What's absurd, is presuming to have a right to the discussion.
Last edited:
The Galaxy - Is its size now considered to be a barrier to gameplay by the Developers?
- Thread starter Robert Maynard
- Start date
At first i thought this will be a bad ideea. After some thought put in it, i think different. I am a combat oriented player, and this will help me join any combat CG / war / pirating / pvp zone without having to do 50 jumps in my Corvette to reach it or wait 1 day to get it there. Thanks for standing your ground, i hope it will stay instant like it's planned.
Last edited:
And while a beta is ideal for testing functions, it won't illustrate the effect your magic ship backpack has on the game's atmosphere and sense of realism. If it did would we have been paying for mods with fish in the last beta?
Seems to me this is a shareholder's call which has nothing to do with quality, lore, atmosphere, the community's wishes or "the game we want to play".
Think about it FD, are things really too tight for a ha'p'orth of tar?
Here's how it will happen : it will be implemented in beta, people are going to use it because it's practical, Frontier is going to conclude that it's approved by the community in this current instant form.
I'll still ask frontier to reconsider. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...odule-Transport-Yay-or-Nay?highlight=transfer
75% of the 2500 voters want a delay of some sort. Thus a quite important sample of the forum community who did respond. We'll never hear from the non-forumers, mind you. But it's not because they'll use it that they will like the instant bit - and the beta won't show this, nor any ingame statistics.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
added content : because I don't want an hypothetical delay to impact the gameplay of those who have short amounts of time to play, the best would be to implement 2 different transfers, as it has been suggested earlier :
- 1 instant with the base price
- 1 with a delay and a discount.
can't be hard to do and everyone is happy.
Last edited:
Except you wouldn't be waiting 1 day for it. You'd be waiting maybe 10, 15 minutes, unless you started off at Jaques....
You'd be able to do the CG perfectly fine with a believable delay. It does not need to be instant.
Everyone is happy? Never, you'll always have some groups of players that are unhappy. That's probably the biggest issue with games today that try to deliver a product over time, try to balance gameplay amongst players with various goals and play styles.
In the old days, and obviously some games still do this, a developer and publisher had an idea or a vision for a game. They published that game and if it wasn't total junk it found the audience it wanted. If some players didn't find it to their liking they would more than likely just find another game. What they didn't do was say they hated the game or found parts of it broken and demand that the publisher make changes that would benefit them and change the game for those that liked it originally.
In a single player environment you wouldn't get to complain about instant ship transfer. The way the game was planned, if you have a ship at Port D and you wanted it at Port C while you are docked at Port B, you'd have to travel to Port D to pickup the ship and then take it to Port C.
Some players might get bored with traveling from location to location, to others that is gameplay. In a single player game a mod or DLC could add fast travel as an option. Since its single player your choice to use fast travel has no impact on anyone else.
In a persistently online multiplayer universe a change that benefits some will be a detriment to others. In this game FD has to balance the needs of as many players as possible. Sometimes that means giving all players only a bit of what they want and not any one group exactly what they want.
That's why I think the best compromise is some reasonable delay that is significantly smaller than the time it would take for the player to travel to the remote ship and bring it where they want it.
If we assume an in-game cargo vessel exists that can deliver your ship to you wherever you are, it will be more than 2x as fast as the player doing the pickup themselves.
If the cargo ship could jump about 30 ly per jump and had enough fuel that it didn't need to scoop, each jump might take about 30 sec. A trip of 600 ly should only take about 10 minutes. I wouldn't even bother trying to add SC times. It could also be implemented like a mission, you could see the delivery countdown in your transactions tab. You'd be notified once the delivery completed, giving you a chance to do something else like other missions during the delivery period.
I agree on the current situation of the online games, even though the comparison is difficult to make with the past. Yes, developpers had a vision and made a game out of it ; they owed nothing to the audience, and games were mostly over when they went out, with very few added content after that.
We're a bit going off-topic, but the situation is a tad different nowadays. More and more games are funded by players, not by the company's funds. Thus players will always find something to say about the orientation - as troublesome as it might get. The second thing is that games are sold unfinished, and they're perfectly clear with that : "we have a scope, we want to make more content, the game you buy day one is only the skeleton of what we want to build". So it is a never-ending process of building - and a never-ending process of suggestions by the playerbase.
We seem to agree on the instant transfer matter - I personally would like to have a delay of some sort. The thing is that we go against the will of the developper, not the other way around. So following your principles, we (the delay dudes) should go find something else to play. But some people from the 2 sides in this thread made very good reasons. And mostly, there are 2 crowds : delay (unspecified) - instant. You can't compromise between 0 and x. You can't please all people when there are multiple trends - but here, you could build 2 different systems and satisfy a majority. I know they won't. I don't really know if they should either.
But this thread is 128 pages of 2 sides that can't compromise - so who should they hear in this case? the loudest? In a "blaze your own trail" universe, I personnally would go with choice. Let us choose delay or not, balance the 2 so that it feels believable. It's a shame that one decision should be detrimentary to the others.
I agree with everything you've said but I do have a thought about the idea of "the will of the developer"
In this case, I think, the will of the developer is less important than the overall game's vision, the principle on which it was sold.
If FD's new direction is to develop the game for players that hate so many of the core mechanics in the game, like traveling, SC, fuel scooping, etc. I'd be fine with that if they just come out and say so.
I'm perfectly willing to find another game if this one goes in a direction I don't like. But I was sold on the game due to its ideas of an internally consistent sci-fi universe. I bought ED because I wanted the game that DB described. If the will of the developer is to now abandon that vision I'll leave.
But a compromise can be made between 0 and x, the whole point of a compromise is that neither side gets what they want. It's not a compromise if 0 gets what they want and x is left out in the cold. Sadly, I see FD doing just that, for whatever justification they told themselves in their meetings.
That's fine, I guess, it's their game. I can only suggest that they should try to stick to the vision they themselves presented to backers and customers.
Wanted to add that I have no idea if FD has decided to "give away" this one feature just to satisfy a small group of players that consistently play in an activity based mode, the galaxy and its size being an impediment to these players. The addition of instant transfer, while an anathema to me, might not be indicative of any future plans to "simplify" the game for fair weather players. This might just be a "throw the dog a bone" move to keep some players.
Last edited: