Nav Beacon Discussion - How to make Beacons relevant and engaging!

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Use 5-8 seconds of your life to switch into solo mode to avoid it. Thankfully this possibility was implemented at an early stage of the development process.

Sadly, the campsite drop would very probably implemented in all modes (if it were to be implemented at all) - therefore inconveniencing every player as a result of a game change to suit the play-style of a subset of the player-base.
 
Sadly, the campsite drop would very probably implemented in all modes (if it were to be implemented at all) - therefore inconveniencing every player as a result of a game change to suit the play-style of a subset of the player-base.

That is what is already happening allover in CGs, piracy attempts etc. So it might have to be changed? -Without the ability to change game mode with no restrictions at all, then I can follow your point. But as it is now.. Well.. yea..
 
How about - if you want your 'clean' status and protection from the local security, you can obtain it from the nav-beacon (via passing through a local criminal status check gate). If not, you're on your own... (you will by default have an 'unknown' status which may arouse suspicion).

Obtaining a clean status when you visit a system could also give you a slight trade-profit bonus because the buyer of your goods can be assured you are not a criminal.

This way it would be optional but beneficial to visit the nav beacon - if you're travelling a route, you don't need to bother.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
That is what is already happening allover in CGs, piracy attempts etc. So it might have to be changed? -Without the ability to change game mode with no restrictions at all, then I can follow your point. But as it is now.. Well.. yea..

Interdiction in SC I have no problem with.

What the proposal would do is enforce a drop to normal space on all players entering a system with a Nav Beacon (but not at those without - making it seem even more gamey) to suit the play-style of those who want to camp out at Nav Beacons in the hope of scoring some PvP.

It would reduce the game to one of the very first Alpha scenarios where all players arrived next to the beacon. Camping was common.
 
There's just one problem with this though, and it's unfortunately a rather major one: it makes long-distance travel across the bubble more tedious than it already is. If the beacon is far enough from the star so that you don't overheat while hyperspace jumping and your destination is not blocked by another stellar mass such that you don't need to enter SC, this isn't a problem. If any of the above issues are present though you are just adding another barrier that doesn't need to be there.

I don't know how this issue could be solved but it's worth discussing anyhow. Repped.

The rather simple way to rectify this is to MOVE all Nav Beacons to the TOP of the sun instead of orbit.

Now, im not sure if this is scientifically possible in ED but it could be keeping it's location thanks to a fuelscoop that picks up VERY small amounts of hydrogen but it's enough to keep it floating above the celestial object.

The only time this would be an issue is if the target system is BELOW the sun which would be a rare occurrence.
 
Interdiction in SC I have no problem with.

What the proposal would do is enforce a drop to normal space on all players entering a system with a Nav Beacon (but not at those without - making it seem even more gamey) to suit the play-style of those who want to camp out at Nav Beacons in the hope of scoring some PvP.

It would reduce the game to one of the very first Alpha scenarios where all players arrived next to the beacon. Camping was common.

Except you wouldn't automatically drop out of SC. If you are traveling just don't cross the exclusion zone beyond the star. If you are smuggling into that system, evade the beacon interdiction attempt. If you have legitimate business, submit and carry on.
 
It would reduce the game to one of the very first Alpha scenarios where all players arrived next to the beacon. Camping was common.

The only system this would truly be a risk in would be Anarchy.

Proper civilized systems could now have a strong police presence where they are actually EFFECTIVE in large amounts.

A better place for a pirate would be in SC outside of the beacon and interdict traders leaving the beacon.

So while forcing players (friends and foes alike) the location could be HEAVILY defended since it essentially becomes the equivalent of a station area where law enforcement is the strongest and not the ideal place for pirates to hunt.

Hell, if we look at systems in ED the higher security would be closer to the star and then taper off as security is less and less available outside of the developed part of the system.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Except you wouldn't automatically drop out of SC. If you are traveling just don't cross the exclusion zone beyond the star. If you are smuggling into that system, evade the beacon interdiction attempt. If you have legitimate business, submit and carry on.

Why would a safety / informational feature (Nav Beacon) be designed in such a way as to facilitate unsafe encounter for travellers (interdiction of ships hyper-spacing in to the system, providing prey for campers)?
 
Last edited:
The suggestion I made earlier in the thread (which has been added to the OP) addresses this very issue. Getting dropped to the Nav Beacon would only happen if you travel away from the star - you stay in SC if you hang near to the star for scooping and for onward transit to hyperspace.

Good thinking. I'd still have people not force them through increased repetitive tasks for the routine business. I bet most would hate it. It would make sense to combine the overall idea with the lockdown system effect, imo.
 
What about if there where 2 types of hyperdrve?
-Standard drives that drop you at the Nav beacon, (lighter, better for fighters & short-haul traders)
-Explorer drives that allow you to choose your drop point (heaver, takes up more internal slots, gives a bonus to range. Good for explorers & smugglers)
It could create a whole new set of dynamics & trade-offs.
 
Except you wouldn't automatically drop out of SC. If you are traveling just don't cross the exclusion zone beyond the star. If you are smuggling into that system, evade the beacon interdiction attempt. If you have legitimate business, submit and carry on.

Hmm, so what you are suggesting is a "interdiction" style Nav Beacon that "sucks" the ship in by autopilot and that we can choose to avoid said "interdiction" and stay outside the nav beacon if we so choose.

Something like "Aliens" landing craft scene where we get a nav "tunnel" that guides us in towards the navpoint?
 
I think the worst part is that 99,99% of times there would be nobody at the nav beacon, and thus it would just be an additional annoyance.

I'm all in favour of having ways for people to spend more time in normal space and less in SC and waiting screens. After all, nornal space is where we are actually flying our ships, and where almost everything happens. After more than a year playing, my favorite moments in the game are still docking and undocking at stations and outposts, and now planetary starports.

The game surely would benefit from ways for players to congregate. But not by forcing them to go by nav beacons. Actually, by not forcing them anything. But by giving them incentives to willingly congregate at some places. For instance, by giving each ship manufacturer a "home system", where the manufacturer's ships and outfitting had a permanent discount. Or use faction / superpower headquarters (which are now extremely uninteresting systems, with lousy shipyards, lousy outfitting, poor trading, etc) and give them some extra-benefits like extra profits for delivering consumer goods, etc. Give Sirius headquarters a permanent bonus for delivering exploration data. Hudson headquarters a permanent bouns for delivering metals and combat bonds. This kind of things. Bring back the seeking weapons / seeking luxuries for little periods os time, with galnet announcement, at fixed places.

For instance, many people go to Lembava for buying ships and outfitting. Its easy so see other commanders there. The game needs more Lembavas, more Robigos, etc. Rare goods need to be useful again for everyone and not only starting players. Make rare goods allocations vary with players ranks, or make the profit from rare goods keep scaling up over more than the current range, making rare hubs populated again.

And then maybe, just maybe, increase the distance people drop into stations.
 
Forcing players into the Nav Beacon seems like a bad idea to me on a lot of levels ("griefing" made more effective, encouraging players who otherwise prefer open to move to solo or group, added time sync, etc).

If the design were up to me, and the goal was to encourage use of the Nav Beacons, this is what I'd do:

1. Beef up system security presence in nav beacons, perhaps by a lot (lower security systems have much weaker ships, perhaps mostly Fighters, but the numbers are high enough to make getting scanned nearly inevitable)
2. Slight increase in the probability that System Security will interdict players that are not Allied
3. If a player drops into the nav beacon AND gets scanned there, completely prevent any system security interdictions on that player while they remain in-system (until they dock).

Now you don't have to drop into the nav beacon, but there is a clear motivation to do so IF you can afford to get scanned and you aren't well enough liked by the controlling faction to avoid interdiction.

Other things could potentially be added to nav beacons as well, like the ability for allied players to pick up missions from ships there.

At any rate, I think it would be far better to make Nav Beacons more attractive to a broader range of professions than it would to just force everyone to go there. Few people enjoy being forced to do a thing they never had to do before, but give them a reason to do that thing and most people end up happy.
 
Why would a safety / informational feature (Nav Beacon) be designed in such a way as to facilitate unsafe encounter for travellers (interdiction of ships hyper-spacing in to the system, providing prey for campers)?

Exactly what safety and informational features to nav beacons provide? They do absolutely nothing other than serve as another location to shoot pirates but with less asteroids. If you want system information you still need to use a discovery scanner and systems with nav beacons aren't any safer to jump into because you always end up pointed directly at the star, often nowhere near the nav beacon.

Obviously the type of instance you get from a nav beacon will have to change from what they currently are. High security system beacons or beacons in systems in a state of war would be swarming with military and/or police ships, making them safe to trade in.

And I really doubt more than a handful of nav beacons will be camped or blockaded. CG systems will always be swarming with scumbags looking to pick on cargo transports regardless, except by spawning near the nav beacon you also have instant access to an endless swarm of cops to help you out.

Or just switch to Solo. That's what I do when I encounter scumbag players.
 
I'm all in favour of having ways for people to spend more time in normal space and less in SC and waiting screens. After all, nornal space is where we are actually flying our ships, and where almost everything happens. After more than a year playing, my favorite moments in the game are still docking and undocking at stations and outposts, and now planetary starports.

Ha, that's pretty funny. When someone recently asked what our favorite parts of ED were I answered the same, approaching station and docking/undocking!
Happy I am not alone with this sentiment! :)
 
Hmm, so what you are suggesting is a "interdiction" style Nav Beacon that "sucks" the ship in by autopilot and that we can choose to avoid said "interdiction" and stay outside the nav beacon if we so choose.

Something like "Aliens" landing craft scene where we get a nav "tunnel" that guides us in towards the navpoint?

Something like that, yea.
 
No thanks, ED has more then enough Timesinks already and making travelling around more time consuming does not sound that good to me as a player who travels around a lot. I for example like to travel around with the FDL and do missions and BH here and there. People complain about its jumprange but I don't actualy have a problem with it, you put a Fuelscoop in and can travel from one side of the Bubble to the other relative quick.
If you drop me into SC all the time with the low jumprange and tiny fueltank which means I have to scoop a lot it turns travelling around into the mother of all pain in the bumps. I really, really don't like that Idea. Even more so, another very good reason why I don't like this Idea is that:


And while the Idea of making system security more relevant is nice, the costs and added annoyance is way to high. I'm sure there are ways to make them more relevant without adding more timesinks.

I agree with the above sentiment.

This idea has too much of a whiff of a "system ownership by players" mechanic which doesn't particularly suit this game. The idea of creating a bottleneck where all ships have to jump into has been discussed before, and was held to be a bad idea. I think that FDEV also think creating bottleneck areas where ships jump into is also not what they intend or want for this game.

I can see how this idea appeals to certain types - it would be a perfect spider's web to catch flies for ganking, for one. It would turn "piracy" into easy-mode for another - "I'm Mr Pirate and I'll just wait right here for everyone."

Saying that system security would come to the rescue of players, doesn't convince me either - as so far, NPC system security seems to be somewhat of a bad joke.

I see the negatives outweighing whatever positives there might be (and I can think of none).
 
Back
Top Bottom