proposal for alternative SC mechanic

I guess pointing out that I'm not talking about changing the SCALE of the galaxy, only the amount of time it takes the ingame sci fi technology to get you there, which is already arbitrary and gamey and in no way consistent with travel times in a real galaxy would matter? The only thing you can say about the current SC mechanic is that it's what you're used to. If it was faster or slower you'd probably be arguing that it was just right too just because it's the status quo. ok then.

Regardless, If there was a CHOICE to make the SC travel times less, what would be the harm? you could still throttle down and go slow and enjoy the nothingness while I pop over to the next station on my list and do what I need to do? why do you feel that you have to impose YOUR gameplay on me and exclude my gameplay? I fully support your decision to slow down and take an hour to travel in SC...why can't you let me do it my way if it doesn't affect your ingame experience in any way?

meh....why would I continue to talk to someone who has stated that they're actually trying to insult me? I think I'm done with this conversation. when one party in a conversation turns to insults they've clearly admitted defeat in the arena of ideas.

Since it is all digital bits and bytes, time = distance. FDEV decided on travel time early on to give a sense of the scales and distances involved. Only landable planets really give a sense of scale. Other scales still are hard to fathom: Stars may appear small because we can't get close them. The travel pace haven't changed much over the years, except maybe make it easier to be at most efficient pace as you can't play the gravity braking game to the same effect as we could during the early betas. If FDEV was to make travel slower, I'd hope they'd add something else to entertain us. If they made the travel faster, I fear they will be making the core gameplay meaningless, as much of the game requires us to be travelling; any encounter in space requires us to be, well, in space. And if we travelled any faster, we would be spending even more time sitting and waiting for USS to appear, for example. Unless of course the game is turned completely into an amusement park and everything that could possible be fun was just sitting waiting for us to engage with it like in your bog-standard RPG.

You can enjoy changing the throttle pace already. Why don't you spend a few weeks travelling with the throttle in the blue zone, then you can marvel at how fast travel is at full blast now?

Nobody is imposing gameplay on anybody. The game is what it is and we all bought into it. The only way I could impose my gameplay preferences on you would be by being a developer of the game. I am not. If FDEV was to invite me onboard for gameplay developement, I'm not even sure I could contribute in a profitable manner. I live only 20 minutes from Cambridge, though. Although 20 minutes from Cambridge, New Zealand...

Not sure either why you would want to engage with somebody like that. Maybe moderate your language as well if you have? You have essentially set the tone in this thread, by for example calling others ideas of being able to walk around the ship for "completely pointless other than some fan service eye candy" and you called the accuracy of Stellar Force "totally irrelevant" even as the former is indeed what some of us would like to do and the latter is a massive achievement on the part of FDEV and a significant part of the foundation of the game. And that's just recent examples.

:D S
 
I just has a look at other suggestions to see how many of them turn to constructive conversation and how many almost instantly digress into nerd fights.

It was disappointing. As they say, the Internet is where ideas go to die.

Let me just say before I unsubscribe that thought the "suggestions" section was to make suggestions to FDev, not to have ideas approved/critiqued by players with no qualifications other than having a forum account and a vague grasp of the same language I speak. I made a suggestion. FDev can now ignore it. The rest of you....let's see YOU come up with an idea.
 
Just wanted to pop in and say this thread makes for depressing reading.

OP suggests a few slight enhancements to Super Cruise which largely maintains the existing mechanics, and builds on them slightly. OP meets a wall of resistance from strict adherents with unwavering views of the current mechanic.

To those naysayers, I ask - why is it OK for FSD drives to have longer jump ranges allowing for quicker inter-system travel, but not for Super Cruise to have it's speed/acceleration increased to allow for quicker intra-system travel?

I just don't get it... 😩
 
Last edited:

dxm55

Banned
Essentially, ED is first and foremost a simulator - the physics of SC/Hyperspace may be theoretical but they are far from being completely made-up. Verisimilitude is one of the key design goals FD are trying to achieve and they achieve that with the current mechanics.

What you are proposing is not really supported by any of the prevailing scientific theories on FTL travel thus lacks verisimilitude.

DCS makes flight sims.... ED is a game,
It isn't a simulator until what this game does has been done in real life.

And SC travel is just a theory, as is hyperspace or witchspace. We could be dead wrong about all these theories.
Sometimes you need to ease up on realism if you want to make something a little more enjoyable for more people beyond the glassy eyed science nerds.
 
Just wanted to pop in and say this thread makes for depressing reading.

OP suggests a few slight enhancements to Super Cruise which largely maintains the existing mechanics, and builds on them slightly. OP meets a wall of resistance from strict adherents with unwavering views of the current mechanic.

To those naysayers, I ask - why is it OK for FSD drives to have longer jump ranges allowing for quicker inter-system travel, but not for Super Cruise to have it's speed/acceleration increased to allow for quicker intra-system travel?

I just don't get it... 😩
Frontier could change it so that the FSD can overcome quantum friction generated by astronomical bodies easier with Engineering thus making it more responsive in supercruise.
 
DCS makes flight sims.... ED is a game,
It isn't a simulator until what this game does has been done in real life.

And SC travel is just a theory, as is hyperspace or witchspace. We could be dead wrong about all these theories.
Sometimes you need to ease up on realism if you want to make something a little more enjoyable for more people beyond the glassy eyed science nerds.
So dxm55 You talk like Elite Dangerous as an Arcade type game and you want it more like a arcade type game. While a lot of other players make it more into a Simulator type game. Where distance play in their game play style my self including. See I play as a Role player. I either make my own stories while I fly. Or I buy stories Made by Some of the Players when Elite Dangerous was in Kickstarter and I fly the path so in a way you become that person.

One thing I wish was Frontier would continue with Elite Dangerous Books.

What Disheartening is people point out logic in their Posts why distance exists and ways to avoid it and it seems to be ignored.
 

dxm55

Banned
So dxm55 You talk like Elite Dangerous as an Arcade type game and you want it more like a arcade type game. While a lot of other players make it more into a Simulator type game. Where distance play in their game play style my self including. See I play as a Role player. I either make my own stories while I fly. Or I buy stories Made by Some of the Players when Elite Dangerous was in Kickstarter and I fly the path so in a way you become that person.

Do what you want. Pretend, play make-believe, role-play, imagine all you want.
It's up to you.

I'm just saying things from my perspective. I treat this as a game. Sim or otherwise.
 
I would rather fdev consendrate on new stuff rather than rework existing core jumping and travel mechanics.

Let's just accept SC as it is..
It's ok, and we can steer unlike other games performing a similar thing
 
Ok....after getting into several SC discussions I though I'd throw an idea out.

So here is the problem as I see it:

1) space is big.

True.

2) players want to "feel" like space is big. Currently this takes the form of the game deliberately wasting the player's time when traveling from point a to point b.

It isn't the game that's wasting player's time. It is the players wasting their time. Assuming you're only one jump away, it is possible to go from undocking at one station, to docking at the majority of stations in the Bubble, in under four minutes in a Type-9... the most unresponsive ship in the game. 90% of likely bubble destinations are within 10k light seconds, and only 0.006% of systems have secondary stars greater than 700 kls out based on post 3.3 registered systems on EDSM.

Nearly all long Supercruise journeys are avoidable if you do your research before you hit "accept mission." The rest can be avoided by doing a little scouting near where you're operating, or hitting "abandon mission" if you consider a Supercruise trip excessively long. In addition, should you decide that a longer Supercruise trip is still "worth your time," you can use that time productively in the game. If you're out exploring, use that time to scout along your galactic route, searching for hidden gems a few hundred light years off your path. If you're in the Bubble, use that time to examine your local stellar neighborhood, or search for those opportunities for extreme profits that sites like EDDB inevitably miss.

Finally, active piloting can reduce travel times, sometimes considerably, vs the "Set it and Forget it" method you describe below.

3) when players complain that SC takes too long, it's not that it just takes too long, but that there's nothing to do. You're literally not playing the game and letting the computer idle for an arbitrary amount of time while a countdown clock decides when it's been impressed upon you enough how big space really is.

Speaking of the "Set it and Forget it" method, this is likely why you consider travel times excessively long. This is literally the worst way to travel in Supercruise. Large mass interferes with FSD efficiency, decreasing how much the FSD can bend space around it. This effectively reduces your top travel speed. By practicing active navigation and hands on piloting, you can plot optimal routes through a system, avoiding large mass and getting to your destination quicker. In addition, you can shave off even more time by practicing gravity braking, flying close to massive objects near your destination to slow your ship down faster than the "six second" rule. In fact, even overshooting and looping back is faster than the "six second" rule.

When traveling to distant stars, you should always escape the arrival star and get captured by the destination star via the poles, where there isn't all that mass to slow you down. Since most secondary stars are M-class stars, you can also shave off additional time by flying in an arc between the two stars, rather than directly, taking advantage of the smaller "mass shadow" and greater speeds farther from the arrival star to shorten the amount of time you spend being mass locked by the destination star. It's even possible to overshoot the lowest mass M-class stars if you know what you're doing.

Let me make a suggestion - give us something to do in SC rather than just wasting our time to the point where people watch Netflix while "playing" the game.

1) remove the arbitrary 2001C speed limit. It's cute, 2001 was a great movie, but Elite Dangerous is a great game and could be better.
I have no problem with this, nor do I have a problem with the 2001c speed limit, given that you'll never reach that speed during normal play. You don't even reach this speed on the trip to Hutton Orbital, the farthest destination in the game.

2) increase the max acceleration rate in SC....nothing crazy maybe 4x of what it is now. It's just a guess and probably will need some fine-tuning.

There is no such thing as a "max acceleration rate in SC." What you're mistaking for "acceleration" is a change in the mass lock effect as you get farther from local mass. Altering the mass lock effect can have counter-intuitive effects, due to how Supercruise actually works. I've been playing this game since Alpha, and I still remember what happened the last time Frontier decreased mass lock in order to "increase" "speeds" for the "Set it and Forget It" crowd.

Those of us who were actively piloting at the time actually saw our Supercruise times increase, because the optimal braking routes (aka "threading the needle") vanished, to the point where overshooting, once the result of a failed braking maneuver, was now mandatory. This was because the "eye of the needle" had essentially moved inside all but the gas giants within the game. A further reduction to mass lock will likely result in a situation where active piloting could be actually less efficient than the "Set It and Forget It" method, which is the opposite of what you claim you want.

3) this is the interesting part here - make us actually NAVIGATE in SC. There are gravity interactions between all the bodies, right? That's why they orbit each other. So...why not use those gravity interactions to create some kind of navigation mechanic where you have to fly through the various gravity interactions between bodies around you?
4) the faster you go, the more intense these gravity interactions become and the more skill is required to negotiate them and stay on course/not e-drop out of SC.

The irony of these two suggestions is that they are almost identical to the state of Supercruise during Alpha 4 and 5, before Frontier listened to the complaints of the "Set It and Forget It" crowd and nerfed mass lock. Three actually describes how Supercruise works, both now and back during the Alpha. Four sounds a lot like what I described as "threading the needle" above: trying to keep within a narrow region of space at high speeds, between disaster and overshooting. This gameplay still exists in certain circumstances: binary "super" HMC and Earthlike planets, gas giants, and a few other places where it's possible to extend the braking effects of mass lock by doing a flyby of another body before reaching your destination.

There's an easy way to get the gameplay you claim to want: get Frontier to increase mass lock a bit. This will increase the travel times of the "Set It and Forget It" crowd, but it will make active piloting not only quicker, but much more fun as far as I'm concerned.
 
There's an easy way to get the gameplay you claim to want: get Frontier to increase mass lock a bit. This will increase the travel times of the "Set It and Forget It" crowd, but it will make active piloting not only quicker, but much more fun as far as I'm concerned.
This would actually be a neat thing to make a tunable feature - the ability to adjust how much gravity affects the supercruise speed curve. (It'd give "Advanced Maintenance" something to do at stations)

Turn it way down, and you can accelerate away from primary stars more quickly and reach the neighbourhood of secondary stars fast ... but controlling your deceleration at the other end to actually drop out on the station is going to either require very careful flying to avoid repeatedly overshooting, ramming the planet as a way of slowing down, or going the last 100Ls at 25% throttle.

Turn it up, and it takes a bit longer to get out of the well of the primary star to start with, but you get much better stopping performance at your destination. With careful planning and experience, you can possibly even tune it to the individual destination before each trip.
 
There is no such thing as a "max acceleration rate in SC." What you're mistaking for "acceleration" is a change in the mass lock effect as you get farther from local mass. Altering the mass lock effect can have counter-intuitive effects, due to how Supercruise actually works. I've been playing this game since Alpha, and I still remember what happened the last time Frontier decreased mass lock in order to "increase" "speeds" for the "Set it and Forget It" crowd.

I disagree with this.

While i'ts true that FDev have defined acceleration rate in their source code to be variable based on local mass, this base rate can be changed just like any other variable.

So, if FDev wanted to double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of acceleration in SuperCruise, they could do so. This would allow all relative game mechanics to remain unchanged, with the only outcome being that players will travel faster in SuperCruise, and thus reduce travel times.
 
I disagree with this.

While i'ts true that FDev have defined acceleration rate in their source code to be variable based on local mass, this base rate can be changed just like any other variable.

So, if FDev wanted to double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of acceleration in SuperCruise, they could do so. This would allow all relative game mechanics to remain unchanged, with the only outcome being that players will travel faster in SuperCruise, and thus reduce travel times.
I think you are ignoring the fact that the mass-lock effect on SC may be the more significant factor where SC journey times are concerned - any assertions either way would need to be backed up by supporting empirical data.

The collective mass lock effect defines the maximum speed that can be accelerated to in any given region of a system which is arguably the greatest limiting factor in longer super cruise journeys based on the experience of at least some of us.
 
If anything, supercruise speed should also have a galactic density component, with fastest obtainable speeds near the edge, while supercruising in the galactic centre should be like swimming through syrup.

:D S
 
I think you are ignoring the fact that the mass-lock effect on SC may be the more significant factor where SC journey times are concerned - any assertions either way would need to be backed up by supporting empirical data.

The collective mass lock effect defines the maximum speed that can be accelerated to in any given region of a system which is arguably the greatest limiting factor in longer super cruise journeys based on the experience of at least some of us.
Add a multiplier that doubles the super cruise acceleration rate in the source code, and we'll see our super cruise acceleration rates double in-game. All other relative factors will remain unchanged.

That's how software works.
 
Add a multiplier that doubles the super cruise acceleration rate in the source code, and we'll see our super cruise acceleration rates double in-game. All other relative factors will remain unchanged.

That's how software works.
Again... you are missing the point... acceleration may not be the most significant limiting factor, if you are a blue-zone/SCA jockey then there is no real basis for the assessment that acceleration is the true limiting factor.

Personally, I think that the current acceleration/deceleration curves and mass lock factors are fair and reasonable as-is and should not be changed. As @Darkfyre99 has already pointed out, these elements have already been through balance testing with end-users and nothing has really significantly changed in the overall universe model to justify revisiting the current SC balance regarding these factors.
 

dxm55

Banned
Add a multiplier that doubles the super cruise acceleration rate in the source code, and we'll see our super cruise acceleration rates double in-game. All other relative factors will remain unchanged.

That's how software works.

Yes. The Lore didn't specifically define any kind of SC mechanics in depth. And neither they did provide any kind of figures.
So in short, simply injecting this multiplier and throwing out a kookamamie story that Prof Palin.... that fugly Hag Martuuk.... or decrepit crone Farseer.... worked with the Sirius Corp to give FSDs a boost in SC would fly.

And improve the QOL for many gamers.

But you're arguing against nerd logic bro... some of these guys actually pretend there's someone in that other seat and make imaginary conversations with them.
 
Again... you are missing the point... acceleration may not be the most significant limiting factor, if you are a blue-zone/SCA jockey then there is no real basis for the assessment that acceleration is the true limiting factor.
Apart from the fact that if you increased acceleration rates for super cruise it will take less time to get to where you want to go in super cruise.

I really think you’re over-complicating this.
 
Apart from the fact that if you increased acceleration rates for super cruise it will take less time to get to where you want to go in super cruise.

I really think you’re over-complicating this.
I think you are over-simplifying the issues in play and are not considering the overall impact of said changes, you are also assuming that changing base acceleration would have a significant effect - something myself and at least a few others dispute.

Things are reasonably balanced as they are, what yourself and others are asking for would require a not-insignificant amount of work. ANY attempt to alter SC travel times (inc. just changing baseline acceleration) would notionally require revisiting of various areas including but not limited to interdiction mechanics and mission rewards.

If anything, supercruise speed should also have a galactic density component, with fastest obtainable speeds near the edge, while supercruising in the galactic centre should be like swimming through syrup.

:D S
Possibly - though I do not think there is sufficient justification to change the baseline status-quo, though if FD are going to revisit it then your idea should probably be factored in too. I do not think the end results are likely to be popular though. ;)
 
I think you are over-simplifying the issues in play and are not considering the overall impact of said changes, you are also assuming that changing base acceleration would have a significant effect - something myself and at least a few others dispute.

Things are reasonably balanced as they are, what yourself and others are asking for would require a not-insignificant amount of work. ANY attempt to alter SC travel times (inc. just changing baseline acceleration) would notionally require revisiting of various areas including but not limited to interdiction mechanics and mission rewards.


Possibly - though I do not think there is sufficient justification to change the baseline status-quo, though if FD are going to revisit it then your idea should probably be factored in too. I do not think the end results are likely to be popular though. ;)

Any change away from placeholder mechanics is going to be unpopular. That was clearly shown by the clamour when we got the FSS/DSS combo to replace the old placeholders for exploration.

:D S
 
Back
Top Bottom