I am rather news so I don't know if anyone already posted on this, I don't remember seeing anywhere on the board. what about the ability to do an energy transfer? if we fly in a squadron we can give each other shields and such.
teamwork ideal
- Thread starter Nova McCool
- Start date
Something similar was discussed a time ago :
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5171
I think the general consensus at the time was that Elite was more about "you vs the galaxy" rather than "specialised ship roles in group combat". There was certainly some disagreement around this though.
I personally would be sad to see a space version of the tank-healer-dps MMO group tropes rolling into ED... and I really really don't want to see the sort of grouping-required mechanics you get in Eve in order to do anything interesting (or go anywhere dangerous).
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5171
I think the general consensus at the time was that Elite was more about "you vs the galaxy" rather than "specialised ship roles in group combat". There was certainly some disagreement around this though.
I personally would be sad to see a space version of the tank-healer-dps MMO group tropes rolling into ED... and I really really don't want to see the sort of grouping-required mechanics you get in Eve in order to do anything interesting (or go anywhere dangerous).
well that will be interesting, I think we can find ammo types and Group tactics to come up with 
Picture that with the least some degree of Newtonian physics makes me ready to play the game already lol
Picture that with the least some degree of Newtonian physics makes me ready to play the game already lol
Hi Joe, welcome to the forums!
As Barns pointed out, that topic was discussed at length. However, what came out of it was that people just didn't like the idea, rather than any objective reason why it shouldn't be done.
It seems that a vocal group of players don't like some of the mechanics in MMORPGs, even though they may suit Elite Dangerous now that it is a multiplayer game with scope for cooperative play.
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
Hi Joe.
Not so sure about energy transfer, but I wouldn't be totally against it. Not sure how it would work in the heat of a battle for instance, I just don't think there would be time to pull it off.
I would be in favour of the ability to buy a one use energy boost which automatically kicks in once you're shields are reduced to a certain level.
Not so sure about energy transfer, but I wouldn't be totally against it. Not sure how it would work in the heat of a battle for instance, I just don't think there would be time to pull it off.
I would be in favour of the ability to buy a one use energy boost which automatically kicks in once you're shields are reduced to a certain level.
I don't really like the idea, but more from a technical stand point: You are in the middle of battle, shields up, and you need energy. Your friend might be able to supply it... but how? How would they transfer it through the shield that is supposed to keep energy out? If there is something that actually transfers energy to the shield it would be exploited to actually break through the shield as it is not kept out.
If you do have something that charges the shield, that should do the same for any ship (even the enemy)... and it should also be able to overcharge the shield thereby damaging it.
If you do have something that charges the shield, that should do the same for any ship (even the enemy)... and it should also be able to overcharge the shield thereby damaging it.
Welcome Joe!
I don't like energy transfer because it makes a gang/group/mob even more powerful than they already are. There can be no David and Goliath scenarios.
I can envisage being in combat and being outnumbered. I probably will want to disengage and flee but aggression in the face of adversary can pay off, especially if I want to break up an attack and give my engine the time to power up for hyperspace.
If I can't cause damage because of 'healers' it completely negates the risk for a big group. You can argue that it's safer to be in a group yourself but that will change the entire feel of the game. It's better that any combat has a risk, even if you outnumber your opponent. We have to live (or die) with our in-game decisions. If I've depleted your shields then you had better make dust because the next hits are going to hurt. Let's keep combat dangerous, even for a numerical superior aggressor.
Saying this, I'm all for players getting together in the game and sharing objectives or goals or ideology. Even a team is comprised of individuals though and that's why a players combat equipment/ability should only be on board his/her ship. There are still plenty of tactics/cooperation available for group actions without this ability to immediately reenergise shields from another player.
I guess I'm being a bit vocal.
I don't like energy transfer because it makes a gang/group/mob even more powerful than they already are. There can be no David and Goliath scenarios.
I can envisage being in combat and being outnumbered. I probably will want to disengage and flee but aggression in the face of adversary can pay off, especially if I want to break up an attack and give my engine the time to power up for hyperspace.
If I can't cause damage because of 'healers' it completely negates the risk for a big group. You can argue that it's safer to be in a group yourself but that will change the entire feel of the game. It's better that any combat has a risk, even if you outnumber your opponent. We have to live (or die) with our in-game decisions. If I've depleted your shields then you had better make dust because the next hits are going to hurt. Let's keep combat dangerous, even for a numerical superior aggressor.
Saying this, I'm all for players getting together in the game and sharing objectives or goals or ideology. Even a team is comprised of individuals though and that's why a players combat equipment/ability should only be on board his/her ship. There are still plenty of tactics/cooperation available for group actions without this ability to immediately reenergise shields from another player.
I guess I'm being a bit vocal.
I quite like this analysis (because it reinforces my existing opinion) which views healing in terms of GUI-based gameplay - something that completely puts me off MMORPGs. Health-bars should be something I'm glancing at, not staring at the whole time, making sure they're topped up. GUI led gameplay is fine for some games, but doesn't really fit into an first-person action game very well.
It does make me wonder what the GUI will actually be like in Elite. Remembering back to the Kickstarter, and the DDF stuff on shields, it seems like we won't actually see 'health bars' on other ships, and that the info will all be provided with visual cues. The shield will change colour as it weakens. Damage will start to show on the hull. From one of Mike's comments about designing the targeting reticules, it does seem that Frontier are aware about making the player's primary focus be on the 'world', rather than the GUI.
Another reason I don't like the 'healing' idea is that it pushes people towards certain group set-ups. If having a shield-booster in your party is a benefit (which it should be, otherwise what's the point), then groups will all be pushed towards having healers, which sucks if you're playing with a group of mates, none of whom want to play that role.
Also, I don't like the idea of 'hull' or 'systems' healers, because ship repair is one of the big money sinks in the game. Limited repair should be possible in the field, especially for explorers, but there should be a definite and pressing need for players to get back to a shipyard if they're in a really bad way. Otherwise you lose a lot of the tension that made the original games so compelling.
EDIT: Sorry. The first link I provided basically linked to a picture... The actual analysis part is here.
It does make me wonder what the GUI will actually be like in Elite. Remembering back to the Kickstarter, and the DDF stuff on shields, it seems like we won't actually see 'health bars' on other ships, and that the info will all be provided with visual cues. The shield will change colour as it weakens. Damage will start to show on the hull. From one of Mike's comments about designing the targeting reticules, it does seem that Frontier are aware about making the player's primary focus be on the 'world', rather than the GUI.
Another reason I don't like the 'healing' idea is that it pushes people towards certain group set-ups. If having a shield-booster in your party is a benefit (which it should be, otherwise what's the point), then groups will all be pushed towards having healers, which sucks if you're playing with a group of mates, none of whom want to play that role.
Also, I don't like the idea of 'hull' or 'systems' healers, because ship repair is one of the big money sinks in the game. Limited repair should be possible in the field, especially for explorers, but there should be a definite and pressing need for players to get back to a shipyard if they're in a really bad way. Otherwise you lose a lot of the tension that made the original games so compelling.
EDIT: Sorry. The first link I provided basically linked to a picture... The actual analysis part is here.
Last edited:
If players, working as a group to increase the efficiency of a mining operation discover that there is an advantage of having one specialised mining role and one transporting role then that would effectively create the same scenario. Would you feel players are therefore being forced in to such roles? Are you against that type of emergent strategy too?
Agreed.
What could (and I emphasize COULD) be cool is having a "code" for shields...
I'll try to explain.
As everything that governed by waves (and energy makes no exception) has a "frequency" component, Shields could have a "Phase". If my ships's shields have the same "Phase" as my group (this could be automatic once we a group is formed, but could be hand-shifted) I can slide inside/beside the shields of my groupmate (wingmen?) and have them to merge their statistics. So my mate would technically have a small drop, but I'd regain most of them and our shields subsystem would work as a network...
The counterweight could be a higher heat generation.
Plus a only a very limited amount of ships could network their shields.
Mainly this would be useful for bigger ships, not fighters, unless we are talking about a recovery vessel helping a miner/scouter in a (just for an example) asteroid belt.
While the smaller ship try to jury rig its own systems back online, the recovery vessel would provide defense against physical impacts...
Now why would someone hand-shifts its shield system to a different phase, I hear you ask by the millions? (yeah, right...)
Well, that could come in handy in case of... Ehrm... when you should...
HEY LOOK A THREE HEADED MONKEY BEHIND YOU!
*Runs away*
I'll try to explain.
As everything that governed by waves (and energy makes no exception) has a "frequency" component, Shields could have a "Phase". If my ships's shields have the same "Phase" as my group (this could be automatic once we a group is formed, but could be hand-shifted) I can slide inside/beside the shields of my groupmate (wingmen?) and have them to merge their statistics. So my mate would technically have a small drop, but I'd regain most of them and our shields subsystem would work as a network...
The counterweight could be a higher heat generation.
Plus a only a very limited amount of ships could network their shields.
Mainly this would be useful for bigger ships, not fighters, unless we are talking about a recovery vessel helping a miner/scouter in a (just for an example) asteroid belt.
While the smaller ship try to jury rig its own systems back online, the recovery vessel would provide defense against physical impacts...
Now why would someone hand-shifts its shield system to a different phase, I hear you ask by the millions? (yeah, right...)
Well, that could come in handy in case of... Ehrm... when you should...
HEY LOOK A THREE HEADED MONKEY BEHIND YOU!
*Runs away*
No-one is forced into mining, whereas people are going to be frequently forced into combat... I have actually suggested myself that divvying up labour in mining operations should be beneficial, as my opinion is that mining seems a bit solitary. It would be good to have a system whereby you have someone scouting for mining sites, someone at the coalface, another refining the product, a couple of ships transporting the product to the station, and some defence ships on stand-by.
But because you can be forced into combat, and probably will be quite frequently, then the combat system has to treated differently. It's a core part of the game, as opposed to an ancillary part like mining, and needs to be got right, especially with reference to group dynamics. What's 'right' is subjective, and probably needs a lot of playtesting. I suspect that healing isn't 'right' for the tactical action game that Mike's been talking about in some of his posts, though.
We don't really know how the game will play out yet, but there's a good chance many player groups will have one player in a big trading ship with others in fighters around them, cutting a swathe through baddie-infested space taking their valuable cargo to market.
I tend to think healing shields would give the player stuck in the tank something to do. If shields are made of energy that's depleted by projectiles, it's not hard to imagine it would be replenished by a shot of compatible energy. Intercepting those shots could be a whole strategy in itself.
The player in the tank will be under attack. It would be the main target of any attacking force. It would especially be the main target if it had healing properties for it's defence units.
If we use the idea of technology being available to re-energise shields, then the counter technology would also exist. I'm not saying it shouldn't or that it's a dud idea. However, shields would then be redundant and new technologies would be needed to give vessels passive defensive qualities.
Shields, for me, are about time. Time to act, to think and then react according to the tactical situation. Get it wrong or lose the gamble, pay the price.
OK, so if there exists *any* benefit to groups by individuals specialising in specific weapon types or ship types then you'd be unhappy with that as a design? I think it would be a tall order for the developers to make such a symmetric (and probably boring) game.
My opinion in the healing ship thread that has been referenced - I'd prefer not to see the facility to boost, or recharge another's shields. Again, as I said, a group has an advantage anyway - numbers - they don't need further "group buffs" as well.
They can still choose to configure their ships for group play, min maxing various vessels for various roles within their chosen group tactic, should they wish. So they could have a shield beast that other ships could manoeuvre behind to stay out of harm's way until close enough to leap out for a rapier strike, for example. Nothing stopping those choices... and, indeed, it's good they will exist. There really is no need to give groups extra material facility that only they can use.
They can still choose to configure their ships for group play, min maxing various vessels for various roles within their chosen group tactic, should they wish. So they could have a shield beast that other ships could manoeuvre behind to stay out of harm's way until close enough to leap out for a rapier strike, for example. Nothing stopping those choices... and, indeed, it's good they will exist. There really is no need to give groups extra material facility that only they can use.
There's a big gap between "things you would lobby Frontier for" and "things you personally would be unhappy about". In fact, they're not even mutually exclusive.
My reading of Slawkenbergius' post is that because you can't even opt out of combat, the test for lobbying Frontier is whether it makes the game better for everyone - from those that put up with combat to those that want nothing but to be the most powerful combatant in the galaxy. That's not to say healing is necessarily bad, just that we should support Frontier in keeping their options open until they've got the whole system worked out.
Speaking for myself, I would be unhappy with any design that didn't provide a way out for unskilled/disinterested pilots (such as the opportunities for running away Frontier have talked about). But I haven't yet heard any specific mechanic I would lobby Frontier for, because there are so many variables and no clear obvious answers.