Jump to the Nav Beacon?

[Phoenix_Dfire]

.... or near 7MLs. The proposal would result in the functional equivalent of removing long distance super-cruise.

Pardon my Ignorance but 7MLS?

It doesn't remove long distance super-cruise from systems without a Nav Beacon. I wonder if they could make it an option in the Ship Tab. (I.e. Lock to Nav Beacon) which would allow it to be optional. Could be a good balance, you choose either to go for the long trip which is relatively safe or risk the Nav beacon (with all the consequences that comes with it) but have a shorter trip.

 

[Charonys]

Forcing all jumps to nav beacons is just a really bad idea. If anything, it should be optional. But then, is it really providing much value?

A hauler would have two options: jump to a nav beacon near the target station, avoiding long SC but at the same time increasing risks of getting attacked - or regular jump with long SC and almost no real risk because interdictions are not really a threat (assuming a proper ship build). Obviously, it's personal preference but the risk/reward ratio remains relevant. With that in mind, I'd argue someone with lots of valuable cargo would avoid jumping to a nav beacon because you will become an easy target.

So who would use that option? Players who are willing to fight - mostly with ships that can take a beating or even get kills. But these players would head to nav beacons and other combat sites anyways so in the end, we basically would just cut down travel times for combat-oriented players, maybe the occasional impatient trader who just wants to speed up things.

One could implement the restriction to only allow nav beacon jumps into other systems, but never in-system, meaning SC would still be the only fast travel option within systems - it would just remove "unnecessary" SC if there are multiple stars with possible stations as destinations.

But if the goal is just to avoid some of the "unnecessary" SC, allowing to select which star to jump to would be enough - the direct nav beacon jump isn't needed for that.

If the goal is to add more risk to the game, it needs to be done differently imho.

Either way - if something like this would be added, I'd expect some serious limitations. For example, only certain core systems within the bubble should have "direct to star" or "direct to nav beacon" jump options. Maybe it should be player-influenced, meaning it would require months of real time grind to set this up and then requires maintenance to keep it running. That way, those who really want a short cut (e.g. to hunt cargo ships) would have to work for it instead of just sitting there, waiting for easy targets to arrive.

In general, I don't mind adding more risks or new challenges, but it shouldn't just be risky for one particular playstyle, while making things easier for another playstyle.

 

[Eliza]

Umm what happens if the Nav Beacon is on the other side of the star?

And to your suggestion - no thank you. Having to drop into normal space on every jump when travelling around even in the bubble would be disastrous.

Often enough I find myself juming right THROUGH a star when leaving witchspace. Especially within VR it always scares the s* out of me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Pardon my Ignorance but 7MLS?

It doesn't remove long distance super-cruise from systems without a Nav Beacon. I wonder if they could make it an option in the Ship Tab. (I.e. Lock to Nav Beacon) which would allow it to be optional. Could be a good balance, you choose either to go for the long trip which is relatively safe or risk the Nav beacon (with all the consequences that comes with it) but have a shorter trip.

The distance to Hutton Orbital from the system entry point is 0.22LY, i.e. c.7,000,000 Ls.

That system, I believe, has a Nav Beacon - but only one - there isn't one at Proxima Centauri which is contained within the Aplha Centauri system and not able to be targeted as a system in its own right.

When time advantage is a thing, quicker = default - and there's no issue in Solo from players camping at Nav Beacons.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Forcing all jumps to nav beacons is just a really bad idea. If anything, it should be optional. But then, is it really providing much value?

A hauler would have two options: jump to a nav beacon near the target station, avoiding long SC but at the same time increasing risks of getting attacked - or regular jump with long SC and almost no real risk because interdictions are not really a threat (assuming a proper ship build). Obviously, it's personal preference but the risk/reward ratio remains relevant. With that in mind, I'd argue someone with lots of valuable cargo would avoid jumping to a nav beacon because you will become an easy target.

So who would use that option? Players who are willing to fight - mostly with ships that can take a beating or even get kills. But these players would head to nav beacons and other combat sites anyways so in the end, we basically would just cut down travel times for combat-oriented players, maybe the occasional impatient trader who just wants to speed up things.

One could implement the restriction to only allow nav beacon jumps into other systems, but never in-system, meaning SC would still be the only fast travel option within systems - it would just remove "unnecessary" SC if there are multiple stars with possible stations as destinations.

But if the goal is just to avoid some of the "unnecessary" SC, allowing to select which star to jump to would be enough - the direct nav beacon jump isn't needed for that.

If the goal is to add more risk to the game, it needs to be done differently imho.

Either way - if something like this would be added, I'd expect some serious limitations. For example, only certain core systems within the bubble should have "direct to star" or "direct to nav beacon" jump options. Maybe it should be player-influenced, meaning it would require months of real time grind to set this up and then requires maintenance to keep it running. That way, those who really want a short cut (e.g. to hunt cargo ships) would have to work for it instead of just sitting there, waiting for easy targets to arrive.

In general, I don't mind adding more risks or new challenges, but it shouldn't just be risky for one particular playstyle, while making things easier for another playstyle.

The original idea was to cut down on the more excessive times in supercruise and to increase gameplay opportunities by the risk of being intercepted at Nav Points. You have a Nav beacon around every star in the system and the hyperdrive drops you into the nearest Nav point to any desitination you have selected. You can't mini jump between Nav beacons in the same system.

By making it optional, it would present the player with a risk/ reward option with the reward being a possible saving of five to ten minutes in supercruise.

As far as the Nav point being on the other side of a sun, I'm afraid that would have to be one of those game hand wavium things, like the instant escape pod when your ship is destroyed.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

The distance to Hutton Orbital from the system entry point is 0.22LY, i.e. c.7,000,000 Ls.

That system, I believe, has a Nav Beacon - but only one - there isn't one at Proxima Centauri which is contained within the Aplha Centauri system and not able to be targeted as a system in its own right.

When time advantage is a thing, quicker = default - and there's no issue in Solo from players camping at Nav Beacons.

Now I know where you get the 7MLs.

Yes I know, but under the proposals, there would be Nav beacon next to each star. When you select Hutton Orbital (with it's anaconda for 100 Cr), the Nav computer would select Nav point closest to Hutton and that would be your exit point. However, you select the Alpha Centuri System without Hutton Orbital, you appear at the normal exit point. If you have the option de-selected, then gameplay continues as normal.

However, Even in Solo mode, there is a threat there from NPC ships, although we both know that's not as much as hostile players.

 

[Charonys]

I have a different perspective on this: any form of combat that is forced on me (including interdictions) when I'm not in a combat-capable ship is an annoyance. If I'm trading stuff, I don't want to be interrupted and have my time wasted and my efficiency decreased. The potential "risk" is limited, since it only impacts paper ships. Nothing about this gets me excited when I'm not in the mood to fight. A higher frequency of such encounters would simply force me to fly combat ships all the time and ignore all the other content for the most part.

To give an example: I got chain interdicted five times in a row just yesterday - maybe this is great content for most players, but for me it was super annoying to deal with.

My point is: what I consider exciting/challenging gameplay isn't what you (or others) consider exciting/challenging.

Instead of increasing interdiction rates, maybe making encounters much more dangerous/challenging would introduce more depth.

Wasting my time by forcing me to jump through more additional loops that don't offer anything besides being time sinks isn't really something I'm looking forward to.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

I have a different perspective on this: any form of combat that is forced on me (including interdictions) when I'm not in a combat-capable ship is an annoyance. If I'm trading stuff, I don't want to be interrupted and have my time wasted and my efficiency decreased. The potential "risk" is limited, since it only impacts paper ships. Nothing about this gets me excited when I'm not in the mood to fight. A higher frequency of such encounters would simply force me to fly combat ships all the time and ignore all the other content for the most part.

To give an example: I got chain interdicted five times in a row just yesterday - maybe this is great content for most players, but for me it was super annoying to deal with.

My point is: what I consider exciting/challenging gameplay isn't what you (or others) consider exciting/challenging.

Instead of increasing interdiction rates, maybe making encounters much more dangerous/challenging would introduce more depth.

Wasting my time by forcing me to jump through more additional loops that don't offer anything besides being time sinks isn't really something I'm looking forward to.

Maybe it's because I'm an older player who remembers tonnes of interceptions from the previous game but that's the kind of gameplay I was expecting from ED. That's what I feel that has been missing from Elite: Dangerous, as far as NPCs are concerned, is that feeling of risk if you're trading in a ship, well, as long as there is a chance that ship can defend itself. I.e. Taking a T-9 without a fighter or escort into a low security system should be asking for trouble.

What you got there sounds like something I get irritated by as well. Did you escape the pirate and then the same pirate came after you again and again in supercruise? I always felt that once you escape a pirate, that's it they don't come after you again but a different one might. I do think that's a game balance issue that still needs to be looked at.

 

[Charonys]

What you got there sounds like something I get irritated by as well. Did you escape the pirate and then the same pirate came after you again and again in supercruise? I always felt that once you escape a pirate, that's it they don't come after you again but a different one might. I do think that's a game balance issue that still needs to be looked at.

It was several NPCs due to accepting many different missions at once. I know, that's "what I get" - and it's not the problem. I'd like to experience risks/challenges - interdictions just don't provide that experience for me. Even in open, I'm not really forced to wing up for protection unless I'm heading into certain systems where ganking activity tends to be high.

Maybe this game isn't for me after all. I enjoy many aspects of it, but there is also so much that annoys me because of how it is designed. Most of those annoying aspects are mainly time sinks that aim to simulate complexity, choices or challenges but at their core, they lack the depth I was hoping to find in this game.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A nav is recording ships moving around the system and positional data for POIs, unless you have never visited the system there is no logical reason I can think of for a trader to drop down since destinations bar surface bases are always given to you. It makes sense for BH where you want to track an ID though.

 

[Ezren]

I suggested something similar a few years back, where certain systems caused the ship to drop into the Nav Beacon when arriving - the idea was the repurpose "compromised nav beacons" to this function, creating a bottleneck point for normal space interactions, but in limited systems.

 

[Cmdr Nemo LXXI]

With the advent of the new ADS or what ever it's actual name is. Utilizing a NAV beacon has become less of an issue then it did prior to the new ADS. Unless I actually have business to attend to in a system such as finding pirates or other such missions. I never ever bother with a NAV beacon. I simply honk while I'm scooping and head for my next destinations vector.

Being mandated to stopping at a NAV beacon, then head to the star which is generally close but still backward in comparison to where the vector is, scooping and then heading to the vector seems like a waste of time.

 

[Charonys]

Is this a more or less adequate summary so far?

1) nav beacons could be more relevant

2) SC (especially long distances) could be more exciting

3) traveling solo without proper builds and/or wing escort could be more risky/challenging

 

[Para Handy]

Is this a more or less adequate summary so far?

1) nav beacons could be more relevant

2) SC (especially long distances) could be more exciting

3) traveling solo without proper builds and/or wing escort could be more risky/challenging

NO - that is just your position.