Returning player, suggestions

[z33r0x]

Hello everyone, been a long time since I played Elite dangerous, years in fact, I noticed even after all these years, the game still don't respect your time. There is still a lot of issues with the game.

First of all, this game needs some serious quality of life. Traveling is still very tedious and doesn't feel good, at all.

A few suggestions, is to improve this game by a lot thatl doesn't require that much work. I was a developer and programmer myself I know for a fact that these changes can be made within a day.

Super cruise, needs to have WAY higher acceleration and faster deacceleration, to travel systems more fluid, sitting and looking at a timer for minutes on end is not fun.

When it comes to interstellar travel, make so that the jump distance is using the Frameshift drive AND the fuel to calculate the distance you can jump. For instance, if you have fuel to make a destination that requires 7 jumps, make it so you just need to make 1 jump to end up at that 7 jump distance, but deplete all the fuel for that distance in one go. And allow us to plot our route, for an example certain stops to fuel at suns or refuel a long the way.

Able to pay your fines and bounties easier.

 

[Northpin]

I like travelling as it is - galaxy is big, some systems are big, some are small, etc
and this is including hyperspace jumping

I guess you just remembered why you left, right?

 

[Rat Catcher]

I was a developer and programmer myself I know for a fact that these changes can be made within a day.

Oh, were you developing on the COBRA engine?

I guess you just remembered why you left, right?

I think that is likely to be an accurate assessment.

If travelling is still such a discomfort, it may be better to retire off from the game once more, it is extremely unlikely to change as the OP wishes.

 

[z33r0x]

I have no experience in COBRA engine, but what im talking about is changing a few numbers for a few things. I knew that people will defend this tedious slog, it doesn't matter if it takes 6 hours to dock to a station, you will just take it and defend it, im sure of it. I knew this was a waste of time like always, but something that amazes me is that, I suggested things many years and everyone said it was a bad thing, but later on, they implemented it to the game, and everyone was happy about it.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Part of it is annoying slog, but the most part is technical limitations. Welcome to the world of multiplayer, where boundaries exist that wouldn't in singleplayer.

 

[Northpin]

it doesn't matter if it takes 6 hours to dock to a station

Not sure what you mean, but i can do 6 Robigo runs in an Hour.

Or were you just trying to be hyperbolic?
If so, i'm quite glad that we dont have in game the current in-system speed - so a trip Earth -Mars doesn't take almost a full year

 

[SteveWW57]

Super cruise, needs to have WAY higher acceleration and faster deacceleration, to travel systems more fluid, sitting and looking at a timer for minutes on end is not fun.

Travel time = immersion. If you could just jump from one point in space to another, what is the reason for having nice spaceships?

When it comes to interstellar travel, make so that the jump distance is using the Frameshift drive AND the fuel to calculate the distance you can jump. For instance, if you have fuel to make a destination that requires 7 jumps, make it so you just need to make 1 jump to end up at that 7 jump distance, but deplete all the fuel for that distance in one go. And allow us to plot our route, for an example certain stops to fuel at suns or refuel a long the way.

So this takes away any opportunity for events to happen, whether you find something of interest or get interdicted. Risk free transportation of goods and not having to bother plotting a safe route. Again, taking away the immersion.

Able to pay your fines and bounties easier.

If you cannot do the time, don't do the crime. I cannot see how paying off fines and bounties could be a problem.

Steve

 

[aRJay]

I have no experience in COBRA engine, but what im talking about is changing a few numbers for a few things. I knew that people will defend this tedious slog, it doesn't matter if it takes 6 hours to dock to a station, you will just take it and defend it, im sure of it. I knew this was a waste of time like always, but something that amazes me is that, I suggested things many years and everyone said it was a bad thing, but later on, they implemented it to the game, and everyone was happy about it.

I would love to see examples of this.

No not your suggestions but something that everyone (lets limit it to the forums) is happy about.

 

[Maxx Thorogood]

The game would benefit from reduced supercruise time. It does not need to go away, just half of it needs to go away.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

For instance, if you have fuel to make a destination that requires 7 jumps, make it so you just need to make 1 jump to end up at that 7 jump distance, but deplete all the fuel for that distance in one go.

The problem with this is that fuel usage goes up much faster than linearly as you approach your maximum single-hop range.

So for example, an Anaconda with an unengineered 6A FSD will use 8t of fuel to go (depending on exact loadout), say 20 LY.
The same Anaconda will only use 2t of fuel to go 12 LY. So if it made the jumps 12 LY at a time between A and B, 8t of fuel would let it jump 48 LY rather than 20 LY.
This can get even more efficient - using 0.1t of fuel at a time it could jump 3.8 LY, so doing that 80 times would get it a full 304 LY for the same 8t of fuel.

As a result - it's been done! - with an engineered FSD and optional internals full of extra fuel tanks, it's possible for an Anaconda to get from the bubble to Colonia without needing a fuel scoop or other mid-way refuelling.

Conversely, if you gave the same Anaconda the ability to use its entire 32t standard fuel tank at once, it'd only get 35 LY, which isn't even two jumps.

So, given this unengineered Anaconda, what range are you suggesting it should have with a "use all fuel at once" jump, on a standard 32t tank?
- 35 LY, which is what it could get if it wasn't restricted to 8t per jump?
- approximately 80 LY, which is roughly how far it would get on 4 "fastest routing" jumps?
- approximately 320 LY, which is roughly how far it could get on 32 "1t" jumps given normal star separation in the bubble?
- approximately 1000 LY, which is roughly how far it could get on 320 "0.1t" jumps given sufficiently close stars as you might get near the core?
(Engineered would approximately double this as well as making the 0.1t jumps plausible in a good amount of the bubble)

(Only the first of those is a "change one number" tweak, by the way; max fuel per jump is a property of FSDs, whereas "jump my entire plotted route at once until out of fuel" would need a bit more work)

So this takes away any opportunity for events to happen, whether you find something of interest or get interdicted. Risk free transportation of goods and not having to bother plotting a safe toute

Though, it is only relatively recently that Frontier have added meaningful possibilities for something to happen to you at the intermediate systems of a multi-hop trip you have fuel for. Previously if you were just charging the next jump on your route as soon as you arrived, the chances of anything being able to interfere with you or be spotted by you was pretty remote; it's only with the Thargoid War that mid-way events have become more common (and then only in certain circumstances)

 

[Maxx Thorogood]

Travel time = immersion. If you could just jump from one point in space to another, what is the reason for having nice spaceships?

So this takes away any opportunity for events to happen, whether you find something of interest or get interdicted. Risk free transportation of goods and not having to bother plotting a safe route. Again, taking away the immersion.

If you cannot do the time, don't do the crime. I cannot see how paying off fines and bounties could be a problem.

Steve

"Travel time = immersion. If you could just jump from one point in space to another, what is the reason for having nice spaceships?"

Actually travel time (like there often is in ED) = AFK.

 

[Northpin]

Actually travel time (like there often is in ED) = AFK.

Shush - No AFK for me while i'm playing ED
However, i may alt-tab to forums from time to time - and more often than not after alt-tabbing back i would find myself 30000 ls past my destination

 

[SteveWW57]

"Travel time = immersion. If you could just jump from one point in space to another, what is the reason for having nice spaceships?"

Actually travel time (like there often is in ED) = AFK.

And when you return from being AFK in a long super cruise, you are presented with the rebuy screen, as something happened whilst AFK. Been there, not happy.

Steve

 

[Aleks Zuno]

I was a developer and programmer myself I know for a fact that these changes can be made within a day.

Mind that this argument generally is received quite poorly and is almost always refuted as a non sequitur.

Super cruise, needs to have WAY higher acceleration and faster deacceleration, to travel systems more fluid, sitting and looking at a timer for minutes on end is not fun.

Before concluding that, self-ask these questions:

• Is Supercruise Assist active for the full journey? If so, improve the time by using full throttle until the final approach.
  • Consider also using the ability of Supercruise Assist to drop at a navigation marker regardless of speed.
• Is the path a straight line? If so, curve it to avoid getting too close to high-mass stellar bodies.
• Are the target markers more than 10000 light-seconds away? If so, note that most displays (especially missions!) will tell you the distance well in advance.
  • More generally, locating nice places to operate is part of the challenge, where a low travel distance is but one desirable property to consider.

Supercruise takes a moment to escape the gravitation when arriving at a star, but generally it becomes sensible enough after that. When dropping at signal sources in a system, one needs to think in terms of curved or compressed space before approaching a gas giant to encounter one signal if there are many other signals around in open space.

When it comes to interstellar travel, make so that the jump distance is using the Frameshift drive AND the fuel to calculate the distance you can jump. For instance, if you have fuel to make a destination that requires 7 jumps, make it so you just need to make 1 jump to end up at that 7 jump distance, but deplete all the fuel for that distance in one go.

Aside from allowing you to jump straight through some dangerous systems such as Deciat without any danger, that seemed like a bit more work than would be complete within a day. You contradicted yourself later:

I have no experience in COBRA engine, but what im talking about is changing a few numbers for a few things.

The multiple-jump suggestion is not changing a few numbers for a few things.

And allow us to plot our route, for an example certain stops to fuel at suns or refuel a long the way.

On this part alone, I agree! In fact, I suggested it myself four months ago in Galaxy Map: Variable economy, manual routes, return routes and repeating loops.

Able to pay your fines and bounties easier.

You know as well as any that it is your challenge to ease this yourself by being more careful!

 

[zimms]

And when you return from being AFK in a long super cruise, you are presented with the rebuy screen, as something happened whilst AFK. Been there, not happy.

Steve

During really long supercruise journeys, nothing can happen. You're too fast for somebody to interdict you.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

The problem with this is that fuel usage goes up much faster than linearly as you approach your maximum single-hop range.

So for example, an Anaconda with an unengineered 6A FSD will use 8t of fuel to go (depending on exact loadout), say 20 LY.
The same Anaconda will only use 2t of fuel to go 12 LY. So if it made the jumps 12 LY at a time between A and B, 8t of fuel would let it jump 48 LY rather than 20 LY.
This can get even more efficient - using 0.1t of fuel at a time it could jump 3.8 LY, so doing that 80 times would get it a full 304 LY for the same 8t of fuel.

As a result - it's been done! - with an engineered FSD and optional internals full of extra fuel tanks, it's possible for an Anaconda to get from the bubble to Colonia without needing a fuel scoop or other mid-way refuelling.

Conversely, if you gave the same Anaconda the ability to use its entire 32t standard fuel tank at once, it'd only get 35 LY, which isn't even two jumps.

So, given this unengineered Anaconda, what range are you suggesting it should have with a "use all fuel at once" jump, on a standard 32t tank?
- 35 LY, which is what it could get if it wasn't restricted to 8t per jump?
- approximately 80 LY, which is roughly how far it would get on 4 "fastest routing" jumps?
- approximately 320 LY, which is roughly how far it could get on 32 "1t" jumps given normal star separation in the bubble?
- approximately 1000 LY, which is roughly how far it could get on 320 "0.1t" jumps given sufficiently close stars as you might get near the core?
(Engineered would approximately double this as well as making the 0.1t jumps plausible in a good amount of the bubble)

(Only the first of those is a "change one number" tweak, by the way; max fuel per jump is a property of FSDs, whereas "jump my entire plotted route at once until out of fuel" would need a bit more work)


Though, it is only relatively recently that Frontier have added meaningful possibilities for something to happen to you at the intermediate systems of a multi-hop trip you have fuel for. Previously if you were just charging the next jump on your route as soon as you arrived, the chances of anything being able to interfere with you or be spotted by you was pretty remote; it's only with the Thargoid War that mid-way events have become more common (and then only in certain circumstances)

While everything you said is on the money, I think the suggestion wasn't to mess with the jump range. It was to magically skip 6 of the 7 jumps and just arrive at your route's destination instantly. Like: If I can route, let me skip to the end.

Which, of course, is ludicrous.

Edit: That would, of course, also mean that the one-tank-to-Colonia Anaconda would be able to travel there instantly. Which is even more ludicrous.

 

[Fnord Velkor]

Aha - a "travel is too slow" thread - must be ages since we had one.


(Six years since the OP last proposed this, no growth there then.)

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Like: If I can route, let me skip to the end.

Yes, that was my point: the fuel requirements for economic routing and "fastest" routing are very different for the same distance, such that if you add "skip to point where fuel is depleted", economic routing suddenly becomes considerably faster than fastest routing. The only advantage of fastest routing (assuming you're not going so far that "time to plot route" becomes significant!) is that it takes fewer jumps; if they both take one, it's not faster any more.

(It's one of those usually-pointless bits of depth: if intermediate systems aren't threatening and fuel is cheap-to-free, there's never any time you'd need economic routing, short of "it might stop you needing to call the Fuel Rats" once in a while; adjust some other game mechanics and it suddenly can become much more important)

 

[Rat Catcher]

During really long supercruise journeys, nothing can happen. You're too fast for somebody to interdict you.

Provided you are not using SC assist, and manage not to pass any gravity wells, maybe...
But as soon as you start to slow when approaching your destination, or passing by any body (or astreriod belt), this statement may not be entirely incorrect.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Yes, that was my point: the fuel requirements for economic routing and "fastest" routing are very different for the same distance, such that if you add "skip to point where fuel is depleted", economic routing suddenly becomes considerably faster than fastest routing. The only advantage of fastest routing (assuming you're not going so far that "time to plot route" becomes significant!) is that it takes fewer jumps; if they both take one, it's not faster any more.

(It's one of those usually-pointless bits of depth: if intermediate systems aren't threatening and fuel is cheap-to-free, there's never any time you'd need economic routing, short of "it might stop you needing to call the Fuel Rats" once in a while; adjust some other game mechanics and it suddenly can become much more important)

Of course. Effectively, the OP was a plea to get fast traveling and making fuel consumption calculations and considerations obsolete. Hell, why stop there? Why even have fuel? Just let me go wherever I want in an instant! (yes, hyperbole to make a point)

Please don't implement fast traveling.