Improve Supercruise - Here's How

[Blackcompany]

-Faster Acceleration: Get up to speed faster. Accelerate away from gravity wells quicker. This means less time just...waiting.

-Better Deceleration: Quicker, tighter deceleration. GREATLY reduce the range at which forced deceleration begins when approaching a new gravity well. Again, more time spent just...waiting.

-More Responsive and Maneuverable: Make ships as fun to fly in Supercruise as they are in regular flight. Tighter turns, additional thrusters and more maneuvers.

-Cosmic debris/Obstacles: Pieces of asteroids; comets; meteors; debris fields; rendezvousing Wings; solar flares. I dont care what; we need things to keep us on our toes and actually flying during Supercruise, as opposed to waiting. Maybe even some Hydrogen jets from Suns, that if we "ride" them until they taper off, we can scoop fuel as we fly. Some incentive for changing course and actually flying during Supercruise is badly needed.

-Decrease Scan times/Increased Scan ranges. Scanning celestial bodies takes too long. Period. Its needless, artificial inflation of game time. 2-5 seconds per object, period. Greatly increase the distance at which objects are scanned.

-Hyperspace Jump to any Star in any system. Once we know its there, we should be able to jump to it. Sure we should have to Discover it first - maybe through Exploration, maybe through buying info - but if the star is revealed let us jump to it.


I feel the developers need to shrink the scale of the their systems by making Supercruise travel faster and more hands on. Think about it: Very few people actually, genuinely enjoy Supercruise. Its a lynch pin - a foundation pillar - of the game. Miners, Explorers and oh god Traders, all depend on it. Heck everyone does.

And almost no one even enjoys it.

That's going to drive people away. Probably in droves. This idea that travel has to be boring and tedious - more watching than playing - is a mistake the space sim genre has made for decades. Its probably a primary reason the genre vanished for as long as it did. And now, the developers behind space sims are making the same mistake in modern games that they also made in their predecessors.

Make Supercruise fun. Shrink the scale of your systems in terms of the time it takes to travel them. Lets go slalom between planets and stars in Supercruise like we do between Asteroids in a RES. Juke and roll and loop and play in Supercruise like we do dogfighting. No, its not as realistic, perhaps. But perhaps - just perhaps - it might be fun.

And that's something Supercruise currently isn't.

 

[DocLooshkin]

On balance, I don't agree. It would change the feel of the game to something much more arcadey and throwaway than it is at present. The depiction of the universe, the sense of immense scale is one of the games unique features. It's an aspect of ED that's not fun, as such, but then it's not supposed to be. Not every game is meant to be a laugh a minute. I can't say what percentage of players would agree, but I find EDs depiction of the universe to be a thing of majestic beauty, which is certainly one of the things the devs are aiming for. I'm not having fun, as such, but I am certainly enjoying it on that level. Having said all that, it would be nice if some things were pushed a bit further.

I think we'd all be a lot happier if acceleration were much better at the top end - Hutton Orbital (to name but one station) just annoys virtually everyone and seems like a prime example of somebody, somewhere not knowing quite when to stop. It's like the Jeremy Clarkson of Bulletin Board Missions, only without the entertainment value or the sense of humour.

From what others have said on the forum, I think scanning is going to be overhauled at some point. Drones for some things are coming quite soon, I believe - and long-range drones might be implemented for exploration at some point. I look forward to it, if it happens.

I do like your idea of stellar systems becoming a little more dynamic: things like major solar flares, asteroid storms would seem like a shoe-in - and now that I think about it, I'm surprised it's not been done already. Transient rare events - such as rogue celestial bodies passing through and spatial anomalies (they're a staple of SF - they should make it in at some point, it's only fitting) - would be most welcome, if used sparingly. Done well, these kinds of things could bring a lot of life to the currently very static virtual physical universe, particularly if they have significant consequences for the system and the local area. I can see missions and Community Goals for emergencies - such as refugee crises, economic meltdowns, larger scale resupply demands in damaged areas - adding a lot of flavour to the game.

 

[CMDR Nick]

Yep, fully agreed with OP. It is boring, slow, repetitive and tedious. Will put lots of people off straight away. SC is awful. The ship changes speed as you transit - so your ship knows exactly what is going on - so why should I watch a dot and adjust? AUTOPILOT PLEASE.

 

[RadimentriX]

well, yeah, acceleration and deceleration could need fixes, that auto-deceleration should be taken out of the game anyway. some more stuff to do and to see while in supercruise would be pretty need but i don't think that changes for exploration are needed. flying ~1000-10000Ls between each planet is what takes most of the time, not the scanning itself

 

[Joe Spivey]

This has been brought up many times, actually, probably more than that lol. A few tweaks have been made along the way but the bottom line is this. Above all else, FD are making the game they want to make. The basic concept and design of supercruise has been established as it is because FD want you to realise that space is big. It takes time to get from point A to point B. For this reason there is also no 'fast travel' in ED. The ships go as fast as they go and that's it. It has been thought about and decided upon, this is the game. Hutton Orbital is that far away because that's how far away it is. Nobody is forcing you to go there. Like I said, FD are making the game THEY want, we are invited along for the ride... however long that ride takes.

 

[Blackcompany]

I mean this in the nicest way. No sarcasm; I mean that. But...

'Making the game they want to make' is the last line of defense against a sinking ship players are slowly abandoning. In the long run it does not matter whether you made the game you wanted to make and remained 100% loyal to your own vision for the game. The simply reality is this: If you dont make a game other people want, too, then the game wont sell. If the gone wont sell, you dont get paid. If you dont get paid, well...we all know how that ends up. You can ride that line about 'making the game we want to make' all the way to the unemployment line if you arent careful.

Look, I know space is big. I know traveling across takes time. I do. But I dont care. And neither do hundreds and perhaps thousands of other gamers, all of whom love this game and hate Supercruise at the same time. (I actually DO NOT hate Supercruise; I just think it could be more fun and engaging than it is at present).

What does it matter if Frontier are making the game they want to make, if in a year or two no one wants to BUY that game? Will strict loyalty to your design document put food on the table when the game stops selling? No. Will it land you another job when the interviewer asks what went wrong on your last one? Probably not. After all, 'I stuck to my vision despite flagging sales and a lack of interest' isnt exactly a personal selling point.

I said all that to say this: Some of the proposed changes I put forward will lessen the degree of 'Simulation' present in Elite (a game with magical FTL travel) and move the game a little more toward an Arcade space game. But only a little more. And the lessening of simulation aspects can be minimized. The cockpit and controls remain. I'm just asking for more need to use them. To fly the ship as opposed to watching it, in Supercruise.

Claiming to stick to your guns on design intentions is great. So long as the game keeps selling. But if your design decisions continually turn people off to playing your game, isnt it time to adapt your vision to consumer demand, if only just a little?

 

[Bacon Sarnie]

Er, I actually like SC.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I mean this in the nicest way. No sarcasm; I mean that. But...

'Making the game they want to make' is the last line of defense against a sinking ship players are slowly abandoning. In the long run it does not matter whether you made the game you wanted to make and remained 100% loyal to your own vision for the game. The simply reality is this: If you dont make a game other people want, too, then the game wont sell. If the gone wont sell, you dont get paid. If you dont get paid, well...we all know how that ends up. You can ride that line about 'making the game we want to make' all the way to the unemployment line if you arent careful.

Look, I know space is big. I know traveling across takes time. I do. But I dont care. And neither do hundreds and perhaps thousands of other gamers, all of whom love this game and hate Supercruise at the same time. (I actually DO NOT hate Supercruise; I just think it could be more fun and engaging than it is at present).

What does it matter if Frontier are making the game they want to make, if in a year or two no one wants to BUY that game? Will strict loyalty to your design document put food on the table when the game stops selling? No. Will it land you another job when the interviewer asks what went wrong on your last one? Probably not. After all, 'I stuck to my vision despite flagging sales and a lack of interest' isnt exactly a personal selling point.

I said all that to say this: Some of the proposed changes I put forward will lessen the degree of 'Simulation' present in Elite (a game with magical FTL travel) and move the game a little more toward an Arcade space game. But only a little more. And the lessening of simulation aspects can be minimized. The cockpit and controls remain. I'm just asking for more need to use them. To fly the ship as opposed to watching it, in Supercruise.

Claiming to stick to your guns on design intentions is great. So long as the game keeps selling. But if your design decisions continually turn people off to playing your game, isnt it time to adapt your vision to consumer demand, if only just a little?

I understand. However you are jumping the gun by your own admission.

You start with: 'Making the game they want to make' is the last line of defence against a sinking ship players are slowly abandoning.'

FD have said that they are making the game they want to make right from the initial kickstarter. They have emphasised that time and time again. So, far from being the last line of defence about anything it was actually a design tenet, a warning if you like that they are going to do things their way.

You finish with 'Claiming to stick to your guns on design intentions is great. So long as the game keeps selling. But if your design decisions continually turn people off to playing your game, isn't it time to adapt your vision to consumer demand, if only just a little? '

'So long as the game keeps on selling'. Well, that's just it, isn't it. They game is doing very nicely thank you. I believe it is still in the number one spot on Scam, sorry... Steam. But it was still selling well even before. So no, it is not 'time to adapt your vision to consumer demand, if only just a little?' FD's vision is alive an well and doing very nicely without your suggestions... although I'm sure FD will take note of them

 

[Blackcompany]

Joe I actually dont disagree with you on principle. They did indeed declare that they are making the game they want to make. I applaud that. I applaud the transparency and the dedication to their design direction. I applaud the honesty. And I think gamers need to be smarter, more responsible consumers and not throw money at every new release only to find out after the fact that, no, this was not for them either. I agree with all those things, in principle.

The fact remains, though, that Supercruise - a lynch pin, a foundation, of the game - turns a lot of people off. After they have buy it. But before the long term decision to spend additional money on expansions and skins. And when you have a foundational aspect of your game that turns a lot of players away pretty early on - in a game designed for long term play - you have a fundamental design problem. Period.

Sure Elite is the top selling game on Steam. Right now. And that might last a time. But we want Elite to last years, not months. And if a large subset of gamers who do buy the game are turned off by Supercruise and never spend another dime in support of the game, what are the long term prospects of Elite?

Look, there's a reason Space Sims went extinct for a time. And I am willing to bet that a large part of the reason publishers ceased to back or care about these games, is the amount of time spent doing...not much...while 'playing' them. Relatively few gamers - as compared to the whole number in existence - want to play a game wherein a large part of time is spent not doing anything. Publishers know this. Most devs know this. And yet, the space sim genre keeps doing the same thing, over and over.

Space is large. I get that. If you want to build a game in it, fine. But make it fun. That's all I'm asking. After all, Elite is, essentially, a game, not a NASA training module.

 

[Jaeger]

But perhaps - just perhaps - it might be fun.

And that's something Supercruise currently isn't.

True dat.

Or F D could have implemented a navigation / cruise control computer... but have point blank refused on grounds of it being too Eve like. (not that that stopped them incorporating iron man mechanics)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

in a game designed for long term play - you have a fundamental design problem. Period.

Needs to be resaid.

 

[Joe Spivey]

True dat.

Or F D could have implemented a navigation / cruise control computer... but have point blank refused on grounds of it being too Eve like. (not that that stopped them incorporating iron man mechanics)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Needs to be resaid.

No, it doesn't need to be resaid. Blackcompany asserts it is a fundamental design problem. Without evidence to back it up this is only opinion. Please let him explain HOW this is a fundamental problem in the design... without making other unsupported assertions or stating opinion as fact. FD spent a long time on this design. You can bet your bottom dollar that they have thought about, weighed and considered just about every objection to the design that has ever come up. I said in my first post that they have tweaked here and there, but the basics of the design have remained.

 

[KRISXR]

I like super cruise the way it is. It gives an actual feel of accelerating to, and past light speed. Then the deceleration gives a good feel of just how fast you are going and the distance it takes to slow down from past light speed. I think 1.0c = the speed of light, I arrived at that thought because c in the equation E=MC2 represents the speed of light. I have gotten up to 800c before, ludicrous speed! So when I'm in super cruise, to that far out outpost, I actually enjoy watching my indicators counting down as speed goes up, and time standing still a 6 seconds out when coming in for docking. I gives a great feel of distance in the vast vacuum of nothingness, a great simulation of outer space. It really feels like faster than light speed travel, and the distance and energy required to slow down for that out post.

 

[Joe Spivey]

The fact remains, though, that Supercruise - a lynch pin, a foundation, of the game - turns a lot of people off. After they have buy it. But before the long term decision to spend additional money on expansions and skins. And when you have a foundational aspect of your game that turns a lot of players away pretty early on - in a game designed for long term play - you have a fundamental design problem. Period.

To say that it turns 'a lot' of people off is a non argument. Define 'a lot'. And even if you do define it, it is still conjecture based on opinion and your wish for it to be so. So your 'fundamental problem' has yet even to be established let alone proved.

Sure Elite is the top selling game on Steam. Right now. And that might last a time. But we want Elite to last years, not months. And if a large subset of gamers who do buy the game are turned off by Supercruise and never spend another dime in support of the game, what are the long term prospects of Elite?

You start of with a fact, Elite is in the top spot on Steam. Then you create a hypothesis, that it might not be at some unknown point in the future and you offer no evidence to support the hypothesis. Then you again assume a 'large subset' of players without defining the term and then add the conjecture of 'if these undefined number of people are turned off by supercruise. You have basically used a lot of words to say nothing with any validity. This is just scare-mongering.

Look, there's a reason Space Sims went extinct for a time. And I am willing to bet that a large part of the reason publishers ceased to back or care about these games, is the amount of time spent doing...not much...while 'playing' them. Relatively few gamers - as compared to the whole number in existence - want to play a game wherein a large part of time is spent not doing anything. Publishers know this. Most devs know this. And yet, the space sim genre keeps doing the same thing, over and over.

The fact that you are willing to bet, whatever, is an empty statement because the terms of the bet are based only on your own speculation and wishful thinking. Then of you go again with 'relatively few'... Relatively few compared to what? You don't relate them to anything except a hypothetical number of players without even quantifying the number. Then you assert what publisher's know, what devs know... how do you know this? You continue to make assertions that either you don't have evidence for or cannot be proved one way or the other.

Space is large. I get that. If you want to build a game in it, fine. But make it fun. That's all I'm asking. After all, Elite is, essentially, a game, not a NASA training module.

And finally, you need to define 'fun'. Fun for who? I think supercruise is just fine the way it is so obviously our definitions of fun differ. All you have done here is to scare-monger based upon your own opinions and preferences.

This whole thread is really just a wish list for... you.

 

[mossfoot]

I also like Supercruise as is.

To me we're talking about a line of verisimilitude. Yes, the technology of Elite is pretty much technobabble hogwash, but for me (and plenty of others) the way things are set up allows it to feel more "real". Speed things up too much and you increase game play, sure, but it feels more and more like a game, and ONLY a game. Slow it down too much and it's might feel more realistic, but it also just becomes boring.

I think they've hit the right balance. And clearly I'm not alone.

 

[Maedhros]

I also like Supercruise as is.

To me we're talking about a line of verisimilitude. Yes, the technology of Elite is pretty much technobabble hogwash, but for me (and plenty of others) the way things are set up allows it to feel more "real". Speed things up too much and you increase game play, sure, but it feels more and more like a game, and ONLY a game. Slow it down too much and it's might feel more realistic, but it also just becomes boring.

I think they've hit the right balance. And clearly I'm not alone.

I agree with you 100%

 

[Jaeger]

No, it doesn't need to be resaid. Blackcompany asserts it is a fundamental design problem. Without evidence to back it up this is only opinion. Please let him explain HOW this is a fundamental problem in the design... without making other unsupported assertions or stating opinion as fact. FD spent a long time on this design. You can bet your bottom dollar that they have thought about, weighed and considered just about every objection to the design that has ever come up. I said in my first post that they have tweaked here and there, but the basics of the design have remained.

Joe,

I disagree with you, and I agree with Blackcompany. He explained perfectly well how super cruise is boring. That F D spent time in their design choice is not at question, what is is the way it is implemented and the lack of revision to enhance it. Lack of a navigation / cruise control computer is one of those. I've argued for a nav computer to manage the the super-cruise rubberbanding mini-game since inception, it's simply tedium that does not add anything to the long term game.

If F D truly have thought about and considered all the objections, they have not explained themselves or their design choices. On this or a number of other things. F D are engaged in a business strategy of getting as many sales from their shallow game as they can. They are doing / have done the bare minimum and that is that. The game they want to create turns out to be the cash cow they want to create...

 

[Alvatore]

Posting to confirm that I like Supercruise, do not want it to have rocks and trees and stuff for me to dodge, do not want it to be "faster" or in some other way cheapened, and don't mind a long cruise from time to time (Hutton Orbital is a completely different story that I will not be reading).

Also, given that E: D was Kickstarted and given that Frontier does have other games, I doubt sticking to their design vision and "making the game they want to make" will put the company out of business.

 

[CMDR Nick]

I'm sure some people like supercruise, but bear in mind that some people like hanging wallpaper, and I met someone once who liked hoovering..