How FD undermined their own creation

[Sylow]

Plus the DSS was essentially new - the only thing it replaced as a surface discovery mechanism was the MkI Eyeball.

Maybe. Yet for me the difference is that on the FSS you can learn and improve. Darkfyre99 made a tutorial about it during the beta, which I still would recommend everybody to read. There's some more things you learn by using it, get a feeling for, etc. It might not be the greatest game ever, but for being a new minigame within ED, I consider it rather good. I was expecting something much more boring and tedious. (Or something much more complex at the start, which the community would then cry to get nerfed, till it is utterly mind-numbing boring. ) FD managed to get to the middle ground here.

In contrast, I think my learning curve for the DSS stopped after using it less than a handful of times. You learn to judge the size of the circle and the length of the angle marker when firing the probe. When you have that down, there's nothing to learn any more, just repeat the procedure. (If I am missing something, please somebody let me know. But that's how the DSS looks to me. )

Thus I really think the DSS could use some work, to make it a more interesting gameplay element.

There currently isn't a single jump-in 'point' for a system. You arrive on the side of a star facing where you jumped from. This is why when you have a plotted route your next system is always on the far side of the star.

That's mostly true. I just dare to add a detail: in old times, the next system was not always on the far side of the star. You often jumped away at odd angles. The reason for that actually are jump ranges: with the high jump ranges we now have, the system almost always can find the next jump close to the straight line to the destination. If your jump range is low, the route calculation has to use other systems on the side, which results in a much more zig-zag route.

 

[CMDR Plexus Ironrot]

I can’t agree more OP +1

 

[Sylow]

The FSS can be improved by merging it with an orrery presentation. That way, you have a sense of the shape and size of the system you are in.

You mean, small real time orrery on the side of the FSS, which you complete while you map? Instead of having to go to the system map in the end? I think I haven't heard this before, but that would be AWESOME!

 

[Lightspeed]

You mean, small real time orrery on the side of the FSS, which you complete while you map? Instead of having to go to the system map in the end? I think I haven't heard this before, but that would be AWESOME!

That's another way of doing it. I had envisaged the blue blobs presented on an orrery instead of the present 2D map, but your way would be good too.

 

[Dommarraa]

Engineering extreme range fsd’s are completely optional.

As are large weapons on a Vette. Surely Class 1 Fixed Pulses would be more fun !
Limiting yourself artificially to play a game is when you are done and should move on. As someone who completed Dragon's Lair using only my face, I know.

 

[B1rdy]

I only have something superficial to add.. when it was a reasonable trip to get from one end of the bubble, it felt much more special, and each area of interest in it had more meaning and value because of it.

Given its a game and we're not commuting to work, it is a bit of a shame that was lost. Even the systems in between held more interest.. because the distance doesnt matter anymore you're not directed to care about the in betweens as in the past out of relief.

While frontier are on one hand frontier are the most ivory tower tunnel vision focused developer, as soon whoever read the steam reviews rocked up to that meeting it was all thrown out the window and carved up, feels that way anyway. It was a point of address at the time though.

It would be even better if systems were more special apart from just the time to reach them. I would even say the more jumps I have to do to reach my destination the less I am interested in the systems in between.

I like the idea, but let's look at one of the few hazards that was present - multiple suns. This had the ability to warm you up (and could cook you if you weren't careful). Something to watch out for.

So what happened? They were nerfed so that we now drop out away from nearly any danger, unless you are seriously unlucky.

Why? Because many people don't want any danger, and complain constantly if there is any. Look at the numbers who get Support to move them 'because they jumped into a system they couldn't jump back out of'.

I like your ideas, because they speak of learning and consequences - sadly the louder voice seems to be 'I want things to be risk free, don't expect to spend effort learning how things work'.

ofc if you add your ideas to the OPs then the game becomes somewhat masochistic - imagine heading out 20 k LY in a ship with nearer the original 40 Ly jump range, only to be holed my micrometeorites on your first jump and resurrect back in the bubble. Ooops, at least next time I fly that 20 k Ly that info will help move my entry point so I miss that happening again

I am with you on the general idea that the game should provide a certain challenge. However, I am against hazards the player has no control over what so ever. When jumping became pure gambling, it would kill exploration in ED. Requiring skill to do exploration and retaining player agency at the same time, would be the best basis. As someone else mentioned, players should be made aware of the risk of their next jump.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Maybe. Yet for me the difference is that on the FSS you can learn and improve. Darkfyre99 made a tutorial about it during the beta, which I still would recommend everybody to read. There's some more things you learn by using it, get a feeling for, etc. It might not be the greatest game ever, but for being a new minigame within ED, I consider it rather good. I was expecting something much more boring and tedious. (Or something much more complex at the start, which the community would then cry to get nerfed, till it is utterly mind-numbing boring. ) FD managed to get to the middle ground here.

In contrast, I think my learning curve for the DSS stopped after using it less than a handful of times. You learn to judge the size of the circle and the length of the angle marker when firing the probe. When you have that down, there's nothing to learn any more, just repeat the procedure. (If I am missing something, please somebody let me know. But that's how the DSS looks to me. )

Thus I really think the DSS could use some work, to make it a more interesting gameplay element.



That's mostly true. I just dare to add a detail: in old times, the next system was not always on the far side of the star. You often jumped away at odd angles. The reason for that actually are jump ranges: with the high jump ranges we now have, the system almost always can find the next jump close to the straight line to the destination. If your jump range is low, the route calculation has to use other systems on the side, which results in a much more zig-zag route.

We used to jump out at random angles because the drop-in point was random (or fixed, I don't know) then FDev changed it in 2.something to what we have now - at the request of explorers, I believe.

 

[Voracity_T]

OP..

Did you play Eve?

 

[ThatSmileyGuy]

Thanks for helping me out here.

To me DSS is not that bad. I like the idea. Probes could be faster though.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I think the difference is that there was no way to avoid/mitigate getting cooked when jumping into a system.
Jump into the same system a thousand times and you're going to get cooked a thousand times.

Not true - pre-2.1? your incoming angle was random, so you probably wouldn't end up in the wrong place the second time, while after that your incoming angle was dependent on your direction, so you could approach the system from a different direction (above or below the orbital plane) to guarantee avoiding the problem.

Even jumping in from the same side, those close binary stars rotate around each other in a few hours, so you maybe won't get fried the next time because you'll be on the other side of the primary.

Same with the very early 2.2 patch where if you jumped into a system badly you'd be staring down the wrong end of a neutron cone ... once one person had done that, everyone else could jump in from a different angle.



But the problem with it is that it's really difficult to balance risk on exploration trips, because they're so extended. If you make it possible to avoid damage entirely by paying attention or proper outfitting, you might have an on-paper risk slightly higher than now but most players will experience it exactly as now. Conversely, if you make it impossible to avoid damage entirely, even with perfect play, you just end up adding a bigger attrition+restock element to exploration, which is the sort of thing which will drive demands for bigger jump ranges (or a more comprehensive network of repair stations).

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

I'm at Sol, I open the galaxy map and I can see an undiscovered system next to Beagle Point.

NO! That shouldn't be possible!

In the galaxy map we should only be able to see already discovered stars.
While the undiscovered systems should only be visible in a range of 500 ly (for example) from our current position. This would make the other explorers effort useful by opening routes throughout the galaxy and it would leave the sense of "unkown" in the galaxy sectors.

For example I could see Colonia and plot a direct route to it because the system is known and many stars in-between have already been discovered thanks to the first exploring settlers.

 

[ThatSmileyGuy]

In the galaxy map we should only be able to see already discovered stars.

Perhaps the archives are incomplete.
But i like the idea. Having to somehow make out coordinates to other systems. How about a hardcore mode?

 

[Sylow]

We used to jump out at random angles because the drop-in point was random (or fixed, I don't know) then FDev changed it in 2.something to what we have now - at the request of explorers, I believe.

Also true. But around Xmas I was flying with a friend. He still was in a non-engineered eagle when we started out. So I let him plot the route and I tagged along. It felt much more like zig zag of old times.

So yes, the change you refer to might also contribute, but my friends lower jump range definitely affected the route in a way that the next jump was not always on the other side of the star.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

We used to jump out at random angles because the drop-in point was random (or fixed, I don't know) then FDev changed it in 2.something to what we have now - at the request of explorers, I believe.

I knew it was changed, but I didin't know that explorers requested it. I preferred the random drop out myself.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

In the galaxy map we should only be able to see already discovered stars.

Another problem with this sort of idea, which may be part of the reason things like discovering systems and routes got dropped in the first place: just how many already discovered stars there are.

A reasonable estimate (based on how many systems EDSM knows about, and what proportion of players make use of tools that feed it) is that there are about 250 million discovered systems.

Systems are uniquely identified internally by a 64-bit (8 byte) integer, so the database of discovered systems - just a list of which ones have been discovered, nothing more - would be about 2GB in size (and rising at about 0.5GB a year). Querying a 2GB database any time you do anything at all with the map is not going to be good for performance.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

Another problem with this sort of idea, which may be part of the reason things like discovering systems and routes got dropped in the first place: just how many already discovered stars there are.

A reasonable estimate (based on how many systems EDSM knows about, and what proportion of players make use of tools that feed it) is that there are about 250 million discovered systems.

Systems are uniquely identified internally by a 64-bit (8 byte) integer, so the database of discovered systems - just a list of which ones have been discovered, nothing more - would be about 2GB in size (and rising at about 0.5GB a year). Querying a 2GB database any time you do anything at all with the map is not going to be good for performance.

Oh c'mon! A tag is just binary -1 byte (discovered/undiscovered) and the router will download even less information than what it does becuase it doesn't get the information for all galaxy system (now it also tells you what star type is and it calculates the distance of each).

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Also true. But around Xmas I was flying with a friend. He still was in a non-engineered eagle when we started out. So I let him plot the route and I tagged along. It felt much more like zig zag of old times.

So yes, the change you refer to might also contribute, but my friends lower jump range definitely affected the route in a way that the next jump was not always on the other side of the star.

For sure, if you head out into less dense areas of stars you'll get a more zigzag route - and obviously a shorter jump range will mean 'less dense' happens sooner.
But in old times you could have the destination behind you when you jumped in - these days you'll need to out on the very edge of the galaxy for that to happen.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Systems are uniquely identified internally by a 64-bit (8 byte) integer, so the database of discovered systems - just a list of which ones have been discovered, nothing more - would be about 2GB in size (and rising at about 0.5GB a year). Querying a 2GB database any time you do anything at all with the map is not going to be good for performance.

This is an interesting point, however i would imagine the fog of war would only have to change each time we connected to the UC servers and they only need to be updated say once every 24 hrs.
would that really be a huge amount of data to transmit and to store at the end of the day? All it would add would be a tiny bit of lag each time we connected to UC - assuming there was an update of course.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

OP..

Did you play Eve?

I did not - games largely built around guild membership don't have great appeal.
Plus, point-and-click isn't spaceflight.

 

[ThatSmileyGuy]

Plus, point-and-click isn't spaceflight.

But apparently it's exploration