So the patch/update that was released today were supposed to fix the absence of tritium? Then why have I just spent 25 prospector limpets in a double tritium hotspot and not found a single tritium source?
Patch Notes Fleet Carriers Update - Patch 4 Patch Notes
It was NOT today. It WILL be on Monday.
As far as I find your approach to exploring very similar to mine,
we should know already, that there is no way to find any common ground
between
"I scan zillions of systems on every stop and have enough time to mine fuel"
and
"I want to ba as far as possible as fast as possible"
attitudes.
Of course yours is a sane one, based on the simple fact that is fitting to current game mechanics,
the other one seems to be result of a "tiny" megalomania,
something similar to this quote:
You would think that in all the systems in-game(galaxy) there would actually be triple hot spots of everything which yielded far higher minable amounts.
The odds against this are very high.
Imagine the Earth is the Galaxy, we can't mine gold everywhere, but there was a spot that yielded a lot and caused a gold rush. It is now quite depleted and people are waiting for the tick that isn't going to happen.
The odds against this are very high.
Imagine the Earth is the Galaxy, we can't mine gold everywhere, but there was a spot that yielded a lot and caused a gold rush. It is now quite depleted and people are waiting for the tick that isn't going to happen.
Unless the announcement about the patch is Monday.
If that was true three years ago then they lost a customer by not making it more obvious.
I've never heard mention of a binding that would do that, though I do remember thinking when I was writing my own macros that if I were HCS I'd be begging Frontier for such a thing.
Maybe they got it and it's hidden somewhere in their macros. Alas my purchase was years ago and on another computer so I have no way of looking.
Or maybe they found a way of interrogating the panel state so they could execute the appropriate set of relative commands.
If anyone knows....
That is not exact true. You just map everything u see unmapped. I do "task based exploring". For example I have theory about rogue planets. Best way to start are nebulas - remnants of star explosions. So to check theory I need to visit many nebulas with huge distance to travel. I don't care how many systems I will map on the go. I need to do "task".
Then it will be new task, different something. So I can't fly slow forever. And still I feel having FC could be usefull. Not so much but still, why not. Just to swap "todo".
P.S. I truly hate people when see 100% mapped/scanned system by the same exact guy. Because, I feel you should live place where others can put their names for Etheternity.
Last edited:
Now I wait for the other side to explain to me, that "he is not scanning zillion systems, and that zillion is not an actual number".
I have put the descriptions in " " because text inside was no to be understood literally.
What I meant is that people with different ideas about "exploring" will not come to any agreement in current argument.
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
[hangs head in shame]
Pro tip: there is still a "few" undiscovered systems in the ED Galaxy left.
You really don't need to rush things and fly zillion ly to make new discoveries.
No need to hate people trying to do their "job" neatly and fully (in their point of view).
I know ... furthermore, half of that isn't scanned to full even
...but still, I tend to avoid bright places, like gas clouds around - because it is 100% mapped already. And often like 5 names on 5 planets "1st discovery" then all other 20 bodies "1st discovered" and "1st mapped" by the same man .. bad greedy one.
I know ... furthermore, half of that isn't scanned to full even
...but still, I tend to avoid bright places, like gas clouds around - because it is 100% mapped already. And often like 5 names on 5 planets "1st discovery" then all other 20 bodies "1st discovered" and "1st mapped" by the same man .. bad greedy one.
Haha, ok, i like "like" argument more then "hate" one
I also think some people are struggling with the concept of using the best tool for the job. Fleet Carriers are not just big, super jump range Anacondas. If a 'Conda is so much better for some things, as is suggested by this thread, then why not, oh, I don't know...use an Anaconda?
o7
Yes, sir!
I will be nice again, sir!
Last edited:
Wrong use for a carrier. Right use for a long-jumping ship. Problem solved.
Well, "my" working solution is being ignored by players spoiled by glitched LTD laser mining,
and video proving that even lack of skill and some mistakes can still end with 200t/h mining run,
IF you are doing it in the right place,
is getting negative votes on YT.
And there were players who openly declared they will be not SSD mining, because they don't feel like it, in this thread.
I would write what I think about this state of affairs, but I already started losing posts and promised to be nice
You have typo error there, should be "for a current implementation of a carrier", add NPC miners + remote cargo->tank fuel - problem solved.