Supercruise Drop out distance from stations and outposts

[ebbrell]

I have posted this before, I'm hoping they fix this.
When I first started playing elite when you exited supercruise you were further away from a station etc. Around 15kmto 20km out

Yes mean the time to get to station was a little longer, but it was a dangerous race to get within the 8km or 7.5km safe zone around a station.

If being chased by an NPC, it would drop in and attack you in this un safe zone outside of the 8km. Bounty hunters could hide in this area and wait for players and NPCs which had bounties on their heads.

Currently it's safe safe. You drop out sometimes 7.8km from station more or less on top of it. In fact last night I nearly smashed into it when approaching a station from behind.
Planet bases are silly, sometimes 4km away when you are so close in top and near ground and needing to deal with high Gs also.

I was touching down on a pad landing and an NPc dropped out of SC chasing me, I was already in station.

The stations look amazing from a distance and look cool as you get closer.

Let's have the sense or danger and a race to get close to the station. I remember old elite had this sense of danger this version should also.

At Lavecon I asked why, it was to prevent bankers camping near stations.... but this has ruined the sense or thrill of danger for me..
Let's have elite dangerous and not elite safe.



Can we have the distance incleased to 15km to 20km or introduce some random drop outs which are outside the safe zone.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Less time for gankers having so called "fun" and "lulz". Current range is good. NPC's are dangerous only for newbies and ships that have already been shot nearly to pieces.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

And bigger distance means more time wasted in transit.

 

[MickyG1982]

Given that folk are (still) moaning about the length of time they have to spend in supercruise I can imagine a thread about introducing a longer travel time in normal space is going to go well...

I mean, imagine suggesting players spend longer in their ships, in a spaceship flying game no less...

 

[Rubbernuke]

I raised this suggestion here as well > https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-gamma-distances-and-other-c-p-tweaks.527185/

It was a poor design choice from FD.

 

[ebbrell]

Maybe some random drop further way, like it was 2 or 3 years ago.
They should never have reduced it.

Other games like star C, dont drop you out right on top of station.... nuts

 

[Kissamies]

I agree, but too many people would whine about it too much. "Screensaver gameplay" they call it. Filthy casuals.

 

[metatheurgist]

At Lavecon I asked why, it was to prevent bankers camping near stations....

Of course, the obvious solution was to have working security but FD have their own ways of doing things.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course, the obvious solution was to have working security but FD have their own ways of doing things.

Well technically you would, as having such a space would fit neatly with sec response times. Anarchy is no help, low is 1:30 (i.e. very risky), medium and high especially are in seconds- at least for hostile NPCs.

As far as gankers, FD don't really get you have campers now who manipulate speeding commanders, force shell, LR munitions, rammers, as well as the whole of SC and that you have modes on top of that to choose from.

 

[NorthernDevo]

I tend to agree with the OP on this one. Arrival distance nowadays is a little nuts - arriving at an Orbis-type station from the aft end, I nearly had my Krait's nose ripped off by the solar panels last night. In RL that would be a stunningly insane lack of safety for an orbiting city.

20Km. would be a decent arrival distance, IMO. Yes, I get that people scream about transit time, while it makes me totally shake my head. You bought a space flying game and you don't want to fly the ship? That's cool I guess; if that's how you want to play. For myself, I would in fact prefer to have a more reasonable distance somewhere around 50Km, but 20 is a decent compromise: sufficient safety by fast flight into the aegis, more requirement to plan your arrival position and the chance to fly a proper and satisfactory approach to the station if you, like me, prefer that sort of thing.

My personal preference would probably be too hard to implement, but TBH I'm no fan of the set arrival distance at all - I would remove it completely. The ship should merely continue to slow in SC approach; the player watches the range then drops out at their chosen distance. Want to drop out crazy-close? Up to you (with a BIG fine if you drop out inside the no-fire zone); just takes practice. Want to drop out at 30Km? Cool - if you want to risk gankers, that's your call. IOW, there is both risk and advantage to your chosen dropout distance.
Now - I do know that someone is going to mention this but you can certainly drop out farther from the station - I just dropped out at 80k which is fine for me, but it's haphazard and annoying: drop throttle to zero and exit SC when the station screams by. I'd like the option to drop out in a little more predictable manner.

Cheers!

 

[varonica]

I tend to agree with the OP on this one. Arrival distance nowadays is a little nuts - arriving at an Orbis-type station from the aft end, I nearly had my Krait's nose ripped off by the solar panels last night. In RL that would be a stunningly insane lack of safety for an orbiting city.

As opposed to people running their ships through the letterbox at 700+kps? I don't think RL safety is something they consider when planning these things, if it was all ship would be automatically restricted by the nav computer to the speed limit the moment they reached the no-fire zone!

Hey wait, what do I hear, is that a huge crowd brandishing pitchforks and torches coming my way? Don't bother people I'm joking. I would prefer more control over drop out distances rather than just making it a fixed distance. If you have a pirate, or dare I say ganker on your tail why not take a risk and drop out closer to a station? If you have a big load of VO in your hold and want a safe approach drop out further away.

 

[NorthernDevo]

As opposed to people running their ships through the letterbox at 700+kps? I don't think RL safety is something they consider when planning these things, if it was all ship would be automatically restricted by the nav computer to the speed limit the moment they reached the no-fire zone!

Well...I wouldn't go that far. IRL if a pilot is careless or wants to break the 250kt. speed limit in Class-C airspace (your average large airport) they can. They'll be fined - at least - and likely fired, but the pilot has control over his ship. Should be the same here.

Hey wait, what do I hear, is that a huge crowd brandishing pitchforks and torches coming my way? Don't bother people I'm joking. I would prefer more control over drop out distances rather than just making it a fixed distance. If you have a pirate, or dare I say ganker on your tail why not take a risk and drop out closer to a station? If you have a big load of VO in your hold and want a safe approach drop out further away.

Precisely. IMO, a pilot should have control over their own approach. The dropout point is pretty arbitrary and very unrealistic - and I say that keeping in mind that ED gives a completely untrained person command of a ship capable of flying 2000C.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Precisely. IMO, a pilot should have control over their own approach. The dropout point is pretty arbitrary and very unrealistic - and I say that keeping in mind that ED gives a completely untrained person command of a ship capable of flying 2000C.

What didn't they mention every commander having passed Pilots Federation exam, though my Commander won his licence in lottery?

 

[varonica]

What didn't they mention every commander having passed Pilots Federation exam, though my Commander won his licence in lottery?

Cut mine from the back of a cereal box, apparantly I resemble Toucan Sam close enough that it passed the ID check.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Cut mine from the back of a cereal box, apparantly I resemble Toucan Sam close enough that it passed the ID check.

I drew my license on a piece of paper... for my picture I just drew a stick figure head....The Federation and Imperials are a bit more alert, they crossmatched my handdrawn tiotle with thteir systems and came to the conclusion I was not ranked as I a suggested, so I had to do the leg work, but they still let me fly on my handdrawn pilots license!

 

[Robert Maynard]

At Lavecon I asked why, it was to prevent bankers camping near stations.... but this has ruined the sense or thrill of danger for me..
Let's have elite dangerous and not elite safe.

Sounds like the proclivity of gankers to camp at stations and outposts caused Frontier to minimise the effect of said gankers by reducing the drop-out distance.

.... and Frontier is being blamed for that?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sounds like the proclivity of gankers to camp at stations and outposts caused Frontier to minimise the effect of said gankers by reducing the drop-out distance.

.... and Frontier is being blamed for that?

FD seem to once again misunderstand their own game, and how people use and misuse it. By choosing to lower drop distances its hobbled all NPCs around stations and reduced PvE gameplay. Dropping the distance has not stopped ganking but just pushed it elsewhere (SC, LR weapons, force shell, speeding).

 

[Robert Maynard]

FD seem to once again misunderstand their own game, and how people use and misuse it. By choosing to lower drop distances its hobbled all NPCs around stations and reduced PvE gameplay. Dropping the distance has not stopped ganking but just pushed it elsewhere (SC, LR weapons, force shell, speeding).

We don't know whether the consequence relating to NPCs was intentional or not.

What the change would seem to have done is to make camping stations "less fun" for fun sponges.

Of course ganking has not been stopped - however it is less trivial to set up camp to find targets.

.... and, while speeding is the "new" method, it's preferable (in my opinion) to fragile speeding ships suicide-ramming other ships to get the latter destroyed by the station. YMMV.

 

[NorthernDevo]

Sounds like the proclivity of gankers to camp at stations and outposts caused Frontier to minimise the effect of said gankers by reducing the drop-out distance.

.... and Frontier is being blamed for that?

I can't speak for others, but for myself it's in no way a question of blaming anyone. Lord knows how difficult it must be to build a game like this; my own coding ability extends to...well; let's say I'm happy with the fact I can even turn the PC on.

That said, if the drop-out point was reduced for that reason, I would suggest that strictly in my own opinion it has the feel of a hasty quick-fix solution. It's not bad, but it could be much better.
Now - I've stated my own preference earlier in this thread, but this thread isn't about my preference - it's about the OP's. As I first stated, I support Ebbrell's suggestion and would personally like to see it implemented - with a catch.
Extend the drop-out point, and also extend the no-fire zone. I personally think the NFZ is far too close to the station anyway; were it my game to build I'd double the radius of all three important parameters: the dropout point, the NFZ and the masslock limit.

Now yes - those players afraid of getting ganked are going to scream bloody blue murder. But what it does in effect is expand the area of the sphere by nearly 11 times. That means you either need so many gankers covering one station that all the Engineers retire to Leestie in riches beyond the dreams of avarice, or they simply will not be able to cover the area.

Now yes - players will get ganked; it's inevitable. But very soon anti-gank tactics (and better gank tactics) will develop.
To paraphrase Sir pTerry, there will always be some players who act like happy little lambs out in the middle of a field baa-ing, prancing and playfully butting each other while the wolves circle. The result is going to be mutton. The smart players will take a wider line, approach from unexpected directions, play a tense game of 'guess my entry' with the wolves. If defensive players are on-station, arrivals can transmit their entry to them so they'll be ready, if needed.
This will certainly help for NPC pirates, now gankers? Yes, plenty are willing to break the NFZ rules; it's kind of a defining factor. I see no problem at all with mounting superlasers on stations and massive NPC response to such an action. They want to attack inside the aegis fine...it's going to cost, one way or another.
(I'd also consider not having the option to rebuy if a player has a WANTED tag on. Harsh; but if you want a rule enforced, enforce it with a sledgehammer.)

Cheers!

 

[Raino]

FD seem to once again misunderstand their own game, and how people use and misuse it. By choosing to lower drop distances its hobbled all NPCs around stations and reduced PvE gameplay. Dropping the distance has not stopped ganking but just pushed it elsewhere (SC, LR weapons, force shell, speeding).

As far as I remember it was the extension of the "No Fire Zone" to nearly drop distance, the drop distance didn't change