Etiquette? What etiquette?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Why stop there? Delete their account if they don't log in for a year. That'll teach them.
It seems odd to me to cast this as a punitive action.

The idea I've presented directly addresses the concerns expressed in this thread.
Some of these games go on for decades and I don't see why someone who quit playing 10 years ago should care about his name on a ball of ice in a universe he has long since forgotten about. I've played, and subsequently quit, dozens of games over the years and about 10 minutes after I leave I don't care if the title shuts down - much less whether or not my name remains on an asset. A year, two years - whatever, that is plenty of time to decide to return to the game and reset the timer.

People who leave the game aren't going to care.
People who stay with the game will care, but aren't threatened by the policy.
People new to the game will care.

^--- Looks like we're checking all the right boxes there.
 
It seems odd to me to cast this as a punitive action.

The idea I've presented directly addresses the concerns expressed in this thread.
Some of these games go on for decades and I don't see why someone who quit playing 10 years ago should care about his name on a ball of ice in a universe he has long since forgotten about. I've played, and subsequently quit, dozens of games over the years and about 10 minutes after I leave I don't care if the title shuts down - much less whether or not my name remains on an asset. A year, two years - whatever, that is plenty of time to decide to return to the game and reset the timer.

People who leave the game aren't going to care.
People who stay with the game will care, but aren't threatened by the policy.
People new to the game will care.

^--- Looks like we're checking all the right boxes there.
Nah it's just that the fact there are are 400 billion star systems in the ED galaxy which makes this a not particularly relevant idea. There's plenty to go around and only a fraction of the galaxy has been explored so far and only a fraction will ever be explored when the plug is finally pulled on the ED servers.
 
Nah it's just that the fact there are are 400 billion star systems in the ED galaxy which makes this a not particularly relevant idea. There's plenty to go around and only a fraction of the galaxy has been explored so far and only a fraction will ever be explored when the plug is finally pulled on the ED servers.
I see that figure tossed around quite a bit but it doesn't seem to mesh well with what some explorers are complaining about here.
So my question is this: Are those 400 billion stars accessible?

I'm wondering if people can actually travel to those 400 billion stars at this time OR if most of them are effectively too far away to reach for now.
If it is only possible to reach 2% of those stars then in reality the usable universe isn't so big after all.
 
I see that figure tossed around quite a bit but it doesn't seem to mesh well with what some explorers are complaining about here.
So my question is this: Are those 400 billion stars accessible?

I'm wondering if people can actually travel to those 400 billion stars at this time OR if most of them are effectively too far away to reach for now.
If it is only possible to reach 2% of those stars then in reality the usable universe isn't so big after all.
The vast majority of those stars are easily reachable even without engineering. There are really only a relative handful that are not. The issue for some people is not that there won't be stars left to tag, it's that they want their tag popular systems that have already long been tagged such as Beagle Point, Sag A, nebulas, etc.
 
Almost all of them are accessible, yes. Generally, the ones that are too far off the galactic plane and thus far too inaccessible are mostly ones which were imported from catalogue data, and the total number of catalogue stars is minuscule compared to the total number of stars.

Some people complain mostly because the low-hanging fruit and the obvious targets are mostly picked by today. For example, you can go to any real nebula, and visit the more luminous stars, and they'll all be tagged. If you want to find untagged ones in the nebula subsector, you'll have to look through the "less valuable" star systems.
How much of the "special" areas is covered depends a lot on star density in the area though. This is also the reason why the extreme edge, the rim of the galaxy is mostly tagged by today (or so I hear, it has been a long time since I was there): area of interest, few stars to go around. In places where there are many, you can still find even valuable undiscovered systems... that mostly means the core though.

On the 400 billion number: I think people tend to forget that not only is that seriously concentrated on the galactic core, but also that if Elite follows real world star type distribution (last time I checked, it does), then roughly 75% of those will be M dwarfs. However, that still means there are 100 billion other systems out there. Depending on what you wish to explore, you might go down to, say, 5-10% of the total, but then we're still talking about billions.

So, to sum things up, plenty of stars to go around. But the low-hanging fruit are going at a constant rate, and the game has been out for quite some time.
 
The vast majority of those stars are easily reachable even without engineering. There are really only a relative handful that are not. The issue for some people is not that there won't be stars left to tag, it's that they want their tag popular systems that have already long been tagged such as Beagle Point, Sag A, nebulas, etc.
I don't do much exploring, but it seems worthwhile to tag stars in 'non-popular' systems.
Any future update could make an 'unpopular' system a hot spot just like that.
 
Almost all of them are accessible, yes. Generally, the ones that are too far off the galactic plane and thus far too inaccessible are mostly ones which were imported from catalogue data, and the total number of catalogue stars is minuscule compared to the total number of stars.

Some people complain mostly because the low-hanging fruit and the obvious targets are mostly picked by today. For example, you can go to any real nebula, and visit the more luminous stars, and they'll all be tagged. If you want to find untagged ones in the nebula subsector, you'll have to look through the "less valuable" star systems.
How much of the "special" areas is covered depends a lot on star density in the area though. This is also the reason why the extreme edge, the rim of the galaxy is mostly tagged by today (or so I hear, it has been a long time since I was there): area of interest, few stars to go around. In places where there are many, you can still find even valuable undiscovered systems... that mostly means the core though.

On the 400 billion number: I think people tend to forget that not only is that seriously concentrated on the galactic core, but also that if Elite follows real world star type distribution (last time I checked, it does), then roughly 75% of those will be M dwarfs. However, that still means there are 100 billion other systems out there. Depending on what you wish to explore, you might go down to, say, 5-10% of the total, but then we're still talking about billions.

So, to sum things up, plenty of stars to go around. But the low-hanging fruit are going at a constant rate, and the game has been out for quite some time.
I have been on another catalogue star kick lately, and while most of the close ones have been tagged, there are still plenty that have not been. Most notably though, just in the past couple of weeks, I was able to tag a few completely untouched procgen systems within 1,000ly of the bubble, with one of them only ~700ly from Sol.
 
The vast majority of those stars are easily reachable even without engineering. There are really only a relative handful that are not. The issue for some people is not that there won't be stars left to tag, it's that they want their tag popular systems that have already long been tagged such as Beagle Point, Sag A, nebulas, etc.
Yep that's the issue, but it's not an issue I think has any spacelegs - it's kind of like saying 'remove the name of the first climber to conquer Everest, and put in place the next climber to do so'. There are always going to be people who are first to survey a star system. And, obviously the low-hanging fruit is always the first to go. IMO there's no need to let one's envy of those people cloud your enjoyment or ask that their names somehow fade away after some time - even if they don't play the game any more. They were there first, or they were the first to survey a body, and the record should state that 'forever'.

Besides, with 400 billion star systems, there's plenty of opportunity to discover something quite unique amongst the many permutations of ED's Stellar Forge. And plenty of opportunity to completely miss those as well ;)
 
IMO there's no need to let one's envy of those people cloud your enjoyment or ask that their names somehow fade away after some time - even if they don't play the game any more. They were there first, or they were the first to survey a body, and the record should state that 'forever'.
I don't really explore so I don't have a pony in this race.

However, I think it is unfair to assume 'envy' has anything to do with it. That nitpick aside, are you being consistent? Most systems in the game do reset - for example, the fact that stations will buy the same exploration data from thousands of commanders, or the NPC pirate battles that respawn, or any number of other features in the game that reset so the next player may enjoy the game. In any number of games an instanced boss may be defeated time and time again by an endless stream of players.

Something that permanently changes in a game (or is permanently marked) by a single player is actually the exception to the rule.

Now if ED is up and running 10 years from now and I joined the game for the very first time I think I'd rather have a universe populated by, and discovered by, current players than to have a bunch of useless data scattered amongst the stars - commanders who quit a decade ago and no longer add to the game world. I think a very strong argument can be made for such a feature (forgetting 1-2 years after commander quits) whereas endlessly remembering handles of long ago commanders who no longer play seems to be based on not much of anything at all. I've yet to read a good reason for such a feature - doesn't make it a bad feature, I just don't buy a teared eye, nostalgia or a baleful glance out over the inky blackness of space as an argument.
 
I don't really explore so I don't have a pony in this race.

However, I think it is unfair to assume 'envy' has anything to do with it. That nitpick aside, are you being consistent? Most systems in the game do reset - for example, the fact that stations will buy the same exploration data from thousands of commanders, or the NPC pirate battles that respawn, or any number of other features in the game that reset so the next player may enjoy the game. In any number of games an instanced boss may be defeated time and time again by an endless stream of players.

Something that permanently changes in a game (or is permanently marked) by a single player is actually the exception to the rule.

Now if ED is up and running 10 years from now and I joined the game for the very first time I think I'd rather have a universe populated by, and discovered by, current players than to have a bunch of useless data scattered amongst the stars - commanders who quit a decade ago and no longer add to the game world. I think a very strong argument can be made for such a feature (forgetting 1-2 years after commander quits) whereas endlessly remembering handles of long ago commanders who no longer play seems to be based on not much of anything at all. I've yet to read a good reason for such a feature - doesn't make it a bad feature, I just don't buy a teared eye, nostalgia or a baleful glance out over the inky blackness of space as an argument.
This is actually one of the things that sets Elite Dangerous apart, and dare I say above, other games.

That said, the systems that change in the game are minuscule in number compared to those that don't to the point of statistical insignificance. Adding to that, once one moves away from inhabited space and the direct routes to tourist hotspots and other well traveled areas, the likeliness of ever running into someone else tag is minimal. That leaves the biggest affect of your proposed change being the places with historical significance, the very places that those tags are the most important to preserve.
 
A good reason for such a feature? You're looking at it backwards: adding the ability to discard the "first discovered by" tags would be a new feature. You would have to justify it. This way, they are just stored in a database at the time of sale; that way, you'd have to regularly check last player logins and then query all their discoveries if they're gone. Especially with Commanders who explored a lot, that would be really resource-intensive. Combine that with the game servers running on AWS, that would cost money.
So, if you were to pitch your idea to the game company, how would you justify its running cost? What would be the benefit that would outweigh it? Even more so because this would upset paying customers, as it would be changing an existing gameplay mechanic.

That said, it's all in the name of the tag anyway. "First discovered by CMDR". Not "Currently scanned by active CMDR". Discoveries aren't struck from records just because the discoverers are no longer around.
 
Last edited:
I don't really explore so I don't have a pony in this race.

However, I think it is unfair to assume 'envy' has anything to do with it. That nitpick aside, are you being consistent? Most systems in the game do reset - for example, the fact that stations will buy the same exploration data from thousands of commanders, or the NPC pirate battles that respawn, or any number of other features in the game that reset so the next player may enjoy the game. In any number of games an instanced boss may be defeated time and time again by an endless stream of players.

Something that permanently changes in a game (or is permanently marked) by a single player is actually the exception to the rule.

Now if ED is up and running 10 years from now and I joined the game for the very first time I think I'd rather have a universe populated by, and discovered by, current players than to have a bunch of useless data scattered amongst the stars - commanders who quit a decade ago and no longer add to the game world. I think a very strong argument can be made for such a feature (forgetting 1-2 years after commander quits) whereas endlessly remembering handles of long ago commanders who no longer play seems to be based on not much of anything at all. I've yet to read a good reason for such a feature - doesn't make it a bad feature, I just don't buy a teared eye, nostalgia or a baleful glance out over the inky blackness of space as an argument.

I still think you're just trolling because that argument is quite frankly....incredibly stupid! But I'll go ahead and bite on the troll. I'll use your 10 year example, except this time..I'm the original commander that placed that first discovered tag on something, and I'm still playing. Why would player "noob 100000000" get to tag a first discovered tag on something I first discovered 10 years ago? It's retarded beyond comprehension. You either remove the first discovered tags altogether, or you keep them as is. Removing tags would kill exploration for many explorers.

Besides, just because somebody is no longer around, it doesn't erase the fact that they were the first to a discovery, much in the same way that we don't wipe records on who climb Evererst first, or who set foot on the moon first. First is first!
 
I still think you're just trolling because that argument is quite frankly....incredibly stupid! But I'll go ahead and bite on the troll. I'll use your 10 year example, except this time..I'm the original commander that placed that first discovered tag on something, and I'm still playing. Why would player "noob 100000000" get to tag a first discovered tag on something I first discovered 10 years ago? It's retarded beyond comprehension. You either remove the first discovered tags altogether, or you keep them as is. Removing tags would kill exploration for many explorers.

Besides, just because somebody is no longer around, it doesn't erase the fact that they were the first to a discovery, much in the same way that we don't wipe records on who climb Evererst first, or who set foot on the moon first. First is first!
The tags would only become available again after the original commander had left the game for a couple of years.
So if someone played for 10 years straight they'd keep credit for those finds as long as they're playing the game.

While I appreciate the fact that Mt. Everest has been mentioned multiple times it would also be true that once you die in the real world you're dead forever.
Also, in the real world we don't spend much time flying around in Anacondas blowing up Thargoids.
So much for the appeal to the real world.

But if we did want to appeal to the real world then I can name several points that work against your position.
For example, we celebrated Columbus day for many decades when we all knew that he wasn't the first human being to discover America.
Fact is, in the real world people get attributed for all kinds of discoveries that weren't theirs first - every couple of hundred years the names all change.

There is no 'forever' attribution in the real world.

It is okay to keep the feature - I think a more dynamic approach would be more interesting.
You disagree.
Okay.
 
The tags would only become available again after the original commander had left the game for a couple of years.
So if someone played for 10 years straight they'd keep credit for those finds as long as they're playing the game.

While I appreciate the fact that Mt. Everest has been mentioned multiple times it would also be true that once you die in the real world you're dead forever.
Also, in the real world we don't spend much time flying around in Anacondas blowing up Thargoids.
So much for the appeal to the real world.

But if we did want to appeal to the real world then I can name several points that work against your position.
For example, we celebrated Columbus day for many decades when we all knew that he wasn't the first human being to discover America.
Fact is, in the real world people get attributed for all kinds of discoveries that weren't theirs first - every couple of hundred years the names all change.

There is no 'forever' attribution in the real world.

It is okay to keep the feature - I think a more dynamic approach would be more interesting.
You disagree.
Okay.
Nah, every couple hundred years, the names don't change, and your examples actually work quite well for what is actually happening in Elite Dangerous as it is. See, the tag does not go to the first visitor to the system, it goes to the first who reports it to Universal Cartographics. It is quite possible that some of the well known places in Elite Dangerous were first visited before the person who got the tag visited, but them's the breaks. Who ever reports it first gets it.

Hillary, even though he is dead, just like Columbus, was almost certainly not the first to summit Everest, but he was the one to get it reported far and wide for everyone to know. Unless history is deliberately changed and forgotten, they will retain their status "forever", no matter how dead and gone they are. That is how exploration has always and still works.
 
Last edited:
Such questions are academic anyway. As I've said, implementing this new feature that Wargfoot suggested, namely that discovery tags aren't permanent, would have a rather large cost. You'd have to regularly run new queries on when players last logged in and compare them against a set value, then you'd also have to query and look through the tags database to remove theirs. I'm still waiting to see if he would answer the question: what benefit would this have that would outweigh these costs, as well as upsetting existing customers?
"I think it would be more interesting" doesn't quite cut it.
 
Such questions are academic anyway. As I've said, implementing this new feature that Wargfoot suggested, namely that discovery tags aren't permanent, would have a rather large cost. You'd have to regularly run new queries on when players last logged in and compare them against a set value, then you'd also have to query and look through the tags database to remove theirs. I'm still waiting to see if he would answer the question: what benefit would this have that would outweigh these costs, as well as upsetting existing customers?
"I think it would be more interesting" doesn't quite cut it.
Unless you actually do game development let's file the cost issue under 'unknown'. (1)
I don't think you know how much it would cost and I don't think you'd know it would be 'expensive'.

I think the benefit would be allowing new players to get their names on some significant finds that others are likely to see.
The enhancement there would be player engagement.

Additionally, it would be nice to have the commanders who discover stuff still playing the game and a part of the community.
So instead of reading the names of people who left a decade ago on every star from Deciat to Colonia I'd have a shot at meeting them in the game.
It is boring to read Commander Famous Guy's name on something only to know you'll never see him in game.

So I see mostly community benefits.

But then I'd roll out other changes such as real time status indicators for commanders that discover stuff. (Number of bodies discovered, etc.)




NOTES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I do software development for a living. A query to do this would be easy to write and it would run rather quickly.
 
Last edited:
So I see mostly community benefits.
Mhm. So on one scale, we have some vague and uncertain community benefits. On the other, we have the certainty of losing players and/or communities, with only the quantity being uncertain. Plus the uncertain costs of implementing and running this.
Well, I'm fairly certain the scales aren't balanced.

Also, if "it is boring to read Commander Famous Guy's name on something only to know you'll never see him in game.", then the actual issue is different. One would be to keep Commanders playing. (Player retention is a very complex issue, let's not go into that.) The other would be to have explorers actually meet each other, which only tends to work when pre-arranged, or at singular landmarks. (Such as Sag. A*.) Plus plenty of us go to Solo mode instead (sweet sweet high res screenshots), so there would be that to solve too.
Your proposed solution to this reminds me of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
 
Last edited:
What if those commanders that left the game for whatever reason, come back only to find their discoveries gone? Have you ever left a game, and then come back years later? I know it happened to me in WoW where I played through the first 3 expansions, left for 3 years, then came back. If they had deleted my main, and all the achievements, including server first kills I'd never even considered going back. That whole argument you make about "meeting them in game" is bogus. First to discover is first. Whether you can or not meet them in game is 100% irrelevant to that fact.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom