I do understand your excitement. However, both this thread and your recent video have left me uneasy and disturbed to a certain degree. Please allow me to elaborate:
- There is no "concept" that needed to be proved in any way. Much like the time FSD injection became available, if you have the range--and regardless of the means you used to get it--you can jump to a star within that range. Any star. This is simply an extension of the FSD injection by ways of extending the range.
- Before jumponium, there were certain star clusters that could not be reached. Jumponium changed that and people like Allitnil have been silently pushing the limits all over the galaxy. Dismissing their efforts by presenting this new mechanic as the one that "changed exploration forever" is not only misleading but also disrespectful to their work. What this mechanic does is add extra jump range. Just like when jumponium was introduced this means more stars will be available and can be reached but with some caveats (see below).
- Your communication to the explorer community is unclear and misleading and can leave people confused because of the caveats involved with the NS/WD jump increase.
- Your claim "don't go for the tagging glory, do it for science" is a fallacy. You are simply exchanging an in-game mechanic with an out-of-game glory system, be it the forums, EDSM, whatever. Fine with me, feel free to seek this kind of recognition but please don't misrepresent it.
- There are plenty of stars close to the bubble way above and below the galactic plane that are reachable via multiple jumponium jumps and are potentially higher than the one you jumped to. For example HD 119768 (-67.4375 / 1998.5 / 512.6875) https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...raphy-Thread?p=4558791&viewfull=1#post4558791 I'd never claim that it's the highest there is. It's a local maximum and almost all our far-reached places are such local maximums.
- I understand that you couldn't wait to go and do the jump to those stars, but doing it in beta is unfair and once more gives the wrong message to the explorers.
1. The concept needed to be proved as supercharge routes needed to be demonstrated as existing.
2. No belittling at all. Suicide jumping has the potential to bring in a whole new way of exploring.
3. Elaborate?
4. How did I misrepresent it? I never made it an either-or scenario.
5. Yes you are right, I've had that pointed out. I've tried to correct/clarify it where I could but the video is out in the wild now. That was purely down to excitement, and I do regret that a lot
6. I felt it was necessary to test the mechanic, as well as various other things. Thankfully, it turns out this was a false positive and can be reached with jumponium and I'm sure there is a tag up there already.
- Everyone knows that if a star is reachable via jumponium then the route is reversible provided one has the mats. There will be no stars one can reach only with supercharged FSD but can leave with jumponium. If you can leave there with jumponium then you can reach there with jumponium. A supercharged FSD may make the trip shorter but with considerably less safety.
- If one drops out of SC while supercharging one will lose their ship. This needs to be large, bold, and emphasised as much as possible. This is not the same as dropping at the exclusion zone of a star and suffering 1% hull and PP unfixable damage. This is losing your ship and all your exploration data. Plain and simple.
- If you reach a remote star or cluster via FSD supercharge, then you may be lucky that there is a way out that you missed but if there isn't, the only way back is via another neutron star. If no such neutron star exists then there is no way back other than self-destruct. Again this needs to be emphasised so people know exactly what they are getting themselves into.
- If you choose the wrong star to jump and become stuck because it has no jumponium route out and no neutron star then the only way out of it is to self destruct. See above about the implication and seriousness of warning people exactly what they are doing.
1. Wrong, it can be that the destination is itself a neutron star, or within reach of one of the neutron stars on the route.
2. It should and I was planning on emphasising that in upcoming videos. I've escaped from it a few times but it's sometimes impossible to escape.
3. I've emphasised that as much as possible but yes, it can't be emphasised enough.
4. Yes, again I've emphasised the danger involved. I feel you are accusing me of being irresponsible with this, which I don't think is fair. I've made out that it is dangerous very explicitly. I haven't said anything to lead people to think otherwise. In fact that was your point 3.
I plan on making a video going through the mechanic, but in no way is it my responsibility teach people about how the game works. Just want to be clear on that. However, if I've physically mislead anyone, I'd like to know where and how and I can assure you it will get an instant apology as I would never want to do that
Our opinions (yours included) are subjective.
Ok when I got to that line, I can tell I've really irked you. I'm sorry. I never pretend my opinion is fact. It's a sales pitch, not a lecture. It's a drama piece, not a breaking news. It's generated a lot of wonder, and a lot of positivity towards exploration and Elite in general. I feel my job is done. It's my burden to bare if it turns out people don't like it in the end and it pans out to nothing. I am prepared for that, but I'll keep on making videos and keep on pushing exploration to the devs and community wherever I can. If I annoy some people along the way, nice people like you, that's a price I regret but will probably keep paying. My excitement always takes charge
EDIT: Erimus did point out to me that there is a convention to not use player names when naming things, I didn't know it so I've removed it. I think its fair, and apologise!