Should there be an 'Open' with Fast Travel Option on the Login Screen

[Robert Maynard]

They wouldn't need to create a new background sim, the same logic can already be used to argue the current game modes would need a seperate BGS as well then.

Except, Frontier have built the game on the premise that each and every player, regardless of game mode or platform, experiences and affects the same shared galaxy state. To change a fundamental rule (speed of travel around the galaxy) between two modes is a major inconsistency. While the same may be argued regarding the lack of other players in Solo, the game was designed to allow PvP to be optional.

I still don't see the logic in that. Landing on planets was not included at launch, but it is here now and would also be considered a change to the game.

Landing on planets was announced during the Kickstarter as forming one of the planned, paid for, major expansions to the game. Also, landing on planets doesn't break any current game mechanics.

 

[Vyrsai]

I study computer science and can definitely imagine what this would mean. No, I don't know the details about this game, but I can assure you no sane developer would delay their planned update schedule for at least half a year just to implement, balance and test an alternative game mode.



Look. Solo and Open mode can share the same BGS because they follow the same rules. Your suggestion is breaking these rules. Fast travel would have a huge impact on the in-game balance, Powerplay and some other aspects would sink into chaos and wouldn't work as intended anymore in the current game modes. So yes, you'd need a separate BGS as long as you don't want half of the players to be really angry at you.

Not sure where you are getting 6 months of time to make a new mode, it might be spot on, I have no idea.

I still disagree and will say that Solo and Open mode do not follow the same rules. 1 has an added possible threat of other players and one does not. Which to me would be an equal amount of unbalance as a fast travel mechanic.

 

[kpmop]

Space travel is a major feature of Elite, and yeah it's a little tedious, but you know, space is big etc. and if you take it away that's a large chunk of it's raison d'etre gone. You might as well suggest increasing weapon damage so it's easier to kill other ships. Or doubling trade prices so we can all get rich twice as fast...

Reading some of the other posts though, maybe there's an argument for being able to choose your starting point at the main menu if you have multiple ships, but people'd jump around by logging in/out etc so that'd need some refining...

 

[Robert Maynard]

I still disagree and will say that Solo and Open mode do not follow the same rules. 1 has an added possible threat of other players and one does not. Which to me would be an equal amount of unbalance as a fast travel mechanic.

While you may opine that an imbalance exists, there's a thread for that particular discussion here.

If any imbalance exists, Frontier designed it in to the game by allowing players the freedom of choice to select whichever game mode they choose at the beginning of each play session.

Introducing a new game mechanic that creates imbalance would, of course, be their call. I hope that they choose not to.

 

[Vyrsai]

Except, Frontier have built the game on the premise that each and every player, regardless of game mode or platform, experiences and affects the same shared galaxy state. To change a fundamental rule (speed of travel around the galaxy) between two modes is a major inconsistency. While the same may be argued regarding the lack of other players in Solo, the game was designed to allow PvP to be optional.



Landing on planets was announced during the Kickstarter as forming one of the planned, paid for, major expansions to the game. Also, landing on planets doesn't break any current game mechanics.

You say major inconsistency and I say it's the same amount of inconsistency that already exists. As far as it being announced during kickstarter, I still think it works in my analogy. Just because a change is made does not mean it goes against what the game "should be". Balances and changes will continue to happen indefinitely so I fail to see how this change wouldn't be the same.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

While you may opine that an imbalance exists, there's a thread for that particular discussion here.

If any imbalance exists, Frontier designed it in to the game by allowing players the freedom of choice to select whichever game mode they choose at the beginning of each play session.

Introducing a new game mechanic that creates imbalance would, of course, be their call. I hope that they choose not to.

I'm not the one who started the imbalance talk. I merely replied to it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You say major inconsistency and I say it's the same amount of inconsistency that already exists. As far as it being announced during kickstarter, I still think it works in my analogy. Just because a change is made does not mean it goes against what the game "should be". Balances and changes will continue to happen indefinitely so I fail to see how this change wouldn't be the same.

I don't see how it helps the analogy - planetary landing (and, in time, leaving the pilot's chair on foot) are both expected changes to the game and therefore are part of what the game is planned to be, in time. Not so fast travel.

 

[Vyrsai]

You pose an interesting arguement but essentially you are saying X can give some players an unfair advantage so lets introduce Y to give some players an unfair advantage.
And as we've seen the Open/group/solo thread is in an eternal cycle of arguement and mud-slinging with a fair bit of moderator influence, I don't really want another one of those but thats a side-topic

What I think Robert means is you are fundamentally changing the mechanics of the game. It'd be like reducing Elite's 400 billion systems down to 500,000 or similar large scale changes. Changing something so iconic to the game at this late stage would probably require a galaxy reset amongst other things to make it work and to sort out all the amazingly unbalanced things like smuggling that would be thrown out by the changes.

Probably my last post here because I think I've put my feelings across and we stand on pretty opposite sides of this debate. But I would ask what you want with it?
Is it a way to make the game more fast-paced? Is it because you want more credits faster? Is it to meet other people in the bubble? I honestly don't see why we should introduce it given that most people are perfectly fine with it at the moment (See Distant Worlds which was over-subscribed), In all the counter arguments for why It shouldn't happen I have yet to see a good arguement in favour of it...

This topic does keep cropping up, it's by no means the first time this discussion has been had. In the past 15 months I've been on the forums the public opinion seems to be "no thanks".

I don't want fast travel in any capacity. I feel it is totally fine the way it is.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I don't see how it helps the analogy - planetary landing (and, in time, leaving the pilot's chair on foot) are both expected changes to the game and therefore are part of what the game is planned to be, in time. Not so fast travel.

My point is there are both changes we know about and changes we don't know about. Both will happen throughout this games development. So I just don't see how that makes this change inherently bad.

 

[Grumpy181155]

Not needed and a bad idea. The galaxy is huge and is supposed to feel that way. Fast travel would give the impression of shrinking the size of the galaxy.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Can we please stop now?

 

[Vyrsai]

Can we please stop now?

For the record, this is indeed a stupid idea. So is adding any game mode. /thread

 

[igor37]

Not sure where you are getting 6 months of time to make a new mode, it might be spot on, I have no idea.

Let's just call it experience. There's a reason why so many games get delayed for months just for the finishing touches. On first glance stuff like that always sounds much simpler than it really is.

1 has an added possible threat of other players and one does not.

I don't know what kind of threat you mean, in 300h of playtime I was interdicted exactly once by another player. I wouldn't call that unbalanced, the amount of players you meet is just too low to make an impact.

 

[mistohise]

Yeah. In fact, the main menu screen should just comprise a plethora of options as to how quickly and easily you want to be able to win the universe.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

I don't want fast travel in any capacity. I feel it is totally fine the way it is.

We agree?! Darnit you are doing what I normally do and playing Devils advocate! *Waves fist*. Darn kids stealing my job!

 

[Vyrsai]

We agree?! Darnit you are doing what I normally do and playing Devils advocate! *Waves fist*. Darn kids stealing my job!

The point of this thread is really to show how silly it is to add any other game modes. I could have substituted "Fast Travel" with any other mechanic that is currently not in the game and gotten the exact same responses.

 

[babelfisch]

The point of this thread is really to show how silly it is to add any other game modes. I could have substituted "Fast Travel" with any other mechanic that is currently not in the game and gotten the exact same responses.

The difference is that the only other game mode some people are asking for is PvE which already exist but isn't officialy supported and therefore quite difficult to manage.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

The point of this thread is really to show how silly it is to add any other game modes. I could have substituted "Fast Travel" with any other mechanic that is currently not in the game and gotten the exact same responses.

True true..

To be fair the one mode I would very much like to see is the ability to choose your loadout for the training missions. Perhaps after you buy a ship in the main game it unlocks in training or something like that.
It'd mean we can test combat builds in an out-of game environment. Play a bit of sheer fun in a no-risk environment with no affect on the main game (especially nice if I'm out somewhere exploring). CQC is great but it's too diametrically opposed with it being so crazy action heavy compared with serene exploring and the occasional buggy free-falling

 

[Vyrsai]

The difference is that the only other game mode some people are asking for is PvE which already exist but isn't officialy supported and therefore quite difficult to manage.

Hmm I'd say it doesn't exist. A PG with its own rules is just that; a PG.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hmm I'd say it doesn't exist. A PG with its own rules is just that; a PG.

Solo is PvE - except for experiencing and affecting the BGS, of course.

 

[babelfisch]

Hmm I'd say it doesn't exist. A PG with its own rules is just that; a PG.

That's not correct, Solo is definetly PvE and it definetly exists. Anyway please don't let us discuss if we need a PvE mode, there are already enough threads about this and I honestly have no opinion on this matter.

 

[Vyrsai]

That's not correct, Solo is definetly PvE and it definetly exists. Anyway please don't let us discuss if we need a PvE mode, there are already enough threads about this and I honestly have no opinion on this matter.

Solo is PvE.

Yep, but by yourself. So I still would say that it is not currently in game. Also it was never offered by FD at any point. Like you said about fast travel.