Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 676

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Explorers : would you consider giving up on the infinite honk for...?

  1. #151
    Originally Posted by Shanaeri View Post (Source)
    I say keep the ADS as it is, as someone said it's ingrained in the playerbase and quite frankly it's not as though we are short on space to discover things, what we are short of is free time to do so.

    Another example, we have optical telescopes that can see to almost the farthest regions of the solar system, why in 3303 do I need to go right next to the planet to see the surface detail?

    These don't add skill or gameplay, they simply add... time

    So I would suggest the focus is shifted to getting more detail from the planets/stellar bodies themselves using different methods.

    For example, having two ways to discover detail on a planet. the normal surface scanner, and firing a probe(which can be synthesised). The probe gives more information(such as any ruins, barnacles, brain trees, vulcanism etc) which the surface scanner does not.

    Combining the ADS and DSS into a single module, opening up a slot for smaller ships to explore.

    Adding a long range sensor module that gives an estimate of the targeted star systems composition. Basically it replicates what we do now in determining what's in a star system without us needing to go there.

    What's needed is a way to increase gameplay and skill without purely increasing time. Game play and skill are fun to learn and master.. Time is far more precious.
    There are some benefits to the ADS and DDS fusion - I've read people highlighting interesting points about the actual "size" of such probes/limpets, that could not be converted into a simple ammo as I thought. If a mining prospector is 1 ton, then how about something that moves in supercruise? Same amount at very least.
    The ADS and DSS fusion would solve the problem : by freeing one slot, you could fit a tiny cargo rack that would be enough for probing the most interesting planets - and you could synthetize them easily with basic materials.

  2. #152
    OP - no. Add stuff, sure. Don't remove stuff that we already have that gives some damn fine convenience.

    Imagine having to fly hundreds of thousands of LS to check out a remote binary only to discover absoloutely nothing worth travelling for to see there. Not to mention trying to eyeball the binary in the first place, which if distant could be damn tricky.

  3. #153
    Originally Posted by jasonbarron View Post (Source)
    At present there simply is no gameplay involved in exploration
    I'd argue against it even being called "exploration" in the first place. Perhaps cataloging? There just isn't anything unfamiliar out there aside from the odd black hole.

  4. #154
    Originally Posted by StiTch View Post (Source)
    I'd argue against it even being called "exploration" in the first place. Perhaps cataloging? There just isn't anything unfamiliar out there aside from the odd black hole.
    Cartography is the word. Christopher Colombus was an actual explorer - what we're doing is more of the kind of Amerigo Vespucci.

    Originally Posted by Agony_Aunt View Post (Source)
    OP - no. Add stuff, sure. Don't remove stuff that we already have that gives some damn fine convenience.

    Imagine having to fly hundreds of thousands of LS to check out a remote binary only to discover absoloutely nothing worth travelling for to see there. Not to mention trying to eyeball the binary in the first place, which if distant could be damn tricky.
    I've tried to edit my OP to reflect that I don't advocate for the removal of anything, and I never believed it would be a thing.
    I just wanted to know the reasons that make it important and sometimes sufficient to the players (not me). It's a different approach really - one sides values the actual discovery (= the "interesting" planets, the 1 out of 100), when my particular side values the road/work to discover those actual planets, interesting or not. I wouldn't care if I lose some time finding a single binary star 200 00 ls away because what's important is that I actually found it. And you could multiply the rewards for any basic system you'd discover this way. And imagine you'd discover something interesting this way - for me, it would be even more satisfying.

    But the thread illustrates that exploration is not a one-sided job, and I'm really fine with that.

  5. #155
    Originally Posted by Godsailsaqueen View Post (Source)
    Cartography is the word. Christopher Colombus was an actual explorer - what we're doing is more of the kind of Amerigo Vespucci.
    Ah, of course. Strangely satisfying word right there.

    In response to OP - am 100% for exploration development, but removal of the infinite honk has so much potential to do the opposite of what you intend. Aimlessly wandering around in the hopes you'll pick up on a body that's a few hundred k ls from the star sounds no more engaging than revealing it all and moving on.

    There are a thousand and one potential ways to improve exploration and I suspect as a combat player I couldn't recommend the best...I am hoping someone will pull an idea out that just makes me go "whoa!". But if I had to make a snap change, the "locating" of bodies could be done with the scanner - but nothing about that body at all is known. Not even the type - just that there's a body there or a star, and some further mechanics for identifying the body and locating points of interest on it.

    But of course, part of the issue is the lack of interesting bodies or points of interest to discover in the first place...

  6. #156
    Originally Posted by Godsailsaqueen View Post (Source)
    Now that the time has come (or has been announced, let's say) for the reworking of core mechanics, and getting them closer to the original concepts...
    Let's talk exploration.

    Would you be ready to give up on your infinite scanner range and exhaustive galaxy map for more rewarding probing / navigation gameplay? Rewarding in terms of money/rank/whatever else of course, but also in terms of feeling. Of course you can't be left in the dark and just downgrade to the intermediate discovery scanner now - it would feel like artifical handicap. But there could be modules that detect unfound gravitationnal perturbations... probes to launch that would detect planetary bodies and their surfaces, even system-scaled scanners ala SRV... To an extent, there could be secret systems in galmap, for you to find, with one-knows-what-tool.

    I reckon some things can't be changed. You can't remove something the player base is used to - for nothing at least. I'm just trying to know if that particular godly honk and the ease of discovery is that important to you. Not saying exploring is easy though - but it's more a matter of endurance, most of the time, than navigational flair (ok, tbh there is true navigationnal flair in certain expeditions reaching really isolated stars).

    Your thoughts?

    Edit : reading through the thread, I need to clarify that I do not advocate for its removal. I'd just like to know your advice on it and other methods.
    i absolutely would support going back to the drawing board and having something like in the DDF.
    and actually now would be the (only) time they could do it.

    At the end of 1st encounters we ended up with a thargoid ship. its not beyond the realms of plausibility that the new fancy dan frameshift drives took some of their tech.
    but now "they are back" it could be they do not like us using their tech and manage to do something to how they work (i am thinking of ques from the BSG reboot).

    this would mean having to jury rig all our drives to get them working again, but, perhaps now they are not quite as good, and so need more data to be able to plot jumps to neighbouring systems and to get that data we need to fully scan a system, which is then sold back to UC, at which point everyone else can purchase that data which then expands the area we can jump to.

    Any systems which have a nav beacon we can link with on jumping in which would download all jump co-ordinates to neighbouring systems for those who choose not to subscribe the the UC service..

    how to transition players deep in the black back to inhabited space would be the big question. 1 possible solution. Before war out and out kicks off between us and the goids, perhaps a forced hyperdiction for every player, and we get a message "your acts of aggression against our kind will no longer be tolerated and we are disabling your drive. As a last act of kindness between our people we shall transport you to one of your main bases..... you can choose..... Colonia or Lave.

    on dropping out into the system of your choice the stolen technology shall be disabled.

    back in the day it was never expected to be able to simply get from sol to sagA in 15 hrs whilst still in gamma. it was touted as something we would strive for, taking a co-ordinated effort and assumed to take many months if not more. the improtant thing tho is it needs to be enjoyable.... just slowing it down for the sake of it is not good, but makign it more involved but at the same time more engaging, that is the key imo (and may be easier said than done).

    taking an hr to fully scan 1 entire system is fine for instance imo, so long as we are doing interesting stuff, and with the knowedge that there is a chance we can find interesting or profitable stuff. but if it is just brainlessly flying around and it just takes longer than before, without adding anything new to actually DO... that would be bad... imo.

  7. #157
    Originally Posted by Godsailsaqueen View Post (Source)
    Would you be ready to give up on your infinite scanner range and exhaustive galaxy map for more rewarding probing / navigation gameplay?
    No? No. Choice is important; we have that right now. Don't like the god-honk? Use a basic or intermediate scanner. But of course that's too easy; it affects one person, but not everyone else. And it's so much more fascinating and enjoyable to massively impact other's game experience, instead. I read your 'clarification', I still don't believe yanking mechanics, in such a fashion, is a positive take.

    And your subsequent comments continue the same "i would be okay with losing x for y", which seems to be at odds with the clarification, suggesting the original post was what you meant. And still very much do.

    It's essentially plea bargaining. And we've had more than enough of that already. Because this is what these comments always boil down to. There are a bajillion things frontier could constructively add to exploration at this point; and I think developing the thing, is the better approach. It also never needs plea bargaining. Just some constructive consultation.

    I have every interest in exploration being more than honk-scoop-jump; but yanking the advanced discovery scanner doesn't achieve that. Pretending it does, is just purposeful ignorance.

  8. #158
    Could the instant honk be replaced with a gradual one, ie the honk is sent out and the results return over a few minutes depending on the distance.
    This would seem more RL.

    If you leave the system before the last results are in you don't get them. You never know if the last report was THE last report.


    Sorry if this has already been mentioned, I am working so not enough time to read all 11 pages.

  9. #159
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    No? No. Choice is important; we have that right now. Don't like the god-honk? Use a basic or intermediate scanner. But of course you won't because that's too easy; it affects you, but not everyone else. And it's so much more fascinating and enjoyable to massively impact other's game experience, instead. I read your 'clarification' but it does read pretty much like "should the scanner get it in the neck so we can have some sort of immersive complex replacement instead".

    Because this is what these comments always boil down to. How can I impact the entire player base, because I am intrinsically lazy, so I'd rather the game enforces an outcome, rather than have options and choice. There are a bajillion things frontier could constructively add to exploration at this point.
    You're pretty harsh at that point. And this is just discussion. So calm down a bit. In 11 pages, you're the first person directly attacking me as "intrinsically lazy".
    As I said, and I'll repeat myself, a artificial handicap is not something desirable. Good if you have solutions to offer, and choices to give, instead of attacking.

  10. #160
    Originally Posted by Godsailsaqueen View Post (Source)
    You're pretty harsh at that point.
    Not really; it's just this topic has come up repeatedly, and the belief of 'artificial restrictions' as being a way to improve the game, is also a common justification. It's also very common to see plea-bargaining as a way to sell the idea. Which is a lot of what seems to be appearing, over 11 some odd pages.

    I'm not attacking you, actually; I'm taking exception to the notion that in order to improve a thing, the first step is to toss out a supposed 'crutch' and then build an entire case around how that could be offset. Rather than simply observing that exploration is essentially scenic tours of the same types of stars, repeatedly. And it's about as deep as my frying pan.

    The ADS purely speeds up how many frying pans I can access in a given period, and how much bacon (I need the DSS to know what type of bacon it is though) there is in the frying pan; it doesn't particularly improve, or not improve, the experience. It's a tool. Nothing more. It's "intrinsically lazy" to expect the entire player base to make a sacrifice, to then gain something else, through the removal of choice, rather than consider that options and choice are important, even if that means others may elect to do something you might not.

    This is partly why a group of people will often happily ceed rights and privileges and freedoms, when confronted with choice. Because it's easier for someone else to make the decisions. This is always a very bad way to look at game mechanics (in much the same way as it can be bad in real life).

    I am, have been, and always will be highly supportive of suggestions and improvement recommendations that give some life and soul to exploration.

    I just take exception to the usual approach of picking something (such as the advanced discovery scanner) then build an entire case around why it's essentially a crutch and if it wasn't there, surely wouldn't that improve things? In a word? No. To improve a thing, you iterate the thing. Removing various tools to interact with the thing is missing the point. And that (iterating the thing) to me? Seems a better way to approach it.

    Also, bacon. mmm.

  11. #161
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Not really; it's just this topic has come up repeatedly, and the belief of 'artificial restrictions' as being a way to improve the game, is also a common justification. It's also very common to see plea-bargaining as a way to sell the idea.

    I'm not attacking you; I'm taking exception to the notion that in order to improve a thing, the first step is to toss out a supposed 'crutch' and then build an entire case around how that could be offset. Rather than simply observing that exploration is essentially scenic tours of the same types of stars, repeatedly. And it's about as deep as my frying pan.

    It's "intrinsically lazy" to expect the entire player base to make a sacrifice, rather than consider that options and choice are important, even if that means others may elect to do something you might not. I am, have always been, and always will be highly supportive of suggestions and improvement recommendations that give some life and soul to exploration.

    I just take exception to the usual approach of picking something (such as the advanced discovery scanner) then build an entire case around why it's essentially a crutch and if it wasn't there, surely wouldn't that improve things? In a word? No. To improve a thing, you iterate the thing. And that, to me? Seems a better way to approach it.
    And you could have put things like that from the get-go and that would have been a prety good way to start exposing your points, with which I kinda agree. I don't have the will to ask for sacrifices. I just like topics being discussed, and sorry if that was badly put for you. I'll keep that in mind.
    But I'm sorry, your first reply was (and still is despite your additions) the forum equivalent to walking into a bar and spitting at the speaker - don't take shortcuts to someone elses' behaviour (lazy, self concerned) or flaws based on a post. I've pretty much tried to acknowledge every point of view here.

    edit : and now it is less so. thanks for adressing that and the more diplomatic tone.

  12. #162

  13. #163
    I'd vote to keep the ADS, we need a simple starter scan that is easy to operate (but have a cooler graphic, current one looks really placeholdery.....KWS effect and the new engine start up affect on planets are the sort of thing I'd like) to get the initial "what's here in the system". AS others have already said it's what comes AFTER we know what bodies are in the system that is ....basically naff. I've done a LOT of moaning about the "point at dot....throttle up, watch numbers reduce.....watch uninteresting scan graphic...repeat". As others have said the mocks up by ToCoSo are amazing. The "science" of the game needs to be fleshed out and the mechanics to do the "science". What we currently do is like driving down the M4, stopping on the M25 and saying we've "explored London".

    So more "science" and more engaging game mechanics to discover the science.

  14. #164
    Originally Posted by Shanaeri View Post (Source)
    Another example, we have optical telescopes that can see to almost the farthest regions of the solar system, why in 3303 do I need to go right next to the planet to see the surface detail?
    The distance we can see sufficiently bright and large objects is actually much farther than just the edge of the solar system. We can see all the way to the visible edge of the universe, aka just after the big bang, or roughly 46 Billion LY.

    HOWEVER the further away an object is, the lower the resolution becomes. This is because the maximum angular resolution for any particular detector/telescope is fixed, and depends upon the frequency/wavelength of light + telescope diameter:

    And the farther away an object is, the smaller the angle that object fills up. So small objects or far away objects are all lower resolution than they would be if they were closer. Even if we can detect their presence from very far away, that doesn't mean we can know everything about them in great detail. Also objects that are too small or too dim require larger sensors and telescopes for them to reach the minimum detection thresholds.

    This is why you need to be closer to see surface detail. Also why the Juno probe is able to bring us much better resolution images than the much larger earth-based telescopes at home. Pretty much the whole reason that space probes with relatively small space-based telescopes exist.

  15. #165
    Originally Posted by Leper Messiah View Post (Source)
    I'd vote to keep the ADS, we need a simple starter scan that is easy to operate (but have a cooler graphic, current one looks really placeholdery.....KWS effect and the new engine start up affect on planets are the sort of thing I'd like) to get the initial "what's here in the system". AS others have already said it's what comes AFTER we know what bodies are in the system that is ....basically naff. I've done a LOT of moaning about the "point at dot....throttle up, watch numbers reduce.....watch uninteresting scan graphic...repeat". As others have said the mocks up by ToCoSo are amazing. The "science" of the game needs to be fleshed out and the mechanics to do the "science". What we currently do is like driving down the M4, stopping on the M25 and saying we've "explored London".

    So more "science" and more engaging game mechanics to discover the science.
    yep just to elabourate in my post i was not suggesting i fully agreed with "remove the ADS".... just change it somewhat to make more interesting... infact imo it is not the ADS which bugs me personally.

    is it that implausible to be able to get a very approximate idea of the number of planets in just a localised system off a fairly simple piece of equiment in 1000 years time.

    i think for me the dullest part of exploration right now is the DSS.

Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast