Maybe look at nanite topic in suggestions. The only thing I would suggest was do first two ideas backwards. So the player has to avoid some areas
In system jumps.
- Thread starter LazyCalf
- Start date
Just popping this one in incase anyone missed it.
+1 for micro jumps from me.
I haven't read the thread totally, but I would think there should maybe be a minimum range for this type of jump. say 10,000 (insert appropriate distance of measure here), and only to an object large enough for a certain mass lock (star for example). A huge fuel cost could also be used.
Sure this would already have been mentioned.
I haven't read the thread totally, but I would think there should maybe be a minimum range for this type of jump. say 10,000 (insert appropriate distance of measure here), and only to an object large enough for a certain mass lock (star for example). A huge fuel cost could also be used.
Sure this would already have been mentioned.
not my cup of tea and seem way to easy
maybe you should read the whole tread. Get the facts from both side first.
If you get it completely wrong you can die. Too easy?
EDIT: Possibly these things aren't telegraphed enough in the vid but:
* You have to pilot down the tether. Hitting the central guide or leaving the major envelope causes increased damage.
* Altering the tether path to get the ideal route will also make for trickier piloting on the way in.
* You arrive at speed, hitting the optimal bits of the gravity wells wouldn't be easy.
* Hull & module damage are inevitable, due to the length of the journey as a base stat, with any extra kinks added to your route chipping in.
* Add all this up and: Mess up your braking run on a long jump, and you're dead.
Seems a reasonable mix of challenging & fun to me. But I'm fairly biased on that point
Last edited:
This mechanic is enforced in numerous arbitrary ways throughout the game though. Get an assassination destination... it's on the other side of the system. Get a 'psst I've got new info' sub-chain... guess what your mark is now on the other side of another system, and no it's not an optional wrinkle in this case. Take on a passenger jaunt, find out the second destination (which you couldn't buy the system data for) is... yeah you guessed it
The point is it's a core mechanic. Even if you exercise due diligence you can't avoid it. The only way to avoid it is not to play the game.
Hence the friendly attempts to find some common ground solutions
(Like the one in my sig
. Also in the suggestions forum here. The aim of that one is to allow both play styles to be accommodated )Stealthie
Banned
This mechanic is enforced in numerous arbitrary ways throughout the game though. Get an assassination destination... it's on the other side of the system. Get a 'psst I've got new info' sub-chain... guess what your mark is now on the other side of another system, and no it's not an optional wrinkle in this case. Take on a passenger jaunt, find out the second destination (which you couldn't buy the system data for) is... yeah you guessed it
The point is it's a core mechanic. Even if you exercise due diligence you can't avoid it. The only way to avoid it is not to play the game.
You know you can abandon missions, right?
You know that's completely ignoring my point, and the antithesis of fun, right?
Stealthie
Banned
Is it?
If I take on, say, a combat mission which turns out to be too difficult for me, would it be reasonable for me to suggest that combat should be made easier so that I can accomplish the mission and that if I can't it's the "antithesis of fun"?
Or, would it be smart for me just to abandon the mission and accept that there's stuff I'm not cut out for?
It's been doing fine for 30 pages without me.
Hitting a skill ceiling is pretty damn distinct from avoiding a tedious game mechanic. (Beyond the gaming complexity implied, there's still fun involved, given the invitation to growth and learning. I normally enjoy bugging out from a fight - living to fight another day is dramatic and uses a suite of processes - while also motivating me to improve and win out next time.)
Your example also falls down in the sense that you can interrogate potential difficulty level in advance in this game. Whereas these lengthy zero-game zones are frequently entirely unflagged and impossible to predict or mitigate against. You can't gird your loins, git gud, or enjoy the process of failure here.
And you've raised a straw man in suggesting I'm saying the equivalent of 'combat should be made easier'. I'm not. I've said clearly I think 'tedium as challenge' should remain in the game for those that want it. I'm just saying providing a skill based alternative for those that want it is possible and would be win-win. (Which is a preferable alternative to making everything interrogable in advance, leading to no emergent surprises and gameplay fluidity etc).
Last edited:
Stealthie
Banned
Don't really see the difference in context of whether or not abandoning a mission is "the antithesis of fun".
If it is, that must be the case for all missions, regardless of the reasons for abandoning it, which means any adjustment that allows a player to avoid that "antithesis of fun" is equally valid.
Or, alternatively, we just have to accept that some people aren't going to like some missions and those missions can be abandoned.
Is it?
If I take on, say, a combat mission which turns out to be too difficult for me, would it be reasonable for me to suggest that combat should be made easier so that I can accomplish the mission and that if I can't it's the "antithesis of fun"?
Or, would it be smart for me just to abandon the mission and accept that there's stuff I'm not cut out for?
It's been doing fine for 30 pages without me.
False analogy with combat missions. Or are you saying that the zero player input task of watching space dust for 30 minutes is actually a difficult task requiring skill for you ?
Stealthie
Banned
That's missing the point.
The point was that abandoning a mission is "the antithesis of fun" - you were provided with something that should be fun but you discovered that you don't want to do it for some reason and your only remaining choice is to abandon it - thus foregoing the fun which a game should provide.
If we're debating whether or not it's a reasonable option to abandon something which should have been fun but isn't, that should apply equally, for any reason.
Course, the reality is that there are all sorts of things that can happen in all sorts of missions which might lead to a player choosing to abandon it if they're smart.
That's just the nature of the game.
You don't see the difference between failing a mission, using a suite of designed mechanics (chaff, modular damage, ECM, evasive flying, mass lock etc etc etc), versus abandoning a mission because it's suddenly changed its parameters massively and become incredibly tedious with no warning?
A fairer comparison here would be if an AI boss was unbalanced and performed as a nigh-unkillable tank, causing you to abandon the mission because you found the process not worth the time commitment or fun-to-reward ratio. And I think we could agree that would be poor game design at play...
I realise now that you see tedium endurance as a skill. And honestly, as I say, you are welcome to your skill. Just don't arbitrarily enforce it on others. That is the game design decision that is particularly poor.
Sure, sure.
But what's the point beyond the usual : "don't like it, don't play" it argument ?
Which is all remains when one does boil down your arguments regarding making long SC trips more interesting, skill based and possibly shorter.
But what's the point beyond the usual : "don't like it, don't play" it argument ?
Which is all remains when one does boil down your arguments regarding making long SC trips more interesting, skill based and possibly shorter.
Stealthie
Banned
The point is: "don't like it, do something else instead"
There's nothing in ED which requires long SC trips that isn't also available without long SC trips too.
Dunno why some people always seem to feel the need for everything to be changed to suit them - apparently without considering that it might undermine that thing for others.
Stealthie
Banned
I'm not "arbitrarily enforcing it" on anybody.
I'm not responsible for the game FDev created.
I'm just comfortable with the idea that not everything in the game should be changed to suit me, I'm willing to accept that other people's opinions of a thing are as valid as mine and that FDev might've created certain things in the way they are deliberately so it's a waste of time moaning about them.
While this may be true, surely you can see that not knowing in advance whether a long trip is going to be imposed is an issue?
Who is asking for this? This seems like an exaggerated black/white response to any request for alteration. There are much more nuanced solutions being mooted.
---
Allow me to offer some statements I think we could all agree on:
- Some players prefer Time-vs-Reward gameplay.
- Some players prefer Risk-vs-Reward gameplay.
- Accommodating both play styles would be best wherever possible.
---
Personally I think it's possible in this case. And hey, in versions like my idea, everyone also gets an Orrery. Win-win, surely!
Last edited:
I think people see it as an experience and obviously don't see it as tedious. Nothing to do with skill.
If the parameters of the mission changes to something I don't want then I dump the mission. It can be annoying at times, but it happens so rarely that is isn't a major concern for me.
If a faster more skill based version of supercruise came along it wouldn't bother me and it wouldn't bother me if it never came either. I don't see it as necessary for the game at all. I would prefer them to work on more pressing issues to be honest.