In system jumps.
- Thread starter LazyCalf
- Start date
Good comparison Elite Dangerous and FSX.
Because it doesn't target stars. It targets the largest gravity source in the system
Yes, and as I understand 'ED science' then that can only work at distances measured in light years and not light seconds .... i.e. from a very long way away! The FSD 'locks on' to the largest gravity source of the system you are targeting. Any star that is 100000ls from the main star is only 27.8 light hours - or just over a light day - away from it. From a distance of (say) 4lys (distance of nearest star to Sol, to use a 'local' analogy) then this is 1460 light days and the perceptible difference at that distance is only 0.0008 of the distance, or 8 hundredths of one percent. I suggest that this makes it difficult/impossible for the FSD to lock onto a smaller gravity source when there is a larger one perceived at this type of imperceptible difference in distance at that range!
I would also suggest that hyper-spacial distances have to be substantial for the 'hyperspace conduit' (or whatever we might call it!!!) such that it can only be opened at a distance much greater than distances measured in light seconds .... even that out to Hutton!!! It might be said that if you tried, the 'ends' of the 'conduit' would be so close together that they would collapse into one another!
That's my thoughts, anyway!
Last edited:
That right there illustrates how the current player base is coming from two different starting positions.
Early on, FDev (DDF/Beta forums) stated that E: D is more "Simulation" than "Game," and that's by design. FDev always approached this starting from a core simulation, conceding some realism where it made sense (dogfighting combat for example). This is a direct reason they gave why a "model" of the Milky Way, and not just a representation, was implemented (also why they continue to update the model based upon new discoveries, good luck with Gaia).
Older players remembering those discussions/explanations approach this whole concept from the starting point of being a simulation, whereas newer players not privy to those old threads come in and only see the timesinks/grind as bad game design. Neither side is wrong given their perspective, but we really need to reach a common ground to keep us all on the same page.
Otherwise we're just arguing why what works for a simulation doesn't work for a game (and I don't think the two sides disagree much in this regard).
Yes because that's a simulation not a game.
You can't really have bad game design in a simulation, because your not designing a game.
Last edited:
Are we really arguing about "scale" and immersion?? Really? Ok white knights, riddle me this. Why is it ok that a 3 ly jump takes exactly as long as a 60 LY jump? Why is it ok to travel 60 LY in 45 seconds but we should have gameplay so dull and understimulating that we should sit and drool like a vegetable for an hour while we travel 1/5 of a light year? Netflix you say?? Ok. A game so boring you need a distraction from it. Literally just waiting for time to pass and your death to creep closer. Mindless Elitism at it's best. Pun intended.
Stealthie
Banned
And, if ED has been designed with the intention of creating a similar sort of concept, that'd mean the long, tedious, bits were there intentionally rather than being "poor game design", no?
I think you're conflating original design intent with what was feasible.
If ED had only ever stuck with their original design intent, then neutron star boosts (something which is pretty much universally welcomed) would never have become a thing. SRV's, SLF's, multicrew, different station designs, GalNet audio, etc...
All these things were added after the game was released, and weren't necessarily part of the original design.
Why should we be so opposed to something just because it wasn't in the original design?
In fact, I'm going to just come right and say that anyone opposed to in-system jumps (or any variation thereof) should also be opposed to Neutron Star boosts for the same reasons.
Honestly, I think the only solution which would please both sides would be to split off an Elite Arcade game, as I've previously posted in the Suggestions forum. Instant travel to anywhere, instant free ship and module transport, a starter Anaconda, easy engineering with free materials, etc., and all the pew pew you want.
Then the rest of us could play ED in peace.
That's a very interesting point. I do like using NS boosts.
If similar limitations were placed on in-system jumping, I could accept it. The biggest is that neutron stars are rare. They will also do some damage to your ship. A similar approach to in-system jumps would be the star-gates I proposed earlier in this thread. Put a hundred or so in the bubble and they will be pirate bait.
I could live with that, as long as there was no gate to Hutton Orbital.
And thats the thing. The original concept may have been along the lines of a simulator. But its far from a simulator now. Simulators use logic and real world thought process.
Tell me in logic and real world processes why.
-Better scanners take up roughly the weight of a car each and in modules when the ship already have scanners. (Wouldn't it just be an upgrade to standard scanner).
- a fuel scoop weighs nothing.
-cargo racks weigh nothing.
-materials and data somehow get stored in your escape pod. But other data doesn't.
-a 400cr bounty equals death penalty.
-your allied to a faction/system but the faction/system security doesn't acknowledge that.
-a docking computer (basically autopilot) can dock but not undock.
-while using docking computer speeding, bumping etc doesn't count.
-npc bang into you but you get the warning or fine.
-npcs can friendly fire you but not acceptable the other way round.
Can go on and on.
Its not a simulation anymore and never really was. The only thing you can call a simulation is the galaxy itself.
That's a bit harsh I think. I'm also against in-system jumps, but there was no rage or hard complaining in OPs post.
Note the OP only made the tread and has not returned. So almost 30 pages and one post. To me it looks like they did this to cause trouble.
So much this!
to quote FDEV: We don't want to waste your time.
90 mins flight to hutton.
45 mins to Smeaton
other 30+ mins of flight where nothing happens and you just sit there and watch the screen go woosh woosh.
I'm not saying put an instant mode in, but make it reasonable. 5 mins of flight - sure, I take it.
45 mins or anything the likes: Nope!
I only get to play an hour or 2 a day, if that, I'd like to play the game, not watch a movie when I'd like to play the game.
anything above 30 mins is wasting time.
If you re-read the OP's post you'll see that he wasn't trying to cause trouble, only express an opinion based on experience - something I'm pretty sure this forum allows people to do.
The OP was polite, raised valid points, was open-minded, and his post has sparked a lively discussion where various people have had their minds changed and expectations adjusted. Some opinions have been reinforced, whilst others have been changed. Either way, this has been a good and worthwhile discussion.
Now take a look at your own posts in this thread, Velixar - not really as polite or open-minded are they?
Stealthie
Banned
I'm not opposing anything on the basis that it wasn't part of the original design concept.
I asked whether the ONLY reason for boring stuff might be poor game design.
The reply was yes. That can be the only reason for boring stuff.
Clearly, that isn't the case though. There can be boring stuff because a dev' intends to portray something which includes elements of boredom.
There's more to it than that though.
My original question was posed in response to another question asking whether it's good game design to include boring stuff.
The first thing, there, is that boredom is a subjective thing.
What one person finds "boring", another person might find tense, compelling and immersive.
The 2nd thing is that a game design choice that some people might find "boring" might have been made for a justifiable reason.
By way of example, I'd certainly admit that I find mat' gathering boring but I'd hope FDev never capitulate completely to people who moan about it and make mat's freely available to purchase because that would completely undermine the value and achievement of engineering.
If a dev' can find a way to keep one bunch of people happy without upsetting another bunch of people, or placing them at a disadvantage as a result of the changes that have been made, or undermining other aspects of the game, then I'm all for it but not otherwise.
I can't help noticing that a lot of the people in this thread are the same ones who were wailing about long-haul passenger missions getting nerfed.
That being the case, I have a sneaking suspicion that the real motive for moaning about the "boredom" of in-system travel is the desire to minimise the time to complete those passenger missions.
Which is going to undermine the original concept of those missions (that they require patience to complete) and place people who choose to forego the new feature at a financial disadvantage to those who use it (completing one run per hour instead of multiple runs).
Overall, I see many, many reasons not to create any kind of "hyper-cruise".
It allows people to complete missions far more quickly than intended.
It is likely to allow people to avoid interdictions that were intended as a hazard of the missions involved.
It is likely to allow people to avoid PvP.
It will cause people to miss other elements of gameplay that FDev has implemented as part of in-system travel.
It removes the sense of scale from the game.
By contrast, I only see one reason to implement "hyper-cruise".
It allows people to do things that they currently find "too boring" to bother with.
Thing is, for everything that somebody might find "too boring" to bother with, there's something else which won't be as boring.
If you're exploring and a body is too far away for you to bother travelling to, jump to a different system.
If you're running missions and a destination is too far away for you to bother making the journey, take a different mission.
Quit demanding everything gets changed to suit you.
Accept that other people might want other things and they're just as entitled to have what they want as you are.
Last edited:
I agree with you here. One of the major problems is it tries to tow the line between both worlds, and doesn't do either particularly well.
You should have read my earlier post. When I pointed out one topic and multiple idea not a good idea. We had one guy seem to go nuts because there multiple ideas they think we are ignoring their idea. But fact is people are getting confused with the multiple ideas.
I also disagree with the OP. I'm with the game is a type of simulator then a arcade game. So there no easy mode. Only player choices. If something to far you have the decide is the distance worth it for you.
Be a hero post your idea in suggestions so people can point out the pro. and cons. of your idea.