Please reduce travel times in the bubble

[Riverside]

That is such a bad analogy it’s hard to know where to start.

Considering the game has been out for over 4 years now and ‘our group’ have never once asked to ‘nerf combat’, i’d say that would be a bad bet.

The analogy works. Two players take a mission. One doesn't like missions that are boring, the other doesn't like missions that are difficult (I am simplifying here, I mean no offence). The game provides both, sometimes we don't know which type it will be before we take the mission.

If I took a covert mission that then asked me to kill 50 civilians I'm going to abandon that mission, and generally I don't take covert missions now because I may not want to complete it. But I don't ask for covert missions to be made more palatable, I just don't do them.

 

[WinterKing2112]

Well, aside from the fact that you almost never reach 1,000 times the speed of light in SuperCruise, it’s a pretty glib statement if you don’t know whether 1,000 is a big number in this context or not.

1,000 times the speed of light is fast until you want to travel between star systems - then it’s pretty slow.

Anyway, if FDev increased acceleration rates so that 1,000 times the speed of light could be achieved quickly and easily in SuperCruise, then i’d be ok with that.

We're not talking about between star systems tho.....

 

[Riverside]

We're not talking about between star systems tho.....

I read it as travelling to a distant binary.

 

[WinterKing2112]

I read it as travelling to a distant binary.

Ah, then it makes sense! Thanks for translating that into clear and correct Ingles para mi amigo!

 

[WinterKing2112]

Well, aside from the fact that you almost never reach 1,000 times the speed of light in SuperCruise, it’s a pretty glib statement if you don’t know whether 1,000 is a big number in this context or not.

1,000 times the speed of light is fast until you want to travel between star systems - then it’s pretty slow.

Anyway, if FDev increased acceleration rates so that 1,000 times the speed of light could be achieved quickly and easily in SuperCruise, then i’d be ok with that.

I personally think that getting to that speed quckly would just trivialize it, I mean that is just a ridiculous speed, over 4 million times the speed of the fastest spacecraft we currently have! So taking a while to get to that speed just makes sense to me, but I'm not a physicist. Anyone who has a major in physics care to explain all this? I'm just a humble dentist, so I don't know much about space travel!

 

[peteuplink]

The thing is I have had plenty of pew pew with the Liz Ryder quest, don't want anymore for a while. If I was constantly being interdicted it would just be annoying. I like the way it only happens occasionally, that feels more realistic, I mean I'm space trucking, not flying a bomber over enemy territory! Though I do agree, should be more interdictions in anarchy systems and less in in hi security, that would make sense. Anyhoo, try mission stacking out of Leonard Nimoy station, I got my butt kicked doing that a coupla months ago. Let me know how you go, now I'm engineered I may go back and get my sweet revenge on those sons of maggots!

Again, I don't want constant interdictions. The old games had about a 1 in 3 chance of meeting an enemy, which did get rather annoying at times. The new game has a much lower ratio than that, but the game could have a higher interdiction ratio without upsetting the people like yourself who just want to relax by having the enemy rate scale in proportion to the state of the system. So, a system that's low security and at war or civil unrest would have a much higher chance of seeing combat than a high security system where everyone is happy. Then it's up to the player to choose whether or not to go there.

In FE2 there were things called "milk runs" where certain systems were known to be safe routes where people could trade in peace and not meet any pirates. Outside of these ares the game was a lot riskier. Why can't something like this have been implemented to keep those who just want to trade in their fat, slow, Type-9's happy, while those of us who actually like the occasional NPC encounter to liven things up can go elsewhere without having to go on detours to RES's and combat zones?

What the game needs are more random encounters like these:

 

[VR Golgot]

Translation - you would rather have everything your way and essentially an easy button, you do not want any unfavourable wrinkles.

Nope, the translation is that I want negative outcomes to be primarily due to a skill deficit, even when negative scenarios have arrived out of the blue. I'm fine with the latter (and indeed want them to remain in many respects), but having game mechanics to mitigate or subvert the event would allow for involving gameplay & player agency. It's kinda a staple of game design.

Again, if you look at my pitch, you'll see it's very far from an 'easy button' and is designed to leverage the variety inherent in far-flung systems rather than reduce that variation to predictible outcomes.

You can try and cast my preference for gameplay mechanics as a personality deficit, as you do above. But all you're doing is sliding away from factual discussion and into ad homs.

 

[WinterKing2112]

Again, I don't want constant interdictions. The old games had about a 1 in 3 chance of meeting an enemy, which did get rather annoying at times. The new game has a much lower ratio than that, but the game could have a higher interdiction ratio without upsetting the people like yourself who just want to relax by having the enemy rate scale in proportion to the state of the system. So, a system that's low security and at war or civil unrest would have a much higher chance of seeing combat than a high security system where everyone is happy. Then it's up to the player to choose whether or not to go there.

In FE2 there were things called "milk runs" where certain systems were known to be safe routes where people could trade in peace and not meet any pirates. Outside of these ares the game was a lot riskier. Why can't something like this have been implemented to keep those who just want to trade in their fat, slow, Type-9's happy, while those of us who actually like the occasional NPC encounter to liven things up can go elsewhere without having to go on detours to RES's and combat zones?

What the game needs are more random encounters like these:

Yeah, anarchy = lots and lots of pirates, hi security = very occasional pirates, then players are left to pick their own poison. More realistic too. Btw I remember playing Elite on my Acorn Electron many moons ago! Graphics have improved somewhat in 30 years!

 

[peteuplink]

Yeah, anarchy = lots and lots of pirates, hi security = very occasional pirates, then players are left to pick their own poison. More realistic too. Btw I remember playing Elite on my Acorn Electron many moons ago! Graphics have improved somewhat in 30 years!

Oh absolutely! As I said above, ED is a massive technical accomplishment and a much better simulation than the first Elite... I just wish there was a bit more of the old-style gameplay on offer.

What you'll notice in the video I linked in, the player already knew that pirates would be an issue in that system before he went there.

 

[WinterKing2112]

Oh absolutely! As I said above, ED is a massive technical accomplishment and a much better simulation than the first Elite... I just wish there was a bit more of the old-style gameplay on offer.

What you'll notice in the video I linked in, the player already knew that pirates would be an issue in that system before he went there.

Heh heh, just got interdicted by some damn fool in an FDL, shortly after engineering some seeker missile racks with Liz to unlock Hera Tani. Guess the FDL did not have much engineering 'cos he didn't last long..... so yes, the occasional interdiction is fun.Too much tho and it gets in the way of mission running. Like I said before, I'm a space trucker, not some bomber over enemy territory! But if players could pick more fights by going to less secure systems, that would keep everyone happy (except for the serial whingers, who will never be happy with ED, or anything else in their lives I'm guessing.....)

 

[peteuplink]

Heh heh, just got interdicted by some damn fool in an FDL, shortly after engineering some seeker missile racks with Liz to unlock Hera Tani. Guess the FDL did not have much engineering 'cos he didn't last long..... so yes, the occasional interdiction is fun.Too much tho and it gets in the way of mission running. Like I said before, I'm a space trucker, not some bomber over enemy territory! But if players could pick more fights by going to less secure systems, that would keep everyone happy (except for the serial whingers, who will never be happy with ED, or anything else in their lives I'm guessing.....)

Yeah, too many interdictions can be a pain. I'd be more than happy if during an hours play time I meet between 1 and 3 NPC pirates, but at the moment I can play for 8 hours and not see a single one.

Having said that, after watching the video I linked above, and following that up with a few more from the series, I went to play the game and noticed that there aren't very many risky systems around where I'm situated in the galaxy. Like the guy in the video I was paying attention to what the government types were and this informs you how safe or dangerous a system is, but in ED it's taken a few steps further by having security ratings and different states. Most of the systems where I am are corporate, high security systems in a state of boom. There's a couple of dictatorship systems, which would normally be more of a risk, but these are medium security and also currently in a state of boom. I looked a bit further afield, but I can't really see any low security systems in an unhappy state like war, civil unrest or outbreak... Perhaps the BGS needs a bit more randomness built into it to provide some variety?

 

[Riverside]

So there is scope for some adjustment to travel times, there is some scope for a little more stuff to do while travelling, but to make any big changes would frustrate somebody or other.

Makes sense.

 

[nanite2000]

The analogy works. Two players take a mission. One doesn't like missions that are boring, the other doesn't like missions that are difficult (I am simplifying here, I mean no offence). The game provides both, sometimes we don't know which type it will be before we take the mission.

If I took a covert mission that then asked me to kill 50 civilians I'm going to abandon that mission, and generally I don't take covert missions now because I may not want to complete it. But I don't ask for covert missions to be made more palatable, I just don't do them.

I'm sorry, but SuperCruise travel times and combat are not equivalent.

Firstly, players are impacted by travel times in SuperCruise whether they do missions or not. There's no avoiding it. So let's not limit ourselves to the impact on missions alone.

Secondly, combat is infinitely more complex and skill-based than travelling in SuperCruise. You can't go into a combat situation with any ship configured any way you like, and then sit there for up to an hour doing absolutely nothing but waiting, and still expect to survive, or collect your reward.

In SuperCruise, you can.

 

[lenna]

Nope, the translation is that I want negative outcomes to be primarily due to a skill deficit, even when negative scenarios have arrived out of the blue.

Arguably there is no rational nor legitimate way to "add more skill" to reducing travel times, and arguably travel times are not that bad on balance - extreme single trip super cruise travel times of more than 10 minutes is actually pretty rare. There are very few systems in the bubble which have such travel time requirements.

 

[lenna]

So there is scope for some adjustment to travel times, there is some scope for a little more stuff to do while travelling, but to make any big changes would frustrate somebody or other.

No mini-games, no hard travel time limits, and no hard super cruise event intervals - keep these things mostly as-is mechanics wise and there would be little cause for anyone that mostly like things as-is to object.

I'm sorry, but SuperCruise travel times and combat are not equivalent.

Perspective/Context is the key here - time has a value as does notional skill requirements. In the context @Riverside was using the equivalence is fair.

Firstly, players are impacted by travel times in SuperCruise whether they do missions or not. There's no avoiding it. So let's not limit ourselves to the impact on missions alone.

Unfortunately, since we are talking primarily about travel in the context of the bubble missions are a key descriminator (if not the key descriminator).

Secondly, combat is infinitely more complex and skill-based than travelling in SuperCruise. You can't go into a combat situation with any ship configured any way you like, and then sit there for up to an hour doing absolutely nothing but waiting, and still expect to survive, or collect your reward.

In SuperCruise, you can.

True to a degree but also not true - in the context of what we are talking about there are two primary travel cases where super cruise is unavoidable - missions and mining/trading. The longer the time in super-cruise the greater the risk there is of being subjected to combat related wrinkles (whether mission related, radiant PvE incidents, or notionally emergent PvP incidents).

If you wish to gather for co-op gameplay you can all high-wake to a nominated system to gather and then pick your target operating location appropriately.

 

[VR Golgot]

Arguably there is no rational nor legitimate way to "add more skill" to reducing travel times

I disagree. A micro-jump that involved piloting skill & risk of death would be a perfectly 'rational and legitimate' solution. Not that you stood up either objection.

and arguably travel times are not that bad on balance - extreme single trip super cruise travel times of more than 10 minutes is actually pretty rare. There are very few systems in the bubble which have such travel time requirements.

You can say that as many times as you like, but those who find that they are bad on balance are not going to suddenly have a different game experience due to your words. (PS I suspect you're basing your 'very few' assessment on station distances, forgetting that uninhabited planets can also be mission destination reveals etc)

 

[lenna]

I disagree. A micro-jump that involved piloting skill & risk of death meets those criteria.

Mini-game hell? No thank you... next stupid idea.

You can say that as many times as you like, but those who find that they are bad on balance are not going to suddenly have a different game experience due to your words.

Then such people are obviously focusing around the limited cases of specific systems with exceptionally long super-cruise times. That is a matter of choice, if people make such choices then they should learn to accept the inevitable. The vast majority of the bubble does not have such long super-cruise times, at least if you super-cruise efficiently.

 

[VR Golgot]

Mini-game hell? No thank you... next stupid idea.

Read the pitch. Then tell me again it's a mini-game.

 

[lenna]

Read the pitch. Then tell me again it's a mini-game.

Read it the first time - I disagree that such measures are warranted.

 

[VR Golgot]

Read it the first time - I disagree that such measures are warranted.

I know that. We disagree on that.

Do you still maintain that such a mechanic would constitute a 'mini-game', akin to interdiction? Despite the use of the orrery and Stellar Forge for the pre-planning stage, the prolonged use of the flight model around geography, the extension of the piracy meta etc etc.

Answer the question