proposal for alternative SC mechanic

[VR Golgot]

The fundamental problem in cases like CGs is that FD need to properly assess the situation before implementation/release. Changing related mechanics would not fix the underlying issue.

These are the guys with the full suite of dev tools, and even they get caught out by long distances. It's telling, but you just aren't receptive to what it says. With you it's always the agent's fault for encountering long empty transits, not the game's for proffering them.

If the game had been altered to allow faster transit to secondary suns this issue absolutely would have been 'fixed'.

 

[nanite2000]

Not quite, they are not targetable/visible from the Galaxy map, only from the relevant system map. That is because they are not stationary points in galactic core reference terms.

That’s also untrue. You can view the secondary stars in the galaxy map in realistic mode.

The way FD have modelled the galaxy the system positioning seems to be static relative to the galactic core, while objects with-in any given system are in motion relative to the single galactic core relative static point - the primary star(s) notionally which are used as the entry point for that system.

Which can be changed by FDev if they wanted.

 

[lenna]

That’s also untrue. You can view the secondary stars in the galaxy map in realistic mode.

View them maybe (probably only truely noticeable if you zoom in close), but not target them - I use realistic mode most of the time.

Which can be changed by FDev if they wanted.

You are not paying attention obviously - the current nominal point of entry is the only true galactic relative fixed point and for inter-system jumps is the only logical point to target without additional technological assistance such as jump beacons.

What some like yourself are seemingly blind to is that the natural entry points to each system is not entirely arbitrary nor without logic.

 

[lenna]

These are the guys with the full suite of dev tools, and even they get caught out by long distances.

FD are not the first development team to not implement things without thinking things through properly and probably will not be the last - unfortunately. You can have all the tools in the world but human error is still a factor in such matters - only proper independent review strategies can truely mitigate such concerns, but even that is not an absolute guarantee.

 

[nanite2000]

What some like yourself are seemingly blind to is that the natural entry points to each system is not entirely arbitrary nor without logic.

There's a distinct hint of irony in that statement: I am not blind to it - I just know that it can be changed if FDev wanted to.

I am proposing real world solutions (FDev modifying their product) to real world problems (people's time being needlessly wasted with a slow and boring super cruise mechanic).

You, on the other hand, are seemingly only interested in rationalising the current gameplay mechanic using in-game fiction and patchy science. The game cannot be changed or improved with that mindset.

We could discuss our respective points of view forever and never reach agreement because I am approaching it from a real world perspective, and you are only interested in maintaining the restrictive fantasy you've crafted from the game's lore.

 

[lenna]

There's a distinct hint of irony in that statement: I am not blind to it - I just know that it can be changed if FDev wanted to.

I am proposing real world solutions (FDev modifying their product) to real world problems (people's time being needlessly wasted with a slow and boring super cruise mechanic).

Nope - you are proposing an "assumed fix" to a logical and reasonable mechanic you (and some others) do not like and object to. Arguably, the underlying mechanics do not need to be "fixed" they are not actually broken in any shape or form.

 

[nanite2000]

Nope - you are proposing an "assumed fix" to a logical and reasonable mechanic you (and some others) do not like and object to. Arguably, the underlying mechanics do not need to be "fixed" they are not actually broken in any shape or form.

In your opinion.

 

[VR Golgot]

Nope - you are proposing an "assumed fix" to a logical and reasonable mechanic you (and some others) do not like and object to. Arguably, the underlying mechanics do not need to be "fixed" they are not actually broken in any shape or form.

Your own positive feelings about the existing mechanics do not mean 'they do not need' change. That is not a factual chain of events.

 

[lenna]

In your opinion.

Not really just my opinion - the overarching point is the core mechanics should not be changed, supplemented perhaps but not changed.

FDev have demonstrably broken their "building on the past" commitment with the FSS/DSS changes, let us not compound that error in judgement by supporting comparable rewrites of other core mechanics.

 

[nanite2000]

Not really just my opinion - the overarching point is the core mechanics should not be changed, supplemented perhaps but not changed.

FDev have demonstrably broken their "building on the past" commitment with the FSS/DSS changes, let us not compound that error in judgement by supporting comparable rewrites of other core mechanics.

In your opinion.