This whole post just makes me want Frontier to hurry up and implement cave systems :O
News Chapter Four - Exploration Reveal
This whole post just makes me want Frontier to hurry up and implement cave systems :O
I have some issues with your post
Were do you get that we will have to spend 5 minutes or whatever? have you played the beta already? Are you now able to explore the system in 15 seconds?
Today, to explore a system you have to do nothing. It seems that in the new update to explore a system you will have to do something... is a great improvement.
I agree with the "nothing to do with the information you expose", but first whatever you can do with the results of the exploration is not related at all on how you get the information. What FD presented is a new improved way to discover the information. And second we don't know if inminently or soon they will add more things to do with that information. We know that some exploring information will lead to new gameplay (persistent hot spots in rings for mining)
Lol; with which type of exploration interface though? NMS implemented the "torch" approach.. can get a bit annoying if you get lost in a large deep cave system and have run out of power on your terrain manipulator.
From the OP. To be honest. 5 minutes is probably a great exaggeration in how quick it is, as the number of bodies in a system can run in the hundreds. And yes, it currently takes roughly 15 seconds to uncover (not explore) a system.
It's also quite inaccurate.
Today, to explore a system you have to honk and then do a lot of flying. This made people very upset because they felt that the second part entailed a lot of downtime. So FDev has replaced the honk with sitting still and a minigame, replaced the flying with sitting still and playing a minigame, then reinstated all the flying (and downtime that comes with it) right back just so you could get to yet another minigame.
The underlying game mechanics and (almost total lack of) dynamics are unchanged, as are the things you can actually find (so whatever mystery there was in exploration was removed a long time ago) — this is just a UI layer on top in an attempt to remove some of the flying (an attempt that fails since the exact same flying is immediately reinstated).
Last edited:
First things first, that post was just poking a bit of fun at your silly claim, a silly claim deserves a silly response. Second, of course it's based on subjective values. But the way you worded your claim was: "To an explorer, surely a planet is a planet.......something that is inherently very exciting to find". Doesn't sound very subjective to me. A player who isn't excited by finding rocky ball #23533 surely is not an explorer.
I'll be the judge on what I find exciting, and you'll not be the judge who is an explorer and who is not.
Lastly, about reevaluating my valuations, that is already happening:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-the-new-exploration-mechanic-POIs?highlight=
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...needs-a-buff?p=7044258&highlight=#post7044258
Last edited:
This is true in isolation, but the problem is that it doesn't exist in isolation. That potential exploration target is also a key aspect in basic navigation, in finding mission and mining locations, and in the very fundamental taks of deciding what to even do with your time — where to direct your efforts (and this holds true even for explorers). As such, it cannot — indeed must not — be held hostage by some single niche activity. There are plenty of people who don't explore who'd be forced to if this was suddenly tied into an exploration mechanic, where it would just be a pointless and disjointed waste of time. Especially since it is wholly unnecessary and doesn't even address any kind of problem in the game.
There's a reason why so little is said or criticised about the new planet and surface scanning: because those only affect that niche that is already interested in doing that stuff. One of them is an effort to resolve a very specific game design problem, and the other almost even qualifies as new mechanics and new gameplay(!) There's still the issue that the latter will reintroduce the very problem the former tried to resolve but… oh well. Sooner or later you will have to actually travel to those planets, so it's debatable if it really qualifies as a problem to begin with.
I'd challenge the claim that everybody is being *forced* into this gameplay with the exception of (most) explorers. Standard gameplay does not rely on the "honk" - yes, it makes certain things quicker/easier, but there are alternatives. Such as scanning NavBeacons or purchasing the NavData beforehand (both of which I think enhance their respective gameplay loops; perhaps at the marginal cost of Cr-per-hour, but that is IMHO way OTT already anyway). And as clarified in the livestream (I think it was there), stations and outposts will always show up in the NavPanel anyway.
As for mining, you don't *have* to drop into the newly-added resource-rich areas of a ring in order to mine. And who even knows whether the new mining mechanics will allow you to purchase the navdata for those? As far as I'm aware we haven't been told anything regarding that yet, apart from the fact that the new probing mechanics will tie into the new mining mechanics, another area which people have been asking for more involved gameplay for. Mining missions should IMHO be enhanced anyway to suggest places in which to mine for the requested resources. Given the Bubble has been fully prospected already it seems a bit silly for a mission-giver not to have that information at hand. Or perhaps a new "Mining Guild" from which you can buy the data.
Well, the new probing is entirely optional - you will still get the same (in fact more) information with the proposed new scanner than you did with the old honk-and-fly-and-scan. The livestream also mentioned we'd get an indication during the scan-stage whether or not there'd be anything interesting to probe. Sure you'll still get the completionists who'll want to probe everything, but for the people chasing the shinies there -should- be enough information before embarking on a long SC journey.
The current gameplay basically forces you to fly everywhere in order to discover the basics about each planet, now you will only fly to planets if they grab your fancy (which to a lesser extent was already true).
I like the idea of the discovery scanner changes if they are as an alternative to the current system, but not as a replacement. The new mechanic could be activated simply by entering the scanner mode without having to do the initial honk, allowing the option of fully revealing the system manually. After automatically revealing the system through the honk, allow players to decide how best to proceed to add gameplay options. Sometimes they might want to fly to a body and scan old style, other times they might want to save flying time and use the new mechanic. I could see myself using different combinations of the mechanics in different situations, but that is only possible if they all remain available as options. If it is going to be an outright replacement, leave the system map reveal from the honk as it is, and allow players to enter scanner mode without the need to honk. Alternatively, you could tie in the ability to automatically resolve the system map to the computing power of scanner (basic - manual only, intermediate - resolves basic but not overlapping signals, advanced - resolves all signals). If players can learn to recognise and interpret signal patterns, I don't understand why the scanner/computer wouldn't also. The honk does not allow you to bypass the additional scanning step (minigame or fly to body) required for the "discovered by" tag.
The detailed surface scanner probes sound an interesting addition, depending on range and ammo. If the current body scan mechanic is removed, it will need sufficient range to save any unwanted flying time. The details of that will probably depend on how you plan to proceed with the discovery scanner changes.
If you have seen Prometheus, you might recall the environment scanning probes they used to map out the interior of the building they were in?
Well, in 2012 some MIT geniuses figured out a way to map out terrain in real time.
So, right off the bat, we could have probes with environment terrain scanning technology to help you plot out your route through the cave system, and to mark potential areas of interest. (I think a honking tool that can magically scan through solid rock is boring, and cheap)
Spelunking would also require a specialised Scarab designed for use in cave systems. This could include features like: expanded storage, larger fuel reserve, no weapons etc.
Subnautica got around the issue of getting lost by adding a type of life line; you shoot one end into the entrance and then go exploring; so you can easily get out if you run low on air. Beacons can also work. NMS is not very forgiving here; you need to keep track of where you are going (though I can think of ways to mark out your path).
So, in ED.. markers (like a beacon) that emit a signal and a light source (different markers with different colours and signals) could be manufacturered in the vehicle and used as a guide on a) how to get out, b) areas to avoid etc.
A flatter design to the Spelunker, perhaps caterpillar treads instead of wheels wouldn't go amiss either.
When we get legs; the Cmdr could "attach" a life line to the Spelunker, both for stability, but also to provide oxygen.
Last edited:
Those alternatives don't always exist though, so the reliance on the honk is still there — doubly so now that the bubble is changing shape and there are more and more things to do in the spaces between or just in going from one place to the next. And that's not even considering the significant time expenditure needed to use those alternatives. Regardless, the honk does not exist in isolation as an “explorer thing” — it touches on and has been incorporated in ton of different gameplay. As such, it should not be changed just because some unrelated part of exploration needs an update, at least not without pretty much a 1:1 replacement being slotted in to fill that shortfall — just because some explorers want slower gameplay does not mean everyone else should suffer from it too.
If they want to replace the honk, it must be done from the perspective of everything you can do in the game, not just exploration.
…and again, no-one is particularly even mentioning the planet mechanics, for pretty much exactly that reason: it's niche content that expands on a specific profession, and actually directly addresses on the core criticism against that profession.
Last edited:
So, you are not an explorer and you are angry because you don't want to do the explorer stuff to find your mission locations.
Why not, instead of advocating for the removal or modification of the exploration stuff, you ask for keeping the feature you want? Is not that difficult, you just need to propose for a module that , while in supercruise and with a press of a button, links to the navigation beacon and gives you all the information you need.
Of course this will not be useful in systems without Nav Beacon. In those unexplored systems you will need to do the explorer stuff, but hey! maybe I'm crazy but I think that you should have to explore the unexplored and the auto-explore thing is just for inhabited systems
Nope. Try again. This time, see if you can add an argument.
If someone reading this is going there, please feel free to PM me and tell me how the new stuff looks.
https://twitter.com/edwardclewis/status/1045232958410551297
https://twitter.com/edwardclewis/status/1045232958410551297
My argument was below that paragraph, you just need to keep reading. You know that it doesn't cost money to read the full post, right?
If you keep reading you will see my proposed solution to your problem "That potential exploration target is also a key aspect in basic navigation, in finding mission and mining locations", that you can comment, evaluate and rebate. But I'm also ok if you don't have any good answer and you have to revert to the empty "see if you can add an argument." as you did on your last post.
Your “argument” relines on the incorrect premise in the first sentence, and further introduces additional incorrect premises just to make sure it's even less relevant. As such, it's not really applicable to either me or anything I said, and the rest I already addressed before you even made your post, but you somehow felt that wasn't what you wanted to go after, instead choosing this strawman approach.
Last edited:
No it doesn't. My argument is independent of you being an explorer or not, it's only related to what you said in your post.
Ok, so you didn't read my post, and you neither did read YOUR post. Ok, here it comes:
In this paragraph you link the exploration problem to navigation. You say that you should not be "held hostage to some (exploring) niche activity" to do "basic navigation, in finding mission and mining locations". You insist in the fact that this will be "suddenly tied into an exploration mechanic" for "plenty of people who don't explore"
So I tell you that if the problem is that link, instead of removing the new exploration, you just have to sever this link by
So explorers can have his exploration thing, and non explorers keep their navigation stuff.
Wow, I see why you hate exploration if you need a map to get something that simple.
Last edited:
Wrong on all accounts. It begins and completely hinges on your incorrect reading of what my position is, and your choice to tack on a nonsensical ad hominem further demonstrates this. Your “argument” is inapplicable because you're going after a strawman.
“So, you are not an explorer and you are angry because you don't want to do the explorer stuff to find your mission locations.” — false premise.
“Why not, instead of advocating for the removal or modification of the exploration stuff” — false premise and thus irrelevant to the discussion.
“you ask for keeping the feature you want?” — already done, you're not adding anything here.
“a module that […] links to the navigation beacon and gives you all the information you need.” — does not solve the problem, per previous explanations.
…and to missions, mining, exploration itself, and indeed any activity (that being all of them) where you choose to direct your attention and effort. You conveniently skipped over the majority of that paragraph just to desperately cling on to your false premise and build your strawman from that.
…which was never the suggestion, so you're not actually addressing or offering an argument that ties in with what I'm saying. In other words, it's a strawman, not an actual argument.
False premise; strawman; ad hominem, and just a generally idiotic statement irrespective of how smiley you want to be about it.
Last edited:
Previous explanations where? In your head? because in the forum I was unable to find your explanation on why this does not solve the problem.
Missions... my solution applies
mining... my solution applies
exploration... does not make sense to sever the link from exploration to exploration. We can discuss at a different time if the proposed exploration mechanics are good or not for exploration, but it's not the point here
vague concept about any activity... seriously? you pretend us to know which vague activities are you thinking about? In the vague activities I choose to think of my solution works like a charm or does not relate at all.
So, if in your paragraph that states that the problem is the link of the exploration mechanics to navigation (and missions, and minning and vague things), you are not suggesting that this is a problem... what are you suggesting?
That many words redirecting with the sole argument that you "already explained that" instead of actually explaining that or pointing to the post where you explain that... What a waste.
Actually the smiley was to point that I know that this sentence was a false premise, a strawman, an ad hominen and just a generally idiotic statement. Now that we agreed that we can just ignore this "joke", please clarify what you were suggesting and where did you explain something, because in the last messages you just played with words without providing any answer.