Talk about useless info, EDSM say nobody else has gone to the Box Nebula, probably because its pretty darn hard to get there (pre 2.1 it'd have been impossible to get there).
The Trouble with Associating Jump Range with Exploration Gameplay
- Thread starter WR3ND
- Start date
Talk about useless info, EDSM say nobody else has gone to the Box Nebula, probably because its pretty darn hard to get there (pre 2.1 it'd have been impossible to get there).
Yep, and efficiency is my main reason for upgrading my FSDs with the Engineers. Specific max jump ranges are less relevant for exploration here though than things like fuel scoops and supercuise maneuverability in general, in my opinion.
It's all been said really.
If I'm exploring I want a ship with a big jump-range because:-
1) I have to get to the region I plan on exploring.
2) It's likely I will be exploring areas with low star density.
3) I am capable of manually selecting jump destinations if I want to make short jumps.
In short, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
If I'm exploring I want a ship with a big jump-range because:-
1) I have to get to the region I plan on exploring.
2) It's likely I will be exploring areas with low star density.
3) I am capable of manually selecting jump destinations if I want to make short jumps.
In short, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I look at it a bit differently in that if you set the Asp as the model dedicated exploration ship, and set it against the DBX and Anaconda, all well engineered, not necessarily god rolled, then I am not sure the balance is all that far off actually when comparing pro's and cons. Well engineered Asp will be in the mid 50's, DBX around 60, and Anaconda mid 60's. The Asp is pretty much ideal in that it can run cool, has enough module space for solid exploration kit, fantastic supercruise handling, and unparalleled view. The DBX has the small fuel scoop, and a poorer view, and the Anaconda, well, it has the worst view of the lot, and the supercruise handling...just uggh. The extra range of the 'Conda is not nearly enough to overcome those drawbacks for me to actually want to fly one long term.
Yep. Plus a ship with a long jump range is super effecient at making very short jumps. It's one of the reasons why the horrendously slow scoop on the DBX doesn't matter to me much, I can literally explore dozens of close systems for hours on end and never need to scoop fuel even once. Making hundreds of 10ly jumps takes almost zero fuel when your ship has a range of 59lys, but it's nice to be able to scoot on up to the roof of the galaxy too and explore that planetary nebula 100ly out from the closest anything when it catches my eye.
That's kind of my point though. I'm sure reaching the Box Nebula will be useless info in due course eventually as well with the way things are progressing. Maybe by then reaching the Lemon Slice Nebula will be the new thing.
The perceived elephant in the room is jump range, when really there is more to exploration than that, except for certain more niche types of exploration. I personally would prefer to see more enhancements to exploration gameplay beyond just things like racing across the galaxy and trying to one-up other players. There are always going to be further out things that we can't quite reach. I'd personally rather like being able to reach the Large Magellanic Cloud, for example, but that's more of a tangent issue or limitation than what I'm trying to address here.
If jump range isnt important for explorers who go on trips of thousands of light years then its even less important to anyone else, so why do you have a problem?
I would love to have the LMC or Andromeda opened up with a Fog of Exploration mechanic in place where we can't see much beyond say a couple hundred light years radius around our ship, until it is actually explored by someone. Not knowing where the boundaries are, not knowing where the gaps are, even what direction is the core...
Yeah, my line of thought in making the three ships nearly equal in jump range is that explorers could then choose which ship to fly based on the other pros and cons while taking jump range out of the equation. For example, if they all were relatively equal in jump range then:
- DBX: Cheapest of the three while being the smallest and easiest to land, but with the slowest fuel scoop in the game. Minimum internals required for exploration, decent view out the window.
- Asp X: More expensive with a much faster scoop, plus an exceptional view from the seat. Better internal flexibility but flies more drifty than the DBX.
- Anaconda: Most expensive but also the fastest at fuel scooping, plus has huge internal flexibility to carry anything any explorer would ever need. Poor visibility though and a very sluggish flier.
With equal range all three ships are equally capable of flying to the same locations, yet each still has various pros and cons so choosing which one to fly depends on what you want to do while out in deep space. If you want a small nimble easy to land ship take the DBX, if you want the best view fly the Asp X, and if you want to bring an SLF and a lot of SRVs or even fuel and hull repair limpets then the Anaconda is your ship. Currently so many explorers just choose the Anaconda simply because it can jump the farthest, I’d just love to remove that “shackle” from the ship selection.
Player expectations surrounding exploration gameplay inherently will have some effect on gameplay development and progression, I think. Jump range is just as important to trade related gameplay, if not even more so, for example.
The biggest advantage of FSD range is time: personal game time spent getting to where people want to be is important. The actual place you go is pretty immaterial: rim/core/arm/bubble etc
[A 260Ly neutron boost to where you want to go - whats not to like?]
[A 260Ly neutron boost to where you want to go - whats not to like?]
I live in Wisconsin. I'm not going to visit the Grand Canyon if I have to walk there. However, I might if I can drive or fly there.
Jump range makes a difference in whether folks will WANT to go out exploring...
Aha, but I said JR was on its sweet spot right now.
Which means that 0.01 percent of the stars do require a good jump range to explore. So jump range is not just for speed, but also for reaching the ends. Also, speed can be important for explorers as well. When Columbus explored Americas, would his exploration been worse if the boat ride over the Atlantic had been faster? Or is exploring in the jungles ruined by flying to Africa? Or is exploration in the Arctic only valid if you walk there from China? The key isn't really that the jump range ruins exploration, but it is most definitely a tool in certain aspects of certain types of exploration, and in those cases, a very important tool.
Last edited:
I know what you mean. There's not much to do in exploration today. I was dreaming the other day of landing on a planet and exploring alien wildlife in a jungle with strange plants and trees. And how about finding more types of ruins and artifacts of dead alien cultures far away in the galaxy, with the help of some more advanced planetary scanners and such. Jump range isn't the only thing. We need other things. I think the jump range right now is great. Really don't need more... or maybe 1 or 2 ly more would help a bit because I have encountered about 10 stars in the past month that were just 1 ly farther away than my jump range and I had to use a basic boost. No biggie. Just feels wasteful.
I think exploring is really the only career that you can associate with high jump range (45+ ly). It's not that every explorer need high jump range but for many it is important. Reasons have already been told in this thread.
Now, I do feel that the bubble is too small when I'm there in an exploration ship. However, the same bubble feels too big with most stock ships. So basically there are two things that I don't like: 1) very small jump range of some ships, 2) extreme boost that Engineers give to FSD. I would prefer to have a different balance here. Especially if...
Here's my heresy: I wouldn't mind if the jump range would correlate negatively with local star density. Very high jump ranges of 60+ ly could only be available in sparse regions. Max jumps in the bubble area could be about 40 ly (the same that the new trader data tools will have in 3.0). The galactic core could slow you down even more to 30 ly or even 20 ly range.
Now, I do feel that the bubble is too small when I'm there in an exploration ship. However, the same bubble feels too big with most stock ships. So basically there are two things that I don't like: 1) very small jump range of some ships, 2) extreme boost that Engineers give to FSD. I would prefer to have a different balance here. Especially if...
Here's my heresy: I wouldn't mind if the jump range would correlate negatively with local star density. Very high jump ranges of 60+ ly could only be available in sparse regions. Max jumps in the bubble area could be about 40 ly (the same that the new trader data tools will have in 3.0). The galactic core could slow you down even more to 30 ly or even 20 ly range.
Yeah. Agree with this. If we would somehow rate or put weights on importance of certain things relating to career, I'd say jump range for trading is more important than jump range for exploration, without saying that it doesn't have any importance at all of course. it's important for both, but trading with poor jump range is really frustrating, especially increased risk of pirates.