In system jumps.

[VR Golgot]

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.

These things happen mid mission. Risk-reward normally refers to skill determining the outcome. There is no skill component here. No knowledge edge. Nothing.

He wants a game that has no randomness to it.

I've specifically said there should be many unpredictible outcomes, and that I don't think total oversight & predictability is the solution. So, nope.

I am suggesting that an undesirable game outcome at this frequency is sub-optimal though. It really, really, isn't that outlandish a claim.

 

[Ayerc]

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

I would classify that as bad design in the context in which you framed it. But to me, that is a fault of the mission design, not the travel mechanics. Advocating for changing the travel system to solve bad mission design seems like a convoluted solution.

While I agree supercruise could be more fun/interesting, that is really a much different discussion with much wider ranging implications. Though the mission criticism holds up well when discussing mission design, it's much less effective when justifying travel system changes.

 

[Lestat]

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

No it a great game design. See we are not 6 years old playing a game that set to an easy mode like Minecraft in creative mode.

I look at it as Gambling. Is the odds worth it to you?

 

[Ayerc]

No it a great game design. See we are not 6 years old playing a game that set to an easy mode like Minecraft in creative mode.

I look at it as Gambling. Is the odds worth it to you?

To be fair, it is very poor game design, but very good simulation design. While Elite: Dangerous toes the line between those two, it creates a lot of different player expectations.

 

[VR Golgot]

I would classify that as bad design in the context in which you framed it. But to me, that is a fault of the mission design, not the travel mechanics. Advocating for changing the travel system to solve bad mission design seems like a convoluted solution.

While I agree supercruise could be more fun/interesting, that is really a much different discussion with much wider ranging implications. Though the mission criticism holds up well when discussing mission design, it's much less effective when justifying travel system changes.

I see your point, but the main solutions on the missions front are either [a] Make them completely transparent & predictable (booo), or Excise long trek surprises, which some enjoy (booo).

That's why I prefer to make my lemons with a jump solution . On the understanding that it aim to allow both gaming instincts to be enjoyed. (Tough ask, but I think there are corollary benefits to be had in some solutions: SC content, system gameplay variety guided by their layouts etc )

 

[KellyR]

I think we've said all there needs to be said in this thread. It should be locked.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

You can get an ointment for that.

It's called Ronin.

You'll love the new Crime And Punishment then.

Why?
Again, I have no beef with you. I like watching youtube while I'm playing a game.
What else is there to do, count down ETA seconds? And I do not do drugs so I have a hard time imagining myself dealing with rigors of spess.

And how about microjumps with no cargo onboard only?

I have meds, but they only help so much...

 

[Ralph Vargr]

So, if neither of us are likely to run out of sand, why do YOU insist on having a shovel?



No,

The only thing that's happened is that you've failed to understand what's been said.

The earlier discussion was about UNEXPECTED long-haul travel. That is uncommon enough to not justify micro-jumps.

I offered no opinion on how common long-haul travel is in general.

Personally, I'd guess that it's involved in, say, 10% of missions at most.
And they'll all be missions for which there's a similar mission available which doesn't involve long-haul travel.

That being the case, there is (once again) no justification for micro-jumps.



So, your only defence of a hypothetical proposal is "it might not be like that"?

Well, in that case I'm afraid I'll have to refute that by saying "Well, it might be like that".



That makes no sense.

Regardless of what mode is in use a player who is willing to use micro-jumps will always have a potential advantage available to them.

And, don't bother going with the whole "it's depend on implementation" thing again to prove your point because it's just as easy for me to argue the opposite.



So abandon the mission and take another one.

In fact, take half a dozen and just abandon any that look like they'll bore you.

Entrenching tool, not shovel.

Yup, anything that can be exploited, has *already* been exploited, even if it hasn't even been implemented yet.

But, I still intend on making the supercruise video, and challenging Frontier senior management watch it, for charity, of course.

 

[nanite2000]

Yes, you keep saying that even though I've already told you that if there are bodies in a system which you can't explore due to a lack of time (which, TBH, I don't really believe) then there's no reason you can't just jump to a different system instead.

Why shouldn't I be able to jump to a far off star? Why should that be out of bounds to me just because I don't have as much free time as you?

Why is the idea of someone having less free time than you so hard to believe?

Beyond that, you're ignoring what I said about unbalancing/undermining other aspects of the game.
If, for example, passenger missions which currently take an hour to complete because of the long travel time could be completed in minutes, it'd remove the reason to make them highly-paid.

Only if it way designed that way. That could easily be mitigated by making the drive injector fuel so expensive that it offsets any profits from long-range missions.

I mean, surely you're not looking at stuff like passenger missions which take an hour to complete and thinking "Wow! those missions are a great way to make credits but I wish I could complete them in 10 minutes!" are you?
Cos, if you are, and you think FDev will implement hyper-cruise and leave the rewards as they are, you're dreaming.

I think the above sentences say more than you than they do about me. I have rarely taken any passenger missions, let alone long-range passenger missions, because they don't interest me.

What I read from your statement is that you have found those long-range passenger missions area great way to make credits, and because you have a lot more free time on your hands, you have an unfair advantage over people like me who have less free time.

And you feel that your unfair advantage is being threatened.

 

[nanite2000]

I'm not "arbitrarily enforcing it" on anybody.
I'm not responsible for the game FDev created.

You can't robustly defend the game 'as is' and then absolve yourself of any responsibility of changing it.

The game evolves. You need to evolve with it.

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.

No one suggested *everything* in the game should change to suit them. If FDev weren't open to the idea of having their game changed, then they wouldn't have a Suggestions forum in the first place.

The game won't survive if people don't allow it to evolve.

I think this:

I'm just comfortable

Says it all.

 

[nanite2000]

Exactly.

And, let's face it, despite the protestations about lack of time and inconvenience, the main result of this is going to be that people are going to absolutely hammer the living poop out of it to make credits out of long-haul passenger/cargo missions with the result that they'll end up getting nerfed again.

Which means that, despite all the "if you don't like it, don't use it" rhetoric, the only way people currently doing those missions would be able to maintain their current rate of earning would be to start using it too.

Or, they could balance the jump-drive mechanic to offset any profits from long-range passenger missions being done more quickly.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Or, they could balance the jump-drive mechanic to offset any profits from long-range passenger missions being done more quickly.

Like restricting doing it with cargo...

 

[nanite2000]

The only compromise that can work is the one that already exists, whereby most gameplay is suitable for those who get bored easily but a tiny amount is designed to appeal to those with more patience.

Go do something else instead.

Again, these sentences say a lot about you.

Any jump drive mechanic can come with associated balance. It's not our fault you're too narrow minded to consider that.

 

[Kopachris]

Why shouldn't I be able to jump to a far off star? Why should that be out of bounds to me just because I don't have as much free time as you?

Why is the idea of someone having less free time than you so hard to believe?

There are missions to Colonia, the same as there are missions to distant stars orbiting nearby systems. By your logic, we should allow people the option to instantly jump to Colonia because some people don't have enough free time to go there themselves.

Lots of games have time gates! Why is this one special that it should be removed?

EDIT: Personally, I'd be in favor of increasing supercruise speeds generally--make it quicker to reach top speed and increase the top speed--but not intra-system jumps.

 

[nanite2000]

Exploration: You can make more discoveries, more quickly.

Unlikely, since you could still rack up more cr/hr by just jumping to another system. There would still be more time investment required to get to secondary stars that are far way.

Missions: The ability to complete missions much quicker, and thus earn far more cr/hr is likely to lead to reduced mission payments for everybody.

Only if it was designed that way.

PvP: Reduced opportunities for combat.

Only if it was designed that way.

CGs: Reduced delivery time improves ranking.

What ranking? If you want to rank up quickly, there would still be better/faster ways to do so.

BGS: Reduced delivery times alters outcome.

Example?

General: Increased earning potential means you can accrue funds more quickly to your further advantage.

And why would that be a bad thing? How is that any different to you using your free time to your own personal advantage to take on lots of long-range missions that are not feasible for most other people?

Never understood the whole "What I do doesn't affect you" thing, TBH. It's a blatant lie.

I think this says a lot about you and your opinion of other people.

 

[Stealthie]

Or, they could balance the jump-drive mechanic to offset any profits from long-range passenger missions being done more quickly.

Given that you seem to be replying to all my posts individually, I look forward to your response to the comparison I offered using a T9 as an example.

 

[nanite2000]

There are missions to Colonia, the same as there are missions to distant stars orbiting nearby systems. By your logic, we should allow people the option to instantly jump to Colonia because some people don't have enough free time to go there themselves.

There we go with the 'slippery slope' argument again.

No one is asking for that. We're just asking for a means to travel between distant star within the same system more quickly.

Do you also have the same objections to engineered FSD drive range, and neutron star boosts?

If not, why not?

 

[nanite2000]

Given that you seem to be replying to all my posts individually, I look forward to your response to the comparison I offered using a T9 as an example.

Sure. Which post was it?

Edit: Found it and replied: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/423725-In-system-jumps?p=6656672&viewfull=1#post6656672

 

[Kopachris]

There we go with the 'slippery slope' argument again.

No one is asking for that. We're just asking for a means to travel between distant star within the same system more quickly.

Do you also have the same objections to engineered FSD drive range, and neutron star boosts?

If not, why not?

No, I think those have finally struck about the right balance on travel speed to distant systems. That's consistent with my preference for a general increase in supercruise speed but not an intra-system jump.

 

[LazyCalf]

its scale isnt the problem. i think the multiple hundred billion of stars very clearly shows how big the game is.
but half an hour of cruising?
that's not a feature,
thats not an aspect.
exploring already only is jump- scoop, charge fsd-system map- jump.

so forcing players to wait half an hour sometimes LONGER isn't 'fair'.
and neither is it greedy.
don't kid yourself.
it's just a mechanic the devs have yet to implement, because everybody is crying about space legs and atmospheric planets.

if they wanted you to sit there and do literally nothing for a very long period of time, they would give you things to keep you interested.
some say space legs would help significantly in this regard.
but even that would get old when you're just sitting there cruising at >500c to a system.

and it's not more for me to discover or claim either - because there's still 99% of the galaxy still unmapped. so there's no shortages of undiscovered planets/ systems out there.
it's also immersion breaking (i know, the old immersion chestnut)
if hyperspace allows you to jump to stars (its literally how it's described) thats how we circumnavigate the galaxy, jumping from 1 star to another

then why cant i jump to a star literally 15 minutes away?
it makes no sense.

and no matter the excuses desperate players will try and give me, thats just it.

it does make no sense. and that's it. end of.
there's no excuse to be had that adequately excuses the fact you can't jump from 1 star to another.
that literally what the frame shift drive does. that's literally hyperspace in this game.

and i've jumped from one system to another less than 0.3 light years away from eachother near the galactic core, and i can hyperspace jump there.
and thats only a couple of million of light seconds. compared the the 500k light seconds from in system jumps. whilst 500k is different to 3 million, its not really.

so go on, let's see what you guys say, i want to see how desperate the immersion heads get when they're told something makes no sense.

its like saying the SRV mechanics are good because of the gravity. it's just wrong. i shouldnt be wheelspinning in an offroad 6 wheel vehicle designed specifically for this job, just like i should be able to make a jump over 300k light seconds away.

i wouldnt even care if doing an in system jump would be 300% more fuel cost, or basically over heats your ship.

and i dont care what whiny cry babies say either.
you should be able to push the boundaries of your ship. it should be made a risk that i have to decide whether or not i want to take.
it has no bounds on immersion,
in fact,

not being able to jump to a star so far away i cant even see it for 15 minutes is so immersion breaking, that i dont know why players are trying to defend it.
it's like movie lovers trying to defend a massive plot hole in their favirote film.