No more high-range FSD buffs, thanks!

While I agree with the sentiment, I will miss actually having to navigate across the abyss rather than just plot a route. There is an upside to longer jump ranges.

The longer the jump range, the more is missed out in the middle. So, what you'll get (and we're seeing it already) is like a motorway from the bubble to Sag A* and then onto beagle. Where the real fun of exploration is, is going off the motorway and seeing the stuff in between.

I mean GPS allows us to navigate to anywhere in the planet, but what happens on the way is the adventure.
 
Isn't it the 20KLY route planner much more responsible for this than the increased jump ranges? Granted, the two in concert would be multiplicative but it seems the 20KLY route planner made it 20 times easier to navigate that distance. It has 20 times the distance to check for a successful route. If you can't make it it's because you can't make it, not because you couldn't find the bridge. Seems the inflated FSD ranges are only slightly responsible and only increase what you can access.
 
Last edited:
When I was at school, the volume of a sphere was
constant * (radius ^ 3)
so a higher maximum jump range gives explorers much, much more space to explore - in the same time, so to speak.
(new_radius ^ 3) / (old_radius ^ 3) _times_ more volume if I am not mistaken.
Why would this be bad?

As always, I would like FD to state (not explain, defend or debate) why the original jump ranges were considered optimum and the extent to which they are arbitrary and could be changed. Facts as a sound basis for the booing and cheering are always useful in my opinion, least we forget what we are really booing and cheering about - and perhaps even start attacking others for simply not agreeing with our opinion.
 
Frst of all, pretty shre this was about the Asp scout. Secondly, the Asp Explorer isn’t yet that great for deep space exploration compared to the conda (mostly want dedicated exploration slots I guess) - though, I’m pretty sure that’s not the ship that’s getting a buff.
 
150 years ago we had a compass, a map and a horse that took real effort and time to get to the destination... Now we have cars with sat nav. Times change.

I'm all for keeping the size of the galaxy large IF there is a compelling gameplay reason to do it. Watching 200 loading screens instead of 100 loading screens just because isn't one of them.

Simple as that..
 
I generally agree with the OP.

Too higher jump ranges trivialise the entire galaxy. That said, with my Anaconda with a 52~ly range, I still had fun navigating the outer rim.

However, bubble travel, and general A-B travel requires a decent jump range, or it just comes across as a "pointless time sink" (not my words!).

The exploration range of ships is about right, maybe too high, but definitely shouldn't be buffed anymore.
My issue with jump ranges, is actually the ranges of jump ranges. Lol

Some ships *cough*Corvette*cough* are just plain awful to travel in.

They need rebalancing so they have a good jump range when empty, and rubbish when laden. Kinda like the Anaconda, but not as extreme.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

The corvette jump range is less rubbish if you take all the guns, armour and hull reinforcements off :)

It's already obnoxiously powerful, giving people some incentive not to strap every last bit of junk to it (ie low jump range) is a good idea.
 
I see where you are coming from.
A lot of the QOL improvements have had unfortunate side effects of normalising travel to a chore and this the push for more QOL and jump range or travel speed to reduce the chore.

The route planner is great, but does the word for you for finding a route between rare goods or the fastest path for a Buckyball race, both challenges of navigation skill in the days before the route planner.

My most memorable experience in exploration still is taking a Sidewinder with but a C rated FSD out to the Pleiades in the Gamma.
Each jump manually plotted, dead end having to be navigated around the Aries Dark Region, fuel for only 2 jumps at a time, so some paths with Brown dwarves could not be crossed, and an intermediate Discovery scanner meaning searching for bodies often relied on Parallax.
That felt like a real journey into the unknown.

Now in the Same ship even it is a mere plot route filter by scoopable stars, and it is just a series of jumps.
Any unknown destination is the same, and then it becomes x numbers of jumps away and I am not surprised there would be those who want a way to make to x/2 or x/3 or x/5.


That all said I don't think the Buff to the Asp Explorer will be just more jump range, I suspect there will be things coming in Q4 of Beyond where the Asp Explorer will get it's place in the sun again as the premiere explorer, just as the Asp Scout has a surprise coming
 
Last edited:
The issue with navigation has nothing to do with FSD range, and everything to do with the fact that navigation in "unknown" regions present zero danger.

Long range FSD just cuts down the time of travel. Something taking time is not the same as it being difficult.

1) jumping to an unknown system should lead to uncertainties wrt to exit distance from the star. There should also be risks of exiting just above a planet or other objects.
2) stellar dangers like flares, super high mag fields, very high radiation, very high heat from high star luminosity, meteroid clouds, crazy stellar winds, etc... once scanned the DB allow to avoid them by correcting the FSD jumps to have a safe exit.
3) tie exit uncertainties magnitude to the length of the jump.
4) add navigation challenges like the monoceros ring and dwarf galaxies and small clusters orbiting the milky way.

At the moment exploring is more tourism than exploring the unknown.

A hyperlane system with only a few routes available at the start and more being discovered upon exploring would have served exploration better than the maximally connected graph we have now.

Maybe change the model after some thargoid induced warp storm.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad the jump ranges have increased. I used to dread even having to make a journey of anything more than 400 LY. 20 identical jumps (never mind the 700 odd to get to Colonia) one after another is definitely not my idea of fun when all you have to do is scoop, realign and press the J key over and over again, and no amount of Navigational gameplay could make up for that. I still think the process of travelling is too repetitive even with the increased jump ranges.

I think (as Muetdhiver explained very well) the main problem we have is not having enough danger and stuff to do whilst out there to keep it exciting. Hopefully the new mechanics coming later this year should help improve that a little but i'd really like to see some more interesting POI's and backstory's introduced to help add to the mystery and intrigue of exploration.
 
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with OP, I prefer to have time to do things rather than spending all of it going somewhere

And you speak only for ships like Aspx and Anac with crazy jump range, but trust me inside à FdL or corvette it's not thé same jump range and the time it takes is atrocious, not even talking about the way that these ships travels which is also atrocious

Just like someone from FD said "Engineers are upgrades, not sidegrades"
live with your time or suffer
 
The upside to today's ease of long-distance travel is that we won't have so much to complain about when the network of Guardian Stargates is discovered!:D
 
Once upon a time, exploration was a series of choices and decisions. Maybe not difficult ones, but decisions best made with knowledge and experience.

Now the only decision is the destination. 1 click, then grind, so no wonder those whom have been attracted to exploration by the qol changes welcome more opportunity to reduce the grind, because that's all that's left.

Long jump ranges, long plotting and star filtering have all made exploration a trivial grind, with the odd opportunity for selfies.
 
Once upon a time, exploration was a series of choices and decisions. Maybe not difficult ones, but decisions best made with knowledge and experience.

Now the only decision is the destination. 1 click, then grind, so no wonder those whom have been attracted to exploration by the qol changes welcome more opportunity to reduce the grind, because that's all that's left.

Long jump ranges, long plotting and star filtering have all made exploration a trivial grind, with the odd opportunity for selfies.

Hm. Are you suggesting that the actual non trivial exploration gameplay was removed by QoL additions ? If so, exploration is really crap isn't it ?

QoL usually consist at removing hurdles and faff. In other words : most of exploration "gameplay" was uneccessary hurdles and faff. That says a lot about exploration isn't it ?

We're left with the bone : honk, scoop and press J.
 
Last edited:
Hm. Are you suggesting that the actual non trivial exploration gameplay was removed by QoL additions ? If so, exploration is really crap isn't it ?

QoL usually consist at removing hurdles and faff. In other words : most of exploration "gameplay" was uneccessary hurdles and faff. That says a lot about exploration isn't it ?

We're left with the bone : honk, scoop and press J.

Yes, but the rediculousness of the situation really depends on if you consider QoL changes to be universally beneficial just because they are given the QoL title.

They didn't reduce uneccessary hurdles and faff. They removed player engagement in the process.

If you look at the things that explorers had been begging for as QoL, I don't think you will find requests for the things we actually got. Filter plotting maybe, but only because it was non sensical to have the filters but the plotter to ignore them.
The long plotting was probably just a developer noticing that his efficiency improvements would allow longer plotting, and FD just went with it without considering the implications.
Longer jump ranges, again done without a real understanding of the implications. Sure people will cheer at the announcement, but you can't expect players to see all the consequences till they are in action. You CAN expect the games designers to spot them, it's their job.

Even if the players had begged for all these things, it's still fds responsibility to consider the consequences.
 
I'm glad the jump ranges have increased. I used to dread even having to make a journey of anything more than 400 LY. 20 identical jumps (never mind the 700 odd to get to Colonia) one after another is definitely not my idea of fun when all you have to do is scoop, realign and press the J key over and over again, and no amount of Navigational gameplay could make up for that. I still think the process of travelling is too repetitive even with the increased jump ranges.

I think (as Muetdhiver explained very well) the main problem we have is not having enough danger and stuff to do whilst out there to keep it exciting. Hopefully the new mechanics coming later this year should help improve that a little but i'd really like to see some more interesting POI's and backstory's introduced to help add to the mystery and intrigue of exploration.

Yeah I went to Sag A in a 37 LY anaconda. I think it was about 700 jumps each way. I'm totally over unnecessary jumping, there is zero need to inflict more of it on people.

It's not like there's something out there to find. And if there is it's almost certainly behind a permit lock.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that route plotting was the only part requiring thought,
this is more a consequence of seriously lacking exploration gameplay and the quirks of navigation acting
as interim exploration gameplay more than anything.

Exploration is non-existant, we have scanning and navigation, no exploration in the sense of going in the unknown.
Since all the stars and possible jumps are already mapped, no one can really "open/discover" a new route.
There are no navigation challenges and "terrain" so to speak. As far as hyperspace navigation goes, the galaxy is
"flat" and has no distinctive regional features.

IMO, for exploration to become meaningfull, a big shake up of the hyperspace/navigation mechanics will be required.
 
Last edited:
Would it make you feel better if I said I've never touched an engineer? So have had to fly the old fashioned way everywhere.
 
Yes, but the rediculousness of the situation really depends on if you consider QoL changes to be universally beneficial just because they are given the QoL title.

They didn't reduce uneccessary hurdles and faff. They removed player engagement in the process.

If you look at the things that explorers had been begging for as QoL, I don't think you will find requests for the things we actually got. Filter plotting maybe, but only because it was non sensical to have the filters but the plotter to ignore them.
The long plotting was probably just a developer noticing that his efficiency improvements would allow longer plotting, and FD just went with it without considering the implications.
Longer jump ranges, again done without a real understanding of the implications. Sure people will cheer at the announcement, but you can't expect players to see all the consequences till they are in action. You CAN expect the games designers to spot them, it's their job.

Even if the players had begged for all these things, it's still fds responsibility to consider the consequences.

+1

Couldn't agree more.

The QoL stuff was added without any counter-balance for keep navigation, travel, and exploration challenging.

I was lucky enough (or unlucky enough depending on ones viewpoint) to cross the galaxy when there were no route plotters, no star filters, no engineered FSDs or Jumponium, no fuel rats or hope of rescue if you screwed up. To this day the best experience I ever had was reaching the Abyss and spending a couple of days carefully plotting a route across it one star at a time, charting a path and having to retrace my steps when reaching a dead end, and making another attempt elsewhere. It felt like navigating into the unknown - because that's exactly what it was, with a risk of losing it all by running out of fuel, jumping into a close orbiting binary pair (risk of which has also been removed now :rolleyes:) or getting utterly lost in that interarm gap. Finally reaching the outerarm and discovering the system that became known as Beagle Point is something that made that whole adventure worth all the tedium and challenge that lead up to it.

For an 8 week period from the start of gamma (Nov. 2014) until patch 1.0 (Jan. 2015) traveling to the far recesses of the galaxy was a bloody good challenge - but only because it was all a learning curve with non-existent QoL gimmicks to rely on. Ever since patch 1.0 exploration has received those QoL additions, one after another, but with no counterbalancing danger or risk v reward gameplay to compliment them. FD created the largest gameworld ever, and they sold the game off the back of it, the mystery, possibilities, the challenge. That's what captured the imagination back during the KS days and early release... but ever since all they've done is water it down to a point where people can buckyball to the core in 2 or 3 hours, and reach Beagle Point in six. The Abyss is no longer the daunting void it once was. As someone mentioned on here not long ago, the galaxy once had character with places like the Abyss, the Tenebris, and Outer Rim being places that challenged the player. In my personal opinion layers of QoL gimmicks have slowly made the galaxy a homogeneous blob.

But there's no problem in adding QoL improvements... the problem is them not adding regions, environments, content, or gameplay that counterbalance the rewards nor challenge the player. Jumponium is a prime example - its a great addition but its all reward and no risk. If there was a risk of a misjump in the opposite direction or a chance of some tangible damage to your FSD when using an injection, then it could have been a great risk v reward gameplay mechanic. Neutron jumpinging is probably the only one FD put any actual thought into imho.

I hope FD begin adding environments that give the galaxy 'character'... where navigation across once inhospitable areas again requires some forethought and planning and not just a press of the 20K route plotter. I hope they add new travel mechanics, discovery techniques, environmental anomalies, black hole systems that are actually dangerous to enter, accretion disks, and proto-systems full of hazardous material, radiation belts, unstable stars with lethal solar flares etc. They've given us all the QoL stuff, now its time to begin laying in some actual danger and challenge to exploration and deep space travel.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the tech should just march forward?

I mean, we can cross the globe in mere hours now.

Sure, the exploration in this game is infinitely less dangerous than Earth's own exploration on the 18th century, but that is on the developer.
 
The corvette jump range is less rubbish if you take all the guns, armour and hull reinforcements off :)

It's already obnoxiously powerful, giving people some incentive not to strap every last bit of junk to it (ie low jump range) is a good idea.

The "problem" with the Corvette (and other 'hyperspace challenged' ships) is that in order to make them just slightly more comfortable to travel in, you need to remove pretty much everything. Making them completely useless.

The Anaconda, while a somewhat extreme example, is basically how all ships should be, more or less. If you strip it for lightweight, it'll jump really far. If you bog it down with heavy combat modules, it won't.
My Exploration Anaconda jumps about 52~ly I think. And my PvE mission runner does about 28ly.
When I made a pure combat Anaconda, it's range dropped to about 21~ly. If the combat modules have enough mass, it's self balancing.

There are better ways to balance a ship. The fuel tank is the one of the best. A small tank forces the use of fuel scoops and/or fuel tanks. Both taking up Internal slots. Or you can dock regularly.
 
Back
Top Bottom