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

[777Driver]

I'm struggling to take that question seriously TBH.

You really don't see how just typing in coordinates and then following a marker down to the surface is "dumbing down" the game compared to having to manually fly your ship to a given location?

Would you consider an autopilot to be "dumbing down" the game or "smartening up"?

An autopilot (if implemented correctly) would be the complete opposite of dumbing down the game. Anyway, I quite like the idea of having a module for more enhanced functions like coordinate plotting, flight path vector, storing and recalling routes, flight management guidance systems, basic things that have been around since the 1960's. The module would be part of an upgradable avionics bay.

I rarely complain about this game, however I could imagine the devs discussing planetary navigation and thinking that manually calculating rhumb lines will add a more hardcore simulation element to flight. It isn't hardcore, it is basic and tedious.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I disagree with that and I guess whoever's left that functionality dormant does too.

Quite a bold statement to make - we don't know why this isn't in. Could be many possible reasons, like not being thought of at the time, or just simply that the time for such hasn't been assigned yet.

 

[Stealthie]

An autopilot (if implemented correctly) would be the complete opposite of dumbing down the game. Anyway, I quite like the idea of having a module for more enhanced functions like coordinate plotting, flight path vector, storing and recalling routes, flight management guidance systems, basic things that have been around since the 1960's. The module would be part of an upgradable avionics bay.

I rarely complain about this game, however I could imagine the devs discussing planetary navigation and thinking that manually calculating rhumb lines will add a more hardcore simulation element to flight. It isn't hardcore, it is basic and tedious.

Yep,

I'm not advocating nuisance for the sake of nuisance.

My point is simply that almost everything in ED requires some kind of compromise.
You want more powerful weapons, you have to learn to shoot straight.
You want to avoid the inconvenience of landing, you need to sacrifice a slot and fit a DC.
Etc...

I just don't like the idea of completely negating any benefit of being willing to navigate manually.

At the moment, the DSS is basically just a credit generator and I'd really like to see that change.
Give it the functionality so it can plot surface waypoints, project mineral "hot-spots" and POIs onto the canopy etc and you'd have a module that'd really be worth using.

And you'd also create a bit of compromise, so people would have to decide whether or not it's worth fitting in order to avoid the inconvenience we currently have.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

If everybody had to scan a system upon entering it, I suppose there might be people out there with an exceptional sense of spacial awareness and a thorough grasp of orbital mechanics and that'd give them an advantage.
And if those people argued against changing the game to make it easier for everybody else, I guess I'd understand their reluctance to have the game "dumbed down" to suit everybody else.

As I said, a few posts ago, i wouldn't mind if POIs were added at surface locations once you'd already visited them though.

What I do object to is the game being dumbed-down so that there's absolutely no benefit to having the willingness and ability to follow coordinates manually.

I can follow co-ordinates perfectly fine. It just a very boring, tedious and time intensive way of doing something. Like when we want to meet up with people on a planet surface at a specific co-ordinates. The nav computer knows exactly where these co-ordinates are as we have the co-ordinates counter.

Just need a finder to put co-oridnates in to high-light a spot on a planet would be a massive QoL addition. Being able to get to these co-ordinates in a decent amount of time is good.

I really do not care about the POI I am missing out on because they are not the reason why I am going to those co-ordinates in the first place. If I am surface prospecting, then I won't bother putting any co-ordinates into the finder and I can surface prospect like before.

Yep,

I'm not advocating nuisance for the sake of nuisance.

My point is simply that almost everything in ED requires some kind of compromise.
You want more powerful weapons, you have to learn to shoot straight.
You want to avoid the inconvenience of landing, you need to sacrifice a slot and fit a DC.
Etc...

I just don't like the idea of completely negating any benefit of being willing to navigate manually.

At the moment, the DSS is basically just a credit generator and I'd really like to see that change.
Give it the functionality so it can plot surface waypoints, project mineral "hot-spots" and POIs onto the canopy etc and you'd have a module that'd really be worth using.

And you'd also create a bit of compromise, so people would have to decide whether or not it's worth fitting in order to avoid the inconvenience we currently have.

There is no benefit of navigating manually from what I can see. It litereally adds nothing to the game.

 

[Stealthie]

There is no benefit of navigating manually from what I can see. It litereally adds nothing to the game.

If it literally adds nothing to the game then why are you so set on making it easier?

Seems like there must be some benefit to it or nobody'd care about it.

I'd suggest that the benefit of being willing and/or able to navigate manually is that you get to see and do things that other people don't.

If you're not willing and/or able to do that and, instead, want something to assist you, then I think it's reasonable to expect there to be some down-side to that.

Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to use fixed weapons.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to fly FA-off.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to land manually.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to find the most profitable trade-routes.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to engineer your ships optimally.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to explore diligently.

Name ONE other example of a case where there's an easy way to do something in ED and a hard way and there's absolutely no penalty for choosing the easy way.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

If it literally adds nothing to the game then why are you so set on making it easier?

Because it's not making it easier - it's making it more convenient.

Because it'll be more convenient, it'll improve the quality of life for those playing the game.

Because quality of life is improved, it'll help to make more people participate in the content that Frontier adds to the game.

Because more people participate in the content that's added to the game, Frontier will have a happier player base.

Because more people are happier playing the game, Frontier gets more positive ratings.

Because Frontier gets more positive ratings, more people will be inclined to purchase the game.

And so on, and so forth.

A small addition - many, many positive feedbacks.

 

[Stealthie]

Because it's not making it easier - it's making it more convenient.

Because it'll be more convenient, it'll improve the quality of life for those playing the game.

Because quality of life is improved, it'll help to make more people participate in the content that Frontier adds to the game.

Because more people participate in the content that's added to the game, Frontier will have a happier player base.

Because more people are happier playing the game, Frontier gets more positive ratings.

Because Frontier gets more positive ratings, more people will be inclined to purchase the game.

And so on, and so forth.

A small addition - many, many positive feedbacks.

Nope.

Not buying that.

You're just trying to find excuses to make something easier without being willing to accept any trade-off in return.

 

[Achibot]

If it literally adds nothing to the game then why are you so set on making it easier?

Seems like there must be some benefit to it or nobody'd care about it.

I'd suggest that the benefit of being willing and/or able to navigate manually is that you get to see and do things that other people don't.

If you're not willing and/or able to do that and, instead, want something to assist you, then I think it's reasonable to expect there to be some down-side to that.

So you think the game would benefit from a multi-ton module that covers functionality offered by my 157g phone and is already in the game for galaxy and system map bookmarks? And your reason is because it's better gameplay to emulate how navigation was done in sailing ships? Staggering man, almost as staggering as your insistence in spamming this crap with a third of the past 3 pages occupied by just you saying the exact same thing over and over again. I wouldn't mind but you've been told the reason many times and it's very simple: making content accessible. This is the exact same reason we get automatic bookmarks for Engineers and the ability to create our own bookmarks in the galaxy map. This is a request for identical functionality for planetary surfaces to mark places of interest. Or do Engineer bookmarks remove the "skill" from engineering?

Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to use fixed weapons.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to fly FA-off.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to land manually.

All of these things are not at all comparable as they involve a hard skill cap with a progressive effect for becoming better. This is not the same as being forced to slowly fly around a planet waiting for numbers to line up so you can make your drop. That involves patience and tolerance for pointlessness, not skill.

Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to find the most profitable trade-routes.

Once again, there is no better way to find trade route information than edcd. There is no skill here, unless filling out standard html forms became a skill at some point. "Knowing the best trade routes" is just not a thing that can possibly help anyone as the best trade routes change frequently. You know, that supply and demand mechanic they have...

Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to engineer your ships optimally.

No, there isn't. There is an upside to using engineering, the opposite of what you said. Your ships don't get worse (downside) if you don't engineer them, they get better if you do (upside).

Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to explore diligently.

Again, this makes no sense at all. There is no skill involved whatsoever. You drop in, you honk as you travel around the star, you look at the System Map as you jump out and you only stop to investigate further if the right planet icons appear at the correct distance from the star. This isn't skill based in any way, your insistence that it is without offering any actual examples of how skill matters here or even what the relevant skills are is nonsense.

Name ONE other example of a case where there's an easy way to do something in ED and a hard way and there's absolutely no penalty for choosing the easy way.

I could write a list of stuff here but there's no need. Just one word will do: Quince.

 

[Spacegamejunkie]

Nope.

Not buying that.

You're just trying to find excuses to make something easier without being willing to accept any trade-off in return.

Just as some will say "The Glass is half Full" and others say "The Glass is half Empty",
it is only the View point of Your Opinion, And most likely will never be able to Change.

 

[Stealthie]

So you think the game would benefit from a multi-ton module that covers functionality offered by my 157g phone and is already in the game for galaxy and system map bookmarks? And your reason is because it's better gameplay to emulate how navigation was done in sailing ships? Staggering man, almost as staggering as your insistence in spamming this crap with a third of the past 3 pages occupied by just you saying the exact same thing over and over again. I wouldn't mind but you've been told the reason many times and it's very simple: making content accessible. This is the exact same reason we get automatic bookmarks for Engineers and the ability to create our own bookmarks in the galaxy map. This is a request for identical functionality for planetary surfaces to mark places of interest. Or do Engineer bookmarks remove the "skill" from engineering?

As I previously said, it helps if you keep in mind that this is a game.

Modern aircraft have sensors that can detect things hundreds of miles away.
You can buy a radar system for a small boat which weighs around 5kgs and costs around £2,000
If you want to fit a radar system to a big boat... it still weighs 5kgs and costs around £2,000

ED already ignores reality in an attempt to balance gameplay.

Big shocker, amiright?!

I could write a list of stuff here but there's no need. Just one word will do: Quince.

Don't think I've ever heard of a "Quince" module for a ship.

You knew we were talking about ship modules and systems, right?

Says a lot that you couldn't find anything which directly contradicts what I said and, instead, were forced to scrape around other aspects of the game in an attempt to support your position.

You're still wrong though.
The down-side to Quince is that somebody who uses it to elevate their rank or funds doesn't get the experience that they would have gained by earning that stuff in a more varied manner and, as a result, they're clueless about a lot of the things that they should have learned from other aspects of the game.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Nope. I don't see that as dumbing down at all. You may as well tell the real-world military of this world to go back to using sextants and knotted rope.

Sure, this isn't the real world - it's a game. A game is meant to be worth your valuable life time to play. Spending time navigating to a LAT/LON point without aid is an unecessary waste of time and also makes for unneeded frustration.

One or two posters in this thread have already stated they don't bother with some game content because for them it's a real bane to find themselves at the correct place on a planet surface - I see that as dev effort to add content gone to waste.

I disagree with the DSS idea. This should be standard functionality built into your ship's computer. Not only that, there already exists code within the game to implement such.

I normally agree with Stealthie, but on this point, we have been ahead of Elite since the 1950's- ICBM's, specifically. Submarine launched ones, even more so. Bombers gave up using star fixes a while back, too. We had INS and Loran-C, and other aids.

This is just stubbornness on Frontier's side. OK, you can play the Blue Danube all you want, but the disbelief suspenders are at 1% health.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

If it literally adds nothing to the game then why are you so set on making it easier?

Seems like there must be some benefit to it or nobody'd care about it.

I'd suggest that the benefit of being willing and/or able to navigate manually is that you get to see and do things that other people don't.

If you're not willing and/or able to do that and, instead, want something to assist you, then I think it's reasonable to expect there to be some down-side to that.

Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to use fixed weapons.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to fly FA-off.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to land manually.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to find the most profitable trade-routes.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to engineer your ships optimally.
Just as there's a down-side to not being willing to explore diligently.

Name ONE other example of a case where there's an easy way to do something in ED and a hard way and there's absolutely no penalty for choosing the easy way.

Shooting people in open, with over-engineered ships, for the laughs.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Nope.

Not buying that.

You're just trying to find excuses to make something easier without being willing to accept any trade-off in return.

It's not easier though. One just takes a long time for no reason at all. It is easy to follow coordinates. I just as easy to put this coordinates into your computer and make a way marker and follow that. The only difference is speed and convenience. Our ships already have the coordinates. It's utter lunacy that we can't put the coordinates we want to get too and go straight there instead of following the counter which takes much longer.

What I am saying is that there is no added gameplay by doing it manually or by have waymarkers you can put in via coordinates. What different gameplay do they give. One is faster, the other is much slower. That is the only difference. There is no skill factor involved, it's just pointless time wasting.

 

[Sashenka]

Wait! There are seriously people against adding a planetary coordinates system to a space sim? For real? Well ...

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Nothing against this at all, but having participated in the 2.4 beta, I'll leak - don't hold your breath.

Maybe something like this will turn up in 3.0+, but definitely not in 2.4.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Nothing against this at all, but having participated in the 2.4 beta, I'll leak - don't hold your breath.

Maybe something like this will turn up in 3.0+, but definitely not in 2.4.

Yeah I know it's not in 2.4, having also played the beta :/

 

[sollisb]

I'm struggling to take that question seriously TBH.

You really don't see how just typing in coordinates and then following a marker down to the surface is "dumbing down" the game compared to having to manually fly your ship to a given location?

Would you consider an autopilot to be "dumbing down" the game or "smartening up"?
How about turrets that do the same damage as fixed weapons?
How about a built-in docking computer?

Bottom line is that often "smartening up" the technology within a game certainly does "dumb down" the actual game, itself.

Course, as I've already said, I'd be perfectly happy with that IF it was a feature of the DSS.
Type coordinates into a DSS and you can follow 'em down to the surface.
Forego the DSS, manually navigate to your destination and you've got an extra slot available for something else. [up]

Well to be honest Stealthie mate, I have never not used a program to track the co-ordinates. Only difference is, it's outside E.D. UI. Let's face it, we have navigation systems in Flight Sim 19xx, and they just got better and better. I at one stage a full blown Flight Management System in my 737 cockpit.

It beggars belief that we don;t have it in E.D. And further, one really has to ask.. why not? Seems to me the Apollo 11 Command modulehad better programming than we do in E.D.

 

[Stealthie]

It's not easier though. One just takes a long time for no reason at all. It is easy to follow coordinates. I just as easy to put this coordinates into your computer and make a way marker and follow that. The only difference is speed and convenience. Our ships already have the coordinates. It's utter lunacy that we can't put the coordinates we want to get too and go straight there instead of following the counter which takes much longer.

What I am saying is that there is no added gameplay by doing it manually or by have waymarkers you can put in via coordinates. What different gameplay do they give. One is faster, the other is much slower. That is the only difference. There is no skill factor involved, it's just pointless time wasting.

What additional gameplay does manually docking provide?

If somebody started a thread suggesting that the functionality of the DC should be built into the ship, thus freeing up an extra optional slot, I am pretty sure that almost every reply would say the whole point is that you have the choice of either docking manually or "wasting" a slot by using a DC.

I'm simply suggesting the same philosophy should apply here.

At the moment, all we've got is manual navigation and that certainly is a bit sucky.
Attach the surface navigation functionality to the DSS module and give people the choice of either navigating manually or "wasting" a slot with the DSS.
I don't think we should get an "easy option" without some kind of trade-off - just as is the case with the DC.

 

[sollisb]

What additional gameplay does manually docking provide?

If somebody started a thread suggesting that the functionality of the DC should be built into the ship, thus freeing up an extra optional slot, I am pretty sure that almost every reply would say the whole point is that you have the choice of either docking manually or "wasting" a slot by using a DC.

I'm simply suggesting the same philosophy should apply here.

At the moment, all we've got is manual navigation and that certainly is a bit sucky.
Attach the surface navigation functionality to the DSS module and give people the choice of either navigating manually or "wasting" a slot with the DSS.
I don't think we should get an "easy option" without some kind of trade-off - just as is the case with the DC.

Ah, I'm cool with that! Most of my explorer ships have spare slots.

 

[Nagual]

What additional gameplay does manually docking provide?

If somebody started a thread suggesting that the functionality of the DC should be built into the ship, thus freeing up an extra optional slot, I am pretty sure that almost every reply would say the whole point is that you have the choice of either docking manually or "wasting" a slot by using a DC.

I'm simply suggesting the same philosophy should apply here.

At the moment, all we've got is manual navigation and that certainly is a bit sucky.
Attach the surface navigation functionality to the DSS module and give people the choice of either navigating manually or "wasting" a slot with the DSS.
I don't think we should get an "easy option" without some kind of trade-off - just as is the case with the DC.

Indeed, although I'd feel a little cheated if they did that. The ships computer can take you 20,000 lrs away, but can't point you in the right direction when on a planet to anywhere other than a mere scattering of location types.