Should ship transfers have a time delay or not?

Should ship transfers have a time delay or not?

  • Yes, ship transfers should have a time delay.

    Votes: 673 74.9%
  • No, ship transfers should not have a time delay.

    Votes: 226 25.1%

  • Total voters
    899
  • Poll closed .
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I feel the same. My Commander's story sits in my own head. It's not god-run, it's not destiny. He's not part - or even that interested - in the aggressions between Federation or Empire, has no interested in any of the odd things being found outside the bubble. He runs his Python trying to forge ahead keeping his ship going and the money steady. In my head he works with one other hired engineer. He has a secondary vehicle he keeps stationed at a large orbital not far from Decait, a small viper to do those smaller, dirtier missions and hunts.

The point is, that immersion is a personal thing, and often comes from heavy investment. I don't think heavily about any of this, it's just stuff that rolls through your head as you enjoy a universe that does it's best to hide the game behind the world. It doesn't do it perfectly of course, but I think you feel you can understand why mechanics are apparent when they are. I understand the Engineer's RNG. I see why they went that way and I feel I can justify the apparent gaming nature through "world logic".

Something like this just shatters that depth. It won't destroy Elite or the world, or my life. But I think what     les people is it feels so unnecessary, so contrary to what even Elite's creator is saying about Elite's science at the same time this is being announced. I find I can't justify it in-world so it feels envasive. The timer delay doesn't even need to be accurate, it just needs to feel as if there's been an attempt to marry it to the universe we have. I think that's why it     les - there's no feeling of trying to make it fit.

I think it's good to share these sort of personal takes on Elite because it makes the whole point of immersion and the "universe's" priority all the more in the foreground to the mechanics. I can imagine when you see the inards of Elite day in and day out, it's hard to see it as a casual player enjoying a magical world, and you forget that it's not about mini-games, how clever it is to switch roles at a request etc. It's about the world. The world is what makes Elite different from NMS or SC. Not to knock either, but difference is wrought from identity, and Elite's identity has always been about it's feeling of realism over subserviance to the gamer.
 
As I pointed out in the mega-thread, there's a great disagreement among those who want a time delay as to how long it should be. Some want a long delay to avoid "exploits" and some want a short one to help with the "immersion". Trouble is, a short delay won't deal with the exploits, and a long delay could be worse than instant for those who voted for a short delay, because the long time would make the transfer facility pointless. Hence the results of the mega-thread poll:
Instant: 1/4
Short delay: 1/4
Medium delay: 1/4
Long delay: 1/4

Since FDev will choose just one option, only a minority of 1/4 will be happy, whether there's a delay or not. Hence saying that "a majority is against instant transfer" is rather pointless, because a majority (3/4) is also against every alternative option. To lump the non-instant backers into one group is therefore misleading, but thanks to the mega-thread poll, it's too late to hide it.

Not really how it works. If there were 50 varying delay options that 50 people voted for and each of them voted for a different option, in the real world, this wouldn't mean that only 1 of them would be happy.

Yes, an exaggeration, but hopefully you get the need for this poll as well now. It intentionally doesn't make a distinction so as to not obfuscate the general overall community preference.
 
Last edited:
I feel the same. My Commander's story sits in my own head. It's not god-run, it's not destiny. He's not part - or even that interested - in the aggressions between Federation or Empire, has no interested in any of the odd things being found outside the bubble. He runs his Python trying to forge ahead keeping his ship going and the money steady. In my head he works with one other hired engineer. He has a secondary vehicle he keeps stationed at a large orbital not far from Decait, a small viper to do those smaller, dirtier missions and hunts.

The point is, that immersion is a personal thing, and often comes from heavy investment. I don't think heavily about any of this, it's just stuff that rolls through your head as you enjoy a universe that does it's best to hide the game behind the world. It doesn't do it perfectly of course, but I think you feel you can understand why mechanics are apparent when they are. I understand the Engineer's RNG. I see why they went that way and I feel I can justify the apparent gaming nature through "world logic".

Something like this just shatters that depth. It won't destroy Elite or the world, or my life. But I think what les people is it feels so unnecessary, so contrary to what even Elite's creator is saying about Elite's science at the same time this is being announced. I find I can't justify it in-world so it feels envasive. The timer delay doesn't even need to be accurate, it just needs to feel as if there's been an attempt to marry it to the universe we have. I think that's why it les - there's no feeling of trying to make it fit.

I think it's good to share these sort of personal takes on Elite because it makes the whole point of immersion and the "universe's" priority all the more in the foreground to the mechanics. I can imagine when you see the inards of Elite day in and day out, it's hard to see it as a casual player enjoying a magical world, and you forget that it's not about mini-games, how clever it is to switch roles at a request etc. It's about the world. The world is what makes Elite different from NMS or SC. Not to knock either, but difference is wrought from identity, and Elite's identity has always been about it's feeling of realism over subserviance to the gamer.

Well put. I think you've helped really flesh out what I was stumbling through earlier trying to explain; for many of us, ED transcends its little collection of mini games to actually become a real game world where we can suspend our disbelief while playing.

When I listened to David I thought "Heck yeah, David gets it! That man totally gets me!" and a bit later when listening to Sandro I thought "Holy smokes, who is this guy??? He is totally aiming this game at a different target audience!"

That was a weird feeling. Still is. Those guys are talking about two distinctly different products, meant for two distinctly different groups of players.
 
Time delayed ship transfer with a chance of destruction in tansit?

I would totally vote for that.

Frontier can't easily add features and gameplay elements in the future like this with there being no time delay implemented at all. As mentioned in my first response post in this thread, it's one of the many reasons why I'm for there being a time delay, even if it's just to be able to see my ships dock while walking around in the station gardens. [up]
 
Last edited:
The Agency moving my Ship will pay for it out of their Insurance, instead of mine. Send another ship.

Heh, good one. Makes sense (you are paying the shipping fees after all), and takes some of the burden of guilt off of other emergent gameplay elements, such as piracy or potential faction missions... [arrrr] ;)
 
So is everyone who wants long delays playing ironman mode? The instant rebuild of your ship is zero different to instantly getting it at your destination.

edit
 
Last edited:
Why bother with ironman mode? I haven't "died" in the game this year yet anyway.

Moot point anyway. We all know two wrongs don't make a right, right? I mean, even if our personal biases might not want us to... ;)

As I mentioned several times before in the mega thread, it's called a "willing suspension of disbelief" for good reason.
 
Last edited:
I think summoning your ship is a bad design way of doing it regardless. It should be sending your ship from the source.
If I want my car transported to Austrailia, I don't wait until I'm in Sydney and ask for it, I drive it to the port and arrange it first. Then. I don't care if it arrives instanly or not, because I won't be.
 
I think summoning your ship is a bad design way of doing it regardless. It should be sending your ship from the source.
If I want my car transported to Austrailia, I don't wait until I'm in Sydney and ask for it, I drive it to the port and arrange it first. Then. I don't care if it arrives instanly or not, because I won't be.

No worries, I got your point the first time. I don't have a particularly strong feeling about it one way or the other. There are both benefits and disadvantages to having it.

I don't think it's the best solution, though I do tend to prefer it a bit more than just settling for instantaneous ship transfers.
 
Last edited:
As I pointed out in the mega-thread, there's a great disagreement among those who want a time delay as to how long it should be. Some want a long delay to avoid "exploits" and some want a short one to help with the "immersion". Trouble is, a short delay won't deal with the exploits, and a long delay could be worse than instant for those who voted for a short delay, because the long time would make the transfer facility pointless. Hence the results of the mega-thread poll:
Instant: 1/4
Short delay: 1/4
Medium delay: 1/4
Long delay: 1/4

Since FDev will choose just one option, only a minority of 1/4 will be happy, whether there's a delay or not. Hence saying that "a majority is against instant transfer" is rather pointless, because a majority (3/4) is also against every alternative option. To lump the non-instant backers into one group is therefore misleading, but thanks to the mega-thread poll, it's too late to hide it.

You're still counting them apples and you're still getting confused, you really do like flogging a dead horse.[haha]
 
Last edited:
At least sending it, there is no broken immersion at all, as until you get there you won't know whether it arrived instantly or not. A bit like knowing if the fridge light has switched off when you close the door. The only downside, is you would have to actually get there yourself to move the ship somewhere else, unless you make a mission update. Actually I have to have this feature now, just so I can randomly make NPCs change where they are delivering my stuff.
 
Yes, there should be a delay. This whole game is based on distances, scale, and time. What's the point of half of the concepts and philosophy if things like ship transport can be done instantaneously? There should be a realistic delay for a significant price.
 
At least sending it, there is no broken immersion at all, as until you get there you won't know whether it arrived instantly or not. A bit like knowing if the fridge light has switched off when you close the door. The only downside, is you would have to actually get there yourself to move the ship somewhere else, unless you make a mission update. Actually I have to have this feature now, just so I can randomly make NPCs change where they are delivering my stuff.

Yes, I agree that the immersion/continuity elements of the idea are pretty sound, but then there are the gameplay balancing elements to contend with as well. Unfortunately, calling ships to your current location works much better for that.
 
Last edited:
Voted Yes,

I like the idea that your ship is transported to it's destination in a transporter ship, as cars are currently. The chances of delay / accident would add a bit of interest (covered by insurance of course)
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom