Massive thank you to FD for letting discover scanners show the surface of planets!

[Ian Skippy]

And who is flying 700,000ls to see if a planet has interesting features to explore?

Well, isnt that how exploration works? Having to travel to some place to see if it is worth anything/interesting versus just looking at stuff is the difference between an explorer and someone watching a documentary on tv. When you are driving on the planet you obviously dont have the full global perspective that the planmap gives you, so its obviously worthwhile to have. It just doesnt help you bypass the actual flying part. You had to do that before, and now you still have to do that. But I am not seeing what the 'QoL' is of skipping that part. If 'flying the ship when exploring' is hindring the quality of your gameplay, something weird is up.

And yes, I'd be totally fine with increasing the range of the scanner, if that would help.

 

[CAPT. Ho Chi Minge]

I guess I'm a really "crappy" explorer then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSwte6iXCQ8

Look at that! I have NO SENSE AT ALL for exploration.

Never mind that ObsidianAnt himself also supported this and while he and I both understand where the other perspective comes from. We both, as explorers wanted ADS to show the map.

Let me tell you something buddy. Being able to see the map of planets would have made it so that I would have gone to MORE planets. That is why I wanted it.

I have gone to so many places, seen SO many things. Landed on hundreds upon hundreds of planets before the idea of ADS showing surface maps was even a thing.

Just because I wanted a tool to find even more interesting places in LESS time does not make me any less of an explorer. I had over 600,000 LY traveled and over 30,000 jumps before I lost my account. Do you honestly think that with a pedigree like that and videos I made like the one I just posted, that I want to "google images of planets?"

It's one thing to disagree with me, but please never question my integrity as an explorer in this game. Thank you.

I tend to agree with the sentiment in your post, personally I find it would be multitudes more beneficial to exploration if the surface maps showed up as you could see the surface and all the interesting features and decide yes I will travel that 700k Ls to see this orb of wonder but currently im thinking no im not about to take an entire play session to find that its just another dull featureless rock. I can understand leaving in a sense of mystery for the intrepid explorer but that should be optional not forced.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

Well, isnt that how exploration works? Having to travel to some place to see if it is worth anything/interesting versus just looking at stuff is the difference between an explorer and someone watching a documentary on tv. When you are driving on the planet you obviously dont have the full global perspective that the planmap gives you, so its obviously worthwhile to have. It just doesnt help you bypass the actual flying part. You had to do that before, and now you still have to do that. But I am not seeing what the 'QoL' is of skipping that part. If 'flying the ship when exploring' is hindring the quality of your gameplay, something weird is up.

And yes, I'd be totally fine with increasing the range of the scanner, if that would help.

You are taking about travelling, which whilst part of exploration - many don't always consider the same thing as "exploration".

I love to explore the mountains, and forests in real life. I don't include travelling there to be a part of the exploration experience.

We all have our own opinions on this matter, and those multiple previous threads highlight that fact. It's just a pity so many people are so pushy with their personal opinions, as opposed to trying to come to common grounds.

Also, just like Crusina Luachra above - with this surface map absent from an ADS, I will now be visiting significantly less planets. I have zero interest or desire to go searching, or playing "find the needle in the haystack". Whilst that may be a part of exploration for some people, it isn't a part of exploration for me. The good thing is that Frontier are open to feedback on this matter, and appear to be willing to come up with some type of compromise.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Do you honestly think that with a pedigree like that and videos I made like the one I just posted, that I want to "google images of planets?"

It's one thing to disagree with me, but please never question my integrity as an explorer in this game. Thank you.

I'm glad you like yourself so much.

Anyway, yes. If you want a faster way to get to the interesting bits, and make sure you dont have to fly to things that are disappointing/boring, that is exactly what exploration is not. What you are after is the space equivalent of going to Bangkok with a Lonely Planet in your pocket. Exploration is not not knowing what you'll find out, and the more you know the more it becomes tourism. Which is fine, if that is your thing.

Also, not questioning your 'integrity as an explorer'. I dont even acknowledge that as being a thing...

 

[CMDR Corlas]

If people are exploring in such a manner that they can physically see all the details of a planet's surface by the time they surface scan, they're flying incredibly inefficiently and slowing down their scan of the system. There's no reason at all to get that trapped in a body's gravity well and within visual range.

Also, I'm curious how they manage to see all sides of the planet at once, so that a map is "useless".

 

[Obsidian Ant]

I'm glad you like yourself so much.

Anyway, yes. If you want a faster way to get to the interesting bits, and make sure you dont have to fly to things that are disappointing/boring, that is exactly what exploration is not. What you are after is the space equivalent of going to Bangkok with a Lonely Planet in your pocket. Exploration is not not knowing what you'll find out, and the more you know the more it becomes tourism. Which is fine, if that is your thing.

Also, not questioning your 'integrity as an explorer'. I dont even acknowledge that as being a thing...

I'm glad you feel you have the one single definition of what an "explorer" is.

Personally, I believe there are many different definitions, and a game that can fulfil as many of those definitions as possible will be a truely great game. As I mentioned above - this seems to be what Frontier want to achieve...and I am all for that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, isnt that how exploration works? Having to travel to some place to see if it is worth anything/interesting versus just looking at stuff is the difference between an explorer and someone watching a documentary on tv. When you are driving on the planet you obviously dont have the full global perspective that the planmap gives you, so its obviously worthwhile to have. It just doesnt help you bypass the actual flying part. You had to do that before, and now you still have to do that. But I am not seeing what the 'QoL' is of skipping that part. If 'flying the ship when exploring' is hindring the quality of your gameplay, something weird is up.

And yes, I'd be totally fine with increasing the range of the scanner, if that would help.

The thing is, after having landed on thousands of planets, I am looking for specific features to explore in my SRV. To check if they're there I have to go in orbit of each landable planet in a system. These are MR, HMCs and moons. It can take an hour to check one system, since you constantly have to fly in the mass of the planet. Doing this is a chore with rewards few and far between. Meaning I can spend evening after evening without any hits, just misses.

Result being that I have been tearing through the galaxy now for some time without even opening the system map.

A 3D map would have changed my routine from: enter system -> honk & scoop -> jump, to: enter system, honk and scoop, fly away from sun, open system map, check each landable planet for the stuff I'm looking for, check out the planets that look promising to me by landing there. So instead of what you claim is bypassing the flying part, I'll be doing the flying part, and the driving around part and the screenies part.

I'm glad you like yourself so much.

Anyway, yes. If you want a faster way to get to the interesting bits, and make sure you dont have to fly to things that are disappointing/boring, that is exactly what exploration is not. What you are after is the space equivalent of going to Bangkok with a Lonely Planet in your pocket. Exploration is not not knowing what you'll find out, and the more you know the more it becomes tourism. Which is fine, if that is your thing.

The 3D map will not show every detail, so you'll still get misses. It just lessens the amount of them.

The funny part is being called a tourist, while dot-scanners (which I have been for a looooong time myself) who never see the surface of a planet are the real explorers. I find that very odd.

 

[Ian Skippy]

You are taking about travelling, which whilst part of exploration - many don't always consider the same thing as "exploration".

I love to explore the mountains, and forests in real life. I don't include travelling there to be a part of the exploration experience.

We all have our own opinions on this matter, and those multiple previous threads highlight that fact. It's just a pity so many people are so pushy with their personal opinions, as opposed to trying to come to common grounds.

Also, just like Crusina Luachra above - with this surface map absent from an ADS, I will now be visiting significantly less planets. I have zero interest or desire to go searching, or playing "fine the needle in the haystack". Whilst that may be a part of exploration for some people, it isn't a part of exploration for me. The good thing is that Frontier are open to feedback on this matter, and appear to be willing to come up with some type of compromise.

Ha, maybe there is a language thing. From my perspective exploration cannot be seen independent from the travelling. When you say you love exploring mountains, it seems more like, I dont know, personal exploration. These things already have been explored, obviously, but you want to see for yourself.

To be sure: people should do what they want to do, and I am not saying personal opinions are wrong. I am just saying it makes very little sense from what I think words mean. Exploration as a concept by default requires traveling with uncertainty. If people enjoy other things, like 'sightseeing' or 'tourism', thats cool too, but maybe we need to seperate these things using different words.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I'm glad you feel you have the one single definition of what an "explorer" is.

Personally, I believe there are many different definitions, and a game that can fulfil as many of those definitions as possible will be a truely great game. As I mentioned above - this seems to be what Frontier want to achieve...and I am all for that.

Not 'the one', but I have one. And when everyone has a different definition words start to become meaningless. It would make far more sense to me to have a discussion about the various 'types' of exploration, give each a different name, and see what kind of gameplay/features are shared or opposed by each group. Its like arguing you cant play piano without ketchup: it makes no sense to me, but it could make sense to someone using different definitions of these words. Thats perfectly fine, but we might want to clarify the lingo first...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Also, I'm curious how they manage to see all sides of the planet at once, so that a map is "useless".

Its called 'hyperbole', its what you use here just before threathening to tell all your million friends not to buy the game.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

Ha, maybe there is a language thing. From my perspective exploration cannot be seen independent from the travelling. When you say you love exploring mountains, it seems more like, I dont know, personal exploration. These things already have been explored, obviously, but you want to see for yourself.

To be sure: people should do what they want to do, and I am not saying personal opinions are wrong. I am just saying it makes very little sense from what I think words mean. Exploration as a concept by default requires traveling with uncertainty. If people enjoy other things, like 'sightseeing' or 'tourism', thats cool too, but maybe we need to seperate these things using different words.

Yes, it's certainly a language thing.

Regarding whether those things have been explored previously or not, is kinda irrelevant. You are talking about Discovery there which is a subset of Exploration.

In Elite, sometimes I want to explore a mountain. Often I have landed on top of a many mile high mountain, and then spent 2 or 3 hours driving down it. During this, I am exploring the mountain, looking for features that are unusual and unique, looking for things I know no one has seen before...that I am the first to witness.

Other times, I love to drive through a vast canyon - some are filled with mist, some are deep trenches. These too, I explore - again looking for unique elements; that hidden plateau deep in a trench that maybe no one else has ever landed on.

Exploration works on many different levels, from the Macro to the Micro. The planetary maps would have helped me with doing the type of exploration I love to do.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

The thing is, after having landed on thousands of planets, I am looking for specific features to explore in my SRV. To check if they're there I have to go in orbit of each landable planet in a system. These are MR, HMCs and moons. It can take an hour to check one system, since you constantly have to fly in the mass of the planet. Doing this is a chore with rewards few and far between. Meaning I can spend evening after evening without any hits, just misses.

Result being that I have been tearing through the galaxy now for some time without even opening the system map.

A 3D map would have changed my routine from: enter system -> honk & scoop -> jump, to: enter system, honk and scoop, fly away from sun, open system map, check each landable planet for the stuff I'm looking for, check out the planets that look promising to me by landing there. So instead of what you claim is bypassing the flying part, I'll be doing the flying part, and the driving around part and the screenies part.

This seems a far more accurate assessment to me. The "this makes the planetary map USELESS!" crowd too often seem to be going to pretty illogical lengths to try to make their point. Without maps, it did take a VERY LONG TIME to thoroughly survey a system and look for interesting surface features. Flying deep in a gravity well is not quick.

Granted, the new 2.2 system is not as fast as honk -> check maps, but it's still vastly quicker than what we had. Those trying to deny that fact are just making their side look silly.

Thank you being honest and accurate in your disagreement.

 

[Crusina Luachra]

I'm glad you like yourself so much.

Anyway, yes. If you want a faster way to get to the interesting bits, and make sure you dont have to fly to things that are disappointing/boring, that is exactly what exploration is not. What you are after is the space equivalent of going to Bangkok with a Lonely Planet in your pocket. Exploration is not not knowing what you'll find out, and the more you know the more it becomes tourism. Which is fine, if that is your thing.

That's just your opinion. The fact that you only have on vision for what "exploration" is short sighted and does a disservice to many people.

I am an explorer. The fact that I showcase what I see to others is simply a result of me wanting to share the beautiful things I come across. I guess you could call my content tourism but what I do to get those shots is 100% exploration.

Also, not questioning your 'integrity as an explorer'. I dont even acknowledge that as being a thing...

"Wouldn't it make more sense to just look at pictures from google images and skip the boring 'flying a spaceship' part completely altogether?"

Yeah...that's not questioning someone's playstyle at all [rolleyes]

I'm glad you feel you have the one single definition of what an "explorer" is.

Personally, I believe there are many different definitions, and a game that can fulfil as many of those definitions as possible will be a truely great game. As I mentioned above - this seems to be what Frontier want to achieve...and I am all for that.

One step at a time.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Crusina, a question.

What makes you do things differently from 2.1?

P.S. You are letting the internet rile you... don't do it!

 

[GTwannabe]

Great, now fix the surface point of interest system. I hate that stupid disappearing blue circle . If I'm low enough to find the target with a Mk 1 eyeball, my 34th century ship should be able to track it.

 

[Avago Earo]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned on this thread, but wouldn't it make sense to only have to scan undiscovered bodies? This could also be a reward for explorers, as they could sell the detailed maps.

It seems a shame to have to go all the way to a planet that's already known just to get a prettier system map.

Or am I missing something?

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

I'm glad you feel you have the one single definition of what an "explorer" is.

Personally, I believe there are many different definitions, and a game that can fulfil as many of those definitions as possible will be a truely great game. As I mentioned above - this seems to be what Frontier want to achieve...and I am all for that.

That's pretty much what Sandro said during the livestream. Future exploration content isn't going to be convoluted, confusing or extremely time consuming because they want to appeal to the most amount of players. The strictly "muh immershion zomg!" crowd were basically dealt a deathblow and haven't realized it yet.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Yes, it's certainly a language thing.

Regarding whether those things have been explored previously or not, is kinda irrelevant. You are talking about Discovery there which is a subset of Exploration.

In Elite, sometimes I want to explore a mountain. Often I have landed on top of a many mile high mountain, and then spent 2 or 3 hours driving down it. During this, I am exploring the mountain, looking for features that are unusual and unique, looking for things I know no one has seen before...that I am the first to witness.

Other times, I love to drive through a vast canyon - some are filled with mist, some are deep trenches. These too, I explore - again looking for unique elements; that hidden plateau deep in a trench that maybe no one else has ever landed on.

Exploration works on many different levels, from the Macro to the Micro. The planetary maps would have helped me with doing the type of exploration I love to do.

Crap, just looked up the definitions and 'discovery' is exactly what I am talking about. So let me re-phrase all the above posts of mine, and replace every instance of 'explorer' with 'discoverer'. Suppose the planet-scanning would not consist of two tiers: long-distance (revealing the planmap) and short distance (all the extra info/cash). Maybe even have it so the closer you are to the planet the more detailed the planmap becomes. Would that work for you? It would still have that element of gameplay, but you'd be able to discard uninteresting planets much faster than currently.

"Wouldn't it make more sense to just look at pictures from google images and skip the boring 'flying a spaceship' part completely altogether?"

Yeah...that's not questioning someone's playstyle at all [rolleyes]

No, I am not questioning your playstyle, as I also dont acknowledge that as something worth 'questioning'. I am also not judging people who enjoy watching pictures of space on google, I know I do that myself. Please just stop being offended by everything, I meant that literally, and not as some passive-agressive insult. Obsidian answered the question already, so if he shares your perspective I now understand where you're coming from. If you disagree with OA, feel free to explain your perspective.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Sorry if this has already been mentioned on this thread, but wouldn't it make sense to only have to scan undiscovered bodies? This could also be a reward for explorers, as they could sell the detailed maps.

It seems a shame to have to go all the way to a planet that's already known just to get a prettier system map.

Or am I missing something?

Known planets (for example the known systems in the bubble) will have all planmaps revealed to the player. Buying the data also gives you the map. So those looking for canyons and such have nothing to worry about as long as they dont want to combine it with discovery/exploration outside the bubble. Undiscovered bodies need to be scanned, and that indeed increases the payout for explorers.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Crusina, a question.

What makes you do things differently from 2.1?

Nothing, which is the point. Some/many people were hoping to do things differently, and what they wanted to do (as explained by OA here) doesnt work with how the mechanic currently works. Things didnt get worse, but they didnt improve the way it was anticipated/hoped for either.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

Crap, just looked up the definitions and 'discovery' is exactly what I am talking about. So let me re-phrase all the above posts of mine, and replace every instance of 'explorer' with 'discoverer'. Suppose the planet-scanning would not consist of two tiers: long-distance (revealing the planmap) and short distance (all the extra info/cash). Maybe even have it so the closer you are to the planet the more detailed the planmap becomes. Would that work for you? It would still have that element of gameplay, but you'd be able to discard uninteresting planets much faster than currently.

For me a change like that would be perfect. It would go a long way to addressing the concerns of many players. A low res map would be enough for me to move on for example, but a player that wants to travel up close to the planet would be rewarded with the detailed map (and may even find something that I would actually have liked to have seen). I think there's plenty of room within the whole exploration thing for Frontier to make it a rewarding and enjoyable mechanic for players of all types.

 

[Ian Skippy]

OT: I've always liked Mr Del Naja's art too.

Ha, if you're referring to my avatar, thats part of the coverart kindly made by Melissa Op de beeck for one of my music albums.

 

[Armour]

Obsidian Ant's point about exploring on the micro level: you don't see that micro-detail from the planetary map anyway, even if it's filled in, so what's the big deal? You still get a preview of the whole surface without having to "physically" orbit it now, which is better than before.

 

[Crusina Luachra]

Crusina, a question.

What makes you do things differently from 2.1?

P.S. You are letting the internet rile you... don't do it!

My posts often seem more upset then I am in reality. In reality I'm typing responses in between matches in Halo 5 and I'm rather giddy because we're having super close games.

No, I am not questioning your playstyle, as I also dont acknowledge that as something worth 'questioning'. I am also not judging people who enjoy watching pictures of space on google, I know I do that myself. Please just stop being offended by everything, I meant that literally, and not as some passive-agressive insult. Obsidian answered the question already, so if he shares your perspective I now understand where you're coming from. If you disagree with OA, feel free to explain your perspective.

Then the fault lies of this lies in the way you worded your post. To me and others it's easy to think what you said was you being condescending to people you don't consider to be "explorers".

As for "getting offended" I was never offended. I simply called out someone I thought was saying something ignorant. If you want to apply tone to my post, feel free. But since we are not face to face you would have no idea that I was more confused when I typed that then angry. Just because someone responds does not mean they are "offended".

My "tone" that you read as angry/offended in my mind was nothing more then being confused as to why anyone would try and say I was not actually exploring and would rather look at pretty pictures. That is why I listed accomplishments and gave examples of what I did.

But now we've cleared things up and we're all happy to understand one another. I think.