Please reduce travel times in the bubble

[Sysmon]

This is probably the key. Long travel times were mitigated in FE2 by time compression, and because it was a standalone game.

But Long travel times is/was acceptable in that game, as it made you plan your journeys, and especially those missions where you had to time yourself to intercept a target and kill him when he entered a certain system LYs away.

It made sense then. But we got around that time sink nonsense with time compression so we didn't waste minutes or hours of our life commuting.


I dunno man.... Long, non-compressible travel times look good for retirees.... , and maybe the odd kid who loves these kinda games.
But it doesn't make sense for a consumers who are working adults with limited play time.

In Frontier/FFE we also exited witchspace outside the total mass of a given system. How many have had the joy of travelling to the Alpha Centauri system in those games?

Looks like we are moving towards name-calling again. Does it make a difference to the time it takes to travel in-game whether it is compressed time in the game that speeds up things or real 1:1 time with compressed space? Are you implying one needs to be a kid or retired person to enjoy games that take time to play? What do the work situations of consumers have to do with this? Can't children or retirees be consumers? What constitutes limited play time? Who has unlimited playtime?

S

 

[dxm55]

In Frontier/FFE we also exited witchspace outside the total mass of a given system. How many have had the joy of travelling to the Alpha Centauri system in those games?

Looks like we are moving towards name-calling again. Does it make a difference to the time it takes to travel in-game whether it is compressed time in the game that speeds up things or real 1:1 time with compressed space? Are you implying one needs to be a kid or retired person to enjoy games that take time to play? What do the work situations of consumers have to do with this? Can't children or retirees be consumers? What constitutes limited play time? Who has unlimited playtime?

S

You seem fixated on those last lines to dedicate an entire paragraph on it. Man I can't help it if you're sensitive. So I'll just leave it as that.

Baaack to the gist of things. Yes, we used to exit at the edge of a star system, and then used our engines/thrusters for realspace travel.
And that took extraordinarily long. A week would flash by in witchspace. Then you'd take another few days to travel from the system rim to the inner planets. You could see it in the game time represented. And that's all right, because space is big and that gives a sense of scale.

But again, we had time compression. So we could feel how big space is/was, but were still able to enjoy the game in a reasonable and respectable RL time frame per gaming session.

So it all comes back full circle to the post I quoted.

excessively long boring travel times are direct outcome of turning what is in its core a single player game into a crippled MMO without much thought...

That's why many space games allow you to jump straight to your target, be it a station orbiting a planet, a planet itself, or near a star.

Personally I think SC is generally fine within a single star system. 5 mins in SC is still acceptable.
It's the multiple star systems that become a problem. We should be able to jump directly to any objects of sufficient mass.
Why should I jump to the A-star and then have to SC to B or C several hundred thousand LSés away? It doesn't make sense?
I could have jumped in directly to B or C.

Also, jump ranges need to be adjusted somewhat. Stock ships with under 10LY ranges is ridiculous.

And bring back the Military drives that allowed stock 27LY ranges stock. Those were da bomb.
I'd gladly dump radioactive waste onto a starport and be wanted just to be able to do 27LY stock jump ranges and then engineer it up to 100.

 

[WinterKing2112]

In Frontier/FFE we also exited witchspace outside the total mass of a given system. How many have had the joy of travelling to the Alpha Centauri system in those games?

Looks like we are moving towards name-calling again. Does it make a difference to the time it takes to travel in-game whether it is compressed time in the game that speeds up things or real 1:1 time with compressed space? Are you implying one needs to be a kid or retired person to enjoy games that take time to play? What do the work situations of consumers have to do with this? Can't children or retirees be consumers? What constitutes limited play time? Who has unlimited playtime?

S

I wish I had unlimited play time! But I run a business, so I need to be there a lot to keep an eye on all the dxm55's who won't show up to work, or when they do, think they can just mess about and still get paid!

 

[Sysmon]

I wish I had unlimited play time! But I run a business, soI need to be there a lot to keep an eye on all the dxm55's who won't show up to work, or when they do, think they can just mess about and still get paid!

I work from home. Same as being retired I reckon. Except the pay is better.

S

 

[Schmack]

The crux of many of the "issues" with the game in these regards is that the dichotomy of sim players to game players is a very defined one, with not a lot of middle ground. Sim players are all about the realism, for what ever it is, and see these delays as necessary in order to foster immersion. Game players see these things as fillers for content gaps and as ways for the developer to artificially create more play time for the average player, when in reality, to them, the play only really happens once they are in their final instance, not during super cruise, not during hyper jumps as those are just time sinks.

The game itself cannot make up its mind which it is, sim or game. It has many elements of a sim, flight mechanics, visuals, physics and such and time sink for travel. There's a real feeling of being alone when you are thousands of LY away from inhabited space. That's pretty hard to create in a "sim". Then there's the game aspect - the big blue (to me) triangle, the flashing messages about limpets not have a target, the codex updates in the middle of your HUD while you are eons away from any human life, and many of the other gamey things like big floating cargo canisters that magically scoop if you get near them, shields, healing beams, all the silly stuff created for diversity of content. How do you marry the two?

I don't see any easy way to appease both crowds since we have one shared BGS.

 

[Jack Schitt]

I don't see any easy way to appease both crowds since we have one shared BGS.

That's a very binary way of looking at things, although for the sake of simplicity it may be the least worst way of generalising the game and its audience. The issue I have is that it's ignoring the existence of a Venn crossover between the game and simulation "crowds", and I can say that with absolute certainty because I'm in it. What I can't say is how large or significant it is, although I'm willing to bet arx to donuts I'm not the only one there. My position within it also swings depending on my mood, but never enough to make me want to sacrifice one aspect for the other.

The question then becomes, should the game have to "make up its mind" and shift in one direction to the exclusion of the other? Or should it be trying to cater to its middle ground through subtle changes in a way that encourages those currently in one or other circle to migrate towards the common area?

Of course finding a solution to that has at least two obstacles, at least from the perspective of the players. The first is that we've no idea how large that central overlap is, and by extension whether it's large enough to justify being the target (and unlike an actual Venn diagram it will have fuzzy edges anyway). The second is that FD's development method tends towards long periods with relatively minor tweaks followed by occasional bombardments of radically new stuff, some of which help but some of which can, unfortunately, exacerbate existing frustrations. And like Forrest Gump's mom, we never know what we're going to get.

What's needed is perhaps a more holistic long-term strategy, but I'm not sure whether the current state of the game will ever permit that. It's a bunch of individual chunks of genius all held together by fragile threads of inconsistent lore and headcanon, and as such it attracts a wide range of player types but ends up both pleasing and frustrating many of them at the same time. I wonder whether it can ever be anything else unless, as you say, it "makes up its mind" and throws a chunk of its players under the bus. But that would be a sad, ignoble end to a unique game, especially for whichever group ended up under the bus.

 

[Schmack]

That's a very binary way of looking at things, although for the sake of simplicity it may be the least worst way of generalising the game and its audience. The issue I have is that it's ignoring the existence of a Venn crossover between the game and simulation "crowds", and I can say that with absolute certainty because I'm in it. What I can't say is how large or significant it is, although I'm willing to bet arx to donuts I'm not the only one there. My position within it also swings depending on my mood, but never enough to make me want to sacrifice one aspect for the other.

The question then becomes, should the game have to "make up its mind" and shift in one direction to the exclusion of the other? Or should it be trying to cater to its middle ground through subtle changes in a way that encourages those currently in one or other circle to migrate towards the common area?

Of course finding a solution to that has at least two obstacles, at least from the perspective of the players. The first is that we've no idea how large that central overlap is, and by extension whether it's large enough to justify being the target (and unlike an actual Venn diagram it will have fuzzy edges anyway). The second is that FD's development method tends towards long periods with relatively minor tweaks followed by occasional bombardments of radically new stuff, some of which help but some of which can, unfortunately, exacerbate existing frustrations. And like Forrest Gump's mom, we never know what we're going to get.

What's needed is perhaps a more holistic long-term strategy, but I'm not sure whether the current state of the game will ever permit that. It's a bunch of individual chunks of genius all held together by fragile threads of inconsistent lore and headcanon, and as such it attracts a wide range of player types but ends up both pleasing and frustrating many of them at the same time. I wonder whether it can ever be anything else unless, as you say, it "makes up its mind" and throws a chunk of its players under the bus. But that would be a sad, ignoble end to a unique game, especially for whichever group ended up under the bus.

I haven't seen a lot of responses from people who could "take it or leave it" where supercruise times are concerned. I've seen those opposed to reduction and those in favor. Those who don't care either way perhaps just don't respond, and there's likely a much larger user base who doesn't even post on these forums. But I use the forums as a cross section of the user base as a whole. Here you have a good number of sim players and while it's still a game they go deeper into it including creating their own lore and narratives.

I don't think it would be a better game or better sim if it decided to be one or the other. CQC isn't attractive to me. It's repetitive and boring after a few minutes. On the other hand, chasing pirates down is fun. I could be in the same boat as you, where the sim portion of the experience has more weight than the game portion. I might get bored for lack of game, but I might stick around for abundance of sim. Sim is what makes me land my ship at a station prior to logging off. Game is what makes me coax pirate lords into a nav beacon so other pirates can kill them, as I exploit the weakness in the programming. Surely a pirate in a sidewider wouldn't attack a Federal Corvette just because it had 12 units of crop harvesters with basically zero chance of ever seeing them and couldn't haul them anyhow. Sometimes I am more into the sim, sometimes I am more into the game. So when I say "marry them" I mean make the sim and the game work better together. A pirate would have a ship capable of hauling what he was trying to steal. A commander would never need to land on a planet to shoot rocks for raw materials. Entire stations are built with commodities hauled with massive ships. Surely there's a mining operation where all these minerals could be acquired. That's the game part though.

Engineering could be more sim-like. You might drop off a module and come back to collect it once it's been modified and tested. Then that's what you have. The different G levels would be pointless. But G levels are the game. Supercruise would mean you are on your final approach to your destination. You could message your passengers to let them know, and you could get updates on their well being without the gamey requests for things they couldn't possibly use. Requests for your assistance while you are enroute elsewhere could come across as an SOS hail, all ships in the area. That's the sim. Instead we get a distress signal with the same guy needing fuel or a semi-broken black box recovery request once you drop in - from a voice from an unknown source. That's the game. I think people who engage in that type of experience almost exclusively will want to reduce the sim-like aspects of the "game". On the flip side, folks who engage in things like discovery and exploration and lore want it as real as they can get it. I agree plenty people bounce back and forth between the two. But there's still two basic elements.

Again, I see no way around gamey things like faction based missions to kill the same pirate lord an endless amount of times.

 

[Jack Schitt]

I haven't seen a lot of responses from people who could "take it or leave it" where supercruise times are concerned. I've seen those opposed to reduction and those in favor.

Then you haven't been reading my posts, especially this one:

Like I said, I'm more than happy to carry on with things the way they are. It strikes a good balance between, using the words in their broadest sense, the "simulation" and "action" aspects of the game. But I still see opportunities for change. If those changes are still being dismissed, I'd just like to know whether it's for technical reasons or policy reasons.

But yeah, I too suspect it's mainly down to people who are happy with the status quo simply not responding. Whether this is because "it's fine the way it is" posts are kinda nonproductive in these sorts of threads (and may even be perceived as adversarial towards the OP, such is the internet) or because those people aren't engaged in forum discussions at all is what makes this sort of guesswork a bit frustrating.

In this thread I've tried to make it clear (I hope) that while I'm fairly happy with things the way they are, I wouldn't be averse to certain changes either. I'm more curious as to FD's motivations for not engaging with the community on this. Is there a technical limitation, or an immutable design choice around which everything must turn, or are they simply in a place where this isn't even on their radar one way or another and they're happy to leave us all engaged in a speculate-o-thon that at least keeps the forums active.

(And if I'm being honest I'd probably only be partially sated with a "technical limitation" answer even if they gave it. I still remember a time when ships were hard capped at 500m/s in normal space for unalterable networking reasons...)

 

[Brrokk]

Then you haven't been reading my posts, especially this one:

But yeah, I too suspect it's mainly down to people who are happy with the status quo simply not responding. Whether this is because "it's fine the way it is" posts are kinda nonproductive in these sorts of threads (and may even be perceived as adversarial towards the OP, such is the internet) or because those people aren't engaged in forum discussions at all is what makes this sort of guesswork a bit frustrating.

In this thread I've tried to make it clear (I hope) that while I'm fairly happy with things the way they are, I wouldn't be averse to certain changes either. I'm more curious as to FD's motivations for not engaging with the community on this. Is there a technical limitation, or an immutable design choice around which everything must turn, or are they simply in a place where this isn't even on their radar one way or another and they're happy to leave us all engaged in a speculate-o-thon that at least keeps the forums active.

(And if I'm being honest I'd probably only be partially sated with a "technical limitation" answer even if they gave it. I still remember a time when ships were hard capped at 500m/s in normal space for unalterable networking reasons...)

You've described me there. I'm happy with travel the way it is; I think it contributes somewhat to a sense of scale. But I don't mind if FD have new ideas and try them out. Being happy either way, I tend not to contribute much in threads like this. I suppose that's why suggestion threads often tend to look polarised.

 

[Schmack]

Then you haven't been reading my posts, especially this one:

But yeah, I too suspect it's mainly down to people who are happy with the status quo simply not responding. Whether this is because "it's fine the way it is" posts are kinda nonproductive in these sorts of threads (and may even be perceived as adversarial towards the OP, such is the internet) or because those people aren't engaged in forum discussions at all is what makes this sort of guesswork a bit frustrating.

In this thread I've tried to make it clear (I hope) that while I'm fairly happy with things the way they are, I wouldn't be averse to certain changes either. I'm more curious as to FD's motivations for not engaging with the community on this. Is there a technical limitation, or an immutable design choice around which everything must turn, or are they simply in a place where this isn't even on their radar one way or another and they're happy to leave us all engaged in a speculate-o-thon that at least keeps the forums active.

(And if I'm being honest I'd probably only be partially sated with a "technical limitation" answer even if they gave it. I still remember a time when ships were hard capped at 500m/s in normal space for unalterable networking reasons...)

Part of me thinks the capped speeds and other capped parameters are to allow for add on content later. Now engineering caps speed at what, 938m/s? Is that too just an artificial speed limit that could easily be overcame if the devs were willing to open up the dam just a bit? Probably. Orbital cruise speed is 2500 m/s. The need to be viable for a wider array of platforms than I currently personally use is obviously a big factor, so we are in group lock step with the slowest viable platform, as it were.

When I said I don't see a lot, I mean a lot, not just one or two. I can take it or leave it usually. I don't even use SCA, but it's handy if you do long cruises. I don't use a DC but they are handy. I get the fear of creating easy botting material, but I don't share the fear because I don't have a dog in that race, I don't work with a group to affect power play or the BGS.

 

[CLG 6]

I disagree. I like the idea of the grind. I'm currently 73% deadly in combat and getting to elite will be worthwhile because of the grind it takes to get there.

 

[Voracity_T]

Traversing space has never been so easy in ED.

Literally NEVER been so easy.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

People cant tell the difference between difficulty and practicality.

Press J ftw I'm so leet.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Part of me thinks the capped speeds and other capped parameters are to allow for add on content later. Now engineering caps speed at what, 938m/s? Is that too just an artificial speed limit that could easily be overcame if the devs were willing to open up the dam just a bit?

Impossible to know really, unless or until they boost it again. I suppose there must be a limit beyond which the networking genuinely does break down, but only FD will know what it is or how close to it the game gets. I guess it's also possible that because FD were never able to eliminate fully the occasional rubberbanding even at low speeds, someone's made the decision that if it's going to happen anyway they might as well remove the legacy limit. It certainly made Engineering more interesting, and by extension emergent stuff like canyon running.

 

[Schmack]

Impossible to know really, unless or until they boost it again. I suppose there must be a limit beyond which the networking genuinely does break down, but only FD will know what it is or how close to it the game gets. I guess it's also possible that because FD were never able to eliminate fully the occasional rubberbanding even at low speeds, someone's made the decision that if it's going to happen anyway they might as well remove the legacy limit. It certainly made Engineering more interesting, and by extension emergent stuff like canyon running.

It makes sense. Also, perhaps some things won't load in the instance before you get to where they should be, then you will just see them load right in front of you. That could be a problem if you move too fast. I am presuming that normal space has a finite horizon that's loaded, and has to keep up with your position.

 

[lenna]

But it doesn't make sense for a consumers who are working adults with limited play time.

As a working adult with a hectic schedule I disagree, ED does not need to be turned into an instant gratification title (there are plenty of those already) and the longer travel times ARE avoidable to a very large degree anyway.

 

[Sysmon]

As a working adult with a hectic schedule I disagree, ED does not need to be turned into an instant gratification title (there are plenty of those already) and the longer travel times ARE avoidable to a very large degree anyway.

Heaps of +1s to this, I agree 100%. I can squeeze in maybe 45 minutes to an hour after work if I'm lucky. After playing since we went out of the original beta I have racked up a mind-boggling 1300 hours of playtime, despite being in the game almost daily... Getting back to the game is like getting back to a good book-series - you can read a few pages every day and have entertainment for ages.

: D

 

[Darkfyre99]

As a working adult with a hectic schedule I disagree, ED does not need to be turned into an instant gratification title (there are plenty of those already) and the longer travel times ARE avoidable to a very large degree anyway.

Very much this. I consider myself lucky if I can get in five hours in any particular week. Not only are longer travel times very much avoidable, but on those rare occasions where a Supercruise journey is longer than five minutes, I can use that time on the parts of the game that require me to be in the Galaxy Map, which under other circumstances I could only do while docked, my ship sitting there idle and unproductive.