Elite Sissyverse.

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I think the answer is forcing people to choose among several options...for example, different levels of repair. You could do a full quality repair but at the cost of materials or some resource. Or, you could choose from a variety of lesser quality repairs, for cheaper, but with varying results. A basic low quality repair would use fewer resources but it would use them less efficiently per some unit of repair. Another low quality repair might return you to full integrity but causes damage to other modules. Or, even a repair that lets you cannibalize other components.

The answer isn't in the action and the interface but in the decisions you are left with as a player. To me, that's depth.

That sounds like a good mechanic for dealing with accidental or combat damage.
However, if you apply it to the concept of 'wear and tear' (as per the post I replied to) then it becomes and enforced grind for materials for explorers - and heaven help you if you don't have Horizons.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Long distance exploration consists of pressing J and then holding down the 'scan' button for 30 seconds. How can we make it more fun and engaging?

Let's force them to stop every 50 jumps to hold down the 'repair' button for 30 seconds or their ship explodes.

Awesome! I can't wait!

[wacko]

Where did I say that? Oh, that's right I didn't.....so why not put words into my mouth instead. I'm a strong advocate for making actual exploration deeper & more engaging than what it currently is.....so at least credit me with enough intelligence to be wanting something a bit more engaging than what you've just said.

Monk has got the right idea. Sad that the point seemed to go right over your head.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

That sounds like a good mechanic for dealing with accidental or combat damage.
However, if you apply it to the concept of 'wear and tear' (as per the post I replied to) then it becomes and enforced grind for materials for explorers - and heaven help you if you don't have Horizons.

So ships are just magical things that can keep going on forever & ever amen? I'm not saying the process should occur very quickly, & players should have the opportunity to do "preventative maintenance" in order to extend the amount of time your ship can go before your modules might start acting up. With combat & accidental damage obviously shortening that amount of time instead (making the need for repairing damage all the more vital).

Note, I said "acting up". Nowhere did I say "ship blows up". The only thing that should blow up your ship should be losing all your hull. However, modules that are worn out from overuse might start to experience unusual behaviour and-in very extreme circumstances-might stop working altogether. Players could use time spent in Super-cruise to run checks on ship systems in order to ascertain if any modules require ad hoc maintenance, whether you can do preventative maintenance on full health modules, or if any full health modules can be jury rigged to get above par performance from them.....for a short time.

Under the right circumstances, this could also be a job that could be performed by a member of your crew.....thus providing Multi-crew with more than just a "pew pew" element.

 

[rrobes]

This is a game, some people like to be challenged to the extreme, others just want some relaxation.

FD has to strike a balance.

You want extreme danger while exploring, build an exploratory ship with no shields or really undersized ones. Don't take any repair modules. I guarantee you will need to pay close attention to what you will be doing.

 

[Faded Glory]

The answer isn't in the action and the interface but in the decisions you are left with as a player. To me, that's depth.

To a point that's true, and I have long advocated more 'mental' challenge in the game, reasons to think and plan, as mindless repetition probably accounts for many of the complaints that the game gets.

The problem is that if the actions and interfaces don't rise up to the challenge presented to the player then it's still frustration or repetition. If there are x number of ways to repair something, but only one, the optimal one, has no drawbacks, then the player is faced with a choice of 'grinding' to be able to achieve the optimal, or they are punished. Might be Ok for the odd band aid type of repair I suppose, but still not ideal IMHO.

As far as 'routine' maintenance goes, they had it in FE2. If you missed servicing your ship every year of game time, at some point, something would fail. No big deal, you just reloaded your previous save and pressed the button for ship servicing. No great gameplay added. There was also, if I remember correctly, talk in that game that certain shipyards did better repairs services than others, but again I cannot say that I ever noticed a difference.

I'm pretty sure the devs have thought about this stuff, and perhaps they just don't see a way of making ship 'maintenance' fun gameplay.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

So ships are just magical things that can keep going on forever & ever amen? I'm not saying the process should occur very quickly, & players should have the opportunity to do "preventative maintenance" in order to extend the amount of time your ship can go before your modules might start acting up. With combat & accidental damage obviously shortening that amount of time instead (making the need for repairing damage all the more vital).

Note, I said "acting up". Nowhere did I say "ship blows up". The only thing that should blow up your ship should be losing all your hull. However, modules that are worn out from overuse might start to experience unusual behaviour and-in very extreme circumstances-might stop working altogether. Players could use time spent in Super-cruise to run checks on ship systems in order to ascertain if any modules require ad hoc maintenance, whether you can do preventative maintenance on full health modules, or if any full health modules can be jury rigged to get above par performance from them.....for a short time.

Under the right circumstances, this could also be a job that could be performed by a member of your crew.....thus providing Multi-crew with more than just a "pew pew" element.

If the failures are so minor that I can ignore them, then you're asking for significant development time to be spent on what is going to be a cosmetic feature for all but the most dedicated simulation fans.

If they're not minor then you're making long distance exploration even more of a chore than it already is.

Your talk of 'running checks' sounds suspiciously like a mini-game. Either that or it's a spreadsheet.
I can see people queuing up to join multicrew for that.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

So ships are just magical things that can keep going on forever & ever amen? I'm not saying the process should occur very quickly, & players should have the opportunity to do "preventative maintenance" in order to extend the amount of time your ship can go before your modules might start acting up. With combat & accidental damage obviously shortening that amount of time instead (making the need for repairing damage all the more vital).

One thing that might work, is crew who could do simple repairs. Harmless crew would be able to handle x amount of wear per jump/ly/ls/etc and increasing with rank. When your piloting creates too much wear for your crew, the ship starts to suffer. When damage gets past a certain level, the crew generates some mission options to get your ship working again. The simplest of these options would use materials you could either already have, prospect for or mine. When you aren't equipped to get the materials, the missions generate USS in a nearby(ish) system.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

One thing that might work, is crew who could do simple repairs. Harmless crew would be able to handle x amount of wear per jump/ly/ls/etc and increasing with rank. When your piloting creates too much wear for your crew, the ship starts to suffer. When damage gets past a certain level, the crew generates some mission options to get your ship working again. The simplest of these options would use materials you could either already have, prospect for or mine. When you aren't equipped to get the materials, the missions generate USS in a nearby(ish) system.

I'm totally looking forward to my Vulture falling to pieces around me.
Can I get a clown car paint job?

 

[Xious]

Stop in a Compromised Nav Beacon with some cargo... that'll give you something to complain about.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

If the failures are so minor that I can ignore them, then you're asking for significant development time to be spent on what is going to be a cosmetic feature for all but the most dedicated simulation fans.

If they're not minor then you're making long distance exploration even more of a chore than it already is.

Your talk of 'running checks' sounds suspiciously like a mini-game. Either that or it's a spreadsheet.
I can see people queuing up to join multicrew for that.

Sadly, it's people like you who are doing the most to hold the game back. You complain about "boring repetition", but then shoot down any ideas aimed at making it a little bit more involved. Oh well, time to find my ignore button.

 

[Monk]

I'm totally looking forward to my Vulture falling to pieces around me.
Can I get a clown car paint job?

Taking a Vulture into long-venture, high-wear situations is not really what it was meant for. You ought be close to some stations for most of the utility of that ship. Therefore, it should result in being more difficult, even in a tedious way, to push that ship to limits for which it wasn't designed.




IMO

 

[kofeyh]

Perhaps you need to take a break from ED .....

Chief

Perhaps we can take a break, from telling people to take a break, because they have the temerity to simply ask a question .....

 

[kofeyh]

Sadly, it's people like you who are doing the most to hold the game back. You complain about "boring repetition", but then shoot down any ideas aimed at making it a little bit more involved. Oh well, time to find my ignore button.

It's change, Marc. Change is scary. All change, regardless of actual improvement, is scary. And should thus be resisted. We are here, because the developer has tried, and so far has not actually managed to get traction on quite a few changes. 2.4 is probably going to have a few more people tossing toys out of the cot because hot-dang it something has changed.

And to be fair, that's happened across many types of play style. I don't doubt a lot of stuff has ended up on the cutting room floor, because the community will become unhinged over perceived issue and railroad something into garbage town. Multi-Crew is a good example of people reacting to a theoretical (AFK farming) that never actually manifested; arguably ship transport is in a weird spot cost vs time wise. Shields? Still massively too much of the defense story, even though frontier is trying to add other aspects to rebalance the formula (armour, resistance being as much a factor as shields).

On. And on. And on.

I don't really ever want to see the entire everything turned upside down, as that's just silly. Yet this seems to be the expectation if something changes. Anything. Sky is falling! D: But the developer has been railroaded so many times over just trying to get some improvements (and more importantly balance passes) across the line. Half the issues are on Frontier, absolutely, but commanders could stand to get a grip and get out of the way so improvements (and balance) can be introduced.

Because at some point? Frontier will give up, or they will just damn the torpedoes and do it anyway; neither is a good outcome, because we've then lost a hugely valuable feedback cycle.

tl;dr - frontier don't really have an answer for long-term players (they really just don't), changes are thwarted that give everyone more options (or risk/ reward scenarios) due to needless panic, and development is too often stymied resulting in stale mechanics.

--

2.4 can't come soon enough for me, because we'll get some long overdue second passes. I am at the point, honestly, where I've stopped caring about people crying wolf. Just let me have some fraking stable mechanics, a contextual missions system that works, some sort of proficient AI, and some sodding consistency, and I'll be happy. I fear I may never see this though.

 

[VampyreGTX]

What happened to the idea of a reactive galaxy? Is anyone working on this? You know - the core premise of the game? Ive heard so much crap about improving the core gameplay in 2.4...

But until the actual "Galaxy" in which you live matters...

Pass! Thoughts please.

There was NO talk of core game changes in 2.4....

The talk of focus on the core game aspects mentioned POST 2.4...

 

[space voyager]

I very much agree with OP. With the most basic precautions there is nothing dangerous or surprising to be found. There are tons of great views and some unexpected astrophysical combinations though.

I'm very much for at least small dangers to wait for us. Barnacles? Why don't they spit at us? Space weed? Why not space bees instead with some sting? Corrosive surfaces that slowly eat through your hull. Something to tell you that Anaconda is not only better from AspX in range but survivability and firepower.

Wouldn't mind bigger threats either, ones than can devour you, but please add a possibility to retrieve your data canister in this case. Just because it is a game. Also, it would be great if the game had scientists added to the game. Ones that you could come to with logs of your encouters and they could tell you haw to avoid them or make use of in the future.

 

[Captain Willard]

LOL No reason to argue with safety sam.

 

[Hadarmil]

Hey, I said it a couple of times but someone opened another thread so I'll say it again!


Real black holes you can't scan from 2ls away cause you'll be dead! Accretion disks that can melt your ship! Donor/acceptor binaries - don't cross the streams! Huge solar flares! Dangerous!

And atmospheric landings, naturaly.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Well... is there anything in this game that can worry me?

Nope. As an explorer all that can surprise me is arriving in the middle of a star. Which I am quickly shunted out of.

I can sit 1km from a black hole and untan myself.

What happened to the idea of a reactive galaxy? Is anyone working on this? You know - the core premise of the game? Ive heard so much crap about improving the core gameplay in 2.4...

But until the actual "Galaxy" in which you live matters...

Pass! Thoughts please.

Let me join the "I don't get it?" crowd by saying:

-What version are you playing? 2.4 hasn't even released yet and the core gameplay will be improved after 2.4 not in 2.4 so none of the improvements are in yet and are also some ways away.

-Is exploration and the galaxy not a part of core gameplay, it is for me and many others and is expected to be improved in the updates after 2.4. Exploration frequently tops the most requested improvements polls/lists.


In short I don't think you fully understand what Frontier announced and I don't think you realise that core gameplay improvements will almost definitely include the background galaxy. We should find out more details early October at the Expo which we can then discuss, until then you are very much early
Personally I hope that black holes get the neutron star/white dwarf treatment and get overhauled. Maybe the same time as they add comets and things like that into the game.

 

[Attomskk]

I Think The Space Madness Has Claimed Another Victim.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Sounds like you need a challenge OP. Find a 9G planet to land on.