Limpet Controllers - Good mechanics, but here's how to make it better

rptb1

rptb1
Gameplay balance changes should not be justified by inventing reasons in the science fiction setting. Arguing about the setting might be fun, but it won't improve the gameplay.

Meaningful choices with consequences (gameplay) should not be deleted in the name of convenience. Convenience is the opposite of gameplay. Bowing to convenience has caused the decay of may games. Games need inconvenience (challenges) and the tools to get around them (planning and execution). In this case, the inconvenience of choosing which limpet controllers in advance of making a journey, and the compromises in internal module slots, are gameplay decisions that should not be deleted.

To be a bit more concrete, this would be a step in the direction of allowing every ship to do everything all the time. That's a bad direction. The destination is a boring game.
 

Suraknar

S
rptb1 said:
Gameplay balance changes should not be justified by inventing reasons in the science fiction setting. Arguing about the setting might be fun, but it won't improve the gameplay.

Meaningful choices with consequences (gameplay) should not be deleted in the name of convenience. Convenience is the opposite of gameplay. Bowing to convenience has caused the decay of may games. Games need inconvenience (challenges) and the tools to get around them (planning and execution). In this case, the inconvenience of choosing which limpet controllers in advance of making a journey, and the compromises in internal module slots, are gameplay decisions that should not be deleted.
Click to expand...
Hmm,it seems like the premise forgets a key element, Fun. How about Fun Challenges and Fun Consequences and Fun Rewards? The underlying principle of a Game is to provide Fun first and foremost and the cardinal rule is that "Players are here to play your game in order to have fun".

As such, Gameplay is not defined only as "Meaningful Choices with Consequences" but also include Rewards and Convenience, Fun Challenges and Fun Problem Solving.

If you remove the "Fun" out of it, then you are describing a punishment system instead not a game system, and a game's goal is not to punish its players.

Balance, means to know how to dose challenge & consequences along with convenience and rewards in such a way as to create Fun Gameplay for the player. This is what every average game strives to do.

Great & Amazing games also know how to blend in that Balance, narrative, theme and setting providing thus a relevant gateway of intuitive avenues to the player that makes sense, gives meaning and generates a level of immersion.

And according to my play experience unfoirtunatelly some Games have made the wrong choices in this regard,ignoring the feedback of players seeking to have fun and thus point out unfun mechanics and gameplay while catering to players with mazochistic tendencies seeking more and more challenging mechanics and gameplay with steeper punishments for mistakes.

A computer game's purpose is not to fashion player's character and habits like an army boot camp. The goal is not Discipline and Efficiency, the goal is Fun and Pleasure.
 
Last edited:

CMDR Bausell

CMDR Bausell
I for one would be interested in getting an unarmed shuttle we could launch from fighter bays, able to use a data link scanner, equipped with a cargo hatch, two to four tons of cargo capacity (at most), and capable of docking at small landing pads. Eliminate the need for collector limpets altogether — we just zip around and scoop up engineering materials at signal sites and shuttle tiny amounts of cargo between outposts and motherships. Naturally they’d get lowest priority docking at outposts, emergency backup option.
 

Suraknar

S
rptb1 said:
To be a bit more concrete, this would be a step in the direction of allowing every ship to do everything all the time. That's a bad direction. The destination is a boring game.
Click to expand...

And I would like to reply to this separably.

To me this statement makes no sense. Why go through the trouble to create a module based System for Ships in that case? Why not just have Static Ships witch static Capabilities. You want top run Cargo buy a Cargo Ship you want to do Exploration get a Exploration ship you want combat get a combat ship. Why even be able to change moduls for different types? Just need to upgrade static basic configuration would be much simpler.

It makes no sense to me for someone to go through all the trouble of making a system which is modular and then trying to find way to limit what a player can do with it...

it sounds nonsensical and counter-intuitive from a fun gameplay perspective.

Secondly, why shouldn't ships be able to do everything all the time? What is your point of reference to make this assertion?

Is it sci-fi? Have you seen umm... lets say Star Trek, any ships there saying "Oh Captain,we cannot Tractor that Shuttle you are asking for because we are only equipped with a tractor beam for Space Rocks, we need to go back to a Spaceport and retrofit with tractor beam for equipment and manufactured objects instead and then come back and continue our mission"...

Have not seen this happen in any Sci-Fi actually...not Star Trek not Star Wars not Babylon 5 not Buck Rogers Galactica etc etc etc...

Actually I have not seen this happen neither in real life... have you ever heard of the SRMS or Shuttle Remote Manipulator System, or simply Canadarm? It was designed to handle various payloads of different types. Why? Because it is unpractical to have different arms for different types of objects, and the engineering solution to that CHALLENGE is to design a multi-purpose piece of Equipment.

And since ED is a game whos' main goal is to provide Fun, and at the same time it is a Simulation type Game, what would make it more fun is to at least try to also simulate the practical aspects of technology as they would normally be purposed in real life, for both Convenience and Practicality as well as Immersion and Parallel Sense, which permits to tackle different Challenges in different situations as they happen.

In other words, If ED was reality, no one would make such a limited Limpet system. Because no matter what your primary mission is (lets say going mining), the universe in which this activity happens is not static, it is dynamic. And it makes sense as well as is logical to have a system that is multipurpose for the various challenges that are known to be encountered in that Universe. It would be a burden it would be unpractical it would be frustrating in real life to have such limitations, and the ingenuity of a human mind would not permit that to even be the case.

So what makes one even think that such an approach is good for a game? If it is unfun in Real Life chances are it will be very unfun in a game. Whose purpose is to provide fun in the first place.

So in conclusion my dear fellow Commander, which ever way you look at it, real life game life, game design, or gameplay... See the key for me is not whether all ships can engage in all activities at any given moment as the Challenge arises but rather how well each ship can engage in any specific activity. If you want gameplay variety between ships this is how iot is achieved and already it is in the game. Not al ships, despite the modular system are good for all activities already. I think the variety has been achieved.

The limpet system will not change that and it is just an unfun burden.

Unless you can demonstrate that the whole Fun of the gameplay of ED hinges upon it. I doubt this is the case, and it would be very sad if it is.
 
Last edited:

Misty_Dark

Misty_Dark
wabboo said:
Universal limpet controllers suggestions have been doing the rounds for a very long time (the following links aren't the only ones):
The suggestions mostly target two key issues:
  • Controllers take up too many optional internal slots.
  • Limpets themselves take up cargo space.
The solutions in these suggestions tend to be similar:
  • Create one universal controller with fighter/planetary hangar like slots for the functions.
  • Limpets should either be ammo (disposable) or should be like ship launcher fighters (durable).
What I find interesting is why do commanders want this? These are some of the reasons I can come up with:

Expanding ship role
Having an universal limpet controller will free up optional slots for other things. This allows commanders to do more with their ship without the need for reconfiguration. I kind of like specialized ships, so I'd be curious what role you'd want to add to your ship that you don't want to specialize for.

Material hoovering
Combat pilots that want to collect materials from destroyed ships will want a collector limpet controller, but are also forced to have a cargo bay for the limpets. Since these ships are fitted as combat ships, not a lot of cargo space will be available for limpets. Having limpets be ammo instead of cargo would solve that issue. This would cause problems as limpets that scoop up cargo can't drop it and the need for material only limpets arises.

Are there other reasons I'm not aware of?
Click to expand...


In the beginning with just a few limpet controllers the current system worked ok. but with the multitude of limpet controllers we have now, and there are some good suggestions for new limpet controllers, but they would be more and more niche options... and the worst enemy of the super specialised ships is that many of these do not tend to be used that much, ie, we have stuff that few players engage in, and why would we expand on a cool activity that just a few players engage in. I wish to reward more varied designs over super specialized designs, as with more varied options we can have dynamic content available. but that will not happen if you have a super specialized ship, as then you will likely not have the needed stuff with you to take on this sort of dynamic content. assuming FDev would engage us with these sort of things.


But you have captured the two main themes for a more flexible limpet controller implementation.
 

rptb1

rptb1
Suraknar said:
It makes no sense to me for someone to go through all the trouble of making a system which is modular and then trying to find way to limit what a player can do with it.
Click to expand...
If there are no limits there is no point to the modular system. The modular system is there precisely so that you have limits (e.g. power grid) and have to make choices about what modules you can fit. It makes a game/puzzle out of the knapsack problem as part of the broader game. Overcoming the challenge is what provides the fun.

You are quite right that games have to be "fun" to succeed, but that's not the same as allowing you to do everything you want, even though that sounds fun. Game designers know that this short term pleasure leads to boredom quickly. Players need to be enticed by possibilities then presented with challenges.

It's also very common (especially in multiplayer games) for players to appear on forums and metagame. That is, they ask for changes to the game to try to overcome in-game challenges. These posts go along the lines of "It would be more fun if I could win more easily." Well yes, sort of, in the short term, but not overall.

But this is all a bit meta. Part of the game designer's disease. You should probably not worry about it. I may be able to come back to some of your other points later on if you're interested.
 
Last edited:

Suraknar

S
rptb1 said:
If there are no limits there is no point to the modular system. The modular system is there precisely so that you have limits (e.g. power grid) and have to make choices about what modules you can fit. It makes a game/puzzle out of the knapsack problem as part of the broader game. Overcoming the challenge is what provides the fun.

You are quite right that games have to be "fun" to succeed, but that's not the same as allowing you to do everything you want, even though that sounds fun. Game designers know that this short term pleasure leads to boredom quickly. Players need to be enticed by possibilities then presented with challenges.

It's also very common (especially in multiplayer games) for players to appear on forums and metagame. That is, they ask for changes to the game to try to overcome in-game challenges. These posts go along the lines of "It would be more fun if I could win more easily." Well yes, sort of, in the short term, but not overall.

But this is all a bit meta. Part of the game designer's disease. You should probably not worry about it. I may be able to come back to some of your other points later on if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with many of your points.

Yet, the notions that you expose are not related to this issue. The Limpet system as it is,is not only unfun but it is counter to the mission of the designer.

I am sorry but it is not a Challenge to go back to a base and change the Controller to something related to the activity I intent to engage next.

It is outright boring.

So the Designer's mission to avoid Boredom from pleasure in this case, created boredom anyways from too much limitation. ;)

The Challenge is to Win the Fight if you doing Combat, the Challenge is to Find the right Minerals in the quantities you want if your mining. The challenge is how to make a Trade more profitable or how to complete a long exploration mission. These are challenges with meaningful consequences and rewards that generate fun.

But you do not need to add challenges upon challenges for mondain actions such as scooping the fruits of your first challenge in to your hold. Everything does not have to be a challenge, and in this case, the current mechanics are making the reward itself a challenge.

As for limitations, they are there via the Different Ship Designs Specs, the Grade and Class of Modules. Your point would be right if all ships could have all modules and all ships had same specs. It is not the case. And no one is asking for all ships to be able to equip all of the Controller Classes now. The issue is how Controllers and Limpets work in to the Gameplay, and how unfun they are.

Again, Balance is the key, this is the biggest Challenge for the Designer.


PS: Dismissing Player feedback in the forums under the premise that people just come here to complain etc or ask for things because they do not want to meet the challenges in the game. Is a HUGE mistake. Fortunately one that usually players make, and good designers know how to discern between good feedback or the other cases.
 
Last edited:

Demonlord79

Demonlord79
Seriously. Like we don't have better ideas for weaponry than a little canister that can rule them all....LOL... Oh and one that a T9 could outrun to boot.
Or, lets ask Dev's for a button to push to win an unwinnable game?

Suraknar said:
Yes I agree with many of your points.

Yet, the notions that you expose are not related to this issue. The Limpet system as it is,is not only unfun but it is counter to the mission of the designer.

I am sorry but it is not a Challenge to go back to a base and change the Controller to something related to the activity I intent to engage next.

It is outright boring.

So the Designer's mission to avoid Boredom from pleasure in this case, created boredom anyways from too much limitation. ;)

The Challenge is to Win the Fight if you doing Combat, the Challenge is to Find the right Minerals in the quantities you want if your mining. The challenge is how to make a Trade more profitable or how to complete a long exploration mission. These are challenges with meaningful consequences and rewards that generate fun.

But you do not need to add challenges upon challenges for mondain actions such as scooping the fruits of your first challenge in to your hold. Everything does not have to be a challenge, and in this case, the current mechanics are making the reward itself a challenge.

As for limitations, they are there via the Different Ship Designs Specs, the Grade and Class of Modules. Your point would be right if all ships could have all modules and all ships had same specs. It is not the case. And no one is asking for all ships to be able to equip all of the Controller Classes now. The issue is how Controllers and Limpets work in to the Gameplay, and how unfun they are.

Again, Balance is the key, this is the biggest Challenge for the Designer.


PS: Dismissing Player feedback in the forums under the premise that people just come here to complain etc or ask for things because they do not want to meet the challenges in the game. Is a HUGE mistake. Fortunately one that usually players make, and good designers know how to discern between good feedback or the other cases.
Click to expand...

The quote is common sense and you guys really should read it over, and over, and over a few more times.

P.S. I can't be as nice as @Suraknar but NO I can't agree with most points, but you guys really are quite dense for suggesting to Dev's on ways to make an Open-world sandbox game Easier to win!
Win what outside of griefing or PvP?

There are far better ways to "balance" a title as mentioned.... /Facepalm for 90% of the suggestions.
Sorry to be so rude about this post though. Well, I suppose, I think, or something like that anyway....o7
 

Demonlord79

Demonlord79
varonica said:
You resurrected this 2 year old post that everyone has forgotten about and is meaningless because we now have multi limpet controllers just to say that? ;)
Click to expand...
Was online searching if you could engineer the ULC online. Linked me here and I couldn't help myself...:)
But now that you bring it up, can you engineer the ULC as such like before?
Stopped mining because of all the bugs from Odyssey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom