News Chapter Four - Exploration Reveal
If it's the same as 3.0 at some point all pc players will have access to the beta. They don't do betas on consoles.
Thanks to both WR3Nd & Steed. I have a Pc so will keep my fingers crossed 
I'm of two minds of this. I definitely think risks should be able to be mitigated, but I also don't think exploration should be completely risk free regardless of those mitigations.
In general I agree with what you're saying though.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
It's a difficult balance, I think.
If there's unavoidable risk, then it becomes essentially a wear & tear mechanic, which I'm not a great fan of.
In most games the risk is increased based simply on a 'distance from home' method - the further you explore, the greater the danger - so players can keep to the 'shallow end' if that's the gameplay that suits them. For ED, having a 'scientifically accurate' galaxy means that this technique isn't really viable.
I'm not sure how FDev could address this without (again) alienating a significant part of their playerbase.
Well, this has been an interesting thread . And without boasting, I can honestly say I've read every single post - but I won't pretend that I can remember all of them.
I have a few thoughts that I haven't seen mentioned yet.
The recent discussion of mechanics and/or content seem to me to be right on the money... one without the other is pretty pointless. Yet to a limited degree, FD have added tons of content over the last year or so - the INARA and other abandoned bases, crashed ships (of both human and alien origin), lost generation ships, alien lifeforms (braintrees, pumpkins and the as-yet-undiscovered tubeworms), and natural phenomena like fumaroles and geysers. But so far they have been incredibly difficult to find, requiring blind luck, hours of low-level flight around planets/moons, or serious and time-consuming study of lore or limited in-game hints.
The proposed changes, specifically the codex and planetary probes, will give us the mechanics to make finding these much easier and less time-consuming. I suspect this is one of the points of difference between the different subsets of explorers: some of us still won't take the time to look, while for others these benefits far outweigh the loss of the honk-and-reveal-all. Hopefully, whatever compromise mechanic FD has come up with will satisfy most of us.
But the simple reality is that players will consume handcrafted content far faster than devs can add it, so the bulk of new content will have to be procgen. What I'd hope to see going forward would be more and different alien plant life, remnants of long-dead alien civilisations, dead alien spacecraft either crashed or in orbit and perhaps evidence of early technological alien races (radio signals or heat signatures from planetary surfaces albeit on unlandable worlds). Assets would still need to be created, but they should be relatively simple.
Longer term, we could hope for significant improvements to planetary geology such as caves, but also more impressive-looking vulcanism. These in turn could introduce new risks because, yes, exploration should be risky. And that needn't mean the loss of a ship - damage from meteorite strikes, solar flares during scooping, could result in forced landings to search for repair mats.
But most of all, exploration should be far more than honk-and-jump. I'm excited about Q4 because I expect to see at least the first steps to some of these goals.
. And without boasting, I can honestly say I've read every single post - but I won't pretend that I can remember all of them.I have a few thoughts that I haven't seen mentioned yet.
The recent discussion of mechanics and/or content seem to me to be right on the money... one without the other is pretty pointless. Yet to a limited degree, FD have added tons of content over the last year or so - the INARA and other abandoned bases, crashed ships (of both human and alien origin), lost generation ships, alien lifeforms (braintrees, pumpkins and the as-yet-undiscovered tubeworms), and natural phenomena like fumaroles and geysers. But so far they have been incredibly difficult to find, requiring blind luck, hours of low-level flight around planets/moons, or serious and time-consuming study of lore or limited in-game hints.
The proposed changes, specifically the codex and planetary probes, will give us the mechanics to make finding these much easier and less time-consuming. I suspect this is one of the points of difference between the different subsets of explorers: some of us still won't take the time to look, while for others these benefits far outweigh the loss of the honk-and-reveal-all. Hopefully, whatever compromise mechanic FD has come up with will satisfy most of us.
But the simple reality is that players will consume handcrafted content far faster than devs can add it, so the bulk of new content will have to be procgen. What I'd hope to see going forward would be more and different alien plant life, remnants of long-dead alien civilisations, dead alien spacecraft either crashed or in orbit and perhaps evidence of early technological alien races (radio signals or heat signatures from planetary surfaces albeit on unlandable worlds). Assets would still need to be created, but they should be relatively simple.
Longer term, we could hope for significant improvements to planetary geology such as caves, but also more impressive-looking vulcanism. These in turn could introduce new risks because, yes, exploration should be risky. And that needn't mean the loss of a ship - damage from meteorite strikes, solar flares during scooping, could result in forced landings to search for repair mats.
But most of all, exploration should be far more than honk-and-jump. I'm excited about Q4 because I expect to see at least the first steps to some of these goals.
It should, by in large, but like that of real life--if you prepare and are well informed of the dangers and how to handle them, you are probably going to make it back. If you jump in feet first and hope for the best? Don't be surprised if it turns out badly.
Granted, in reality there are situations where no matter how perfect you are random chance can result in instant death. But that would be on par with, say, a random ship malfunction causing the ship to crash despite all the checkups it has (think airliners in modern day). Because this is a game we're not going to have THAT level of realism, because it doesn't feel fair. "You did everything right, but, dang nabit, that powerplant actually had a fault and your ship blew up in supercruise."
So risk in exploration should follow a similar logic - Yes, theoretically you COULD fly into a planet and die when droping from SC, but that doesn't mean you should. But getting too close to a black hole? You really should know better.
Last edited:
I'm thinking more along the lines of rare phenomena, like happening across something legitimately dangerous 1 out of maybe 1000 to 10000 jumps on average. The danger of the unknown seems kind of compelling to me. The adventure of it, surviving the trials of space.
Regarding wear and tear, all my paint jobs are at 0%. I gave up on trying to keep up with them. [blah]
Last edited:
I'm thinking more along the lines of rare phenomena, like happening across something legitimately dangerous 1 out of maybe 1000 to 10000 jumps on average. The danger of the unknown seems kind of compelling to me. The adventure of it, surviving the trials of space.
Oh I agree - like jumping at a neutron star and having to avoid colliding with the cone, or even if they make impact with a second star impossible, you could end up in the exclusion zone of it (so you start overheating immediately). Stuff that you need a cool head to get out of unscathed, and if you panic could end up in real trouble.
It should never be an "instant death" situation, though, because that's not playing fair, but it should be something that could potentially kill you if you're not careful. I won't say "quick reflexes" because it shouldn't be about that (not all explorers have twitch reflexes, some explore because they don't). More like prepared and able to think your way out of the situation.
The free Q4 update looks good. But here are some Exploration oriented surprises I'd like to see FD pull on us:
FDEV need to show their ProcGen roots and start putting that tech to better use with content. I fully expect this when planets with life come out (will be required for the initial target as stated by David Braben).
However, can we see some of this prior to Earth-likes? More variety of volcanoes, geysers, etc. The scatter-rocks update should be great if the target is reached but that can't come soon enough. Player Ships were a prime opportunity for FD to make more procedural, but given the bespoke models we have, maybe some more generic large transports (like the generation ships) and alien ships and structures. The outposts on airless planets could show initial work on Earth-likes by giving bigger and more complex city layouts, roads, railways, mining complexes, etc.
For Exploration play, PvE should include more hazards and opportunities to be harmed by and interact with the game world. For example scooping comets, hazardous solar flares, electro-magnetic storms, radiation blasts, etc. More challenging and varied fuel scooping play, in addition to electrical storms in nebula hinted at and many, many more objects orbiting stars as exist in our own solar system. Landable planets without (much) atmosphere that have severe volcanism and plate techtonics going on.
FDEV need to show their ProcGen roots and start putting that tech to better use with content. I fully expect this when planets with life come out (will be required for the initial target as stated by David Braben).
However, can we see some of this prior to Earth-likes? More variety of volcanoes, geysers, etc. The scatter-rocks update should be great if the target is reached but that can't come soon enough. Player Ships were a prime opportunity for FD to make more procedural, but given the bespoke models we have, maybe some more generic large transports (like the generation ships) and alien ships and structures. The outposts on airless planets could show initial work on Earth-likes by giving bigger and more complex city layouts, roads, railways, mining complexes, etc.
For Exploration play, PvE should include more hazards and opportunities to be harmed by and interact with the game world. For example scooping comets, hazardous solar flares, electro-magnetic storms, radiation blasts, etc. More challenging and varied fuel scooping play, in addition to electrical storms in nebula hinted at and many, many more objects orbiting stars as exist in our own solar system. Landable planets without (much) atmosphere that have severe volcanism and plate techtonics going on.
OK, maybe 1 out of 10,000,000 jumps for instant death then, maybe jumping into a system just as it goes supernova with like maybe a 50/50 chance of being able to outrun it in time. I like the idea of these sorts of things being at least a little bit out of our control. It's hard to explain beyond that.
But yeah, in general I agree with what you're saying as well.
Last edited:
I have an ideal for some exploration risk vs reward. What would you guys think if they added "Gravaton burst" star that would be visible from a thousand Ly away, like the Bubble Nebula is currently, but if you got within say 500 LY you would get destroyed.
The trick would be noticing the extremely high heat in the surrounding systems (close to death range) and changing jump path before getting too close. However all scan data and minerals would be worth more in those "close systems"
The trick would be noticing the extremely high heat in the surrounding systems (close to death range) and changing jump path before getting too close. However all scan data and minerals would be worth more in those "close systems"
Agree. It should be skill based, like supercharging in neutron stars or white dwarfs. If you do it wrong or don't have a ship that can handle it, you're doomed, but with knowledge and practice you can do it (but you better pay attention still).
Black holes should be something like that too. Or at least a way to turn of the safety features for some benefits. Perhaps avoiding a pirate by going in the danger zone of a black hole, but taking a risk by doing it.
I get what you're saying but it just wouldn't fly (so to speak). It's still a game and the idea that you go 50,000LY only to suddenly go "splat" with no recourse? Would not go over well.
At best, you need a situation where you are offered an opportunity to avoid going splat, and will 100% go splat if you fail to take that opportunity. For example, getting too close to a black hole because of the cool distortion effects you're trying to capture and getting spaghettified because you ignored the warnings.
But purely random instakill? They'll never do it, no matter how low the odds - just assume if your game randomly crashes and you see the rebuy screen because of a glitch that that's what happened, the odds would be about the same
(it's a feature, not a bug!)True. But you can go splat in deep space in a neutron star, white dwarf, and high gravity planets, but with knowledge and skill you can handle it. There could be more of those kind'a dangers. Things that, yeah, if you don't know and haven't done it before, well, tough luck. But if you have read up, learned, prepared, and practiced, you can deal with it. That's when things are more fun.
That's the reason I'm mostly hunt neutron stars. It just adds a little excitement between honk-jump between the regular ones.
Right. Yeah, random insta-death without recourse, not so good. Agree with you.
But dangers that could mean death if you don't know how to handle it right, need more of it. Add a little "survival" mode.
Well, the possibility of it being out there, though not necessarily happening. I don't know... Space being completely formulaic and predictable within boundaries of gameplay doesn't seem quite as compelling and formidable to me. I like to imagine somewhere in the back of my mind that I'm actually exploring the galaxy. But yeah, this is more of a tangent to the thread anyway I suppose.
Insta-death Exploration features won't happen, quite simply because there's no "challenge" in it. The purpose of a game is to provide challenge- which insta-death doesn't do. Frontier's task is to provide such challenge in the form of entertainment- not to frustrate the living hell out of players by not giving them a way to solve the challenge.
To each their own. If I happened to lose a ship in a 1 out of 10,000,000 chance of galactic-shaking fireworks, I'd consider it worth the price of admission.
But yeah, Frontier don't seem like they're likely to implement these sort of dynamic celestial events, never mind the dire consequences that might be associated with them.
So yeah, a tangent to the thread.