Suggestion thread: Teleportation, ejection and escape pods.

[Nanook]

The OP's idea is very good. Save and load becomes a crutch to avoid loss and setback ....

It was also a tool that allowed the player to experiment with different tactics and strategies. I'd hate not having that ability in an X game.

And as has been pointed out, I am not advocating for the removal of those features Just alternatives.

And I was replying to zanzal in this case, not you.

[Morkonan]

"Teleportation" is a terrible idea, especially in any case where such a mechanic can allow the player to escape the consequences of either their own mistakes or the natural dangers that prowl the galaxy.

It's dumb.

It's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of in a game that could even come close to an "X" game.

It's the sort of thing that a non-game-designer would put into a game, pat themselves on the back for having thunked it up, then be mystified when it turns into a thematic game-breaking farce that firmly seats the player at their gaming desk, finger hovering over the "I WIN, TELEPORT" button instead of inside the confines of a cockpit, flying in deep-space, trying to escape "horrible_space_beast_098."

To me, the only reason anyone would think this is a "good idea" when designing a game like this would be that they are relying on it as a work-around for some other problem that would take more thunking and work in order to solve.

Time to stack up a bunch of ships within teleport range so I can have the convenience of not having to save-scum difficult encounters. Amiright? Who should really have to worry when they're taking on a Q and risk everything they've done since the last save because they haven't been able to get to a dock that sells Insurance? Whew! Glad I now have the "Automagically Trivialize Most Encounters Button!"

[caleb]

There is no real solution, because there is no real problem. People will just play differently, and find what works for them.

Some people will not do save-scumming, because they can live with the losses of a bad trade or decisions. Others will abuse that save/load button.

Some people would pile up ships with teleport to avoid dying, others may not because they like the risk.

Some people will not buy a station unless they have 30 Million left over, others will buy that station as soon as humanly possible, and scrape through the first hours barely getting by.

So there is no one-solution fits all. So we should have the option on game start to set the "death" penalty. Like any other setting.

Personally, I would love to have some kind of escapepod mechanic. I admit I'm not the hottest pilot out there, and while I know some of you can take down an M0 in an M5, that's not me. So the ability to escape death, and just have a credit penalty (ship loss) would be fine for me.

So I think it's all about having options. We are all different after all.

[surferx]

The player not having the 'ability' to actually die ingame decreases the believability, IMO. It also removes a lot of the tension when the player is in a dangerous position if the player knows they can't die. Just losing assets doesn't have the same fear factor. 'Death' in games like these adds to the excitement, IMO, and is a necessary part of the experience.

[Edited to fix quote]
Exactly. If anything would be the "bane of gaming" it would be not having the *option* to learn, reload, strategize and continue. If you want to play DID, or loss of ship you have that option too without it being forced on you.
Never did understand some players wanting to impose their playing styles on all.

[Morkonan]

...So I think it's all about having options. We are all different after all.

I agree. In fact, I have no problem at all with "save-scumming", for instance. I don't even have a problem with it to overcome certain game mechanics, like reloading in order to get a "better roll" on some randomized game element.

But, that's a mechanic that's outside of the "game." If I have a big monitor and can see distant ships more clearly, is that a cheat?

But, in X3TC, one of the mechanics was based around the player's ability to save/reload the game. If you bought "Insurance", then you could save anywhere. If you didn't, you could only save at a dock. So, there was a cost associated with saving the game for convenience and a risk if you didn't purposefully attempt to gain a specific resource. No problem, it worked, no biggie.

My issues with it aren't specific to just a player's immortality. It's just... a dumb thing to have in the game. So, having this technology has what impact, for instance? Is it "magic" and only the player has access to it? It doesn't appear so. Is it some "ancient tech" that has to be researched? OK, I guess... But, then what? If I research it, why can't I just teleport GIANT EXPLODEY MISSILES all over the place instead of having to send a ship somewhere to actually fire them?

What purpose does it serve? Jump from ship to ship? Then, distance has little meaning in a game that draws on "distance" as part of its foundations? (Getting things from place to place, patrols, stations in specific areas, overall theme of "this is a big palette you're painting your gameplay experience upon.")

It just doesn't "fit" very well. It's the sort of "fast-travel" mechanic in some roleplaying games, but actually added as a "thing" in the game, itself.

"Ah, I see you fast-traveled here." said NoNPCinSkyrim, ever. The "illusion" of "big spaces" needs to be maintained for all the development work put into "big spaces" to actually pay off. I don't mean it has to actually mean the player has to "walk" everywhere, since walking simulations are their own genre. BUT, the illusion of big spaces is part of the setting/theme and it shouldn't be watered down too much, else the effect is lost.

Jumpgates are fine, since you have to actually get to either get to one in order to use it or you have to have the e-cells to "teleport" to one and jumpgates are always "static", meaning they won't always offer you a safe arrival or advantages.

If there is "teleporting" in the game, it absolutely must come with a "cost" and it must have disadvantages associated with it that other means of travel do not have. If it's "all powerful" in what it does, it'll have the same effect as being awarded a +10 Holy Vorpal Sword of Doom as a level 1 character, trivializing a lot of game elements that are ultimately necessary for a good gaming experience.

Just my two coppers. Egosoft may do it wonderfully and it'll be the equivalent of "Beer and Pizza" for every gamer that experiences it... I still think it's stupid, though.

[caleb]

Lots of good stuff

And you bring other really good points. More to do with "lore" but perfectly valid.

Again, I guess everyone is different, and I'm fine with having a teleporter for the player, but not weapons (like the old X games). I value gameplay over accuracy, or loreability I guess. But, once again, we are all different and neither is right or wrong

Instead of teleporters, I would prefer more of a remote control scheme. I'm sitting in my well defended M2, or player base, and can control my assets remotely. Heck, we can do that now! military personnel control drones from the other side of the world so I think it's a valid scheme, and would allow losing a ship without dying because you are not actually there. It would fit better with Lore, avoid teleporters (that do open a big can of worms like you explained), and allow flying ships with lesser risk for us pilots with two left feet.

There are ways around each problem, but I also know that not everyone would probably like that option either. There is no single solution that would be agreeable for everyone unfortunately

[zanzal]

I'm a little surprised by how strongly some object to the idea of an escape pod. I mean its not like your average military jet doesn't have an ejection seat in it. And how realistic is it that a ship instantly explodes when the hull goes to 0? Its just a mechanic that helps simplify game play. In X:R capital ships even take 30 seconds or so to blow up, plenty of time to get into the escape pod/teleporter pad.. (maybe not)

BTW, anyone else ever feel slightly bad blowing up a capital ship knowing the occupants all die? Just me? Good thing its only a game.....

[RAVEN.myst]

If I research it, why can't I just teleport GIANT EXPLODEY MISSILES all over the place instead of having to send a ship somewhere to actually fire them?

This (and related aspects) have always bothered me with regards to teleportation in "sci fi". In Stargate Atlantis, the Daedalus (I think) is equipped with Asgard technology, and then at some point much later, one character (Sheppard, I think?) suggests (paraphrasing here) "Hey, why don't we use this to beam the nukes directly onto the hive ships?", which always made me think "YTF aren't they using this as the default delivery mechanism ALL THE TIME already? Why bother with missiles and railguns and what-not at all?" And so of course the Wraith quickly "adapt" by spontaneously learning how to jam the beaming signal.

In Star Trek, you occasionally see transporter being tested with some "innocuous test canister" (clearly implying the possibility of delivering a less-harmless item), yet I can't offhand remember a single time they beamed over a bomb (no doubt there MUST be at least one instance, but my memory fails me) - ST relies on the "fact" that shields block transporting, granted, but whenever the shields have been penetrated, the only suitable application is to beam over a boarding away team, never the simple solution.

The point is, teleportation is such a powerful concept that it invariably ends up necessitating some (often clumsily) contrived countermeasure in order to prevent it from completely dominating the narrative - and even then, it often ends up introducing messy inconsistencies.

I'm with Morkonan here: I see teleportation as an overly magicky crutch (ab)used by world-builders/storytellers/developers in order to lazily circumvent some (to be fair, at times thorny) problem without having to think up a proper solution. The more "serious" a game or book or film, the less seriously I can take the use of teleportation in it, and therefore the more damage it does to my opinion of the title, whatever its medium. Thus, in an arcadey sort of game or a pulpy movie or book, I don't mind teleportation - why? Because I'm already not taking the game/story seriously, so I don't particularly care. Or, for instance, when a show such as Red Dwarf takes liberties with plausibility, I don't care because that's not what it's about - it's about the humour, the comedy. But X (along with the VAST majority of what I enjoy, whatever the medium) is not comedy, and "technologies" such as teleportation tend to turn it all into farces (in my opinion.)

Instead of teleporters, I would prefer more of a remote control scheme. I'm sitting in my well defended M2, or player base, and can control my assets remotely. Heck, we can do that now! military personnel control drones from the other side of the world so I think it's a valid scheme, and would allow losing a ship without dying because you are not actually there. It would fit better with Lore, avoid teleporters (that do open a big can of worms like you explained), and allow flying ships with lesser risk for us pilots with two left feet.

I also think that telepresence would make a more believable way to implement a teleportation equivalent, and it would bring certain restrictions with it: you can't take stuff along with you, for instance.

In EVE ONline, there is a sort of middle ground, called "clone jumping", which can be thought of as "consciousness teleportation/transmission". A player can, while docked at a suitable station or a specially outfitted capital ship, transfer his/her consciousness to another ready body clone, which needs to have been installed previously; the total number of clones a character can have is determined by a certain character skill. Clones are costly, and can be installed only in stations with clone vat facilities. Whenever a clone is abandoned (jumped out of, when jumping into another), it remains as a viable clone jump destination point thereafter. There is a (LOOOOONG) cooldown period between clone jumps (the lore indicates it's due to the need to recover from the neural trauma - plausible enough to be elegant), which can be somewhat shortened by training a skill. When a player jumps from one clone body to another, he/she leaves behind all assets (ship, wares, equipment) and neural implants - only the consciousness is transferred.

This system is about the closest I've found to an elegant implementation of an effective teleportation equivalent that doesn't bring with it a host of potential threats to the very integrity of the universe.

BTW, anyone else ever feel slightly bad blowing up a capital ship knowing the occupants all die? Just me? Good thing its only a game.....

A good point - and I don't, but not because of (even notional) callousness on my part, but because EgoSoft have completely failed to portray (to me) capital ships as large vessels crewed by large complements of people - at MOST, I think of the captain, DO, and engineer, even though intellectually I know they are meant to be the "heads of departments" rather than the entire crew. Then again, upon boarding a ship, what happens to the existing crew? Do they ALL survive the firefight and then automatically defect (with 100% trustworthiness)? If not, how do I refill the ship's crew complement? Do the captain, DO, and engineer have Timelord-tech-based pockets, allowing them to bring with them bunches of subordinates? It also doesn't feel (to me) as though the so-called "capital" ships are really capacious enough to accommodate large crew complements...

[Axeface]

[Edited to fix quote]
Exactly. If anything would be the "bane of gaming" it would be not having the *option* to learn, reload, strategize and continue. If you want to play DID, or loss of ship you have that option too without it being forced on you.
Never did understand some players wanting to impose their playing styles on all.

Im not sure why I have to keep repeating this. I am not suggesting that anything should be imposed on anyone. I never said there shouldnt be reloading or saving, nanooks comment was as out of context as yours.
If you are absolutely opposed to the idea that npc's at least should be able to eject, to give the game any sense of realism, then i'de like you to explain why. Or would you prefer that game AI remain exactly as it is and doesnt progress at all? Please explain why X4 with the mechanics I suggested would be a worse game than without them?

BTW, anyone else ever feel slightly bad blowing up a capital ship knowing the occupants all die? Just me? Good thing its only a game.....

Yes, I do. It's one of my alterior motives for posting this thread, and I hinted at it with my earlier comment about 'npcs and their own self interest'.
I think it's a logical and in fact inevitable progression (especially in games that even try to be some-what 'realistic') in game design that AI will start to actually give a hoot about their own lives.

[Vandragorax]

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on escape pods. I've seen it done both ways in the X series and neither way really bothered me at all.

What I do agree with is those comments saying that teleportation as a technology to let us fly any of our ships is quite ridiculous.

It should instead be called "remote piloting" and involve us parking our current ship in our HQ and then using some kind of VR device to hop into indirect control of other ship assets that we control. This way we'd also not be 'scared' about losing the current asset as our link would simply be terminated and we could remote into something else. But this also cuts out the risky gameplay elements or the feeling of exploring deep space personally, so I can see why they don't want to do remote control like we had with Rebirth drones.

[Morkonan]

...It would fit better with Lore, avoid teleporters (that do open a big can of worms like you explained), and allow flying ships with lesser risk for us pilots with two left feet.

And, there you have it - "Less risk." "Less risk" of the dangers of piloting a ship, yourself, into combat, which is in a game that has ship combat as a primary game activity for the player...

See?

"Ordering" one's ships, like with a sort of RTS map mechanic is a bit different. It's understood that those ships, those "pilots" and crews, are "on their own" and the player hopes they do their best... Sometimes, the player decides that the situation is critical enough and their survival is important enough that they must take a more direct hand in things and they have to be a part of the combat. So, they fly there.

But, what about lone patrols off in the far reaches of space that the player can't easily get to in time if something "bad" happens? That's part of the risk inherent in the game, too. The player has to build and plan for those sorts of things. And, when the player's empire becomes much larger? They may be faced with more dangerous choices, like having to fly to a sector to help defending a station or leading an offensive when, suddenly, another warning comes up that a station on the opposite side of the galaxy is under attack. Choices have consequences and planning for those consequences are part of the game, too.

I'm not saying that players should actually have to die, in real life, if their character does... I'm not saying that certain convenience mechanics shouldn't be in the game and that the player should have to walk uphill, in space, after first building that hill, in order to accomplish anything.

What I'm saying is that watering down the impact of a game's primary game-play activities and the feelings of risk and reward the real-life experiences from participating in those is A Very, Very, Bad Idea ™.

..There is no single solution that would be agreeable for everyone unfortunately

I usually take strong stands on things in order to test the validity of my own beliefs and assumptions.

However, in this instance, I'm "testing" nothing of the sort. I think that those who believe, with the information we have at hand, which is admittedly little, that any form of "teleporting" the "player-avatar" around the map, to enter/control other ships, especially in combat, is A Very, Very, Bad Idea ™ and that adherents to it are not fully thinking it through, preferring to value the notion of "convenience" rather than acknowledge the effect this will have on a player's ultimate satisfaction with the game as they experience it.

Fight in a tense, one-on-one, battle, with the risk of player-death on the line? That's good! Fight in a tense, one-on-one, battle, with the risk of losing one ship out of many and the possibility that one can just jump into another ship in order to continue or fight that battle, again? Dumb.. At least in an Xgame. (In a true, RTS, where "units" are just "units", then it's actually a bonus gettting to experience that from the unit-level point of view. In an Xgame, the unit value and risks are not so watered down.)

This (and related aspects) have always bothered me with regards to teleportation in "sci fi"...

Although, I think that Star Trek did a good job with it, refusing to abuse it too much. After all, it was originally developed due to budget constraints, since it cost too much to create "shuttle flying to and landing on a planet" sequences. They made wine out of vinegar and came up with something scientificky that fans could argue about over generations!

... yet I can't offhand remember a single time they beamed over a bomb (no doubt there MUST be at least one instance, but my memory fails me) - ST relies on the "fact" that shields block transporting, granted, but whenever the shields have been penetrated, the only suitable application is to beam over a boarding away team, never the simple solution.

In ToS they used it to steal a cloaking device and, more significantly, beam a hold full of Tribbles onto a Klingon ship... There were a couple of weaponized uses, but I can't recall the specifics. They may have been in TNG. It's worth noting, however, that while Captain Kirk often fought deviously against his foes, he never fought "dishonorably." Transporting a photon-torpedo onto an enemy ship or in ways that result in killing people would be sort of outside of his canonical personality. Killing machines, on the other hand, wouldn't be or in dire situations where the act saves many lives and only kills "really, really, bad guys."

The point is, teleportation is such a powerful concept that it invariably ends up necessitating some (often clumsily) contrived countermeasure in order to prevent it from completely dominating the narrative - and even then, it often ends up introducing messy inconsistencies.

Exactly so. This is the "Ultimate Weapon" problem that usually presents itself in serialized stories, typically with a "finale" of a storyline. The writer writes up the drama, choosing the trope of an ever-increasingly-powerful-foe, ending up with a problem that can only ever, only be solved by inventing "Kryptonite."

OK, so now what? Now you have Kryptonite all over the place and, in future stories, the storyline has to either involve someone getting it, avoiding it or excusing it out of the way with something that nullifies it or otherwise takes it out of play, so fans can't scream "Just use/avoid the Kryptonite and the problem is solved!"

Kryptonite is dramatic. Kryptonite is powerful! Kryptonite destroys stories, settings and themes, requiring much more work than went into its creation or relative to the problem it originally solved...

Instead of teleporters, I would prefer more of a remote control scheme. I'm sitting in my well defended M2, or player base, and can control my assets remotely. Heck, we can do that now! military personnel control drones from the other side of the world so I think it's a valid scheme, and would allow losing a ship without dying because you are not actually there. It would fit better with Lore, avoid teleporters (that do open a big can of worms like you explained), and allow flying ships with lesser risk for us pilots with two left feet.

And we were agreeing so well! Ack!

See the portion of my post, above. "Remote Piloting" has the same effect as "Teleportation." I don't mind the sort of "RTS-Like" mechanic of ordering assets around like we have in X3TC (I never played XR). That's an RTS element, albeit an ultimately minor one, given the player's understanding of the assets involved, that has become part of a player's game in the later stages of play. OK, that's fine - The player's avatar, what the player is most concerned with, isn't personally risked, but the assets, which have value, are. The player knows that if they participate in the battle, the odds will be increased in their favor, but the risks to their avatar will be substantially increased. That's a dilemma that the player faces. It's a choice with definite consequences.

Now, that choice is off the table. No worries, you won't have to leave the comfort of your primary ship or station! Enjoy your latte while engaging in "intense" battles that won't ever have any dire consequences other than some credits and a bit of time. Your avatar is safe! Isn't that relieving?

"Whew, glad that I didn't actually have to fight that battle, myself! Oh well, another battle done with. I better go log into Minecraft and do some really deep mining. I hope someone comes up with a mod so I don't have to worry about getting jumped by spiders, anymore! Or, maybe so I don't have to mine anything, at all! THAT'D BE GREAT CONVENIENCE!"

...This system is about the closest I've found to an elegant implementation of an effective teleportation equivalent that doesn't bring with it a host of potential threats to the very integrity of the universe.

And, it has a large list of costs with a very large list of possible drawbacks. So, to use that system effectively, there has to be a very large investment in actually using it, by the player. I'm not familiar with it, but it seems to have a fairly "balanced" use. Also, I think we have to keep in mind that it's in a multiplayer game. That has additional demands placed on certain sorts of mechanics that allow players to participate in events with each other. In World of Warcraft, they came up with a class ability that allowed players to "teleport" other players to them. In EverQuest, they came up with abilities to allow others to use conveniently located teleporters to teleport groups of people, so they could be within somewhat convenient "running distance" of each other. (I can't remember if they ultimately allowed direct-to-person teleporting or not.)

These are the sorts of mechanics that one expects to either be in the "setting" of a multiplayer game or that are provided for in the game's "utilities" like matchmaking, lobbies, joining another player's "instances" and the like. Most importantly, this is a mechanic that acts to support the game's primary gameplay - Multiplayer. It supports that primary activity.

What if the game, instead, acted to make that purported "primary activity" more difficult or not very rewarding? How much value would the player then place upon it?

[Sandalpocalypse]

And, there you have it - "Less risk." "Less risk" of the dangers of piloting a ship, yourself, into combat, which is in a game that has ship combat as a primary game activity for the player...

A weird stance. Quicksaves make X combat completely risk free. A player who teleports out of a doomed ship - whether or not there are escape pods - is one who is accepting loss, and therefore intrinsically actually accepting risk in combat. Afterall the player loses nothing by dying.

Typically in X games if you can't beat a fight after quick-loading several times then you just avoid it; you never actually risk anything within the game system itself.

This aspect is core gameplay, as opposed to the relatively rare and mostly late game RTS attention-budget problems you are outlining. Teleportation improves that gameplay because it lets people engage in core gameplay in that situation. In any case typically when something is in trouble far away in X games thus far it has been a total lost cause even with jump drives. We'll see if that changes.

[Vandragorax]

And, there you have it - "Less risk." "Less risk" of the dangers of piloting a ship, yourself, into combat, which is in a game that has ship combat as a primary game activity for the player...

A weird stance. Quicksaves make X combat completely risk free. A player who teleports out of a doomed ship - whether or not there are escape pods - is one who is accepting loss, and therefore intrinsically actually accepting risk in combat. Afterall the player loses nothing by dying.

Typically in X games if you can't beat a fight after quick-loading several times then you just avoid it; you never actually risk anything within the game system itself.

This aspect is core gameplay, as opposed to the relatively rare and mostly late game RTS attention-budget problems you are outlining. Teleportation improves that gameplay because it lets people engage in core gameplay in that situation. In any case typically when something is in trouble far away in X games thus far it has been a total lost cause even with jump drives. We'll see if that changes.

I agree with this. Save/Load mechanics mean that there is absolutely zero risk involved with any activity in X games, you never truly lose anything.

The real question here seems to be: Why is there a difference between losing a ship when the player is not in control, as opposed to losing a ship when the player IS in control?

Perhaps automatic escape pods would help resolve this requirement to constantly save and load games if things don't go to plan. (Just eject the player into space in a pod that will fly to the nearest friendly capital ship/station so they can remotely buy/send a new ship to pick themselves up. - that way we actually will lose ships/assets but the player and the game will be able to continue without resorting to loading a previous safe state).

[gbjbaanb]

The real question here seems to be: Why is there a difference between losing a ship when the player is not in control, as opposed to losing a ship when the player IS in control?

One is "cheating" where you know what you're doing. The other is easy gameplay where the risk of losing is nullified. See, if you save to avoid bad things, you know you're doing it to avoid your mistakes. Fair enough and its up to you, but you make that conscious decision, hopefully with nobody looking

The other, you just have an easy game where you never lose. Dull. The element of risk is important to all games. The ones that do not have it are those that pander to a certain demographic, usually younger, who think that they should win all the time without any effort. I've seen this approach destroy some really good games as they add in "I win" mechanics to attract this type of player, players who get bored too quickly and end up not staying anyway.

[RAVEN.myst]

I've seen this approach destroy some really good games as they add in "I win" mechanics to attract this type of player, players who get bored too quickly and end up not staying anyway.

...and at the same time, those players who enjoy a challenge are kept or driven away - and when those are the existing, loyal fans, the game's customer base evaporates. So, in an attempt to "broaden appeal" in order to "attract a wider audience" (which is a high-risk proposition, as those are unknowns that inevitably include at least a proportion of dilettantes with ADD who poke their heads in, take a look around, and are gone just as quickly), proven loyal customers are alienated and driven off...

Yes, I've seen this happen before, too (and been among those "formerly loyal fans" on a couple of occasions.)

[Morkonan]

...A weird stance. Quicksaves make X combat completely risk free. A player who teleports out of a doomed ship - whether or not there are escape pods - is one who is accepting loss, and therefore intrinsically actually accepting risk in combat. Afterall the player loses nothing by dying.

Typically in X games if you can't beat a fight after quick-loading several times then you just avoid it; you never actually risk anything within the game system itself...

In X3TC, you had to have bought "Insurance" to be able to save anywhere you wished. The risk there was losing what you've done since your last saved game and whether or not you could get to a dock in order to save the game before you entered a risky situation.

There's a thematic, immersive, difference between using a common "reload" mechanic and what goes on in a player's head when they're immersed in a game.

Yes, you can save and reload and, logically, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't judge. I don't want anyone's play experience to be more difficult or less fulfilling. If any form of "cheating", if a reload mechanic could be considered that, helps to improve the individual's play experience, I'm all for that! Hardcore is hardcore and softcore is more funnerer...

But, it's more about the "feeling" of risk/reward and the significance of the player's actual presence, their avatar's presence, in the game that concerns me. It's also the importance of a player's assets and the player's willingness to risk them to accomplish certain goals. Should the player have to learn how to construct and automate certain fleets if all they have to do is just "teleport" to take command of the most awesomest ship in order to make victory more likely? Is that giant Xenon fleet truly a threat to the player if they can easily "escape?" Does the player have to even fly a ship, past a certain stage, or can they just opt to teleport around to some strategically placed ones?


I've done a bit of thunking on the possibilities, the "whys" and "hows" of the idea of "teleportation" of an avatar. There is one possible bonus to this that could be something the developers consider to be worth the pitfalls:

It can serve to get the player personally "into the action" wherever it is.

That could be a good benefit and it's only fair that I admit its usefulness and its advantages.

However, and it's a big "however", such a powerful mechanic with so many possibilities of harm must, absolutely, come with some very serious restrictions and should, in my opinion, come with some penalties, especially one of "increased risk."

OK, so, to offset the worries I have for such a mechanic, here's some examples that could, maybe, possibly, help to alleviate some, but not all, of my concerns:

1) Upon arrival, the player can not order the host ship to "Jump" or use anything like that, tele-presence operations included, and may not teleport again for xx time period, else the player will "die" due to hand-wavy scientificky stuffs... (This ramps up the cost, requires planning behavior, and increases the risk the player is willing to accept for this power.)

Since it's doubtful any "Jump" mechanic will be in the game, which is another bad decision IMO, but whatev's...

2) Upon arrival, the energy used to transport the avatar will cause random, detrimental, effects upon the host-ship's systems. (This could have an effect, reducing a "teleported" avatar's abilities in a tense situation and increasing the desirability of actually flying there, for realz, keeping that standard game mechanic as a powerful one, so it is not severely diminished by a teleport mechanic.)

Shields, weapon performance, engine performance, maneuverability, energy use - All these and more could have a chance of being negatively effected by the "teleport", which further limits the negative impacts this mechanic could have by reducing its effectiveness in the very situations where it could be most detrimental.

Goal - Reducing the negative impacts this could have on play and the player's experience while keeping its assumed "utility" that the devs may be thinking about as well as retaining the value of "standard" game mechanics the player has experienced throughout their play up to this point. (It appears to be end-game research, so preserving the value of game experience past that point is critical.) ie: This is not an "I WIN" button and it will not severely reduce the impact of everything the player has built and experienced so far... hopefully.

[FunkDooBiesT]

The pods were in X rebirth but extremely limited. The issue for me was that this was not a option to the player only to the NPC's.

For me the teleporting side of saving your ass would require some effort and not just open map and click twice. It should be a dedicated room/console at least. So if you want that option you would need to leave the pilot seat and run for the teleporter.

I don't know what they have planed for the interiors of these multiple craft that we now have. I just know that if I can have my Albion pride with all the OP shit I needed on it to fight 3 fleets at once. Then I'll be happy.

As for giving the player the option of using pods, this would enter into the game allot of new dynamics being that the player can now be pirated by NPC's. Would be a nice extra problem and reason to have some back-up.

Limiting the amount of time a pod can survive in space would also be a nice touch. So if you find yourself in one you would need to get to a trade lane or find/call help fast.

Anyway my thoughts on it.