exploring still sucks.

[Mostly Awol]

Here is what I want as an explorer.

The ability to scan a planet from orbit to find various POI general locations. I should have to land and SRV around to actually find it using the wave scanner. With things I find they should start missions. For example lets say I find the meta-alloy before we knew what it was. My ships computer should give me a mission to visit some scientists in the game. Say it gives me 5 people to visit. One of those 5 should then give me another mission to get it analyzed someplace that would require many some rare materials to do. Next mission would be to find more samples but now your ships computer has something to scan for locating POIs on planets for more samples. After I find enough samples I get some lore about the item and better info on finding it. Such as type of planets? Star types, etc.

This could even work for the audio clues FDev put in the game. You honk at the probe and it makes a noise. Your ship's computer states that it recorded the sample but can not analyze it, it then suggests labs to visit to get clues about the recording. etc, etc, etc. No reason why the game can not display images of the sceptrograph or whatever they are called.

What is sad that this stuff is in the game just not connected. I taken surface missions where I get told a system to check. I go fly to the system I scan it and told to look at a few planets. Once I find the planet I get very large areas to scan and have to narrow it down to before I need to land. We also know they can give out missions in space also ones that can change. Only thing that can't be done it adding information to the ship's computer to find already found items.

 

[Kingston@#]

been away for a few had a few laughs reading through posts. thnx some nice idea's coming forth. take note FDEV's. tis the reason I started thread!

 

[KellyR]

I really can't be bothered. It's like arguing evolution with a Jehova's witness. Carry on as you were and God speed o7

What you and a lot of others don't seem to get is it is a game. It's not real life and it can't be like real life. It can be as close as they can make it to approximate what they think it will be like in 3303, but it's still a game. If it were like real life, you would have to have a pilot's license earned through written and flight testing. And you'd have to attend classes before any school would let you anywhere near one of their actual training ships so you could learn enough to pass flight testing. There wouldn't be any projectile weapons because you're right, they don't just stop after so far. They keep going and going and going until they hit something. What's to keep them from hitting an innocent bystander who just happens to get in their path the day (or a week or a month) after the battle?

Sorry, but it just can't be totally realistic. It's as realistic as they can make it. If you can't handle that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[DefiledDragon]

What you and a lot of others don't seem to get is it is a game. It's not real life and it can't be like real life. It can be as close as they can make it to approximate what they think it will be like in 3303, but it's still a game. If it were like real life, you would have to have a pilot's license earned through written and flight testing. And you'd have to attend classes before any school would let you anywhere near one of their actual training ships so you could learn enough to pass flight testing. There wouldn't be any projectile weapons because you're right, they don't just stop after so far. They keep going and going and going until they hit something. What's to keep them from hitting an innocent bystander who just happens to get in their path the day (or a week or a month) after the battle?

Sorry, but it just can't be totally realistic. It's as realistic as they can make it. If you can't handle that, then I don't know what to tell you.

I know it's a game and I'm fine with that, but when people make statements along the lines of "the game is completely correct according to physics!" or whatever it was you said, I just can't, I'm sorry.

Also, I would have been in favour of instant ship transfer and not having to pay through the nose for it, however, it seems that many people forgot that this is a video game and wanted to have to wait 2 days for their ship to arrive in case their minds caved in due to lack of immersion. I think you should have a chat with those sorts

 

[dannysquid]

I started playing about 2yrs ago . mostly done a bit of everything. played mostly everyday! my previous exploration was only 3000lys and got so tedious I returned to the bubble

Without wanting to be Captain Obvious here, and I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been gone over, but any game you play "mostly everyday" for 2 years is bound to get a bit repetitive. It's also down to the procedural nature of the actual gameplay. It's inherently generic, whereas good writing and storytelling is always going to be very specific.

if you want to keep us interested then exploration needs some LOVE!

But I agree with this. It's always struck me as wildly odd that the exploration mechanics haven't really been touched since the beginning! Don't get me wrong -- the main bit, the actual majesty of space stuff, is amazing, but surely somebody on the team must have asked if the "honk" button gameplay was adequate?! It must be the most "that'll do" decision in recent gaming history. Even a bit of purely cosmetic interface gee-whizzery would have helped! I can only imagine there's some very pressing but completely obscure reason that its the way it is.

Hopefully they'll develop exploration as things like Atmospheric Worlds and Thargoids make an appearance.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Without wanting to be Captain Obvious here, and I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been gone over, but any game you play "mostly everyday" for 2 years is bound to get a bit repetitive. It's also down to the procedural nature of the actual gameplay. It's inherently generic, whereas good writing and storytelling is always going to be very specific.



But I agree with this. It's always struck me as wildly odd that the exploration mechanics haven't really been touched since the beginning! Don't get me wrong -- the main bit, the actual majesty of space stuff, is amazing, but surely somebody on the team must have asked if the "honk" button gameplay was adequate?! It must be the most "that'll do" decision in recent gaming history. Even a bit of purely cosmetic interface gee-whizzery would have helped! I can only imagine there's some very pressing but completely obscure reason that its the way it is.

Hopefully they'll develop exploration as things like Atmospheric Worlds and Thargoids make an appearance.

The best thing they could do with exploration for me (after providing some variety in the planets surfaces and colour) would be a navigational mode for the HUD which allows you to select any star within range of your FSD from the cockpit and just jump to it. No galaxy map, no route plotting, just "ooh, that looks interesting over there, I'll head towards it". That, for me, is the essence of exploration.

 

[TheSisko]

I noticed that too. Sandro seemed very dismissive of exploration development, like a “yeah that would be nice but we aren’t planning anything like that right now” kind of response. When it came to questions about Frontier Store content or combat stuff he would get excited and say quite a bit, but when exploration came up he ran past it quickly and had nothing at all to say.

Not surprising, but yeah disappointing.

I wonder who (if anyone) is the 'exploration champion' within the ED development team. We seem to have developers focused on parts of the game, like missions and combat and AI for NPC, but who is flying the exploration flag?

Given the lack of tools and content for explorers, I'd guess no-one at present.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

The exploration gameplay should reflect the value that a body has when you sell the data. An icy moon would be fine to scan just by flying past the planet it orbits. An earthlike should take a great deal of effort to scan properly. But it shouldn't be just point and click.

 

[KellyR]

Barnacles.
Brain Trees.
Fumaroles.
Thargoids.
Bullets cease to exist after travelling 4km.
Light (LASER) dissipates completely after travelling 3km.
etc, etc

I know it's a game and I'm fine with that, but when people make statements along the lines of "the game is completely correct according to physics!" or whatever it was you said, I just can't, I'm sorry.

Also, I would have been in favour of instant ship transfer and not having to pay through the nose for it, however, it seems that many people forgot that this is a video game and wanted to have to wait 2 days for their ship to arrive in case their minds caved in due to lack of immersion. I think you should have a chat with those sorts

Everything on that list is possible except the projectile weapons. Because for the 1st 4, we don't know what's out there. Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible. As for lasers, they really do lose power to cut and burn with distance. 3 km may be inaccurate, but they will lose cutting and burning power after traveling so far, becoming only beams of light. So the only real thing on that list that are impossible is the projectile weapons. And the laser statement may be accurate, but maybe not. No one that I'm aware of knows the maximum distance a laser will be effective to in the medium of space. And if they do and it is further than 3km, so what? You have heard of game play, I'd wager and that's what that range is based on.

 

[Junker]

Exploration in this game is terrible and it always has been. It's astonishing to me that many people consider it the reason they play this game. In my opinion you need to be a hardcore space buff or just love doing nothing for hours on end to find enjoyment out of the current exploration game in ED:H. Three features are needed as a STARTING POINT before content can be filled in as time and funds permit:

1. Atmospheric planets with advanced, intelligent and dynamic procedural generation. Topography and environmental systems on planets need to be varied and intriguing on their own before devs spend time adding advanced life. No Man's Sky was on the right path but their system is way too limited to be considered interesting.

2. The current planetary approach model needs to be reworked. It may be "sim-like" but it is certainly not fun or interesting in any way, shape or form. Let us just approach a planet and if we screw up we die, no need for extra systems or interfaces. Loosen the current angle/speed restrictions too.

3. Let us jump drive to individual planets/POIs within a system with a "destination accuracy" based on your ship/gear. This "star only" jump system needed to die years ago.

 

[space voyager]

Why don't you people add your ideas about the exploration missions you'd like to see?
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/339418-Exploration-missions

 

[Mengy]

I wonder who (if anyone) is the 'exploration champion' within the ED development team. We seem to have developers focused on parts of the game, like missions and combat and AI for NPC, but who is flying the exploration flag?

Given the lack of tools and content for explorers, I'd guess no-one at present.

There doesn’t seem to be one, you are correct. In all of the “developer talk” vids by Frontier where the devs proclaim their favorite part of the game, or the thing they are most looking forward to, there is never any of the Frontier staff mentioning anything exploration related. That’s telling in itself, and could be a huge reason why exploration remains so neglected in development.

Exploration in this game is terrible and it always has been. It's astonishing to me that many people consider it the reason they play this game. In my opinion you need to be a hardcore space buff or just love doing nothing for hours on end to find enjoyment out of the current exploration game in ED:H.

Yeah, being a space buff doesn’t hurt, that’s for sure. In the long run though it’s not enough, there needs to be engaging game mechanics too, which we currently do not have.

 

[krylite]

Maybe there should be an incentive for scanning and landing on a planetoid. Like to find some special ores where one could report back to a corporation or organization they work for where the corporation may want to set up a mining outpost. Another idea is after selling preliminary (the usual honking data) data, a mission could pop up from a corporation referring to a specific planetoid asking if the cmdr would like to travel to said location again for a deeper surveying mission and check it out in more detail for possible future mining, colonization, special plantlife etc. or take researchers and scientist for further survey, along with future chained missions of building a research outpost or orbiting research station.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Everything on that list is possible except the projectile weapons. Because for the 1st 4, we don't know what's out there. Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible. As for lasers, they really do lose power to cut and burn with distance. 3 km may be inaccurate, but they will lose cutting and burning power after traveling so far, becoming only beams of light. So the only real thing on that list that are impossible is the projectile weapons. And the laser statement may be accurate, but maybe not. No one that I'm aware of knows the maximum distance a laser will be effective to in the medium of space. And if they do and it is further than 3km, so what? You have heard of game play, I'd wager and that's what that range is based on.

No, they don't. They lose power due to divergence in the beam and dissipation through material (the atmosphere). In the near vacuum of space with a pure, focused beam with no divergence they would retain their energy all the way to target regardless of range. Energy doesn't just "disappear", it can be converted into another form of energy, but in order to do so, it has to interact with something. In space, there is nothing for your LASERs to interact with other than the target ship or stellar bodies. It would keep going until it hit one.

 

[KellyR]

No, they don't. They lose power due to divergence in the beam and dissipation through material (the atmosphere). In the near vacuum of space with a pure, focused beam with no divergence they would retain their energy all the way to target regardless of range. Energy doesn't just "disappear", it can be converted into another form of energy, but in order to do so, it has to interact with something. In space, there is nothing for your LASERs to interact with other than the target ship or stellar bodies. It would keep going until it hit one.

Ok. Only thing I can say to that is game play. But the 1st 4 on the list aren't valid arguments because we really don't know what's out there. Like it said in the video, it's as realistic as they can make it within the framework of being a game.

 

[NascentChemist]

No, they don't. They lose power due to divergence in the beam and dissipation through material (the atmosphere). In the near vacuum of space with a pure, focused beam with no divergence they would retain their energy all the way to target regardless of range. Energy doesn't just "disappear", it can be converted into another form of energy, but in order to do so, it has to interact with something. In space, there is nothing for your LASERs to interact with other than the target ship or stellar bodies. It would keep going until it hit one.

Sorry, but lasers will have divergence even in a vacuum. The point at which our lasers become too diffuse to damage is likely just a game play feature, but lasers aren't perfect. Even if the light within the optical cavity has a completely uniform axis of motion, as the beam leaves the aperture some deviation will occur.

Yes, there will be no further refraction in a vacuum after leaving the apparatus, but the beam would never leave with 100% conformity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_length

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence

 

[DefiledDragon]

Ok. Only thing I can say to that is game play. But the 1st 4 on the list aren't valid arguments because we really don't know what's out there. Like it said in the video, it's as realistic as they can make it within the framework of being a game.

It is gameplay, that's exactly what it is, but there are many people on here who insist on describing ED as a simulator and praise it for it's scientific accuracy. I'm no physicist but I have a keen interest in it and I read a lot of material (astrophysics and classical mechanics mainly). As such, every time somebody congratulates ED on it's scientific accuracy, I die a little on the inside.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but lasers will have divergence even in a vacuum. The point at which our lasers become too diffuse to damage is likely just a game play feature, but lasers aren't perfect. Even if the light within the optical cavity has a completely uniform axis of motion, as the beam leaves the aperture some deviation will occur.

Yes, there will be no further refraction in a vacuum after leaving the apparatus, but the beam would never leave with 100% conformity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_length

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence

God, there's always one isn't there. There's no need for the links. Space isn't a vacuum and it's currently impossible to create a LASER beam with 0 divergence, I know this, but we're talking about LASERs that suddenly lose all of their energy at a range of 3.01km, whilst having enough energy at 3.00km to do considerable damage to the hull of a spacecraft. No. Just No. A million times, No.

 

[KellyR]

It is gameplay, that's exactly what it is, but there are many people on here who insist on describing ED as a simulator and praise it for it's scientific accuracy. I'm no physicist but I have a keen interest in it and I read a lot of material (astrophysics and classical mechanics mainly). As such, every time somebody congratulates ED on it's scientific accuracy, I die a little on the inside.

I praise it for its scientific accuracy. Does this mean it's 100% accurate? Don't make me laugh. Of course it isn't 100% scientifically accurate. If it was, it would be boring as heck. But for as fun as the game is, it is remarkably scientifically accurate. I know, I know. Beam lasers aren't and projectile weapons aren't. I've just admitted it's not 100% accurate. But if you look at a hub station, they rotate at the proper rate to give the habitat areas 1G. If you are at Earth and point toward the sun and target it, it is about 499 ls. That's 8.3 light minutes and that's how far the Earth is from the sun in real life. If you look at the distances from Sol to say Altair, or Sirius, or Barnard's Star or wherever, those distances are accurate from what we've been able to determine with terrestrial astronomy. The game does have a mind blowing amount of science in it that is accurate. So there's a few things that aren't. It is a game after all.

 

[bonalste]

What needs to be done with exploration is for something more than getting a "First Discovered By" label on a planet nobody else will ever see. You find an Earth like World. You get a little label nobody will see and a small amount of money when you eventually sell the cartographic data. Who cares? That's the problem. Exploration needs to mean something. History remembers the great explorers, but aside from some community lists on the forum which nobody will look through and nobody will really care about, and which isn't integrated into the game, you're never known about.

What would I like to to? As a very start, I would like to see anybody who finds and sells the data for an Earth-Like world mentioned in GalNet. It should be huge news to everybody in the galaxy that another area for life has been found. So there should be a daily automated GalNet article about significant discoveries (largest mass planet, biggest gas giant so far, Earth Like World found, that sort of thing). Secondly, fame for someone who finds an Earth like world. We can assume that eventually this may be colonised (maybe not in game, but in some far future), so wouldn't it be fitting if the discoverer of an ELW in a new system got to name the system, which then appeared (after moderation for appropriateness) in the Galaxy Map. These could be visible to anybody who buys advanced cartographic data which includes new systems discovered by intrepid explorers.

I mean, my thoughts extend to space station shares and all sorts, which are totally unrealistic and will never be implemented in sure, so that's not worth my discussing, but i think some form of acknowledgement for our explorers, something more visible than a first discovered on one out of 400 billion stars ont he other side of the galaxy that nobody else will visit.

 

[KellyR]

But that's the thing you see, it's all very subjective. Personally I would prefer the game if it was as scientifically accurate as possible. In fact, I would probably consider it the best game in my library if it were. Operating a spaceship is something I've dreamed of doing for decades. When I play ED, I don't feel like I'm operating a spaceship, I feel like I'm flying a STOVL in space.

There are things in it that *feel* good, like the behaviour of your ship over planet surfaces where you can feel the gravitational influence and from what I've seen of interviews with DBOBE there's a lot of science going into the planets themselves, geologically speaking, but I didn't want a geology simulator, I wanted to be a spaceman.

I know I have a lot of bad things to say about ED but I don't dislike the game, far from it. I enjoy the game very much, I just mourn the missed potential.

The game already is as scientifically accurate as possible and still be a game that's fun to play. And you aren't flying a STOVL. You are flying a VTOL; but it's not an aircraft; it's a spacecraft. There are no wheels on the landing gear. So you have to take off and land vertically; unless you want to scrape the landing gear on the takeoff/landing surface. If you want to feel like you are operating a spaceship, you can. Disable flight assist and the only limitation you will have is maximum speed. But even with flight assist on, it still feels like operating a spacecraft to me; A spacecraft that has a fly-by-wire interface with a computer. And you know what? That's the way NASA astronauts fly their spacecrafts for the most part. They don't eschew computer assist. They learn when to use it and when to disable it. And that's how I fly in Elite Dangerous. I have button on my throttle that will toggle Flight Assist Off and I toggle it off, for at least a little while during almost every landing I perform. When approaching a spinning station and am at an angle of 20 degrees or more, I point a perpendicular direction that will take me across the landing corridor, hit full throttle, toggle off flight assist and reduce throttle to 0. I then request docking, deploy landing gear and point toward the station, while still maintaining my previous vector. When I get almost in the landing corridor, I toggle assist on to kill my vertical movement and apply thrust until I'm lined up. Once I'm lined up, I thrust toward the station and toggle flight assist off and rotate to match station rotation. Once I'm through the letterbox, I toggle on assist and land normally.

Docking with an outpost is a bit different. Once I find my assigned pad and sometimes to find it, I will toggle assist off and keep pointed at the station while rotating my ship to keep the station in view. But I'm still moving in the same direction as before. Once I find it, I get lined up, toggle assist on bring my ship over the sweet spot, toggle assist off and give a tiny nudge with the top thruster to bring me slowly down to the pad.

With planetary landings I usually keep flight assist on except if the pad is on the other side of the settlement. I'll overfly the pad at about 600 meters altitude (unless it's a high gravity world in which case I'll be at about 2km. When I'm past the pad with my speed in the blue zone, I'll disable assist, pull up to pitch over hard. Once I'm fully pitched over, I re-enable assist roll to bring the pad below me and then proceed with docking.

It's all quite fun and seems like flying a spaceship to me. It certainly isn't like flying a plane as I'm not always moving in the same direction my nose is pointing.