POLL: Should ED have an Auto Pilot?

[Sandmann]

You scored 0/10, if you want to provide some proper answers or reasoning we can engage in further reasonable debate.

You don't read too good, do you?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

That is fine, then it's great and fits perfectly into your point of view that a AP will not effect your game play in any way, you can just choose not to use it win win.

How many explanations of why it WILL do you need to stop saying that?

 

[lysan]

You don't read too good, do you?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



How many explanations of why it WILL do you need to stop saying that?

You have given me zero evidence that it will influence your gameplay, just as all the trading add ons out there it will only make the user notices it.
How can it possible be different from the docking computer?

 

[Sandmann]

You have given me zero evidence that it will influence your gameplay, just as all the trading add ons out there it will only make the user notices it.
How can it possible be different from the docking computer?

*sigh* ok... because you don't.seem to know how to use the search or just read back...

Firstly, it will tie up developers from more useful work.

Secondly, when you remove the NEED to use a more complex system it becomes the default method and in this case it devalues the game by removing content.

Third, it's not up to us to to show why it's bad, if you want dev time to be spent of it it's up to you to show why it would improve the game. "Because I want it" is not a reason. Neither is "Because you don't have to use it." Removing content from a game that's already lacking content isn't smart, that's why the RIGHT solution is to add the missing content rather than providing a way to withdraw from the game.

 

[Hironichu]

What the     .

 

[veryinky]

Off topic but also in the interests of making flight less boring... I'd really like to see microjumps broght in so if you jump to a system with multiple stars you could quickly microjump to the next star (though that would kill events like the trip to Hutton station etc). Maybe microjumps wouldn't work near certain types of stars, and AP would cancel with certain EM fields or something. Either way, space travel needs to be more Millenium Falcon or Battlestar Galactica, and less Babylon 5 or Star Trek. That sort of space flight should be for capital ships, not small ships like ours.

Supercruise used to be uncapped if the player had nothing targeted, this was patched in 1.4.

Best solution I've seen involves making the gravity "shallows" near planets and stars more pronounced while deep space, 500+ls, would have almost no resistance and no speed cap, resulting in very rapid acceleration and vastly reducing the amount of time spent in deep space traveling from one shallow location to an other. This would result in most ships spending their time near something and pilots would actually have something to do/react to instead of most of their time spent waiting, also would result in interdictions and the like to happen near a planet or star.

 

[Zambrick]

I have let this go for several days now Ziggy. My un hidden Ad hominem in my previous post has been proven as fact not fallacy.

The people that are voting against it cannot provide proof as to how and why an optional device/mechanic can affect their game play. All they can say is they dont want it and that is it. They have as of yet been able to provide a logical or truthful response as to how a mechanic like this will cause them harm. The closest excuse that was given is that a Pilot should always be flying his or her ship. That is the closest thing to an argument against and that is only an opinion.

There isnt a single pilot military or otherwise that uses hands on flight for 8 hours. Its too dangerous to leave a such a repetitive task up to a an easily distracted and possibly tired human. That is a fact now and will be in the future. There is no way a government, private company, or anyone would allow a human to control a spacecraft manually for interstellar travel.

I guess the other poll about your crew flying while you do other things is going better. but its a positive result due to RP purposes. Because in the end even though they are selling it as a NPC pilot, it is just a flight computer. Perhaps the RP makes them feel better?

 

[Jabezz]

The people that are voting against it cannot provide proof as to how and why an optional device/mechanic can affect their game play. All they can say is they dont want it and that is it. They have as of yet been able to provide a logical or truthful response as to how a mechanic like this will cause them harm. The closest excuse that was given is that a Pilot should always be flying his or her ship. That is the closest thing to an argument against and that is only an opinion.

Having read most of the posts since the start of this thread I have only seen the following in their argument against.

1. Unnecessary developers time spent on developing the AP.
2. AP will prevent FD from adding interesting stuff to jump travel.
3. Although it will be optional the vast majority of players will default to using it, even though most of them didn't want it included (bizarre!).
4. It makes travel too easy! Because it's so difficult right?
5. A pilot should be in control of his craft at all times.
6. Last but not least some see this as the start of automating everything.

Out of all of those the only one which even remotely represents a point to be added as an argument is number 1. and that is subjective.

 

[Crumb]

Of course it's true that in the future there would be an autopilot. We have very good ones already, here on Earth. But that isn't the point, is it... I voted no in the poll, even though a part of me would love to set course for the centre of galaxy, then head downstairs to make a cup of tea, cut myself a large wedge of cake, roll something combustable, take the dog out for a     , then mooch back upstairs to find my lighter and see where my trusty autopilot-3000 has got me. But how is that fair on all the intrepid explorers who've gone half space-mad trying to plot the universe for us all? I know the game is set in the future, but whats wrong with holding on to a bit of the past and dealing with deep space like those great maritime explorers such as Vasco de Gama, James Cook or William Adams? Hard work and danger.

 

[Shar]

Seems like the No's have it, sanity prevails. I wish life had an auto-pilot so i could stay in bed...........[zZzZz]

 

[Sandmann]

I have let this go for several days now Ziggy. My un hidden Ad hominem in my previous post has been proven as fact not fallacy.

[Snip]

Having read most of the posts since the start of this thread I have only seen the following in their argument against.
[Snip]

Since you guys seem incapable of reading anything not addressed directly towards yourselves (or is it acknowledging anything that proves you wrong that is the problem?) I will break one of my own cardinal rules and quote myself for you.

Firstly, it will tie up developers from more useful work.

Secondly, when you remove the NEED to use a more complex system it becomes the default method and in this case it devalues the game by removing content.

Third, it's not up to us to to show why it's bad, if you want dev time to be spent of it it's up to you to show why it would improve the game. "Because I want it" is not a reason. Neither is "Because you don't have to use it." Removing content from a game that's already lacking content isn't smart, that's why the RIGHT solution is to add the missing content rather than providing a way to withdraw from the game.

The third is THE most relevant. You don't get to demand a feature just because you want it - this isn't a democracy or design by committee. You first have to make a solid case for HOW IT WILL IMPROVE THE GAME FOR ALL PLAYERS. You have thus far failed to do this. Your reasoning has been "this bit is boring, give us a way to avoid it and make it optional so they can't argue against it". This however does not improve the game for all, rather it gives you a way to disengage from the game which is the OPPOSITE of what fdev wants. The solution is to stop that bit being boring, not to cut it out of the game.

Until you make a solid case for why it should be included (which you have thus far failed to do) the default position remains as not adding it. This is further justified by the fact that the vast majority of players AND the developers are opposed to this feature for all sorts of reasons.

Sorry, but you just don't seem to have a solid argument.

 

[Itaki]

The third is THE most relevant. You don't get to demand a feature just because you want it - this isn't a democracy or design by committee. You first have to make a solid case for HOW IT WILL IMPROVE THE GAME FOR ALL PLAYERS.

No feature is guaranteed to improve the game for all players. I am about 100% sure that every upcoming feature in the game is going to irritate someone on this forum.

 

[Sandmann]

No feature is guaranteed to improve the game for all players. I am about 100% sure that every upcoming feature in the game is going to irritate someone on this forum.

Sure, but at least make a strong case for it improving it in general. So far there's been nothing stronger than "I want this feature coz I think that bit is boring and I want to avoid it", and resisting/ignoring calls to have the boring bit made more intereating instead. A suspicious man might feel there's nothing here but an attempt to reduce/simplify the game to one part of it.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

This game = ship + pilot
Ship + Autopilot = Different game

Fundamental change, I disagree. If you need a reason I'll start with - Number of support tickets and complaints threads about auto-pilot will go through the roof!

 

[Sandmann]

This game = ship + pilot
Ship + Autopilot = Different game

Fundamental change, I disagree. If you need a reason I'll start with - Number of support tickets and complaints threads about auto-pilot will go through the roof!

Very good point. Proponents of an AP should remember that it would be the same AP pilotting their uber anaconda as is currently flying fighters in the beta. Just how many anacondas do they want eaten by stars?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have let this go for several days now Ziggy. My un hidden Ad hominem in my previous post has been proven as fact not fallacy.

An Ad Hominem is a technique. It can't be proven as fact.

edit: here is your little gem again.

The sad fact of it is your naysayers,Gloom and Doomers, and Elitists are always the vast majority in any Forum setting. They more than anyone need a sense of validation and purpose. Even if that purpose is just to create negative comments about a game that they are presumably playing. They will not come up with an original Idea of their own, however if you ever have one they always have a better idea than you do. Even if it makes 100% sense and fits in with the game universe. It must fail for the sake of failing Be done with thread already.

One side is giving you legitimate answers on how this would work and what its capabilities are. The other side are "So you dont want to fly in a game with flying in it?" You cant reach those people and you never will. They are not capable of thinking beyond winning an argument.

Proven according to Zambrick:

- I need a sense of validation and purpose
Not true, that's what the rep system is for. It's my sole purpose of posting.

- Autopilot is an original idea.
*smirk*

- I don't have an original idea of my own.
I had 2 even just last week.

- One side is giving legitimate answers.
We're discussing preference, both sides are legitimate in voicing theirs.

- You can't reach those people
Projection.

- They are not capable of thinking beyond winning an argument.
Irony.

 

[Shrimp Tabasco]

We dont really need an autopilot right now but for the future, when we get the option to walk around our ship, i'd really much like one. Or maybe an option to hire a npc to fly my ship so i can take care of other stuff on board if i so choose.

 

[VR Lucian Arkright]

The third is THE most relevant. You don't get to demand a feature just because you want it - this isn't a democracy or design by committee. You first have to make a solid case for HOW IT WILL IMPROVE THE GAME FOR ALL PLAYERS. You have thus far failed to do this. Your reasoning has been "this bit is boring, give us a way to avoid it and make it optional so they can't argue against it". This however does not improve the game for all, rather it gives you a way to disengage from the game which is the OPPOSITE of what fdev wants. The solution is to stop that bit being boring, not to cut it out of the game.

Until you make a solid case for why it should be included (which you have thus far failed to do) the default position remains as not adding it. This is further justified by the fact that the vast majority of players AND the developers are opposed to this feature for all sorts of reasons.

Sorry, but you just don't seem to have a solid argument.

Some things are just QoL improvements, and that's reason enough. For me, as I've stated previously, It's about being able to actually engage with other in game elements, such as the GalMap, power settings, etc.

Back in the days of Frontier, I used to enjoy being able to jump into a system, drop to local map, set my autopilot, and ping the Markets to check on the prices in system (can't in ED, that's a a feature I'd like back), drop into the starmap and have a browse for anything interesting, check out other systems for possible routes, etc. All with knowing that an inadvertant nudge of a control wouldn't mess up my flight path. Then StarDreamer off and hands on for final approach.

Chances are, if I'm the mood to be checking out USS, then I wouldn't engage the AP as I'd need the reaction time to check them out before they were past me. But when I'm simply cruising to dock for repairs, or I've got a mission cargo I don't want to risk, all I'll be doing is setting the middle of the ship at the destination and sitting on my hands so I don't knock the joystick until I need to change the throttle.

You want to make empty space 'interesting', I'm not so keen on that. To quote a certain book with "Don't Panic" written on it in large friendly letters, "Space is big. Really big." If pointed in a direction and given thrust, the chances of an object hitting' something is infinitesimal, adding too many wrinkles would bother me. The weird thing is, I'll sit at my controls quite happily not 'doing' anything, as that is part of the game to me. I like viewing things out of the window, but I'd also like to be able to look at the other things in my cockpit with worrying about missing where I'm supposed to be heading.

 

[Sandmann]

Some things are just QoL improvements, and that's reason enough.

If you were developing the game then it'd be enough. You're not. If you want the feature you have to convince FDev that it's worth spending the time & money on and that their plans for it are wrong. If you want public support for the idea you have to convince us that it's worth fdev spending the time and money on. Thus far you've done neither, therefore we don't NEED to show why it's a "bad plan" because noone has sufficiently shown why it's a good one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I guess the other poll about your crew flying while you do other things is going better. but its a positive result due to RP purposes. Because in the end even though they are selling it as a NPC pilot, it is just a flight computer. Perhaps the RP makes them feel better?

I explained myself in the other thread. You're welcome to react on it. I know it will be a novel experience for you to actually read other people's post, but don't be afraid. It's just opïnions.

 

[Sandmann]

I explained myself in the other thread. You're welcome to react on it. I know it will be a novel experience for you to actually read other people's post, but don't be afraid. It's just opïnions.

Damn it Ziggy, stop making sense. I can't keep repping you.