Hyperspace Jump within system?

Don't forget my suggestion, that's also in system jumps, but with a twist!


You can ignore the whole contested beacon bit, it was just an add-on to the idea, which was kinda crap.
 
It would mess with mission payments which are, to an extent, time based (i.e. bigger payments when the destination is distant from the entry point).
The increased mission payments based on distance from entry point was implemented as a direct response to the number of complaints about how long it took to travel such long distances.

Solve the travel time issue, and rebalance the mission payments.

Time spent travelling is an unavoidable part of the game (unless one does not travel, of course).
Agreed. But that doesn’t mean it has to be boring.

I’m simply proposing that travelling long distances can be a skill-based challenge, rather than just the time-based challenge it is now.

The two can potentially coexist.
 
Last edited:
I mean, technically there’s no forum rule against someone participating in threads where they are just repeating themselves, but it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.
Then surely that applies tenfold to threads that are just repeating themselves, like the dozens we get a month all asking for the exact same thing?

Besides, maybe they have looked at the feedback and decided the arguments against in system jumps are superior to the arguments for and decided to leave it alone. You don't have access to FDEV's decision making process so claiming that they have ignored the "issue" isn't true, they may have looked at it extensively and decided to leave it as it is!
 
Solve the travel time issue, and rebalance the mission payments.
Except that is assuming "travel time" is a real issue that needs to be solved - I would disagree that it is an issue nor does need to be addressed.

As for adding skill based challenge to Super Cruise - I get where you are coming from but find your idea preposterous - FD have proven themselves incapable of running so called "skill based" systems in parallel with predominantly "time based" ones (case in point the ADS being removed with the introduction of space-golf/blob-hunt).

Arguably the idea that a true skill based mechanic could be legitimately added for longer super-cruise journeys is pure and utter bunk. Even the so called "skill based" blob-hunt lacks any real skill requirements and space-golf is a bad joke with a missing punch-line. Adding mini-games for the sake of addressing what some may perceive as boring mechanics is never a good idea and is rarely (if ever) justifiable.

The principle of in-system jumps with some form of trade-off (e.g. FSD unit damage) and perhaps the possibility (perhaps 1% or more) of a mis-jump (notionally just to a near by system and still wake traceable by NPCs/PCs to the actual destination) is notionally the only approach that is even close to being justifiable or appropriate. That is essentially the proposal being put forward by this thread.

Something akin to this has been proposed before on many an occasion and the answer FD eventually came up with was the Super-Cruise-Assist module. If such long journeys are so boring an uneventful then just rely on the SCA module, and take a coffee/tea/libation break*. :)

* Of course don't be surprised if you get interdicted and end up at the rebuy screen while you are away.
 
Last edited:
Interdiction mechanism can still be possible by
  1. Reducing the accuracy of the in-system jump,
    • that is to jump to a certain distance (in ls) from destination, base on the frame shrift drive rating
I think you're onto a promising path with 'big box to big box' jumps. IE ones that

I suggested something with a similar aspect (but much more dev work :D)

Risky 'Tether Jumps' to Secondary Suns

It involves:

  • Variety provided by the destination system's 'geography'
  • Flight skill & risk (providing entertainment + balancing for those who prefer to 'slow boat')
  • Great big telegraphed arrival graphics to encourage piracy opportunities & risks (alongside high risk of ship damager etc)
  • NB: Primarily uses existing game systems (FSD, orrery, Stellar Forge assets), so shouldn't layer much key-binding / menu delving on top of existing interactions
 
...The system of supercruise rather than any other type of in-system travel was decided upon by F D in consultation with the players a long time ago.

Get your facts straight.
True, but more facts are available. IE:

FDev have said:

 
Last edited:
Then surely that applies tenfold to threads that are just repeating themselves, like the dozens we get a month all asking for the exact same thing?

Besides, maybe they have looked at the feedback and decided the arguments against in system jumps are superior to the arguments for and decided to leave it alone. You don't have access to FDEV's decision making process so claiming that they have ignored the "issue" isn't true, they may have looked at it extensively and decided to leave it as it is!
As mentioned above, the last official word we seem to have is that they were open to changes.

In lieu of a 'definitely never happening' pronouncement there's nothing wrong with suggestion threads. And a glut of them suggests possibly there's something that needs addressing for a significant slice of the playerbase ;)
 
It would mess with mission payments which are, to an extent, time based (i.e. bigger payments when the destination is distant from the entry point).

Why supercruise supporters support it is up to them - they don't need to justify their position to those who don't like supercruise.

Time spent travelling is an unavoidable part of the game (unless one does not travel, of course).
This is true, but I like to think a system with a significant death risk could act as a reasonable balance (due to greater frequency of complete cargo loss, ship rebuys etc). This would apply to Powerplay style group competitions too.

In my tether suggestion (see sig link) this could come about through either misjudgements in the transit flight itself, or via piracy etc when in a weakened state (and inevitable consequence of the process, even if executed perfectly - but exacerbated if errors made at any stage)
 
In lieu of a 'definitely never happening' pronouncement there's nothing wrong with suggestion threads. And a glut of them suggests possibly there's something that needs addressing for a significant slice of the playerbase ;)
Except you missed the point, and it was that another poster suggested those against the mini-jump proposal have nothing new to say then they shouldn't be posting in this thread, basically trying to add bias to the proposal by suppressing all opposing viewpoints and therefore able to point the devs to threads where there was 100% agreement for mini-jumps.

So you are right and I have nothing against people starting up threads, but I do have a problem with people saying those opposed to mini-jumps should shut up and just leave all the confirmation bias to flower and influence the devs without any opposing viewpoints.
 
I used to be all for this idea back when you had to fly to the stellar bodies to scan them. With the new exploration mechanics I no longer need it care. I can just FSS scan them from 800 AUs away. However, I'm still not against the idea. The nav beacon to nav beacon jump idea sounds interesting, for example. There are also other solutions to the long, boring supercruise times, such as inventing other things to do while cruising. Off the top of my head, a some sort of engineering minigame to increase the supercruise acceleration, and later deceleration, faster than it normally does. That might be something that could also be done in multicrew.
 
True, but more facts are available. IE:

FDev have said:
........
Quite correct and thanks for taking the trouble to find the links. However with the Space Loach having taken his host away from Elite, those discussions stopped (like OOPP).

It is true that there is no reason why it shouldn't be up for discussion, my point was that it had been decided IN CONJUNCTION WITH the players to have supercruise rather than mini-jumps or something. So it is not as if it is a mechanism foisted upon us which F D then ignored / dismissed objections (think FSS).

The fact is that we have a system of super-luminal travel which allows for a difference in scale between systems - some have short journey times, some incredibly few have exceedingly long ones and others are in-between. I think that making all systems have basically the same travel time would increase blandness and produce even more bored players. After all, they would have to find something else to moan about at least. ;)
 
Quite correct and thanks for taking the trouble to find the links. However with the Space Loach having taken his host away from Elite, those discussions stopped (like OOPP).

It is true that there is no reason why it shouldn't be up for discussion, my point was that it had been decided IN CONJUNCTION WITH the players to have supercruise rather than mini-jumps or something. So it is not as if it is a mechanism foisted upon us which F D then ignored / dismissed objections (think FSS).

The fact is that we have a system of super-luminal travel which allows for a difference in scale between systems - some have short journey times, some incredibly few have exceedingly long ones and others are in-between. I think that making all systems have basically the same travel time would increase blandness and produce even more bored players. After all, they would have to find something else to moan about at least. ;)
Ay they did, although obviously the poll back in the day was a hardcore subset compared to the current broader playerbase.

I think the OP's point was still valid though, in this would be about continued player feedback. (Appreciation of game mechanics can change from drawing board to actual practice etc)

On the frequency of distant secondary stars, my subjective take would be that I encounter them pretty frequently. Would be interesting to see some kind of EDDB breakdown of say, how many systems have stars 10kly+ from the main star.

I could go off on the variety that would be retained (& highlighted) in systems like my tether proposal (IE 'big box to big box' travel retaining flight amongst the main system bodies + use of their geography to plot the tether route & cushion your arrival requiring appreciation of their form & variance etc). But a quicker, more polemic take would be: Is there really a replacement system that could be more bland than the current hands-off commute between distant system stars ;)

Anyways, my ultimate intent with stuff like the tether is to find a game mechanic that provides engaging gameplay for guys like myself, while preserving 'slow boat' engagement for those that prefer it. Never know ;)
 
Your link seems to be dead, probably the old forum format? Could you dig up a fresh link, would be interested to see.
It was because I was refining it with so many edits that I was triggering re-approvals that were taking it offline. I've stopped so the link will stay active :)
 
Then surely that applies tenfold to threads that are just repeating themselves, like the dozens we get a month all asking for the exact same thing?
If it was the same forum member(s) making the same suggestions over and over again, I’d agree with you.

But it’s not - it’s either the same suggestion from different forum members, or different suggestions from the same forum members, both of which are acceptable and welcome in a ‘Suggestions’ forum.

Also, isn’t the frequency with which this type of suggestion comes up an indication that this aspect of the game is ripe for improvement? There’s clearly an appetite for it to be enhanced - why are you so opposed to that?
 
...........
Also, isn’t the frequency with which this type of suggestion comes up an indication that this aspect of the game is ripe for improvement? There’s clearly an appetite for it to be enhanced - why are you so opposed to that?
There are certain segments of the player-base with determined views to alter the game in one way or another. These produce threads with variations of their base objectives frequently - so hyperjumping is boring / systems are too slow to transit / powerpants should only be in open / make more people play in open to serve as PvPer's content / etc, etc.

An "improvement" for one mind-set is a change in the balance of the game for ALL so I don't see why you cannot understand people being opposed.

If you get a change to a part of the game in response to continued lobbying for a change you can end up with some issue like the FSS - see how many have their noses out of joint with that. So be careful what you wish for. ;)
 
There are certain segments of the player-base with determined views to alter the game in one way or another. These produce threads with variations of their base objectives frequently - so hyperjumping is boring / systems are too slow to transit / powerpants should only be in open / make more people play in open to serve as PvPer's content / etc, etc.

An "improvement" for one mind-set is a change in the balance of the game for ALL so I don't see why you cannot understand people being opposed.

If you get a change to a part of the game in response to continued lobbying for a change you can end up with some issue like the FSS - see how many have their noses out of joint with that. So be careful what you wish for. ;)
Well it is FDev's job to balance the voice of customers and the existing game mechanism, isn't it ;)
I just humbly suggested changes and voiced out my opinion.
I'm sure FDev can make the decision that at least benefits the majority of the stakeholders.
 
I think i mentioned this idea in another thread but added different limitations. The iteration I would like to see is where in system jump can only target very massive objects pretty much limiting it to stars and large gas giants. this means you can jump to the orbital focal points of systems within the local stellar group but still need to fly to the destination in SC.
 
Gosh what an uniformed view. The system of supercruise rather than any other type of in-system travel was decided upon by F D in consultation with the players a long time ago.

Get your facts straight.
Yes, but there was a difference.
The original FD proposal was POI hopping only. Meaning all travel would be an in-system jump to designated POI.
That is not the same as being able to target secondary stars once in a system, which afaik is the most common "in-system jump" proposal.
I made the trip to Hutton twice. It was a curiousity the first trip and after that it was pointless. There is not meaningful game-play that comes up on those long flights. If FD could do something more meaningful and add some features to SC then maybe it would be a thing more folks would see as a positive. Also, SC is a bit hard to figure since I can Never over-take other ships, they always accelerate far ahead of me even if I think my ship is faster than their Sidewinder. But NPC can always easily catch up to me in SC... I think overall FD make NPC follow the same rules as players but in case of SC I have a pretty big doubt about that.
 
Top Bottom