proposal for alternative SC mechanic

[dxm55]

Yea, you're clearly overthinking this.

I'd prefer to leave it to the developers who actually have access to the game's source code to determine the impact of changing super cruise acceleration rates.

Thanks though.

LOL exactly. Coming up with a self derived and totally arbitrary equation to try to define or defend slow SC.

 

[lenna]

You misread it. Read my post again.
Light years not Light Seconds.

120Ly and 500Ls from arrival is faster than 30Ly away and 8000Ls from arrival.

That is all.

Your argument is heavily flawed in this context - SC journey times and Inter-system jump times are independent of each other, different traversal techniques.

You are spouting absolute and total nonsense on the whole.

 

[Atol]

I still have to say it a bad idea nanite2000. For one reason You only had 17 pages for your idea. I already pointed out it would Double or even triple the locations we could jump to. We would also have to look at jumping though Stars in multiple star systems. and players view of Arcade work around. Which also affect my game play.

I could also see a Wing or squadron PvPers being able to block and hold a system easier in CG forcing more people in Solo mode all because players will be able to block Both stars in a system. Right now with my Group we send in a dummy in Open so PVPers can chase them like flies and Our wing group get to the CG safely.

So maybe Nanite2000 you are overly simplifying things.

Now dxm55 what the issue of jumping an extra 90 LY for a station that closer? Are your ships not engineered for longer jumps? Or are you stuck in a ship you have not bothered to Engineering and it take 5 to 10 jumps to go 120 LY. My Annie can get to 120 LY jumps in 2 jumps. With a 65 LY jump range. Or in a ship that not Engineered I hope to have Neutron stars near by or use FSD Injector ready.

 

[lenna]

Sorry, but unless you have access to FDev's source code, or confirmation from FDev themselves about the specific formulae and mechanics implemented in their code, then it's just a theory based on observation.

Not really - the exact implementation may not be discernible from observation but the base formulae are invariably the same regardless of the simulator/game. I may not know the precise curve formulae (given enough time and data I could probably determine it) but the general approach (as I described it) is discernible from the way ships move in SC.

It is not unprovable theory crafting like you are trying to assert.

Asking for slightly faster travel while in super cruise is not an unreasonable request.

A lot depends on how it is done - on the whole travel times are pretty well balanced and FD apparently consulted the user base during the original implementation phase.

Some call long distance super cruise times unreasonable, they are no more unreasonable than the time required to travel to Beagles Point or Sag-A* from Sol.

 

[lenna]

LOL exactly. Coming up with a self derived and totally arbitrary equation to try to define or defend slow SC.

Not arbitrary - based on first principles regarding standard equations of motion and a bit of control theory.

We know there are variations in maximum super cruise velocity based on system and location hence the black box fn2, and we know there are acceleration/deceleration factors based on throttle setting current velocity, and the localised maximum super cruise velocity hence the black box fn1.

 

[nanite2000]

Not really - the exact implementation may not be discernible from observation but the base formulae are invariably the same regardless of the simulator/game. I may not know the precise curve formulae (given enough time and data I could probably determine it) but the general approach (as I described it) is discernible from the way ships move in SC.

It is not unprovable theory crafting like you are trying to assert.

Suit yourself.

I just think it’s more appropriate to leave these kinds of decisions and rationalisations to the actual developers who have seen the actual source code.

A lot depends on how it is done - on the whole travel times are pretty well balanced and FD apparently consulted the user base during the original implementation phase.

That was nearly 5 years ago. You can’t deny that Fdev have been open to changing their game based on user feedback since release. Why is SC so precious?

Some call long distance super cruise times unreasonable, they are no more unreasonable than the time required to travel to Beagles Point or Sag-A* from Sol.

No one complained when FDev implemented FSD engineering, FSD boosters, and neutron star boosts to make that kind of long journey a bit shorter.

Why is SC so impervious to being tweaked? Seriously, what is this obsession with people wanting SC to be immutable?

 

[lenna]

Suit yourself.

I just think it’s more appropriate to leave these kinds of decisions and rationalisations to the actual developers who have seen the actual source code.

It is more about explaining why things should remain as-is rather than rationalise why things should not change per se. Altering acceleration/deceleration curves would effectively require everyone to re-learn super cruise. Something I vehemently oppose.

That was nearly 5 years ago. You can’t deny that Fdev have been open to changing their game based on user feedback since release. Why is SC so precious?

Like the FSS/DSS mess that FD made? I do not see that mess being undone but the least we can do is oppose a repeat of that fracas with other long established mechanics.

No one complained when FDev implemented FSD engineering, FSD boosters, and neutron star boosts to make that kind of long journey a bit shorter.

Why is SC so impervious to being tweaked? Seriously, what is this obsession with people wanting SC to be immutable?

Changes to SC motion mechanics are likely to affect the general feel of SC gameplay which includes an element of PvP gameplay. FSD engineering regarding jump range affects very little in terms of actual gameplay except what systems may or may not be reachable in a single jump (if at all).

That being said, as I have already explained - FSD engineering affecting the blue zone and/or additional optional modules perhaps affecting SC in some other way would not be unreasonable BUT the baseline experience should remain unchanged for reasons that have already been stated by both myself and others.

 

[Lestat]

That being said, as I have already explained - FSD engineering affecting the blue zone and/or additional optional modules perhaps affecting SC in some other way would not be unreasonable BUT the baseline experience should remain unchanged for reasons that have already been stated by both myself and others.

I think if they do anything. Engineering for supercruise assist. If they affect the other aspects of supercruise it will hurt New players trying Out pirating or Bounty Hunting Players. If players can engineer so they have a faster supercruise. They have an I win Feature.

 

[nanite2000]

I think if they do anything. Engineering for supercruise assist. If they affect the other aspects of supercruise it will hurt New players trying Out pirating or Bounty Hunting Players. If players can engineer so they have a faster supercruise. They have an I win Feature.

If SC was enhanced for everyone equally across the board like the OP suggested, then you wouldn’t have an ‘I win’ feature.

 

[sewerratuk]

I think if they do anything. Engineering for supercruise assist. If they affect the other aspects of supercruise it will hurt New players trying Out pirating or Bounty Hunting Players. If players can engineer so they have a faster supercruise. They have an I win Feature.

That’s a non argument. New players are going to have untold difficulties pirating or bounty hunting players with any experience in the game anyway. Never mind the fact they will face a fully engineered opponent.

They would probably be better off if they couldn’t interdict due to some fast SC engineer mechanic

 

[nanite2000]

Because people who come to the forum apparently have nothing better to do than complain and find fault with the game. Whereas, the vast majority of players - not forum members - are out there enjoying the game, and playing it as it is -super-cruise and all.

If you perceive people suggesting enhancements to the game as having "nothing better to do than complain and find fault with the game", then you're going to have a bad time hanging around the 'Suggestions' forum.

EDIT: And yeah, I realise that it's the suggestions forum. I'm positive that Frontier, before taking up a suggestion, will want to hear all opinions and weight up support. I'm here to point out that this suggestion doesn't have my support. And I suspect it doesn't have the support of a great many others. Just because a small group of players constantly push the same point over and over again, doesn't mean that it's got popular backing. Such people won't give up - the type that end up getting the game ruined for everyone else.

To the best of my knowledge, every single thread suggesting enhancements to SuperCruise has been started by a different person.

 

[lenna]

I think if they do anything. Engineering for supercruise assist. If they affect the other aspects of supercruise it will hurt New players trying Out pirating or Bounty Hunting Players. If players can engineer so they have a faster supercruise. They have an I win Feature.

Engineering of the FSD should only effect the Blue-Zone which would do notionally three things:-

1. Reduce integrity loss for operating SC optimally and outside of the blue-zone (the further you are outside of the blue-zone the more integrity loss is incurred - at least IME)
2. Reduce super cruise times by some indeterminate value (would not go as far as to say a factor) for blue-zone jockeys
3. Reduce super cruise times for SCA assisted travel

In essence, the key advantage would be less integrity loss when piloting SC efficiently - no tangible gains to speed/acceleration potential.

The potential module improvement option could be a mass effect diffuser (or something like that) - essentially reduces the effect of system mass objects on the super-cruise. This could potentially result in faster travel times but a lot would depend on the pilot since the risk of overshooting is likely to be greater without SCA. It would also notionally have greater energy demands on the system PD as well as on the PP, fuel consumption in super cruise would notionally be increased as a direct result.

 

[nanite2000]

Hang on. Weren't you the one who said: 'Why should I need to endure it in a game designed to entertain in the few free hours I have available?'? Perhaps your time would be better spent in the game super-cruising to your destination, instead of spending it in the forums...

You've proven my point for me: there's literally nothing to do in-game when you're on a long super cruise journey except wait, so forum participation is as much to relieve the boredom as anything else.

If super cruise were faster or more-engaging, I'd be spending less of my times on the forum and more of my time playing the game.

 

[Lestat]

Engineering of the FSD should only effect the Blue-Zone which would do notionally three things:-

1. Reduce integrity loss for operating SC optimally and outside of the blue-zone (the further you are outside of the blue-zone the more integrity loss is incurred - at least IME)
2. Reduce super cruise times by some indeterminate value (would not go as far as to say a factor) for blue-zone jockeys
3. Reduce super cruise times for SCA assisted travel

In essence, the key advantage would be less integrity loss when piloting SC efficiently - no tangible gains to speed/acceleration potential.

The potential module improvement option could be a mass effect diffuser (or something like that) - essentially reduces the effect of system mass objects on the super-cruise. This could potentially result in faster travel times but a lot would depend on the pilot since the risk of overshooting is likely to be greater without SCA. It would also notionally have greater energy demands on the system PD as well as on the PP, fuel consumption in super cruise would notionally be increased as a direct result.

I think you should post this on Exploration forums and see how they view this idea. Because they tend to not have any Integrity after flying for weeks or years without going to a station. It might not be well-liked. Right now everyone flies at the same speed. If two groups Trading and Combat set can always repair Integrity, yet another group can't we could see posts like. Why am I forced to go back to a station?

 

[lenna]

I think you should post this on Exploration forums and see how they view this idea. Because they tend to not have any Integrity after flying for weeks or years without going to a station. It might not be well-liked. Right now everyone flies at the same speed. If two groups Trading and Combat set can always repair Integrity, yet another group can't we could see posts like. Why am I forced to go back to a station?

I think you are missing the point - integrity loss is a general thing (no changes to it's nature proposed) but flying in the Blue Zone generally keeps the loss from general SC wear-and-tear to a minimum. Integrity loss does not limit speed, and explorers in general would have the option of fitting the mass effect diffuser (for want of a better name) or not as the case may be (as with the FSD Booster they would probably have to unlock it via a tech broker anyway). Where integrity repair is concerned, that is the current status quo, ultimately nothing would change.

If FSD mass minimum/optimal/maximum mass values do not already have an effect on SC blue-zone behaviour then they probably should - this could be applied to all existing engineered kit without the need to re-engineer. End effect should be balance neutral.

Overall, personally I think things should stay as they are now but if FD are going to do anything to reduce super-cruise times then the above is probably the way they should go.

 

[lenna]

You've proven my point for me: there's literally nothing to do in-game when you're on a long super cruise journey except wait, so forum participation is as much to relieve the boredom as anything else.

If super cruise were faster or more-engaging, I'd be spending less of my times on the forum and more of my time playing the game.

Long SC journeys in the main are avoidable - the only real exception is exploring. As with the real-world Winnebago driver case - things can happen in SC but may not happen often, there is nothing wrong with that and arguably the balance of interdiction/signal events should not be changed.

 

[Nihila Vex]

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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

So there. This allows players to SC travel as fast as their skill will allow. It allows for in game growth as a player becomes more skilled at SC navigation and as SC-related modules are upgraded and engineered and are rewarded with faster SC travel as their skill/ship improves. It transforms SC travel from staring at pixel trails at best and watching Netflix at worst to actual gameplay!! It could allow further mechanics around avoiding/outmanuvering interdictors in SC.

It doesn't just create a short cut for space travel. It adds new engaging gameplay. It allows the covering of mind-numbing distances to far-away secondary systems while still requiring some skill as you surf the gravity waves. It could potentially add depth to pvp and pve interactions by allowing players to use the environment around them to avoid/ambush other ships in SC.

Make leaving/entering planetary orbit an EVENT to be interacted with rather than just a waiting game. Make the gravitational interactions between solar systems and various orbits gameplay, not a countdown clock until gameplay starts.

well....now's the part where 300 neckbeards tell me this idea is crap.

Good idea. Travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, after all. And SC is basically a pared-down version of hyperspace. I'd love something like a trajectory planner and a more active engagement with the 'currents' of gravity through a system.

I think part of what disappoints me about ED is that there's not much in it to get skilled at through practice. Combat, presumably, within a pretty basic bracket (still, enough engineered/Guardian stuff and you win); but it'd be awesome to see players getting really practised at this. I can even imagine people setting up a sort of pilot's service in gravitationally complex areas they're familiar with to help guide visitors through the wild gradients.

I'm all for it.

 

[Lestat]

I think you are missing the point - integrity loss is a general thing (no changes to it's nature proposed) but flying in the Blue Zone generally keeps the loss from general SC wear-and-tear to a minimum. Integrity loss does not limit speed, and explorers in general would have the option of fitting the mass effect diffuser (for want of a better name) or not as the case may be (as with the FSD Booster they would probably have to unlock it via a tech broker anyway). Where integrity repair is concerned, that is the current status quo, ultimately nothing would change.

If FSD mass minimum/optimal/maximum mass values do not already have an effect on SC blue-zone behaviour then they probably should - this could be applied to all existing engineered kit without the need to re-engineer. End effect should be balance neutral.

Overall, personally I think things should stay as they are now but if FD are going to do anything to reduce super-cruise times then the above is probably the way they should go.

Like I said its best to post this on Exploration forum. I would like to hear their take on this idea.

 

[nanite2000]

Long SC journeys in the main are avoidable - the only real exception is exploring. As with the real-world Winnebago driver case - things can happen in SC but may not happen often, there is nothing wrong with that and arguably the balance of interdiction/signal events should not be changed.

Aaaannnd we’re going round in circles again...

 

[lenna]

I think part of what disappoints me about ED is that there's not much in it to get skilled at through practice.

The skill based argument is flawed, there is already a degree of skill required in super-cruise providing of course that you do not make use of the SCA module - something that is relatively new and personally I do not have fitted to any of my ships. It is pre-fitted to all new ships and I remove it in favour of other kit.

The argument that FSS/DSS adds skill to system scanning is pretty flawed too, it is mini-game hell and on the most part enforced boring grind.