District as sectors and regions are already used.
+1
+1
New Regions – Why not use the ones already established by the exploration community?
- Thread starter Corbin Moran
- Start date
/signed
I want to caution us against making assumptions of defeat, by the way. A few people have made statements about how it's "impossible" for them to change this now (I'm not speaking about Will's comments here). We don't know how they implemented regions. Maybe it's easy for them to redraw, maybe it's not. Maybe it's easy to change the names, maybe it's not. If I had to bet money, I'd say it would be "hard" for them to redraw the regions, but easy for them to use GMP names.
FDev? Chime in here, please?
I want to caution us against making assumptions of defeat, by the way. A few people have made statements about how it's "impossible" for them to change this now (I'm not speaking about Will's comments here). We don't know how they implemented regions. Maybe it's easy for them to redraw, maybe it's not. Maybe it's easy to change the names, maybe it's not. If I had to bet money, I'd say it would be "hard" for them to redraw the regions, but easy for them to use GMP names.
FDev? Chime in here, please?
/Signed
I like the idea of the FDev regions being the official "Universal Cartographics" designations, and the "Galactic Mapping Project" regions being what Commanders actually call things. The two wouldn't even have to have the same borders as long as the user could overlay either as required.
This sortof has backing in real life - for example Ordnance Survey Maps have their own special grid references which have nothing to do with County borders etc. The former is mainly used by cartographers, the latter by normal people in their day-to-day lives.
While not ideal (it wouldn't really alleviate the concerns that the UC regions would slowly erode the GMP ones if all the Codex etc entries point to the UC ones) but I guess it's a workable solution.
EDIT: PS: Absolutely stoked that Will & FDev are taking this sort of stuff on board, even at such a late stage in development. Really impressed and happy with the level of engagement FDev have with the explorer community at present, even if they don't "get it right" (personal perspective, of course) all the time..
This sortof has backing in real life - for example Ordnance Survey Maps have their own special grid references which have nothing to do with County borders etc. The former is mainly used by cartographers, the latter by normal people in their day-to-day lives.
While not ideal (it wouldn't really alleviate the concerns that the UC regions would slowly erode the GMP ones if all the Codex etc entries point to the UC ones) but I guess it's a workable solution.
EDIT: PS: Absolutely stoked that Will & FDev are taking this sort of stuff on board, even at such a late stage in development. Really impressed and happy with the level of engagement FDev have with the explorer community at present, even if they don't "get it right" (personal perspective, of course) all the time..
I'm always available if you need information, polygon coordinates or what else if we can work something out. Even move ours to yours and find similitude.
You know where to find me
Signed!
/signed!
/signed!
/Signed
so say we all
/signed
Names.... so much more "human" than numbers... I like it!
/signed
/signed
To be fair, if you guys manage involving the GMP regions I'm going to personally fly to London and drop a box of Belgian chocolates and Belgian Trappist beers. And those who know me well know I'm not joking
How about a suggestion for how to adapt the GMP regions into the new in game regions that Frontier is going to introduce?
While the original proposal may not work. Can we suggest a compromise?
While the original proposal may not work. Can we suggest a compromise?
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
