The SLF implementation was never targeted at exploration but rather as a more like a disposable combat drone (c/f UCAV). Rather than messing around with the SLF logic, I would like to see more variants of SRVs with perhaps one that is comparable to an SLF but aimed at exploration.
Explorers : would you consider giving up on the infinite honk for...?
- Thread starter Godsailsaqueen
- Start date
You mean an SRV that flies like SLF but somehow isn't an SLF (eg without the 3D printing, telepresence, ship tethering etc)?
I would settle for being able to dismiss the mothership. But yeah, a flying exploration pod would be awesome. If it could carry cargo and dock at stations, then we might finally have an answer for the Large ship, medium pad issue!
Last edited:
I think you got the idea
That particular nut would probably be better solved with an extension to the station comms system and some kind of dedicated transport pods/drones that could carry either cargo or passengers.
Last edited:
There are many good threads on these very forum debating exactly exploration, my favourite are the deploy the drone to scan a system/planets. Then collecting the data and analysing it.
I think you got the idea
That particular nut would probably be better solved with an extension to the station comms system and some kind of dedicated transport pods/drones that could carry either cargo or passengers.
Interesting. You're probably right about efficiency of umbilicals vs pods. But having a little docking shuttle would be cool too though.
See, the fact that it appears that no one considered SLF's would be used for exploration, that speaks volumes. Hopefully, FD are reconsidering this...
Z...
oh, the very moment they were announced, explorers were talking about how they'd love to use them for multicrew and all kinds of other purposes.
For example, have one crew member explore a planet in the SLF, while the mothership went to another planet. Since no ship has a Class 1 FSD, there were hopes that SLFs would use them, but were limited to Supercruise only (no hyperspace), for more interplanetary fun. Or that they could dock at outposts and act as shuttles for the larger ships, unable to transfer cargo but still able to access the mission board...
there were high high hopes among explorers before it turned out they were pew pew pew only.
It might make you (and perhaps some others) happy but it is too late in the day to move that particular goal post IMO.... ~2yrs too late...At any time! But unlike you and many others I'd actually advocate its removal, even if being left in the dark would be the price. I hated it since day one and somehow got used to it over the time, but always felt like there was whole bunch of gameplay possibilities wiped in one big ugly fart. So whatever could possibly replace it can't be worse and certainly would make me very happy!
ooops, just realized I'm repeating myself...
I do not believe ANY game play could be added that would justify the removal/nerfing of the ADS now.
The only thing I can think about is that there is something they must take account is already discovered places.
Numbers don't talk. I "first" scanned places a very few time ago. Uninteresting dull places I would never have gone to if I wouldn't have wanted to like so many others.
The mechanics must take that in account. Not making future explorers feel cheated.
In case they plan to open another galaxy the new mechanics applying to everybody would be fair, but making discovery far harder would be hard on new players, as "interesting places" (accessible nebulas, black holes, ...) are already scanned.
When I go exploring, I only go to places which attract my eyes in system map after having run the advanced discovery scanner. I'm not against new mechanics for surface scanning as it is boring, but, If I'd have to spend much more time to "discover" a whole system now, I wouldn't drop completely exploration but I wouldn't care any more about it, as I would feel this strongly unfair.
Numbers don't talk. I "first" scanned places a very few time ago. Uninteresting dull places I would never have gone to if I wouldn't have wanted to like so many others.
The mechanics must take that in account. Not making future explorers feel cheated.
In case they plan to open another galaxy the new mechanics applying to everybody would be fair, but making discovery far harder would be hard on new players, as "interesting places" (accessible nebulas, black holes, ...) are already scanned.
When I go exploring, I only go to places which attract my eyes in system map after having run the advanced discovery scanner. I'm not against new mechanics for surface scanning as it is boring, but, If I'd have to spend much more time to "discover" a whole system now, I wouldn't drop completely exploration but I wouldn't care any more about it, as I would feel this strongly unfair.
I just came from the lave radio podcast, so forgive me if this has been gone-over in the thread.
Fdev, you should take a look at Cold Waters. It's Exploaration/Identification mechanic involves matching sonar signals to identify different classes of ships. I think Elite could use a similar mechanic. Each type of stellar body has a different signal. The closer the commander's ship is to the signal, the more clear the signal. When the commander matches the signal to the planet-type signal that is the "Default", the planet is identified. Commanders already do this with the SRV scanner. The discerning commander can tell what kind of rock by the signal, this mechanic just takes that one step farther and puts it in space.
If bodies are far away, the commander can honk to briefly spike the intensity or clarity of the signal to identify bodies that are farther away. The better class of honker, the more clear signals it gives. This will minimize the supercruise time, but still give the sense of scale to space.
Finally, this signal identification can make finding anomalies easier. If there is a signal that matches a planet type 95% but has a different spectrum line or signal spike that doesn't match any other planet or star types, then it could mean an anomaly (like a guardian or thargoid structure) is present on the planet so a commander can take a closer look and use other, shorter-range exploration tools to scan the planet in detail like probes, shuttles, or specialized surface scanners.
In summary this mechanic:
I'd say that matches up very well with Sandro's design goals:
For those curious, here is an example of a youtuber playing cold waters using the identification mechanics to identify an enemy vessel. Look in the bottom right "signature" panel.
Fdev, you should take a look at Cold Waters. It's Exploaration/Identification mechanic involves matching sonar signals to identify different classes of ships. I think Elite could use a similar mechanic. Each type of stellar body has a different signal. The closer the commander's ship is to the signal, the more clear the signal. When the commander matches the signal to the planet-type signal that is the "Default", the planet is identified. Commanders already do this with the SRV scanner. The discerning commander can tell what kind of rock by the signal, this mechanic just takes that one step farther and puts it in space.
If bodies are far away, the commander can honk to briefly spike the intensity or clarity of the signal to identify bodies that are farther away. The better class of honker, the more clear signals it gives. This will minimize the supercruise time, but still give the sense of scale to space.
Finally, this signal identification can make finding anomalies easier. If there is a signal that matches a planet type 95% but has a different spectrum line or signal spike that doesn't match any other planet or star types, then it could mean an anomaly (like a guardian or thargoid structure) is present on the planet so a commander can take a closer look and use other, shorter-range exploration tools to scan the planet in detail like probes, shuttles, or specialized surface scanners.
In summary this mechanic:
- *Adds gameplay in space
- *Rewards skill. Players more familiar with planet signals can identify planets faster and from farther away.
- *Preserves sense of scale without frustration.
- *Preserves verisimilitude, you are identifying signals from your ships insturments, not sysmap background noise!
- *Re-tools rather than removes the honk
- *Makes sure a commander only flies to a planet if they are interested in the planet in the first place. (I.E., a signal anomaly), This reduces SC travel and is satisfying when anomaly is found.
I'd say that matches up very well with Sandro's design goals:
Sandro's Design goals said:
For those curious, here is an example of a youtuber playing cold waters using the identification mechanics to identify an enemy vessel. Look in the bottom right "signature" panel.
Last edited:
It is still effectively REMOVING the honk in any real sense of the term... so forget it IMO.
Guess you will just have to wait and see how your belief matches the reality when they finally catch up with each other then.
Careful here. We all know that you know something... [where is it]:x
Just saying that sometimes seeing is believing. And Frontier haven't actually shown anything yet for us to see.
That applies both in the positive and potentially negative sense.It's a shame this exploration discussion has begun with talks of the Advanced Discovery Scanner, as the topic of exploration is far wider than that - and much of the talk here so far (that which has been purely discussion using the ADS) is very limited in focus.
Frontier are going to have somewhat of a difficult time with the reworking of core gameplay if people keep insisting that they don't want things changed, especially without knowing what the plans actually are.
Last edited:
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Surely the question then is - Why are FDev reworking things that people don't want changed?
Nonetheless, I agree that all we can do is wait and see what Frontier propose. Hopefully they'll let us see their plans early enough along in the process that we can prevent the most egregious mistakes
People talk about adding skill and verisimilitude and interactivity to the detection process... that can ONLY slow things down, not conjecture nor speculation but simple fact.Guess you will just have to wait and see how your belief matches the reality when they finally catch up with each other then.
Changing the detection process now would effectively be tantamount to penalising any new comers to the game. I am all for improvements but changing the ADS mechanic now would NOT be an improvement in any shape or form IMO. There are plenty of other areas of the exploration process that FD could concentrate on.
Last edited:
I don't especially agree about the newcomer argument.
I believe the only real thing preventing such a drastic change is deep-anchored habits of old players.
New players would not suffer with an ADS replacement - it would feel normal and they would enjoy their time just playing, not counting the number the planets they could have pinned in 1 hour. Because the issue is time related, isn't it, at least on the detection part.
Just saying that sometimes seeing is believing. And Frontier haven't actually shown anything yet for us to see.
It's a shame this exploration discussion has begun with talks of the Advanced Discovery Scanner, as the topic of exploration is far wider than that - and much of the talk here so far (that which has been purely discussion using the ADS) is very limited in focus.
Frontier are going to have somewhat of a difficult time with the reworking of core gameplay if people keep insisting that they don't want things changed, especially without knowing what the plans actually are.
What can I say, I agree with both points.
I would have changed the initial message, but that's not very forum-ethical, and I just let it go with the flow. I regret the wording, even if I don't regret bringing up the ADS. I believe Michael Brookes hinted at this possible change even before engineers release, during a livrestream. He highlighted that the ADS was very generous and I was interested in knowing how it was considered among the community.
There have been countless exploration threads going unnoticed, and I think it's not a coincidence if Sandro eventually replied to this particular one. Now my first post also insisted on probes, both for system exploration AND for pathfinding in galaxy. The way an old DDF introduced it, discovering your way through the stars. This last bit went very unnoticed, but what can I say. My bad.
Explorers were, Yes. FD themselves, not so much. Which is a crying shame, as you have just presented some excellent examples of great uses for SLF's in an exploration role.
Z...
This x1000
fortunately it seems those willing to try something new outweigh those insisting on keeping the status quo.
Exactly. I have no idea why people like to turn up with one feature (or the removal of it) and consider it to be the Holy Grail of gaming. A comprehensive approach is what design needs.
The BDS/IDS/ADS detection part is a very small part of the process yet has wider implications for ALL players regardless of the activity they are doing. Also keep in mind the fact that first discovery claims are only granted for surface scans - not body detection - and information from the ADS can prevent people effectively wasting their time scanning things that have already been discovered. If the time for detection is increased, then standard rewards for detection should be drastically increased as well across the board and perhaps the rewards for first discovery nerfed to bragging-rights only level - that would perhaps offset the pure exploration concerns wrt newer players/explorers but would fail to address the other concerns.
The Discovery Scan part of the process already has solid grounds for having verisimilitude - navigation radar, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and active sonar technologies are pretty good analogies in current technology terms - and the the Surface Scan part of the process, while pretty weak, has a fair basis for having verisimilitude - automated spectrographic analysis in current technology terms. However, there is a pretty big vacuum in the area of Orbital Scans and Surface Exploration that could be built on and evolved and these latter parts are arguably the areas that require attention.
Last edited: