Frontier, You owe the user base an explanation on the CODEX database.

[Titler]

No. He is clearly talking about the audio logs etc. It's called context. Those will and have been be included. Nowhere did he say that stellar objects would be included.

Still waiting for proof on the "over and over" thing that isn't people hearing what they'd like to hear.

Personally I think it's fine it's not pre filled. Gives it a purpose. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Immediately after the Logs section in the video you were linked too, one of the Devs states "Obviously the Gala... the Discovery section has a got a lot more behind it, but I don't want to spoil that", followed by further hints there was more functionality not shown.

And whether or not you think it's fair to have interpreted the context, that you've selectively quoted too, the way someone else does, it is the height of arrogance, selfishness and deliberate ignorance to demand other people not speak out about what they would have preferred to have had instead. Especially in multiplayer gaming where there are more people to please than just you; if you don't or can't adapt to the desires of others, if people giving criticism is something that "some don't want to hear", perhaps single player games are a better place for you.

Meanwhile, for everyone else... the Codex is not just not recording past exploration, it isn't apparently seeding current information to a global Codex as we might have hoped; it's a purely personal log with occasional "Reported" suggestions taken from samples of others. The only "Confirmed" though are all apparently done by you.

This is what the recent quotes about it never being intended to be a historical log are probably referring too. And it's a horrendous disappointment.

 

[Aashenfox]

No. He is clearly talking about the audio logs etc. It's called context. Those will and have been be included. Nowhere did he say that stellar objects would be included.

Still waiting for proof on the "over and over" thing that isn't people hearing what they'd like to hear.

Personally I think it's fine it's not pre filled. Gives it a purpose. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Are you saying that you think that anyone visiting a system I discovered should update my codex? Or that you think it's reasonable that 'I' need to go and visit my discoveries to have them registered in my codex, or the extreme case... Do you think that I should only get it in my codex after scanning it again, despite it already being discovered? I'm not having a go, I just wonder which of those you feel is reasonable, given that you htink it's reasonable that a codex for discoveries does not contain your discoveries in the first 4 years of the game?

 

[FNLWA]

And whether or not you think it's fair to have interpreted the context, that you've selectively quoted too

I haven't selected anything? Someone links a video where statements in the context of the audio log screens were made and I pointed that out.

to demand other people not speak out about what they would have preferred to have had instead. Especially in multiplayer gaming where there are more people to please than just you; if you don't or can't adapt to the desires of others, if people giving criticism is something that "some don't want to hear", perhaps single player games are a better place for you.

Holy moly, what? I mean okay sure, if anything your response clearly shows a tendency to freely "interpret" things others have said.

"people hearing what they'd like to hear" means that you have certain expectations and therefore interpret vague statements in a way that support your expectations. Nothing more, nothing less was said. I really don't care too much what happens with the codex, pre-filled or not.

Are you saying that you think that anyone visiting a system I discovered should update my codex? Or that you think it's reasonable that 'I' need to go and visit my discoveries to have them registered in my codex, or the extreme case... Do you think that I should only get it in my codex after scanning it again, despite it already being discovered? I'm not having a go, I just wonder which of those you feel is reasonable, given that you htink it's reasonable that a codex for discoveries does not contain your discoveries in the first 4 years of the game?

I get where you're coming from and exploration is actually my favourite activity. I see the point that it makes old discoveries to some degree pointless. But if it were the other way around the codex would be pretty much be set in stone already. Chances you find a body that makes in the codex are, let's say slim. Instead of a pretty much static database of the past I just prefer the fresh start, and it's not like past first discoveries are gone now. Plus now console players have a fair fighting chance.

 

[StuartGT]

Unfortunately Stuart is right. I thought they said it would be included, was 100% convinced and pretty unhappy about it not being included. The link to the stream was posted (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5051&v=rtmmmP_waf4 and in hindsight he indeed only talks about the session log and archive not the discovery tab.

Now, would we like previous discoveries to be included in the Codex? Yes.

Did FDev say "over and over that the historical data would be included in the Codex Data once it went live"? No, as you've helpfully linked and summarised above.

Are new stellar discoveries being correctly logged? Looks like no, so a bug to be fixed.

Could previous stellar discoveries be added by FDev to the Codex at a later point? Possibly, and hopefully.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Are you saying that you think that anyone visiting a system I discovered should update my codex? Or that you think it's reasonable that 'I' need to go and visit my discoveries to have them registered in my codex, or the extreme case... Do you think that I should only get it in my codex after scanning it again, despite it already being discovered? I'm not having a go, I just wonder which of those you feel is reasonable, given that you htink it's reasonable that a codex for discoveries does not contain your discoveries in the first 4 years of the game?

You are confusing two questions:

1) Would it be cool?
2) Did they promise it?

The answers are 1) Yes (for most, including me), and 2) No (fact). So by all means ask for it to happen, and I very much support it. But the OP is 'I demand an apology because FD lied to us', which is simply factually not true. I was mistaken too. The difference between OP and me is that I accept responsibility, request FD communicate more clearly in the future while at the same time accepting they didn't lie and didn't seem to have intentionally been unclear.

 

[Aashenfox]

You are confusing two questions:

1) Would it be cool?
2) Did they promise it?

The answers are 1) Yes (for most, including me), and 2) No (fact).

No, I'm not interested in what they promised or not, I'm interested in the game having things that it needs. My discoveries should be in my codex no matter when they happened, or its virtually pointless.

But I've already moved on from that, and now my question is what is required to GET my discoveries into my codex, as above. Your responses seem like you understood something else.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I haven't selected anything? Someone links a video where statements in the context of the audio log screens were made and I pointed that out.

Heck, the link is to the entire stream. It doesnt get any less selective than that. Just ignore people who cant deal with disappointment and being wrong in a more adult manner.

 

[Aashenfox]

Now, would we like previous discoveries to be included in the Codex? Yes.

Did FDev say "over and over that the historical data would be included in the Codex Data once it went live"? No, as you've helpfully linked and summarised above.

Are new stellar discoveries being correctly logged? Looks like no, so a bug to be fixed.

Could previous stellar discoveries be added by FDev to the Codex at a later point? Possibly, and hopefully.

There we go. That's the whole thread in a nutshell.

 

[Ian Skippy]

No, I'm not interested in what they promised or not,

But that is the topic mate: did they promise it and do they owe us an apology for not delivering on any promise?

But I've already moved on from that, and now my question is what is required to GET my discoveries into my codex, as above. Your responses seem like you understood something else.

That is a very good question, and deserving of its own topic. Where it can be discussed without it being dragged into the topic being discussed here.

 

[StuartGT]

This question was asked on the live stream and in the feedback thread and we were told it would be included! so you can go play white knight some place else.

Wrong. You've already been corrected by another CMDR linking the livestream.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You won't lose it Mike, it just won't be in your codex. :/

ahh ok so i can go back at my leisure and scan then, i do not need to rush? thanks

PS i love the seasonal swear filter. i didn't realise that round things which roll around on the ground was considered swearing but still!

 

[StuartGT]

PS i love the seasonal swear filter. i didn't realise that round things which roll around on the ground was considered swearing but still!

Marbles? [noob]

 

[Ethaidan]

No, I'm not interested in what they promised or not, I'm interested in the game having things that it needs. My discoveries should be in my codex no matter when they happened, or its virtually pointless.

But I've already moved on from that, and now my question is what is required to GET my discoveries into my codex, as above. Your responses seem like you understood something else.

Well, it may not be as easy as some might think. It all depends on what information was stored and how it was stored on the two different entities involved - the Server vs the Cmdr.

We know that the name of each Cmdr who discovers a stellar body is written onto and saved on the server (as soon as the data is sold), so the server knows and displays that for everyone to see.

We know that Cmdr statistics about exploration (distances, jumps made, profits, max payout, etc.) are saved to our Cmdr files, and this is now in our Codex. That doesn't mean that the names of every system/stellar body we've visited and scanned were also saved to our Cmdr files. Given that this information does not appear in the Codex, it most probably wasn't.

So, how easy would it be to cross-reference the Cmdr names written to the Server as first discovered with the Cmdr files for millions of Cmdrs and tens of millions of systems/stellar bodies?

 

[Aashenfox]

Well, it may not be as easy as some might think. It all depends on what information was stored and how it was stored on the two different entities involved - the Server vs the Cmdr.

We know that the name of each Cmdr who discovers a stellar body is written onto and saved on the server (as soon as the data is sold), so the server knows and displays that for everyone to see.

We know that Cmdr statistics about exploration (distances, jumps made, profits, max payout, etc.) are saved to our Cmdr files, and this is now in our Codex. That doesn't mean that the names of every system/stellar body we've visited and scanned were also saved to our Cmdr files. Given that this information does not appear in the Codex, it most probably wasn't.

So, how easy would it be to cross-reference the Cmdr names written to the Server as first discovered with the Cmdr files for millions of Cmdrs and tens of millions of systems/stellar bodies?

Most relational database engines hosted on appropriate hardware, would giggle at manipulating billions of lines. Computers don't care about size or length of task, that's one of the great things about them! Let's assume it is indeed a complex process that would require database downtime and take a day at least to run the report, then another day to run the integration. It's still eminently doable. The script to preform it would be simple enough.

In human language...
For body=discovered, list 'first discoverer'

For 'first discoverer' append codex 'system name' discovered by 'first discoverer' .

Like you say, it's just a matter of time after that.

 

[sollisb]

Well, as a developer, I don't accept for a second that it is a difficult task. For example in my company we take a broad spectrum of data in any kind of format and we can inject it into our database. To put this in perspective, we have over 3.5 trillion dollars in insurance. So imagine the number of clients and sub client and brokers and all their relevant details going back 40+ years.

As someone said above, today's RDMS's giggle at data manipulation, so some gaming data that covers no more than 2.5m players is hands in pocket easily managed.

If anything here is an issue, is more a case of 'can't be bothered' rather than can't be done.

I have no idea if it was promised or not. One video/stream does not an entire story tell.

I do know, that half a codex that only shows be part of my data, is worthless and will be ignored.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Look at the bright side, OP - you get to go exploring all over again.

 

[punkroyale]

You had told us over and over that the historical data would be included in the Codex Data once it went live…
Now you are saying Oh this was never intended and will not be possible.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...Dangerous-Beyond-Chapter-Four-3-3-Patch-Notes

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/463063-Discoveries-in-Codex-0

I do not really care IF they promised that your discoveries would make it into the Codex or not. As someone who has done a lot of exploration, my expectation was (and is) that these discoveries should be present. To not have these carry over is a core piece of game content that is missing and required for a full, rich and positive gaming experience.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Well, it may not be as easy as some might think. It all depends on what information was stored and how it was stored on the two different entities involved - the Server vs the Cmdr.

We know that the name of each Cmdr who discovers a stellar body is written onto and saved on the server (as soon as the data is sold), so the server knows and displays that for everyone to see.

We know that Cmdr statistics about exploration (distances, jumps made, profits, max payout, etc.) are saved to our Cmdr files, and this is now in our Codex. That doesn't mean that the names of every system/stellar body we've visited and scanned were also saved to our Cmdr files. Given that this information does not appear in the Codex, it most probably wasn't.

So, how easy would it be to cross-reference the Cmdr names written to the Server as first discovered with the Cmdr files for millions of Cmdrs and tens of millions of systems/stellar bodies?

These are similar to questions I had asked on the forums and livestreams during beta. Particularly if local data stored on our installations contribute to the Codex, given that many will have installations on different and older computers. I never did receive an answer I don't think.

 

[andrak]

Way to make the player base ignore your headlining feature. Have it disregard the entire 4 years of the player's discoveries. The Codex is DOA. You've just made it a few more clicks to get to the statistics screen.

 

[Rafe Zetter]

I asked him to prove the quoted statement. Nothing patronising about that, just a normal request on a discussion forum.

He can "consider" all he wants to, but unless he can prove that he paid money for the release then his statement is patently wrong. So, put up some proof is all I'm asking.

There's semantics and semantics - The post in question stating "it isn't a free update" is correct when taken in the context of the fact that a big portion of Beyond and 3.3 is about FIXES - correcting or altering previously introduced content to make it more in line with a better play experience and away from the placeholders they were.

YOUR version of "free update" in this debate is obviously regarding all the other extra stuff that has been added, and clearly sidelines the many above fixes, and TBH it's hard to tell whether you disregarded the main original reason for "Beyond" and the fixes as stated by FDev at the beginning of the season, by accidental ommission or deliberate intent to suit your narrative.

Technically you are both right - from opposite sides.

Either way it still doesn't cover the fact that the new system implemented is only half a job - and regardless of FDev's reason, dumping all that previous information is pretty disrespectful to the playerbase and thier time, even if everyone concerned never looked at it again, but going by this thread there's more than a few involved who aren't happy at the loss of that information.

Nothing is impossible where software and data is concerned, and everything is down to whether the developer wants to put the time in to deliver, and at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, FDev don't have a great performance history in that regard.

I REALLY don't like bashing FDev all the time for thier failures or less than great developments (despite what most of you think of me) but FDev practically lay it out on a silver platter time and again.

The data IS stored somewhere - so.... why can't we have it?