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

[RandomGun]

It is however not a terrible mechanic either.

Really?
- ADS had one button press to win. Like the energy bomb of the original Elite but for exploration and with unlimited use. I say using it is boring.
- BDS has one button press and then you lose. You see some stuff but don't have any idea if there is more or not. Well, you can cheat by checking the system map dimensions but I wouldn't call that a gameplay mechanic. When searching for more stuff the parallax method is awful except for the first few times.
- BDS sees a tiny moon at 499 ls say but does not see a huge had giant at 501 ls away. That's insane!
- ADS sees visual details of a tiny moon at 0.2 ly away. For optical detection that's way beyond Rayleigh criterion for an "ADS" or a "Sidewinder" sized telescope (=impossible physics, not fixable by advanced optics).
- *DS sees details of the backside of planets and moons too. Well, this is annoying but understandable simplification.
- ADS sees everything and every orbit but doesn't recognise anything. It sees detailed images of bodies but doesn't recognise anything. That's very baffling and annoying.

In short, the DS gameplay is shallow and either too easy or too difficult. Also, it's very difficult to imagine any future technology that would work both as perfectly and as badly as BDS / IDS / ADS do.

BTW, I agree with you about improving other exploration aspects than DS. And, IMO, they are more important than DS. But this thread is more about the (range of) ADS than about the other tools.

 

[Ziljan]

Really?
- ADS had one button press to win. Like the energy bomb of the original Elite but for exploration and with unlimited use. I say using it is boring.
- BDS has one button press and then you lose. You see some stuff but don't have any idea if there is more or not. Well, you can cheat by checking the system map dimensions but I wouldn't call that a gameplay mechanic. When searching for more stuff the parallax method is awful except for the first few times.
- BDS sees a tiny moon at 499 ls say but does not see a huge had giant at 501 ls away. That's insane!
- ADS sees visual details of a tiny moon at 0.2 ly away. For optical detection that's way beyond Rayleigh criterion for an "ADS" or a "Sidewinder" sized telescope (=impossible physics, not fixable by advanced optics).
- *DS sees details of the backside of planets and moons too. Well, this is annoying but understandable simplification.
- ADS sees everything and every orbit but doesn't recognise anything. It sees detailed images of bodies but doesn't recognise anything. That's very baffling and annoying.

In short, the DS gameplay is shallow and either too easy or too difficult. Also, it's very difficult to imagine any future technology that would work both as perfectly and as badly as BDS / IDS / ADS do.

BTW, I agree with you about improving other exploration aspects than DS. And, IMO, they are more important than DS. But this thread is more about the (range of) ADS than about the other tools.

Amen Brother Gun.

You nailed it. ADS is too easy. IDS and BDS involve unfun cave-man parallax astronomy, not fit for 34th century explorers. We need something that involves a modicum of player involvement/skill, and is so SciFi cool that people forget they're doing work. And also somewhat realistic in terms of how we currently understand about how the physics of observation works. The more depth to the mechanics the better, so that people have the opportunity to actually be "creative" in exploration in the same way they are creative within the complex mechanics of combat/piracy.

I honestly have no idea what this might look like but I'll leave that to Frontier to figure out. I just hope it's something with enough depth and options that we can spend as much or as little time as we want in a system. With a reward commensurate with the time spent there and the completeness of a system survey.

 

[Greyhart]

OK it may surprise people but I didn't read all 40 pages. But here are my thoughts:

first step is what is the point of exploration i.e. what do people get out of it?

1. first discovery and name on something in game.
2. Locate in game resource. i.e. mining, base etc.
3. cash

Do you get rid of the ADS? I think not, but you do have to change how it work.

I recently did the Ram Tah mission and this involved finding a specific planet in a system from a name provided by someone else. The ADS filled up my system map and I could workout from the name the location of the planet based on the number and lettering sequence.

part of what you don't want to break with the removal of the ADS is the ability for someone in to locate a base or a planet.

Lets think about what an ADS is in real life. It is likely something that measures gravity, looks through the electromagnetic spectrum (including light) and looks for wobbles in stars. The thing that it is missing is that in order to determine orbital paths you need to have some time elapsed

So what do I suggest?

Firstly obviously on entering you are going to see the star and detect that without any instruments. Then you would fire off the ADS as you currently do, and it would come back with X amount of bodies found.

The list on the navigation panel would list them like now but without saying if they are moons or planets. Everything is just listed on distance. I would expect stars would show up as it should be straightforward to identify a star.

In the system map you would have nondescript markers with a mass range and range from primary star. these would be listed as if they are all planets circling the star.

I would add that an orary system map would be extra cool here.

You would then want to identify the body whether it was a moon or a planet and its orbital path. So you'd select the marker and travel in system. You can then use the ADS again (give it a large cooldown). This would allow the System map to be updated with additional information. Ideally you'd want may be 4 or 5 honks on the ADS to fully map out what is a moon or a planet and their orbital paths.

Imagine that it was an orary system map. At entering the system you'd have your location and the star and other close objects. At the first honk you get the locations of the bodies but with no orbital path. The 2nd honk plots the current location of the body and shows a line back to where it was at the first honk. Second honk increases the line and predicts roughly where it will be in X period. The lines extend on each honk until obits are fully maped giving classification of moon or planet etc.

Detailed surface scan would work as currently, but without mineral content. then you do variety of different scans like suggested here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/307770-A-year-worth-of-Elite-photoshop-concepts

So don't remove ADS infinite honk but change the data and make fully mapping orbits the end goal of the ADS.

This way people can travel and collect the simple data of there are X bodies or do a longer scan which will likely be combined with surface scanning so not additional time for the completionists more better info.

Exploration will be made more fun by being able to find the resources easily from orbit. Also dropping a mining probe and then returning to collect materials from the surface might be fun.

 

[Mengy]

The more depth to the mechanics the better, so that people have the opportunity to actually be "creative" in exploration in the same way they are creative within the complex mechanics of combat/piracy.

I honestly have no idea what this might look like but I'll leave that to Frontier to figure out. I just hope it's something with enough depth and options that we can spend as much or as little time as we want in a system. With a reward commensurate with the time spent there and the completeness of a system survey.

I have a strong idea of what I'd love to see Frontier do with exploration. The link in my sig points to a detailed suggestion post about it, but from just a mechanics overhaul point of view, if I was personally in charge of exploration at Frontier, here is how I'd design it. And yeah I know RLSG and the honk defense force won't like it, but this is how I'd do it:

• First Stage - The Discovery Scanner Honk. This reveals gravitational data on objects, giving you an Orrery map with "black" stellar bodies (no graphics), their orbital paths, and their gravity data. With that Orrery map you can see if the system structure looks interesting or not, how many bodies it has, etc. Infinite range on all three scanners (BDS, IDS, and ADS).
• Second Stage - Visual Scan. Next would be the visual scan. A secondary function of all Discovery Scanners would be a turret style sensor with a full range of motion, like a vision canon / telescope. Simply flying within range of a planet or star quickly scans the object visually, discovering the Orrery map graphic (NOT the surface map!) along with planet/star type. Note you do not need to point the ship at the object, just fly within range of it. The range of the visual scanner would vary among the three scanner types. For example, the BDS might require you to fly to within 2000ls of an object to unlock it's graphical view, the IDS maybe 10,000ls, and the ADS something like 30,000ls, but not an infinite range. Seeing the Orrery graphics for very far out bodies in a system would require the decision to actually fly out there.
  
  Another function of the visual (targeted) scanner would be the spectrograph. Targeting any body on the Orrery map (at any range) would produce a sensor waterfall display (also visible from the cockpit too), much like a vertical version of the SRV wave scanner. Every different planet type would produce a unique sensor echo which could be used to approximate the planet type at range without a closeup detail scan. The waterfalls often contain noise data too which can obfuscate the reading somewhat, yet still give a good indication that an Earth like or Ammonia world just might be there. This way a knowledgeable commander could identify very far off worlds that they might want to explore without any hard scan evidence determining the planet type. This turreted visual scanner could also be utilized during multicrew sessions, allowing crew to point the scanners at objects and analyze their spectrographs, thereby giving an exploration multicrew a job to do.
• Third Stage - Detail Surface Scan. Here is where you can fly within a certain distance of a stellar body (say 3K or so for large planets, like 3X the range of live currently) and perform a detail scan to get all of the body data like age, orbital info, materials, surface maps, etc. You do not need to point the ship at the object, simply target it within range. This also provides you with the Surface Heat Map which highlights large potential search areas on the planet where things can be found like geysers/fumeroles, unknown structures, life forms, high material concentrations, etc. Note that this scan would should be very fast, almost instant, to reduce time sink (the time to fly "close" to the planet should be time sink enough for the scan). This could also be used in multicrew by allowing the crew to do the targeting for the pilot, maybe even boosting the range somewhat for a crewed ship.
• Fourth Stage - Surface Exploration. The surface heat map now in hand, the commander can choose to fly down into search zones to look for POI's. Upon entering the zone a search indicator pops up (like surface salvage missions currently use, only more intensive) to guide the player incrementally, gradually narrowing down the search area to a more localized zone where the commander would need to land and use the SRV scanners to finally pinpoint the POI.

This is how I'd design exploration mechanics for Elite. It's basically an expansion upon what we have now, but broken down into stages which provide various degrees of information via actions, enabling several decision points along the way, something that is very much missing from exploration currently. It also provides mechanics that can be utilized for multicrew, and builds a solid set of tools which can be used to incorporate future content in a much better and more engaging (fun) way.

 

[stephen_usher]

Really?
- ADS had one button press to win. Like the energy bomb of the original Elite but for exploration and with unlimited use. I say using it is boring.
- BDS has one button press and then you lose. You see some stuff but don't have any idea if there is more or not. Well, you can cheat by checking the system map dimensions but I wouldn't call that a gameplay mechanic. When searching for more stuff the parallax method is awful except for the first few times.
- BDS sees a tiny moon at 499 ls say but does not see a huge had giant at 501 ls away. That's insane!
- ADS sees visual details of a tiny moon at 0.2 ly away. For optical detection that's way beyond Rayleigh criterion for an "ADS" or a "Sidewinder" sized telescope (=impossible physics, not fixable by advanced optics).
- *DS sees details of the backside of planets and moons too. Well, this is annoying but understandable simplification.
- ADS sees everything and every orbit but doesn't recognise anything. It sees detailed images of bodies but doesn't recognise anything. That's very baffling and annoying.

In short, the DS gameplay is shallow and either too easy or too difficult. Also, it's very difficult to imagine any future technology that would work both as perfectly and as badly as BDS / IDS / ADS do.

BTW, I agree with you about improving other exploration aspects than DS. And, IMO, they are more important than DS. But this thread is more about the (range of) ADS than about the other tools.

Which is why I suggested a finessed 'honk' which depends upon "visibility" (i.e. combination of angular size, luminance/albedo+illumination etc.) The different grades of 'honk' show different minimum "visibilities".

 

[Kestril]

I have a strong idea of what I'd love to see Frontier do with exploration. The link in my sig points to a detailed suggestion post about it, but from just a mechanics overhaul point of view, if I was personally in charge of exploration at Frontier, here is how I'd design it. And yeah I know RLSG and the honk defense force won't like it, but this is how I'd do it:

• First Stage - The Discovery Scanner Honk. This reveals gravitational data on objects, giving you an Orrery map with "black" stellar bodies (no graphics), their orbital paths, and their gravity data. With that Orrery map you can see if the system structure looks interesting or not, how many bodies it has, etc. Infinite range on all three scanners (BDS, IDS, and ADS).
• Second Stage - Visual Scan. Next would be the visual scan. A secondary function of all Discovery Scanners would be a turret style sensor with a full range of motion, like a vision canon / telescope. Simply flying within range of a planet or star quickly scans the object visually, discovering the Orrery map graphic (NOT the surface map!) along with planet/star type. Note you do not need to point the ship at the object, just fly within range of it. The range of the visual scanner would vary among the three scanner types. For example, the BDS might require you to fly to within 2000ls of an object to unlock it's graphical view, the IDS maybe 10,000ls, and the ADS something like 30,000ls, but not an infinite range. Seeing the Orrery graphics for very far out bodies in a system would require the decision to actually fly out there.
  
  Another function of the visual (targeted) scanner would be the spectrograph. Targeting any body on the Orrery map (at any range) would produce a sensor waterfall display (also visible from the cockpit too), much like a vertical version of the SRV wave scanner. Every different planet type would produce a unique sensor echo which could be used to approximate the planet type at range without a closeup detail scan. The waterfalls often contain noise data too which can obfuscate the reading somewhat, yet still give a good indication that an Earth like or Ammonia world just might be there. This way a knowledgeable commander could identify very far off worlds that they might want to explore without any hard scan evidence determining the planet type. This turreted visual scanner could also be utilized during multicrew sessions, allowing crew to point the scanners at objects and analyze their spectrographs, thereby giving an exploration multicrew a job to do.
• Third Stage - Detail Surface Scan. Here is where you can fly within a certain distance of a stellar body (say 3K or so for large planets, like 3X the range of live currently) and perform a detail scan to get all of the body data like age, orbital info, materials, surface maps, etc. You do not need to point the ship at the object, simply target it within range. This also provides you with the Surface Heat Map which highlights large potential search areas on the planet where things can be found like geysers/fumeroles, unknown structures, life forms, high material concentrations, etc. Note that this scan would should be very fast, almost instant, to reduce time sink (the time to fly "close" to the planet should be time sink enough for the scan). This could also be used in multicrew by allowing the crew to do the targeting for the pilot, maybe even boosting the range somewhat for a crewed ship.
• Fourth Stage - Surface Exploration. The surface heat map now in hand, the commander can choose to fly down into search zones to look for POI's. Upon entering the zone a search indicator pops up (like surface salvage missions currently use, only more intensive) to guide the player incrementally, gradually narrowing down the search area to a more localized zone where the commander would need to land and use the SRV scanners to finally pinpoint the POI.

This is how I'd design exploration mechanics for Elite. It's basically an expansion upon what we have now, but broken down into stages which provide various degrees of information via actions, enabling several decision points along the way, something that is very much missing from exploration currently. It also provides mechanics that can be utilized for multicrew, and builds a solid set of tools which can be used to incorporate future content in a much better and more engaging (fun) way.

I agree that honking shouldn't reveal the bodies on the system map, but I do think that the waterfall signature should be visible from any distance. However, it will get more clear the closer you get to the planetary body or anomaly in space. This way, players that know the signals can identify planets from very far away, while those not familiar with the signal types may have to fly a bit closer to clear up the signal to get rid of uncertainty.


And if the body is very far away or very small, players may have to close anyway to get a better signal. Basically, get rid of the hard-limits on identification distances. You can encourage travelling in SC naturally like following the signal on a wave scanner. I don't think permissive yes/no scans based on distances is compelling, that's what we have now. The difference is players are following the signal to better identify it, not following the signal to scan it in the first place. This reduces the amount of meaningless SC travel as much as possible, which is one of Sandro's design goals.

So, for me the stages would be

1. Honk (Reveals the amount and distance from star of blackbodies)
2. Identify (Scanner waterfall like Cold Waters, identifies type of body on system map, this stage could give hints as to anomalies)
3. Surface scan (Use probes or a surface scanner to reveal resource patches, crash-sites, and anomalies, reveals surface map of body)
4. Landfall (Land and discover!)

This method also works for objects that are not planets. Space wrecks, USS, and lost generation ships all give out signals that can be followed and identified.

 

[H.P.Lovecraft]

Exploration the undiscovered country

I think instead of a scan and see everything. You see that there is something there but you have to go and investigate to get more information. The closer you are to the object the more info you get.

Now that the time has come (or has been announced, let's say) for the reworking of core mechanics, and getting them closer to the original concepts...
Let's talk exploration.

Would you be ready to give up on your infinite scanner range and exhaustive galaxy map for more rewarding probing / navigation gameplay? Rewarding in terms of money/rank/whatever else of course, but also in terms of feeling. Of course you can't be left in the dark and just downgrade to the intermediate discovery scanner now - it would feel like artifical handicap. But there could be modules that detect unfound gravitationnal perturbations... probes to launch that would detect planetary bodies and their surfaces, even system-scaled scanners ala SRV... To an extent, there could be secret systems in galmap, for you to find, with one-knows-what-tool.

I reckon some things can't be changed. You can't remove something the player base is used to - for nothing at least. I'm just trying to know if that particular godly honk and the ease of discovery is that important to you. Not saying exploring is easy though - but it's more a matter of endurance, most of the time, than navigational flair (ok, tbh there is true navigationnal flair in certain expeditions reaching really isolated stars).

Your thoughts?

Edit : reading through the thread, I need to clarify that I do not advocate for its removal. I'd just like to know your advice on it and other methods.

 

[lenna]

...
BTW, I agree with you about improving other exploration aspects than DS. And, IMO, they are more important than DS. But this thread is more about the (range of) ADS than about the other tools.

This thread is a bit of joke if you consider constrained by the opening statement as the starting premise is perhaps the worst joke of all...

I agree that there are aspects of the DS mechanic that may benefit from refinement but wrt the 499/501 point... every system has it's limits and I have not ruled out some rebalancing/refinement of the BDS and IDS - in fact, I have actually supported it.

As for ADS being a single "press to Win" far from it - you do not get first discovery bonuses without surface scans, and the ADS does not do that for you and nor should it.

 

[SciTrekker]

This thread is a bit of joke if you consider constrained by the opening statement as the starting premise is perhaps the worst joke of all...

I agree that there are aspects of the DS mechanic that may benefit from refinement but wrt the 499/501 point... every system has it's limits and I have not ruled out some rebalancing/refinement of the BDS and IDS - in fact, I have actually supported it.

As for ADS being a single "press to Win" far from it - you do not get first discovery bonuses without surface scans, and the ADS does not do that for you and nor should it.

I've been wondering about this lately. Since the Discovery Scanners allow a lower-level detailed surface scan over a Detailed Surface Scanner (not sure which is Level 2 and which is Level 3 in Stats), is it enough to get First Discovered bragging rights should one be the first to obtain and sell the data of either Level 2 or Level 3 detailed scan?

More OT, I'd like a visual cue given for a subsequent Detail Surface Scanner scan after I previously obtained a detailed scan using my Advanced Discovery Scanner. Like the detailed scan, the low-level detailed scan has an animated graphic in the lower left part of the HUD (where the target object's name, type, & other info is displayed) while the scan is taking place. Currently I only hear the sound of the detailed scan occurring on my subsequent pass through the system to get that detailed info.

 

[lenna]

I've been wondering about this lately. Since the Discovery Scanners allow a lower-level detailed surface scan over a Detailed Surface Scanner (not sure which is Level 2 and which is Level 3 in Stats), is it enough to get First Discovered bragging rights should one be the first to obtain and sell the data of either Level 2 or Level 3 detailed scan?

I believe that is exactly the case... L1 is the DS, L2 is a normal SS, L3 is a DSS SS. L2/L3 scanning and hand-in is required for first discovery rewards.

 

[Ziljan]

As for ADS being a single "press to Win" far from it - you do not get first discovery bonuses without surface scans, and the ADS does not do that for you and nor should it.

The level of detail on the ADS means we already know what what kind of planet we're dealing with. With a single button press the game removes all of the decision making process, so we have nothing left to contribute except answering the soulless question: can I be bothered to scan this HMC or not? So I guess you're right it's not really press to Win, it's press to Lose.

 

[lenna]

The level of detail on the ADS means we already know what what kind of planet we're dealing with.

Not really, I have seen several instances of cases where something may look like one planet type on the system map but turns out to be something else after a DSS. Not everything is as black and white as some like yourself like to make out.

 

[mossfoot]

Not really, I have seen several instances of cases where something may look like one planet type on the system map but turns out to be something else after a DSS. Not everything is as black and white as some like yourself like to make out.

ugh... like slamming a head into a brick wall.

Perhaps you havent noticed, but the planet holograms on your dash have been updated so you can tell with absolute certainty if a planet is earth like, water world, etc, even if you're not 100% sure from the system map.

and the false positives explorers make with ELW and WW are a matter of misreading what they see - like they haven't seen an ELW in so long they're grasping at straws. It doesn't undercut Ziljans point in the slightest

 

[Ziljan]

ugh... like slamming a head into a brick wall.

Perhaps you havent noticed, but the planet holograms on your dash have been updated so you can tell with absolute certainty if a planet is earth like, water world, etc, even if you're not 100% sure from the system map.

and the false positives explorers make with ELW and WW are a matter of misreading what they see - like they haven't seen an ELW in so long they're grasping at straws. It doesn't undercut Ziljans point in the slightest

Was about to say,

1. Holos
2. Orbital radius
3. Star Type
4. Audio Cues

Any pair of the above clues is a 99.97% chance of knowing whether the planet is special. The full color system map all but removes any need for an explorer to think, and hence removes all choice save 1: to scan or go back to sleep.

The only exception to this are the very rare terraformables in multi star systems that also have internal heating sources that let them exist in large scale orbits that are a little tougher to predict. But you can often guess even these by the younger age of the parent star.

 

[Trickylion]

Not quite so simple. Holo doesn't indicate if the planet is terraformable and there is an overlap on hmc, metal body, rocky worlds.
Elw is similar to hmc holo, have to be in the habit to note the difference.
What looks like a ww can be a hmc as has similar holo.
System map gives an indication, the sound thing many people don't quite get including me.
Exploring is about practice, Same as rest of Ed,
Happy that many suggestions are coming through to improve it, much more than the Scanning issue though.
Some really remote bases would help and looking forward to the hull repair limpets and synthesis improvements.

 

[mossfoot]

What looks like a ww can be a hmc as has similar holo..

Similar, not same. WW has a trench on the right hand side that HMC never has. So it's 100% certain once spotted.

Point is, once you know what to look for, what Ziljan said is correct - it's honk, check, move on.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Similar, not same. WW has a trench on the right hand side that HMC never has. So it's 100% certain once spotted.

Point is, once you know what to look for, what Ziljan said is correct - it's honk, check, move on.

I've not seen anything that suggests replacing that mechanism with something other than:

Honk, time-comsuming activity, check, move on

Or...

Honk, check part of system and ignore the unknown bits, move on

*shrug*
The Engineers mechanic gives me confidence that we'll be given grind in the name of gameplay, but I'm equally sure that it'll be optional and we'll all simply adjust our exploration styles to fit.

I just hope the new detailed scan gameplay is engaging

 

[lenna]

Similar, not same. WW has a trench on the right hand side that HMC never has. So it's 100% certain once spotted.

Point is, once you know what to look for, what Ziljan said is correct - it's honk, check, move on.

Overall though, that only really matters if you are one of those that cherry pick rather than explore properly.

There is more to exploring than finding ELW/WWs.

 

[space voyager]

Fact remains that no mechanics will ever be good if there is nothing to be found.

Currently there are only geological formations on planets and moons out in the black and those are very hard to be found. I haven't found any and I have tried, but not to the extent some obviously have like flying around a planet for a week.

Whether it is geological formations of all sorts or a lot of additional content the scans should help you to narrow down the search area (could be in steps, different scans/scanners) into a size that one can actually search through in time that does not feel like dragging forever. For a game I'd say that time is less than an hour. More and you need a really dedicated player and a huge majority of players will be cut off from finding anything, which should not be the case in a game.

 

[Ziljan]

Overall though, that only really matters if you are one of those that cherry pick rather than explore properly.

There is more to exploring than finding ELW/WWs.

Oh so there is a wrong way to explore now? Well thanks for pointing out the flaw in your overall argument. If the ADS was changed according to Mossfoots vision the only info missing would be the color of the planets. So if your "proper" way of Exploration is to not cherry pick but scan everything, then not knowing what a planet looks like before you DSS it shouldn't matter to you. Unless you've got some reason why your "correct" way of cherry picking isn't cherry picking?