NEWS: 2nd Twitch Live Stream on Sept 27th (20:00 CEST)

[CBJ]

But, what about this. Instead of eliminating the jumpdrive altogether, why not make far fewer jumpgates? You could use a jumpdrive to jump to a limited number of available gates, but due to their scarcity, you would have to also use other means to get around (transorbital accelerators, highways, and boosting). Jump gates, because they are scare, could be heavily defended points to prevent invading forces from entering a system, but once in a system, the scale of a huge universe could still be maintained by these slower transportation methods?

As I said, placing limitations on jump destinations doesn't solve the problem. Either the limitations are too weak and the jumpdrive remains overpowered, or they are too effective in which case the jumpdrive serves no purpose. The scenario you describe pretty much falls into the overlap between these two, where it is overpowered in some situations and yet pointless for some of the key scenarios where it might actually be useful.

Also, limiting jumpdrives to only very large ships would help to reduce player dependence on the jumpdrive mechanic.

Um, no. Being able to jump large ships into the middle of enemy territory is far more damaging to tactical gameplay than being able to jump small ones would be, not to mention that those large ships could carry smaller ships making the whole restriction pointless.

SETA speeds up the entire game mostly for people to use to complete a task in less realtime. But not in less gametime. I don't know why it is brought up at all. It has nothing to do with the Jumpdrive.

You personally may use it for that purpose, but it is also widely used as a means to speed up travel. If you cannot see the correlation despite the detailed explanation then I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

1.) The tactical, territory-controlling element? AFAIK, there is only 1 piece of territory we can control in either TC or AP, unless we use mods. And I don't think we ever needed to be tactical about that. TBH I don't really know what it has to do with the Jumpdrive.
2.) As said in an earlier reply, what is the point in teleporting just the player to the "action" if he can't take his personal ship with him? Rebirth was designed so you could only be one ship and have no choice about which one it is. But now that we do get the choice which ship we want to be, we can't take it with us when we most need it?
3.) While you don't want to put a range limitation on the Jumpdrive, you do want to put one on the Teleporter from the start? Why not just keep the Jumpdrive and give that a range limitation? Why not only allow it to jump to Jumpgates, like X2 (a lore-friendly solution)?

1) No, previous games didn't have much of that, and the jumpdrive was one of the reasons it wasn't a practical option. Again, if my explanation of why this is relevant isn't sufficient for you then I'm afraid I can't help you.
2) Being able to take whatever ship you like with you is precisely the problem. If you can jump in with a fully-prepared combat ship every time then there is no challenge to ensuring that ships are adequately protected.
3) At no point did I say that a range limitation was a bad thing, only that it didn't solve the problems of the jumpdrive.

My first suggestion would be that if you want to have a "big" universe you should make sure X4 starts with the roughly 200 systems we had in X3. Preferably more.

Bigger numbers don't necessarily make for a bigger feel. You clearly liked having a lot of small boxes joined by gates to fly around in; others had grown tired of that and wanted bigger areas with more variety and different ways to connect them.

Rebirth's systems were designed to accommodate the players that complained that X3's systems where too small. And now you are complaining about the systems being too big to easily transfer through to the action? Again this is not a Jumpdrive problem. Nor a SETA problem.
This is a design decision that backfires. It was too easy to respond in X3 when using a Turbo-Boosted Springblossom, but due to system sizes its too hard in Rebirth ... and X4.

No, you're the one who is complaining about the bigger systems. The issue of the jumpdrive's excessive power carries across systems as well as within them. Travel within systems has other solutions, whether you happen to be a fan of them or not.

**I'm sure we were told that Egosoft was working on a real X4. Just like the name of the forum and yesterdays presentation. Yet we still do not get back the Borons because they prefer to keep Walking a priority. And now the removal of Jumpdrive, which again is in favour of Walking (by Teleporting). Why do I still keep the feeling this is going to be Rebirth 2 in disguise?

You get that feeling because you have decided that it can't be X4 unless it has every feature of X3 and more, and you are not prepared to accept any other interpretation. The reality is that everyone has their own ideas as to what the "essence" of an X game is, and what a "real X4" would need to include. To some (including you, judging by the dozens of posts you made on the subject) being able to fly multiple ships was an essential feature. To others it was the freedom to fit ships with different loadouts and build stations where they liked, and so on. We, and I think it's safe to say a good proportion of the people who have seen the presentations judging by their reactions, believe that we've captured that essence sufficiently to warrant giving the game the X4 title. You clearly disagree. You can stick to your mantra that it must have all the races and factions, the same universe size (by your personal definition which takes only numbers of systems into account) or bigger, and not have any of the new features that don't interest you in order to qualify for that name in your eyes, but that doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.

[Crimsonraziel]

the distance between 2 planets / sectors can be bridged by using a swing-by-type of accelleration on astro-objects (planet / sun / moon). just boost for a 15 seconds in direction to the nearest astro-object, and your velocity increaces "astronomically", you now are not part of the sector anymore technically, you are in-bwtween 2 sectors for the time you are travelling with "swing-by". for about 1 minute, your circle around the planet in a constant orbit, by changing the direction you decide where to break out and swing to ... boost 15 seconds in direcion to mars (while in earth orbit), you'll be there in about 20 seconds or so. when arrived, your velocity "normalizes" again, and you're now part of sector "mars" (InSector). everything around mars is relative to the planet, stations remain in ttheir relative positions etc .. maybe just some small asteroids change their relative velocity

I think you are extremly overestimating gravitational slingshots
and by extremly I mean not just 1-2 orders of magnitude
But then again gravity assist maneuvers don't work that way. You don't circle around the moon. Once you do, you already messed it up. Slingshots are more like a rubber ball bouncing off a moving Plattform.

On a sidenote the ISS orbits around the earth in a height of 400 km at a speed of roughly 7500 m/s and still takes about 5 hours to complete a single orbit. (X-ships are usually around 100-200 m/s)

[JonRedcorn862]

Think this presentation should shut up a lot of the complainers that were previously whining about things like the game being too colorful. Game looks great.

[ADMNtek]

removing jump drives is annoying but what speaks against player build highways? in XR you called seta a hack/cheat but you patched it back in after the players screamed rebel. and now in X4 you go full balls to the wall and allow seta all the time. so rebel i want my jump drive back .

[Morkonan]

....Jumpdrives were popular, but they pretty much completely destroyed both the feeling of size, and the tactical, territory-controlling element of the game. Sure, there are ways to mitigate some of their effect (jump target limitations, range limitations, fuel cost) but none of them remove the fundamental problem that you cannot place an obstacle in the way of an invading fleet in an interesting way. Note that adding another gameplay mechanism to prevent jumpdrives being used doesn't really count as interesting for these purposes; it just stops the jumpdrive from being useful, making it redundant. So, thinking again about which features of a jumpdrive we wanted in the game, and which we didn't, we realised that there were two separate scenarios. One was getting a ship or fleet from A to B, and the other was getting the player from A to B so that they could be "in on the action"....

I disagree with this. I understand that part of it is just opinion, but there's also a fundamental oversight here if one is attempting to add desirable elements to a game's design when faced with the feared repercussions of a perceived shortfall.

(Commentary based on my X3TC experience, only.)

First, we have to remember how the player feels when they first start playing the game. All-too-often, experienced players and even experienced designers forget about "early game" things, choosing to focus on the most popular and most visible issues popping around gaming communities where the players are in gameplay stages where the play has matured. (Mid-to-late-game)

The jump-drive does not hurt the feeling of "distance" being significant in the game. That feeling was certainly instilled in the player's early-game experience, when they didn't have a jump drive and, even if they could find one, they couldn't easily afford it. So, yes, they had to fly through sectors, manually, perhaps risking SETA from time to time, which is what it was likely originally intended for, right?

So, in the early-game experience, where the player's first, lasting, interpretations of the game's environment is fueled, there was certainly a feeling of "largeness." HOWEVER, there was thing that reduced that feeling and made it only slightly more difficult to present to the player - An early-game player has no real way of comprehending how large the map truly is, since it's hidden from them.

Compare this to a non-similar game like a game of "Civilization", where the player can infer, based upon how much of the map they have revealed, the "size" of the world based upon how much of the screen has been revealed.

In X3TC, it's not until the player begins exploring sectors and sees these represented on the screen that they truly understand how large the galaxy is. So, when they finally obtain a jump-drive, they're ecstatic and revel in their newfound power and freedom.

And, that's exactly what that sort of game mechanic should provide for the experience. Further, those sorts of mechanics, which are play goals successfully obtained by the player, reward the player and help them redefine a new set of goals, based upon the obvious, hard-won, achievements of previous goals. This "building of the experience" is critical in progressive roleplaying types of games like traditional sandbox games.

Example: After many games of a static environment of "Tic-tac-toe", a fan may lament there are no more squares to be filled. However, in a roleplaying game, which is progressively more difficult, or in a 4x game, which is progressively introducing more elements and is more expansive as time passes, a gamer never laments not having their level one copper short-sword around... The gamer's experience and interpretation of the game must always broaden, not remain static. The interpretation of "size", given earlier, is only that of the late-game player and, even so, I think it's not fully thought out, considering the larger concerns of the late-game player in this type of "sandbox" experience.

As a player progresses, their concerns are no longer the concerns of "Early Game" players, but mature to those concerns typical of "Mid and Late" stage game players.

The late-game player already knows the galaxy is big. They already experienced that part of the game and introduction to the setting. However, now they have successfully achieved a game goal and are rewarded with even more "power" to effect new strategies and to be introduced to new gameplay concerns and mechanics.

The mid and late game player doesn't need to be constantly reminded of a "large" galaxy by having to repeatedly endure... tedium. That's a suffering that should rightly be placed firmly on younger-stage shoulders.

On "costs" associated with powerful game mechanics:

Yes, the jump-drive presents some issues, but I don't agree that all of these issues are truly as bad as they seem. For one thing, in X3TC, if you tried to jump a large fleet into a sector in order to battle the oncoming threat of another large fleet... good luck with that. They can't all be targeted for the same gate, otherwise they'll que up and take forever to warp in. And, gates can be widely separated. Also, good luck in their place in the jump-que for those gates, too, since the game doesn't care how important you think their mission is, that Boron trying to fly to that dock, no matter if it's being destroyed by a Xenon migration, has priority!

Remember?

Our memories of gameplay include the casual, but critical, habits we've developed. This is another issue with gamers who have spent most of their time in matured stages of gameplay - They sometimes forget the trials of their youth and forget the habits that they developed because of them that have served them so well in late-game play.

How to fix the perceived overpoweredness of currently used jump-drive mechanics:

This is simply done.

Very powerful gameplay mechanics must have a similar cost, in either in effort to achieve them, which makes these items a "reward" for that effort, or in the continuing costs of using them, which make them an "additional new game mechanic" for the player to structure new gameplay modes around. (IOW, even a great, wonderful, powerful "reward" should never, ever, become an "I WIN" button, reducing the impact and the experience of later gameplay.)

1) The jumpdrive mechanic as the player experiences it in the game is fine as it is. Range, fuel costs, cargo-size considerations, effort to acquire, perhaps limitations on supply, etc, are all fine aspects of design for that piece of gear. They don't need to be changed, if one considers how I experienced that mechanic in X3TC, with its compounding, under-the-hood, jump-gate mechanics, ques, and the like. A fine tradeoff, no problems with it.

2) The concerns you raise could be valid, depending upon the design of X4, a new and more robust engine, ets, all of which are things I can not know. However, if valid, then here's how you provide fixes and, more importantly, why these are appropriate:

A) Energy costs being a factor of mass size vs sector distance as an exponential equation. IOW, a large ship just doesn't require more e-cells, but each increase in gate distance seriously compounds the costs up to a point where large ships can not jump "across the galaxy." Instead, large fleet actions have to be planned by the player and staged, accordingly.

Why?

A player's satisfaction with a game is, in no small part, due to their understanding of the rules and their ability to use those known rules to make decisions on how to overcome obstacles. (Consider the pride when advanced players, who learn the mechanics, feel when they finally fine-tune IS and OS combat fleets and are rewarded with that feeling.)

The largest presumed threat, a large fleet in a sector, still presents a considerable problem for an unprepared player. This helps to continue such threats very far into late-game play, as no player should be reasonably able, given the game mechanic, to quickly respond to any and all threats simply because they have "Jump-Drive I WIN" buttons.

B) Ships will have certain systems disrupted for a short time upon arrival after using a jump-drive. Shields, weapon recharge, sensor limitations (IF the player didn't plan ahead and have a satellite present or, <gasp>, send Scouts, first, to provide data feeds to arriving ships!), engines, etc...

Why?

To be truly interesting, gameplay mechanics, even powerful ones, need to have multiple aspects of benefits vs costs. Very powerful gameplay elements traditionally have very serious risks. It's not until "End Game", when a player's power in a 4x/rpg is obviously supreme, as has been the point all along in order to "win", that the downsides of powerful mechanics are inconsequential.

It is the planning for and manipulation of these mechanics that provide for satisfying gameplay experiences, especially for the sort of target audience being considered, here. Each additional complexity in new, powerful, gaming mechanics adds to the player's experience. These new "fiddly bits" that are introduced in various stages of gameplay are what many players seek.

This provides for an evolving complexity in this sort of gameplay behavior. It's a development in stages, so that the player experiences new stages of play with each introduction of successfully acquired game items/powers. An early game player just goes through the gate and hopes for the best. A late-game player, even with the miracle of jump-drives, must plan their response, prepare for the use of jump-drives as a tactical element, and may have to limit their use of such a powerful mechanic, depending on the tactical situation.

These are all outstanding elements in a matured games and should be expanded upon rather than reduced.

Note: On the considerations of jump-drives for merchant ships. That has thought on, as well. It's fairly simple, though - Mechanics that may not effect advanced, jump-capable, AI merchant ships too severely, but impact military ships more directly, could be a jump-drive's temporary effect on shielding, weapons, a ship's ability to launch missiles, since it can't yet scan the sector until it recovers, limitations in speed or maneuverability, etc... ie: AI ships, the majority of which that would actually use a jump-drive being largely and more frequently limited to merchants, wouldn't be terribly effected by these mechanics. (My assumption for X4)

LASTLY! - Nothing in the above is any sort of dire problem and jump-drives are a fine mechanic, as they are. Any perceived problems, even real ones, can be easily solved by a bit of creative, setting-appropriate, gameplay mechanics.

Edit-Add: I need to add something, here, about the sort of thinking that should be done compared with a touchy issue that may have been thought upon, but wrongly, and that sort of quick "hit it with a hammer" approach may be evident right here, on the subject of jump-drives.

Some fans loudly voiced their dissatisfaction with flying many ships, voicing various complaints. (IF this was actually any consideration in XR) So, what seems to have appeared as a result was a "hit it with a hammer" approach, like removing jump-drives since someone perceives them as a problem - An insight I disagree with. So, in XR, you get one ship as a result, which ended up really being a turn-off for many long-time fans. The repercussions of removing jump-drives is no less dire, here, for a proposed X4 mechanic. It's serious business I think it's being "overthought" in the extreme, when the realities and the solutions are so very obvious.

[JSDD]

I think you are extremly overestimating gravitational slingshots
and by extremly I mean not just 1-2 orders of magnitude
But then again gravity assist maneuvers don't work that way. You don't circle around the moon. Once you do, you already messed it up. Slingshots are more like a rubber ball bouncing off a moving Plattform.

On a sidenote the ISS orbits around the earth in a height of 400 km at a speed of roughly 7500 m/s and still takes about 5 hours to complete a single orbit. (X-ships are usually around 100-200 m/s)

it doesnt have to be proportional, i proposed that more as a way of thinking how to "realize" it in X gameplay. swing-by to travel within 1 starsystem / sectorcluster, gates / jumpdrive / whatever (but NO "autobahn") to travel to other star-systems ...

and to make things "appear bigger", gates can only used to travel within 1 galaxy, to travel to another galaxy, you'd have to do something else, build a gatehub, harvest the energy from the center of the galaxy / black hole, whatever ...

just something else than X3 style or XR style, and a way of enjoying flight paths across star-systems and galaxies (perhaps without load screen...), "feeling" the environment around you a bit more ... and by the way, the game looks not that bad :thumb_up: maybe a bit, asteroids .. some of them were bright as others besides those looked darker, they should look a bit more uniformly, harvesting could also be collecting "asteroid dust" of saturn-type rings around some planets ...

[Morkonan]

I want to add something, here, in regards to "size" and the importance that developers and gamers appear to put on it.

It's all a lie.

It's not only a lie, in reality, since the environment in a standard computer game has no "size" and, theoretically, could be infinite, while also being a complete lie in terms of 3d, since traditional computer games are 2d representations of 3d...

However, a game setting's "size" is hype. It's a implied quality that actually has no positive and enjoyable meaning to anyone else other than people who find staring at a wall, for hours, watching paint dry.

"No Man's Sky" is the latest debacle based on someone's wacky idea that "size" or even the "feeling of yugeness" in a game is critically important to a gamer's experience.

"Elite Dangerous" is another recent title that hyped itself on its "size." And, perhaps, for people that enjoy just watching "space go by", it's a fine gameplay addition...

It's a lie. It's bogus. It's something that conscientious players and developers have to realize for what it is - It only serves to imply a degree of game content, regardless of whether or not the subject of content is actually brought up.

The relative "size" and its gameplay value betwee "TES:Morrowind" and "TES:Skyrim" has been hotly debated among fans, with the one notion of actual "content" being the only truly arguable point...

The size of the actual setting in X3:TC was never, ever, bigger than the simulated physical space in the sector the player was in. That's it. That's the "size" of the game, no matter its 200+ "sectors."

EVEN if one wishes to imply that because it takes three jumps to get from one side of the "size" of the game to the other, that is only, ever, an element of "time."

"Time" is not "Size" and "Size" has never been, and never will be, a true consideration in regards to the quality of a computer game.

Please, somebody, understand this before it's too late!

/sigh

[ADMNtek]

i also dont think that jump drives hurt exploration since you can only jump to places you have discovered. and i wouldnt even call them overpowerd. in XR capships jumprives were only able to jump around inside a system and only to fixed locations.

[surferx]

Thanks for the look ahead. And for keeping it real as well as the thought process that goes along with the game design decisions. This tiny glimpse was so beautiful I can't wait for the game and to get into it. Even considering pre-ordering now.

As for the jump drives, or lack of, maybe jumping around all the sectors in the game makes you lose out on the feeling of the living and breathing concept of the universe not to mention losing out on experiencing the beauty of the game. Personally I look forward to spending hundreds of hours immersing into the gameplay. There will be so many layers of fighting, trading, building and exploring. This is not shaping up to be a game you can get into and finish in a few hours.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I can see that the removal of the jump drive will require the player to think more strategically, they will have to plan more to get the required resources to the correct place in time and space.

My only problem is the choke points.

Gate AI behaviour has always been a problem.

To mitigate some of the silliness associated with gates, could I suggest making them one way only. Thus travel between clusters will require two gates.

With super-highways there were always a pair to get to and from a sector.
Maybe this could be extended to all means of travel.

[Graaf]

Look, I almost exclusively fly small transports in X3. I have no interest in flying fighters.

I spend almost all my time in X3 flying Transports (TS/TP-class) trading between stations.

Disussing strategic aspects of the loss of jumpdrives.

Maybe even add the restriction of an XRM-Mod to only allow them on a XL-cargo ship (yes, I'm using proper X3 definitions).

What would be the rationale for allowing only X3 TS-style ships to use jumpdrives in X4?

Non. But I won't use my TS/TP to jump to the defence of other ships. And at most I fly to a neighbouring system for trades. No need to use a Jumpdrive.

But I merely made a suggestion to keep the Jumpdrive by limiting it to certain ships.

But does this mean the X3-cargo classification is back?

[saco3]

On the subject of the jump drive this is a quote from a youtube comment on the stream video.

"I think the solution to the Jump Drive is you should need a capital ship. If you have a capital ship u should be able to jump your fleet. You could also make it that if you upgrade your capital ship you can increase the amount of fleet size you can jump. This could not only prevent the discouragement of exploration but also makes it reasonable to actually go medium to long distances as an advanced player in the game." [Comment by Gun Ray]

I think this is a good idea to consider, it won't make jumping easy nor contribute to players not doing any exploration. Jump drive is a something I really would like to see in the game and I don't think am alone in that. In most of my games I take my time exploring and when I do my empire building I tend to jump around allot in order to bring the various resources needed to build stations or ships or anything else. Its needed for advanced players to avoid having trading or building becoming a tedious grind.

I could be wrong but I think a somewhat similar system is used on Eve online where a capital ship is used to jump on its own or have it help a fleet of smaller ships jump. You could make the upgrade level and size of the capital ship a factor like having it influence the distance you can jump.

[Killjaeden]

As I said, placing limitations on jump destinations doesn't solve the problem. Either the limitations are too weak and the jumpdrive remains overpowered, or they are too effective in which case the jumpdrive serves no purpose. The scenario you describe pretty much falls into the overlap between these two, where it is overpowered in some situations and yet pointless for some of the key scenarios where it might actually be useful.

Yes you said it, but its polarized view and simply untrue. There can be a middle ground where it provides real and interesting gameplay value and decision making without making it a no-brainer. Stellaris provides the proof that you can have multiple travel systems with differing speeds if you needed one.

[Juggernaut93]

On a sidenote the ISS orbits around the earth in a height of 400 km at a speed of roughly 7500 m/s and still takes about 5 hours to complete a single orbit. (X-ships are usually around 100-200 m/s)

The ISS completes an orbit in ~90 minutes.

[-Dna-]

As I said, placing limitations on jump destinations doesn't solve the problem. Either the limitations are too weak and the jumpdrive remains overpowered, or they are too effective in which case the jumpdrive serves no purpose. The scenario you describe pretty much falls into the overlap between these two, where it is overpowered in some situations and yet pointless for some of the key scenarios where it might actually be useful.

Yes you said it, but its polarized view and simply untrue. There can be a middle ground where it provides real and interesting gameplay value and decision making without making it a no-brainer. Stellaris provides the proof that you can have multiple travel systems with differing speeds if you needed one.

Without comparing with other games, I think that Morkonan explained very well why there is no gameplay reasons to remove this feature.

I agree with his opinion and in the meantime I accept the decision made by Egosoft.
Knowing that the first DLC will bring back Jumpdrives for only size XL Boron military ships!

[Caldazar]

Thank you very much for the detailed explanations on highways and SETA, CBJ. To me it's always interesting to learn about the thought process that goes into game design decisions.

I like the idea of not having a jumpdrive in X4. My main problem with the X3 implementation was that it really made the universe tiny. You could get almost anywhere within a minute or so. The limitations imposed on the jumpdrive in XR made it lot better, IMO. They don't solve the tactical problem, of course.

It seems like the teleporter will, eventually, let you get practically anywhere within minutes. I'm a bit wary that, much like the jumpdrive in X3, it will make the universe feel small. That is one of my two main concerns about X4, so I just wanted to mention it even though we don't know much about the teleporter yet. I'm curios how this will turn out. Not taking your ships with you might actually be enough of a limitation.

[Having highways in densely-populated areas]also helps with the perception of how busy such an area is since a player travelling along through the area will see more ships.

That reminds me of the first time I got to OL in XR. Huge stations, many different highways, and a seemingly densely populated planet. At that moment Albion started feeling like a backwater.

While we are at the topic of fast travel, can you tell us a bit about boosting? Not necessarily how it will be implemented in X4, but the design goals, possible solutions and their drawbacks? Essentially just what you did for jumpdrives and SETA. That would be very much appreciated.

Without claiming to have considered all aspects of it, I'd implement the boost drive like this: The moment you activate it, it deactivates shields and weapons. You need the energy for the engines, after all. Then it needs a few seconds to actually activate. Those two aspects in combination make sure that the boost can not be used as a "get out of battle for free" card. After that, you accelerate to "travel speed" and can maintain it indefinitely. When you deactivate the booster, you slow down again and shields+weapons recharge. That means you can't boost directly into a battle with guns blazing, so it maintains the strategic element of having to think ahead.

Now I'm sure I have missed some absolutely crucial gameplay aspect of that booster design. Anyone care to point it out?

[Caldazar]

As I said, placing limitations on jump destinations doesn't solve the problem. Either the limitations are too weak and the jumpdrive remains overpowered, or they are too effective in which case the jumpdrive serves no purpose. The scenario you describe pretty much falls into the overlap between these two, where it is overpowered in some situations and yet pointless for some of the key scenarios where it might actually be useful.

Yes you said it, but its polarized view and simply untrue. There can be a middle ground where it provides real and interesting gameplay value and decision making without making it a no-brainer. Stellaris provides the proof that you can have multiple travel systems with differing speeds if you needed one.

The Stellaris designers actually consider the three different FTL types to be a "major design headache" (if i remember that quote correctly). They talk about it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w7MyDPhuy8

[Nikola515]

All thought im happy about how game looks like I'm disappointed about jumpdrive I think they should take different approach to jumpdrive.... Instead of making it instant they should put timer on it.... It takes time to travel trough wormhole to get to your location. We can teleport to ship and than keep enemies in bay until our fleet arrives. I hope someone can mod this to game becuse it will make many players mad and annoyed.

Anyway keep up the good job Ego and I hope we can see some actual combat (dogfighting) soon

Edit: There is nothing more epic in space games than when you are in middle of battle and your fleet jumps/arrives to your location.

[Tamina]

Most of those "limitations" to justify the need of a jump drive pretty much go into the direction of the teleporter feature.
Maybe Egosoft should just rename the teleporter to jump drive.

For me personally I am waiting for how it works out in the final game and if the jump drive is really needed then I am sure Egosoft is going to implement it like they did with SETA.
If Egosoft has established something over the last years then that they are supporting their games for a long time.

Don't Panic

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Reactive:

X3 Jump to destination then Order fleet to jump to your position.

Unless you are using a mod this means they come through a gate.

Watch in total disbelief as half of your fleet lose all of their shields getting to
you from the gate.


Strategy and planning:

X4 Ensure that you favourite ship and its load out is part of your attack fleet.

Tell the attack fleet to move to position and defend it.

When fleet has arrived, teleport to your favourite ship.