ANNOUNCEMENT January Update - Beta Announcement

I really really hope that the beta has everything at a vastly reduced cost in order to test things out. similar to how previous betas have worked
 

Stephen Benedetti

Community Manager
On the FSS/Geological proposed changes :

Could we get some Data as to which numerical Probability is indicated by each term? (long thread, if they were posted already please point me to it)

Something like :
Unlikely = 0-30%
Likely = 31-70%
Very Likely = 71-100%

That might help knowing before the Beta launches, so Players know what to expect - and what the terms really indicate when it comes to "how likely is it now to find something or not?".


Hello,

The numerical probability for each term is an approximation based on these percentages.

Very Likely = > 90%
Likely = 60-90%
Unlikely = < 60%

Hopefully this will help with testing!
 
I really really hope that the beta has everything at a vastly reduced cost in order to test things out. similar to how previous betas have worked

If they really wanted, they'd simply give all testers 400b and move everyone into their starter systems. When I hop in, I'll be a few kly from Beagle Point, which might not actually be so bad for me to test this probability stuff out in the great unknown.
 
The new system FSS will make the exploration time increase or decrease? - Please beta testers, when you have tried it, do not support another mechanic that makes us waste a lot of time without actually doing anything. It's too much.
Remember when the ads of the fss that would shorten that time.🙏🙏
 

Deleted member 38366

D
Hello,

The numerical probability for each term is an approximation based on these percentages.

Very Likely = > 90%
Likely = 60-90%
Unlikely = < 60%

Hopefully this will help with testing!

Thanks, this is very useful Data !

I'm very surprised about the "Unlikely", I would have never expected this figure to reach to almost 60% o.0
 
The FSS proposals could all be settled with a CG ...... if you don't want the FSS changed, haul biowaste to Sol ..... if you want the FSS changed to the proposed percentages, hand in exploration data at Sag A :D

those percentages must be a joke ... I don't want to imagine the amount of failed trips and the time lost in this new thing.🤦‍♀️

I don't understand how anyone can agree with this, really.it's like they want to sabotage the own game.
 
Hello,

The numerical probability for each term is an approximation based on these percentages.

Very Likely = > 90%
Likely = 60-90%
Unlikely = < 60%

Hopefully this will help with testing!
I don't think "unlikely" should cover situations where there is "better than even chance" or "more likely than not". That's poor use of English.
 
Yeah, typically in Fuzzy Logic scenarios, "unlikely" is < 0.4 or even less. "Likely" would be > 0.9 and "Very likely" would be > 0.99 or so. Let's see how it works.

:D S
My guess is that the distribution is strongly bimodal - we already know that volcanism+landable yields a very high probability of geo sites, for instance. So 60% may just be an arbitrary cutoff, while in fact virtually all bodies fall into either the <1% or >80% probability buckets.
 
My guess is that the distribution is strongly bimodal - we already know that volcanism+landable yields a very high probability of geo sites, for instance. So 60% may just be an arbitrary cutoff, while in fact virtually all bodies fall into either the <1% or >80% probability buckets.

Yep, I have no idea what the underlying mechanics are for PoI placement, besides what was stated in the OP. I'm sure they have tweaked the parameters to seem working well on first glance. Let the beta speak before we get our collective knickers too bunched up!

:D S
 
I'm more curious to see how many Awesome Sites will be missed by results in the "Unlikely" range, when people go, "eh, there's probably nothing there, like the other 200 Unlikely sites I checked". Probably be an HGE Mine or something even better, but since it was "Unlikely", and we learned after being burned 200 times before....
 
Still playing “catch up” on the thread, but it occurs to me that the main problem with current state of geological POIs is that they are at the front of the queue for being counted, rather than that at the end. Personally, if I see a planet is volcanically active, it doesn’t matter how many POIs it has, since there’s a 99.9% chance that it has at least one Therefore, I’m far more interested in the other kinds of sites that are not listed as part of its basic makeup: biological, Thargoid, Guardian, and human.

I would be fine if you’d list those sites first, as fast as they can be determined, and let me decide for myself if I want to wait on the geological site count to resolve, or base it on the planet’s general information.
 
those percentages must be a joke ... I don't want to imagine the amount of failed trips and the time lost in this new thing.🤦‍♀️

I don't understand how anyone can agree with this, really.it's like they want to sabotage the own game.

Exactly, only the "Very Likely" would be interesting and even those could be a miss.
When a "Likely" hits on a planet thousands of ls away then I would ignore them immediately which would then result in an even smaller chance of finding something nice.

Imho this "fix" only makes things worse, it won't only take a lot longer by having to fly to each body but it's accompanied by a huge game of chance whether there's actually something to find or not.

I said it before, the long scan times ruined exploration for me, this new system will kill it altogether and I won't have a reason to keep playing ED any longer.
I was truly waiting for a fix regarding the long scan times, this was not what I had in mind to be honest.

If this is the only alternative possible because of how the game is programmed then I'm gutted about that, ED used to be my all time favorite game.
 
Still playing “catch up” on the thread, but it occurs to me that the main problem with current state of geological POIs is that they are at the front of the queue for being counted, rather than that at the end. Personally, if I see a planet is volcanically active, it doesn’t matter how many POIs it has, since there’s a 99.9% chance that it has at least one Therefore, I’m far more interested in the other kinds of sites that are not listed as part of its basic makeup: biological, Thargoid, Guardian, and human.

I would be fine if you’d list those sites first, as fast as they can be determined, and let me decide for myself if I want to wait on the geological site count to resolve, or base it on the planet’s general information.
I'd be happy with that as well if it can be done.

However, based on what @Stephen Benedetti said, along with what can be observed and measured in game, it appears that the issue is with volcanic bodies rather than Geo sites.

It seems that the issue is with the time taken with the Planet Gen system to spin up landables with volcanism to a sufficient level to be able to determine whether there's any suitable sites for POIs (not just Geo ones).

Hopefully we can get some further clarification from FD on the exact nature of the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom