Hypercruise

[Lestat]

This is demonstrably untrue, as even when I make suggestions I try to anticipate potential issues, and propose solutions and mitigations. Moreover, when I'm alerted to valid issues with the suggestion itself, I tend to make adjustments to the proposal where possible.

Moreover, I don't believe we see eye to eye on what actually constitutes a problem, as seemingly for you, any significant change to the game is considered a problem. You even appear to be almost unfailingly opposed to anything which adds additional options, with your ever ready variant on the "that's not how Elite works" response.

Right now I see you ignoring the anticipate potential issues and you telling people well that it should developer's responsibility. That kinda blows your I try to anticipate potential issues propose solutions and mitigations.

Lol, no, that's clearly not what I'm saying, unless you're interested in forcing words into my mouth. The developers are quite aware of the existence of bots, and how certain processes in the game are susceptible to manipulation by bot scripts. They don't need us to inform them about bots, or what aspects of proposed features may potentially be manipulated. They may not address all such vulnerabilities in the game, or it may not be possible to prevent it entirely, but that doesn't mean they're not aware of how their features can be used by bots.

Here you go again. ignoring the key issues trying to avoid KEY ISSUES.

The crux of my issue with your method of evaluation, is that you tend to look at these proposals from the point of view of the developer, rather than the point of view of the player who wants more interesting and fun features. It's not our job or responsibility to deal with development or feasibility issues in making these suggestions. If Frontier developers see a suggestion, they will decide on its desirability, feasibility, and priority, so your persistent insertions of "Frontier won't do it", "other features should have more priority", "that's not what the game is about", and "add technical obstacle here", add little to no value, and serve as a poor and unwanted substitute for productive criticism of the specifics of the suggestion itself. If anything, it helps to breed a sort of toxic negativity about what can be proposed for the game, which ultimately acts as a discouragement for people with ideas. Perhaps that's your aim?

Let put it this way. I look at the problem as a Botter, not a Developer So stop trying to hide the facts. Let take The Quote the Op posted earlier.

Under the existing fast hyperspace travel, i only want a sort of autopilot mode that can put us thousands LY away while we are working on something else inside the ship, or allows us to turn off the game while it bring the ship to the requested destination. It's just an additional type of travel that can put us at 3000ly 20% to 40% slower than the normal hyperspace mode.

I am looking at this as a Botter, not a developer. I can count about 20 30 lines of coding and the Bot will control loading the game up plotting a new course and repeat in a new location and log off the game So If I went to bed or gone to work or both. I could have a Bot travel 30k ly just on the Op Quote. I would not have to be near the computer.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Right now I see you ignoring the anticipate potential issues and you telling people well that it should developer's responsibility. That kinda blows your I try to anticipate potential issues propose solutions and mitigations.



Here you go again. ignoring the key issues trying to avoid KEY ISSUES.

Let put it this way. I look at the problem as a Botter, not a Developer So stop trying to hide the facts. Let take The Quote the Op posted earlier.

I am looking at this as a Botter, not a developer. I can count about 20 30 lines of coding and the Bot will control loading the game up plotting a new course and repeat in a new location and log off the game So If I went to bed or gone to work or both. I could have a Bot travel 30k ly just on the Op Quote. I would not have to be near the computer.

That’s a lazy analysis. Please take the effort to make the necessary distinction. I was referring to anticipating problems with the suggestion itself, i.e. the mechanics, balance, risk vs reward, etc. Botting is an external factor which is very much Frontier’s responsibility, and is handled specifically at a technical level, which is not the province of people making feature suggestions, and so should not be their consideration, nor a measure by which to judge their proposal.

An alternate semi-automated form of travel will be great and much needed if things like EVA and NPC crew are implemented. Taking measures to reduce or prevent bots is Frontier’s concern, whether it be related to this or any other game mechanic, and we shouldn’t need to add the provision “and Frontier should build in protection against botting” for any features we propose, as it should be a given, and if it’s going to be a problem then Frontier can decide against it.

As such, any discussion outside the merits of the suggestion itself is pointless.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

So, you're a writer then? Of any sort?

A reader, of the avid sort, though I’ve found cause to write political articles on occasion, with some of my work having been oft used and referenced, and even republished without my being notified.

I do know how to identify skilled writing, and I reiterate that this task you’ve implied to be virtually insurmountable should for a writer of any skill be a trivial affair.

 

[Lestat]

That’s a lazy analysis. Please take the effort to make the necessary distinction. I was referring to anticipating problems with the suggestion itself, i.e. the mechanics, balance, risk vs reward, etc. Botting is an external factor which is very much Frontier’s responsibility, and is handled specifically at a technical level, which is not the province of people making feature suggestions, and so should not be their consideration, nor a measure by which to judge their proposal.

Well technical level. Some of us players know how to Bot. I did it in older games. It is our responsibility to point out key issues even if it external factor to Frontier so stop trying to say otherwise. Because it all of our responsibility to point out ANY key issues. External or Internal. Ignoring External problems is ignoring problems unseen.

An alternate semi-automated form of travel will be great and much needed if things like EVA and NPC crew are implemented. Taking measures to reduce or prevent bots is Frontier’s concern, whether it be related to this or any other game mechanic, and we shouldn’t need to add the provision “and Frontier should build in protection against botting” for any features we propose, as it should be a given, and if it’s going to be a problem then Frontier can decide against it.

As such, any discussion outside the merits of the suggestion itself is pointless.

Stop with lame quote It Frontier concern or responsibility. It ALL of our concern and responsibility to point out key issues. I know you love the idea have us Ignore a problem to suite your needs. Problem with this is Ignoring the problem might mean Frontier did not see that problem also. Which could make a really good idea into a bad idea.

You know CMDR Novindus I think Frontier would want us to view all the data and point out any type of exploits or problems. Not have us ignore anything in an idea. I know you're trying to do. it the Developer or Frontier concern. But Frontier want us to Suggest idea but they also want us to point out key issue of that same idea.

If you want to understand this. Let take the keyboard Mouse vs Joysticks. It was a hot topic when Frontier released Elite Dangerous. Both External Devices. The argument was Keyboard was faster than joysticks.

 

[AbsinthSvK]

big carriers with huge jump range is solution but you know.. probably come in late 2020 and probably never have this function. So, continue dreaming.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Well technical level. Some of us players know how to Bot. I did it in older games. It is our responsibility to point out key issues even if it external factor to Frontier so stop trying to say otherwise. Because it all of our responsibility to point out ANY key issues. External or Internal. Ignoring External problems is ignoring problems unseen.

Stop with lame quote It Frontier concern or responsibility. It ALL of our concern and responsibility to point out key issues. I know you love the idea have us Ignore a problem to suite your needs. Problem with this is Ignoring the problem might mean Frontier did not see that problem also. Which could make a really good idea into a bad idea.

By all means point it out if you feel the need, if you’ve chosen to labour under the delusion that the developers are not already fully aware of the means and methods employed by bot scriptors, and of the mechanics in their game that are susceptible to such. But please do everyone the courtesy of discussing it in an appropriate section of the forum under its own topic, rather than using the possibility of bot scripting to shoot down an idea you don’t like, for your own interests.

Frontier’s implementation of any given feature, and any protections and detection mechanisms they have in place will determine whether the feature will be problematic on that front, and that is something they would address in their scoping before any development would begin.

The merit of the idea as far as employing the suggested gameplay is concerned, is therefore an entirely separate matter, and the only one that need be considered in a player’s evaluation, as it’s for the developers to consider whether bot scripting can be mitigated sufficiently with regard to the suggested feature, and whether in the larger scheme any negative effects outweigh the gameplay value, as only they have the data to determine that.

Concordantly, if you object to the feature on the basis of the potential you perceive for botting, you’d be doing so on assumptions made with insufficient data on any mechanism Frontier may concurrently employ, and on their overall evaluation of risk versus reward. Therefore, the only really useful criticism of a proposal you can give in objection to it, is one that is based solely on the mechanics and other gameplay specifics of the proposal.

As for it being all our concern, clearly it’s only the concern of those of us who choose to be concerned with it. As far as responsibility goes, we’re under no obligation, and therefore no responsibility to give such warnings, though we may do so if we choose to, however unneeded it may be.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

You know CMDR Novindus I think Frontier would want us to view all the data and point out any type of exploits or problems. Not have us ignore anything in an idea. I know you're trying to do. it the Developer or Frontier concern. But Frontier want us to Suggest idea but they also want us to point out key issue of that same idea.

If you want to understand this. Let take the keyboard Mouse vs Joysticks. It was a hot topic when Frontier released Elite Dangerous. Both External Devices. The argument was Keyboard was faster than joysticks.

An external device is not the same as an external factor, if that’s the parallel you’re trying to draw.
In a discussion about input devices, the input devices themselves are central to the topic.

As I stated repeatedly, Frontier is aware of bot scripting and how it’s accomplished, as well as the targeted game mechanics, so employing that potential exploit as sufficient cause to reject an idea is a substitute for criticism of the suggestion based on its gameplay related merits.

Personally, seeing as you claim to be knowledgeable of bot scripting, having had experience doing it, in your place I’d find myself more productive applying my mind to find mitigations to support an idea, rather than throwing it in as an insurmountable obstacle, and implying the unqualified assumption that the risk outweighs the reward necessarily.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

the game and it's developers strive to be as scientifically realistic as possible.
Even down to the quantum physics level.

For the galaxy and system generation, yes, they do. For the rest, workable gameplay overrides realism every single time, even in cases where the realistic option would not be technically difficult to simulate.

Some examples:

The Power Distributor outputs considerably more power than it takes in input, breaking conservation of energy. A laser weapon connected to that distributor then outputs more energy than it draws from the distributor and plant combined.

You can carry 300 nickel and iron in your pocket, in a ship with a total laden mass of about 50t, which can then be converted to 120 tonnes of limpets, breaking conservation of mass.

A refinery is massless, regardless of contents, but a 4A refinery can hold ten tonnes of pre-refined ores, which will then magically appear in your cargo holds (instantly adding mass to your ship) once space is available.

The real-space Thrusters move the ship with considerably higher acceleration than their minimal fuel use should be capable of producing, and your "up" thrusters magically get stronger, without limit, when in a gravity well, breaking conservation of momentum.

The density of most ship hulls is so low - even laden - that you should be able to kick your way through them, never mind actual weapons, and they should float like a balloon in most atmospheres. They should break apart almost instantly under the acceleration ship drives can produce, and a single explosive shell should cause instant catastrophic damage - never mind the kinetic energies involved in ramming another ship.

High-bandwidth communication between any two points in the galaxy is instantaneous.

A ship near the surface of a Y-class dwarf with a surface temperature of maybe 100K will rapidly overheat - the same ship parked on a planet with a surface temperature of 1000K will have no temperature effects at all.

Ship main sensors are incapable of resolving large moving objects well within unaided visual range and with no active camouflage - while the FSS can detect smaller unpowered objects on the other side of the system, at ranges well above that at which a telescope the size of an entire Sidewinder should be able to make detections.

 

[Decksmeck]

For the galaxy and system generation, yes, they do. For the rest, workable gameplay overrides realism every single time, even in cases where the realistic option would not be technically difficult to simulate.

Some examples:

The Power Distributor outputs considerably more power than it takes in input, breaking conservation of energy. A laser weapon connected to that distributor then outputs more energy than it draws from the distributor and plant combined.

You can carry 300 nickel and iron in your pocket, in a ship with a total laden mass of about 50t, which can then be converted to 120 tonnes of limpets, breaking conservation of mass.

A refinery is massless, regardless of contents, but a 4A refinery can hold ten tonnes of pre-refined ores, which will then magically appear in your cargo holds (instantly adding mass to your ship) once space is available.

The real-space Thrusters move the ship with considerably higher acceleration than their minimal fuel use should be capable of producing, and your "up" thrusters magically get stronger, without limit, when in a gravity well, breaking conservation of momentum.

The density of most ship hulls is so low - even laden - that you should be able to kick your way through them, never mind actual weapons, and they should float like a balloon in most atmospheres. They should break apart almost instantly under the acceleration ship drives can produce, and a single explosive shell should cause instant catastrophic damage - never mind the kinetic energies involved in ramming another ship.

High-bandwidth communication between any two points in the galaxy is instantaneous.

A ship near the surface of a Y-class dwarf with a surface temperature of maybe 100K will rapidly overheat - the same ship parked on a planet with a surface temperature of 1000K will have no temperature effects at all.

Ship main sensors are incapable of resolving large moving objects well within unaided visual range and with no active camouflage - while the FSS can detect smaller unpowered objects on the other side of the system, at ranges well above that at which a telescope the size of an entire Sidewinder should be able to make detections.

Well that stuff is fixable. Though I was totally confused by the distributor power draw and realized that figure is what it takes to make it operate. What passes through it is the total output of the power plant minus the distributor cost though you can balance it between engine, weapons, systems. The capacitors probably skim power until they are full. That is my best guess though I didn't attempt mathematical calculation.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Well that stuff is fixable.

In theory, yes. But none of it is actually a problem for gameplay, and some of it is actively beneficial. Would this really be a better game if you couldn't synthesise limpets, or your material store had a considerable mass, or you could only communicate in real-time with people in the same instance?

Though I was totally confused by the distributor power draw and realized that figure is what it takes to make it operate. What passes through it is the total output of the power plant minus the distributor cost though you can balance it between engine, weapons, systems. The capacitors probably skim power until they are full. That is my best guess though I didn't attempt mathematical calculation.

Nice try, but no.

Take an Anaconda with a 2E Low Emissions 5 Power Plant (generation 5.4 MW)

Fit an unengineered 8A Power Distributor, which has unengineered power consumption of 0.96 MW, and a huge beam laser (direct consumption 2.61 MW)

Launch, shut down all modules except plant, distributor and laser. Put four pips to weapons and fire the laser.

Your power distributor will recharge the weapons cap at 7.2 MW - more energy than your power plant is capable of producing, even ignoring the energy going directly to run the distributor and laser.

(You can engineer the distributor to recharge the weapons cap at 10.9 MW, without affecting its power consumption)

 

[Lestat]

...

Well keep on rambling on your own delusions they seem to be quite funny. You are not going to change my point of view. So stop trying to change my point of view. I will keep pointing out any issue either by External or internal as they both count. You know Developers of Frontier should know any exploit of any kind matter in any type of suggestion.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Well keep on rambling on your own delusions they seem to be quite funny. You are not going to change my point of view. So stop trying to change my point of view. I will keep pointing out any issue either by External or internal as they both count. You know Developers of Frontier should know any exploit of any kind matter in any type of suggestion.

Don't be absurd. I'm not so naive as to think I can go around changing everyone's point of view. The object is merely to demonstrate the deficiencies in your point of view on the forums. I have no objection to you sticking your head in the sand to maintain an ignorant position, which your latest empty comment suggests is your current plan of action. But you can expect me to expose that ignorance and seemingly deliberate lack of comprehension from time to time, so if you're willing to suffer that, then by all means be about your business.

You know that the developers at Frontier already know of the exploit you speak of, and what game mechanics can be targeted, and you know that they don't need you to point it out to them, whether for existing features in the game, or for proposed features. Even though you know this, you insist on it being pointed out in relation to the suggestion, and worse still, you employ it as a basis to reject the proposal, despite not being in a position to know whether the developers can concurrently implement some mitigation, and also not being in a position to know whether the potentially negative effects of the exploit and the extent of its use would be a significant issue, let alone one that would outweigh the benefits of the feature.

Therefore, the most reasonable explanation for your insistence in this matter is that you're actually opposed to the feature on the basis that you don't want this type of gameplay option included in the game, yet you cannot provide an objective case demonstrating that this feature would not make the game more enjoyable, or otherwise enhance it, and that any problems you perceive with it would outweigh the positives. So you revert to this poor substitute for a qualified objection, which is riddled with low information assumptions and inherent speculation.

 

[Azmuth Divarchchron]

Even Frontier apply restrictions to realism in favour of gameplay.

I can boost in the middle of nowhere in normal space, far from any planetary body or forces, and still have my ship slow down to its regular top speed as if some magical space force were in tune with my engine.

Further, the future is a place where theoretical physics and science in general has the potential to become replicable in experimentation. So a wormhole/Einstein–Rosen bridge, which is said to be consistent with the general theory of relativity, could in the future be a proved theory in practice.

All of that aside though, if the choice is between drawing from science fiction to provide a more enoyable gameplay experience, or sticking to realism for the sake of it, the former is the better choice.

first off the speed in the game is relative to whatever object you are orbiting

so your speed relative to a space station is under 1000km/s outside of supercruise but your ship's actual speed is probably like 65km/s depending on the orbit of the body.

second, the ship's ai impliments artificial drag to remain relative to your location, because the faster your ship goes the less it can retain the relative manouverability and responsiveness to your location.

third, a wormhole operates on the upper bound of the 4th spatial dimension of the universe and onwards. Collecting a ton of mass in one spot will not create a wormhole, nor will one just magically appear. The 4th dimension of the universe can not be breached by its own current quantum physics.
we dont even know how many spatial dimentions would need to be considered to create a wormhole yet, just that it would be more than 4.
Also, I did say for a wormhole to exist in our universe it would have to be artificial. So i am not saying one could not exist, I am saying one would never exist in a natural state. meaning if frontier DID implement wormholes, assuming they follow their pattern of scientific implementation, they would create wormhole gates.
also frontier has also said that they will not impliment wormholes in the game so the point is moot, they dont want players having instantaneous travel over huge distances.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

first off the speed in the game is relative to whatever object you are orbiting

so your speed relative to a space station is under 1000km/s outside of supercruise but your ship's actual speed is probably like 65km/s depending on the orbit of the body.

second, the ship's ai impliments artificial drag to remain relative to your location, because the faster your ship goes the less it can retain the relative manouverability and responsiveness to your location.

So, if I understand you correctly, in order to have boosting be a temporary effect, Frontier have made it so the ship's computer automatically manipulates the thrusters to create artificial drag, ostensibly for the purpose of maintaining manoeuvrability, even though boosting is often used for improved manoeuvrability in cases. And for some reason the pilot cannot override this for maintained straight line boost speed, and the ship cannot reach boost speed through normal acceleration. Effectively this is an artificial and not a very realistic limitation, and has the purpose of improving or balancing gameplay, and not maintaining realism.

third, a wormhole operates on the upper bound of the 4th spatial dimension of the universe and onwards. Collecting a ton of mass in one spot will not create a wormhole, nor will one just magically appear. The 4th dimension of the universe can not be breached by its own current quantum physics.
we dont even know how many spatial dimentions would need to be considered to create a wormhole yet, just that it would be more than 4.
Also, I did say for a wormhole to exist in our universe it would have to be artificial. So i am not saying one could not exist, I am saying one would never exist in a natural state. meaning if frontier DID implement wormholes, assuming they follow their pattern of scientific implementation, they would create wormhole gates.
also frontier has also said that they will not impliment wormholes in the game so the point is moot, they dont want players having instantaneous travel over huge distances.

Even now there are scientific theories about quantum entanglement between black holes creating wormholes, which could in a vast and virtually limitless universe occur without intervention, so this could be drawn upon for lore purposes, and taken as part of known reality in the future. Even were that not the case, other theories can be devised, or a case for artificially created wormholes could be made. The main consideration should be whether it would create an enjoyable experience in the game.

As to that, Frontier is capable of changing plans and directions, and doing both what they said before they'd never do, as well as not doing what before they said they would. It only takes a little imagination, for example if access to instantaneous travel over huge distances is something they continue to want to avoid, they could either shorten the distances connecting the wormholes, or make the nature of wormholes temporal and mostly random so that they can't be predictably abused or relied upon for extended periods, or both. These are just ideas that popped into my head at the moment. I'm sure others could contrive superior solutions with a little more thought.

 

[Azmuth Divarchchron]

So, if I understand you correctly, in order to have boosting be a temporary effect, Frontier have made it so the ship's computer automatically manipulates the thrusters to create artificial drag, ostensibly for the purpose of maintaining manoeuvrability, even though boosting is often used for improved manoeuvrability in cases. And for some reason the pilot cannot override this for maintained straight line boost speed, and the ship cannot reach boost speed through normal acceleration. Effectively this is an artificial and not a very realistic limitation, and has the purpose of improving or balancing gameplay, and not maintaining realism.





Even now there are scientific theories about quantum entanglement between black holes creating wormholes, which could in a vast and virtually limitless universe occur without intervention, so this could be drawn upon for lore purposes, and taken as part of known reality in the future. Even were that not the case, other theories can be devised, or a case for artificially created wormholes could be made. The main consideration should be whether it would create an enjoyable experience in the game.

As to that, Frontier is capable of changing plans and directions, and doing both what they said before they'd never do, as well as not doing what before they said they would. It only takes a little imagination, for example if access to instantaneous travel over huge distances is something they continue to want to avoid, they could either shorten the distances connecting the wormholes, or make the nature of wormholes temporal and mostly random so that they can't be predictably abused or relied upon for extended periods, or both. These are just ideas that popped into my head at the moment. I'm sure others could contrive superior solutions with a little more thought.

Okay, on the drag counterpoint, i see where you are comming from, but i said relative momentum. for instance what happens if you are traveling 3000 km faster than your target? or vice versa. kinda makes combat difficult.

But there is zero evidence black holes are wormholes or creators of wormholes.

if blackholes were wormholes every black hole that produced jet cones would only have mono-polar jet cones and not bi-polar jet cones.
Secondly, the nature of a wormhole would make it impossible for cones to occur because the center of the wormhole would be vacant of matter because wormholes would be torrodial, not gravitational, meaning there would be no process for the wormhole to actually produce a jet cone let alone bi-polar jet cones at one mouth end.

Again Black holes are more closely related to neutron stars than being some kind of mystical hole.

Neutron stars, black holes, and quasars can all be put in a category of "quantum stars" because their core reactions are subatomic and not atomic, as well as all having the capability to produce bi-polar jet cones, and rarely on neutron star's part, accretion disks.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Okay, on the drag counterpoint, i see where you are comming from, but i said relative momentum. for instance what happens if you are traveling 3000 km faster than your target? or vice versa. kinda makes combat difficult.

Given that the boost speed of many ships can be considerably less than the boost or even normal top speeds of other ships, or even compared to themselves with different rated drives, it’s harder to justify the in-game reasoning behind the artificial application of drag. There’s no set limit defining the safe or optimal speed at which drag should be initiated. It’s clearly just a gameplay consideration, and I’m not opposed to that.

But there is zero evidence black holes are wormholes or creators of wormholes.

if blackholes were wormholes every black hole that produced jet cones would only have mono-polar jet cones and not bi-polar jet cones.
Secondly, the nature of a wormhole would make it impossible for cones to occur because the center of the wormhole would be vacant of matter because wormholes would be torrodial, not gravitational, meaning there would be no process for the wormhole to actually produce a jet cone let alone bi-polar jet cones at one mouth end.

Again Black holes are more closely related to neutron stars than being some kind of mystical hole.

Neutron stars, black holes, and quasars can all be put in a category of "quantum stars" because their core reactions are subatomic and not atomic, as well as all having the capability to produce bi-polar jet cones, and rarely on neutron star's part, accretion disks.

I was referring to an unproven scientific theory, so there’s no expectation for evidence of it in our current day. The idea is that in the future, or more specifically, in a video game or movie set in the future, such evidence and indeed instances of the phenomenon could have been discovered.

Let me put it to you this way. You’re clearly knowledgeable in this, so if you were hired to write a scientific explanation for wormholes in a futuristic setting, how would you do it? What theory would you contrive?

 

[Decksmeck]

In theory, yes. But none of it is actually a problem for gameplay, and some of it is actively beneficial. Would this really be a better game if you couldn't synthesise limpets, or your material store had a considerable mass, or you could only communicate in real-time with people in the same instance?


Nice try, but no.

Take an Anaconda with a 2E Low Emissions 5 Power Plant (generation 5.4 MW)

Fit an unengineered 8A Power Distributor, which has unengineered power consumption of 0.96 MW, and a huge beam laser (direct consumption 2.61 MW)

Launch, shut down all modules except plant, distributor and laser. Put four pips to weapons and fire the laser.

Your power distributor will recharge the weapons cap at 7.2 MW - more energy than your power plant is capable of producing, even ignoring the energy going directly to run the distributor and laser.

(You can engineer the distributor to recharge the weapons cap at 10.9 MW, without affecting its power consumption)

I can't look right now but I will. Are you sure that the time measurements are equal? PP x mj/s is less than distributor mj/s recharge. You measure both in seconds?

 

[CMDR Ewa]

Under the existing fast hyperspace travel, i only want a sort of autopilot mode that can put us thousands LY away while we are working on something else inside the ship, or allows us to turn off the game while it bring the ship to the requested destination. It's just an additional type of travel that can put us at 3000ly 20% to 40% slower than the normal hyperspace mode.

I am looking at this as a Botter, not a developer. I can count about 20 30 lines of coding and the Bot will control loading the game up plotting a new course and repeat in a new location and log off the game So If I went to bed or gone to work or both. I could have a Bot travel 30k ly just on the Op Quote. I would not have to be near the computer.

Ok, this is a detail. If turnig off the game while the ship travels causes problems, the developers don't have to implement that in the game but you understand the purpose of my suggestion.

I wrote a post but it seems that nobody has read it.

Sorry. Two of my posts have been suspended

You want to be able to play another game while Elite Dangerous plays itself. You are not playing the GAME. So I have say NO. It also caters to Bots so Gold sellers can use the same feature to earn money. If you understand gold seller and Bots you would also say no.

I don't want to be able to play another game while the ship travels, every little problem that a new gameplay can cause can be solved. (However in flight simulator X you can take off, go at work and return home to land your aircraft).
I considere that this game is able to be the best video game ever. Frontier just can't stop on an inconveniant stuff while the other space game makers should monitor all the little flaws stated by the players and then try to do better.
Frontier told us that a new big part of the game is in developpement.
We are numerous to hope that space leg will be in their projects. I considere that space leg is 50% of Elite: Dangerous. Despite the many updates, there's now 2 years i didn't play this game because for me this game is simply beautiful but desperatly empty. Elite Dangerous is sorely lacking in illustrations (thanks to google translate [noob] ). Space legs is a base to implement all kinds of missions and quests that will have a real meaning and make this game epic. Can you imagine if elite is gorgeous, epic, and learns you cosmology. We all would be stuck on the pc. So if Frontier promised us space legs, the game must stay consistent. You travel in the galaxy, your ship is your home, your base and the only thing able to maintain you in life. And far away from home with space leg your ship is the place where you should be able to do everything possible to accomplish your mission.

Anyway, each problem has always a solution.

I suggested this hypercruise in view of space legs. I don't see when space leg will be released, players making dotted journeys that stick them for hours on the pc without doing nothing but stay focused to not fall asleep when fuel scooping, lest their ship explodes. It happened to me twice when i returned from months of journeys collecting solar systems datas, and it's highly frustrating.
I relativized by saying to me that it was an accident but nevertheless i still think that if you fall asleep in a game, there's a problem......

For most of us we're not game developers, computing is not our spaciality, but with each of our specilities we can have great ideas. You are a botter, I'm an aircraft mechanic student. Let's discuss of our ideas and submit new gameplay ideas to the developers. At the end, they own the final decision according to their ideas and strategies.

 

[CMDR Ewa]

I don't really know the science within the game, i just know that the lore happens in the 34th century. Really, how will we be in 1300 years ? Who can answer this question ? 20 years ago, i never could imagine all that things we can do today, so in 1300 years, i wonder if we even have the right to approach Earth.

In every space operas (look at Star Wars, Star trek, Stargate etc) the ship take a time to travel high distances, and while the ship is travelling, characters are busy inside the ship doing a bunch of things.

Imagine in this game :

You decided to travel toward a system, you are in hypercruise. Suddenly you receive a message (here) saying that a character you know well and that is important for you is in danger in a space station. You immediately locate the station on the map, then you input the location in your computer and modify your flight plan. You want to go fast but the station is close to you, you have enough fuel to reach it, but in several jumps in normal witch space you should have to refuel in a star that would make you lose time. So you decide to plot a new course toward this station, maximum hypercruise speed.
Few minutes later your ship emerge few kilometers directly toward the station. You enter in the station and make your fps mission. After saving your friend character, you need to get away fast and desappear in the vastness of the galaxy. There are wounded, important objects to be analysed. And you have some dangerous ennemis at your heels. After a quick jump into a neghbour system you decide to fool your pursuers by jumping by hypercruise toward a destination by following an S trajectory that you did by plotting 2 points on your flight plan (we'll need that, I'll open a new thread for a best ship equipments simulation).

Finally you're quiet, you let your ship travel and leave the cockpit to heal you and your people while the charactere you just save explains you his/her problems and generate new missions. After that you go in a room checking the objects you brought so that new missions can be generated.

 

[count_headshot]

'Crashing into a sun' really is no topic at all at 2000 times the speed of light. The time it takes to go through any ball of gas is somewhere in the thousandth of a second range. Even the naked human body would survive it without losing a hair.

Same goes for the swingby effect btw. Not relevant at relativistic speeds *does 25th loop of shame tonight*