News Chapter Four - Exploration Reveal

Cmdr Eagleboy · Sep 21, 2018

LeoBartlet said:
You consider the UI minigame as depth?

lol

It is subjective evaluation for each of us. Some people won't see anything deep unless it simulates Orbiter level gameplay. Really doesn't matter.

NMS isn't deep, it is quite shallow as far as mechanics goes. Yet it is fun for many commanders and mentioned lot of times as example ED should follow.

It would be wise if people stop using worth "shallow/deep" and cut it to "not interesting to me". Would save lot of bother.

Tessa R Act · Sep 21, 2018

Cmdr Eagleboy said:
.... Some people won't see anything deep unless it simulates Orbiter level gameplay. ....

THAT would be a poopstorm about timesinks in the forum *laugh* exploring (without timecompression) star-systems in Hohman-Orbits.... 7 years flighttime to scan the moons of that gas-giant over there....

Tippis · Sep 21, 2018

Xenia_K said:
did you at any point consider that here is a good chance that the new mechanics might be a base requirement to implement lots of new stuff

Since they didn't bother to suggest anything of the kind, which would have been a very important detail to include, no. If they wanted to present an exploration update, that would have been the bombshell stuff they wanted to lead with — not some questionable UI fiddling.

Moreover, they actually wanted to add new mechanics or — better yet — new content, then the instahonk could trivially be made a non-issue: just don't reveal it that way. Bam. Problem ~~solved~~ notevenexistingtobeginwith. Just because instahonk currently reveals a lot of the base information needed for player choice and agency does not mean it must also reveal whatever new information would be involved in any such additions. Et voilà, suddenly we have a very solid argument why new discovery methodologies are needed: because without them, you won't find the fancy new stuff.

There's a reason why “don't bury the lede” is a such long-standing idiom. If you want to blow people away with fancy new gameplay, start with the fancy new gameplay, not with the UI layer you've slapped on top of it.

It might be wishful thinking on my behalf, but logically its the only reason why FD would put money and manpower into something which, at least for some Cdr arguing here, is a perfect working solution ?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of other reason why they'd do that, most notably that it gives an appearance of newness — surface details like UI are great for exactly that kind of obfuscation — without actually demanding any complex rewiring of mechanics or addition of even more complex dynamics.

Cmdr Eagleboy said:
It adds player agency of discovering things.

It removes player agency because it's a mandatory step before you can even begin making decisions. You're confusing “interacting with UI” with “agency” — they're not same. Agency is about the ability to make choices; about having actionable information; about having control over your options. The new scan means you do not have a choice; it means you have less information; and it means that you have only one option.

It is a new gameplay.

No. Discovering planets is very very ancient gameplay.

Gully Foyle · Sep 21, 2018

Rojo Habe said:
Oh, dear oh dear.

I’ve held my tongue for the most part on this thread, because it very quickly spiralled out of control, but now I want to tell a bit of a story.

For the last year, I’ve been part of an expedition called The Dead End's Circumnavigation Expedition. It’s a circumnavigation trip around the rim of the galaxy, and over the course of it I’ve racked up over six hundred thousand light years in thirteen and a half thousand jumps.

Numbers always look bigger in words; did you ever notice that? Anyway, not relevant.

Does anybody here seriously think that I would scan every single system I jumped into? No, of course not. I didn’t even look at the System Map for a lot of them.

But I did honk all of them.

Under the proposed system, simply hitting the scanner button will chuck you out of the pilot’s seat into a new interface while you’re hurtling towards a star so immediately you’ll have to change your game. Throttle back before honking. Preferably steer away from the star as well. No biggie.

No biggie. Multiply that by thirteen and a half thousand and it’s a bit bigger. The workaround in that case, since speed is of the essence in order to reach the next meet-up in time, is not to honk. Let’s examine this for a minute.

Generally, my honk is a reflex action, so training myself not to do that is an acceptable compromise. When embarking on a trip as enormous as circumnavigating the galaxy, I apply a dynamic (and not at all strict) filter to myself as I go, but as a rule of thumb (for sequence stars) it goes like this:

O and B stars, always scan the star and then check the Sysmap to see if it’s worth investigating further.

A,F,G: Honk check sysmap while FSD is charging and investigate further if something takes my attention.

K,M: ignore and jump on through (I could well be missing some gems here, but ticktock...)

T-Tauris and Herbigs are usually worthy of a snifter, and Neutrons/white dwarves get treated like Os and . Brown Dwarves are ignored.

Additionally, I’m a sucker for close-orbiting multiple stars, so I’ll usually stop and scan those for the halibut.

Under the new system, if I’m in a hurry to reach the next waypoint, I’ll ignore all of the above. So what? you might ask. Well, while it might be crass to talk about credits, the above netted me 936,014,359 credits in ten months. While I don’t generally care about credits in the slightest, I’ve been out of the bubble for nearly a year, and some commanders (if you believe them) can make that in an afternoon. How much less do you think that would be if I’d just honked around the galaxy and not scanned anything? More to the point: how soul-destroying would that be?

Oh, and you can stick whatever label you want on me (explorer, traveller, cherry-picker, tourist etc.): none of that has the slightest impact on me as that’s not how I play the game.

TL;DR (although not really, as this won’t mean anything unless you’ve bothered to read the above):

Like all of you, I haven’t seen how these new mechanics are going to work yet, and won’t until the Beta, but I have real concerns over how it’s going to affect my game. My initial read on it is that it will destroy my particular playstyle, but I’m still waiting for the Beta before I decide whether it’s a game I still want to play or not.
The point is:

STOP BICKERING, MAKE YOUR POINT AND BUTT OUT. THIS THREAD IS FOR FEEDBACK ONLY AND YOUR CONSTANT MY-WAY-IS-THE-ONLY-WAY SQUABBLES ARE NOT HELPING ANYONE.

You know who you are.

You are Capt Cook and -
You rock.

Repped for your travels Cmdr

Tessa R Act · Sep 21, 2018

Tippis said:
... Just because instahonk currently reveals a lot of the base information needed for player choice and agency does not mean it must also reveal whatever new information would be involved in any such additions....

1. obviously FD considers "information needed for player" with a different point of view then you do
2. to run quick, smooth and cross-platform there will be only a handfull of core-procedures (tools) with which the complete gameplay is generated, indexed by parameters only (the game machine). Hence from coding perspective I clearly can imagine that there are loads of potential features (planned for future developement) which under current mechanics cannot be implemented without beeing compromised. Such a change of paradigma gives up some, but pushes open the door for a broad variety of different directions.

Gully Foyle · Sep 21, 2018

" Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
.... Some people won't see anything deep unless it simulates Orbiter level gameplay. ....

Xenia_K
THAT would be a poopstorm about timesinks in the forum *laugh* exploring (without timecompression) star-systems in Hohman-Orbits.... 7 years flighttime to scan the moons of that gas-giant over there.... "

Only here would you even read stuff like that.

Most complex Space sim is Rogue System I thought Eagle

Tippis · Sep 21, 2018

Xenia_K said:
1. obviously FD considers "information needed for player" with a different point of view then you do

Not particularly obviously, no, since they're apparently thinking about possibly adjusting things based on the feedback.

2. to run quick, smooth and cross-platform there will be only a handfull of core-procedures (tools) with which the complete gameplay is generated, indexed by parameters only (the game machine). Hence from coding perspective I clearly can imagine that there are loads of potential features (planned for future developement) which under current mechanics cannot be implemented without beeing compromised.

Sure, but just because you can imagine it does not mean it's actually so, nor does it make it a required design path. For instance, the most commonly suggested change would be to simply leave the honk in its current form, fold the DSS into the minigame, and add the probing as suggested. The coding perspective and the cross-platform complexity of adding new things would not change from what they're already planning. Any new content or gameplay would hook into either of the two minigames as envisioned and the honk would be a non-factor because it's just not part of that process — no compromise needed.

Habu2u · Sep 21, 2018

Tippis said:
Since they didn't bother to suggest anything of the kind, which would have been a very important detail to include, no.

I would say the OP at least suggested that the new mechanics were going to be used in things other than exploration by including this comment:

Holistic System:The improvements to exploration mechanics tie together not just new discoveries, but mining, missions and signal source location in one package.

CMDR Damienn · Sep 21, 2018

I completely understand what you are saying, but i have to support Frontier's decision on everything. They have to make the right decision for everyone so that the game is enjoyable to ALL. If Frontier were to create this game specifically for the hard core space simulation community, it would have buried itself years ago. I would rather my galMap be in a different screen as it is because it would be such a hassle to nav through it in the dashboard. same for sysMap. if you are in VR, the SRV Turret kinda is in cockpit, maybe it is show because you are actually looking at the camera screen? doesn't matter. my main concern with all of this, is that there still is no fix to navigating the GalMap while in Virtual Reality. this is my number one.

Tippis · Sep 21, 2018

Habu2u said:
I would say the OP at least suggested that the new mechanics were going to be used in things other than exploration by including this comment:

Holistic System:The improvements to exploration mechanics tie together not just new discoveries, but mining, missions and signal source location in one package.

Yes, but that's just old stuff being folded in under the same UI umbrella. Aside from the immensely vague notion of “new discoveries”, there's nothing there to imply any new stuff that absolutely requires a UI update to work, which was the original suggestion. “New discoveries” can encompass anything from “you found a new star” (i.e. just another line on your discovery list) or “three new settlement layouts” aaall the way to “wormhole to Fornax cluster”.

Hence why you'd want to lead with that, if it was actually anything interesting, rather than with some new UI that coincidentally is used to pinpoint that stuff.

Ian Skippy · Sep 21, 2018

Rojo Habe said:
Under the new system, if I’m in a hurry to reach the next waypoint, I’ll ignore all of the above. So what? you might ask. Well, while it might be crass to talk about credits, the above netted me 936,014,359 credits in ten months. While I don’t generally care about credits in the slightest, I’ve been out of the bubble for nearly a year, and some commanders (if you believe them) can make that in an afternoon. How much less do you think that would be if I’d just honked around the galaxy and not scanned anything?

The same amount, no? From what I gather the basic honk will get you all the money?

WR3ND · Sep 21, 2018

sleutelbos said:
The same amount, no? From what I gather the basic honk will get you all the money?

Yeah, from what I gathered at least from the wording in the OP, it seems more of an issue for those of us that might prefer mucking around cool looking system over exploration credit farming.

[Diplomacy] Carnegie · Sep 21, 2018

sleutelbos said:
The same amount, no? From what I gather the basic honk will get you all the money?

No, because he won't be scanning things he WOULD have scanned if he could see them at a glance and make a decision immediately. Which is where ALL the money is.

WR3ND · Sep 21, 2018

DrewCarnegie said:
No, because he won't be scanning things he WOULD have scanned if he could see them at a glance and make a decision immediately. Which is where ALL the money is.

It sounded like they were rolling it into the honk and maybe boosting payouts overall. Might be mistaken. Not really my main interest while going exploring, if you hadn't noticed.

askavir · Sep 21, 2018

Cmdr Eagleboy said:
There's difference agreeing and throwing toys out. I mostly see last one in this thread. But then again, it almost feels that's only way some players know how to communicate.

Well you were requesting the thread to be closed and discussion cancelled a few posts back... Seems like pretty much throwing the toys out of the pram to me...

Cmdr Eagleboy said:
And I really could care less. It just eats me.

Make up your mind, either you don't care, or it eats you

Cmdr Eagleboy said:
For them, it is their way or highway.

That's precisely what you've been doing the whole past week. Different opinions seem to somehow greatly offend you, and you've been continuosly disregarding any different viewpoints as "nonsense" etc, like some self appointed Lord of Truth.

FD presented their idea and asked for feedback. People are giving their feedback and explaining why they like or dislike the proposal. You may not like some of the feedback, but then again that feedback isn't really meant for you anyway.

WR3ND · Sep 21, 2018

picommander said:
Unfortunately, the main audience of Elite wouldn't touch Rogue System with a ten foot pole because that's a simulation in the first place while ED is a hybrid between both game and sim. No wonder that the community contains of both sim lovers and those who expect a more playful approach. Both sides are currently trying to pull the game over to their very own preferences.

I'm afraid there can't be a winner unless FD would make a clear cut and decides for one side or the other. Which I highly doubt will ever happen. [alien]

I suspect that the sim vs. game issue regarding this is likely viewed deferentially by different people as well, regardless of which side someone views themselves as being on. I'd say I definitely tend to lean more strongly toward the sim side of things.

Marc_Hicks · Sep 22, 2018

LeoBartlet said:
By his own admission he's not touched exploration in three years so he's not really best placed to know what type of gameplay works for it.

Still we live in an age where everyone gets a participation medal so its nice to see he's participating even if his suggestions are limited in imagination.

I speak ofc about Marc and his suggestions not OA's

Leo, do try & use some level of listening & comprehension skills-& do try to be less obnoxious. What I said is that I haven't engaged in full-blown exploration in about 3 years......because its so horribly tedious. Its probably a shorter time than that, though, as I did force myself to go "exploring" in order to gain access to one of the Engineers-about 2 years ago-an experience filled with soul crushing tedium.

Regardless, I am frequently forced to use the current "exploration" mechanics every time I hop into a system I haven't explored, even within the bubble. So I have as much right to participate here as anyone else.

Also, funny how my ideas are in agreement with people like Mengy-who is a veteran explorer. Are you going to dismiss his ideas so easily too, Leo?

Ziljan · Sep 22, 2018

picommander said:
Unfortunately, the main audience of Elite wouldn't touch Rogue System with a ten foot pole because that's a simulation in the first place while ED is a hybrid between both game and sim. No wonder that the community contains of both sim lovers and those who expect a more playful approach. Both sides are currently trying to pull the game over to their very own preferences.

I'm afraid there can't be a winner unless FD would make a clear cut and decides for one side or the other. Which I highly doubt will ever happen. [alien]

I sincerely hope we aren't comparing the proposed mechanic to "Rogue System". As hilarious and hysterical as that comparison would be, that would be an utterly depressing thought, since I had hoped that the slightly above average intelligence human was smart enough to survive challenges like climate change and colonizing mars. But if mature gamers (presumably also of slightly above average intelligence) think a few game-ified sensor knobs qualify as a "sim" because they don't require magic to function, then the human race is truly doomed.

Marc_Hicks · Sep 22, 2018

askavir said:
You've been around for a long time, so you surely haven't missed all the threads about suggestions and wishes for improving exploration throughout the past year (at least).

Mengy posted several times a huge list, several others have done the same. I added some more.

The one thing nobody ever asked for, is that the one exploration update in years to boil down to just a different way to do the same thing, with the added "bonus" of being something that will very quickly exhaust it's skill ceiling and gameplay interest, becoming just a trivial but mandatory repetitive boring chore after 2 weeks tops.

Did you miss Mengy's post in this thread? With a few modifications, he seems to actually like these changes a lot......& I agree with him. Adding back in more mystery, adding in more player agency & not locking Signal Source & PoI content behind a tedious, near impenetrable time wall (which it currently is) is a significant step forward for the exploration part of the game. Is it all I want Exploration to be? No. However just as with the C&P changes back in 3.0, it does lay down a great foundation IMHO.

Ralph Vargr · Sep 22, 2018

Xenia_K said:
1. obviously FD considers "information needed for player" with a different point of view then you do
2. to run quick, smooth and cross-platform there will be only a handfull of core-procedures (tools) with which the complete gameplay is generated, indexed by parameters only (the game machine). Hence from coding perspective I clearly can imagine that there are loads of potential features (planned for future developement) which under current mechanics cannot be implemented without beeing compromised. Such a change of paradigma gives up some, but pushes open the door for a broad variety of different directions.

How long have I been saying they want The One Mechanic To Rule Them All?

Frontier is going all-in, on pocket three's.