Do you really think that studying data for years to find a single planet is no effort. I suggest you get your facts and science correct first.
News Chapter Four - Exploration Reveal
Do you really think that studying data for years to find a single planet is no effort. I suggest you get your facts and science correct first.
Only takes me a few seconds to see Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and Venus when I look up at the night sky and they've risen. I think that's comparable to when you jump into a system and can easily spot binary stars, close in worlds, and gas giants. Having to find them on the map when you already know where they are seems a little redundant to me and presumably our ships' scanners should be a bit more capable at it than our eyes.
No because neither of those names exist to begin with other than in the heads of people who insist on imposing their own worthless value judgements and made-up player 'categories' on what other players do or don't enjoy doing in a computer game.
Changed to:
Taken away: Range to reveal planet surface information.
Added: Ability to map planets with probes revealing persistent POIs. Aim required, may require close range like current DSS. (actual range unclear)
I say may require close range because I don't believe they were quite clear on the range. I believe Adam did say that with skill you should be able to do it a bit farther away or even have a probe swing around a planet to reveal all POIs at once. Maybe I should add that it needs further clarification, if someone is more certain, by all means interject. Either way, I think it more fairly represents the idea that where range is going away in one spot, it returns in another.
Well, yes, the actual range will need clarifying once they decide on one, but it certainly won't be a “from the main star” kind of thing unless we're talking about those tiny <20 ls planets, or maybe the rare <200 ls gas half-giant. Remember, you're going to have to be able to actually aim for the body in question — you're going to have to be close enough to see it — and definitely close enough to distinguish it from its moons.
Granted, they're talking about some new launching interface (what's with these UI solutions to mechanics and content problems?!) that might offer better resolution than the 1:1 view from 1 kLs out, but it's not like you're going to sit at the star and trick-shot probes into neat backside orbits of the third binary-moon of that fifth gas giant around the tertiary star 1600 AU away.
Granted, they're talking about some new launching interface (what's with these UI solutions to mechanics and content problems?!) that might offer better resolution than the 1:1 view from 1 kLs out, but it's not like you're going to sit at the star and trick-shot probes into neat backside orbits of the third binary-moon of that fifth gas giant around the tertiary star 1600 AU away.
Who's imposing? Collector is a very valid and accurate description. It just is. Makes no value judgement, so I am not sure why you are trying to impose one on it. And in a rather snarky judgmental way no less.
Seriously, there are as many different ways people go about doing things. No one said anything negative about any particular way. Collector is a very valid description. and these changes will absolutely have a positive effect for some play styles, and negative effect for other play styles.
ETA: Take myself for example. One of the first things I check is First Discovered Tags. I don't scan anything anyone else has tagged, and potentially rare systems such as stellar remnant nebulas, I always look up in EDSM before I bother visiting them because I don't want to go to places others have already gone before.
Last edited:
I tend to "collect" (take the time to explore in first-person) interesting (to me) systems. What makes them interesting to me are their variety and comparatively rare configurations. Generally there's no way to tell this by one orbit type nor one body type; it's a combination of the whole.
Back when some of us were discussing beige worlds someone posted a picture of an excessively beige system with nothing but a lot of beige words. Even that seemed a bit compelling to me in its uniqueness. Can't say for sure whether I would have taken the time to fully explore it, but I know I would have been tempted. That's a bit of an outlier, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
Last edited:
Not to mention they still haven't found out if there actually is a planet or not beyond Pluto's orbit..
'Cherry picker', which is the 'description' with which the poster I replied to is conflating it, is used almost exclusively in a negative context on these boards. Specifically it's usually used to suggest that a player is something other than an explorer. The previous 100+ pages of this thread have plenty of examples of it. That's why I replied. I'm tired of it. It's a shorthand way of saying 'you're not a proper explorer' whatever the hell one of those is.
Note - that may not have been your intent but it was certainly his and it was his post that I replied to.
I too am selective in what bodies I may choose to detail scan and visually inspect/drive around by the way. To some extent or other I think most explorers are. It just makes us all explorers with differing interests, I don't really see a need to apply categorisation above and beyond that and the vast majority of cases when people do it are as a way to suggest someone else's gameplay (or opinion) is less valid.
Here's a nice pic of me driving around a completely worthless (in credit terms) and not in any way special HMC world just above the bubble the other night which I visited in my exploration Asp, the 'No True Scotsman'. I just liked the look of the mountain, which I subsequently drove up. This is not the gameplay that people usually think of when 'cherry picking' is deployed
Last edited:
I apologize for my uncharacteristically defensive reply, and appreciate your tempered response.
No, my intent was not to use the term "collector" as a pejorative, which is why I use that term rather than "cherry picker" Besides not being automatically a negative, "collector" is an accurate description of that particular exploration style. Based on just the written description, and followup live stream, what we have proposed right now will have a negative impact on those whose exploration style relies on quick system body layout determination. I suspect that is most exploration styles.
Yep, we're on the same page here.
'Cherry picker', which is the 'description' with which the poster I replied to is conflating it, is used almost exclusively in a negative context on these boards. Specifically it's usually used to suggest that a player is something other than an explorer. The previous 100+ pages of this thread have plenty of examples of it. That's why I replied. I'm tired of it. It's a shorthand way of saying 'you're not a proper explorer' whatever the hell one of those is.
Note - that may not have been your intent but it was certainly his and it was his post that I replied to.
I too am selective in what bodies I may choose to detail scan and visually inspect/drive around by the way. To some extent or other I think most explorers are. It just makes us all explorers with differing interests, I don't really see a need to apply categorisation above and beyond that and the vast majority of cases when people do it are as a way to suggest someone else's gameplay (or opinion) is less valid.
Here's a nice pic of me driving around a completely worthless (in credit terms) and not in any way special HMC world just above the bubble the other night which I visited in my exploration Asp, the 'No True Scotsman'. I just liked the look of the mountain, which I subsequently drove up. This is not the gameplay that people usually think of when 'cherry picking' is deployed
Well I for one will continue to use the word 'cherrypicker' to describe someone who is selectively choosing only certain tems to scan/survey. Because that is what it is. But I, for one, do not mean it in a derogatory way. It's a more mercenary approach, and not 'exploration' in my books, but it is no less valid an approach than my own. If people choose to 'explore' in that manner, that's ok. But don't expect me to applaud people for it either, when it's an approach I'm no fan of.
I have more of an issue with the fact that these exploration improvements should have come long ago. The current mechanics have bred such mercenary approaches because there's little reason to linger in a system if all one is after is max earning potential, not helped by the instascan of the ADS making it very simple to identify when a system has nothing valuable so the player simply moves on if there's nothing valuable. And for some exploration is simply about riches, but for people like me it's more about science. Both approaches are valid but the current mechanics have tended to foster the former rather than the latter. In my opinion.
Take for instance my own collecting style. I will not be hit as hard as some because I tend to go after stellar types that are rare per EDSM counts. Procgen Red Super Giants, CJ Carbon Stars, DBx White Dwarfs. Those will remain identifiable by the GalMap. I have been collecting them to refine my search techniques to determine where they will be most likely found. Unfortunately, I also tend to go after Helium Rich gas giants, Water giants, Class V gas giants, and atmosphereless, landable terraformables. I always hold out hope that I will stumble across a Glowing Gas Giant. So right now as I understand what has been presented, a significant portion of my exploration interest and what I do right now will become more time consuming.
And for explorers like me who could care less about the payouts because they have more credits than they know what to do with, and every ship want kitted how they want, it is also about science. Part of the science I am after requires large amounts of data. To me, the data is valuable. And anything that significantly slows down my data collection also slows down my science.
I enjoyed your post but I'm off to play the make a cup of tea mini-game now. See you later.
![BigBANGtheory [VR]](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/71/71385.jpg?1644873788){kind=avatar}
This is an interesting point and very relevant i.e. what makes a system, a star/planet/ring/asteroid belt "interesting to explore" and I'd dare say the answer would be fairly diverse in this thread.
That is something though that Frontier need to get a handle on because scan and travel as much as you like if there is not something interesting to see or do then its going to appeal to a minute audience grateful for any improvements. For me personally I'd say the see part is worth 30% as it adds immersion and context but the do part is worth a good 70% as that is where the gameplay potentially is for the unlocking so long as it has meaning and relevance.
Thus proving you are unable to understand the other side of the argument. I say black, you read/understand/assume orange - what's the point of continuing?
Does that include Systems with nothing but a single star?
I think I found a few of those or are they not "Systems" per se?
I'll be pedantic here and point out that a single star system will be completely unaffected by these changes
I'll be pedantic here and point out that a single star system will be completely unaffected by these changes
Well, maybe. I haven't seen much of the specifics, so someone feel free to correct me here, but we might not know that they're single star systems without using the new mechanics.