Synthesis=Magic Potion gameplay?

[Genar-Hofoen]

Something I've banged on about since looting and crafting were first mooted in the forums - make it plausible. Make people go to R&D stations, high tech engineering outposts, etc, if we're to get better than standard "for sale" items.

I don't want to have to travel 25k LY back to civilised space in order to re-purchase or repair equipment, especially if I could manufacture replacement parts or "repair ammo" where I am now.

I'm perfectly happy with how FDEV are going about this. You're not. You're absolutely convinced you're correct, and I'm not convinced you are.

Impasse

 

[SuperNova15]

Not all features introduced are good. This one for instance, it allows you to go a bit faster, shoot a bit harder, repair a bit more and maybe jump a bit further? That's not "adding" anything to the game it's expanding on things already in it. It doesn't address the glaring issues or "not much to do" which I'd rather they work on rather than rubbish like this tbh.

This is the base implementation of crafting which is most definitely something to do.

 

[jabokai]

Why not? If it is possibly dangerous prototype tech the manufacturer maybe needs voluntary subjects.

If you want to be a crusty old ship captain don't fit crafting modules, it's a role playing thing. There are players though who consider themselves 'King of the Empire' flying a shiny, state of the art, Imperial Cutter.

BTW I prefer the crusty old ship captain as well

We're not talking about prototype tech that some mad scientist/company has come up with and imparted or sold to you, we're talking about stuff us pilots make in a standard fabrication unit in our ships. The essence of this should, IMHO, be jury-rigging, getting by, cheating death, avoiding station reloads, etc.

I think your sort of idea of buying "dodgy" prototype stuff is a good one, but that should be a different gameplay - finding R&D or advanced engineering stations, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't want to have to travel 25k LY back to civilised space in order to re-purchase or repair equipment, especially if I could manufacture replacement parts or "repair ammo" where I am now.

I'm perfectly happy with how FDEV are going about this. You're not. You're absolutely convinced you're correct, and I'm not convinced you are.

Impasse

You're not reading me correctly. I have no issue with making stuff - see my above post.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

craftables and possibly no trading? great another "no-life" meta addition. thats totally going to help populating PvP with casuals.

 

[Jason S]

There are already people out there doing pvp in a viper, so do we have lots of threads complaining that they feel 'forced' to get anaconda so that they can play.

No, the game is already unbalanced, the materials will not make such relative difference to that. I should think gathering them will take too long such that it will make little difference. There is not going to be the case where all pvp people will have it, just a few sometimes. No issue here, it just adds extra gameplay options that is all. No one logically should feel forced to do it.

 

[babelfisch]

craftables and possibly no trading? greta another "no-life" meta addition. thats totally going to help populating PvP with casuals.

The game was never designed to be a PvP game, so no need to populate it.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

There are already people out there doing pvp in a viper, so do we have lots of threads complaining that they feel 'forced' to get anaconda so that they can play.

No, the game is already unbalanced, the materials will not make such relative difference to that. I should think gathering them will take too long such that it will make little difference. There is not going to be the case where all pvp people will have it, just a few sometimes. No issue here, it just adds extra gameplay options that is all. No one logically should feel forced to do it.

any difference is a differenc, especially when players of equal skill meet. and with a grindable mechanic ontop you basically exclude all palyers that can't just spent X amount of time in the game. Which then means you cater the non casuals to a degree where casuals will just consider leaving that part of the game. Games were supposed to be fun and somewhat fair and no who no lifes harder wins or gets significant advantages.

The game was never designed to be a PvP game, so no need to populate it.

if so we had a PVE online MMO server not a PVP Online MMO server. Basically the biggest design flaw is creating PvP in a non PvP desigend game.

 

[JosiahD]

Hello Commander wstephenson!

Only materials will survive ship destruction, other vouchers are unchanged. This is because it's very likely that Commanders will want to carry around materials even though they have no direct need for them at that time.

We feel it would be unnecessarily punishing to kill them when your ship is destroyed.

Vouchers are always only useful once they have been claimed; there's no real reason to hang on to them, so their risk/reward mechanic makes them fine to be at risk.

Sorry Sandro but the survival of materials is out of whack. When our ship is destroyed, the premise is that we are ejected in a Remlock suit and 'transported' to the last station we'd docked at, is it not? The fact that happens instantly is an artificiality for gameplay reasons, sure, but there's the reason our cargo doesn't survive for example. Now, if materials are a tangible object like cargo, nor should they survive ship destruction - it makes absolutely no sense for it to survive. Survival of an intangible such as exploration data or bounty vouchers is another matter (data is something that should logically be survivable if stored correctly, such as data storage integral to the Remlock suit), but 'physical' items like cargo and materials should not survive ship destruction any more than ship modules etc do, end of story (apart from the possibility of them surviving for an attacker to collect - they shouldn't magically respawn with the CMDR).
.
The logical approach would have been to have the ability to rent or purchase warehouse space or something similar on a station and use that to store quantities of materials for later use. That would require players to judiciously decide how much risk to take with materials (ie when is the right time to return 'home' to place some into storage vs the risk of losing all you have onboard). Anything tangible onboard your ship should be at risk, just like cargo and the rest of the ship equipment. Survivable materials held onboard is just plain dumb. I strongly recommend Frontier rethink the mechanisms required for survival/storage of materials.

 

[Jason S]

any difference is a differenc, especially when players of equal skill meet. and with a grindable mechanic ontop you basically exclude all palyers that can't just spent X amount of time in the game. Which then means you cater the non casuals to a degree where casuals will just consider leaving that part of the game. Games were supposed to be fun and somewhat fair and no who no lifes harder wins or gets significant advantages.

Players of an equal skill and equal ship does not happen often at the moment.

P.s. I like you avatar.

 

[Goose4291]

I didn't like that at all either. it should be ok if you only could use it for fuel, jump range and ammo for the repair unit. not to other stuff at all. if you can make your own bad ass ammo, that will destroy combat. If you dont have the new ammo, you lose kinda game play. hate that.

Judging from you sig identifying you as a fuel rat, that has to be the most vested interest post I've seen since you chaps campaigned to add fuel limitations to the SRV.

If this had been a post by a pvp group saying the opposite, they'd have been hounded into silence.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

craftables and possibly no trading? great another "no-life" meta addition. thats totally going to help populating PvP with casuals.

ED is primarily a PvE game which allows the possibility of PvP in Open mode.

Oh and is "casuals" really a pejorative term? Some people have more time to play computer games than others.

 

[babelfisch]

any difference is a differenc, especially when players of equal skill meet. and with a grindable mechanic ontop you basically exclude all palyers that can't just spent X amount of time in the game. Which then means you cater the non casuals to a degree where casuals will just consider leaving that part of the game. Games were supposed to be fun and somewhat fair and no who no lifes harder wins or gets significant advantages.



if so we had a PVE online MMO server not a PVP Online MMO server. Basically the biggest design flaw is creating PvP in a non PvP desigend game.

Sigh. I'll happily repeat myself: THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. A casual player can afford a Cobra while a hardcore player sits in his Anaconda. Following your logic all ships and equipment needs to be free if you don't want to exclude anyone.

We don't have a PVP online server. You are looking at CQC.

PS The ability to drive cars in GTA doesn't make it a racing game. The ability to kill others in Open does not make it a PvP game.

 

[EAGLE 5]

Sorry Sandro but the survival of materials is out of whack. When our ship is destroyed, the premise is that we are ejected in a Remlock suit and 'transported' to the last station we'd docked at, is it not? The fact that happens instantly is an artificiality for gameplay reasons, sure, but there's the reason our cargo doesn't survive for example. Now, if materials are a tangible object like cargo, nor should they survive ship destruction - it makes absolutely no sense for it to survive. Survival of an intangible such as exploration data or bounty vouchers is another matter (data is something that should logically be survivable if stored correctly, such as data storage integral to the Remlock suit), but 'physical' items like cargo and materials should not survive ship destruction any more than ship modules etc do, end of story (apart from the possibility of them surviving for an attacker to collect - they shouldn't magically respawn with the CMDR).
.
The logical approach would have been to have the ability to rent or purchase warehouse space or something similar on a station and use that to store quantities of materials for later use. That would require players to judiciously decide how much risk to take with materials (ie when is the right time to return 'home' to place some into storage vs the risk of losing all you have onboard). Anything tangible onboard your ship should be at risk, just like cargo and the rest of the ship equipment. Survivable materials held onboard is just plain dumb. I strongly recommend Frontier rethink the mechanisms required for survival/storage of materials.

This 110%...

If I had a bag of cheetos in my car and it blew up (providing I survive the conflagration) I don't expect to find a bag of cheetos at home or at the hospital unless my wife went out and bought some.. Unless wives are confirmed for ED in which case many peoples real lives will come to a complete standstill.

 

[Mephane]

Sigh. I'll happily repeat myself: THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. A casual player can afford a Cobra while a hardcore player sits in his Anaconda. Following your logic all ships and equipment needs to be free if you don't want to exclude anyone.

And I will repeat myself: Getting that Cobra or that Anaconda is a one-time effort, if you don't screw up. Ammo+1 has to be farmed again and again just to keep up. And to get a Cobra or an Anaconda, the game does not dictate what you do to get the money. In fact this freedom lies at the very heart of ED, credits are the great equalizer between all activities. Ammo+1, being only craftable etc., is completely at odds with this principle. Sell Ammo+1 at high tech starports, for example, and the problems would vanish: making your own ammo serves the primary purpose of refilling in situ, not to out-buff someone who does not want to collect rocks.

 

[babelfisch]

And I will repeat myself: Getting that Cobra or that Anaconda is a one-time effort, if you don't screw up. Ammo+1 has to be farmed again and again just to keep up. And to get a Cobra or an Anaconda, the game does not dictate what you do to get the money. In fact this freedom lies at the very heart of ED, credits are the great equalizer between all activities. Ammo+1, being only craftable etc., is completely at odds with this principle. Sell Ammo+1 at high tech starports, for example, and the problems would vanish: making your own ammo serves the primary purpose of refilling in situ, not to out-buff someone who does not want to collect rocks.

Who told you that there is only one way to obtain Ammo+1? In fact Sandy said there will be different ways to get materials and loot. But for Season 2.0 it will be restricted to stuff you find on planetary surfaces.

PS You quoted me out of context. Lily and you make different points, so no need to confuse both discussions.
PPS To make it clearer: You are talking about choice of activity while Lily is talking about time put in the game.

 

[[VR] Deggial]

Indeed, "surviving" materials are an ugly hack.
Sure, it would be way superior if we could deposite our gathered, "hard earned" materials at a safe place in a station or home-base and take with us only what we need (and risk their loss). Nice decision-making and risk/reward mechanic... awesome!

But we simply don't have such a depot at the moment! It is not implemented jet (but on the list, as far as I know).
So we need another solution.
A hack!

ED is a game. And a developing game as such. Not everything can be programmed at once, intermediate states are necessary and sometimes not optimal.
But at some point in the future, the "magic" material storage might be overcome with a more reasonable system.

Until then... live with it!

 

[SuperNova15]

And I will repeat myself: Getting that Cobra or that Anaconda is a one-time effort, if you don't screw up. Ammo+1 has to be farmed again and again just to keep up. And to get a Cobra or an Anaconda, the game does not dictate what you do to get the money. In fact this freedom lies at the very heart of ED, credits are the great equalizer between all activities. Ammo+1, being only craftable etc., is completely at odds with this principle. Sell Ammo+1 at high tech starports, for example, and the problems would vanish: making your own ammo serves the primary purpose of refilling in situ, not to out-buff someone who does not want to collect rocks.

Just a freindly reminder here. It's not all about collecting rocks. Remember one of the highlights of horizons?
Planetary Base Raids!!
Which should make collecting material fun even for you.

Edit: Also the more I think about it once the full looting and crafting release comes in 2.1 people will be less compelled to waist their material on temporary boost as apposed to saving up for craftable modules and hardpoints wich will probably be lost on death.

 

[Jason S]

Well certainly gives people more reason to buy horizons, which on a company point of view is a plus.

 

[Artie]

Exactly as written above, persistent materials between "deaths" seems like the game is breaking it's own rules. When ship is destroyed, cargo is lost, ship's blackbox is lost (bounty vouchers, exploration data) so it doesn't make sense why another type of cargo (materials) should persist. It has no logic.

 

[babelfisch]

Indeed, "surviving" materials are an ugly hack.
Sure, it would be way superior if we could deposite our gathered, "hard earned" materials at a safe place in a station or home-base and take with us only what we need (and risk their loss). Nice decision-making and risk/reward mechanic... awesome!

But we simply don't have such a depot at the moment! It is not implemented jet (but on the list, as far as I know).
So we need another solution.
A hack!

ED is a game. And a developing game as such. Not everything can be programmed at once, intermediate states are necessary and sometimes not optimal.
But at some point in the future, the "magic" material storage might be overcome with a more reasonable system.

Until then... live with it!

Agreed. When they wanted to introduce 10% resell penalty for modules almost everyone was against it because we are lacking storage depots at stations.