Please reduce travel times in the bubble

[VR Golgot]

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.

I reckon any time a game has you relying on scraps of paper to avoid repeat frustrations, it's the game that's not doing something right

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.

These are all fair points, but as you note in some of your prior post on the subject, there is wiggle room.

The empty inter-system zones offer no real opportunity for interdiction, so seem the ripest area for contraction / increased speed on that front, without unbalancing current norms. Difficulty in contracting said zones could equally earn the higher mission rating & reward.

On delivery times, I can't actually recall ever having missed a drop off, even with multiples stacked. The time frames seem to be very generous. That one feels the most shy of 'necessary' to me. At least as currently balanced.

 

[Jack Schitt]

I reckon any time a game has you relying on scraps of paper to avoid repeat frustrations, it's the game that's not doing something right

To be fair it's more my memory that's relying on scraps of paper! But then there's a reasonable argument that a game shouldn't require players to memorise trivia such as planetary system names in the first place (even though there's a counter argument that it's part of the role play).

All of this information should ideally be in the game, and it's possible it may be one day; a few long-requested UI tweaks do occasionally make it given enough time. But the pace is so slow, and I've no idea why. Sometimes I wish FD would either dismiss ideas outright, or implement them quickly. Instead we get months of silence possibly followed by an unexpected addition. And that's kinda cool at the time it happens, and can bring the community together briefly in celebration (assuming it's a universally positive change). But months of uncertainty is a high price to pay for moments of joy IMO.

On delivery times, I can't actually recall ever having missed a drop off, even with multiples stacked. The time frames seem to be very generous. That one feels the most shy of 'necessary' to me. At least as currently balanced.

They are very generous. I think I've only ever missed original targets when I've underestimated the duration of a real-world task ("I've got three hours to complete that mission; plenty of time to give the lawn a quick mow." Then five hours of gardening later I remember the mission!)

Whether the ability to interleave in-game schedules and IRL schedules in this way is a blessing or a curse is pretty subjective; IIRC disagreements about this sort of thing are what led in part to mission times being extended in the first place. Some players still don't like mission timers running when you're logged out at all.

Alternative deadlines spawned by wrinkles are a lot tighter, and I've missed a few of those mostly due to interdictions. But the problem with those is that the extra payouts and reputational variations are so small as to be insignificant anyway. It should really feel like a serious knock if you take an important side mission and fail it, but at the moment it doesn't.

As for using this as an excuse to dismiss them as unnecessary, I've always had a problem with the argument that "we can't change x because of y" where y is perceived as some sort of immutable thing that can't itself be changed (I've mentioned it several times on the forums but the new search is awful so I can't link to one). And this feels a bit close to that in a bass-ackwards way. Just because missions are a bit broken in terms of their relationship to travel times doesn't mean FD should dismiss the former in favour of a radical change to the latter. Ideally they should be looking to adjust both in a way that breaks neither.

That's often a difficult balance though, which may be why things tend to stay the same for so long in this game. There are very few levers that can be pulled or pushed without upsetting the whole machine somewhere else.

 

[Darkfyre99]

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.

It would help if the anti-SC side would actually listen when we try to explain how Supercruise actually works in the game, as opposed to this fictional construct they keep talking about. Unless Frontier is willing to scrap the Supercruise mechanic entirely and replace it with something Newtonian, the kinds of "tweaks" they think they're proposing would have the opposite effect of what they actually want.

You simply can't increase "acceleration" (aka decreasing mass lock effect) without having an opposite effect on "deceleration" (aka increasing mass lock effect). They're the same effect, caused by a change in distance from whatever body is responsible for the mass lock effect in the first place. That's why optimal routes got slower when Frontier decreased mass lock in order to speed up non-optimal routes. The effect we relied on to quickly stop our ships was reduced, thanks to the optimal arrival route moving inside the bodies themselves.

There is so little mass lock these days, that what was once considered the result of poor technique, the so-called "loop of shame," is now mandatory. A further reduction of mass lock, which is already too low IMO, could very well necessitate the poorest of techniques, keeping the throttle in the blue-zone, for 90% of likely destinations. While blue-zone and SCA pilots would once again see their travel times decrease, everyone else would see their travel times increase again.

 

[InFlickWeTrust]

But keep long travel times outside the bubble.

Its stopping me from playing.

For me, 10/20 mins staring at screen to get somewhere is ok if exploring new frontiers or the odd long range mission or something. Not ok for the majority of missions, mining, trade, bounty etc

Travel is a huge part of this game and I think removing such a large section of this so called "gameplay" would not be in the favor of the Developers nor large parts of the Community but I think that Players should be able to have the option to choose a point of entry or the option to jump within systems.... although I think it should not be possible if you are doing Missions..... Making "Money" is relatively hard (big emphasis on relatively) it should not be made easier but Time is a real "commodity" that has a High value in real life. I don´t want to spend so much of it looking at a screen where nothing happens. Don´t get me wrong the Frameshift OST still gives me chills and reminds me of the Rollercoaster that everything has been in the last 4 years and that´s why I think you should not just take that away from "Old" or "New" players but the option should be there.... If people want to miss out on certain parts with "great" artistic value ....why not?

 

[WinterKing2112]

OP is right ! Since 3.3, ED is becoming more and more arcade-ish. Let's finish the job and make it totally arcade !!

Nooooohhhh!!!

 

[ChrisF0001]

It would help if the anti-SC side would actually listen when we try to explain how Supercruise actually works in the game, as opposed to this fictional construct they keep talking about. Unless Frontier is willing to scrap the Supercruise mechanic entirely and replace it with something Newtonian, the kinds of "tweaks" they think they're proposing would have the opposite effect of what they actually want.

You simply can't increase "acceleration" (aka decreasing mass lock effect) without having an opposite effect on "deceleration" (aka increasing mass lock effect). They're the same effect, caused by a change in distance from whatever body is responsible for the mass lock effect in the first place. That's why optimal routes got slower when Frontier decreased mass lock in order to speed up non-optimal routes. The effect we relied on to quickly stop our ships was reduced, thanks to the optimal arrival route moving inside the bodies themselves.

There is so little mass lock these days, that what was once considered the result of poor technique, the so-called "loop of shame," is now mandatory. A further reduction of mass lock, which is already too low IMO, could very well necessitate the poorest of techniques, keeping the throttle in the blue-zone, for 90% of likely destinations. While blue-zone and SCA pilots would once again see their travel times decrease, everyone else would see their travel times increase again.

Very well said. From the first time I played this game back at launch I was impressed at how well the SC acceleration / deceleration mechanics are balanced - one journey can be tens of thousands of times longer than another in terms of distance, but both take quite reasonable amounts of time to fly, where one feels long and the other short, but they're both quite doable in real time for someone playing a game. It's astonishingly well done.

And yes, I still like it the way it is, and I don't want other people's impatience changing a game design that I like.

 

[Riverside]

It would help if the anti-SC side would actually listen when we try to explain how Supercruise actually works in the game, as opposed to this fictional construct they keep talking about. Unless Frontier is willing to scrap the Supercruise mechanic entirely and replace it with something Newtonian, the kinds of "tweaks" they think they're proposing would have the opposite effect of what they actually want.

You simply can't increase "acceleration" (aka decreasing mass lock effect) without having an opposite effect on "deceleration" (aka increasing mass lock effect). They're the same effect, caused by a change in distance from whatever body is responsible for the mass lock effect in the first place. That's why optimal routes got slower when Frontier decreased mass lock in order to speed up non-optimal routes. The effect we relied on to quickly stop our ships was reduced, thanks to the optimal arrival route moving inside the bodies themselves.

There is so little mass lock these days, that what was once considered the result of poor technique, the so-called "loop of shame," is now mandatory. A further reduction of mass lock, which is already too low IMO, could very well necessitate the poorest of techniques, keeping the throttle in the blue-zone, for 90% of likely destinations. While blue-zone and SCA pilots would once again see their travel times decrease, everyone else would see their travel times increase again.

You understand this far more thoroughly than I do, if nothing else I didn't start until after launch so have not experienced anything other than what we have now. I'm happy to defer to you on this matter.

For longer journeys between distant bodies I believe there is room for some improvement, with the local maximum speed being increased away from gravity wells such that the middle part of a journey takes less time. As a ship goes over say 500c the rate of increase of the speed drops off - this is the acceleration (and deceleration past the midway point) that could be improved - to shorten the middle half of the journey.

I think having a more visible representation of the local 3D topology would certainly help players to more optimally navigate past gravity wells, and while I agree that gravity braking could be more pronounced the punishment for getting it wrong (going in too deep & shedding too much speed) is already so much that it probably discourages most from trying it regularly.

Mostly I will spiral in to improve on a 6 sec ETA, I don't generally loop around the body unless I am evading an interdiction (in which case saving time is less of a factor).

 

[Darkfyre99]

For longer journeys between distant bodies I believe there is room for some improvement, with the local maximum speed being increased away from gravity wells such that the middle part of a journey takes less time. As a ship goes over say 500c the rate of increase of the speed drops off - this is the acceleration (and deceleration past the midway point) that could be improved - to shorten the middle half of the journey.

My chief concern about messing with mass lock curves (let's call it what it is), is that it will likely have nasty unwanted side effects... such overshooting lower mass stars, and thus increasing travel times instead of decreasing them. We're seeing this already with the smallest mass stars, assuming that you don't fly to them directly, minimizing the time you spend under their mass lock effect, and thus your travel time.

That's why I favor optional modules that can temporarily increase or decrease local mass lock, as opposed to directly messing with the mass lock curves. It opens up additional game play options, as opposed to removing them, which has already happened with the great mass lock nerf of Premium Beta 1. Modules allows for specialized builds, the effect being local allows for the formation of convoys or blockades, and the effect being temporary, as opposed to always on, would require some skill to use.

I think having a more visible representation of the local 3D topology would certainly help players to more optimally navigate past gravity wells, and while I agree that gravity braking could be more pronounced the punishment for getting it wrong (going in too deep & shedding too much speed) is already so much that it probably discourages most from trying it regularly.

I'm personally at a loss for better method of representing local mass lock than what's already in the game, at least one that wouldn't be extremely ugly and confusing to look at. People already complain about orbit lines cluttering up their view of space, after all. When I try to picture anything beyond the concentric circles that already exist in the game, the effect is rather... Escher-esque.

 

[WinterKing2112]

My chief concern about messing with mass lock curves (let's call it what it is), is that it will likely have nasty unwanted side effects... such overshooting lower mass stars, and thus increasing travel times instead of decreasing them. We're seeing this already with the smallest mass stars, assuming that you don't fly to them directly, minimizing the time you spend under their mass lock effect, and thus your travel time.

That's why I favor optional modules that can temporarily increase or decrease local mass lock, as opposed to directly messing with the mass lock curves. It opens up additional game play options, as opposed to removing them, which has already happened with the great mass lock nerf of Premium Beta 1. Modules allows for specialized builds, the effect being local allows for the formation of convoys or blockades, and the effect being temporary, as opposed to always on, would require some skill to use.



I'm personally at a loss for better method of representing local mass lock than what's already in the game, at least one that wouldn't be extremely ugly and confusing to look at. People already complain about orbit lines cluttering up their view of space, after all. When I try to picture anything beyond the concentric circles that already exist in the game, the effect is rather... Escher-esque.

It sounds like you and rslg have an understanding of how the theoretical physics of supercruise has been simulated in ED, whereas the "supercruise is boring crowd" ( let's abreviate that down to SIBC going forward) don't.. This is one of the reasons I agree with you and rlsg i.e. I prefer scientific explanations (even tho they are theoretical) over the extremely dubious reasoning of the SIBC. Because the SIBC by definition have somewhat limited attention spans, their eyes must glaze over halfway thru your detailed explanations and they give up, posting yet another iteration of their flawed arguments because they cannot think of a logical way of countering your statements.

 

[Chylder]

I am just baffled that people complain about how long it takes to get places in elite. Do people not understand just how incredibly HUGE space is? Your ship can travel dozens of lightyears in a few seconds. Insystem you can travel at hundreds of times the speed of light. Do you realize how FAR just one lightsecond is? Space is vast and expecting instantaneous travel is silly. If you can't handle how long it takes to get somewhere, maybe you should go play Forza for a bit, get your speedfreak on and then stop. Take the top speed of your fastest car and compare that against your docking speed and that race car just got flattened by your ship going it's minimum speed. This is definitely not a game for people who just want instant gratification but rather those who can understand the beauty of a well done spaceflight simulator. Is it perfect? No. Is it awesome? Oh yes. I love the travel times. They have given us ships that are ridiculously fast but can still make us able to appreciate just how far we are going

 

[WinterKing2112]

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?

Someone on another thread complained (and quite correctly) that if you're playing a lawful commander then you cannot justify attacking transport ships, but transport ships have very useful mats when you blow them up! I think that is why Frontier stuck all those USS's out in supercruise: to give the lawful commanders a good source of manufactured mats without being forced into murdering npc's. So your statement that long travel times serve no purpose is completely wrong. Lestat has stated again and again that you don't usually have to subject yourself to long travel times. Just do a bit of research before you go! And if you do end up in supercruise for any length of time, there is usually something very useful you can do on the way to your destination. Tho if you don't check out those USS's I guess you could then get on another thread moaning about how there's no good mats to be had and engineering is such a grind! Then you can moan on 2 threads simultaneously!

 

[WinterKing2112]

But keep long travel times outside the bubble.

Its stopping me from playing.

For me, 10/20 mins staring at screen to get somewhere is ok if exploring new frontiers or the odd long range mission or something. Not ok for the majority of missions, mining, trade, bounty etc

Lestat has the answer to your problem.....

 

[lenna]

Keywords: most, love.

I was being generous - I would say the vast majority, besides which the general topic is moot and irrelevant in the context of this thread.

I reckon any time a game has you relying on scraps of paper to avoid repeat frustrations, it's the game that's not doing something right

If anyone is relying on scraps of paper for remembering significant systems then they are ignoring the in-game tools that are available. The galaxy map has some powerful filtering/search features and then there are bookmarks that can be used for other stuff such as favourite trade routes or mining locations.

In the specific case of missions, their rewards are scaled based primarily on Required-Time-Investment, Level-of-Effort and Risk (the time limits are on the most part arbitrary - with few exceptions they are 24hrs real time - and have been like that for some time). The wrinkle bonuses probably should be looked at to ensure they are achievable but in general failure to complete the wrinkles does not fail the mission itself.

 

[lenna]

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).

I am sorry but it is you who are wrong in your fundamental assertions, if there are problems with certain mission spawns then the issue is with the mission spawns not the super-cruise travel mechanic. However, if you engage in bounty hunting mission types then you must be willing to chase the target for as long as is required and to wherever they may be - that could include remote locations for whatever reason but possibly should not.

Ultimately, it does not change the truth of what I have been saying all along - those complaining about SC travel times are on the most part moaning without a solid argument to back them up.

 

[lenna]

Almost every simulator I've played allows you to speed up time or fast travel and for airplanes there is always autopilot.

In ED, we have FTL-based SC to replace the SETA in previous Elite series titles and as of the most recent update there is the SCA which acts as at least a form of autopilot.

The problem with ED is that even when in Solo, it is still a multi-player product thus there are various good reasons why things are as they are.

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?

Not really - The issue in play is not one of choice of playstyle, but one of core design decisions.

FD developed a 1:1 scale simulated galaxy model with multiplayer as a key (but on the most part optional) element, the fundamental problem though is the single shared universe state which limits what can be done in the case of solo players. If it were not for the single shared universe state, I am certain that FD could have implemented time acceleration but as soon as you include multiplayer as a factor that no longer becomes a viable option.

SC travel times are a compromise solution that is balanced in a way that minimises travel times as much as-is reasonably possible while not impacting on multiplayer elements too much nor compromising on the overall galaxy model.

 

[Lestat]

I am sorry but it is you who are wrong in your fundamental assertions, if there are problems with certain mission spawns then the issue is with the mission spawns not the super-cruise travel mechanic. However, if you engage in bounty hunting mission types then you must be willing to chase the target for as long as is required and to wherever they may be - that could include remote locations for whatever reason but possibly should not.

Ultimately, it does not change the truth of what I have been saying all along - those complaining about SC travel times are on the most part moaning without a solid argument to back them up.

Problem with Pointing out Facts. They start making terrible excuses not to counter it and when they can't. They try. "It not gameplay excuse."

We both look at Distance as part of the gameplay as other parts of the game. You made a valid Point with chasing a Pirate. Do people really think that people want to play a game when the Pirate show up in a minute or 2? That an I win feature. It like they want the Pirate to live next door to them and not in vastness of space. When the player should look at the price of the Mission and decide. I don't think all the Missions should say. Hay you have to fly 60,000 LS. For me, it gives to much detail. What the mission like seeking a pirate should give us how much credits you will earn using that you should be able to use logic to assume The higher the cost of the mission the more likely you will have to fly at a further distance then some people desire.

 

[lenna]

What the mission like seeking a pirate should give us how much credits you will earn using that you should be able to use logic to assume The higher the cost of the mission the more likely you will have to fly at a further distance then some people desire.

I get where you are coming from, but threat level should also be a consideration.

Examples:-

1. Hunt Deserter Dwayne Dibley - 1 million credits reward, threat level low, location unknown last seen near Holly Station in the Kipper system
2. Hunt Pirate Lord Ace Rimmer - 1 million credits reward, threat level high, location near planet Kryton in the Kipper system (1k Ls from primary star)

Ok, the names and locations are intentionally tongue in cheek but hopefully you get my point.

 

[Chrizaim]

Space is huge. Understood

Time gives realism to the travel simulation. Understood

Staring at a screen without any input into the game for several minutes gets boring after 1500hrs of play (for me).

Supercruise is made up tech, so FD can change the speed.

Maybe travel between larger ports (e.g. motorways) is faster using a direct nav beacon for FSD and we get slow SC for smaller populated areas not visitied as often.

 

[Lestat]

I get where you are coming from, but threat level should also be a consideration.

Examples:-

1. Hunt Deserter Dwayne Dibley - 1 million credits reward, threat level low, location unknown last seen near Holly Station in the Kipper system
2. Hunt Pirate Lord Ace Rimmer - 1 million credits reward, threat level high, location near planet Kryton in the Kipper system (1k Ls from primary star)

Ok, the names and locations are intentionally tongue in cheek but hopefully you get my point.

I think you bring up a good point on the threat level. I always tend to hit High treat levels so I tend not to account for that.

Space is huge. Understood

Time gives realism to the travel simulation. Understood

Staring at a screen without any input into the game for several minutes gets boring after 1500hrs of play (for me).

Supercruise is made up tech, so FD can change the speed.

Maybe travel between larger ports (e.g. motorways) is faster using a direct nav beacon for FSD and we get slow SC for smaller populated areas not visitied as often.

If you work on some of the other mechanics of the game you would not have to view the screen for several minutes. But the payouts might be lower.

 

[lenna]

Supercruise is made up tech

Not entirely, it is based on prevailing theories on FTL travel involving manipulation of space/space-time - essentially involving distorting space around the ship in order to allow it to travel FTL (c/f Alcubierre Drive).

Maybe travel between larger ports (e.g. motorways) is faster using a direct nav beacon for FSD and we get slow SC for smaller populated areas not visitied as often.

Does not really gel with the scientific theories (in fact the inverse may be closer to what could reasonably be expected - i.e. higher traffic levels resulting in slower travel times due to FSDs interfering with each other, effectively quantum turbulence caused by the manipulation of space-time in essence) - further more, it would solve very little on balance.

In addition, without SCA usage there are very few long distance trip examples that can be considered in the main "hands-off" where the controls are concerned.