Hyperspace Jump within system?

We do understand it. We just don’t like it.

Your reply sounds a lot like ‘Old man yells at cloud’. Maybe if you asked:

“Why don’t you people like SuperCruise?”

Then you’d be in a better mindset to understand why so many people suggest enhancements to SuperCruise in the first place.
Duh. You said there was a soft lock. What soft lock. There is no gameplay that is locked away from you as you can do all the gameplay at a closer destination. The only "gameplay" there is, is supercruise. But you want to remove that so you can do the same gameplay you could do at a closer planet or station.

All you would be doing is removing some of the achievements some people see it as and make them now look pointless.

People like those long distances. If you don't, you can do the exact same gameplay (minus the long supercruise journey) at a destination that is closer.

So please explain what you are being soft locked against as I don't get it.
 
ah but you're totally willing to accept it when it comes to jumping between systems? Shouldn't that take WEEKS just to give you that sense of "vastness"? MU-IMMERZHUN!!11!.....but only when I say so! .........

Your argument is completely without consistency or logic. You're simply trying to excuse and rationalize bad game design.
... but it is not my argument - it is physics.

A system consists of gravitationally-bound bodies. The excuse the game presents to move from one gravitational system to another is a handwavium idea of hyperspace. Pure made up stuff.

The travel within a gravitational system is a different made-up system using a likeness of an Alcubierre drive.

The premise of course is that within a gravitational system a hyperjump would be too problematical and so the excuse of supercruise is used.

It is a game, it has made-up rules, some excuse in physics but still made up. - Live with it.

To paraphrase someone with an abominable Scottish accent " Ye canna change the laws o' physics" (but Elite Dangerous can muck about with it a bit).
 
Last edited:
... but it is not my argument - it is physics.
It is a game, it has made-up rules
Ummm, you kinda contradict yourself there.

But yes, it is a game. They made up the rules, and they can alter them. (It's not like the alcubierre drive is current working sci, it's hypothetical. Lots of flex for creative game deployment. Quadruply so for hyperspacing within systems).

I like sci verisimilitude too personally. But gameplay still has primacy.
 
Ummm, you kinda contradict yourself there.

But yes, it is a game. They made up the rules, and they can alter them. (It's not like the alcubierre drive is current working sci, it's hypothetical. Lots of flex for creative game deployment. Quadruply so for hyperspacing within systems).

I like sci verisimilitude too personally. But gameplay still has primacy.
yeah cut off the rest of the sentence to denigrate my remark. - :rolleyes:

You can criticise what I say and how I say it but don't manipulate my words to give a false impression.
 
yeah cut off the rest of the sentence to denigrate my remark. - :rolleyes:

You can criticise what I say and how I say it but don't manipulate my words to give a false impression.
Not my intent. I'm pointing out an apparent contradiction in your argument. Is the game design confined by the laws of physics depicted within the game? (Hint, the answer is no ;)). Or is it free to bend or break the depicted laws of physics if it sees fit, to facilitate gameplay (and/or technical concerns).

You seem to be arguing both things are true. I'm suggesting you can't have both cakes and eat them ;). No denigration intended though.
 
Not my intent. I'm pointing out an apparent contradiction in your argument. Is the game design confined by the laws of physics depicted within the game? (Hint, the answer is no ;)). Or is it free to bend or break the depicted laws of physics if it sees fit, to facilitate gameplay (and/or technical concerns).

You seem to be arguing both things are true. I'm suggesting you can't have both cakes and eat them ;). No denigration intended though.
I suggest you actually read my post without deciding what you WANT it to say.

I quite clearly said that the game is using made-up rules based on or with respect to certain aspects of physics.

I was not suggesting that the game is an accurate representation of ANYTHING.

I said - there are rules of physics - the game takes these rules and applies made-up excuses to deal with them.

Get it right.
 
You know if it doesn't go their way. This is what they do. They tend to avoid valid remarks and focus on trying to make their remark sound valid.
Lol. Lestat you genuinely denigrate everyone you disagree with on this topic, with your endless 'lazy', 'if you actually used your brain' tropes etc. I've done nothing of the sort.

Pointing out apparent contradictions in an argument is a perfectly legitimate form of debate, especially if the strength of the argument rests on those contentions.
 
Last edited:
... but it is not my argument - it is physics.

A system consists of gravitationally-bound bodies. The excuse the game presents to move from one gravitational system to another is a handwavium idea of hyperspace. Pure made up stuff.

The travel within a gravitational system is a different made-up system using a likeness of an Alcubierre drive.

The premise of course is that within a gravitational system a hyperjump would be too problematical and so the excuse of supercruise is used.

It is a game, it has made-up rules, some excuse in physics but still made up. - Live with it.

To paraphrase someone with an abominable Scottish accent " Ye canna change the laws o' physics" (but Elite Dangerous can muck about with it a bit).
even if I were to accept that, the "speed limit" and "acceleration rate" of the SC mechanic is totally arbitrary. it doesn't even pretend to have a reason based in real physics, made-up sci fi physics, or even lore. It's just there because it's there...and it's terrible so why not arbitrarily change the 2001C speed limit to 2000001C and double the acceleration? Or remove the limit entirely to facilitate more meaningful gameplay? You still have to travel the "same" distance...you just do it faster, get to where you're going, and have some gameplay. waiting isn't gameplay.
 
I suggest you actually read my post without deciding what you WANT it to say.

I quite clearly said that the game is using made-up rules based on or with respect to certain aspects of physics.

I was not suggesting that the game is an accurate representation of ANYTHING.

I said - there are rules of physics - the game takes these rules and applies made-up excuses to deal with them.

Get it right.
Then why are you giving so much primacy to physics here?

... but it is not my argument - it is physics.
What precisely is physics arguing in the above cases? It is unclear.
 
The question stands, just remove the mission reference.

If you don't like long supercruise trips, why start on one?
I almost never start long super cruise journeys because of the pointless timesink these days.

On the rare occasions in the early days when I first played the game, I did take some long super cruise journeys for a variety of reasons (usually when out exploring):
  • To pursue some leads during the Thargoid mystery (Survery Vessel Pandora's Song in HIP 17125 - over 40,000 Ls away from the primary star).
  • To visit a Guardian Ruins site in HD 63154 (140,000 Ls from the primary star) for data and materials.
  • To see if planets harboured any POI's prior to the FSS.
  • To see if landable planets had any interesting surface features (deep canyons, close binary orbits, stellar views, etc...).
  • To put my name on a newly discovered earthlike world.
Now we have other temptations to go those long distances:
  1. Potential new codex discoveries.
  2. Potential rare codex discoveries.
So, there were/are reasons to travel long distances if you've found something unique/rare that don't involve missions. It doesn't make travelling those distances fun.

I wouldn't mind embarking on a long SuperCruise journey if:
  1. I knew the end result would be worthwhile.
  2. The journey was engaging.
 
I suggest you actually read my post without deciding what you WANT it to say.

I quite clearly said that the game is using made-up rules based on or with respect to certain aspects of physics.

I was not suggesting that the game is an accurate representation of ANYTHING.

I said - there are rules of physics - the game takes these rules and applies made-up excuses to deal with them.

Get it right.
I'm afraid I read your post and couldn't tell if you were for or against making changes to the game engine either, sorry.

I still can't.
 
even if I were to accept that, the "speed limit" and "acceleration rate" of the SC mechanic is totally arbitrary. it doesn't even pretend to have a reason based in real physics, made-up sci fi physics, or even lore. It's just there because it's there...and it's terrible so why not arbitrarily change the 2001C speed limit to 2000001C and double the acceleration? Or remove the limit entirely to facilitate more meaningful gameplay? You still have to travel the "same" distance...you just do it faster, get to where you're going, and have some gameplay. waiting isn't gameplay.
Then why are you giving so much primacy to physics here?

What precisely is physics arguing in the above cases? It is unclear.
I'm afraid I read your post and couldn't tell if you were for or against making changes to the game engine either, sorry.

I still can't.
What you are all missing is that my post which you are referring to was in response to @Turd saying basically that everything was nonsense ("..argument is completely without consistency or logic. You're simply trying to excuse and rationalize bad game design").

My reply stated that the developers instigated the system basing the main issue around the fact that a star system in the game is a system of bodies gravitationally-bound together. I clearly said that they used made up stuff to provide a means of travelling from one gravitational system to another (hyperjump) and that for faster travel within a gravitational system they made up a means of travel loosely based on the theoretical Alcubierre drive.

So that is where my reference to physics comes in - a system is an entity formed by gravitationally-bound bodies. In-system travel is governed by gravitational conditions. F D pays lip-service to that physics but it doesn't ignore it.

NO I DON'T SEE A NEED TO SPEED UP SUPERCRUISE TRAVEL. - is that clear enough for you nani?
 
I almost never start long super cruise journeys because of the pointless timesink these days.
So your saying you already know how to avoid time sinks. Bravo. I knew you could do it. Now if you can teach the others like Golgot and
Turd Ferguson. Please use your wisdom and teach them also.

On the rare occasions in the early days when I first played the game, I did take some long super cruise journeys for a variety of reasons (usually when out exploring):
  • To pursue some leads during the Thargoid mystery (Survery Vessel Pandora's Song in HIP 17125 - over 40,000 Ls away from the primary star).
  • To visit a Guardian Ruins site in HD 63154 (140,000 Ls from the primary star) for data and materials.
  • To see if planets harboured any POI's prior to the FSS.
  • To see if landable planets had any interesting surface features (deep canyons, close binary orbits, stellar views, etc...).
  • To put my name on a newly discovered earthlike world.
  • Yawn. First 2 are relatively short distance. It not the end of the world. Now the the last 3 ones. We have so many systems why not listen to your own advice. When you say you avoid time sinks and pick system closer to you.
Anyone know how many system been Explored? Oh that right we still have 99% of the system unexplored. So Nanite2000 Please feel free to skip the long distance ones.
Now we have other temptations to go those long distances:
  1. Potential new codex discoveries.
  2. Potential rare codex discoveries.
So, there were/are reasons to travel long distances if you've found something unique/rare that don't involve missions. It doesn't make travelling those distances fun.
Let understand what rare is. It like Winning the Lotto or being hit by Lighting. Or even winning at Bingo. So Long distance or short. It should stay rare. Not Rare and short.

I wouldn't mind embarking on a long SuperCruise journey if:
  1. I knew the end result would be worthwhile.
  2. The journey was engaging.
Why play a game if you already know the outcome will be? It seem like a terrible suggestion.

You know if it doesn't go their way. This is what they do. They tend to avoid valid remarks and focus on trying to make their remark sound valid.
yeah cut off the rest of the sentence to denigrate my remark. - :rolleyes:

You can criticise what I say and how I say it but don't manipulate my words to give a false impression.
Yes Para Handy and Lestat I feel some are skipping the Important points of people posts. Just to get their points across.
 
So your saying you already know how to avoid time sinks. Bravo. I knew you could do it. Now if you can teach the others like Golgot and
Turd Ferguson. Please use your wisdom and teach them also.
If you could just look past your ignorant sarcasm for a few moments, you'd know that I, Turd Ferguson, and Golgot are all very experienced players who already know how to play the game perfectly well thank you very much.

It doesn't change the fact that certain aspects of the game involve long boring super cruise journeys, and we would like to replace that with something less slow and boring.

Of course, you would already know this having read the whole thread, and several similar threads in the past.

Yes, that was my reaction too when I made those journeys. So you do know what if feels like then?

First 2 are relatively short distance. It not the end of the world.
It doesn't change the fact that I found them slow and boring.

Now the the last 3 ones. We have so many systems why not listen to your own advice. When you say you avoid time sinks and pick system closer to you.
And what if that closer system doesn't have the things I'm looking for (e.g. a suitable Guardian site, a POI, a rare codex entry, an unusual stellar formation, etc...)?
Aside from that, how would I find it anyway?

Anyone know how many system been Explored? Oh that right we still have 99% of the system unexplored. So Nanite2000 Please feel free to skip the long distance ones.
No, it's OK. I'll play the game how I like thank you, because my play style is in no way dictated by you. And right now, that means being locked out of some exploration activities due to the pointless timesink of long boring super cruise journeys.

Let understand what rare is. It like Winning the Lotto or being hit by Lighting. Or even winning at Bingo. So Long distance or short. It should stay rare. Not Rare and short.
Rare, in this context, means codex entries that cannot be easily or regularly found when exploring. For example:
  • Carbon Dioxide Gas Vents
  • Sulphur Dioxide Ice Fumaroles
  • Silicate Vapor Ice Fumaroles
  • Water Geysers
  • Water Fumaroles
  • Planetside biological life
  • Vacuum based biological life
  • Lagrange Clouds
Why play a game if you already know the outcome will be? It seem like a terrible suggestion.
Why waste hours of my time doing something that I don't know is going to be worthwhile?

(I have a hard time believing you're being this obtuse without it being deliberate.)

Yes Para Handy and Lestat I feel some are skipping the Important points of people posts. Just to get their points across.
The lack of self-awareness in that comment is shocking.
 
Top Bottom