News Chapter Four - Exploration Reveal

[Ziljan]

That's the main difference of opinion regarding the proposed exploration "improvements".

To you (and many others), finding out where the planets are is the end. For me (and many others) it's just the beginning. Finding out there is some remote iceball somewhere doesn't fill me with any kind of joy or fulfillment whatsoever. Discovering and interacting with things on some remote iceball does.

While I (and many others) were hoping all year that content and mechanics would be added and expanded upon to what happens AFTER we locate the celestial bodies and proceed to actually explore them, FD thought it would be nicer to make the exploration "revamp" occur before the actual beginning, which is at the same time depressing and also genius, as it's the perfect way to tick the "we did the exploration revamp" box without actually adding anything to exploration.

How is this different from saying: "we should have a button that instantly removes shields, because shields are just the beginning of a fight. I (and many others) want to make a snap decision about which power plant to target immediately upon starting a fight." That would sap all of the complexity out of combat, which stems from the fact that it is a two step process. 1) find a way to get through the shields 2) disable or destroy. If there was no shield then fights would be over before they started, just like exploration is now.

Why can't exploration be deep enough to have multiple steps, with each step having significance, depth, care, and stuff to find? And why should Frontier waste existing content by cheapening it with a frivolous honk? That is a horrible waste of existing IP.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How is this different from saying: "we should have a button that instantly removes shields, because shields are just the beginning of a fight. I (and many others) want to make a snap decision about which power plant to target immediately upon starting a fight." That would sap all of the complexity out of combat, which stems from the fact that it is a two step process. 1) find a way to get through the shields 2) disable or destroy. If there was no shield then fights would be over before they started, just like exploration is now.

Because exploration and combat are completely different mechanisms. I'm sure you understand. Not every process that has multiple steps is the same. These arguments by proxy of analogy don't work.

 

[Ziljan]

Because exploration and combat are completely different mechanisms. I'm sure you understand. Not every process that has multiple steps is the same. These arguments by proxy of analogy don't work.

Perhaps there is some confusion. I am saying that they both deserve the same level of care in the design so that they are both equally compelling and deep. Not saying that we should start shooting planets.

 

[Tippis]

Perhaps there is some confusion. I am saying that they both deserve the same level of care in the design so that they are both equally compelling and deep. Not saying that we should start shooting planets.

What if you had a button to see the ship class, heat signature, location, and maybe even things like shield, hull, and system status or even pilot proficiency? Or would you prefer that those details going into combat were hidden behind a minutes-long bit of disconnected UI fiddling for every ship you'd potentially want to then scan further for cargo, bounty, and possibly even shoot at?

I mean, if we're going to make combat analogous to exploration and all…

 

[BigBANGtheory [VR]]

While I (and many others) were hoping all year that content and mechanics would be added and expanded upon to what happens AFTER we locate the celestial bodies and proceed to actually explore them, FD thought it would be nicer to make the exploration "revamp" occur before the actual beginning, which is at the same time depressing and also genius, as it's the perfect way to tick the "we did the exploration revamp" box without actually adding anything to exploration.

That would be somewhere between a miss and a fail imho certainly not genius. Players have been waiting a very long time for tangible changes to Exploration and have also been told about the need for FD to reign back on content for Q4 Beyond in order to deliver on these types of changes to basic gameplay. What they have proposed so far in no way ticks the

"we did the exploration revamp" box. ​

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Perhaps there is some confusion. I am saying that they both deserve the same level of care in the design so that they are both equally compelling and deep. Not saying that we should start shooting planets.

You're right, there is some confusion. I was under the impression you were equating
"To you (and many others), finding out where the planets are is the end. For me (and many others) it's just the beginning. Finding out there is some remote iceball somewhere doesn't fill me with any kind of joy or fulfillment whatsoever. Discovering and interacting with things on some remote iceball does."
with
"we should have a button that instantly removes shields, because shields are just the beginning of a fight. I (and many others) want to make a snap decision about which power plant to target immediately upon starting a fight."
As if they are similar sentiments.

Happy to be told I was wrong about that

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

How is this different from saying: "we should have a button that instantly removes shields, because shields are just the beginning of a fight. I (and many others) want to make a snap decision about which power plant to target immediately upon starting a fight." That would sap all of the complexity out of combat, which stems from the fact that it is a two step process. 1) find a way to get through the shields 2) disable or destroy. If there was no shield then fights would be over before they started, just like exploration is now.

Not going to bother dealing with that false analogy. Dear oh dear.

Why can't exploration be deep enough to have multiple steps, with each step having significance, depth, care, and stuff to find? And why should Frontier waste existing content by cheapening it with a frivolous honk? That is a horrible waste of existing IP.

The ADS honk was always the beginning step. It gives the player enough information to have agency in the form of "is it worth my time stopping off at this star system for a while?"

Obfuscating the beginning step in the form of having to spend time going through a repetitive procedure just to build a system map, in order to gain the agency of deciding whether or not to spend time in that star system, is not good design. If a person is any kind of futurist, they realise that the development of technology exists to advance knowledge and to also make that advancement of knowledge quicker and more convenient.

Aside from the convenience, the more important part of this is that in a game with 400 billion star systems, in which a substantial percentage of those star systems are not worth the time to be in, then any lengthening of the time it take to provide the agency to decide if a star system is worth actually exploring, is bad design and detrimental to the players.

ADS honk + system map is only the beginning of the exploration process. What you can do afterwards should have been the main focus and concern for everyone. The depth you are seeking is gained by adding to the things to see, do, and explore part of the process, which comes after you know the star system's layout and terrain. And you can only have the agency to decide if it is worth hanging around in a star system by knowing its layout - and artifically lengthening the amount of time it takes to be able to make that decision, is going to be a design mistake. Surely this is a basic, objective truth.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

That's the main difference of opinion regarding the proposed exploration "improvements".

To you (and many others), finding out where the planets are is the end. For me (and many others) it's just the beginning. Finding out there is some remote iceball somewhere doesn't fill me with any kind of joy or fulfillment whatsoever. Discovering and interacting with things on some remote iceball does.

While I (and many others) were hoping all year that content and mechanics would be added and expanded upon to what happens AFTER we locate the celestial bodies and proceed to actually explore them, FD thought it would be nicer to make the exploration "revamp" occur before the actual beginning, which is at the same time depressing and also genius, as it's the perfect way to tick the "we did the exploration revamp" box without actually adding anything to exploration.

Nope, its the beginning for me too......but I still prefer the new mechanics.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Not going to bother dealing with that false analogy. Dear oh dear.



The ADS honk was always the beginning step. It gives the player enough information to have agency in the form of "is it worth my time stopping off at this star system for a while?"

Obfuscating the beginning step in the form of having to spend time going through a repetitive procedure just to build a system map, in order to gain the agency of deciding whether or not to spend time in that star system, is not good design. If a person is any kind of futurist, they realise that the development of technology exists to advance knowledge and to also make that advancement of knowledge quicker and more convenient.

Aside from the convenience, the more important part of this is that in a game with 400 billion star systems, in which a substantial percentage of those star systems are not worth the time to be in, then any lengthening of the time it take to provide the agency to decide if a star system is worth actually exploring, is bad design and detrimental to the players.

ADS honk + system map is only the beginning of the exploration process. What you can do afterwards should have been the main focus and concern for everyone. The depth you are seeking is gained by adding to the things to see, do, and explore part of the process, which comes after you know the star system's layout and terrain. And you can only have the agency to decide if it is worth hanging around in a star system by knowing its layout - and artifically lengthening the amount of time it takes to be able to make that decision, is going to be a design mistake. Surely this is a basic, objective truth.

A beginning step that gets you 95% of the way to the destination. Yet then the last 5% of the destination takes you ages to reach, & you get no choice in how soon you get to the destination.

 

[Factabulous]

ADS honk + system map is only the beginning of the exploration process. What you can do afterwards should have been the main focus and concern for everyone. ... Surely this is a basic, objective truth.

I'd give up now, I doubt you'll convince them....

I was crestfallen, and turned around and went back to the bubble and sold my ADS and DSS.

Seems like an extreme point of view <shrug>

 

[Angus]

Because exploration and combat are completely different mechanisms. I'm sure you understand. Not every process that has multiple steps is the same. These arguments by proxy of analogy don't work.

That's really patronising, Ziggy, even for you. They are both examples of sequences of gameplay, and demonstrate an approach that you may either recognise or not. But just stating somebody's argument is invalid, dressed up in waffle, because you don't agree with it is unhelpful at best.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

I'd give up now, I doubt you'll convince them....



Seems like an extreme point of view <shrug>

Well given that Genar has been utterly immune to even the idea of a compromise, I can understand why people refuse to be convinced by his arguments.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Darn it, I promised myself that I wouldn't get dragged back into this pointlessly circular argument.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

A beginning step that gets you 95% of the way to the destination. Yet then the last 5% of the destination takes you ages to reach, & you get no choice in how soon you get to the destination.

95% !?

Tosh.

Since when did the ADS honk and system map;

Show which materials are on a landable planet?
Drive you around those landable planets to collect said materials?
Reveal all the USS in a system?
Reveal the existence of a Thargoid base?
Reveal the existence of volcanism on a planet?
...and so on.

Nope. Here's what the ADS honk reveals:

The schematic layout of a star system.
The types of planets in the star system.
The distance of a body from the jump-in point.
The size and mass of a body.
A small representation of the visual appearancce of a body.
Whether the body is landable or not.

That is enough information to give you agency to quickly decide if it's worthwhile actually exploring the system. In fact, all one needs to make a snap decision is:

The schemtic layout of the star system.
The types of bodies in the star system.
The small representation of the bodies in the star system.

From those 3 pieces of visual info, I can decide in seconds if it's worthwhile staying for a bit and exploring the system.

If those 3 pieces of information are obfuscated behind a repetitive UI procedure - i.e. if it takes more than a few seconds to decide a given system is worth exploring, then this is detrimental to the game.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Well given that Genar has been utterly immune to even the idea of a compromise, I can understand why people refuse to be convinced by his arguments.

Because in my opinion, hiding key pieces of information which enables one to quickly decide if a given star system is worthwhile exploring, is a very, very bad idea. I cannot see any way of coming to a compromise for that one thing. Body discovery should be quick and convenient. Exploration of those bodies and doing things with them is where the good stuff should be. Frontier have IMO gone a step too far with the ADS/system map thing, and they should instead have expended all their thought and energy into the exploring the star system and things to do part of the game.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's a really patronising, Ziggy, even for you.

Should have stopped reading there.

They are both examples of sequences of gameplay, and demonstrate an approach that you may either recognise or not. But just stating somebody's argument is invalid, dressed up in waffle, because you don't agree with it is unhelpful at best.

2 things

1. I didn't just state the argument was invalid, I started with the argument 'they are completely different mechanisms'. I added that arguing by proxy of analogy doesn't work. Analogies are best used as illustrations of a point, they're not meant to replace the point.
2. I wasn't patronising, it was in fact quite the opposite. "I'm sure you understand" was not sarcasm. I think very highly of Ziljan's intelligence to the point I did not feel he needed explaining. His reply seems to support that. Now if you're going to accusing people of being patronising, beware not to use terms like "dressed up in waffle".

 

[Dutchman141]

95% !?

Tosh.

Since when did the ADS honk and system map;

Show which materials are on a landable planet?
Drive you around those landable planets to collect said materials?
Reveal all the USS in a system?
Reveal the existence of a Thargoid base?
Reveal the existence of volcanism on a planet?
...and so on.

Nope. Here's what the ADS honk reveals:

The schematic layout of a star system.
The types of planets in the star system.
The distance of a body from the jump-in point.
The size and mass of a body.
A small representation of the visual appearancce of a body.
Whether the body is landable or not.

That is enough information to give you agency to quickly decide if it's worthwhile actually exploring the system. In fact, all one needs to make a snap decision is:

The schemtic layout of the star system.
The types of bodies in the star system.
The small representation of the bodies in the star system.

From those 3 pieces of visual info, I can decide in seconds if it's worthwhile staying for a bit and exploring the system.

If those 3 pieces of information are obfuscated behind a repetitive UI procedure - i.e. if it takes more than a few seconds to decide a given system is worth exploring, then this is detrimental to the game.

I completely agree with you.

Leave the honk as it is.
Use the new UI minigame instead of the dss
Use the probes to map and find POIs

I've eleborated on this somewhere deep down in this thread but this I my personal preference.

 

[yianniv]

I completely agree with you.

Leave the honk as it is.
Use the new UI minigame instead of the dss
Use the probes to map and find POIs

I've eleborated on this somewhere deep down in this thread but this I my personal preference.

I agree, too.

 

[Ziljan]

Happy to be told I was wrong about that

Those two statements are equivalent from the stand point of comparing complexity and depth. In Frontier's OP, they describe a decently complex multistep process.

1. Check signal for SS and interesting planet types
2. Resolve the signals
3. Launch probes to discover POIs and surface features
4. Interact with phenomena, POIs, and surface features

This leaves the game open to all kind of content enhancements at each step of the process.

Currently the game only has 2 steps.

1. honk n point
2. pray to RNGesus that you find something "interesting"

This leaves the game only to content enhancements at the final stage. Adding probes removes the RNGesus issue, but still leaves us with potentially 1/2 of the content enhancements opportunities in Frontier's new design.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Those two statements are equivalent from the stand point of complexity and depth. In Frontier's OP, they describe a decently complex multistep process.

1. Check signal for SS and interesting planet types
2. Resolve the signals
3. Launch probes to discover POIs and surface features
4. Interact with phenomena, POIs, and surface features

This leaves the game open to all kind of content enhancements at each step of the process.

Currently the game only has 2 steps.

1. honk n point
2. pray to RNGesus that you find something "interesting"

This leaves the game only to content enhancements at the final stage. Adding probes removes the RNGesus issue, but still leaves us with potentially 1/4 of the content enhancements opportunities in Frontier's new design.

Notice that your 3 and 4 are added by the probe phase, and you're comparing this to the current situation. You could add 3 and 4 to the second scenario as well. Plus in the first scenario you are relying as much on the RNGesus.

Now I'm with you on the 'n point'. The 'n point' has got to go. I think most agree. Also the way you phrase is has something to do with it. The way I am advocating exploration to be:

1. honk and pray to RNGesus (this is a step that is the same in whatever process is decided upon)
2. get information on the planet types and system configuration (bolded is where we part ways) and perhaps an indicator of certain POIs, with low accuracy, meaning there will be many duds, but this might draw in explorers
3. resolve the signals, get confirmation on the indicators or find out the indicators were indeed duds
4. in case of confirmation, fly to planet, launch probes
5. interact with POIs

So our steps aren't that different. Only the bolded part is.