Yup, it’s people like us that keep it going by posting about how long it’s been going
- Status
Yup, it’s people like us that keep it going by posting about how long it’s been going
Part of the reason is that the infinite probe supporters are worried the finite probe supporters are going to be the only ones talking and FD will pull another "delayed ship delivery" fiasco on a subject we thought was settled design.
So we're here, and being noisy, so that FD knows we like their decision and want it to stay exactly as it is.
So we're here, and being noisy, so that FD knows we like their decision and want it to stay exactly as it is.
...and the Beta and ensuing chat might not change that?
Ie: It's all talk at the moment - which is fine - but actual time/info in beta might be informative.
We just don't want you guys sneaking one past us. Hey look FD, everybody here wants finite probes. See how loud me and my 4 buddies are. Make the change please.
An interesting example to cite.
In the case of ship transfers, nobody had anything to gain from wanting ship transfers to be delayed.
Everybody knew that delayed ship transfers would be inconvenient but they were in favour of it because it's realistic, it rewards good planning and it prevents people from magically having whatever ship they want immediately available to them.
The correct choice was made.
Now we've got the likelihood of infinite probes and the popular narrative seems to be in favour of convenience over realism, planning or skill.
That's disappointing and a sad reflection on FDev's willingness to pander to those who demand instant gratification and minimal effort.
It's also strange that, in a game already so willfully packed with grind, FDev would abandon their principles over it.
Whatev's. [sad]
I believe the phrase being sought after here is: "Learning from past mistakes."
Useless Commodities Removed from (most) Engineering - Number of complaints: 0.
Guardian Blueprint Fragments - down from 17 for a single unlock to 1. Number of complaints: 0.
Number of Probes in our scanners: All of them. Number of Complaints: Why is this number greater than 0? Perhaps because they actually did what they get accused of not doing regularly, and played their own game and discovered that 100 probes sucked, 1000 probes sucked a little less, 10,000 probes sucked less, but was kind of silly, 100,000 probes looked ridiculous on the display, and opted for a simple "All The Probes" method which didn't suck at all, ensured those already 10k ly out in the black or more wouldn't find themselves probeless and/or missing that one vital ingredient to make more.
Well said, thing is though players that want instant gratification are not really invested enough into ED to stick around, hence FD are foolish to pander to people who won't be here for season 4.
You say that, but Alec Turner mentioned in another thread he went delayed. And after actually using it in game regrets voting that way. People can be wrong, especially when making their making up before trying it.
When I do ship transfers (and I seem to do them relatively regularly recently) I literally turn the game off and stop playing. If that's not immersion breaking I don't know what is.
Last edited:
Not me - I'd vote delayed again.
But in my ideal world we'd be talking about scrapping ship transfer and replacing it with ship selection at login.
I think the dealyed thing is an issue for a few playstyles.
If you're a solo player who wants realism above other things you want delayed.
If you just want to play the game with minimal obstructions then you want instant.
If you play a lot socially with other people I think you want instant.
If you have limited free time you probably want instant.
I think I'd also probably suggest that folk who want delayed never, or rarely use the feature. Meaning it just really puts a limitation on others, which is a shame.
I like your login suggestion personally but it's hard to see why that's fine while instant isn't, in the end the argument against the two seems to be exactly the same, ie that cannot happen in real life.
Last edited:
Lestat
Banned
You can only speak for your self. For me. I still will vote for Delay.
On the surface instant ship transfer and instant pilot transfer seem the same.
But as it stands, all your capabilities are tied to the ship.
Zapping those capabilities around the place seems a lot more overpowered than zapping yourself to a different ship with different capabilities - especially considering that to do it, you'd have to have manually flown that ship there in the first place.
Is that actually learning from past "mistakes", though, or just retroactive compliance with a vocal opinion?
This is where a game really needs to have some core philosophy and for the dev's to be willing to defend that philosophy.
Basically, there's stuff in every game which is a nuisance for players but it's there because that's the way the dev's want the game to be.
ED is a game that seems to be a bit schizophrenic about it's desire to tether itself to reality.
You have a fixed number of SRVs but you can create multiple SLFs.
You're physically aboard the SRV but not the SLF.
Telepresence in general.
Upon ship destruction, heaps of mat's get rescued but your cargo doesn't, your SLF pilot doesn't and your exploration data doesn't.
You have to buy or synth' limpets but probes will be limitless.
Etc.
Personally, I hoped this would be the year ALL this sort of stuff would get sorted out in a consistent manner so that new features could be implemented without having to decide how they might work on a case-by-case basis.
Even if there was just a nod to realism in the availability of probes, I would have been happier.
You stop off at a planet, grab a handful of basic mat's and it gives you, say, 50 probes.
Just making the supply limitless, however, seems like a needless abdication of any sense of realism.
I suspect that this is the result of people getting cheesed-off with all the mat-collecting they already have to do and FDev decided to throw people a bone by giving us this as a "freebie".
If that's the case, surely the real issue is that FDev need to change things so that people get less cheesed-off about collecting mat's and then they wouldn't moan as much about collecting mat's for probes and FDev could retain some semblance of realism without people being annoyed about it?
Totally bogus argument.
I voted instant transfer and I've been playing since just before Power Play became a thing.
I frequently curse ship transfer times.
It should never have been changed before it could have been tested.
Ship transfer times were an abhorrent act of faith over fact. In my view.
This is why I'm advocating test, suggest and amend as needed. That's what beta's are for.
Whether we end up with finite or infinite probes will, this time, be based on the scientific method.
You can't argue a point of faith but you can argue a point of fact.
You have to wonder if the preference for infinite probes was influenced by seeing how the delayed transfer vote panned out, and seeing what sticking a 45 minute timeout in does to gameplay.
The "scientific method" isn't always an appropriate tool for establishing whether or not something is a good idea.
Let's say you develop a WW1 shooter and release it for beta-testing.
You might get a bunch of people saying it's a great game but they want laser-guns in it.
There's no way you can use the scientific method to decide whether or not that's a good idea.
At best, all it can tell you is whether or not it'd be likely to yield increased sales within the demographic that ask for it.
In a case like that, the main thing anybody (both customers and dev's) can rely on is the philosophy of the game.
If it's intended to be a realistic WW1 game then you're not getting your laser-guns, you're probably going to deter customers who want them but you will attract customers who're hoping for a realistic WW1 game.
If it's intended to be some kind of steampunk fantasy WW1 game, you get your laser-guns, you attract the customers who want that game but you deter customers who want a realistic WW1 game.
Furthermore, if the dev's don't adhere to a consistent philosophy, they risk displeasing both of those demographics with future content.
If the dev's reject the idea of laser-guns on the basis that the game's supposed to be realistic but then come up with some magical reason to give some weapons infinite ammo, that's going to conflict with their original philosophy and irritate all the people who thought they were buying into a realistic WW1 game.
One of the differences between a good game and a great game is often the immersion it generates and that can only be achieved by retaining a consistent internal logic.
At some point there has to be a line in the sand drawn about HOW realisitic a thing is going to be. Due to hardware/software limitations at the time of creation and WHAT CONSTITUTES FUN. After all, it's a game. Concessions need to be made for that.
Recreations of the horrors of WWI would have to stop somewhere. I mean trench foot, hunger, being shot for shell shock, the stench of the rotting corpses of your allies and foes. That would make a compelling novel but not what I would consider a 'game'. It would be highly instructive but not something I would play for 'fun'.
I get the impression that 'i' word players feel as though the small things that do not conform to a set of rules irritate like a small stone in their shoe. Small, feels bigger than it is, but incredibly irritating.
I personally take the view that I'd rather things adhered to a set of principles. To me the principles of ED are that the galaxy conforms (in most cases) to the laws of physics and the ships we fly and we as commanders are the fun way in which we interact with that. So long as the principle of fun and realisitic astro physics (in terms of the behaviour of celestial bodies) are not violated all else is fluid.
IMHO giving players unlimited probes may make the new planet scanning gameplay a little more accessible, but it goes against the whole "you need to be prepared when doing deep space exploration" concept of ED. I am not saying it's a bad decision by itself (even though I would have preferred the need for some resource management here, too), but I think it highlights how inconsistent design decisions are made for ED - very often they strive for the harshness of plausibility or even realism when creating the dangers of space (unforgiving high gravity planets, heat damage when approaching stars etc.) and then again there is instant multi-crewing via "holo me" (still hate that design decision) or now the unlimited probes.
Like I said, I just think those design decisions are very inconsistent and show that FD sometimes can't make up their mind.
Like I said, I just think those design decisions are very inconsistent and show that FD sometimes can't make up their mind.
- Status