The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[ethelred]

It must be, other games do it so well also... (have you played DCS, say starting a helicopter then flying it?)

How long does it take to learn how to fly? It's been awhile since I've played any flight sim.

Flying in those wasn't monotony. You almost always have environmental and mechanical concerns to watch - else there wouldn't be so many dials.

Do you think flying in a flight sim is equivalent to flying in ED?

 

[Old Duck]

I try to minimise risks by not flying paper build, but I pay for it with jumprange.

I'm the opposite - I fly paper ships with very small or no shields when exploring. It forces me to fly extra careful, and it's way more immersive than bouncing off the ground at 100 m/s and surviving.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

I'm the opposite - I fly paper ships with very small or no shields when exploring. It forces me to fly extra careful, and it's way more immersive than bouncing off the ground at 100 m/s and surviving.

Well my shields on my Krait Phantom are not stuff that would withstand proper gank or very hard lithobraking. But can save my skin if doing some small mistake.

 

[EdzUp]

The only thing i wonder is why does it take up 50gb, NMS which is also procedurally generated hits 12gb

 

[TiberiusDuval]

How long does it take to learn how to fly? It's been awhile since I've played any flight sim.

Flying in those wasn't monotony. You almost always have environmental and mechanical concerns to watch - else there wouldn't be so many dials.

Do you think flying in a flight sim is equivalent to flying in ED?

Depends on what you are flying. Biggest risk on flight sims is contact with ground

 

[Old Duck]

Well my shields on my Krait Phantom are not stuff that would withstand proper gank or very hard lithobraking. But can save my skin if doing some small mistake.

I built a Krait in Space Engineers some time ago. I took it exploring, and while flying over a small moon I scraped the bottom on a tall outcrop. I may have been going 30-50 m/s. I didn't think anything of it, having barely bumped me off course, until the O2 levels started dropping. I set the ship down and ran back to the cargo hold to find a gaping hole in the bottom of the ship, Titanic-style. Now that was immersive!

 

[ethelred]

Depends on what you are flying. Biggest risk on flight sims is contact with ground

Landing at Kai Tak was always fun!

Module deterioration was a mechanism in earlier games, I'm not sure we need that back.

Comestibles seems to be a needless bar as a tonne of food (after a quick Google) would probably last around 2000 days (if it were rice). Water would be more problematic in a closed system, but guess what there is loads of in Space? I'll have to read through the proposal placed by RN

 

[Robert Maynard]

And that's fine. Gameplay based on tedium isn't

What is tedious varies from player to player.

While some players clearly enjoy the rush of combat, some find it to be tedious.

 

[EdzUp]

What is tedious varies from player to player.

While some players clearly enjoy the rush of combat, some find it to be tedious.

For some the forum is the game

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Landing at Kai Tak was always fun!

Module deterioration was a mechanism in earlier games, I'm not sure we need that back.

Comestibles seems to be a needless bar as a tonne of food (after a quick Google) would probably last around 2000 days (if it were rice). Water would be more problematic in a closed system, but guess what there is loads of in Space? I'll have to read through the proposal placed by RN

We have module detoriation in current version. Especially FSD takes a hit every time you neutron boost.

 

[Sakashiro]

Personally I do like Bubble as it is. Big metropolises and then backwater colonies... If you want smaller one, there is always Colonia.

Problem is, they all look alike. Federation, Empire, Alliance, independent... all the same. Same station types, same concourse and settlement layouts, same NPC outfits, even the same familiar faces.

And beyond the bubble it's even worse. Endless permutations of the same planet types with nothing interesting on them.

 

[ethelred]

What is tedious varies from player to player.

While some players clearly enjoy the rush of combat, some find it to be tedious.

Back up a bit Robbie.

It's not a dichotomy.

Think more about challenge. Combat shouldn't and isn't the only way of challenging players. Indeed in ED combat is but one of the challenges in the game. We can look at how that's represented in ED later.

Returning to exploration, whatever your personal comfort levels with enduring tedium, the base mechanism is still tedium, or probably more correctly "time spent". As I described earlier, once I know how to jump, there's on time stopping me reaching Beagle Point.

"Time spent" doing the same task, over and over, seems to me to be a poor mechanism mainly because it generates very little sense of achievement, as the challenge is so low.

How do you see it?

 

[ethelred]

We have module detoriation in current version. Especially FSD takes a hit every time you neutron boost.

I had forgotten this. How is it dealt with in game?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Back up a bit Robbie.

It's not a dichotomy.

Think more about challenge. Combat shouldn't and isn't the only way of challenging players. Indeed in ED combat is but one of the challenges in the game. We can look at how that's represented in ED later.

Returning to exploration, whatever your personal comfort levels with enduring tedium, the base mechanism is still tedium, or probably more correctly "time spent". As I described earlier, once I know how to jump, there's on time stopping me reaching Beagle Point.

"Time spent" doing the same task, over and over, seems to me to be a poor mechanism mainly because it generates very little sense of achievement, as the challenge is so low.

How do you see it?

Not all tasks in the game are challenging - by their very nature.

 

[ethelred]

Not all tasks in the game are challenging - by their very nature.

Ought they be? If not, why not?

Edit:- Isn't that a tautology? Don't all tasks required a base level of competence, unless instinctual?

Goddamit contradiction I meant.

 

[Brrokk]

The problem with introducing new risks to exploration would be the sheer lengths of time and numbers of jumps involved. For example, even if there was only a 0.1% chance of any jump going wrong in a new way, it would be almost inevitable that all explorers would be struck by the problem in a round trip to Sag.A*. Even a tiny new risk of destruction would just render exploration impossible.

I also have an uncomfortable suspicion that people asking for risk in exploration aren't explorers. As I understand it, the attraction of exploration is isolation, relaxation, scenery, the sense of being on a long journey, the possibility of finding new things. I don't know of any explorers who would say they'd enjoy it being more dangerous. I think the whole idea is just one of those "Make other people's gameplay more like mine" things.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Problem is, they all look alike. Federation, Empire, Alliance, independent... all the same. Same station types, same concourse and settlement layouts, same NPC outfits, even the same familiar faces.

And beyond the bubble it's even worse. Endless permutations of the same planet types with nothing interesting on them.

Well for inanimate objects laws of physics are what they are. So that ED's idea of being somewhat scientifically accurate kind of produces such planets.
And for technological objects in ED's timeline space tech is over 1000 years old. There probably is limited ways to make usefull space habitat. And at that point all of those have been found. And then comes out of gameworld implications, ie. how much dev time and money you need for variety.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ought they be? If not, why not?

That depends who is asked - some seek to be challenged all of the time, some don't. It may depend on what sort of game experience they are looking for.

Edit:- Isn't that a tautology? Don't all tasks required a base level of competence, unless instinctual?

Not really, e.g. trundling about a lifeless planet's surface in an SRV isn't particularly challenging.

 

[ethelred]

The problem with introducing new risks to exploration would be the sheer lengths of time and numbers of jumps involved. For example, even if there was only a 0.1% chance of any jump going wrong in a new way, it would be almost inevitable that all explorers would be struck by the problem in a round trip to Sag.A*. Even a tiny new risk of destruction would just render exploration impossible.

I also have an uncomfortable suspicion that people asking for risk in exploration aren't explorers. As I understand it, the attraction of exploration is isolation, relaxation, scenery, the sense of being on a long journey, the possibility of finding new things. I don't know of any explorers who would say they'd enjoy it being more dangerous. I think the whole idea is just one of those "Make other people's gameplay more like mine" things.

Maybe you're right. I've done a bit of exploration - Colonia and Sag A before it was fashionable. I should also add that unless there's an unlikely reset no additional challenge can be added.

Personally I was disappointed that it was so easy.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

That depends who is asked - some seek to be challenged all of the time, some don't. It may depend on what sort of game experience they are looking for.

Not really, e.g. trundling about a lifeless planet's surface in an SRV isn't particularly challenging.

Untill you get carefree, and jam or crash your SRV for good. Complacency has nasty way of getting you