COMPLETED CG Ammonia World Survey Campaign (Exploration)

[Ian Doncaster]

Yes - a bit unfortunate, since the key feature of an Ammonia World isn't the ammonia in the atmosphere, but the presence of liquid ammonia on the surface.

Plenty of AWs don't even have ammonia as a listed (i.e. top-3) atmospheric component, which isn't necessarily a surprise (Earth is basically a fancy water world, but water vapour is only 4th in our atmosphere)

 

[DjVortex]

Always read the fine print:

"Aegis has urgently requested an update to our database of terrestrial planets with ammonia atmospheres."

I suppose they pulled a fast one on me, because I thought that "planets with ammonia atmospheres" means planets with ammonia atmospheres, but I suppose it's not what it actually means.

And I interrupted a quite long exploration trip for this. For nothing.

 

[Neilski]

It's poorly worded, to be kind about it.

 

[Coehoorn]

"Aegis has urgently requested an update to our database of terrestrial planets with ammonia atmospheres."

I suppose they pulled a fast one on me, because I thought that "planets with ammonia atmospheres" means planets with ammonia atmospheres, but I suppose it's not what it actually means.

And I interrupted a quite long exploration trip for this. For nothing.

First of all, terrestrial planets with an ammonia atmosphere. That's what they're called in game, too, as far as I remember.
Second, the exploration data bonus is x4 for this CG. So even just selling what you have and continuing to explore is already more than "nothing".

 

[AceMcKool]

"Aegis has urgently requested an update to our database of terrestrial planets with ammonia atmospheres."

I suppose they pulled a fast one on me, because I thought that "planets with ammonia atmospheres" means planets with ammonia atmospheres, but I suppose it's not what it actually means.

 

[HappySpaceInvdr]

By design. Scanned worlds count as one, mapped worlds count as three.

I don’t think that’s the case, I just handed in a scanned and mapped Ammonia World, and my mission still says “0 Reports Submitted”.

 

[Zalwig]

I don’t think that’s the case, I just handed in a scanned and mapped Ammonia World, and my mission still says “0 Reports Submitted”.

It should count. Either you haven´t signed up or you give it some minutes to register.

 

[SlickPBW]

Does anyone know if the increased payouts from the last exploration CG counted toward exploration rank?

 

[GraphiteGB]

Ok done for this CG 1 planets mapped, 3 points banked lol... had to go over 177 lys for this as every thing else was allready mapped. lol, Got to many people to shoot on PS+ free games... so thats all you getting...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAN1PU6Zbj0
Allways check progress on mission boards ignore in ship info...

 

[Coehoorn]

Ok done for this CG 1 planets mapped, 3 points banked lol... had to go over 177 lys for this as every thing else was allready mapped. lol, Got to many people to shoot on PS+ free games... so thats all you getting...

All AWs count, not only first discoveries.


This thread is quite the accumulation of idiocy.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

First of all, terrestrial planets with an ammonia atmosphere.

That rules out the ammonia gas giants, but doesn't rule out the much more common rocky moons with ammonia-rich atmospheres, or similar HMCs. It's not that Ammonia Worlds aren't obviously included in that, it's that it doesn't obviously exclude other types of planet.

Basically it depends on whether you're interpreting "terrestrial" in its Elite Dangerous meaning - in which case, only ELWs, WWs [1] and AWs are described as terrestrial in the system map - or in its normal astronomical meaning - in which case HMCs, metal-rich, rocky and icy worlds are also included, and some of those can also have ammonia atmospheres.

Expecting people to be aware that Elite Dangerous - a game partly marketed on astronomical accuracy - uses a different definition of "terrestrial" to the standard astronomical one actually seems worse for Frontier than "they made a minor and understandable ambiguity in wording" does.

[1] There are several Water Worlds with Ammonia atmospheres. Won't count for the CG, fit that description even solely using in-game wording matching.

 

[Hellrider]

My money is on "frontier thought, that players are more smart, will read everything, and understand, that ammonia world is...AMMONIA world, from codex". Not ammonia giant, not hmc with ammonia atmo, not water world with ammonia in atmosphere.

"ammonia worlds"
"maelstorms arrived to systems with such planets"
sorry guys.

Coehorn has right, you called people which made this description stupid, and actually it is rude, because it come from people which dont understand, that AMMONIA world means AMMONIA world.
Not high metal content planet with ammonia atmosphere.
Maybe his calling other people idiots was rude too, but it doesnt change fact, that such accusations which come from this type of people definetely arent fair. You failed in fight against reading short text.

 

[DjVortex]

Coehorn has right, you called people which made this description stupid, and actually it is rude, because it come from people which dont understand, that AMMONIA world means AMMONIA world.

The CG description quite explicitly says, and I copypaste directly from it:

"Universal Cartographics has announced a two-week initiative to locate planets with ammonia atmospheres."

Planets with ammonia atmospheres. Not "planets with ammonia seas" or anything of the sort.

But apparently "planets with ammonia atmospheres" does not actually mean planets with ammonia atmospheres, but something else. Even though in many systems there are planets (not just moons but outright planets) that have an atmosphere type "ammonia".

Why on earth would you think that people who get confused by that are stupid? The CG description is extraordinarily misleading.

 

[GraphiteGB]

Last day to get x4 bonus if the CG fails...
Should be seeing a rush on those wanting X4 rewards hand in today but will it be enough worlds included with that data..

245,701/330,000 (74.45%)

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

The CG description is extraordinarily misleading.

Except for the part where it explicitly says only ammonia worlds will be counted for the CG.

 

[DjVortex]

Except for the part where it explicitly says only ammonia worlds will be counted for the CG.

When the description starts with "we are looking for planets with ammonia atmospheres", and later it says "ammonia worlds", it sounds like it's just a synonym for the former, unless you already know that "ammonia world" is its own thing that's not just a planet with an ammonia atmosphere. After all, "planet with ammonia atmosphere" is long to say and type, so "ammonia world" sounds just like a shorter synonym for it, so one doesn't have to keep repeating that longer expression.

That's precisely what happened to me. That's exactly how I interpreted it. I did not know that "ammonia world" is its own thing, which is different from a planet just having an ammonia atmosphere. I knew there is such a thing as "water world", but I had never encountered nor heard of an "ammonia world" so I didn't know that they exist, and just assumed that it was being used as a synonym for "planet with an ammonia atmosphere".

I wouldn't be so ed off if it hadn't cause me to interrupt a planned quite long exploration trip, while I was already advanced for quite a while. When I started encountering planets with ammonia atmospheres along the way I remembered the CG and checked what it was, and I saw that, indeed, "planets with ammonia atmospheres", I thought that it would be a nice bonus for scanning those planets so I came back to the bubble, scanning ammonia atmosphered planets along the way, only to find out that I didn't get a single one counted.

Why on earth would they write "Universal Cartographics has announced a two-week initiative to locate planets with ammonia atmospheres" if that's not what they want.

 

[Coehoorn]

When the description starts with "we are looking for planets with ammonia atmospheres", and later it says "ammonia worlds", it sounds like it's just a synonym for the former, unless you already know that "ammonia world" is its own thing that's not just a planet with an ammonia atmosphere. After all, "planet with ammonia atmosphere" is long to say and type, so "ammonia world" sounds just like a shorter synonym for it, so one doesn't have to keep repeating that longer expression.

That's precisely what happened to me. That's exactly how I interpreted it. I did not know that "ammonia world" is its own thing, which is different from a planet just having an ammonia atmosphere. I knew there is such a thing as "water world", but I had never encountered nor heard of an "ammonia world" so I didn't know that they exist, and just assumed that it was being used as a synonym for "planet with an ammonia atmosphere".

I wouldn't be so ed off if it hadn't cause me to interrupt a planned quite long exploration trip, while I was already advanced for quite a while. When I started encountering planets with ammonia atmospheres along the way I remembered the CG and checked what it was, and I saw that, indeed, "planets with ammonia atmospheres", I thought that it would be a nice bonus for scanning those planets so I came back to the bubble, scanning ammonia atmosphered planets along the way, only to find out that I didn't get a single one counted.

Why on earth would they write "Universal Cartographics has announced a two-week initiative to locate planets with ammonia atmospheres" if that's not what they want.

That's fine, but you not knowing a thing ≠ people who wrote it being incompetent.

While it would've been a cooler CG if not only AWs counted, the text was specific about what counts and what doesn't. Also, nobody forced you to cancel your trip, at all. Taking part in CGs or ignoring them and exploring the galaxy is a choice one must make.

 

[Neilski]

That's fine, but you not knowing a thing ≠ people who wrote it being incompetent.

This is true. Competent people (like all people) make mistakes. The text in the CG was poorly worded, which was indeed a mistake. The comment you are referring to was indeed rude, as was your reply to it.

While it would've been a cooler CG if not only AWs counted, the text was specific about what counts and what doesn't.

The text was in one place mistaken about what counts and in another place correct about what counts. That's pretty much the definition of confusing/misleading. Can you seriously claim that this wasn't misleading, while recognising that it successfully misled people who were not wilfully being silly about it?

 

[thesmith_de]

Does anyone know if the increased payouts from the last exploration CG counted toward exploration rank?

It doesnt. Just the Cash multi.

 

[Fcsuper]

This CG is all about the money afterwards and not much else. It's a discount CG. I was able to get into top ten 10% with one trip out to Gorgon Research Station and back; with a second short round trip just outside the bubble and back to ensure my top 10% status.