In system jumps.

[VR Golgot]

Let see. I am on Distance world II and they added this feature There 2 groups of 2 thousand people each. The lazy mirojump group and the patient explorer group. We are all going the same locations who loses out? By the time the patient player get to their destination. The lazy mirojump group has already explored and gone explored 6x the systems patient group. How is that fair? It not. See the Lazy Mirojump group has an I win button.

Or you have a micro-jump system which damages your craft in ways that can't be repaired in the deep black (or potentially only with the rarest of mats, and then only partially), and you have a system that makes all of the above pretty moot.

The 'risky explorer' might burn off the odd jump, risking death and all his payola, but most won't, and that probably fits with the pass-time. Let the time-to-reward guys have their distant suns if they so want. The galaxy is big, as Frenotx says

Here what selfish. Not using common sense. When you do exploration or accepting missions. Also, why not blame your Job or school for keeping you away from the game.

It's just a silly pejorative for people who think differently to yourself. You should realise that.

Most people complaining about enforced transits are talking about those that can't be second guessed through mission interrogation etc. These are totally valid complaints and dismissing the complainants as 'lazy', let alone 'selfish', reflects badly on you and you alone I'm afraid.

 

[Ayerc]

My only concern would be the pre-load for each system might be larger under such an approach?)

Could be, but that's why programmers get paychecks.

 

[Frenotx]

I've had enough of you, Stealthie. The amount of shifting and circular movements you do in your arguments makes trying to have a debate almost as tedious as the long supercruise trips we're discussing. Have fun.

 

[Lestat]

I've had enough of you, Stealthie. The amount of shifting and circular movements you do in your arguments makes trying to have a debate almost as tedious as the long supercruise trips we're discussing. Have fun.

And your not doing the same?

 

[Lestat]

Or you have a micro-jump system which damages your craft in ways that can't be repaired in the deep black (or potentially only with the rarest of mats, and then only partially), and you have a system that makes all of the above pretty moot.

It would have to be in a realm of being fair for both sides. Mats that could only be collected by combat.

The 'risky explorer' might burn off the odd jump, risking death and all his payola, but most won't, and that probably fits with the pass-time. Let the time-to-reward guys have their distant suns if they so want. The galaxy is big, as Frenotx says

It would have to be in a really risky when it could not be used more than 5 10 times. Here why their nebulas and such so it easy to be repaired in the deep.

It's just a silly pejorative for people who think differently to yourself. You should realise that.

Thing is we have 400 billion systesms all shape and sizes. All someone has to do go oh this system too big for me and pick another system. That an easy choice.

Most people complaining about enforced transits are talking about those that can't be second guessed through mission interrogation etc. These are totally valid complaints and dismissing the complainants as 'lazy', let alone 'selfish', reflects badly on you and you alone I'm afraid.

On the mission you can collect info on that mission and have a second guess. We also have to understand there Combat mission you can't do because your ship is not built for that mission. Like a type 7 in a combat mission. You have to dump that mission. We can also say the same thing with a mission for trading let say 1200 cargo and you have a cobra. Which would require 35 to 40 trips to complete. You have to use some common sense to go oh that mission not worth it for me.

 

[Straha Yeagar]

It would have to be in a realm of being fair for both sides. Mats that could only be collected by combat.

It would have to be in a really risky when it could not be used more than 5 10 times. Here why their nebulas and such so it easy to be repaired in the deep.


Thing is we have 400 billion systesms all shape and sizes. All someone has to do go oh this system too big for me and pick another system. That an easy choice.

On the mission you can collect info on that mission and have a second guess. We also have to understand there Combat mission you can't do because your ship is not built for that mission. You have to dump that mission. We can also say the same thing with a mission for trading let say 1200 cargo and you have a cobra. Which would require 35 to 40 trips to complete. You have to use some common sense to go oh that mission not worth it for me.

We should have a special module that allows Conda's, and only Conda's because the Cutter and Vette are locked behind disrespectful time gates, to dock at outposts so I don't have to disrespect my time by switching into another ship.

Though I do think it would be neat to have the ability to fit a shuttle into the fighterbay that could be used to ferry cargo, say 24 tons at a time, from a big ship to the outpost.

 

[VR Golgot]

On the mission you can collect info on that mission and have a second guess.

Except when you can't. IE scenarios like this. You can take all the precautions that you like, spend a ton of time in due diligence and careful mission selection, and still get stung by unflagged and non-optional switcheroos.

(And honestly, I'm not against that as a principle. I like being able to sniff the shape of how a mission might go, but wouldn't want them to be entirely predictable from their outline. But having this particular surprise thrown at you is deeply un-fun for many players).

I don't really get what's 'selfish' about being annoyed at the above scenarios. Or about trying to find solutions that could suit all playstyles (which ideally the micro-jumps I'm suggesting could possible do....)

 

[Lestat]

We should have a special module that allows Conda's, and only Conda's because the Cutter and Vette are locked behind disrespectful time gates, to dock at outposts so I don't have to disrespect my time by switching into another ship.

Though I do think it would be neat to have the ability to fit a shuttle into the fighterbay that could be used to ferry cargo, say 24 tons at a time, from a big ship to the outpost.

Best to make a new topic on this one.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

As opposed to those who want to keep timesinks in the game for sheer arrogant greed...

99.9% of the games offer instant gratification. Let us losers have our own playground as it is.

 

[Lestat]

Except when you can't. IE scenarios like this. You can take all the precautions that you like, spend a ton of time in due diligence and careful mission selection, and still get stung by unflagged and non-optional switcheroos.

(And honestly, I'm not against that as a principle. I like being able to sniff the shape of how a mission might go, but wouldn't want them to be entirely predictable from their outline. But having this particular surprise thrown at you is deeply un-fun for many players).

I don't really get what's 'selfish' about being annoyed at the above scenarios. Or about trying to find solutions that could suit all playstyles (which ideally the micro-jumps I'm suggesting could possible do....)

You have to roll the dice. Every mission should not be smelling like a bed of roses. Sometimes you have to smell the poo hidden in the bed of roses. That could be jumping 300 systems out or one system that could be 300k ls out. Both take time and effort.

 

[VR Golgot]

You have to roll the dice. Every mission should not be smelling like a bed of roses. Sometimes you have to smell the poo hidden in the bed of roses. That could be jumping 300 systems out or one system that could be 300k ls out. Both take time and effort.

I agree on a range of outcomes, but this is a blunderbuss. And more damningly, it is thunderously unfun for a large slice of the player population when that particular dice ends up a 6...

 

[Straha Yeagar]

I agree on a range of outcomes, but this is a blunderbuss. And more damningly, it is thunderously unfun for a large slice of the player population.

Good thing it is as rare as the players who don't mind it then.

 

[Lestat]

I agree on a range of outcomes, but this is a blunderbuss. And more damningly, it is thunderously unfun for a large slice of the player population.

You can say the same thing with 300 jumps. Should we add jump gates because of it too far? But we have a CHOICE not to do them.

We can also make the same argument on Combat mission of a player has not so combat ship. We have the choice to drop it.

We can look at traders. If you have a Cobra MKIII and accept a mission that has 1200 cargo you have to do 30 to 40 Back and forth to Point A to Point B. Is it worth it to you?

You keep forgetting you have to look at it as. Is it worth it to you? If not you also have the choice to not accept the mission. Some mission you have to roll the dice and see how it plays out.

 

[Straha Yeagar]

You can say the same thing with 300 jumps. Should we add jump gates because of it too far? But we have a CHOICE not to do them.

We can also make the same argument on Combat mission of a player has not so combat ship. We have the choice to drop it.

We can look at traders. If you have a Cobra MKIII and accept a mission that has 1200 cargo you have to do 30 to 40 Back and forth to Point A to Point B. Is it worth it to you?

You keep forgetting you have to look at it as. Is it worth it to you? If not you also have the choice to not accept the mission. Some mission you have to roll the dice and see how it plays out.

Or you only have a cargo ship that can land on large pads.

 

[VR Golgot]

Good thing it is as rare as the players who don't mind it then.

You really do love an errant aphorism don't you.

 

[VR Golgot]

You can say the same thing with 300 jumps. Should we add jump gates because of it too far? But we have a CHOICE not to do them.

You have choice in all of these examples, but not in the ones I'm talking about. So... pretty rubbish comparisons my friend :/

 

[Ayerc]

You have choice in all of these examples, but not in the ones I'm talking about. So... pretty rubbish comparisons my friend :/

Not really true, though. You always have the choice to abort the mission. It may not be the most palatable choice, but it is ever-present.

 

[Lestat]

You have choice in all of these examples, but not in the ones I'm talking about. So... pretty rubbish comparisons my friend :/

See you don't want the roll the dice mission. Thing is. You don't have to accept them. If you don't like the bed of roses mission that might have a skunk in it then don't accept them. Risk reward.

Not really true, though. You always have the choice to abort the mission. It may not be the most palatable choice, but it is ever-present.

He wants a game that has no randomness to it.

 

[VR Golgot]

Not really true, though. You always have the choice to abort the mission. It may not be the most palatable choice, but it is ever-present.

Of course, but the argument is: If you can't discern the destination flip in advance, and the destination flip is unfun, and the abort option equally so, is this not bad design?

EDIT: Some arbitrary punishment and loss in a game is to be expected, but this is essentially coded in and repetitious. It could, and should, be 'fixed', over time, in a way that suits all parties. In a way that offers a glimmer of chose-your-own poison, in terms of gamer satisfaction.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Look, I get that truckers have rights and fetishes too. So how about microjumps without cargo?