Quality of Life Improvement: Input LAT/LON Co-ords and have a Surface Waypoint appear, similar to the surface scan mission Waypoint.

[LeoBartlet]

Then I hate to break it to you but nobody should need something of primary-school level dumbing down further, right?

You would expect that a game based in the 34th century or whatever would have some sort of mechanic that allows easy navigation to a specific point on a planet you know like we have in the real life 21st century.

That's the problem with this game and its community (on the forum at least) neither know what they want the game to been and fight like hell over tedious things that are common practice in other mmo's and single player games.

 

[DHMeyer]

That argument makes no sense.

ED already is "one of them".
You want it changing so that it stops being "one of them" and becomes what you want it to be instead.

That's kind of like buying a Land Rover and saying it should be as fast as a Ferrari because if you wanted a 4x4 you would have bought a Jeep or a HiLux.

No. I'm asking for FD to add some working planetary navigation system for people who would like to use it. Everyone who feels the need to play with coordinates, whether that makes them feel their "airmanship" is superior or they feel "it builds valuable skills" are totally free to not to place any waypoints or use coordinates search option. I'm not asking anyone to use any features they don't want to use. I don't use many features of the game, but you don't see me running about on the forum, ing on posts by people who enjoy these two modes. I might not be in favour of many suggestions, but even then I try to find positive sides of them instead of opposing them for the sake of opposing them. Or because I'm not going to use the features suggested.

I bought Elite before Horizons. And bought Horizons expecting the planetary navigation to follow the example of the galaxy map (search, plot route and mark locations) or at least the system map (check distance from the entry point = coordinates & mark locations).

If I'm buying a Landrover, I'm buying it because of it being a Landrover. A finished product, with certain features. In case of Elite, I'm buying a game that's under development. I have the right to expect developers will be working on improving it. More even: on this very forum, there is a suggestions section, which means clearly that FDev want to hear players suggestions and that the possibility of the gameplay changing IS a feature of Elite: Dangerous.
In another thread you clearly supported adding possibility of engineering cargo modules and internal modules. If we apply your thinking about navigation to that, that should never be even discussed, because it's not a feature of the Landrover (or Trabant, more like) we purchased.

I'm not unreasonable here, I can understand that certain features may never be implemented, that they take time and resources, that you need to check what's needed, balance things in the game, make sure it's not too easy or too difficult etc. I get that. But, in such cases, I would like Frontier to openly state (and they have the whole Suggestions section to do so) which features asked for by the community they are not going to work on. Or, if they are not able to create such features, at least give tools to create them to people who can.

 

[Stealthie]

You would expect that a game based in the 34th century or whatever would have some sort of mechanic that allows easy navigation to a specific point on a planet you know like we have in the real life 21st century.

That's probably not a rabbit-hole you want to go down.

We also have internet trading in the 21st century, we have autopilots in the 21st century and we have functional police and armed forces in the 21st century too.

Then you might wonder why a gimbal system for weapons can work with certain ones and not with others, why ships, weapons and modules have no logical improvement with scale or why me and my crew are actually aboard my own ships at all when I can "telepresence" onto any other ship in the galaxy.

At some point we have to accept that things are done for gameplay reasons rather than in a bid to simulate a realistic environment.
Once you do that you're left to decide whether navigation is easy or hard.
If it's the former then it doesn't need changing.
If it's the latter then it's something that rewards skill and shouldn't be dumbed down for the sake of those who lack the required skills.

 

[DHMeyer]

Then I hate to break it to you but nobody should need something of primary-school level dumbing down further, right?

I'll bite. If you find something that's primary-school level "challenging", "developing skills" then I hate to break it to you, but there's a chance you should just go back to primary school and re-do it all over again.

At some point we have to accept that things are done for gameplay reasons rather than in a bid to simulate a realistic environment.
Once you do that you're left to decide whether navigation is easy or hard.
If it's the former then it doesn't need changing.
If it's the latter then it's something that rewards skill and shouldn't be dumbed down for the sake of those who lack the required skills.

OK, I get it. FDev's goal is to create arcade games. Fair enough, but in such case they should state it clearly. Just so I can ebay this copy or ask FDev to compensate my purchase, because I bought it when it was described as a Space Sim.

What sort of skill, ? Ability to read numbers on the HUD and moving the joystick?

 

[Red Anders]

Then I hate to break it to you but nobody should need something of primary-school level dumbing down further, right?

I can only assume you stopped reading after the first sentence out of the two you quoted. Do you really feel that the ability to read a map is an argument against GPS? How about the ability to press a button being an argument against remote control TV?

I have no idea why you see this in terms of 'dumbing down' when as I pointed out, it's not the case that people are too thick to understand it to begin with. I don't actually think you're pitching for this but it comes across as quite arrogant in that you seem to be thinking you've developed some wonderful skill set that us mere mortals can only hope to one day reach parity with. It's not about difficulty it's about convenience. Convenience isn't a dirty word.

Anyway I'll leave you to it, I'm sure you need to get yourself down to the stream to wash your clothes for work tomorrow. Hope your mangle doesn't break.

 

[LeoBartlet]

What sort of skill, ? Ability to read numbers on the HUD and moving the joystick?

I suppose the reward is you end up at the correct place and not the other side of the galaxy from where you want to be.

Anyway I'll leave you to it, I'm sure you need to get yourself down to the stream to wash your clothes for work tomorrow. Hope your mangle doesn't break.

Lets hope he doesnt get lost

 

[Stealthie]

I can only assume you stopped reading after the first sentence out of the two you quoted. Do you really feel that the ability to read a map is an argument against GPS? How about the ability to press a button being an argument against remote control TV?

I have no idea why you see this in terms of 'dumbing down' when as I pointed out, it's not the case that people are too thick to understand it to begin with. I don't actually think you're pitching for this but it comes across as quite arrogant in that you seem to be thinking you've developed some wonderful skill set that us mere mortals can only hope to one day reach parity with. It's not about difficulty it's about convenience. Convenience isn't a dirty word.

Anyway I'll leave you to it, I'm sure you need to get yourself down to the stream to wash your clothes for work tomorrow. Hope your mangle doesn't break.

I can only assume you stopped reading before you got to the post where I pointed out that games sometimes involve things which aren't an accurate reflection of real life.

I have no idea why you're so determined to dumb-down something which you also assert is an elementary ability that nobody finds difficult to begin with.
I don't actually think you're pitching for this but pretty much every post you make reeks of arrogance and condescension and that does nothing to encourage worthwhile discussion.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it. I'm sure you need to go and complain about all the other things that real-life provides but which aren't in ED.

 

[Red Anders]

I can only assume you stopped reading before you got to the post where I pointed out that games sometimes involve things which aren't an accurate reflection of real life.

I have no idea why you're so determined to dumb-down something which you also assert is an elementary ability that nobody finds difficult to begin with.
I don't actually think you're pitching for this but pretty much every post you make reeks of arrogance and condescension and that does nothing to encourage worthwhile discussion.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it. I'm sure you need to go and complain about all the other things that real-life provides but which aren't in ED.

Very amusing but you're still doing it. You just can't see past your 'dumbing down' misconception. The fact that something is intellectually simple to understand doesn't mean that it's a task which has any intrinsic entertainment value in performing repeatedly.

If you genuinely feel that manually navigating to a point on a planet's surface provides you with entertaining and intellectually demanding gameplay that's fine, I'm not here to tell you what you should and shouldn't enjoy in the game. If you're under the impression that it is providing some kind of skill gate to content though, you are gravely mistaken. What it provides to many players, myself included, is a tedium gate due to the fact that despite having the full (and really very limited) skill set required, employing that skill set each and every time a planetary landing is required adds absolutely nothing to the enjoyment of the experience and indeed detracts from it once any initial novelty has worn off.

I am seriously all for skill gates in games. There are God only knows how many areas of the game where genuine skill gates could be employed and would make for an experience which is intrinsically entertaining because of them. The issue here though is that no matter how challenging you may find it, the ability to count to 360 and read a display is not actually up there with trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Your skill gate argument simply doesn't apply to this situation because it is not primarily a skill gate to begin with.

I would also have to point out that if your preference is to manually navigate, there is nothing that would prevent you from doing so even with waypoints introduced. It's therefore the classic situation that I've seen you criticise other people for on here whereby you're concerned only with what other players do or don't do, regardless of the fact that it would have no impact whatsoever on your own gameplay.

 

[BartV]

The only thing that we can do is keeping this thread number 1 on the forums.

 

[NW3]

Yes, please. I really want this too. OP, rep++

 

[Teh Smoo]

Yes, waypoints are win.

 

[NW3]

The fact that something is intellectually simple to understand doesn't mean that it's a task which has any intrinsic entertainment value in performing repeatedly.

If you genuinely feel that manually navigating to a point on a planet's surface provides you with entertaining and intellectually demanding gameplay that's fine, I'm not here to tell you what you should and shouldn't enjoy in the game. If you're under the impression that it is providing some kind of skill gate to content though, you are gravely mistaken. What it provides to many players, myself included, is a tedium gate due to the fact that despite having the full (and really very limited) skill set required, employing that skill set each and every time a planetary landing is required adds absolutely nothing to the enjoyment of the experience and indeed detracts from it once any initial novelty has worn off.

I am seriously all for skill gates in games. There are God only knows how many areas of the game where genuine skill gates could be employed and would make for an experience which is intrinsically entertaining because of them.

Agreed. While learning to do a task can be enjoyable, like landing at a station, repeating a well-learned task thousands of times becomes a boring tedium. That's not what I want in a game. It becomes a grind, rather than fun. There's a reason why there's a docking computer. It's the same reason I want planetary bookmarks: I want to have fun playing this game.

 

[Vasea Azure]

TBH, I'm fine with surface navigation as it is.

It's a skill which has to be learned, developed and optimised and I'd rather it wasn't "dumbed down" for the sake of those who don't have the same level of ability I have.

Yes, maybe that's a bit selfish but, y'know, that's why pilots who can fly FA-off have an advantage over those who can't and that's why those who can accurately use fixed weapons have an advantage over those who rely on gimballed weapons.

A game should reward people for developing skills, not negate the need for those skills.

Skill? Its a tedious placeholder that I hope will be improved soon TM.

 

[Khelder]

I would have preferred surface navigation to be "dumbed down" enhanced.

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;uXsuKnAIOoE]https://youtu.be/uXsuKnAIOoE[/video]

 

[Jon474]

Thanks Genar

I have today learned about the reasoning behind the "right/left hand rules" for determining a planet's "north" and "south" poles. This is invaluable information for me as I search for axial tilts of exactly 90 degrees.

Thank you, Cmdr.

Kind regards
Jon
Type-6E

 

[DHMeyer]

I would have preferred surface navigation to be "dumbed down" enhanced.

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/uXsuKnAIOoE

They could use enlarged model of a planet on the dashboard for that. Not sure if the landscape features there are generic or represent the astronomical body accurately, but it could be magnified when some POI on the surface is selected and the ship is within certain distance from the planet.

 

[Leo Sagan]

The fact that something is intellectually simple to understand doesn't mean that it's a task which has any intrinsic entertainment value in performing repeatedly.

Thanks Red Anders !

In other words, a lot of players seem to think that *NO*, endlessly correcting your bearing in order to reach your destination *DOES NOT* add gameplay value to E : D.

My personal thoughts about this : the DEVs already know that and they'll change it when they get a chance. Then we will MOVE ON and we'll forget about the current very loud minority advocating an under-developed feature that almost nobody likes.

As for the idea that this would be "dumbing down" the game, it is interesting though :

1) Personally, I'd like the game to be way more difficult overall (enemy's AI for instance)
2) Navigating the surface of planets is not currently "difficult" per say : I (and most probably almost everybody) *always* reach my destination eventually. ZERO fail ! But the whole process is just clumsy, boring and (lore wise) NONSENSICAL.

My point ? While I strongly support (in vain so far, but that's another matter entirely) the idea of making the game harder, I certainly don't want it to become even more tedious.

Conclusion : surface navigation tools we need. Chop chop FD

 

[Crank Larson]

T2) Navigating on the surface of planets is not currently "difficult" per say : I (and most probably almost everybody) *always* reach my destination eventually. ZERO fail ! But the whole process is just clumsy, boring and (lore wise) NONSENSICAL.

This. It's not skill, it's tedium.

 

[Stealthie]

In other words, a lot of players seem to think that *NO*, endlessly correcting your bearing in order to reach your destination *DOES NOT* add gameplay value to E : D.

My personal thoughts about this : the DEVs already know that and they'll change it when they get a chance. Then we will MOVE ON and we'll forget about the current very loud minority advocating an under-developed feature that almost nobody likes.

As for the idea that this would be "dumbing down" the game, it is interesting though :

1) Personally, I'd like the game to be way more difficult overall (enemy's AI for instance)
2) Navigating the surface of planets is not currently "difficult" per say : I (and most probably almost everybody) *always* reach my destination eventually. ZERO fail ! But the whole process is just clumsy, boring and (lore wise) NONSENSICAL.

A bit like how landing a ship is also simple and tedious but we all have to fit a docking-computer if we want to forego that inconvenience?

It occurs to me, perhaps the way forward might be to expand the usefulness of the DSS to solve this issue.
If you don't have a DSS fitted then you get the functionality which we currently have.
With a DSS fitted, you can scan a planet and it'll create waypoint markers for any POI on the planet surface.

That'd create the same sort of choice and compromise we currently have regarding docking.
You can either do it manually and save a slot for something else or you can fill a slot with a machine to make it easier.

 

[777Driver]

A bit like how landing a ship is also simple and tedious but we all have to fit a docking-computer if we want to forego that inconvenience?

It occurs to me, perhaps the way forward might be to expand the usefulness of the DSS to solve this issue.
If you don't have a DSS fitted then you get the functionality which we currently have.
With a DSS fitted, you can scan a planet and it'll create waypoint markers for any POI on the planet surface.

That'd create the same sort of choice and compromise we currently have regarding docking.
You can either do it manually and save a slot for something else or you can fill a slot with a machine to make it easier.

The simplest solution is to let us either manually punch in coordinate's to generate waypoints, or the ability to upload coordinates to the ships computer. Amazes me that such a simple function was not implemented on horizons launch.