With Jump Ranges for ships nearing 400ly, carriers need a buff (video evidence)

[anShpan]

2. I paid for the game and I want to play it when I want and how I want, I do not want my game to depend on the 3rd person who today has a sick cat and he can not do what there in the game because he took her to the vet.

We all did, and most likely more than you did.
Now:

• at the moment of purchase, your FC was jumping .5kLy? Now it jumps exactly that, as advertised. Were they promised to you that by 2025 your FC will be jumping any further? If not, then FD are perfectly holding their part of deal with you. Then, probably, its time to enjoy jumping FC.
• at the moment when I purchased EDO, there was no word regarding that by 2025 your FC will be jumping like crazy all over my gameplay, and I insist that this part of deal with me to be kept up now.

P.S. it is very cute and cosy to believe that whatever non-sence dearest self is proposing always leads ED to progress and evolution, and any contagruments are not against that particular non-sence but against progress and evolution of ED itself.

I do not want my game to depend on the 3rd person who today has a sick cat and he can not do what there in the game because he took her to the vet.

But I should want that my game depends on somebody who can write something as quoted? Really?

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Maxim 48: "If it ain't broke, it hasn't been issued to the infantry."

I find it just a little crazy to be searching for HAZMAT spills, from a supersonic jump jet, landing, then executing a standard quartering search with a fifty-meter range pistol...

 

[DaveB]

I find it just a little crazy to be searching for HAZMAT spills, from a supersonic jump jet, landing, then executing a standard quartering search with a fifty-meter range pistol...

At least all the suit variants come with better aircon than MOPP gear

 

[Freyar]

We're seeing the inevitable power creep which was going to always be an issue if the game was to last longer than 5-8 years. Now that we're at ten years, and "technology in the game" has expanded to allow for further jump ranges (which to be honest is really cool progression), we're seeing people who have more money sunk into things before complaining that their tech isn't keeping up.

I'd like to see some upgrades for the carriers, but the technology for them needs to be introduced over the course of time like upgrades to the FSD (SCO) drives did and new hulls. The way they were weaved into the universe helped keep the story at least mostly coherent. Conflict breeds innovation and cannibalization of technology.

 

[anShpan]

I'd like to see some upgrades for the carriers, but the technology for them needs to be introduced over the course of time like upgrades to the FSD (SCO) drives did and new hulls. The way they were weaved into the universe helped keep the story at least mostly coherent.

Exactly this^^^.
Personally I would pay significant ARX just for developing (not just an early access!) of an exploration-oriented Carrier that has, for example, just med. pad, 1-2 hangars, but can jump significantly more. Other limitations like services, unsuitable for bubble-jumping, etc. are totally OK.

 

[Freyar]

Exactly this^^^.
Personally I would pay significant ARX just for developing (not just an early access!) of an exploration-oriented Carrier that has, for example, just med. pad, 1-2 hangars, but can jump significantly more. Other limitations like services, unsuitable for bubble-jumping, etc. are totally OK.

I would not support tying Arx to upgrades for a carrier. I already have significant issues with buying pre-release ships with Arx.

 

[anShpan]

I would not support tying arx to upgrades for a carrier. I already have significant issues with buying pre-release ships with Arx.

This is why I wrote that it is specifically for developing, not early access. With full and complete respect of those against pre-releases.
Sorry, at the moment personally me has no other leverage on FD other than my ARX.

P.S. Sometimes I think that it would be cool to have something as ARX-kickstarter for completely new functionality.

 

[DaveB]

...we're seeing people who have more money sunk into things before complaining that their tech isn't keeping up.

The car I bought just over a decade ago was state of the art when I did so. Its technology didnt keep up either. Last year I scrapped it bwcause nobody would buy it off me. I'd have loved to get back as much return as I would have on selling a ship I bought around the same time

Some folks dont know when they've got it so good.

 

[Freyar]

The car I bought just over a decade ago was state of the art when I did so. Its technology didnt keep up either. Last year I scrapped it bwcause nobody would buy it off me. I'd have loved to get back as much return as I would have on selling a ship I bought around the same time

Some folks dont know when they've got it so good.

100% my thought process here. Technology marches forward.

 

[marx]

I don't see anything good coming from simply buffing Carrier's jump range. [...] The only reason to buff jump range beyond the already ludicrous jump range they already have is for the sake of galactic tourism (...)

Buffing the jump range of carriers would open up more systems to exploration. Any time there's an increase to the maximum possible jump, there's always a gold rush of explorers looking to reach systems nobody could reach before. I'd say that is a good thing. (It wouldn't even have to be carriers, just whatever means of making jumps farther than 500 ly.)
But well, the last time that has actually happened was with the addition of fleet carriers.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

View attachment 413080

1,012 LY from Sol, I find my first undiscovered bacterium.

I remember being out here in a 21 LY Adder. Should we go back to that?

you can't go back.... however I was deeply disappointed with travel in elite. I remember back in beta groups were planning mapping out to the centre of the milky way, expecting it to take months with ships taking damage when jumping to unexplored systems so would have to come back to repair.
then the game launched and people made it in 1 day when the game was still in gamma.

so no..... I don't thing we should go back to the launch ranges because the cat is already out of the bag, BUT I do wish travel had been done differently and jumping to a system which had not mapped out fully and sold back to UC and then a nav beacon delivered and constructed out would have been more of a thing

if that meant even now beagle point was still not mapped out yet then so be it.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

The car I bought just over a decade ago was state of the art when I did so. Its technology didnt keep up either. Last year I scrapped it bwcause nobody would buy it off me. I'd have loved to get back as much return as I would have on selling a ship I bought around the same time

Some folks dont know when they've got it so good.

I bought mine new in 2006. Still better than the rolling IPads.

 

[M_72]

you can't go back.... however I was deeply disappointed with travel in elite. I remember back in beta groups were planning mapping out to the centre of the milky way, expecting it to take months with ships taking damage when jumping to unexplored systems so would have to come back to repair.
then the game launched and people made it in 1 day when the game was still in gamma.

so no..... I don't thing we should go back to the launch ranges because the cat is already out of the bag, BUT I do wish travel had been done differently and jumping to a system which had not mapped out fully and sold back to UC and then a nav beacon delivered and constructed out would have been more of a thing

if that meant even now beagle point was still not mapped out yet then so be it.

I remember people's disappointments when the galaxy was finally opened up and we all learned that hyperspace links were already established, and those development ideas touted during the KS - the idea of having to chart them, using probes, deploying nav beacons, having to come back to civilization for more probes, or setting up supply networks, selling your data to make those routes became public knowledge were brushed under the carpet. If I remember correctly whole groups like the FGE were built upon that premise. 100s of FGE members ready to work together to build hyperspace routes into the depths. I think the worse thing is Frontier never told anyone the earlier ideas had been scrapped until after the gamma. Sag-A* was visited in gamma, weeks before the vast majority of players had even got chance to play the game. It went down like a lead baloon.

Could you imagine the I want it now crowd in a world where that depth of gameplay and challenge existed?

 

[metatheurgist]

I remember being out here in a 21 LY Adder. Should we go back to that?

Yes, here's why. Back then the shorter ranges meant that there were natural bottle necks most ships had to go through to get from one place to another in the bubble. These places would have naturally become significant as trade or travel hubs. With combat ships having even shorter ranges you can see the military significance these systems would have; they would become places that are strategically important and desirable for galactic powers seeking to assert control. Now instead of a blandly homogenous galaxy where every system is more or less the same, we have a galaxy with some strategic gameplay potential. Places where aliens might have decided to attack instead of 8 apparently random spots for example. Of course, we also needed Frontier to recognise this and act on it and make mechanics based around that, but they are blind as All that potential was flushed by the simple act of 'letting people play as they wish'.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Yes, here's why. Back then the shorter ranges meant that there were natural bottle necks most ships had to go through to get from one place to another in the bubble. These places would have naturally become significant as trade or travel hubs. With combat ships having even shorter ranges you can see the military significance these systems would have; they would become places that are strategically important and desirable for galactic powers seeking to assert control. Now instead of a blandly homogenous galaxy where every system is more or less the same, we have a galaxy with some strategic gameplay potential. Places where aliens might have decided to attack instead of 8 apparently random spots for example. Of course, we also needed Frontier to recognise this and act on it and make mechanics based around that, but they are blind as All that potential was flushed by the simple act of 'letting people play as they wish'.

The road not taken, literally.

 

[The Lawful]

Carriers and ships are like the railroad vs cavalry, in exploration. Calvary may be faster, but the steam train always wins, by persistence. The fine print says it's much more tedious with a carrier, and lo! it is indeed. Took my chance to find it out during this event two years ago. It's true.

Even if a Mandalay or any other ship can go ~400ly, under optimal conditions, with the help of a Neutron star: It's perfectly balanced. Just leave it like that.

O7,

 

[Darkfyre99]

You can give an example of something you want and it supposedly doesn't fall into the category - I want it now.

Of course… because I don’t care how long it takes to get something, as long as the process in acquiring it is fun. And fun for me is a challenge that is mentally stimulating, challenging skill-wise, requires tactical and strategic planning, and has consequences for failure. I want the game to stand between me and my ambitions, and tell me “No. You can’t have this. Not endless you’re clever enough, or skilled enough. Not unless you have a better plan. Otherwise, you fail.”

It’s one of the reasons I play the way I do, especially after in PowerPlay 2.0. It’s the most fun I’ve had in a long time, and yet still it hardly throws any real challenges my way. The worst thing that’ll happen is a temporary setback, and that’s if I’m opposed strategically by other players. There’s very little the game can do to disrupt my overall strategy, and that’s a direct consequence of Frontier’s appeasement of the “I want it Now!” crowd,

The strategy I’m using wouldn’t work if the economy still operated according to the Alpha 4.0 Economic Sim. There’s no way these tiny stations should be able to supply the demand I’m responding to, nor should they be able to have the demand they have. I should’ve needed to adjust my strategy weeks ago as the markets got saturated, perhaps even shifting to BGS manipulation to create new opportunities.

But players complained about the consequences of their own actions, and here we are today, with an economic sim that works like it was 1993, not a modern one, taking advantage of modern technology and 30 years of collective game development experience.

 

[DaveB]

I bought mine new in 2006. Still better than the rolling IPads.

You'll note I DIDNT mention the '69 Indian Chief I bought as a total disaster in '99 and then spent the next 5 years restoring/updating with modern components. When I left the USA and came back to Blighty I had NO problem finding a buyer for that! After that bike had carried me through 26 of the lower 48 (and got me an iron-butt award) it deserved a good home and I found a collector that would love it as much as I did

Some technology doesn't need to "keep up"


ETA: so long as you replace the pieces one at a time, it's still the same bike and so what if it ends up with maybe one pipe and two bolts that are actually original

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The strategy I’m using wouldn’t work if the economy still operated according to the Alpha 4.0 Economic Sim. There’s no way these tiny stations should be able to supply the demand I’m responding to, nor should they be able to have the demand they have. I should’ve needed to adjust my strategy weeks ago as the markets got saturated, perhaps even shifting to BGS manipulation to create new opportunities.

But players complained about the consequences of their own actions, and here we are today, with an economic sim that works like it was 1993, not a modern one, taking advantage of modern technology and 30 years of collective game development experience.

this is such a good point. it would be far more fulfilling if the only way to keep a profitable system producing enough for me to continually buy from it would be if I also continually delivered the materials needed. ultimately this would force the creation of actual trade routes and I would never fly with an empty ship.
which is why sometimes I think FD need go back to their original design decisions and look there for how to improve things not just cave to players demands looking to "streamline" everything.
IF fleet carriers get their range increased it will never come back down so it is vital imo decisions to extend it are made very carefully.

 

[DaveB]

Of course… because I don’t care how long it takes to get something, as long as the process in acquiring it is fun. And fun for me is a challenge that is mentally stimulating, challenging skill-wise, requires tactical and strategic planning, and has consequences for failure. I want the game to stand between me and my ambitions, and tell me “No. You can’t have this. Not endless you’re clever enough, or skilled enough. Not unless you have a better plan. Otherwise, you fail.”

It’s one of the reasons I play the way I do, especially after in PowerPlay 2.0. It’s the most fun I’ve had in a long time, and yet still it hardly throws any real challenges my way. The worst thing that’ll happen is a temporary setback, and that’s if I’m opposed strategically by other players. There’s very little the game can do to disrupt my overall strategy, and that’s a direct consequence of Frontier’s appeasement of the “I want it Now!” crowd,

The strategy I’m using wouldn’t work if the economy still operated according to the Alpha 4.0 Economic Sim. There’s no way these tiny stations should be able to supply the demand I’m responding to, nor should they be able to have the demand they have. I should’ve needed to adjust my strategy weeks ago as the markets got saturated, perhaps even shifting to BGS manipulation to create new opportunities.

But players complained about the consequences of their own actions, and here we are today, with an economic sim that works like it was 1993, not a modern one, taking advantage of modern technology and 30 years of collective game development experience.

I build trade loops as if it still worked that way... I look for multi-hop loops analogous to the infamous "triangle trade" in the Atlantic, back in the day. The various 3rd party tools can show you the single legs but they can't build something like that for you. That takes your mind putting together the jigsaw pieces. Do it right you end up with a loop route that's profitable on every leg. Do it really right and you are supporting the economies you're feeding off, and those routes would be viable long-term in the Alpha 4.0 and early Beta model - thats where I developed the strategy.

Could I make more credits doing website-derived A-B trading? Sure. Would it be as much fun as putting together a sustainable circular route that would be hard for other players to disrupt? Probably not. So I play the game my way and still make enough credits having fun. I end up NOT CARING that FD have nerfed the dynamics into oblivion. Because to me, it doesn't matter. Fun is more important than get-rich-quick.