Oh, I agree, I was just saying that by limiting the number of probes "in the air", not only do you get "mindless grind", you also get "mindless slow grind".
- Status
Oh, I agree, I was just saying that by limiting the number of probes "in the air", not only do you get "mindless grind", you also get "mindless slow grind".
I watched that twice now, i see no counter for the clip size when in the probe launching UI.
I only saw that clip size in the normal UI view.
Where did you spot that?
Thanks i didn't spot that.
Hmm so it has an autoreloader and works like a dumbfire missile rack
I think I know the reason we've got over 100 pages of posts.
Any argument you can make for the addition of the probing gameplay to the game, can be applied equally as well to adding the mining/synthesis gameplay. The reverse applies too: any argument for not including the mining/synthesis gameplay is an argument for not including the probing gameplay.
The gameplay specifics might be different, but the arguments for/against both of them are the same!
Any argument you can make for the addition of the probing gameplay to the game, can be applied equally as well to adding the mining/synthesis gameplay. The reverse applies too: any argument for not including the mining/synthesis gameplay is an argument for not including the probing gameplay.
The gameplay specifics might be different, but the arguments for/against both of them are the same!
Not only that,
but it also is a discussion of eliminating backtracking for one job,
while the rest of jobs still have backtracking in.
Infinite anything creates a precedence that is rather outraging.
Even laser pew-pew is finite, due to fuel generating power,
or capacitor energy draw.
Don't the scanners also have a power draw and thus require fuel as well? So they're no more infinite than a laser's pew-pew, they would eventually deplete a ship's fuel, though it would take hours and hours for it to do so. Problem solved, it's not technically infinite, though doesn't require grinding for mats, everyone wins, let's all go home now.
The recharging 3 clip thing seems a bit odd, I mean why bother adding that.
They say engineering increases that clip size, but given how quick it refills it doesn't seem like it would make much difference.
You have to wonder why bother adding it in, just a reload timer would have been easier to implement, and engineering could have reduced the delay.
I can only really see it potentially coming into play in multicrew if they implement a shared probe clip, but that would seem an odd limitation to add for multiplayer only.
Last edited:
I've been drinking for the last 3 hours and even I understand what's trying to be explained here...
But I'll explain, just let me know if pictures are required.
Stig is saying that using probes to map planets is optional content. You can still explore without probing.
However IF you do choose to map planets via probing, AND probes were replenished by synthesis, then material-gathering becomes a requirement for continuing mapping, as you would require materials to synthesize more probes.
So he is correct, and not even all that awkwardly phrased.
I don't have the game installed anymore, but it seems that they don't. Both the wiki and the E: D Shipyard list it with 0 power consumption. Also a quick google finds forum threads where people confirm the scanners not using any power.
If the scanners could be made to consume power, at least that of a small pulse laser, then it would be a step in the right direction. It's highly unlikely that will happen, given how FDEV does not want to screw up ship builds which are currently exploring in deep space. I'm not familiar with exploration builds, but I assume such problems could be mitigated by explorers with some power priorities though.
If it's fuel we're talking about, a better option would be to keep scanners not require any power like until now, and implement some fuel consumption for probes, like suggested many times around here.
Yes 0 power for DSS and ADS.
They're odd modules, it's like they were never quite finalised. Seems like they should have gone into utils rather than optional.
Partially i'd say, leaving aside the logic flaws and contradicting statements.
People take the initial design as finished, but why?
If you have the ability to map a planet with the scanner, without using probes,
that also is optional and without having to force feed synthesis.
While having probes be ammo based with multiple ways to replenish, synth being one of those.
That solution works...
If probes simply return to refuel and not crash.
Otherwise that is the same old consistency crash
as ship transfer initially was, with 3D printed ships instantly.
It isn't even hard to do that, just add the behaviour of a collector limpet,
after attaching a chunk of ore or cargo, returning to the ship
and it is solved.
Last edited:
I'm not doing that though am I.
I'm dismissing finite probes only as being very unpopular, as was proven by OA's poll.
Your scanner consumes energy therefore its also consuming fuel, so no problem with infinite probes as it is consuming something and its fully game consistent.
"Problem" solved.
As was previously outlined, explorations canners don't draw power
And a probe still is something you fire off, like ammo,
that point stays there and kills consistency.
Maybe if you hadn't been drinking, you'd realise you're talking rubbish.
If you're saying that probing planets isn't "busy work" because it's optional, you can't say collecting mat's to make probes is "busy work".... because that's only necessary IF you want to probe planets - and you've already decided that's optional.
So I just caught up with all this Chapter 4 stuff. Are people really arguing for probes to not be infinite?
I'd have thought the appropriate lessons would have been learned after the ship transfer waiting time levels of forumdaddery got their way.
Other than that, quietly and reservedly impressed by what I've seen, FD. Seems legit so far.
I'd have thought the appropriate lessons would have been learned after the ship transfer waiting time levels of forumdaddery got their way.
Other than that, quietly and reservedly impressed by what I've seen, FD. Seems legit so far.
No, he's absolutely spot on.
So we can compare arguments - how long have you been drinking? I'd guess nearer 7 hours.... probably buckfast, in a paper bag, under a bridge, while arguing with a swan. Maybe
- Status