Quality of Life Improvement: Input LAT/LON Co-ords and have a Surface Waypoint appear, similar to the surface scan mission Waypoint.
- Thread starter Genar-Hofoen
- Start date
- Status
Seems straight forward enough. Chop chop FD !
You have just identified the communications issue.
Suspect they're a tad busy right now getting 2.4 done
I'd rather they retained some "dilemma" for the player.
If you want the most powerful guns, you have to learn to shoot fixed weapons.
If you want the most responsive ship, you have to learn to fly FA-Off.
If you want optimal usage of internal slots you have to forego a docking computer and land manually.
I think the same philosophy should apply to surface landings too.
You shouldn't get an "easy option" without some trade-off.
And, given that almost everything else in ED requires some kind of trade-off, that's probably how FDev see it too.
Your main point is you want the game to have minimal Quality of Life additions, because in your mind the more masochistic your game-playing experience, the better the game.
Wrong.
Presumably you've never done a Surface Recovery mission or an outpost scanning mission - where the location for the canisters to be recovered or the outpost to be scanned is fed in to your ship's nav computer and marked as a waypoint on the planet surface.
Well, this is no different from those - an ability to type in LAT/LON coordinates into the ship's nav computer in order to mark a waypoint on the planet surface - the code for this is already there vis a vis the above described missions.
Imagine those missions above whereby you only got the location's LAT/LON coordinates by way of text, then you had to find your way to that manually - most players would probably openly mock that and simply not do those missions.
As someone who designs applications for a living, and as someone who programs Captain's Log, what you're suggesting is akin to me programming Captain's Log's Configuration Manager, but leaving out the button to access it. The code's there but you can't use it. Luckily I am reasonably competent in designing user experiences and have a button there to access it.
Similarly with surface waypoints - the code is already there, what's lacking is a way of manually inputting just even 1 set of LAT/LON coordinates in order to mark a waypoint.
A basic quality of life addition, one which would attract more of the player base to partake of the surface content that Frontier has been adding.
Because the best experience of playing a game was when the computer was a small grey box with keyboard already included, graphics was wire frame or a few pixels jumping on a TV screen, music was a few repetitive sounds and the narration was done through the lines of text only. Not.
I get the nostalgia, but it's 2017, not 1987. There are things that should be challenging and difficult in a game, but making everyday activities, ones which are repeated over and over again, pain in the backside, is, in my opinion, detrimental to the whole game experience. For example, if I'm taking a mission, I'd rather focus on completing the mission and enjoying it than on playing endless mini games.
And there is also the whole suspension of disbelief element, which to me, was always very important in games. If the game audio-visually does a very decent job at this and then throws in some game mechanics that simply doesn't fit the universe created, I see it as a game design oversight at best.
My main point is, as I said, that ED almost always requires that the player is willing to make some compromise.
With all the other "unrealistic" limitations in ED, I see no reason why surface navigation should be treated any differently.
You want easy surface navigation, fit a DSS.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
This is ridiculous.
It's 2017 as DHMeyer points out above, it's not 1984. We have inertial guidance systems on aircraft and spacecraft today that don't need GPS so you know where you are and where you want to go. Elite is based in the 3300's, not in the goddamned stone age.
Your idea of how the game should be is so 'gamey' it's laughable. Placing such an artificial limitation in the game absolutely makes for a rubbish game experience. People play games to enjoy their time playing them - not feel punished for doing so. It's why as you say lots of aspects of this game put lots of people off when playing it.
Look at it another way - even if you could mark one waypoint on a planet surface - that's still not going to help you discover a new Thing on said planet surface if you don't know where it is to begin with - it's only going to help you get there once you know it's there, so it doesn't in any way touch the game for the people who go out looking for stuff, it only affects and aids those who go after.
I disagree. Unless we have modules for galaxy map and system map as well (both of which allow you to search for objects and add waypoints right now without any modules). Which I am totally fine with, by the way. More even: I would wholeheartedly embrace such a change in ED. As this would require from Frontier to rethink the way we customise the ships and I believe that would do a lot of good to this game. Engineers could offer so much more than a RNG and even with the shortcomings of this system what it gave us was a game changer to me when it comes to reducing unnecessary tedium (lev 5 FSD mod finally making more ships actually useful).
I have DSS on every ship I have. Unless I'm doing one jump trade route or the ship is outfitted for combat within a system the ship takes mooring in. I can't imagine taking a longer trip, even across the bubble, without having the possibility to scan astronomical objects I find interesting.
Though personally I see modules such as DC, ADS and DSS as something that belongs to core internal modules (or a completely different category, say: Sensor Modules), not the optional internal modules. Not that FD is going to change that, and in my opinion, they are making a mistake. They had the option of giving the players possibility to have pretty unique ships and that would be genuinely exciting and entertaining. Watching the numbers on the HUD change is not my definition of quality entertainment time. That's something anyone can do using Google Earth. Try that: note down some random location and then look for it rotating the planet using Google Earth. Here, no need to spend £100 on Elite: Dangerous with add ons and extras.
And by the way, I'm of the generation that didn't have GPS and detailed local map in their pockets. I've been trained to find my route and points of interest using analogue tools (I only require direction and distance, not even a map, if need be). We used to do navigation exercises in high school. They would drop us in the middle of nowhere with a compass and a task of finding several points within specified time. Great fun, when you do it with buddies and have some booze to keep you going. Not so much in a computer game in 2017.
I don't want to spend my time in Elite doing that. And I don't. When I get a tip off about some location, I just ignore them now and so do many other players. So all the work that Frontier has put into writing the code for that is essentially wasted.
I play Elite because I enjoy the illusion of flying a spaceship and it's the closest I will ever get to having the experience of venturing beyond the confines of Earth's atmosphere. If I want to have the experience of being a big god damn galactic hero, I play Mass Effect (the only other game that never leaves my hard drive). If I want the experience of "living" in space, being a humble space pilot, trader and explorer, I play Elite. Mini games and games the players have to make up for themselves are just taking away from that experience.
Last edited:
What's laughable is the way you're insisting that THIS specific thing should be modified in a way to make it more "realistic" while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of features in ED rely on a similar philosophy of compromise.
I've already cited numerous examples of this so I won't bother repeating myself.
And then, on top of that, you're citing current technology as evidence that a feature in ED is "gamey"?
Current technology provides us with sensors with a range of hundreds of miles, we have targeting computers which can track, identify and prioritise multiple targets simultaneously and select the most appropriate weapon on a situational basis.
We have 360° virtual cockpit functionality and weapons that aim using eye-tracking.
We have stealth technology and jamming technology.
We have night-vision, we have thermal vision.
It might come as a shock to you but ED is a game and, as such, it frequently adopts "gamey" concepts for the sake of balance and compromise.
The cognitive dissonance in evidence here is incredible.
Last edited:
The closest comparison would probably be the Docking Computer.
ED offers player the choice between docking manually, thus freeing-up an internal slot, or fitting a DC for extra functionality at the expense of losing a slot.
Why would a similar compromise not be acceptable in regard to surface navigation?
Try to provide an answer that doesn't involve "cos it isn't realistic!!!!" because, as we've seen, that argument holds no water whatsoever.
ED offers player the choice between docking manually, thus freeing-up an internal slot, or fitting a DC for extra functionality at the expense of losing a slot.
Why would a similar compromise not be acceptable in regard to surface navigation?
Try to provide an answer that doesn't involve "cos it isn't realistic!!!!" because, as we've seen, that argument holds no water whatsoever.
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, I agree with you completely on the subject of engineering.
Rather than each grade of engineering making a module better at one job, I think it'd be far more interesting if engineering provided additional functionality.
For example, a G5 engineered ADC could provide an option to incorporate the basic function of a DSS into it.
So, if you want to get out and explore immediately, you can fit an ADC and a DSS with some weight penalty.
Alternatively, if you were prepared to put in the effort, you could G5 engineer your ADC, get rid of the DSS, free up a slot and decrease weight.
Add what we're currently discussing into the mix and you might also have to consider whether you keep your DSS in order to provide superior surface navigation (thus taking up a slot and adding to weight) and have the option of engineering the ADC in some other way - perhaps for reduced weight, low-power or some other option.
The current engineering options all seem a bit "1 dimensional" to me. A broader choice of options would certainly be welcome.[up]
I would think the closest comparison would be the addition of the ship transfer mechanic. Why? Because it was a QoL feature that was added with a relatively small development investment for the purpose of encouraging gameplay.
Talking about modules and engineering and what not is pointless. So much of the game design of Elite doesn't make sense from different perspectives. If you wanted this new feature to be more consistent with the game you could force the player to enter the coordinates 100 times to create a waypoint - grind quota activated. There are a ton of things that
So, back to comparisons. This is just like ship transfer. It would be relatively simple to implement since the majority of the functionality already exists (as has been pointed out). All that is required is a way to inject a manual coordinate into that system. It's optional so people who like staring at little numbers can continue to do that. And it would provide a huge boost to people who just want to quickly find a spot on a planet for some particular reason (checking out a site, meeting friends, etc).
For people who wanted to add lots of visible waypoints and do surface racing and other cool stuff.... still useless.
Well, TBH I was making the comparison with the DC on the basis that it's directly comparable. It's a piloting issue where you have the choice of convenience OR optimal use of resources.
I guess ship transfers can be used in regard to it improving QoL though.
So, let's look at ship transfers.
You have the choice of paying credits to make a ship-transfer happen automatically or you can do it yourself where the main "cost" is time spent.
There's your compromise: Pay in money or pay in time.
Where's the compromise in simply upgrading planetary navigation to utilise surface waypoints?
You've improved convenience but there's no "trade-off".
Which is why I think it'd be more reasonable to integrate any planetary navigation into the functionality of the DSS.
What was the trade off with book marks? I mean instead of having to select the system that was hopefully marked with a sidewinder and then go to the system map I can just click on the station I have book marked and I'm good to go. Not everything has to have a trade off. I also don't consider ship transfer to be a QOL improvement. I view it as a luxury.
Way points yes please.
Because it is not the way it works when it comes to other navigational solutions, i.e. Galaxy Map and System Map, not mentioning Surface Map, where waypoints are perfectly operational whenever surface missions are involved. Sure thing, let's make every functionality of the game and every aspect of spaceship's operation require specific modules. Though in such a case, let's start with Galaxy map and System Map because both offer the kind of functionality the OP is asking for without any additional modules. Let's make it consistent.
"Realism" of lack of thereof is not something to dismiss so easily. It makes the difference between a game made to be mocked and a game made to be engaging the audience.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status