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

[ZygoUgo]

Well my fines and taxes idea went down like the certain proverbial thing in a swimming pool I thought it was a realistic politicians answer, as their answer is pretty much always the same.
I totally agree then that the motive for visiting the nav point should be incentive, and therefore also agree that there should be some sort of outpost there providing trading, missions, and a safe place to meet and wing up. Maybe it could even be a partial police station so as to say, capable of launching more fighters if there was an attempt to blockade, and calling out for support to NPC's and players alike.
There should also be wings of police patrolling the sun though, to make avoiding the nav beacon risky somehow, but this is where it remains an open free choice.
I don't agree with the idea that people should be pulled in automatically when entering the system to a fixed distance, that would be an entirely new mechanic and you are very unlikely to get it in my opinion.

 

[KaizoMK]

Territorial control at a player level is something that is not going to happen in this game - you have the wrong game

To elaborate: system control happens by way of the Background Simulation in the form of the system factions - players can influence who controls a system by supporting one of these BGS factions.

Same happens with the major Powers.

Because of the way this game is designed, at the moment you can try to blockade a system at a player level - and some 'groups' do try - but ultimately they are foiled by "Han Solomode", Private Group mode, and/or instancing (e.g. I could easily slip past a blockade because I'm not placed in the same game instance as the blockaders). It's just not that kind of game where this kind of player-territorial stuff can easily or effectively happen.







You both appear to be ignoring the fact that FDEV do not want there to be chokepoints/bottlenecks for ships jumping into systems. Whether you disagree or think they're wrong or not is irrelevant (I happen to agree with that particular design choice) - these bottlenecks will not happen.

Regards o7

Even something that isn't mandatory as a stopping point?

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Even something that isn't mandatory as a stopping point?

I agree that nav beacons should have some kind of meaningful purpose other than the present "go here to wait for wanted ships" - and some suggestions in this thread seem viable - like maybe putting an outpost of some kind there - something worthwhile visiting if the player so wishes.

But the idea of making every ship drop into a nav beacon (i.e. after FSD'ing in from another system) won't happen in this game for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

Even if it's the last stop in a multi-jump journey, you won't be seeing ships drop out of supercruise and into the nav beacon area, again for the reasons I outlined above - a chokepoint is still a chokepoint, and FDEV do not want chokepoints.

The last thing I want to happen is I'm forced into some system gateway area whether it's on the way in a multi-jump route or on the last jump. That's not a game mechanic I want to see in this game, and I'd simply stop playing due to the annoyance factor. Luckily, FDEV have already stated that chokepoints won't happen.

Regards

 

[KaizoMK]

I agree that nav beacons should have some kind of meaningful purpose other than the present "go here to wait for wanted ships" - and some suggestions in this thread seem viable - like maybe putting an outpost of some kind there - something worthwhile visiting if the player so wishes.

But the idea of making every ship drop into a nav beacon (i.e. after FSD'ing in from another system) won't happen in this game for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

Even if it's the last stop in a multi-jump journey, you won't be seeing ships drop out of supercruise and into the nav beacon area, again for the reasons I outlined above - a chokepoint is still a chokepoint, and FDEV do not want chokepoints.

The last thing I want to happen is I'm forced into some system gateway area whether it's on the way in a multi-jump route or on the last jump. That's not a game mechanic I want to see in this game, and I'd simply stop playing due to the annoyance factor. Luckily, FDEV have already stated that chokepoints won't happen.

Regards

You should consider a) that this idea could be implemented without forcing the player to do anything, and b) that very idea has been suggested already several times and you just haven't been reading along.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You should consider a) that this idea could be implemented without forcing the player to do anything, and b) that very idea has been suggested already several times and you just haven't been reading along.

Were there not "consequences" to not dropping in to the Nav Beacon in at least some of those proposals?

 

[Snarfbuckle]

FDEV have already stated that chokepoints won't happen.

Regards

Technically speaking we already HAVE chokepoints.

We all land close to the primary star - an excellent place for interdictor to lie in wait.

That in itself IS a chokepoint.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Technically speaking we already HAVE chokepoints.

We all land close to the primary star - an excellent place for interdictor to lie in wait.

That in itself IS a chokepoint.

It is in a sense - although the concentric sphere around a star defined by the distance from the star that the ship arrives to the star's centre, less the volume of the star itself, is quite a large volume - and the star itself stops interdiction from a fairly large portion of the volume.

A significantly greater volume than the tens of kilometre diameter sphere in which ships would be expected to drop in proximity to a Nav Beacon - with nowhere to hide.

 

[KaizoMK]

Were there not "consequences" to not dropping in to the Nav Beacon in at least some of those proposals?

Yea, just like there are consequences to being scanned by police with illicit cargo, or shooting targets that are not scanned for warrants. There are consequences simply for possessing a fine or bounty. There are consequences for buying varying grades of frame shift drives. If you're against consequences you're playing the wrong game.

Consequences for ignoring a beacon should not be fines or bounties, necessarily, and I see why you're against them and I agree with you. However, the consequence of having ships tail you in sc is no different from the game as it is now.

 

[AlexRyder]

Perhaps to mitigate the tedium factor, emerging at a nav beacon could have some actual navigational advantages. Like, if you go to supercruise from the beacon, you gain a temporary boost to supercruise acceleration, enough to shave, say, 30 seconds off a 500LS journey - and if you go to hyperspace from a beacon, your drive spools up as fast as when jumping to supercruise.

Like it, actually I think it should be the other end of the journey... If you Hyperspace/SC to a beacon then your spool time is less because the drive doesn't have to locate and target the most massive object in the destination system it just locks onto the nav signal.

 

[Edith_The_Hutt]

I'm not sure I like the idea that Nav Beacons should become mandatory for dropping into a system legitimately. I do like the idea that they should offer a navigational advantage.

Personally I'd like a 50%-100% boost to range travelling between systems if going point to point between Nav Beacons. The advantage would be big enough that a lot of pilots would use them voluntarily, creating natural choke points without restricting behaviour and the old system of targeting the stars alone and dropping out in SC somewhere near the star would still be available. It would also help counter a lot of the complaints that combat ships can't be moved easily between parts of the galaxy by giving them a way of boosting their interstellar range at the cost of a bit more in-system navigation.

Taking the idea a bit further you could integrate power-play into navigation beacons by putting larger, more effective ones in Control systems which give an even bigger boost to range but only between allied control systems (i.e.: those pledged to the same power-play faction). This would effectively create highways within the factions, creating sweet-spots for piracy, bounty hunting, rare trading and blockades at key junctions.

 

[Bambi]

I'm not sure I like the idea that Nav Beacons should become mandatory for dropping into a system legitimately. I do like the idea that they should offer a navigational advantage.

Why not? The problem is you're flying through warpspace a lot with no interaction with the world outside your little frameshift bubble. Having a place that ships have to go through in real space is the solution.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yea, just like there are consequences to being scanned by police with illicit cargo, or shooting targets that are not scanned for warrants. There are consequences simply for possessing a fine or bounty. There are consequences for buying varying grades of frame shift drives. If you're against consequences you're playing the wrong game.

Consequences for ignoring a beacon should not be fines or bounties, necessarily, and I see why you're against them and I agree with you. However, the consequence of having ships tail you in sc is no different from the game as it is now.

I have no problems with existing consequences - simply not in favour of introducing consequences (for not stopping at a Nav Beacon) to coerce players to stop at a choke point.

 

[KaizoMK]

I have no problems with existing consequences - simply not in favour of introducing consequences (for not stopping at a Nav Beacon) to coerce players to stop at a choke point.

So consequences that coerce players not to fly without insurance are bad too, right? Because it's the same thing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So consequences that coerce players not to fly without insurance are bad too, right? Because it's the same thing.

If you mean flying without enough ready credits to afford the rebuy on the ship flown, that's an existing consequence.

To be clearer, I am not in favour of adding penalties to players who completely ignore Nav Beacons.

 

[KaizoMK]

If you mean flying without enough ready credits to afford the rebuy on the ship flown, that's an existing consequence.

To be clearer, I am not in favour of adding penalties to players who completely ignore Nav Beacons.

So don't. Players who don't go to nav beacons won't have any issues, they'll still face random interdiction from security and pirates. Players that go to beacons won't.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So don't. Players who don't go to nav beacons won't have any issues, they'll still face random interdiction from security and pirates. Players that go to beacons won't.

Why should players who stop at the beacon be immune to interdiction? There are no definite signs of Frontier seriously considering in-system micro-hyper-jumps - probably due to the success of community events like the Hutton Orbital community goal - 90 minutes transit to the station from the main star in the system.

 

[Ulfar]

We are also being forced to use super cruise, the original intention was for people to jump between locations. It was changed to give options for other game play like interdictions.

The game needs to change. I say this many times in many different threads Frontier need to take a long hard look at the game and ask does this make logical sense within the universe and lore they have created. If the answer is no then there is an immersion problem, once players begin to see these things they mount up.

The NAV will never be a choke point ala EVE as the game works in a fundamentally different way.

It also ties in with Frontier have the idea that GRIND=DEPTH, it doesn't and I really hope they wake up to this.

 

[KaizoMK]

Why should players who stop at the beacon be immune to interdiction? There are no definite signs of Frontier seriously considering in-system micro-hyper-jumps - probably due to the success of community events like the Hutton Orbital community goal - 90 minutes transit to the station from the main star in the system.

They're not immune to interdiction, they're tagged such that they are not targeted by npc's. It could be submitting to a scan, or it could be paying "tolls" to pirates.

And again, you're being incredibly narrow-minded on this. Not every station has to be jumped to. It can be based on factors that could bring life and meaning to useless things like economy, technology, and security. And it could be based on "we can't or won't allow a jump to Hutton."

 

[Frenotx]

Sounds good to me. I've always thought the game would be better with the beacons actually doing something in inhabited space.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They're not immune to interdiction, they're tagged such that they are not targeted by npc's. It could be submitting to a scan, or it could be paying "tolls" to pirates.

And again, you're being incredibly narrow-minded on this. Not every station has to be jumped to. It can be based on factors that could bring life and meaning to useless things like economy, technology, and security. And it could be based on "we can't or won't allow a jump to Hutton."

How could one system authority cause *all* NPCs in the system (even those not under their control) to not interdict other players?

If put in place, it would give players who have done "something" at the Nav Beacon a significant advantage over players who didn't as they would not need to worry about NPC interdictions and could focus on interdicting other players....