Explorers : would you consider giving up on the infinite honk for...?

[Godsailsaqueen]

Not really; it's just this topic has come up repeatedly, and the belief of 'artificial restrictions' as being a way to improve the game, is also a common justification. It's also very common to see plea-bargaining as a way to sell the idea.

I'm not attacking you; I'm taking exception to the notion that in order to improve a thing, the first step is to toss out a supposed 'crutch' and then build an entire case around how that could be offset. Rather than simply observing that exploration is essentially scenic tours of the same types of stars, repeatedly. And it's about as deep as my frying pan.

It's "intrinsically lazy" to expect the entire player base to make a sacrifice, rather than consider that options and choice are important, even if that means others may elect to do something you might not. I am, have always been, and always will be highly supportive of suggestions and improvement recommendations that give some life and soul to exploration.

I just take exception to the usual approach of picking something (such as the advanced discovery scanner) then build an entire case around why it's essentially a crutch and if it wasn't there, surely wouldn't that improve things? In a word? No. To improve a thing, you iterate the thing. And that, to me? Seems a better way to approach it.

And you could have put things like that from the get-go and that would have been a prety good way to start exposing your points, with which I kinda agree. I don't have the will to ask for sacrifices. I just like topics being discussed, and sorry if that was badly put for you. I'll keep that in mind.
But I'm sorry, your first reply was (and still is despite your additions) the forum equivalent to walking into a bar and spitting at the speaker - don't take shortcuts to someone elses' behaviour (lazy, self concerned) or flaws based on a post. I've pretty much tried to acknowledge every point of view here.

edit : and now it is less so. thanks for adressing that and the more diplomatic tone.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Did someone say "bacon"?

 

[Leper Messiah]

I'd vote to keep the ADS, we need a simple starter scan that is easy to operate (but have a cooler graphic, current one looks really placeholdery.....KWS effect and the new engine start up affect on planets are the sort of thing I'd like) to get the initial "what's here in the system". AS others have already said it's what comes AFTER we know what bodies are in the system that is ....basically naff. I've done a LOT of moaning about the "point at dot....throttle up, watch numbers reduce.....watch uninteresting scan graphic...repeat". As others have said the mocks up by ToCoSo are amazing. The "science" of the game needs to be fleshed out and the mechanics to do the "science". What we currently do is like driving down the M4, stopping on the M25 and saying we've "explored London".

So more "science" and more engaging game mechanics to discover the science.

 

[Ziljan]

Another example, we have optical telescopes that can see to almost the farthest regions of the solar system, why in 3303 do I need to go right next to the planet to see the surface detail?

The distance we can see sufficiently bright and large objects is actually much farther than just the edge of the solar system. We can see all the way to the visible edge of the universe, aka just after the big bang, or roughly 46 Billion LY.

HOWEVER the further away an object is, the lower the resolution becomes. This is because the maximum angular resolution for any particular detector/telescope is fixed, and depends upon the frequency/wavelength of light + telescope diameter:

Spoiler

And the farther away an object is, the smaller the angle that object fills up. So small objects or far away objects are all lower resolution than they would be if they were closer. Even if we can detect their presence from very far away, that doesn't mean we can know everything about them in great detail. Also objects that are too small or too dim require larger sensors and telescopes for them to reach the minimum detection thresholds.

This is why you need to be closer to see surface detail. Also why the Juno probe is able to bring us much better resolution images than the much larger earth-based telescopes at home. Pretty much the whole reason that space probes with relatively small space-based telescopes exist.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'd vote to keep the ADS, we need a simple starter scan that is easy to operate (but have a cooler graphic, current one looks really placeholdery.....KWS effect and the new engine start up affect on planets are the sort of thing I'd like) to get the initial "what's here in the system". AS others have already said it's what comes AFTER we know what bodies are in the system that is ....basically naff. I've done a LOT of moaning about the "point at dot....throttle up, watch numbers reduce.....watch uninteresting scan graphic...repeat". As others have said the mocks up by ToCoSo are amazing. The "science" of the game needs to be fleshed out and the mechanics to do the "science". What we currently do is like driving down the M4, stopping on the M25 and saying we've "explored London".

So more "science" and more engaging game mechanics to discover the science.

yep just to elabourate in my post i was not suggesting i fully agreed with "remove the ADS".... just change it somewhat to make more interesting... infact imo it is not the ADS which bugs me personally.

is it that implausible to be able to get a very approximate idea of the number of planets in just a localised system off a fairly simple piece of equiment in 1000 years time.

i think for me the dullest part of exploration right now is the DSS.

 

[Shanaeri]

The distance we can see sufficiently bright and large objects is actually much farther than just the edge of the solar system. We can see all the way to the visible edge of the universe, aka just after the big bang, or roughly 46 Billion LY.

HOWEVER the further away an object is, the lower the resolution becomes. This is because the maximum angular resolution for any given frequency/wavelength of light + telescope size is fixed for any particular detector setup.

Spoiler

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/resolution.gif

And the farther away an object is, the smaller the angle that object fills up. So small objects or far away objects are all lower resolution, even if we can detect them from very far away. Also objects that are too small or too dim require larger sensors and telescopes for them to reach the minimum detection thresholds.

This is why you need to be closer to see surface detail. Also why the Juno probe is able to bring us much better resolution images that much larger telescopes based here on earth. Pretty much the whole reason that space probes with relatively small space-based telescopes exist.

Agreed. But the thing is. we can see in detail Saturn and mars, which are further away than the DSS needs to show us a picture of the surface. Also remember earth based telescopes have the atmosphere to contend with and 3303 is 1300 ish years from now. Look how far optics and the like have come on in that time

 

[Sepp]

In a word: "no", for pretty much the reasons Agony_Aunt gave. What I would like to see is a more sensible approach to rewards, again, as has already been mentioned. It is just plain wrong to receive the same reward for a "discovery" at - say - 500Ly out to one at 15,000Ly and similarly to receive a large reward for scanning an already catalogued system.

Whilst I'm banging on, it seems pretty daft to have a body that purports to be a central repository of information that then doesn't publish any of it! Systems that have already been catalogued ought to be flagged as such and already scanned bodies that are then re-scanned by subsequent visitors should receive greatly reduced rewards. OK, you currently get a bonus for being first, but I reckon the balance is currently skewed too much in favour of the catalogue entry instead of the "first discovery". (Bodies that were skipped by previous visitors - or even the original visitor - would still be available at the original rate.) Preferably, there would also be a multiplier added to a body's value that reflects the effort required to go look at it, in-system, as well as a distance-out scale. If this were the case, I might for a change decide to do a short-range trip, concentrating on the far-out bodies that others have missed - even if they're just beige rocks, giant snowballs or dull brown dwarves a couple of hundred thousand Ls out... there's plenty left to see in known systems but it's currently not worth logging them - and that's a pity.

Finally, I would like to see a detailed surface scanner that does just that - pings up actual sites on the surface where there are items of interest - even if a surface visit is then required to discover what these actually are. Mind you, de-beigification of the galaxy would help there, too! Adding the opportunity to find planets rich in topaz, diamonds, rubies, emeralds and any number of other semi-precious stones would add to the "things to do" list... and actually make exploration useful to miners and traders.

and now, coffee!

 

[Ziljan]

Agreed. But the thing is. we can see in detail Saturn and mars, which are further away than the DSS needs to show us a picture of the surface..

No that is not correct. Earth based images of the planets are generally low resolution, because most of the time, these planets are MUCH farther from Earth than their closest approach. And to be clear, the ADS shows us roughly the same level of detail in the system map that an earth based telescope can see.

System Map of Mars:

Mars as imaged by a space telescope in orbit around Earth

As you can see these are very similar resolutions. And not nearly on the level of detail that you can get from a DSS, or a probe that travels into the orbit of these distant planets. If anything, the ADS gives BETTER images than earth based telescope can see. And the DSS gives images that a probe in orbit might see. So Frontier is being pretty darn accurate in regards to distance based resolution limits. These resolution limits are not technological in nature, but are instead based on the nature of light and distance. Properties that won't be different in the 34th century.

 

[RandomGun]

Imagine having to fly hundreds of thousands of LS to check out a remote binary only to discover absoloutely nothing worth travelling for to see there. Not to mention trying to eyeball the binary in the first place, which if distant could be damn tricky.

Why would you have to do that? If the binary is too far just jump to the next system and find easier planets there. Or is it important to discover all objects in every system? If it is then I would suggest that add some BDS/IDS/ADS-compatible game play to that discovery process.

 

[RandomGun]

Today's (2017) telescopes don't really have a range limit, and are only limited by time and the observable edge of the universe, so having a max range on sensors doesn't make a lot of technical sense.

Our telescopes and xDS are two very different things:

1. Telescopes are extremely directional. xDS is omnidirectional.
2. Telescopes use optics. xDS as an internal module certainly doesn't use optics.

It's completely up to FD to define how and how well xDS technology works. IMO, it would be more immersive for any observation technology to have some physical limits based on object range, mass, diameter, density, temperature or other radiation.

 

[Shanaeri]

No that is not correct. Earth based images of the planets are generally low resolution, because most of the time, these planets are MUCH farther from Earth than their closest approach. And to be clear, the ADS shows us roughly the same level of detail in the system map that an earth based telescope can see.
As you can see these are very similar resolutions. And not nearly on the level of detail that you can get from a DSS, or a probe that travels into the orbit of these distant planets. If anything, the ADS gives BETTER images than earth based telescope can see. And the DSS gives images that a probe in orbit might see. So Frontier is being pretty darn accurate in regards to distance based resolution limits. These resolution limits are not technological in nature, but are instead based on the nature of light and distance. Properties that won't be different in the 34th century.

The images given to us via the ADS and system map are standard 'types' and bear little resemblance to how the planet would look. It's the games way of saying "This is a water world, this is a HMC" etc. It's a game play mechanic and because of that not reprehensive at all of the capabilities of telescopes, scanners etc

So What you see when you use the ADS is a type, not an image, and while you are correct about the light limitations it is also not including the computer enhancement and imaging that is available even today.

Point is, firstly it's a game and time is precious, and secondly this is becoming a rabbit hole taking the thread off course..

 

[TheNavvie]

Rewarding CMDRs for discovering something that another CMDR has already discovered is.... wrong.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Rewarding CMDRs for discovering something that another CMDR has already discovered is.... wrong.

I always thought that as well, but systems and planets aren't static objects so I figured it's relevant to science to see data from the planet when the star system is in a different configuration.

May be a little (but just a little) gamey, but otherwise new explorers would really have a tough time starting to explore because everything around the bubble would be useless to them.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Rewarding CMDRs for discovering something that another CMDR has already discovered is.... wrong.

I always thought that as well, but systems and planets aren't static objects so I figured it's relevant to science to see data from the planet when the star system is in a different configuration.

May be a little (but just a little) gamey, but otherwise new explorers would really have a tough time starting to explore because everything around the bubble would be useless to them.

I see it as you're supplying additional information, helping to make orbit tracks more accurate, surface compositions more detailed, etc.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

I'm happy to see the infinite scanner go if it is replaced by suitable gameplay.

I notice a few people are feeling that if the infinite scanner goes, then people would have to fly up closer to each planet. Looking at what Sandro has mentioned, that doesn't seem to be his line of thinking. Getting rid of the infinite scan doesn't automatically mean more manual flying. What it should mean, is an opportunity to improve the gameplay by introducing new scanners, systems and modules that each offer unique functions aimed at exploration.

At the moment, I think we can all agree that exploration has zero game mechanics. Flying up to a planet and "scanning" it for 30 seconds is not gameplay.

Exploration really needs to be looked at from the angle of what information and data the game already provides. And Stellar Forge has all the data about the galaxy and planetary makeup. My feeling is that discovery scanners should hook into the data Stellar Forge provides, and Frontier should consider ways of making that data accessible in terms of gameplay.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

No that is not correct. Earth based images of the planets are generally low resolution, because most of the time, these planets are MUCH farther from Earth than their closest approach. And to be clear, the ADS shows us roughly the same level of detail in the system map that an earth based telescope can see.

System Map of Mars:

http://i.imgur.com/IYDWBrY.png


Mars as imaged by a space telescope in orbit around Earth
http://i.imgur.com/iMUu38H.png

As you can see these are very similar resolutions. And not nearly on the level of detail that you can get from a DSS, or a probe that travels into the orbit of these distant planets. If anything, the ADS gives BETTER images than earth based telescope can see. And the DSS gives images that a probe in orbit might see. So Frontier is being pretty darn accurate in regards to distance based resolution limits. These resolution limits are not technological in nature, but are instead based on the nature of light and distance. Properties that won't be different in the 34th century.

Personally, I think the entire "image" based system needs to be rethought.

Data from other planets and stars today isn't gathered purely by photographic images alone...there's all manner of other types of spectrographic data, and wavelengths that are gathered. A lot of this type of information can probably be found in Stellar Forge. What I would like to see is Frontier introduce various scanners, along with other types of gameplay (such as low level reconnaissance, probes, surface driving), that allow us to gather up all these different types of data. These could then be assembled together to provide a truly detailed system map - which ultimately could be assembled into an intricate Orrery Map.

At the moment a "surface scan" gives us all this detail with a 30 second look at the planet. To me, that seems all so very wrong...and there could be all manner of gameplay introduced in order to discover that data.

Currently it's possible to blast through a star system very quickly and gather everything we need to know about it. It would be far more rewarding if that process was far more involved and resulted in a detailed and visually impressive map.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I'm happy to see the infinite scanner go if it is replaced by suitable gameplay.

I notice a few people are feeling that if the infinite scanner goes, then people would have to fly up closer to each planet. Looking at what Sandro has mentioned, that doesn't seem to be his line of thinking. Getting rid of the infinite scan doesn't automatically mean more manual flying. What it should mean, is an opportunity to improve the gameplay by introducing new scanners, systems and modules that each offer unique functions aimed at exploration.

At the moment, I think we can all agree that exploration has zero game mechanics. Flying up to a planet and "scanning" it for 30 seconds is not gameplay.

Exploration really needs to be looked at from the angle of what information and data the game already provides. And Stellar Forge has all the data about the galaxy and planetary makeup. My feeling is that discovery scanners should hook into the data Stellar Forge provides, and Frontier should consider ways of making that data accessible in terms of gameplay.

I for one will be extremely unhappy if the body discovery scanner is hobbled.

Please, please don't confuse the body discovery mechanic with the body surveying mechanic.

If something is done to make body discovery any more time consuming than current, that would finish off the game for me.

Can someone explain to me why making body presence discovery take much longer would be an enjoyable gaming experience? Because I can't think of anything. There are already many ways in which this game consumes one's time - plenty of in-game 'down time' (hyperspace is a rather obvious one).

The real gains in exploration game play are to be made with the body scanning/surveying mechanics. cf: ToCoSo's illustrations.

 

[Ziljan]

Our telescopes and xDS are two very different things:

1. Telescopes are extremely directional. xDS is omnidirectional.
2. Telescopes use optics. xDS as an internal module certainly doesn't use optics.

It's completely up to FD to define how and how well xDS technology works. IMO, it would be more immersive for any observation technology to have some physical limits based on object range, mass, diameter, density, temperature or other radiation.

1) just because it's omnidirectional doesn't mean it's not a telescope. The google car camera uses effective "telescopes" and it's omni-directional.

2) It's possible (but not clearly stated) that it doesn't use normal visible light, but that doesn't it mean it doesn't use optics. The ADS might be using part of the skin of the ship, or may use wavelengths that pass through the surface near the ADS sensors as if it were a gas/glass. But even if it doesn't use photons, it will certainly use some kind of carrier particle, and that particle/wave will be subject to the same laws of physics and similar distance-based resolution limits of a photon.

The images given to us via the ADS and system map are standard 'types' and bear little resemblance to how the planet would look. It's the games way of saying "This is a water world, this is a HMC" etc. It's a game play mechanic and because of that not reprehensive at all of the capabilities of telescopes, scanners etc

The planets on the system map might seem cut from a similar cloth, but they as unique as the planets themselves, even at that low resolution. So no, they are not just standard types, but are actually low resolution images of the unique planets themselves. Just take a close look at the clouds on these atmospheric ice planets. They are definitely similar, but no two are exactly alike.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

I for one will be extremely unhappy if the body discovery scanner is hobbled.

Please, please don't confuse the body discovery mechanic with the body surveying mechanic.

If something is done to make body discovery any more time consuming than current, that would finish off the game for me.

Can someone explain to me why making body presence discovery take much longer would be an enjoyable gaming experience? Because I can't think of anything. There are already many ways in which this game consumes one's time - plenty of in-game 'down time' (hyperspace is a rather obvious one).

The real gains in exploration game play are to be made with the body scanning/surveying mechanics. cf: ToCoSo's illustrations.

It really doesn't need to "take more time" to discover planetary bodies, and I would be very disappointed if Frontier took that approach.

I agree with you on ToCoSo's illustrations. What I feel should be more "involved" is gathering detail on planets. If we want to know the entire geological makeup of a planet, then that should involve far more than a 30 second scan.

I try not to make a habit of posting my own videos - but I feel this one is suitable for the subject. It's my thoughts on revising exploration as of a year ago or so. My thoughts have changed a bit since then, and I will probably update the video soon. But I personally feel this is a good place to start for exploration:

[video=youtube;qOz6g92TX0g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOz6g92TX0g[/video]

 

[Ziljan]

Personally, I think the entire "image" based system needs to be rethought.

Data from other planets and stars today isn't gathered purely by photographic images alone...there's all manner of other types of spectrographic data, and wavelengths that are gathered. A lot of this type of information can probably be found in Stellar Forge. What I would like to see is Frontier introduce various scanners, along with other types of gameplay (such as low level reconnaissance, probes, surface driving), that allow us to gather up all these different types of data. These could then be assembled together to provide a truly detailed system map - which ultimately could be assembled into an intricate Orrery Map.

At the moment a "surface scan" gives us all this detail with a 30 second look at the planet. To me, that seems all so very wrong...and there could be all manner of gameplay introduced in order to discover that data.

Currently it's possible to blast through a star system very quickly and gather everything we need to know about it. It would be far more rewarding if that process was far more involved and resulted in a detailed and visually impressive map.

Now you're talking!

Using various tools that operate at different spectrums, and use different detector types to peer through dense atmospheres, analyze volcanic and tectonic activity, check surface chemistry for tell-tale chemical signs of life and the best places to hunt for a given mineral/metal, gather telemetry and accurately measure masses to analyze complex multi-body orbits etc. This is the kind of stuff that could be used to create a complete picture of a given system. The larger and more bodies within a system, the more complete the full gravitational, vector, and orbital harmonic/resonance picture would need to be in order to complete an accurate Orrery. And voila! In your post we finally have a gameplay reason to have an Orrery: completionism.

Great idea Obsidian!