Please reduce travel times in the bubble
- Thread starter Chrizaim
- Start date
Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that the objective is not necessarily to convince each other but to convince FDev a particular argument has merit.
It's okay to disagree
Sure, although in an ideal world finding common ground would be good.
Clashes, and the unhelpful, muddled debates that follow, seem inevitable though as there are some key emotions running through the debate. Many 'slow boaters' find pleasure in the empty spaces and their broader implications, and will fight tooth and nail to preserve that game experience. While many 'risk vs reward' players are driven to distraction by the same gameplay lacunas. Both reactions are valid feedback for FDev. It's just hard to get more pragmatic, factual feedback out of the mix with emotions running that high
An interesting area of factual contention at the moment is this 'only 10% of stations are the issue' meme. Although FDev could do the analysis better, a player investigation could help place our debates on a firmer footing.
I've just played with EDDB, and it seems that 60% of bubble systems with secondary suns are populated. Which means 40% of them are being ignored in a station-only analysis. (The real issue is more complex, IE how many distant bodies are involved in both populated & unpopulated systems etc. But I can't fathom how to do that on my phone right now
)That's the sort of issue both 'camps' could investigate constructively. (In a dream world
)
Last edited:
To me the anti-sc-moaners have no merit to their argument, they ignore the various incontrovertible facts that have been repeatedly pointed out to them that highlight the holes in their arguments.Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that the objective is not necessarily to convince each other but to convince FDev a particular argument has merit.
It's okay to disagree
As of yet - there has not been even one argument in support of reducing super-cruise times that carries any legitimacy - just the usual habitual complaining.
There were some facts there, then he started speculating. Read his post!
In this context, if they a system is not populated then travel times are moot in the context of this discussion - it does not matter where a system is if it is unpopulated, the same fundamental rules of thumb about reasons to visit them are essentially the same - exploration or expansion. Just because an unpopulated system happens to be with-in a certain jump range of the capital systems does not change that.I've just played with EDDB, and it seems that 60% of bubble systems with secondary suns are populated. Which means 40% of them are being ignored in a station-only analysis. (The real issue is more complex, IE how many distant bodies are involved in both populated & unpopulated systems etc. But I can't fathom how to do that on my phone right now
In the populated systems, IME the vast majority of SC travel times in populated systems are significantly less than what the moaners are claiming. There are some remote locations but it is both fair and reasonable that such cases exist and to argue otherwise or to argue that the travel times should be capped is ludicrous and baseless.
Crikey, I didn't know that Donald Trump was on this forum! Thought you wuz too busy building a wall, or something.....
The argument is simple, they don't like it (principally because it's boring rather than because it takes a long time). They have a point, but so do you. There is some scope to improve the situation without making anything significantly worse for others. The conversation may be more productive if the boundaries of that small region of common ground were fleshed out rather than focusing solely on the downsides of any change.
Yep, lots of moaners on this forum. And whiners. Some whingers too! Meanwhile, the rest of us are happily playing ED
The problem is that the "boredom" aspect is highly subjective and controversial, it is only the outlier cases of extreme length SC journeys (e.g. Hutton run) that can really become boring in essence but there is no getting around those cases without ruining the experience one way or another. The longer non-extreme length SC journeys still require careful monitoring and management of SC speed/throttle and SC directional vectors in order to ensure the quickest transit while not overshooting the target destination.
There is no true possibility of common ground in essence because the two positions are diametrically opposed in the main.
I disagree that 3.3 has made ED more arcade-ish, though I can see how it can be seen that way with the FSS/DSS kitsch changes. If FD want to target the Arcade crowd, then arguably they should write a separate game specifically for them.OP is right ! Since 3.3, ED is becoming more and more arcade-ish. Let's finish the job and make it totally arcade !!
Last edited:
Nope, most of those kind of sell offs ended up ruining the relevant franchise. You can not get around the fact that in general if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
Wrong again sunshine. As mentioned (the last time you were wrong with your exploration/expansion categorisation), a large spread of mission types (including many combat-orientated ones) utilise unpopulated bodies & systems as their destinations (frequently without advertising those specifics).
You manage to be wrong a lot, but talk exclusively in terms of your own rightness. Even when defining subjective terms such as boredom. IE:
You may have to realise at some point that your personal preferences are not actually some sainted objective truth. Would make for more constructive conversations.
Lestat
Banned
I still find my point still holds true. If you find a mission that Too Far Then why not Discard. Just like Any hard Combat Mission that you find you are not skilled or your ship is not fit to do. Or finding out doing a trade run of 6000 tons of cargo might take too long to do. Or looking at a location in the Explored system and choosing not to go to that location because the distance is too far. Or that Passenger mission you where so hipped going to for 50,000 LY or more. You complain about the Hyperspace jump screen. (People forget they can mix exploration into it) Each in them self has the same issue. But they also have the same solution. If you don't feel like you can do it. Then why do it?
I can look at each one of these and see a reason for doing them or not. But it comes down to users Choice and an easy solution to a problem. There will be a few rare cases Where distance is forced on you just like some Combat missions for Thargoid or Guardian sites, Engineering is forced on you. But Even then you have a choice not doing them.
The other question why do a few players ignore key features of the game instead of reading the mission or research them by using galaxy map. They follow the Click and accept all mission then complain about the distance later. Or the very few mission that doesn't give you any real detail. The few players will whine when they find out it too far and they avoid the Fact they do have a solution. DISCARD.
If everything had an easy Button like the instant travel I will not be playing Elite Dangerous because in my Eyes it would be called Elite easy.
So the question Becomes when does lack of common sense end and common Sense begin?
I can look at each one of these and see a reason for doing them or not. But it comes down to users Choice and an easy solution to a problem. There will be a few rare cases Where distance is forced on you just like some Combat missions for Thargoid or Guardian sites, Engineering is forced on you. But Even then you have a choice not doing them.
The other question why do a few players ignore key features of the game instead of reading the mission or research them by using galaxy map. They follow the Click and accept all mission then complain about the distance later. Or the very few mission that doesn't give you any real detail. The few players will whine when they find out it too far and they avoid the Fact they do have a solution. DISCARD.
If everything had an easy Button like the instant travel I will not be playing Elite Dangerous because in my Eyes it would be called Elite easy.
So the question Becomes when does lack of common sense end and common Sense begin?
Last edited:
That's because you ignore every single objection raised against your points. And then just repeat yourself.
Almost every simulator I've played allows you to speed up time or fast travel and for airplanes there is always autopilot.
The long travel times in Elite serve absolutely no purpose other than to waste people's time. If you don't want to fast travel, don't fast travel. If you don't want to use autopilot then don't use it.
The problem is one group is trying to force their play preferences on another. Why not let the player choose how he wants to play?
IIRC Hutton Orbital replaced Eden Station which was present in the two prior games, where time acceleration meant that orbital distances from the primary were mostly irrelevant unless you did something stupid like running out of fuel, or missing a mission deadline. Hyperspace arrival was also at the edge of systems rather than at the largest mass.
I read that more in terms of consistent and legacy-aware design than any sort of legal obligation. But given how far the game has already drifted from its 2012 concept and its 2013/2014 development plan I don't think FD would be bothered either way. They'll do what they want to do.
As Golgot and others have pointed out, there are those large systems where missions will occasionally send you. Sometimes to a station, other times to a body that's unknown until you arrive. They are annoying, of that there's no doubt. I've wondered, and possibly even posted here, whether FD could tweak the mission UI to display the overall size of the destination system. This might alleviate some of the problems by allowing players the option of skipping missions that might take them on a long supercruise jaunt. Of course that doesn't account for mission wrinkles that start you off in a small system and divert you to Distant Ice Ball World for shiggles, but then I guess you always have the option to abandon. What's more important, your time or your reputation? If you were being generous to FD you could almost consider this part of the gameplay, although it exists by accident rather than by design.
There's one system in particular (which I can't name right now because I don't currently have the scrap of paper I've written it on) that catches me out every time. I must have taken a dozen missions to stations in that system, only to realise there's a 20 minute supercruise trip to the destination. And here's the thing: much as I can get frustrated with it, or wish that FD would put a clue in the HUD as mentioned above, at the end of the day it is at least 50% my fault for my CMDR having such a lousy memory (thanks to me not finding and looking at the scrap of paper) that on the twelfth time he agreed to fly to that system he totally failed to recall the eleven other times he's been caught out. So in a way it's almost part of the role-play. I'm role-playing an idiot who can't remember place names. And it's an easy role to play.
And to establish scale (although as I've said elsewhere I think there's plenty of room for increasing top speeds and acceleration curves without ruining that aspect).
But they are also necessary components of how the mission system works. Longer flight times increase the risk of missed deadlines, increase the opportunity for interdiction by enemy ships, and to some degree set the level of reward for successful completion. Fast travel might break that, depending on how fast "fast" is.
(Certainly "fast travel" as seen in some open-world games -- click on a map location and travel there instantly -- would be horrible in ED.)
There's still a fair bit of wiggle room, and given FD's apparent desire to make the game more accessible my gut feeling is to expect to see some wiggling in the next year or two. But I wouldn't hold much hope for any radical changes or additions to the way travel is handled in ED. The sense of vast distances, and the insignificant little entities moving though them, is too much at the core of what this game is.
The only groups that matter are the FD design and development teams. They ultimately choose how we can play.