I tend to think of it as cataloging more than exploring.
Not quite sure what you're getting at there.
A Message To Elite Dangerous Developers
- Thread starter Hat Man
- Start date
I tend to think of it as cataloging more than exploring.
Not quite sure what you're getting at there.
Some comments based around HatMans essay, I have played game since launch on PC and also play it on PS4.
1.) Mission Design
a.) Risk/Reward Scaling
I think there is a scaling of risk with the missions, it's just not as challenging as some players may feel it needs to be.
An Elite rank based mission should be something that even an Elite combat ranked player may only successfully complete 50% of the time. i.e. more enemies than the equivalent low rank mission type and maybe more waves of those enemies.
If the tuned success rate of these missions is 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 then these missions rewards (both monetary and reputation ) should be buffed. Makes them attractive to get, but makes a player hesitate initially on clicking accept. Means you have a story worth telling when you do complete that mission because it was a skin of the teeth experience, not deploy hardpoints press fire and flick back to Netflix whilst NPC dies.
It may be that Master and above ranked missions are more likely to be chained (ie. chain factor is increased to 95%) with last chain to be the uber payout and challenge?
I also believe that all missions should fail on ship/SRV destruction, this stops some cheesing with any missions that stack as well as increases difficulty of the higher level missions.
b.) The Reputation System
I can understand the idea about having a reputation that you have to work up with a faction to be offered those juicy well paying missions and to date I am happy with building a home system and working the incumbents so i can get good paying missions when I am allied with them.
I would prefer that rather than a bar that slowly fills up, I see a value and what the expected increase will be for completing a mission. This is so you can understand how long it may take to get allied and also allow you to gauge how many missions you may need to get to the next level.
As a later QoL if all fluctuating values could be analysed by a sub menu and turned into graphs then it would also tweak the onions of those players that invest time in updating Inara or the like.
I would also prefer harder missions being available that jump you up to the next level of alliance with a faction, again coupled with the reward/risk tweak above may make it more rewarding for players to risk something.
I do see a benefit of your overall rank with a power acting as a bonus modifier to rank gain, but maybe on a more noticeable buff.
I also think that progression on the main superpowers rep should be limited to only 1 gaining more than the first 3 levels and maybe achieveing the top rank in 1 precludes gaining further rank in the other (no more King Admirals!). I also believe that the Alliance shoudl have similar rank in place and be granted equivalent rank locked access to systems and ships. The game does need some aspect of rock-paper-scissors and consequences for your choices as your character progresses
c.) IRL Mission Timers
I don't mind these, remember it is an in game timer - its just in game time matches our time!
The challenge is learning that a juicy 2MCr mission that pops up with a 24 hour timer will generate an equivalent in 24 hours time regardless. Most missions, except the kill 80 ships type, can in most instance be completed within 1 hour of taking it, 95% within 15 mins.
Maybe in game text to advise player that these missions will continue to generate for the next X Days, Y Hours, Z mins will mean that players can release their Pokemon instinct (gotta get them all) and take what they think they can handle in their play session.
d.) Mission Variety and Structure
Elite has all of the potential mission types that you can get. Alot of historical feedback is more about how it is presented. I would hope that chaining missions become more of defacto status and maybe in the med to long term a Mission Generator GUI becomes available to allow players to contribute their own ideas into the mix (actual payout and rewards always determined by Fdev system, but mission type/objectives/text and wrinkles etc potentially customized by players).
Some benefits would be that there are significantly more passenger missions, so a well kitteed out passenger ship could look for all missions heading to LHS 281 and get 5-8 at least, so their choice is more about how many they can squeeze into their cabins, or if they refit cabin layout they can get more.
A QoL would be that cabin modules are available at all locations for all mission types, allowing CMDRs to quickly refit if there are a lot of Exec missions they want to snap up.
Another QoL is a mission map overlay on gal map that shows all passenger mission destinations on the gal map, so players can easily see a cluster that they could take and accept them from in the gal-map. Improving passenger gameplay as well as reducing screen flicking to see what goes where.
The olomg range missions should not have timer at all, that person wants to go to Sag A* then you will get them their, they may chuck wrinkles out to ask for Beer or landmines whilst i the bubble, but maybe add wrinkles that just say nearest Neutron star or nearest Nebukla or Wolf-rayet that you can choose to go to.
I would also like to see Wing/Multicrew specific missions being generated, where targets are complex, multi staged and require significant coordination to complete.
e.) Difficulty Scaling
This is tough, as you can have a player like me who is Deadly combat rank, but got there from slowly knocking down ships over the months. I can now solo an Elite Anaconda most of the time, but that is more down to my well engineered ship than my 'git gud' combat skills.
Adding some in game tuning you propose breaks the single instance 1 BGS across all types of gameplay so will never happen. I would think that more along the lines of tweaking missions and rewards and in mission difficulty would be more achievable and accepted by a wider player base.
2.) The Grind
a.) Progression Rate
Elite is a long slow burn of a game, although based on my time playing it on PS4 I went from starting Sidey to A Rated Cobra in 5 hours and that was just doing missions and trading. I had enough to get a Python after 2 weeks of CG's and missions etc. alot faster than my journey in PC from launch day...
The ability to do anything in almost any ship means you don't need to save up for an Python/Anaconda to be able to trade, do missions, explore or Bounty Hunt. In some ways I believ that FDev should release more mid to low end ships to allow players a chance to have ultra-specialised traders or Bounty Hunters etc.
Maybe even release a whole suite of new ships based around alliance, and rather than raid back catalogue come up with new ship names and designs (The Migwump, bandersnatch and Wombat maybe?)
b.) Autopilot
I would prefer a straight line in system "autopilot" that would allow player to possibly do the in ship tuning and it dump you back in the chair when you are 20 secs out from target, rather than a select SAG A* and go and have a cup of tea, light meal, exercise, wash the dishes read a book and return just as it drops in.
If interstellar then all it can do is avoid stars and jump to next system, all the other stuff would require pilot disengaging doing all the other stuff and re-engaging, depending on your jump range this will probably mean you can watch Netflix for 15 mins before you need to refuel. ;-)
If whilst you were in auto pilot there was something else you had to do that was engaging within game then that is useful, otherwise you are just giving a player an opportunity to do something else outside of game which then begs the point why bother with the game at all?
A QoL consideration is the ability to transfer ships to destinations (within the bubble only) that you have not yet arrived at. You still have to get to location to collect your ship, but rather than go there, request transfer and twiddle thumbs for 390 mins, you could 30 mins before order your Cobra to latest Bounty CG and travel via Beluga picking up some well paying passenger missions.
c.) Interactive Interstellar Travel
I would like to see an option to manually fly the High Jump between stars where like interdiction if you say on the wobbling target to the destination, your fuel use is reduced by a large amount, or you can choose the location of your drop out in the system. Or if you choose not to engage this extra level, you stay as we currently are and use the set amount of fuel and pop out near the sun.
d.) Entertainment
I think there should be more to do on flights to keep players occupied, rather than giving them a window to watch Netflix. An in-flight mini-game of tuning the ship would benefit players from a subsequent reward but also open up opportunities for Muticrew gameplay to really tip the balance fora ship.
eg. You target a body and select Tune up (ship throttles up to max speed and will drop you back to helm once time to arrive hits maybe 20 secs (kind of an autopilot but not)) then you select one of 3 options - SYS, WEP or ENG and do some sort of engaging puzzle minigame that the more times you complete the better the outcome is, but with diminishing returns after maybe the 3rd or 4th iteration. So you are occupied tweaking teh shields so that 4 Pips means 300% soak not 200% or whatever.
You get interdicted and you are thrown out of minigame and back to helm to try and evade. This would allow a muklticrew ship to have 3 players simultaneously tweak all 3 aspects of ships performance whilst you cruise to destination,plus keeps you occupied.
e.) VR
I have not yet experienced VR on Elite, but if they can do it for PSVR anytime soon I would be eternally grateful!
3.) Ships
a.) Specialization
I think there should be more specialised ships moving forward
b.) Ship Recoverability
2.4 will allow you to sell off assets to recover a lost ship. But maybe a more annoying in flight message when you click launch to say you don't have enough to pay for rebuy should be shown (toggle-able from menu on right HUD)
4.) Multiplayer
a.) Servers
As others have noted its P2P and not server based solution - my only hope is that FDev develop a solution that doesn't rely on uPnP to make it happen, as I believe that a majority of instancing issues is more down to other users routers not handling these connection requests well. If there was more feedback in game that advised player who was causing an issue, it may help others, as affecting user could disconnect and try again and enable remaining players to continue in a group.
I love this game and am hyped for 2.4 but also am keen that post 2.4 development really does lift the lid on core gameplay elements and really improves upon it!
1.) Mission Design
a.) Risk/Reward Scaling
I think there is a scaling of risk with the missions, it's just not as challenging as some players may feel it needs to be.
An Elite rank based mission should be something that even an Elite combat ranked player may only successfully complete 50% of the time. i.e. more enemies than the equivalent low rank mission type and maybe more waves of those enemies.
If the tuned success rate of these missions is 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 then these missions rewards (both monetary and reputation ) should be buffed. Makes them attractive to get, but makes a player hesitate initially on clicking accept. Means you have a story worth telling when you do complete that mission because it was a skin of the teeth experience, not deploy hardpoints press fire and flick back to Netflix whilst NPC dies.
It may be that Master and above ranked missions are more likely to be chained (ie. chain factor is increased to 95%) with last chain to be the uber payout and challenge?
I also believe that all missions should fail on ship/SRV destruction, this stops some cheesing with any missions that stack as well as increases difficulty of the higher level missions.
b.) The Reputation System
I can understand the idea about having a reputation that you have to work up with a faction to be offered those juicy well paying missions and to date I am happy with building a home system and working the incumbents so i can get good paying missions when I am allied with them.
I would prefer that rather than a bar that slowly fills up, I see a value and what the expected increase will be for completing a mission. This is so you can understand how long it may take to get allied and also allow you to gauge how many missions you may need to get to the next level.
As a later QoL if all fluctuating values could be analysed by a sub menu and turned into graphs then it would also tweak the onions of those players that invest time in updating Inara or the like.
I would also prefer harder missions being available that jump you up to the next level of alliance with a faction, again coupled with the reward/risk tweak above may make it more rewarding for players to risk something.
I do see a benefit of your overall rank with a power acting as a bonus modifier to rank gain, but maybe on a more noticeable buff.
I also think that progression on the main superpowers rep should be limited to only 1 gaining more than the first 3 levels and maybe achieveing the top rank in 1 precludes gaining further rank in the other (no more King Admirals!). I also believe that the Alliance shoudl have similar rank in place and be granted equivalent rank locked access to systems and ships. The game does need some aspect of rock-paper-scissors and consequences for your choices as your character progresses
c.) IRL Mission Timers
I don't mind these, remember it is an in game timer - its just in game time matches our time!
The challenge is learning that a juicy 2MCr mission that pops up with a 24 hour timer will generate an equivalent in 24 hours time regardless. Most missions, except the kill 80 ships type, can in most instance be completed within 1 hour of taking it, 95% within 15 mins.
Maybe in game text to advise player that these missions will continue to generate for the next X Days, Y Hours, Z mins will mean that players can release their Pokemon instinct (gotta get them all) and take what they think they can handle in their play session.
d.) Mission Variety and Structure
Elite has all of the potential mission types that you can get. Alot of historical feedback is more about how it is presented. I would hope that chaining missions become more of defacto status and maybe in the med to long term a Mission Generator GUI becomes available to allow players to contribute their own ideas into the mix (actual payout and rewards always determined by Fdev system, but mission type/objectives/text and wrinkles etc potentially customized by players).
Some benefits would be that there are significantly more passenger missions, so a well kitteed out passenger ship could look for all missions heading to LHS 281 and get 5-8 at least, so their choice is more about how many they can squeeze into their cabins, or if they refit cabin layout they can get more.
A QoL would be that cabin modules are available at all locations for all mission types, allowing CMDRs to quickly refit if there are a lot of Exec missions they want to snap up.
Another QoL is a mission map overlay on gal map that shows all passenger mission destinations on the gal map, so players can easily see a cluster that they could take and accept them from in the gal-map. Improving passenger gameplay as well as reducing screen flicking to see what goes where.
The olomg range missions should not have timer at all, that person wants to go to Sag A* then you will get them their, they may chuck wrinkles out to ask for Beer or landmines whilst i the bubble, but maybe add wrinkles that just say nearest Neutron star or nearest Nebukla or Wolf-rayet that you can choose to go to.
I would also like to see Wing/Multicrew specific missions being generated, where targets are complex, multi staged and require significant coordination to complete.
e.) Difficulty Scaling
This is tough, as you can have a player like me who is Deadly combat rank, but got there from slowly knocking down ships over the months. I can now solo an Elite Anaconda most of the time, but that is more down to my well engineered ship than my 'git gud' combat skills.
Adding some in game tuning you propose breaks the single instance 1 BGS across all types of gameplay so will never happen. I would think that more along the lines of tweaking missions and rewards and in mission difficulty would be more achievable and accepted by a wider player base.
2.) The Grind
a.) Progression Rate
Elite is a long slow burn of a game, although based on my time playing it on PS4 I went from starting Sidey to A Rated Cobra in 5 hours and that was just doing missions and trading. I had enough to get a Python after 2 weeks of CG's and missions etc. alot faster than my journey in PC from launch day...
The ability to do anything in almost any ship means you don't need to save up for an Python/Anaconda to be able to trade, do missions, explore or Bounty Hunt. In some ways I believ that FDev should release more mid to low end ships to allow players a chance to have ultra-specialised traders or Bounty Hunters etc.
Maybe even release a whole suite of new ships based around alliance, and rather than raid back catalogue come up with new ship names and designs (The Migwump, bandersnatch and Wombat maybe?)
b.) Autopilot
I would prefer a straight line in system "autopilot" that would allow player to possibly do the in ship tuning and it dump you back in the chair when you are 20 secs out from target, rather than a select SAG A* and go and have a cup of tea, light meal, exercise, wash the dishes read a book and return just as it drops in.
If interstellar then all it can do is avoid stars and jump to next system, all the other stuff would require pilot disengaging doing all the other stuff and re-engaging, depending on your jump range this will probably mean you can watch Netflix for 15 mins before you need to refuel. ;-)
If whilst you were in auto pilot there was something else you had to do that was engaging within game then that is useful, otherwise you are just giving a player an opportunity to do something else outside of game which then begs the point why bother with the game at all?
A QoL consideration is the ability to transfer ships to destinations (within the bubble only) that you have not yet arrived at. You still have to get to location to collect your ship, but rather than go there, request transfer and twiddle thumbs for 390 mins, you could 30 mins before order your Cobra to latest Bounty CG and travel via Beluga picking up some well paying passenger missions.
c.) Interactive Interstellar Travel
I would like to see an option to manually fly the High Jump between stars where like interdiction if you say on the wobbling target to the destination, your fuel use is reduced by a large amount, or you can choose the location of your drop out in the system. Or if you choose not to engage this extra level, you stay as we currently are and use the set amount of fuel and pop out near the sun.
d.) Entertainment
I think there should be more to do on flights to keep players occupied, rather than giving them a window to watch Netflix. An in-flight mini-game of tuning the ship would benefit players from a subsequent reward but also open up opportunities for Muticrew gameplay to really tip the balance fora ship.
eg. You target a body and select Tune up (ship throttles up to max speed and will drop you back to helm once time to arrive hits maybe 20 secs (kind of an autopilot but not)) then you select one of 3 options - SYS, WEP or ENG and do some sort of engaging puzzle minigame that the more times you complete the better the outcome is, but with diminishing returns after maybe the 3rd or 4th iteration. So you are occupied tweaking teh shields so that 4 Pips means 300% soak not 200% or whatever.
You get interdicted and you are thrown out of minigame and back to helm to try and evade. This would allow a muklticrew ship to have 3 players simultaneously tweak all 3 aspects of ships performance whilst you cruise to destination,plus keeps you occupied.
e.) VR
I have not yet experienced VR on Elite, but if they can do it for PSVR anytime soon I would be eternally grateful!
3.) Ships
a.) Specialization
I think there should be more specialised ships moving forward
b.) Ship Recoverability
2.4 will allow you to sell off assets to recover a lost ship. But maybe a more annoying in flight message when you click launch to say you don't have enough to pay for rebuy should be shown (toggle-able from menu on right HUD)
4.) Multiplayer
a.) Servers
As others have noted its P2P and not server based solution - my only hope is that FDev develop a solution that doesn't rely on uPnP to make it happen, as I believe that a majority of instancing issues is more down to other users routers not handling these connection requests well. If there was more feedback in game that advised player who was causing an issue, it may help others, as affecting user could disconnect and try again and enable remaining players to continue in a group.
I love this game and am hyped for 2.4 but also am keen that post 2.4 development really does lift the lid on core gameplay elements and really improves upon it!
Blackcompany
Banned
Agreed.
The personal, you're just a COD Kid attacks leveled at anyone with Reasonable criticisms if the game need to begin resulting in forum bans. It's getting a bit ridiculous.
And while they may not LOOK like personal attacks, that's precisely what they are.
The OP here has tons of excellent, well reasoned, honest and justified criticisms of a game. Elite has lost its way. Wandered into the arcade shooter, combat only, grind hook land of casual and mobile game. It's a skeleton with no meat and a bunch of RNG Gambling where content should reside.
This needs to change.
Last comment before I go to bed.
Obviously I'm fundamentally opposed to an Autopilot. But if such an AI abomination was to exist it should be limited to being able to travel to already discovered Systems. Systems discovered previously by Explorers.
You would certainly get more traffic in the far reaches of the galaxy this way. And popular highways would emerge. Perhaps even ecosystems of player pirates preying on autopilot ships.
Obviously I'm fundamentally opposed to an Autopilot. But if such an AI abomination was to exist it should be limited to being able to travel to already discovered Systems. Systems discovered previously by Explorers.
You would certainly get more traffic in the far reaches of the galaxy this way. And popular highways would emerge. Perhaps even ecosystems of player pirates preying on autopilot ships.
I really think we need to distinguish between supercruise autopilot and hyperspace autopilot in our discussions, as they are two very different things. I, for example, am totally pro the former while anti the latter.
We already have a limited supercruise autopilot anyway. I really cannot understand what you need one for. For truely long distance, well, it is pretty easy to line up where you are going to with the compass, and then read the news, or get a drink or have some other activity.
Last edited:
Blackcompany
Banned
Except that outside of combat, it has utterly FAILED at being that game.
Press J. Watch load screen. Honk. Turn, accelerate, wait. Repeat.
That's not flying, it's spectating. So why not automate a hefty part of the more tedious sections?
If that is all you do in this game when not in combat, then I pity you.
I like your thinking. Sweet dreams.
I still think the main argument against an auto-pilot of both varieties is the blandness of space travel. Make it challenging and an auto-pilot that cannot handle those challenges and you have a case. You'd have to plot a course that mitigates navigational risks at the determinate of speed or risk of pirating. At sea we plot courses that stick to deep water and avoids obstacles but we always keep an eye out for trouble.
Sure, why not. Stick an advanced discovery scanner in there, I hate sticking a class 1 scanner in a class 3 slot. Heck, make it just a regular optional internal, like the rest of the things if you want, that way you have to give something else up for autopilot.
Furthermore, there's other things that are a win win here. The way I'd like to implement it, there's power and weight savings by NOT having one.
Yeah, if only it worked that way...
As much as the autopilot debate is frustrating me (as it's not the only thing in the OP to discuss, and I've already made other points in it about how to balance it, or even make it unnecessary to begin with), there are a lot of good points being made on both sides of that debate. Some of the people who hate it at least have some very reasonable conditions. Like the distance limit for example. I could get on board with that. With how I'd like to use it, I'd be there and ready to start it on a new plot anyway, and it would prevent people from abusing it to "farm" out the game. Furthermore, in my very next point about this game in the OP, which was a recent edit, btw, I further addressed ways to make interstellar flight more interesting to begin with, so as to make auto-piloting less attractive, and manual flight more entertaining and engaging.
I like the idea of being able to walk around the ship and do other things on it, as opposed to the multimedia tab. Perhaps FDev could introduce JUST that as a beta-test for future space legs content?
That being said, I think people on both sides are ultimately finally coming to the crux of the problem.
... That is... If you take away the "turn, honk, jump"... then there is no game... at least not between your starting point and your destination, there isn't... There is no "exploration" because that's all that is. You probably wouldn't be concerned about some people not using the "turn, honk, jump" mechanic if that were just a tiny detail... But it isn't a tiny detail... It's a major detail because stuff like that is what this game has boiled down to.
Nobody's mad about docking computers because that's not all there is to do. You're in a space station for god's sakes, there's a mission board, passenger lounge, ship customization, shipyard, etc... If none of that was there, and the only point in landing at a pad WAS TO LAND AT A PAD, then yeah, people would be split and vocal on the idea of a docking computer.
I like the idea of an autopilot, I'd probably use it... but you know what... there needs to be something else there, so that "turn, honk, jump" isn't all there is.
Point is... There's not enough game here to be a game, but also not enough simulator to be a simulator. A game would challenge you with engaging gameplay, and a simulator would give you realistic ways of dealing with challenges... This game does neither, because it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be yet.
I like the idea of being able to walk around the ship and do other things on it, as opposed to the multimedia tab. Perhaps FDev could introduce JUST that as a beta-test for future space legs content?
That being said, I think people on both sides are ultimately finally coming to the crux of the problem.
... That is... If you take away the "turn, honk, jump"... then there is no game... at least not between your starting point and your destination, there isn't... There is no "exploration" because that's all that is. You probably wouldn't be concerned about some people not using the "turn, honk, jump" mechanic if that were just a tiny detail... But it isn't a tiny detail... It's a major detail because stuff like that is what this game has boiled down to.
Nobody's mad about docking computers because that's not all there is to do. You're in a space station for god's sakes, there's a mission board, passenger lounge, ship customization, shipyard, etc... If none of that was there, and the only point in landing at a pad WAS TO LAND AT A PAD, then yeah, people would be split and vocal on the idea of a docking computer.
I like the idea of an autopilot, I'd probably use it... but you know what... there needs to be something else there, so that "turn, honk, jump" isn't all there is.
Point is... There's not enough game here to be a game, but also not enough simulator to be a simulator. A game would challenge you with engaging gameplay, and a simulator would give you realistic ways of dealing with challenges... This game does neither, because it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be yet.
Last edited:
Why doesn't it. It does for me. If I am on a long distance journey in supercruise I line it up on the compass, take a break, go to the toilet, get a drink, have a chat with the missus , read galnet,
and check every now and again to see how long I have.
But I don't do that very often as I prefer not to be out of game. Anything under 10,000ls is not an issue as there is always stuff to do, such as navigating gravity wells and/or scanning ships.
Last edited:
Well, again, super-cruise isn't exactly what autopilot is designed to address... Super cruise, is in my opinion, perfect the way it is. It's instead designed to address repetitive jumping, which honestly happens more often in this game, at least for me, than how common it is for me to fly thousands of light seconds to the next star in a binary system. I don't have any problems with the flight from the primary to a secondary in super-cruise.
I haven't read this fully yet, as I'm running on 5 hours sleep, but I'll make sure to, and will reply if I have any specific counterpoints or agreements. From what I've seen so far though, thank you, these are all well thought out points. It seems like we agree on a number of issues, but have different approaches to solving them. I like that. This is what debates are for.
Seems there is some that want supercruise autopilot, but don't want hyperjump autopilot and others that want it the other way round, some that want both and some the don't want any autopilot at all.
Hopefully when the new updates to the core game comes, it won't be Jump, Honk, Refuel, Jump anymore. I am hoping that the scanning mechanics get a much better overhaul and there will be actually something to do or look at while scanning to indiciate if there is anything worth exploring in the system. I don't have isseus with supercruise or hyperjumping, I find hyperjumping kind of hypnotic and calming especially in VR.
The main problem I see, is that if you add one type of autopilot, you will need to add another and another and another as people demand it, and then everything ends up completely automated and then you don't need to even play the game, as people want different auotmated stuff. We need to be very careful in what to add.
I 100% believe that autopilot is the wrong way to go about it.
I believe getting rid of the constant jumping and repülacing it with a smoother transition would go a far way into better gameplay territory. But since the ships are designed around that mechanic, I don't really see it happen.
That's fair enough. Like I said, if they had better core gameplay, then whether or not it should be there wouldn't even be an issue.
I'm glad you mentioned scanning by the way, I completely forgot about an idea I had earlier. You know that surface scanning you would do in Mass Effect 2? Why not add stuff like that for scanners? Why not add SPECIFIC details to look for on planets... I hate to use the word minigame... But yeah, a minigame. For instance, let's say you track down an Earth Like... Instead of just running the scanner and leaving, you could instead try to analyze its habitability. Is it an oxygen rich or oxygen poor atmosphere? What are greenhouse gas levels like? Is the climate stable? Is there volcanism? Is the land fertile? Does it already have life on it, and if so, how much would human life interfere with it? Is our ecologies compatible?
Seeking out specifics by, say, taking scan SAMPLES from around the planet could get the player involved in actually doing some basic science and research about the planet. Perhaps they could add in a game mechanic where you "dip" your spacecraft into the upper atmosphere, using a fuel scoop or something, to analyze its composition... And if you do it wrong, you suffer the consequences... Like crashing your ship on an alien planet. This could all be pretty scientifically accurate as well. If nothing else, ED seems to really nail non-ship related realism, like the way the planets and stars function.
Basically, you need to use your pioneer instinct to properly analyze whether or not a planet is safe for habitation.
This would be expanded on a thousand times should they ever decide to add planetary landings for atmospheric planets... I get the impression that may be what they're working towards, given the Horizons release. You could scan for specific anomolies from orbit, and then follow that down to the surface in your SRV... In fact, that could be added already to make it easier to find things like alien ruins. Trying to find those with reddit tutorials was a nightmare during that alien decryption event.
Anyway, this would start opening up options for exploration. Are you there just to look at the pretty globe, or are you going to get your hands dirty and get the surveyors scientific information they need?
Last edited:
I could care less for first discoverer. As an explorer I want to find something not create survey maps for others to get rich off of. I have never cared about the money, its not that good anyway even if you are first to discover. Nobody is in it for the money. They are holding out the tiniest hope that there might be something out there. Having more tools to find those somethings are what is needed not less.
By scanning all of those planets in the system all you gain is more money. You wont find anything other than some kind of pretty visuals. That doesnt sound like exploring to me. Nobody goes exploring to find lifeless islands in an endless ocean. They go exploring to experience and report on the unknown.
Time does not equal fun. Time equals appreciation. Right now we are not appreciated nor do we have an impact in the game universe. Add tools so we can do science and find life. It will require more tools than we have and yes and autopilot will need to be one of them. They already have a third party app that the vast majority of the space surveyors currently use. I refuse to use those tools, so how about we let them build them first party and get some other cool tools to boot.
Last edited:
If the choice is between adding a Supercruise autopilot, and an interstellar autopilot, then my choice would be the Supercruise autopilot. Why? Because 95% of it is already in the game. The only thing is lacking is perhaps one minor course correction, and dropping out of Supercruise at the end. It wouldn't be a major change.
An interstellar autopilot would be a major change. Quite frankly, it would automate exploration. Just stick a penny into your keyboard, plot your course, and go to work. When you come home, you've got 300 ADS scans to your name. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Exploration does NOT need to be automated. What it needs is a reason to stick around in a system, as opposed to jumping out. A reason to put down on the surface of a world, or at the very least, a reason to get close and personal.
Most importantly, that reason for doing so should be accompanied by a skill you need to develop. One that requires more attention and input from the player than just honking or pointing at a target that's barely larger than a dot for five seconds. Personally, the time I felt most like an explorer in this game was just after Horizons hit Beta. I spent hours on the surface of planets in my SRV, simply gathering samples and adding my survey to a group project, trying to fathom the mysteries of material distribution. The wave scanner, as an instrument of exploration, is a thing of beauty IMO. All the information you need is there, you just need to learn how to decipher it.
Of course players complained about having to go down and look for stuff, usually in the most ineffecient way possible, and rather than something fun and reasonable, like landing on a planet and taking a few samples to reveal its material distribution and provide another type of exploration data to turn in, Frontier decided to have the DSS reveal all, without ever having to even get close to a planet.
IMO, the advanced discovery scanner was the worst thing to happen to exploration. There is no strategy to develop, no skill to learn with that thing. There is no seeking out of what's hidden from view, because it is omniscent. No feeling of discovery. No moment of "Aha! Found you!"