Why the shields STILL don't recharge when docked?!

[KaizoMK]

im happy that the conda pilot who barely escaped the wrath of my vulture is not back within 2,5min.

They need to change the hull repair too , its stupid that it fixed instantly , same with refeuling even with 99A feul scoop it take time.
if you go badly damage into a station or from a long haul it should take more time to be fly ready again.

But i geuss thats a "second" job these days. But hey , keep screaming like child I WANT MY 3MIN BACK FD!

I'd love to see everything brought in line....time spent to repair hull and shields, and to restock weapons. A few minutes of wait is fine, but thickly stocked shields take 10 minutes to recharge, and that's absurd no matter how you look at it.

 

[KaizoMK]

You don't know me, so your assessment has missed it's mark by... heck, you weren't even aiming in the right direction.

While my first gaming system was indeed the PC, it was a 486. I played all the old classics, some on the ol' GameBoy, some with my friend on his SNES.

There's a reason we're moving away from old mechanics into new ones. Like, say, lives - fewer and fewer games have those. People realized that having a lives system in games is pointless, when originally their purpose was to suck quarters out of the pockets of unsuspecting children (I've played the old arcades too, mind you). There's no reason to have them once you have a PC or a home console. But this is just an example.

I didn't call the progression in ED as a mechanic bad. It's the fact that it's an extremely slow progression which requires a lot of grind (doing the same things over and over and over again with little to no variety) that's bad, and I stand by my assessment. While I agree that quite a few of the design decisions in ED seemed to be made with the old original in mind, that doesn't necessarily mean it's good (or bad) design. One should take the good design decisions, scrap the bad ones, and generally improve.

As such, pointlessly wasting a players time (when it's more beneficial to watch YT instead of playing) is something seriously wrong.

And I think CQC was a wasted effort. I would be more happy if the devs put that time and work into making the core game better, so it's not as grindy (more variety == less grind) and making the game feel more alive (at least the civilised part of the game). Not that the idea of CQC is bad - it's just that it's not what ED was missing.

PS. What the hell's with those dots in between paragraphs in your posts?




I find it ironic that this whole thing was brought up by people like you (PvPers) whining and crying like spoiled brats that your targets get shields back when they enter cruise and you need to interdict them more often. Oh, the horrors.

Thank you for bringing up a very important point. Is it really fun to watch YouTube for ten minutes while you wait for the game to do something?

 

[Nitek [pl]]

Defending the silly shield wait mechanic... why guys? It is a waste of time. Nothing more.

 

[Shaamaan]

im happy that the conda pilot who barely escaped the wrath of my vulture is not back within 2,5min.

They need to change the hull repair too , its stupid that it fixed instantly , same with refeuling even with 99A feul scoop it take time.
if you go badly damage into a station or from a long haul it should take more time to be fly ready again.

BTW, since you obviously PVP, getting a new ship after a rebuy screen should take at least anywhere between 10 minutes to 2 hours (depending on ship size and loadout). I mean, you can't just get an identical ship like you had before instantly, that's... unrealistic!

 

[sscamc]

Because in real life things don't instantly recharge. Of'c things don't instantly repair either. Don't get me started on how much that disappointed, but tbh that was always going to be the way.

If you want an arbitrary wait timer when you refuel or repair, just get up and leave your computer for a few minutes. Problemo solved.

Erm, there is? You don't use any fuel to run your systems whilst in dock. Its on the house.
No matter how many 'ground power' units and WATS I throw at my android phone, it won't charge any faster in the morning.

So what, exactly, are SCBs doing then? Patting your shield generator on the back and encouraging it to work harder?

 

[Psycho Romeo]

That is a very meaningful experience in the field when it matters, but that experience does not carry weight outside of a threatening situation. That said, space is an inherently dangerous place, which is why the fix to the charge-on-jump was important and needed (although painful.)

A space station is inherently safe, so those issues no longer become considerations, but rather useless annoyances.

Edit: as a note, even the travel to a space station is meaningful even if you've done it thousands of times. Think about any time you've begged every deity not to be interdicted as you slink back with 3% hull, or any time you lost your canopy. That time is frustrating but has the potential to have that impact. I won't even mention how it's a factor to those who wish to challenge themselves in the ways of haste, or the fact that travel time is a balancing factor against income.

I honestly don't see it this way. You're safe inside the station and on the pad. As soon as you undock, you are once again exposed to the dangers of space.
.
When you're docked on the pad without shields, you have a choice. You can wait until shields are back. Or you can undock now, potentially smashing into the station on your way out, or worse, fly right into the sights of the person who dropped your shields to begin with. This is a meaningful choice, one made more extreme by the use of extremely powerful shields.
However, I agree 10 minutes is a little long for 600Mjs, and something like six would be more appropriate.
.

You don't know me, so your assessment has missed it's mark by... heck, you weren't even aiming in the right direction.

While my first gaming system was indeed the PC, it was a 486. I played all the old classics, some on the ol' GameBoy, some with my friend on his SNES.

There's a reason we're moving away from old mechanics into new ones. Like, say, lives - fewer and fewer games have those. People realized that having a lives system in games is pointless, when originally their purpose was to suck quarters out of the pockets of unsuspecting children (I've played the old arcades too, mind you). There's no reason to have them once you have a PC or a home console. But this is just an example.

I didn't call the progression in ED as a mechanic bad. It's the fact that it's an extremely slow progression which requires a lot of grind (doing the same things over and over and over again with little to no variety) that's bad, and I stand by my assessment. While I agree that quite a few of the design decisions in ED seemed to be made with the old original in mind, that doesn't necessarily mean it's good (or bad) design. One should take the good design decisions, scrap the bad ones, and generally improve.

As such, pointlessly wasting a players time (when it's more beneficial to watch YT instead of playing) is something seriously wrong.

And I think CQC was a wasted effort. I would be more happy if the devs put that time and work into making the core game better, so it's not as grindy (more variety == less grind) and making the game feel more alive (at least the civilised part of the game). Not that the idea of CQC is bad - it's just that it's not what ED was missing.

PS. What the hell's with those dots in between paragraphs in your posts?

What I was assessing was your mentality, not your age, and I site exactly what you bring to your posts as basis for my assessment. I couldn't possibly base it on anything more.
.
I see several rather left field arguments in your post, I'll dismantle each of them:
1) Difficulty and hard limitations (such as lives) is deeply rooted in arcade games. Yes I understand this. This is not all there is to the picture. Consider things like roguelikes, which are some of the earliest games made for computer and some of the most unforgiving games to have ever existed. How many lives do you get in those? Then tell me exactly how pointless they are. Thank god they are making a comeback. Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way over the next twenty years. One can only wish.
.
2) You are taking an extremely linear view of progression, like others who are spawn (children) of post 2000 era gaming. You set yourself an end point, you define a measurable amount of grind to get there. This is not what gaming was about fifteen or twenty years ago. If you look at ED through a similar lens, you lose sight of the grind amidst the other things. It's not different than looking at a game with pixilated graphics and deciding not to call it appalling.
.
3) Your youtube comment is all kinds of silly. You set a limitation on yourself "I will not undock until I recover 600Mj worth of shields" then you complain about your limitation being boring. This is like me setting a limitation on myself "I will fly to this station using nothing but sublight" and then complaining it is boring and you'd rather be watching youtube. Use smaller shields. Use supercruise.
.
4) Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing the time put into CQC refunded and put somewhere else. However I understand and can accept why CQC exists (explorers, xbone players, etc) and see that it brings a lot to the table even if it's not the thing for me. What I take issue with is your comment of grind, see point two. There's plenty of variety, it's just not spoon fed to you under the guise of things like achievements and the like. The only person making the game grindy is you. See point three about silliness. I completely agree with your assessment of the game's alive feel - it's a huge weakness of ED.
.
5) I think internet explorer eats all the excess spaces (like blank lines) of forms like this forum. It's all I have access to on this machine.
.

im happy that the conda pilot who barely escaped the wrath of my vulture is not back within 2,5min.

They need to change the hull repair too , its stupid that it fixed instantly , same with refeuling even with 99A feul scoop it take time.
if you go badly damage into a station or from a long haul it should take more time to be fly ready again.

But i geuss thats a "second" job these days. But hey , keep screaming like child I WANT MY 3MIN BACK FD!

I find it ironic that this whole thing was brought up by people like you (PvPers) whining and crying like spoiled brats that your targets get shields back when they enter cruise and you need to interdict them more often. Oh, the horrors.

I don't see the irony. Please show me where the reality of the situation is different than the expected result. Then please check your definition of irony/interpretation of the post.

 

[CMDR Reaper]

Shields should be automatically shut off when docking on a station. It cant be healthy for a station having ships docked with their shields on.

 

[Shaamaan]

I honestly don't see it this way. You're safe inside the station and on the pad. As soon as you undock, you are once again exposed to the dangers of space.
.
When you're docked on the pad without shields, you have a choice. You can wait until shields are back. Or you can undock now, potentially smashing into the station on your way out, or worse, fly right into the sights of the person who dropped your shields to begin with. This is a meaningful choice, one made more extreme by the use of extremely powerful shields.
However, I agree 10 minutes is a little long for 600Mjs, and something like six would be more appropriate.

a) It's not a valid choice to do something as silly as undock without shields. Since people are risk-averse, it's only a natural response to having a non-combat-ready ship. Smaller shields on a large (and expensive) combat ship? Please get back to reality.
b) You completely, and consistently, ignore the fact one can rearm, repair and refuel in an instant. Why don't you address this. Why don't we need to wait for those things as well?
c) Again and again, making a player JUST wait is NOT a valid downside to anything. "You can wait or not" is NOT a sensible choice as per point a).

What I was assessing was your mentality, not your age, and I site exactly what you bring to your posts as basis for my assessment. I couldn't possibly base it on anything more.

You're in no position to assess that either. The only thing you can assess is that I'm someone who a) cares about his time and b) cares enough about ED to actually engage on the forums about the state of the game.

I see several rather left field arguments in your post, I'll dismantle each of them:
1) Difficulty and hard limitations (such as lives) is deeply rooted in arcade games. Yes I understand this. This is not all there is to the picture. Consider things like roguelikes, which are some of the earliest games made for computer and some of the most unforgiving games to have ever existed. How many lives do you get in those? Then tell me exactly how pointless they are. Thank god they are making a comeback. Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way over the next twenty years. One can only wish.

The example of lives was to show that not all old mechanics are good, and (thankfully) some developers get that games are about fun, thus they move away from those mechanics. Then you attempt to dismiss the broad example by showing a very specific subset of games, which are entirely based around being difficult and / or unforgiving. But since you bring up roguelikes - it's also worth noting that these games, while they tend to lack in graphics, tend to make up with depth of gameplay. And I have nothing against roguelikes as a genre. Live and let live and all that. But if you expect this genre to take over all others, I feel you'll be sorely disappointed.

2) You are taking an extremely linear view of progression, like others who are spawn (children) of post 2000 era gaming. You set yourself an end point, you define a measurable amount of grind to get there. This is not what gaming was about fifteen or twenty years ago. If you look at ED through a similar lens, you lose sight of the grind amidst the other things. It's not different than looking at a game with pixilated graphics and deciding not to call it appalling.

Perhaps we played different games. I played platformers, adventure games, Zelda games (on my friends SNES), strategy games and plenty, PLENTY of Mario (SNES + Gameboy). These games didn't have any grind at all (OK, Zelda might have had a tiny bit of it when you had to get all those crystals). These offered levels you had to finish, each different than the last. You didn't need to kill 100 Goombas to get a flower powerup. So either point to specific examples, or that argument is just bad.

As for open-world games without grind? Why don't you play the Witcher 3 or something. Note that grind is usually synonymous with lack of variety. If you take a step back and look at the Witcher from afar you can also notice repeating patterns. But the devil's in the details, and that game offers a ton of variety.

Also, what kind of person uses "spawn" in reference to people? Seems you want to be deliberately insulting.

3) Your youtube comment is all kinds of silly. You set a limitation on yourself "I will not undock until I recover 600Mj worth of shields" then you complain about your limitation being boring. This is like me setting a limitation on myself "I will fly to this station using nothing but sublight" and then complaining it is boring and you'd rather be watching youtube. Use smaller shields. Use supercruise.

Flying unshielded as a "choice" was already addressed. Flying with smaller shields is utter nonsense in a bigger combat ship. There is NO choice when one option is vastly superior to the other. And will you finally address why repairing, refuelling and rearming is instant? Heck, you can repair with repair modules and refuel with fuel scooping. I guess the only available option should be to rearm, since it's not available anywhere else?

4) Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing the time put into CQC refunded and put somewhere else. However I understand and can accept why CQC exists (explorers, xbone players, etc) and see that it brings a lot to the table even if it's not the thing for me. What I take issue with is your comment of grind, see point two. There's plenty of variety, it's just not spoon fed to you under the guise of things like achievements and the like. The only person making the game grindy is you. See point three about silliness. I completely agree with your assessment of the game's alive feel - it's a huge weakness of ED.

Now you imply I like in-game achievements? I'm just waiting for the obligatory insult that I go back to playing Halo or something (even though I don't own any console)...

5) I think internet explorer eats all the excess spaces (like blank lines) of forms like this forum. It's all I have access to on this machine.

Which means you must be at work... GET BACK TO WORK!

I don't see the irony. Please show me where the reality of the situation is different than the expected result. Then please check your definition of irony/interpretation of the post.

They cried like spoiled children and got what they wanted, but when an unrelated feature is requested, which would only make everyone's lives easier, it's all "ooh no, we can't have that, can we, it would be against The Rules".

 

[Judz]

We need shiled recharching music!
https://youtu.be/jj0ChLVTpaA

LOL That made me laugh.

 

[Trickle]

Really ? So if we have a 850Ah battery, there will be no difference between charging it with 1A charger, 2A charger and 500mA USB ? Ok, looks like we live at different worlds.

There is a maximum charge rate. Generally the charger that came in the box is it. And it takes two+ hours for a phone.

I'm confused though. I'm looking for a gameplay reason why the shield recharge should not be accelerated or instant while at a station, but there just isn't one..

Gameplay reason = ED should not feel like respawning in Quake/Unreal tournament. Like looking at the stars in ED should not look like that game released on steam last week where everything is purple.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

a) It's not a valid choice to do something as silly as undock without shields.

Really? Silent runners and traders do it all the time.

Since people are risk-averse, it's only a natural response to having a non-combat-ready ship. Smaller shields on a large (and expensive) combat ship? Please get back to reality.

Get back to reality? Get with the times, friend, and look at the state of the game. Powerplant failure doesn't cause ship destruction and module defense is on the rise. Two ships with small shields and massive armor values were released into the game. You really want to talk to me about reality?

For the record I don't like these changes. That doesn't stop me from being able to comprehend them.

b) You completely, and consistently, ignore the fact one can rearm, repair and refuel in an instant. Why don't you address this. Why don't we need to wait for those things as well?

Please check the posts where I specifically address this. Please go to that post and read it this time before posting. Make it a habit to read people's posts before getting yourself into an argument, otherwise you'll only lose harder and make yourself look like a fool in the process.

c) Again and again, making a player JUST wait is NOT a valid downside to anything. "You can wait or not" is NOT sensible a choice as per point a).

They don't make you do anything. They don't make you spend an hour and a half flying to Hutton. They don't make you work up rep to get a Sol permit. They don't make you bounce between high techs hunting for an outfitters part. They don't make you do any of that. You understand the options and the consequences, and you can make the decision.

This probably has another name, but I want to call it entitled player syndrome. Another symptom that spawn (children) of post 2000 era gaming are prone to. "If there's something I don't like about the game experience, it's poor design".
Wrong. The game experience is not made for you. The game experience is what it is. You choose to participate within its parameters or not. If you can't deal with long wait times on shields, then you simply can't deal with large shields. If you can't deal without large shields on large ships, then you simply can't deal with large ships. Try an FAS.

You're in no position to assess that either. The only thing you can assess is that I'm someone who a) cares about his time and b) cares enough about ED to actually engage on the forums about the state of the game.

Who are you to tell me what I can assess or cannot assess? Every stroke you put on the internet I am free to judge as I see fit.

The example of lives was to show that not all old mechanics are good, and (thankfully) some developers get that games are about fun, thus they move away from those mechanics. Then you attempt to dismiss the broad example by showing a very specific subset of games, which are entirely based around being difficult and / or unforgiving. But since you bring up roguelikes - it's also worth noting that these games, while they tend to lack in graphics, tend to make up with depth of gameplay. And I have nothing against roguelikes as a genre. Live and let live and all that. But if you expect this genre to take over all others, I feel you'll be sorely disappointed.

...

I cannot believe I am reading this from the same fingers that typed 'trolling' and 'you don't know a thing about game design' to me in the same sentence. Some of the most iconic and successful games alive today are built upon a lives mechanic. I won't even begin to argue this, because it's so painfully obviously a lapse of reason on your part.

My point is (which I also stated, however that appears to have gone unread) is that ED has more in common with roguelike era gaming than post 2000 era gaming.

Perhaps we played different games. I played platformers, adventure games, Zelda games (on my friends SNES), strategy games and plenty, PLENTY of Mario (SNES + Gameboy). These games didn't have any grind at all (OK, Zelda might have had a tiny bit of it when you had to get all those crystals). These offered levels you had to finish, each different than the last. You didn't need to kill 100 Goombas to get a flower powerup. So either point to specific examples, or that argument is just bad.
[...]
Witcher 3

...By comparing it to story driven based games, are you suggesting that this is what ED should be like?

Forgive me, but i was comparing it to other games that were remotely similar to ED and I felt this was implied and/or obvious. X series, other flight sims, looser MMOs, etc. What is your actual experience and understanding on the subject?

Also, what kind of person uses "spawn" in reference to humans? Seems you want to be deliberately insulting.

You find me a word for 'heavily influenced product of something I find distasteful'. I figured it was a good alternative to child.

Flying unshielded as a "choice" was already addressed. Flying with smaller shields is utter nonsense in a bigger combat ship. There is NO choice when one option is vastly superior to the other. And will you finally address why repairing, refuelling and rearming is instant? Heck, you can repair with repair modules and refuel with fuel scooping. I guess the only available option should be to rearm, since it's not available anywhere else?

See the bit above. I feel like you owe me an apology.

Now you imply I like in-game achievements? I'm just waiting for the obligatory insult that I go back to playing Halo or something (even though I don't own any console)...

I'm implying that people need content spoon fed to them. Some of the latest trends (which I honestly cannot see the appeal of) include giving you a huge list of achievements and telling the player to have at it. Can the player not invent these themselves? Fine, whatever, if it's beneath me it's beneath me. However, the notion that something like a story or achievements or something is the difference between whether the game's 'chores' are considered grind or not is simply absurd. I had made the assumption that this was your view (whether you admit it or not) and by the witcher 3 comment above, I think it's clear I was right.

Which means you must be at work... GET BACK TO WORK!

Part of my duties is to monitor the screens and... this happens to be on one of the screens.

They cried like spoiled children and got what they wanted, but when an unrelated feature is requested, which would only make everyone's lives easier, it's all "ooh no, we can't have that, can we, it would be against The Rules".

PvPers were upset with instant shield recharge, and it was removed. A PvPer comes to a that is thread requesting instant shield recharge and doesn't support it. I don't see the irony, only sense.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If only you could use shield cells whilst docked ....

 

[KaizoMK]

There is a maximum charge rate. Generally the charger that came in the box is it. And it takes two+ hours for a phone.



Gameplay reason = ED should not feel like respawning in Quake/Unreal tournament. Like looking at the stars in ED should not look like that game released on steam last week where everything is purple.

A) the charge rate is obviously wtfamazing because it can take rapid input from the shield cell.

B) your point is irrelevant, because the fastest you can possibly put yourself into the action is a few minutes, in the case of an epic battle right outside the station. And actual spawning costs millions. Even if your problem is real, restocking should take a few minutes at the very most, not ten minutes.

@Romeo, your argument of "You can choose not to wait for your shields to recharge" in a game where shields are 90% of your health is a terrible argument, and has little to do with the current conversation, except to highlight that the shield mechanic is pretty bad overall.

 

[Roybe]

I love the buzzterm QoL. It's like its own self defeating fallacy. Nine times out of ten, someone asking for a QoL upgraded is asking for a win button. The tenth time, someone's asking for something that really has little to do with their quality of life.
.
What you are referencing with your quip about missing the point of game design are games made by marketing departments targeting the most shallow and primordial instincts of their audience. You know, like mobile games, and evony ads. Annoyances building up is present in any game, and is by no means a bad thing. Your HUD going haywire is an annoyance. You don't care that it's annoying you. The quality of your life would improve if you could see when you got shot at. Ammo is annoying. The quality of life would improve if you had infinite ammo and missiles and they were all free. Waiting for shield recharge is annoying. The quality of your life would improve if it was instant.
.
Well, you pay for those torpedoes and frags with their ammo constraints. Getting shot at is enhanced by the visual effects it imparts on the ship. This is no different than fielding 1800Mjs of shielding then needing to wait ten minutes if you lose them.
,
And for the record, I too think ten minutes is a little long. Could it be tightened down? Absolutely. Should it be instant? Absolutely not. I've said this.
.
The last thing a game wants to do is give the players what they want. The entire point of the game is to take what the players want and make them work for it. This is literally how you create meaningful experiences. If you wanted the former, watch a slideshow of win jingles and splashes of complimentary colors. Or you know, go play a mobile game.

Well we agree on shortening the time.

I'm not sure why there isn't an instant charge in a station...just seems punitive at its current level...and adds more down time to the game for no reason...just like the raising of the 'not' blast shields.

Sorry that you feel QoL is asking for a 'win' button...just do not see it in the point of charging shields when parked at a station...wastes my time in the game honestly.

With most of these types of design decisions...it really is at the discretion of the devs...and they feel it is important that we spend time waiting....

If I get tired of waiting in this game...I know I have a catalog of other games that I won't have to wait in....and the more times I leave the game because of QoL reasons...the longer it takes me to hit the button to come back in and play.

I understand, ultimately, the business reason for this. High concurrency is problematic...instancing, server use, etc. However, these issues also will be problematic when I get ready to buy next years expansion...or something from the store. If all I feel is that I spend an inordinate amount of time in game waiting to play...I will also have a hard time justifying spending my money on playing the waiting game.

This will not be the only reason...but in a game that has as many growing pains as this has...these little things add up.

 

[Trickle]

A) the charge rate is obviously wtfamazing because it can take rapid input from the shield cell.

Yes, I was arguing against shield cells last year. As they are to stay, then yes it would be best for their effect to be toned down.

Devils advocate: The shield on the ship is hard wired into separate cells. And the effect you see is not re-charging, but moving to whole spare pre-charged batteries.

B) your point is irrelevant, because the fastest you can possibly put yourself into the action is a few minutes, in the case of an epic battle right outside the station. And actual spawning costs millions. Even if your problem is real, restocking should take a few minutes at the very most, not ten minutes.

That makes this whole thread irrelevant then as they are fully charged by the time you are back into anything relevant bar PVP - with other people in this thread responding to why that was required.

 

[Shaamaan]

Really? Silent runners and traders do it all the time.

Mhm, yeah, sure. Then traders whine they got blown up and the forums respond with "flying without shields is madness" (second reply after "flying without insurance is madness"). Finally, the problem I'm trying to address is pretty much exclusive to large, combat oriented ships, not traders nor smugglers (who tend to operate smaller vessels).

Get back to reality? Get with the times, friend, and look at the state of the game. Powerplant failure doesn't cause ship destruction and module defense is on the rise. Two ships with small shields and massive armor values were released into the game. You really want to talk to me about reality?

I do want to see someone actually survive a power-plant getting blown up. You're left at the mercy of your attacker (as most of your systems will go offline). Sure, this no longer equals ship destruction, but that's in no way a solution to the problem. So your suggestion now is to change ships entirely. Does the existence of other ships which are capable of some armour tanking mean that existing ships which rely on shields are obsolete and should actually, also, fly unshielded?

Please check the posts where I specifically address this. Please go to that post and read it this time before posting. Make it a habit to read people's posts before getting yourself into an argument, otherwise you'll only lose harder and make yourself look like a fool in the process.

Let it not be said I won't admit when I'm wrong. I missed that part of your post. But after re-reading it it seems you basically want to turn ED in its entirety into a rogue-like. I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that fair number of people would dislike such a change.

They don't make you do anything. They don't make you spend an hour and a half flying to Hutton. They don't make you work up rep to get a Sol permit. They don't make you bounce between high techs hunting for an outfitters part. They don't make you do any of that. You understand the options and the consequences, and you can make the decision.

There's a difference between a goal such as "go to Hutton" (albeit THAT is also a terrible terrible design - if it were a one-off thing, sure, but this is another case of time-wasting madness if you ask me) and "get ready for the next fight". Especially since, in theory at least, things can happen while on the way to Hutton.

This probably has another name, but I want to call it entitled player syndrome. Another symptom that spawn (children) of post 2000 era gaming are prone to. "If there's something I don't like about the game experience, it's poor design".
Wrong. The game experience is not made for you. The game experience is what it is. You choose to participate within its parameters or not. If you can't deal with long wait times on shields, then you simply can't deal with large shields. If you can't deal without large shields on large ships, then you simply can't deal with large ships. Try an FAS.

Ahh, so... we should all hold hands, and accept everything the way it is? I mean, I guess you could chalk any bug under "it's the experience it was meant to be". I mean, connection issues? Wait for the servers to fix, simple! I guess if the game made you wait 15 minutes every time it starts up while the engines heat up you'd be perfectly fine with it. Basically, with that sort of attitude any sort of criticism should basically be dismissed as "whiny".

How do you think game design changes over time? It changes because people get fed up with the old stuff they deem wasn't working and tweak it or come up with new solutions.

Who are you to tell me what I can assess or cannot assess? Every stroke you put on the internet I am free to judge as I see fit.

Wrong choice of words, perhaps. You can think whatever you like, but there are some things you cannot pull out of thin air, and if you do that just seems like you're projecting.

I cannot believe I am reading this from the same fingers that typed 'trolling' and 'you don't know a thing about game design' to me in the same sentence. Some of the most iconic and successful games alive today are built upon a lives mechanic. I won't even begin to argue this, because it's so painfully obviously a lapse of reason on your part.

And... Next you'll claim that Mario-era 8-bit music was the best and nothing new can match it, because some of the best games had that kind of music? Just because something was successful doesn't mean it's perfect or cannot be improved. It's no longer 1990. Heck, I also said that "game over" screens are bad while pointing to the Witcher 3 as an example (that game has a "game over" screen). The point was that certain mechanics are outdated and should be avoided. Not that they cannot, absolutely, under any circumstances be used.

My point is (which I also stated, however that appears to have gone unread) is that ED has more in common with roguelike era gaming than post 2000 era gaming.

About the only rogue-like thing about ED seems to be the penalty for dying without enough money in the bank.

...By comparing it to story driven based games, are you suggesting that this is what ED should be like?

My point was actually to compare it to other "games" in a general sense, at least as far as grind is concerned. ED was also advertised as a single-player game, so I'm not going to touch MMOs (albeit I did my time playing WoW). In any case, the point about grind is something for another topic entirely. Which, BTW, tends to pop up around the forums along with the "mile wide, inch deep" argument.

You find me a word for 'heavily influenced product of something I find distasteful'. I figured it was a good alternative to child.

So you ARE being insulting, and then you write...

See the bit above. I feel like you owe me an apology.

/is stumped

I'm implying that people need content spoon fed to them. Some of the latest trends (which I honestly cannot see the appeal of) include giving you a huge list of achievements and telling the player to have at it. Can the player not invent these themselves? Fine, whatever, if it's beneath me it's beneath me. However, the notion that something like a story or achievements or something is the difference between whether the game's 'chores' are considered grind or not is simply absurd. I had made the assumption that this was your view (whether you admit it or not) and by the witcher 3 comment above, I think it's clear I was right.

Again, the Witcher 3 was used as an example of an open-world game which doesn't feel grindy. Nothing more, nothing less. It's world is more alive, it's mechanics are more fleshed out. Having a story helps too.

As for the "player made achievements"... well, somehow, I managed to play ED long enough to own a well equipped Python. I think I must have had quite a few of those, or otherwise I'd probably quit a long time ago. But by that logic we might as well get some cardboard boxes and pretend we're driving tanks or something... And, pray tell, just WHAT kind of content am I asking to be spoon fed by asking for a "recharge shields" button when docked at a station?!

PvPers were upset with instant shield recharge, and it was removed. A PvPer comes to a that is thread requesting instant shield recharge and doesn't support it. I don't see the irony, only sense.

Yeah... because recharging shields whenever one enters cruise is EXACTLY the same as recharging shields after one has docked. I mean, how could I have been so blind! It's the exact same thing!

 

[Bagel PZC]

I feel like shields should work entirely differently. When lower than a certain percentage threshold, depending on the quality and class of the shield generator (and the RNG maybe), small amounts of damage should still be able to get through, until the shields are totally down. Recharging them could be made quicker this way but leaving them low wouldn't be quite as useful anymore. But this is probably not the most popular idea, and it kind of goes against the original Elite.

 

[Shaamaan]

That makes this whole thread irrelevant then as they are fully charged by the time you are back into anything relevant bar PVP - with other people in this thread responding to why that was required.

Not... really. You can go back to a CZ or a RES far far faster than the shield recharge time of 10+ minutes. At least if you're parked at a nearby station. If you need to travel larger distances, then yeah. Of course you are then putting yourself pointlessly in extra danger.

 

[Bacalao]

Other than from a realistic standpoint it would be wholley inaccurate since your ship runs on it's own power and isn't plugged in and drawing power from the station, you mean?

What evidence is there that it isn't plugged in? I don't see them put the fuel pump in when I instantly throw 30+ tons of fuel into my ship, I don't see those little trucks haul stuff over to my cargo hatch and fill it with 400+ cargo cannisters, nobody cracks my ship open and upgrades the power plant (and my ship doesn't power down when I put a new one in, implying either they are really fast, so fast electrons don't know it, or they have me plugged in). The only evidence that we aren't plugged in is that our shields don't recharge faster while docked, which is a real waste of time when you come out of outfitting and either wait 10-20 minutes on the big ships, or fit some SCBs, undock, use them, redock, reoutfit them out...oh yeah, that's immersion and realism right there.

 

[Slippery Jim DiGriz]

There isn't one - it's a game mechanic decision.

OK I can see there could be valid reasons but that argument does not work for the case of parking a ship with depleted shields closing the game and then upon return many hours later the shields have not recharged.

Perhaps a standard recharge time for all ships regardless of shield rating when docked? There's plenty of power, there's the umbilical to the dock and your generator is running but your engines are not drawing any load so there's a nice surplus there to play with.