Then why bring up a load of pointless stats that only say that some people are not exploring as much in EDSM. The stat are pointless and don't really mean anything.
Yes they are, but don't actually mean much.
I wasn't speculating anything.
That is not what I said.
See, the thing is, I didn't use the total number of EDSM Commanders anywhere. I used the total new systems, bodies, stars, ELWs submitted. For estimating how many of the total might be using EDSM, I used Frontier's official data on how many systems have been visited so far (and how many have been uploaded to EDSM), as well as the DW2 roster's data.
And. All you are doing is just rough extrapulation. It does not mean you are accurate. You may well be but there isn't enough evidence to back that up.
So a load of assumptions. Dont act on assumptions. You act when you know that assumption is correct. As you will likely never know, it's all baloney.
What argument. I am just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. You may well be correct, but you equally could be wrong.
I mean, I don't enjoy trading for the money of it. I enjoy it for the same reason I enjoy doing the exact same thing in Euro Truck sim. The experience. Driving from one place to another basking in the view along the way, trying not to rear end someone who drops out of supercruise in front of me cough cough ridiculous pop-in of other trucks on the road in euro truck sim cough.
Not that curious. People who are more invested already are more likely to sign up to something like EDSM. therefore they are a self-selecting sample of people who are more engaged with exploration, and thus more likely to stick with something like DW2 to the end, to see that reflected in their logs.
Good for you.
I don't believe that it is solely focused on that. It is one aspect of the exploration process. But I believe the biggest issue is that there are only non-atmospheric planets available to land upon.
NMS for me is the worst kind of exploration.
For me the FSS does exactly that.
I don't think that is correct. It's not generally about the experience of doing, its how the experience makes you feel is what is important. The mechanic could be the most simplistic ever made, but as long as it connects to you emotionally it is doing a good job. People seem to think that complex mechanics equals depth, personally I don't think so. But whether it connects to you emotionally is purely subjective.
Like powerplay.
I wouldn't say that's a rookie mistake. Introducing new mechanics and interactions would have taken much more development time and resources. Both of which were quite limited, as we found out.
Can you cite any reason why they wouldn't. I am an avid explorer and have not gone near EDSM even though I know about it. I am sure there are many others out there too.
Sure. That would be because whether or not they upload to EDSM makes no difference to how much they could explore. Doing so offers no in-game advantage that would boost them to far more systems visited and bodies scanned.
Is that so? Please prove this. What data can you offer us that would prove your claim that they are a very small amount of the active population, how much?
Eh, that makes no sense to what was asked.
Oh the irony. I do the same as you and now you want proof.
If anything, all he said was that the introduction of the FSS only temporarily alleviated an ongoing trend which has continued since the initial widespread interest in the novelty of new mechanics died down.
Shhh!, don't fer cryin out loud let max know that!
On EDSM.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
