that some explorers are out there for months or years at a time. Such people would never make it back if there was even slight unpredictable danger on each jump. Even a tiny chance of unpredictable destruction on each jump would build over hundreds of thousands of jumps to a near certainty of destruction. The only thing that makes this kind of gameplay viable is that the dangers are predictable: you only die if you do something daft. In other words, avoiding the danger requires alertness and skill, not luck.

But marching straight into a black hole, even after the ship alarms would start ringing, perhaps even the ship voice telling you you're getting too close to the event horizon, wouldn't be unpredictable danger.

Right now you already face some few predictable dangers with neutron stars, high-g planets, running out of fuel, getting stranded due to lack of jump range and some stellar phenomena. A few more wouldn't hurt. Especially now when there are so many ways to get the ship back to full "health". Al lthat's suggested i nthis thread is to make black holes a bit more inline with other extreme space hazards, like neutron stars for instance.

I like exploration, I enjoy the isolation and the overall sense of peacefulness, I would enjoy the feeling of discovery if there were more than a handful of things to find (hopefully odyssey will help with this) but with time it tends to feel just like an extremely long photo tour, and sometimes I wouldn't mind the occasional space adventure and needing to act/react to some unforeseen circunstances for a change. You know, the kind of thing that makes all those scifi shows we all watched interesting. :)
 
You misintepret me - I'm not puzzled why FDev did what they did, I'm a bit surprised that people find this such an important detail considering the lack of gameplay significance. But of course people are entirely free to feel that it is an important detail!

What I meant is; would you have same opinion on stars if stars were just graphic effects with no heat effects? Would you be just as happy, or would you feel it fell short?
 
What I meant is; would you have same opinion on stars if stars were just graphic effects with no heat effects? Would you be just as happy, or would you feel it fell short?
Just to note that we already established in the thread that I'm entirely okay if they added the damage effect to black holes, but to answer - no, I wouldn't be happy about it.

The reason to this would be that since every system center that isn't a black hole (that is around 99,59% assuming the rarity percentages are correct) is a star and behaves like a star, the issue would be far more relevant gameplaywise. Or at least used to be until the invention of SC assist (well okay, you still fuel from them which means far more actual interaction and dangers of dropping out of SC).
 
Last edited:
Not that stars themselves aren't a little bit impotent also, considering I'm having absolutely no problems heat managing when killing pirates with Sirius A hanging in the background just 6 ls away.
XYwyZQB.png
 
Back
Top Bottom