FD answers: no Cartographics for you

[Rudi Raumkraut]

They don't want to take away the experience of going out and coming back.

yeah, coming back why exactly, @FDev?!
ah, cause of the richness of variety in content you are offering us in the Bubble, right!?
Maybe a CG or II ... oh, wait.
Well, according to your launcher I can at least go to Reorte to celebrate the Year's End festivities...

This FC dilemma is again a manifestation how less you care about your community/customers and ED in general.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All of this is ofcourse nonsense motivation in order to avoid having to make changes.

Same as when they revealed the FSS

 

[Northpin]

All of this is ofcourse nonsense motivation in order to avoid having to make changes.

It MAY change tho... after all the fuss regarding storage of cargo in ships or in stations, they did gave storage to carriers.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Yeah, maybe they're beginning to realize that what they want does not matter (unless it's a severe technical limitation or a total Game-breaker).

However, Exploration clearly doesn't fall into the Game-breaker category, never has.
Plus, there were and are several such Game-breakers (i.e. severe imbalances) that they happily accepted and accept to this Date (C&P, Engineering, Combat and Income Metas etc.).

So there's at least a little bit hope that FDev understands that they are not the target audience, they aren't the ones that need to be entertained, they aren't the ones supposed to populate a huge Galaxy, they aren't the ones supposed to happily purchase cosmetics.

So.... if there's a few Explorers that want to stay out there for years? Let them. Just.... let.... them.
If anything, having some Explorers sell their Data before their carried UC stack begins to tax the Servers (AFAIK that already required a fix in the past) is making things easier for FDev.

PS.
If an Explorer enjoys the experience of "going out and coming back"... that very Explorer will do so all by him/herself. The Explorer would still be free to do so and would act accordingly anyway.

 

[nicedevill]

They accidentally created one of the best updates to exploration in the past six years. Not on purpose, ACCIDENTALLY.

OMG! Really?! That I didn't know. But then again, when I'm out exploring I don't use neutron jumps.

I don't want to fly to a different country, it would take away the experience of walking for months.....
I don't want to buy milk from the store, it would take away the experience of raising cows and milking them daily ...

Lol! 10/10

Thing is having UC on the go is not something that was ever needed, since you have no use for money out there anyway so there never was a need to make money while being out.

So everyone else should earn credits but explorers? And even if I spent 2 years exploring, I will eventually be forced to go to the only place that has new ships, modules or something else I want to try because there were few updates to the game while I was absent: The Bubble. And I need credits for that.

Another reason to not include UC: It forces players to buy alt accounts for Bubble play.

I read this: "Another reason to include UC: people would spend more money on our game." Why would you care if someone has 2+ accounts?

Would everyone agree to give UC to carriers, but at the same time remove all the death penalties?
No more losing exploration data, vouchers, missions, nothing lost when ship goes boom, except maybe for a tiny amount of credits - aka the rebuy cost.
Eh?

I never understood why Frontier decided on this mechanic of losing discovered data if you die while credits, materials and what not are intact. No consistency at all.

 

[GroG79]

Mengy said:


They accidentally created one of the best updates to exploration in the past six years. Not on purpose, ACCIDENTALLY.

OMG! Really?! That I didn't know. But then again, when I'm out exploring I don't use neutron jumps.

I would like to see some info/proof on that. Cause this fact is sooo unlikely. Maybe it was not to be revealed when it was but for sure it was not accidentally programmed into the game.

 

[Mengy]

I would like to see some info/proof on that. Cause this fact is sooo unlikely. Maybe it was not to be revealed when it was but for sure it was not accidentally programmed into the game.

Look under HISTORY of the neutron jump:

Neutron Highway

The Neutron Highway is a network of charted and optimised routes that contain a high percentage of neutron stars and white dwarfs along the route; systems that temporarily allow ships to supercharge their FSD via the neutron jet streams. These highways are a means for ships to traverse large...

elite-dangerous.fandom.com

Well, when the Beta 1 came about, there was a decimal error when calculating the Neutron Boost. Instead of 25% (1/4) as originally planned, the Neutron Star provided a 400% (4/1) boost. This was not intended.

The same day, 09/20/2016 - An official statement was provided to the public detailing the mistake in the boost, drawing the public eye to the "bug" that had graced the first Beta. This bug would undoubtedly provide discussion and a large controversial subject in Elite, when is a jump range too much?

The Same Day, 09/20/2016 - The community was rallied into action! Posts about the new boost were suddenly littering the front page. The community needed to catch the eye of FDEV and reverse the "fix" to this bug. The Neutron boost was an amazing and very sought after feature for Elite Dangerous, for it provided a strong reason to finally explore deep into the depths of the Elite Universe.

After a large number of posts were made, the community had won. The 400% boost was made a feature, and the beginnings of the Neutron Highway were born.

 

[marx]

If you read the original official statement, you can already see that they were a bit tone deaf back then too: it argues that the 25% boost is already significant.
Had the "fix" made it to live, how many people do you think would have used NS boosts?

Although it's curious that the fact that it would override the synthesized boost was apparently a bug, and meant to be fixed. Still, it's better this way.

 

[Orvidius]

FDev is for whatever reason very cautious about anything that feels good as a feature, or provides a positive measurable benefit. Any sort of bonus tends to be lackluster, if it follows their design intent.

 

[Orvidius]

If you read the original official statement, you can already see that they were a bit tone deaf back then too: it argues that the 25% boost is already significant.
Had the "fix" made it to live, how many people do you think would have used NS boosts?

I agree, who would bother making the effort for such a small boost? I didn't bother using them until the neutron route plotting was added, despite the 400% multiplier.

 

[Mengy]

FDev is for whatever reason very cautious about anything that feels good as a feature, or provides a positive measurable benefit. Any sort of bonus tends to be lackluster, if it follows their design intent.

This is true, FDev often seems afraid to change their own game in meaningful ways, even when said change adds value to many players. I'm not sure why this is though.

 

[iain666]

The people that died in the the black and lost all their discoveries along with months of game progress would be all over you

As someone who's first major expedition ended after 5 months in the black with fat fingers and silent running leading to my ship exploding I'm with @Orvidius

 

[Leif_Erikson]

The response and reasoning by the devs that 'They don't want to take away the experience of going out and coming back' seems to be derided by most here and it does surprise me as I must be in a minority that the return from a journey is an enjoyable and nescessary part of exploration-the final cumnulation of the trip.

When I started exploring trips that would take you out many months you would have to finish in a 300lyr area... Barnard's Loop getting larger then random USS signals telling that you are close to the finish line. The joy and relief of locking onto the landing pad and anticipation of selling your hard earned data (unless you were one of the misfortunates who saw their hard work disappear with the exploding ship). Even now the galaxy has seem to shrink due to engineering, guardian boosters and halfway house stations at Sag A and Colonia-I still get that final hurdle thrill.

 

[nicedevill]

I must be in a minority that the return from a journey is an enjoyable and nescessary part of exploration-the final cumnulation of the trip.

I agree, but why not enhance the experience further by staying longer in the deep space, knowing that there is a safe haven around, that you deliberately left at specific point in the galaxy that you can always come to. Not everyone would like this, I know, but I would. And if you get bubble-sick, you can always take that journey.

Even now the galaxy has seem to shrink due to engineering, guardian boosters and halfway house stations at Sag A and Colonia-I still get that final hurdle thrill.

Only 0,05% of galaxy is explored so far. Not even 1%.

 

[Old Duck]

Would everyone agree to give UC to carriers, but at the same time remove all the death penalties?
No more losing exploration data, vouchers, missions, nothing lost when ship goes boom, except maybe for a tiny amount of credits - aka the rebuy cost.
Eh?

Slightly off topic, but I want to see MORE things lost on ship destruction, like materials. BUT, we should have the option to go back to our "grave" and collect these things, just like Minecraft, NMS, etc. Exploration and all other data could be stored in a black box, materials could be in "material locker", etc. Now if you are destroyed by a mission-based enemy who is trying to stop you from delivering data, then that data is lost (NPC grabs it). But YOUR data should be there. We find exploration caches, black boxes, and materials floating in space all the time, so why not our own?

 

[Prorokpl]

I just don't get why The Gnosis can have UC and carriers can not.

 

[Redfox]

as I must be in a minority that the return from a journey is an enjoyable and nescessary part of exploration-the final cumnulation of the trip

Agreed, that touching down is a good feeling, and taking that away (even from a minority) would be a loss for the game. Adding UC to FC does neither dimish nor deny that expecience for anyone wanting it, does it?

I want to see MORE things lost on ship destruction, like materials. BUT, we should have the option to go back to our "grave" and collect these things

Absolutely. Being able to store/sell your stuff at a FC (play it safe, reduced earnings) or retrieve it after destruction (you risked it, now get it back, maybe partially, if you invest time) would encourage more risk/reward thinking and enable more diverse personal play-styles. Sooo much potential with assets that are mostly already in the game.

 

[Orvidius]

Adding UC to carriers doesn't rob people of the experience of completing a journey at all, I don't think. You still have that choice.

Getting back to the bubble after a trip was a huge relief when I started out. Now it's an inconvenience, unless I'm going back because I want to do something there. If someone who invests in a carrier wants to stay out longer, why not? Who is being hurt by that?

 

[Leif_Erikson]

Adding UC to carriers doesn't rob people of the experience of completing a journey at all, I don't think. You still have that choice.

Getting back to the bubble after a trip was a huge relief when I started out. Now it's an inconvenience, unless I'm going back because I want to do something there. If someone who invests in a carrier wants to stay out longer, why not? Who is being hurt by that?

I admit I have worries with UC being available on FC. I agree with the Devs-keep the Cartograpy on stations and settlements- if they become part of a movable carrier then it could ruin the dynamics of exploration.
If you're prepared to venture on a fleet carrier where no explorer has gone before then I think you should be prepared to find your way back to port. If FD do utilise UC on fleet cruisers they are opening a Pandora's Box where convenience and quicker credit turnaround will very soon become mundane and uneventful..... and it's hard to put a lid back on the box when it's opened!

 

[CaptainKremmen]

You'd think that a supposed "endgame" asset like this megaship would, in fact, allow "endgame" players to try a different and slightly novel playstyle, such as going out into the black and being self-sufficient. That would be a refreshing twist to said player's "mid-game" experience.

Wanting a New Thing to not provide too much that is new is... odd.