|
Drone posted:So just started playing really for the first time in earnest (much thanks to those who gave tips on optimizing my 360 controller layout, it seems to work perfectly so far on the couch). Reading up on the wiki for my next ship after the Sidewinder... if I'm thinking about trading for the moment (playing Space Euro Truck Simulator 2 basically), is there really any reason to get a Hauler when the Adder just looks dramatically better for not much more cash? I mean the cargo hold difference alone is massive, and the Adder seems to have a lot more flexibility to it than the Hauler does. My advice would be to get to a cobra quick as you can, and start rares trading immediately. You don't need much to start. http://needsmorepolish.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/fingerbobs-guide-to-elite-dangerous.html See you when you're bulk trading in a type 9. E: Also yes, don't get a hauler.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:My only real experience with them was in RES's where they were the only thing other than federal assault ships that I considered a possible threat to my vulture. For some reason they were really great turners when piloted by NPC's (and not spinning helplessly). I will admit that the Cutter is pretty zippy for a big ship, and the extra 5-6ly jump range over the Corvette is a massive time saver, but if it can't turn it can't fight as far as I'm concerned. Is the cutter worth the grind? It's an absolutely gorgeous ship, and as I mainly trade or smuggle for cash it's a definite improvement on my anaconda, but that rep grind...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
timn posted:Sort of but not to the same extent. The true secret sauce of the corvette which isn't reflected on paper is the absurd maneuverability for a ship its size. The anaconda is noticeably less practical to run around in. Even before 1.5 a lot of people preferred pythons and clippers to anacondas for that same reason. The corvette hits a magic sweet spot between the two, and actually has larger internals than the anaconda too. Well, I don't know about this. At the end of the day, neither the Anaconda nor the Federal Corvette is a PVP ship, which raises the question of which ship is better PVE. And if I'm not mistaken, at least until the new update the Anaconda actually does more DPS to most targets than the Corvette, owing to the extra hardpoints. For my money, with A-rated thrusters the Anaconda isn't that much less manouverable. Of course, I find it rather silly that the Corvette moves like it does at all; with the kind of mass it's sporting it should be more akin to the Cutter than anything else. But regardless, with A-rated everything and tanked to hell, the only real big difference between the ships that I can see is that extra huge hardpoint. There's also the issue of cost and effort. The Corvette takes a lot of work to aquire, and with donation spamming it's going to take a lot of cash as well which is more work. Additionally, the Corvette itself is more expensive to outfit and maintain. And to be fair, jump range really does matter quite a bit, if only as a quality of life thing. If you're mostly confined to a small area, I'd agree that it doesn't really matter. But you're not, and the game doesn't take place in only a confined small area. A pretty central part of this game is the huge and expansive galaxy out there. Sure, it's pretty empty (for all we know) but that's on the developer. If the game is ever given any content to play with, it's probably not going to be contained to the bubble - what with all the aliens and whatnot. I figure the Corvette is a good ship for combat, especially against big targets like the Cutter and the Anaconda, but I figure the Anaconda is the better all-rounder for most tasks. So for those who don't want to put in the effort, and want to have the option to do pretty much anything they want when they want with a huge-rear end ship, I think the Anaconda is the cheaper, easier and safer choice. But most importantly, I don't see the practical difference between the big three ships and I don't see how the Corvette is easier for everyday use at all. They all seem to have tradeoffs and specialities. It's probably safe to say that there is no real wrong choice there, and that people should go for whatever they want for whatever reason they want.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Only pubbies and fools think the Anaconda is better than the Corvette in PvE. I'm sure, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding any kind of serious analysis for just exactly why that is. The only consensus I seem to be able to find is that it really doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
timn posted:DPS is an interesting point because having just one large hardpoint does kind of suck, and if there's one true weakness to the ship that's definitely it. But if hardpoint selection was the only factor then the Cutter should be the king of PVE. At a certain point maneuverability makes or breaks you in that respect, and the Corvette really is a significant improvement. It's the most striking thing about the ship the moment you first take off in one, and it's something the Anaconda hurts for considering all the people who still shunned it for combat even before the Corvette was released. Yes, and the manouverability difference between the Corvette and the Anaconda isn't really all that huge, especially considering that neither of the ships are nimble by any stretch. Yes, by comparison the Corvette is more manouverable than the Anaconda and the Cutter, but less manouverable than anything else (apart from transports, but even the Anaconda beats those). I don't know that the Anaconda was or is shunned for combat. I've used one for HighRez and conflict zones and it melts stuff while being an unbreakable tank. Just like the Corvette. Well, if you want to fly around inside the bubble or out, jump range is a very significant factor if you want to avoid wasting time staring at witchspace. For a ship that's supposed to do everything other than PVP (which is sort of the only definition of PVE I can figure in a sandbox game), it's a really important quality. Looking at some stuff in Coriolis, the Anaconda seems to come out ahead in armor, less in shields and more in DPS while maintaining pretty much the same capabilities, only the jump range is at least a good third longer. I'm not seeing anything that tells me that the Corvette is better at doing all the jobs the Anaconda can do with any sort of appreciable margin. I don't get where you're coming from with that. Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree with the "decent bit better" part of that. For my money, the Corvette isn't appreciably better, even though it really really should be, and that goes double for the Cutter. Going by size, name and role the Corvette should be absolutely brimming with guns, be somewhat slow and cumbersome like the Cutter and have even more internals, armor, shields, bigger FSD and power plant. Instead, all the standard fittings on it are identical to the Anaconda, the ~500 ton smaller ship, and the internals are pretty much comparable. Pretty much for the cost and effort, Corvette and Cutter owners should be getting more value for their money. As is, it looks like people who aren't specifically interested in a Corvette and Cutter might just as well save themselves the effort and keep the Anaconda. Besides, who knows what future updates will bring? As far as I know, the Anaconda is the only ship getting a bigger docking bay for fighters Sidewinder-sized.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, that's four points in my account book, but that's only me using basic math. Yeah, but what kind of role will the Cutter have once they release the Panther Clipper?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
I really wish this game had more to it. Just basic stuff, quality of life or things that would enhance tactical gameplay as a for instance. It needs player owned stations or land bases, or some other long term big goal for groups. It nees more utility stuff, like repair limpets or SCB limpets to create a support ship role for the bigger ships who are currently very limited in PVP and PVE (don't even get me started on how much revamping the big-rear end ships need). Interesting stuff storywise, like alien archeology or gigantic orbital complexes with remains of dead technology from dead alien races that can be salvaged, researched, maybe even having alien automatic defence systems to pose a threat. Player ship or module design. An overhaul of the weapons to make anything but pulse lasers viable. This game is currently just a gigantic waste of potential, and it irks. Some of the stuff wouldn't even be hard to implement, and a sandbox with no point to it will not have any sort of proper longevity. Fill the goddamned game up with something other than grognardy space madness, please.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
BMan posted:In Robigo news, abandoning slave missions now gives fines. This hinders the slave selling exploit... not at all. Wait, you can still print money? I thought they fixed that rep gain thing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Eryxias posted:Yeah I also wouldn't mind a quick, "Here is what you do" post about this. Plenty advice on these topics in the PGS thread. Also, join the frogs and ask in Discord. It's essentially step one for beating the game. The rest of the steps are "do what Kermit tells you".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
TomR posted:That's really wrong. Elite is a launch title on the Oculus store. I'm using it in VR right now. Trip report? VR is pretty high on my wishlist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Is that the Courier? That is a sexy cockpit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Shine posted:Oh I'm boutta be a space paladin. I figure packing about three class 3 of these on a conda will make for some nice support. Unless it's hilariously inefficient, which it very well might be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Gonna lol forever at pubbies still insisting the 'Vette is bad after 2.1. Thing about the Corvette is, bullet for bullet it's pretty much as powerful as the Anaconda, for sure. The big difference is in manouverability, which is super important for bigger slower ships, in which the Corvette is clearly better than the Anaconda, and in survivability, in which the Corvette has those all important class 7 slots for shields and batteries. The Corvette will have shields for days on top of pretty great armor, which gives it along the lines of twice the effective hit points of the Anaconda. All told, the Corvette is and will be amazing as a pure slugger in combat. I just like my Anaconda better because it looks cooler 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 09:39
|
|
"
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You don't have to tell me. I've been a Corvette fanboy since day one. I'm hoping with 2.1 I can sink a poo poo ton of credits into it with bespoke engineer modules. I think it's amazing on paper, it just looks so loving ugly. I really hate that chrome-and-carbon militarized look in a spaceship, like some sort of commando discount Star Destroyer. And honestly, for its size I think it's dumb that it's not slow and unwieldy with just a fuckton of weapon hardpoints. I'm talking several huge, large and medium hardpoints meant for turrets to turn that thing into an actual Cruiser type ship that can do just about everything. It just looks like a brawler and a heavy duty hitter much more than a fighter. If that makes sense. I've had a hard time deciding if I should go for it or stick with my conda, but in the end I decided against it. I just don't like it and I probably wouldn't be happy in one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Truga posted:Best trade routes are 2 stops, each netting >1000 per ton (ideally >2500 round trip, so if one way is crap but the other way is 2000 you're still ok). You can do more stops, but that'll be harder to find in my experience. Found a few that give +4k round trip, imp. slaves and whatnot. The trick is volume, more than anything. The bigger ships are great for this, if I had to I could use a type 9 but I'd want to kill myself so quickly. Goatsec is actually excellent for finding good trades, lots of them in that area. Any of the tradenerds in the Diamond Frogs could probably give some very good advice on this. LCL-Dead posted:So there's this thing, this system, called Robigo. It's grindy and poopsocky as gently caress but it's a money printing service. Or, you can do like I did and fit half and half of fuel/cargospace, max your jump range and take as many missions as you have room for. Then just hardcore burn like hell. 30-40 mill per trip. Of course, I was told exactly how to do this by a nice DF goon. Got myself an A-fit Anaconda in about 4 weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
LCL-Dead posted:Yeah, the no-scoop model of making the trip is viable as well. Actually cuts down on travel time too by about 20 minutes overall. The Robigo exploit? Yeah. It still somewhat works I think but I'm not up for gaming the system more than absolutely necessary. I completely condone it though, given the lack of game content. Also, I can't spend the time to do that poo poo for 4 days straight. Can't even remember when I had 4 uninterrupted days of anything. I'm still shy a couple hundred mill from the 10 figure range, but I'm very happy with my conda and will be sticking to it. Unless I want the Panther clipper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Trade that Keelback in for a real ship and trade those seekers in for real weapons The Keelback is such a ripoff. At least until fighters are in. But even then, I'd probably want to go for something else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
H13 posted:So I did my first Robigo run. Way to Han Solo it up, buddy  Sounds like you got off pretty easy, actually, depending on how many missions you selected. If you're in Discord (after joining the Diamond Frogs, sealing the blood pact and reciting the fourteen holy scriptures of the Holy Amphibian and accepting the one true Kermit Laphroaig into your heart, hallowed be His name, Amen) feel free to hit up the Hoppitality Corps for some good pointers on efficient and safe Robigo runs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Why? Don't use a SCB and this weapon is suddenly totally worthless. I like this all-or-nothing approach to warfare. Seems kind of terrible in that it will kill a 50 mw shield as quick as a 1500 mw shield and I don't think that's necessarily very balanced. At the very least, unless this is a really grindy weapon to even get while being incredibly gimmicky, this will kill off shield boosters. I will just loving not have one if I run that kind of risk. At the same time, what are the odds that your opponent has one equipped? I still feel like the obvious thing to add to this game is hull repair limpets and SCB limpets, for ammo-dependent support ships. Big ships in pvp and pve wouldn't just be giant tanky fighters any more, but could actively support a wing of lighter craft giving the group much needed survivability depending on the level of cooperative play. Heck, it would even make sense for traders to carry some, in case tradeship escort ever becomes a viable thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A Type-6 with decent shields and decent thrusters should be more than capable of running from most NPCs. Or, for a couple extra million, you can upgrade to an Asp Explorer and never regard a NPC attack as a real threat ever again. Yeah. Yeah, pretty much this. The Asp Explorer, for all the hate I have for that flying diamond-shaped piece of space debris, it is by a mile the best mid-range trader/smuggler ship. Like a big upgraded Cobra. The Python beats it for volume, but the Asp is better in every other aspect. It is my preferred ship for Robigo slave runs, where I'd have no problem picking up 10+ missions and just blasting through the bubble with a gigantic pack of npcs in my wake. Can't deny how good it is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with how cult-y the ED goon faction has become. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Edit to quote myself and add I agree with you very very much. And also 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
So, anyone wanna critique my PVE Murderboat? This is it. Here's my logic: The PACs on the bottom, 1 huge, 1 large, work like the Corvettes two huge pacs. By my calculations, they are 11% less dps than the Corvette with two huge PACs, which I can live with. With some practice, I find myself hitting with them surprisingly often, though they are for use on FAS/Asp E or bigger only. I combine that fire group with two large burst laser turrets on top, which due to the field of fire only shoot when my PACs aren't lined up. The overall effect on big ships seems to be very effective, killing them quicker than I have before. The second fire group is for smaller ships, all turrets and multicannons. Turrets on top and bottom have a nice 360 coverage around my hull and I don't need to manouver all that hard to pile on the dps. Burst lasers seem great for hull damage (shields are stripped in seconds regardless), and while I don't have any trouble manouvering to point at smaller ships with the gimballed MCs, the turrets still seem to give me more damage on target per second than gimbals. The downside is weakness to chaff, but small ships don't do anything to my shield so it's more of an annoyance than a concern. Both firegroups work well on two dots to weapons, leaving me four to shields or a couple to engines if I need to manouver hard, making the build very tanky. The bi-weave shield gives me max regen at the expense of total shield strength, but I carry enough SCBs for a good 5000 extra MJs when I need them. So far it seems like I don't even need them too often, running out of ammo for the PACs well before SCBs even when constantly engaging wings of large ships. Scoop and discovery scanner for when I have to move and find a new CZ or things, A-rated sensors for a good overview, as tanky as 15LY jumps (my comfort minimum) allow for. My personal feel is that I hate being ammo dependent, but not as much as I hate all-laser builds. It's just so fun landing those PACs. I'd love suggestions/recriminations and ideas for improvement though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Anyone have a good recent Vulture build for PvE? Mine is still kitted out for SCB cheese. I've used something like this before. Not the most exciting of builds, but it gets the job done I think. You could always sacrifice some tankyness for more DPS, like Beam/Frag combo, Burst/Cannon combo or something. Depending on how good you are at shooting, I'd also go for fixed instead of gimbals. I heard about a PAC build, but my guess is the heat buildup would be too annoying. If you have the spare change, I might go for a Mirrored Surface composite, seeing as you're flying a fast ultra-manouverable ship. It would be hell to hit with kinetics or a PAC, and if they are getting through that shield, they are using lasers to actually hit you. Might also want to consider chaff instead of that D shield booster. Or I'm wrong. No guarantees, haven't used a Vulture in a while.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:Right now I'm still in a CobraIII saving up for a Vulture. Robigo runs have been very slow profit-wise because generally only one or two missions are available for a combined 3 million. So far had 3 successful runs and 1 failed run (Thanks to getting scanned while landing on the pad and waiting for the Bulletin board to come up) Then why not do a rares circuit instead? Pretty quick, if you have an A-rated FSD. About the same money, less hassle. Probably a bit quicker, even.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:New weapons: Not gonna lie. That is some tasty stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Well Brown Sea Wisdom is: Welp, time to take up mining I guess.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Sostratos posted:Probably not, everything in a HAZRes now pops chaff constantly in every fight, and spams SCBs till they run out while having massively improved combat ability and no need for heat/power management. I gotta be frank with you guys here, I don't think that sounds like a very good game design.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:brb calculating if I have enough delta-V to make this maneuver This would unironically be a cool as gently caress game, as long as there was full (sci-fi) realism, also called Navigational Computers. Because humans simply cannot navigate in space, and especially not at those speeds, but if the game was about full realism with ships that had really high delta-V possibilities, that could make for some really interesting tactical gameplay. My immediate example/idea base would be the Sci-Fi series "The Expanse" IMDB link and the Peter F. Hamilton The Night's Dawn trilogy. And also Kerbal Space Progam. The issue with realism is that it's often used as an argument when it really isn't a gameplay mechanic but a genre. Full realism is called a simulation, and while that is fun for a lot of people, it also has to be the central purpose of the game. Because the central purpose/idea/goal/concept of the game is what you bought it for. If someone went and added "more realism" to a game that was never marketed as a simulator just because they thought "more realism" = better then regardless of the result, they've created a flawed product.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Xae posted:I've often thought that the next big Space Sim game should be a game set in our solar system with relativistic, but not Faster than Light, travel. Or maybe something Battlestar Galactica-esque with FTL jumps and then just newtonian physics with computers doing the actual G-manouvers. With multi-crew spaceships and the game designed for long term space exploration type stuff that included exploring alien ruins, lost research bases, orbital complexes from long-dead high-tech civilizations (which the universe should be riddled with), with a ship sporting a lab, manufacturing capabilities, etc. I could see it working. I'd probably have a lot of fun with that, if it were complex and interesting enough. Couldn't be an MMO though, would have to be like 8-man multiplayer at the most. Or the most revolutionary MMO ever.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:Not gonna happen. It would take 4 hours to travel to Neptune from the sun at the speed of light. Our supercruise is FTL and it's still boring as gently caress. Yeah, which can either be solved the Kerbal Space Program way or with a jump drive. Hamilton has a neat little system for this, wherein the ships navicomputer contains the relative speeds of the different jump targets and calculates the jump from star charts - basically a supercomputer with an observatory. The neat part is that the ship has to use its delta-V reserves to "match" the speed or the delta-V profile for its target: If you want to jump to Pluto, Pluto is either going quicker or slower than you (in orbit somewhere else) and you need to "catch up" to it before you jump, or risk a one-way ticket to pancake town/hurtling into space. This limits both your jump range (on average, the further you want to go the bigger your delta-V reserves need to be) and is a cool game mechanic where you put some actual stellar/orbital mechanics into your game. What I'm saying is, okay, gently caress realism, but is it such a crime to make a hard sci-fi game for actual nerds? Maybe, I don't know, actually require something of the player? Guess I'm just bored with piss-easy superficial games. I also think realistic space combat would be a cool thing, as long as it's nothing like EVE online.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Would love for E:D to have Orbitals, not just 'small' stations positioned in planet orbits. I mean, yeah, sure. You'd need some form of FTL travel within a solar system for sure, and there's more than enough room for a whole bunch of things. I'd figure a game like that would look a lot like let's say a "Firefly" simulator or "The Expanse" simulator, not deeply centered on space combat but on away missions, boarding actions, exploring derelict wrecks in EVA suits and scavenging abandoned space stations or mining facilities. Never gonna happen, but it's a cool concept. I assume everyone itt is nerd enough to have seen "The Expanse" so you know what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
imperialparadox posted:This excites me. Are we talking the kind of speed that will allow a smaller ship to outmaneuver a larger one and dominate it with skill? I tend to like the smaller fighter-type ships in games, but so far Elite sort of requires you to upgrade into larger ships to progress (to a point). Depends, but I'd consider it likely on the basis that even relatively quick-turning big ships will have a hell of a time tracking a small ship (with chaff) doing +500 kph. That's just brutal. On the other hand, how much dps do you think you'll do without it out-tanking you?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Lima posted:Eagle (mine) bomber: That is loving hilarious and makes me hopeful for engineers content.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
RearmingStrafbomber posted:
Say what you will about Frontier, but this game is really good-looking.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Panch posted:This is/was 100% me. My advice is that if it doesn't disappear with the patch (I saw somewhere, maybe here that they may still exist but changed to be less stackable?) do Robigo smuggling missions. I read this suggestion months ago when I tried to pop into the game and assumed it was another soulless grind. Now I'm sad I waited so long. No, I think you are right on the money on this. This is exactly what Elite lacks, and Freelancer is the best example I can think of when it comes to filling an open-world space game with interesting stuff. El Grillo posted:I've definitely always felt that the lack of reality in the way the human civilisation is presented in E:D is a big flaw. It desperately needs actual infrastructure like factories, industrial mining depots and capital class freighters, mining ships, mobile stations or whatever. My feeling exactly. Elite is a cool flight model and amazing graphics thinly smeared across an empty void of a game. I'm not saying that Elite is limited in scope by the technical difficulties such a game might have, but it really lacks focus. Is it an MMO? Then why single player affecting open? Is it a single/multiplayer experience? Then why no storyline or even a cohesive mission system? Is it an X-like game? Then why no player bases, modulard space base design, hire-able NPCs to haul and trade, no empire-building? It's the F-35 of games. It's shiny, expensive, but doesn't do any particular thing well even if it's a little of everything. It's unsatisfying and frustrating.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
gently caress this game. If I want useless, time-wasting pain and frustration I'm going back to DayZ.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I don't think it matters much, they're pretty obstinate. Just to point something out: Elite Dangerous is not a paying subscription game. They's already gots your money, friend. They don't have to give a poo poo what any sane player thinks, because their business model is selling the next shiny promise and stringing people along. They want you to buy the next season's worth of content, and they probably figure they can get away with a lot since the people who ragequit their current terrible game will (mostly) come slithering back for the new shiny and they'll make up the difference in brand new suckers - new ones are born every day after all. Heck, they'd probably make money off of driving people away at this point, less bandwith and server upkeep to pay for. The game's an alpha. We all bought in for early access. I bought in for early access, I finally realise that now. They loving got me, and they got me good. Well done Frontier, all they had to do was not call it an alpha, and I'm all in, hook, line, sinker and the loving fisherman too. I just never learn.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:You're goddamn right it does Yeah. And if flying around those kinds of vistas was the game, that'd be absolutely great. Top notch, game of the year. But this:  is what the game looks like 90% of the time. Game could be vastly improved by instantaneous jumps between those kinds of views, in my opinion. FSD travel that's not jumping is boring as hell, even the EVE Online system is more exciting.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:But it's ~realistic~ and anyway, how would the AI gank you if you could just instantly arrive at a station? How is it realistic? At superluminal speeds I wouldn't expect to be able to see poo poo, or at least everything blueshifted to hell and instruments shouldn't be able to tell you anything about anything outside of your local space-time frame oh wait you're being sarcastic. It's me, I'm the sperg. Honestly, jumping between points of interest whether they be deep space (signal) a sun or a planet or an asteroid field would detract nothing from the game that can't be replaced by a better version. Interdiction? Player signals in-system, jump there, FSD scrambler. Cat-and-mouse game like hunter-killer sub wargames replacing dumb piloting minigame that careens you into the sun. Exploration? Exploration mini-game with manual scan of interesting sources (like the scarab vehicle "sonar" thing) with deep scan with specialized modules, interesting places get a jump and a scan from specialized short ranged scanning equipment, each with their own screen and or minigame. Just to make you feel like you're a technician and a navigator instead of an autopilot for jumping and honking. Combat? There's no reason I can see that getting attacked at stations should be a thing. EVE Online experiences of station camping add nothing to the game, as does NPCs attacking you at a station. It's dumb, potentially frustrating and annoying. So gently caress that! Stations are safezones, everywhere else you jump has a chance of a dude being there or jumping in on you, see the aforementioned signals, asteroid fields and whatnot. I dunno. I just reread Peter F. Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" trilogy and I just wish space combat was more like that. Some fun "realism" that makes logical sense and some intelligence behind the design decisions. Maybe I'm just asking for too much, but I'm old and crotchety and I want complexity and skill-based difficulty in my games. Not artificial difficulty through grinding, dumb AI bugs and pres butan fly plane type mechanics for goddamned space travel. loving Battlecruiser 3000 was more fun than that. And that game was a piece of poo poo. gently caress this game. My spare time is too precious for this.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 13:31
|
|