How FD undermined their own creation

[aRJay]

Without getting into what the actual mechanism is, what is the limitation you see on establishing a new route?
If a direct link between two systems within jump range didn't exist, why wouldn't you be able to establish one?

It's an awful lot of links to establish, but I could eventually see a situation in the bubble where most systems are linked directly to all systems within 25 ly, with a number of longer links established between key systems to facilitate rapid transit across the bubble.

This kind of functionality indirectly serves multiple game mechanisms - PP factions would want to establish networks, BGS factions would want to connect their systems directly.
Establishing new routes could also affect trade, etc. etc.

If I can establish a new link casually between two systems how is that significantly different to what I do now?

We have been flying between systems in the bubble for centuries so if there are still missing links between them there must be a technical reason that makes the link impossible.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

If I can establish a new link casually between two systems how is that significantly different to what I do now?

We have been flying between systems in the bubble for centuries so if there are still missing links between them there must be a technical reason that makes the link impossible.

I didn't say it was casual - we didn't get into what the actual mechanism was.

Somewhere along the line, the game setting switched from the slow witch-space drives to the new fast travel hyperspace.
Perhaps that was fairly recent, and we join in at a fairly early stage of route development where the network supporting it is still a bit sparse.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

If I can establish a new link casually between two systems how is that significantly different to what I do now?

We have been flying between systems in the bubble for centuries so if there are still missing links between them there must be a technical reason that makes the link impossible.

just for giggles and hypothetical stuff i would suggest.

an explorer ship maps the system fully.... once all gravitational data is computed this allows a calculation to be made which can then allow any ship with the data to jump from a previous mapped system that you have that data for to the one you are in.

this is what you sell back to UC - just the jump data. without that data, the jump is a hit and miss affair possible minigame like the interdiction thing, whilst our drive charges and the more central you get it the cleaner the blind jump is with least damage - exploration ships are easier to pull this off than other ships.

added wrinkle....... missionboard can then assign a mission to go to that system and build a nav beacon, this then would give the entire data of the system like it is now, however that beacon must be in range of another beacon in a neighbouring system. These can randomly fail - generating missions on the board to repair them. other missions could possibly be given to hack a working one, then after a set time of completion the beacon shuts down (note not destroy via shooting otherwise there would be non left)

repairs and construction and sabotage would not be immediate, allowing multiple people to take on the mission and then at a set time it comes online.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I would suggest that on each patch, the data was added in to the install. Dont forget it would not get as big as you may 1st think. it is only the boundary of the fog of war which would need to be tracked. anything inside that would be visible exactly as it is now...... all our machine would have to download / store would be the boundary worlds.

Ah, interesting. If you went with a radius effect around each system so you didn't need to know if a system was discovered, only if any system within X LY of it was discovered, then yes, you could certainly get the size of the data set down considerably, and make it much quicker to query.

But then, for any X large enough to jump between adjacent systems out on the rim, the current discovery surface would probably be pretty close to "the entire galaxy" anyway by now, and the whole thing would be superfluous.

 

[Blasphemous One]

There is nothing much to do on planet surface, most player just honk and skip, the community has been generous with racing events and stuff but it only cater to a insignificant minority, alrighty back to Subnautica, goodday.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Ah, interesting. If you went with a radius effect around each system so you didn't need to know if a system was discovered, only if any system within X LY of it was discovered, then yes, you could certainly get the size of the data set down considerably, and make it much quicker to query.

But then, for any X large enough to jump between adjacent systems out on the rim, the current discovery surface would probably be pretty close to "the entire galaxy" anyway by now, and the whole thing would be superfluous.

that was not quite what i meant. Now bear in mind i am kind of looking at a starting from scratch scenario here and not jumping in with the explored systems we have now......

but bear with me

i was literally thinking about drawing a line around the perimeter, so you would not save quite as much data as what you said.....so it would be quite a long and convoluted string and there would defintely be holes in it where systems were not scanned. A system would not be considered mapped for jumping to until it was fully scanned by someone and the data returned.

now... here is the thing.. .there would be a lot of holes in it where systems were missed out. this would increase data storage BUT this could be a game feature and feed back to the missionboard.

there would be a tab for exploration missions and the mission would be "CMDR our records indicate that our scans of system XXX are incomplete and it would help our navigation significantly if you would fly out there and map completely. please return and we will pay XYZ on top of your usual fee".

this has lots of advantages... it is added interest to missions, the missions have a genuine influence on the game AND it would basically be directed by the game engine to fill in holes of systems which were missed out, which could then reduce the amout of data which needs to be stored and synced to cmdrs.

If multiple people take on the mission and return it within the time limit that is ok, they would still get the mission pay, but lose the 1st discovered bonus.

not sure if i am explaining it well and i cant draw it on these boards.

 

[BlackSpaceCowboy]

What's missing is content. There should be more interesting planets and things to find.

The real problem with ED is the galaxy is very boring. There are Thargoids but nothing else. If the galaxy had different regions with different alien races or even very different human societies, it would be more interesting.

 

[Riverside]

What's missing is content. There should be more interesting planets and things to find.

The real problem with ED is the galaxy is very boring. There are Thargoids but nothing else. If the galaxy had different regions with different alien races or even very different human societies, it would be more interesting.

Extra stuff was added in 3.3, but the game also made it much, much easier to find these things, so even the extra content can be quickly burned through. I spent years looking for stuff on planets, I'd driven my SRV 16,000km before 3.3 looking for anything unusual. Since 3.3 I use geological & biological sites for farming mats and have seen so many I was bored of them before the end of December.

If they added more stuff it would just push that boredom threshold a little further down the line. I'd like to be able to interact with more stuff, as I can with the Guardian sites and have so far been unable to with the Thargoid bases (I don't use how-to guides or external tools, I try to figure stuff out for myself).

 

[Dutchman141]

In short, if you put one and one together it comes down to the fact that most features in ED are only half developed.
So many opportunities are left unused or just half used.
It's a trend in ED, almost every aspect is handled up to a certain halfway point, features, content, bug fixing, etc.

I fear the new 2020 update will suffer the same treatment.

 

[Riverside]

In short, if you put one and one together it comes down to the fact that most features in ED are only half developed.
So many opportunities are left unused or just half used.
It's a trend in ED, almost every aspect is handled up to a certain halfway point, features, content, bug fixing, etc.

I fear the new 2020 update will suffer the same treatment.

It takes longer to do stuff when you have to do it twice.

Something reminded me of the 2.1 update the other day, and I realised all my objections at the time have finally been overcome. The AI is relatively bug free, engineering isn't sidegrades but is at least relatively easy to do, finding mats can be a problem but not a massive one if you don't focus on it.

When was that released, August 2016?

 

[Brrokk]

What can I say? I don't see any of the three things listed in OP as blunders.
1. I wouldn't like my exploration to be restricted by what other players did.
2. I don't find engineered jump ranges excessive.
3. I like the FSS and am pleased that the old honk is gone as I considered it a placeholder.
Just my opinions, I know that not everyone agrees.

 

[Northpin]

I never tried that either. Can you use the SCA and set the throttle to zero? Also, orbit is not exactly what would interest me too much. My line of thought is more along the line of "fly towards the first interesting object, use the FSS to scan the rest while flying there".

I just tried it, mapped Rhodius while in SCA orbit. Which seems nice to me to map those big giants

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I agree on Blunder 1 and 2 (on 3 all I have to say is "please not that again"). Especially point one puts the finger into the open wound of a missed opportunity of well designed gameplay. What we actually got is just lousy and lazy design style, minimal checkbox programming at best. Done right, this aspect could have been brimfull of adventures and cooperative gameplay, where the latter is something David Braben often was talking about in the early stages of the game - we got CGs instead . Somehow the game feels as if DB has handed the game over to people who don't understand the initial spirit of the game or just have betrayed their own visions...

Issue 3 is a criticism of the FSS itself rather than about the lack of ADS functions.
One that could be resolved by adding the vizualization and zoom/tune functions to Analysis Mode allowing you to use it on the move.

 

[Stealthie]

1. I wouldn't like my exploration to be restricted by what other players did.

Your exploration wouldn't be restricted by what others did.... unless any kind of "fog of war" system was incredibly poorly implemented.

You couldn't have a system that just flat-out refused to let people visit undiscovered systems because that'd mean nobody could visit them in order to discover them.

All it'd probably mean would be that you wouldn't be able to just click on a random star on the galmap and plot a route to it.
When you reached the edge of "charted space" the galmap might, perhaps, only show you stars as far away as your ship could jump, and then you'd have to pick one, jump to it and then take another look at the galmap to make your next jump.

Sure, that'd make things like trips to Colonia slow going at first but eventually players would chart a well-trodden path along the route and, with a few additional tweaks, the whole thing could have been more engaging so that you wouldn't really care if a journey was slower.

 

[Lightspeed]

In short, if you put one and one together it comes down to the fact that most features in ED are only half developed.
So many opportunities are left unused or just half used.
It's a trend in ED, almost every aspect is handled up to a certain halfway point, features, content, bug fixing, etc.

I fear the new 2020 update will suffer the same treatment.

Yes, but at least we have something to get our hands on. Not perfect, annoying at times, but a thousand times better than that other game that seeks perfection and still isn't released.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

You know why there is "excessive jump range". It's there to cut down the debilitating effects of having to sit through hundreds and thousands of ever the same and same jump screens. A limit dictated by game design? By engine? Multiplayer? In the end the world is just too big for the players.

 

[m0rl0ck]

The Engineers is the problem. With the engineers any possible balance in the game went out the window.
Inflated not only jump ranges, but weapons and ship defences to a ridiculous degree and put them behind a grindwall you have to hold your nose to scale.
Most of the games problems could be fixed by simply getting rid of the engineers.
But i know FD thinks they need the grind to get people hooked in order sell store trinkets.

 

[Lightspeed]

The Engineers is the problem.
Inflated not only jump ranges, but weapons and ship defences to a ridiculous degree and put them behind a grindwall you have to hold your nose to scale.
Most of the games problems could be fixed by simply getting rid of the engineers.

..... except .... Guardians

 

[Sysmon]

Why have 400 billion stars and no way for people to visit them?

Why make large parts of the galaxy unreachable with limited jump ranges. Of course, the people with the ship having extreme jump ranges may also be the ones complaining when they get blown to bits by other ships that didn't sacrifice everything to be able to jump far.

The FSS, like everything else, gets a bit tiresome after long series of jumps. But it is a lot more interesting to use than the previous solution. I am so happy to be able to tailor my exploration travels to what my purpose is: I can choose how much of a system I scan based on the shape of the FSS spectrogram, and plan my route through a system using the orrery.

So I also disagree with the OP. I do agree we could use more variability in stuff to find. And maybe even more stuff to do while travelling. Both the galaxy and system maps could do with more ways to visualise data and plot routes. And the Codex could do with ways to analyse data gathered.

And of course more effort could be put into ship activities. I'd like to be able to break down and scavenge components (modules) in the ship, to shed weight and gain materials. More detailed maintenance and repair could be fun, especially if we could lift our bums off our seats and go EVA even. Atmospheric flight would be nice too...

S

 

[Stealthie]

The Engineers is the problem. With the engineers any possible balance in the game went out the window.
Inflated not only jump ranges, but weapons and ship defences to a ridiculous degree and put them behind a grindwall you have to hold your nose to scale.
Most of the games problems could be fixed by simply getting rid of the engineers.
But i know FD thinks they need the grind to get people hooked in order sell store trinkets.

Nah,

Having engineered a couple of hundred (yes, really) modules in the last couple of weeks, I've come to the conclusion that everything up to G4 engineering is frivolously trivial for anybody who's dipping into a diverse range of gameplay elements.

You'd have to willfully ignore opportunities to obtain mat's and scans in order to not have everything necessary for G1 to G4 upgrades immediately to hand.

G5, OTOH, does require a bit of effort, and that effort is usually tedious.
Given that G4 mod's currently (as a rule) equate roughly to what people could previously expect from G5 mod's, the current engineering system is mostly plain-sailing.