My Exploration Wishlist

[DGBaley]

I've been thinking for a while now about some game play enhancements for exploration. I know some (most) of them are highly unlikely to be implemented, but I think the cumulative effect of these changes would be to make exploration a much more engaging experience. I submit to you the following ideas for your consideration. Please discuss.

PS: I know the first two are not strictly related to exploration game play, but the issues they address have been bugging me for some time now.

Stacking Sensors/Controllers

We have these nice big ships with large internal bays, and yet we fill said bays with tiny little modules. We should be able to have engineers modify our modules such that smaller modules can be combined into larger modules. For example, two Size 1 sensors (e.g. Advanced D-Scanner + Detailed Surface Scanner) can be combined into one Size 2 module.

Positioning of Nav-Beacons

Nav-beacons do not have to be placed in close proximity to the primary star. They can be placed (and possibly moved) to other locations within a system - like say near the dominant star port in the system. For systems with multiple stars sufficiently far apart, there might even be multiple beacons. However, to avoid conflicts/confusion, beacons must be at least XXX ls apart (where XXX is some appropriately large number). Ships will arrive in close proximity to whichever Nav-Beacon was targeted by the on board nav-computer.

Interstellar Navigation in Uncharted Territory

It should only be possible to jump precisely into a system if that system has a functioning Nav-beacon. When traveling in uncharted space, the pilot should have to make some educated guesses for the FSD settings (power levels, duration, etc.) If these settings are done right, the pilot should be able to arrive to within several thousand light seconds of the intended star system. If the settings are done poorly, then the pilot will likely find himself in the inky blackness of interstellar space. Think of it as a mini-game that explorers get to play on each and every jump. As their skill increases, they should be able to plot a jump to an uncharted star system with increasing accuracy.

OPTIONAL: A nav-computer module that can offer helpful suggestions for the FSD settings, with some reasonably high probability of getting you to within let's say, 100,000 ls of your destination.

Deployable Nav-Beacons

Upon arriving at an uncharted star system, an intrepid explorer should be able to deploy a nav-beacon for that system. Not only does this beacon allow for subsequent FSD navigation (see previous item), this beacon will then become the temporary repository of all exploration data obtained on the system (within XXX ls). Any explorer may scan the beacon and receive all previous data collected on the system. All 'first discoveries' made in the system would have the appropriate CMDR's name attached. It should be possible to synthesize new beacons from locally available/scoopable materials. It should also take up 1 unit of cargo space until it is deployed.

OPTIONAL: If beacons can be located at locations other than the primary star, perhaps a beacon can be scooped and redeployed within a system. However, having a scooped beacon on board will prevent the use of the FSD until it is redeployed. In other words, a poorly placed beacon might be moved, but it should not be possible to remove it from a system entirely.

Deployable Planetary Probes

To preserve the existing game play mechanic of point and scan, I suggest introducing the planetary probe. A planetary probe is similar to the deployable nav-beacon concept except that it is placed into orbit around a planetary body. Any planet with such a probe deployed should permit the acquisition of detailed surface data by simply scanning the probe. Planets without such probes will need to be scanned in a more thorough manner using on board sensors. As with the nav-beacons, these probes/satellites should also be possible to synthesize them from locally sourced material.

Surface Material Distribution Map

With existing 20th century technology, we can tell a tremendous amount about the distribution of materials across the surface of planetary bodies in our own solar system. In the year 3303 it should be possible to generate planetary maps showing the distribution of different material types. This can be as general as basic categories (metals, organics, volatiles, etc.) or very specific (arsenic, phosphorus, sulfur, etc.). There should be filters on this map so we can see as much or as little as we need. This would be a tremendous assistance to explorers that need to locate a specific material type. Setting down in a region with relatively higher concentrations of a material should increase the probability of that material being spawned from outcrops, chondrites, etc.

Immediate Data Rewards

With the introduction of the deployable beacons described above, it stands to reason that as soon as the beacons are in place, they should begin relaying their findings back to Universal Cartographics with immediate or fairly quick payout for the acquired data. Any scans made in systems without a beacon will not be relayed until a beacon is deployed or the ship returns to a system with an active beacon.

High-Value Physical Sample Rewards

It should be possible to obtain samples from geological/biologically interesting sites. These samples will take up space along side of the other scooped materials or perhaps in an optional sample rack module. These samples should yield a significant cash reward if they can be returned to a station.

 

[MBaldelli]

I'm rather surprised some folk haven't jumped all over this one since I first saw this before calling it a night last night... I've done a bit of thinking on a couple of them and will address my them accordingly..

Stacking Sensors/Controllers

We have these nice big ships with large internal bays, and yet we fill said bays with tiny little modules. We should be able to have engineers modify our modules such that smaller modules can be combined into larger modules. For example, two Size 1 sensors (e.g. Advanced D-Scanner + Detailed Surface Scanner) can be combined into one Size 2 module.

This has been addressed a couple of times since I've come to the suggestions forums more regularly. A lot of agreements, and little counter-argument has occurred on this. Whether it will be implemented or not remains to be seen.

Interstellar Navigation in Uncharted Territory

It should only be possible to jump precisely into a system if that system has a functioning Nav-beacon. When traveling in uncharted space, the pilot should have to make some educated guesses for the FSD settings (power levels, duration, etc.) If these settings are done right, the pilot should be able to arrive to within several thousand light seconds of the intended star system. If the settings are done poorly, then the pilot will likely find himself in the inky blackness of interstellar space. Think of it as a mini-game that explorers get to play on each and every jump. As their skill increases, they should be able to plot a jump to an uncharted star system with increasing accuracy.

OPTIONAL: A nav-computer module that can offer helpful suggestions for the FSD settings, with some reasonably high probability of getting you to within let's say, 100,000 ls of your destination.

This I wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with. First. Space is vast in this game... Quite easily the largest (and most stable) sandbox I've witnessed to date. My time playing this game is limited to a couple of hours a day (at best) to no more than 4 hours a stretch on weekends. My experience is that a full system survey on average can take upwards to 40 minutes... Sometimes longer if dealing with more than two stars and star systems spaced more than 122K LS apart from entry point. This is a time waster to me and something I don't want to deal with during my off-time.

Second, unless you can demonstrate how this is going to deter the amount of surveying cherry picking I'm seeing in all sectors outside of the bubble, I strongly suspect that it's going to continue to be done leaving the die-hard explorers (like me) having to double-dip and complete those cherry picked systems.

Third while you haven't implied this in the suggestion I can tell you that there's a horrible and sometimes terrifying alternative to this: warping in so close to a star you're ending up with your ship performing an emergency stop. There are several videos to this happening to commanders (one of them warping into a system that contained 3 black holes).

Finally, I work in maths for a living. Between vector and data analysis for statistical reports for pointy haired managers, to sifting through data that's pure numbers. If you feel the need to find something to do like this mini-game for added enjoyment, might I suggest a couple of projects for you... Work on how many millions of years have pass for the light from all the stars in the heavens to reach earth. Or perhaps working out how much slower a planet's rotation is going to be if you use it for atmospheric braking (hint: this was done for the Cassini Probe when it used Jupiter for it's atmospheric braking and acceleration). Do this with the information provided on the ship you're currently driving. Or even, work out Clark's Rule and the Fermi Paradox to determine the odds of Humanity finding another civilization at our current stage of development.

Deployable Nav-Beacons

Upon arriving at an uncharted star system, an intrepid explorer should be able to deploy a nav-beacon for that system. Not only does this beacon allow for subsequent FSD navigation (see previous item), this beacon will then become the temporary repository of all exploration data obtained on the system (within XXX ls). Any explorer may scan the beacon and receive all previous data collected on the system. All 'first discoveries' made in the system would have the appropriate CMDR's name attached. It should be possible to synthesize new beacons from locally available/scoopable materials. It should also take up 1 unit of cargo space until it is deployed.

OPTIONAL: If beacons can be located at locations other than the primary star, perhaps a beacon can be scooped and redeployed within a system. However, having a scooped beacon on board will prevent the use of the FSD until it is redeployed. In other words, a poorly placed beacon might be moved, but it should not be possible to remove it from a system entirely.

I like this thought, however I'm having problems with it. Nav Beacons are generally deployed in civilized (read: settled) star systems. While this might be some excitement for we Deep Space Explorers, the fact remains that it's a pittance of a "job" within the game taking no more than 5 minutes of game time. Between the amount of cherry picking going on with systems outside the bubble, coupled with the slow manner the devs deploy new stations in the game (Ceos/Sothis was launched years ago and both stations are still in under construction status), this rapidly becomes unrealistic and perhaps even immersion breaking.

Surface Material Distribution Map

With existing 20th century technology, we can tell a tremendous amount about the distribution of materials across the surface of planetary bodies in our own solar system. In the year 3303 it should be possible to generate planetary maps showing the distribution of different material types. This can be as general as basic categories (metals, organics, volatiles, etc.) or very specific (arsenic, phosphorus, sulfur, etc.). There should be filters on this map so we can see as much or as little as we need. This would be a tremendous assistance to explorers that need to locate a specific material type. Setting down in a region with relatively higher concentrations of a material should increase the probability of that material being spawned from outcrops, chondrites, etc.

I like the thought of an abandoned quarry more. While this might be more like something out of Mass Effect (particularly Mass Effect 2), I can't see the devs going anywhere near something like this that would cut down on the RNG for surface mining.

Immediate Data Rewards

With the introduction of the deployable beacons described above, it stands to reason that as soon as the beacons are in place, they should begin relaying their findings back to Universal Cartographics with immediate or fairly quick payout for the acquired data. Any scans made in systems without a beacon will not be relayed until a beacon is deployed or the ship returns to a system with an active beacon.

I can't express how vehemently I disagree with this other than to swear enough to make a sailor blush. I prefer Privateer's Alliance suggestion on top of mine months ago to enticing Deep Space Explorers to complete system scan and then taking away the first explored by credit for the planet. But this? Nope, sorry... I don't want the cherry pickers to have easy access to hundreds of thousands of credits for a whole system scan for doing *&($*@ NOTHING but dropping a satellite. I am a Deep Space Explorer through and through, and this seems not only too easy but takes away from the splendor of a near orbit fly by of some of the beautiful worlds I come across.

As for the rest... I'm either ambivalent or thinking it might have to wait until we can land on atmospheric worlds. And until we can; they're pip dreams.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Interestingly, I want them to replace the current Discovery Scanner system (Basic, Intermediate, Advanced) with an E to A rating, like most other modules. Each step up in rating would improve scan distance, scan times & scan angles.....as well as introducing improved functionality (like B & A rated scanners having built in DSS functionality).

The other thing is that I'd sacrifice the infinite range of the best Discovery Scanner in return for more detailed info about Objects & Signal Sources closer to your current position.

 

[MBaldelli]

Interestingly, I want them to replace the current Discovery Scanner system (Basic, Intermediate, Advanced) with an E to A rating, like most other modules. Each step up in rating would improve scan distance, scan times & scan angles.....as well as introducing improved functionality (like B & A rated scanners having built in DSS functionality).

The other thing is that I'd sacrifice the infinite range of the best Discovery Scanner in return for more detailed info about Objects & Signal Sources closer to your current position.

I remember seeing you and a couple of other people talking about module economy like this since I've been here more often. While I haven't expressed liking it (I definitely do, believe me), I'm waiting patiently to see whether the devs will implement this and when. Especially given that this also opens up other specialized scanners -- For asteroid miners (which I recall has been mentioned back when I first made suggestions on this forum back in April, 2017), and even Bounty Hunters.

 

[DGBaley]

I called it a wish list for a reason

As I said, I've been thinking about this stuff for quite some time and I've considered a number of alternatives. This is just a handful of some of the best ideas I've had to date. I don't expect much to come of it, but I thought I would put the thoughts out there to generate discussion and perhaps plant the seeds for something else that may eventually find its way into the game. I called it a wish list for a reason.

This has been addressed a couple of times since I've come to the suggestions forums more regularly. A lot of agreements, and little counter-argument has occurred on this. Whether it will be implemented or not remains to be seen.

Glad to hear it. It seems like this should be a no-brainer. One of my biggest peeves about outfitting is the requirement to waste size-2 or size-3 slots on size-1 components. If available volume doubles with each size class, then you should be able to fit two size-1 modules into a size-2 stacked module or perhaps up to four size-1 modules into a size-3 stacked module. At the very least, they should allow us to reclaim the left over module space as cargo space. So if you have a size-1 module in a size-2 slot, that allows you an extra 2 tons of cargo space. Or a size-1 module in a size-3 slot would allow you 6 tons of usable cargo space.

This I wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with. First. Space is vast in this game... Quite easily the largest (and most stable) sandbox I've witnessed to date. My time playing this game is limited to a couple of hours a day (at best) to no more than 4 hours a stretch on weekends. My experience is that a full system survey on average can take upwards to 40 minutes... Sometimes longer if dealing with more than two stars and star systems spaced more than 122K LS apart from entry point. This is a time waster to me and something I don't want to deal with during my off-time.

I'm sorry that you feel so strongly about this. I also only have a few hours a week to play, but when I want to go explore I would like to have more to do than: charge the FSD, honk the horn, then fly around pointing my ship at stars and planets. I wouldn't mind spending more time in a system if there was something more to do. As is stands right now, there is no incentive to stick around in a system after you've scanned all (or some) of the bodies. There is not even any real reason to get close to the planets since doing so would require extra time to fly back out of the gravity well. If all you want to do is put as many systems and planets under your belt as possible, then there should be a play mode to support that. However, for those of us that would like a richer game play experience while exploring and enjoying the immersion in this rich sandbox, there should be some game play mechanics to support that play style as well.

Second, unless you can demonstrate how this is going to deter the amount of surveying cherry picking I'm seeing in all sectors outside of the bubble, I strongly suspect that it's going to continue to be done leaving the die-hard explorers (like me) having to double-dip and complete those cherry picked systems.

Cherry picking or not, when I explore I like to feel like I'm exploring unknown territory. If I arrive at a system that's already been picked over, then that's my signal to move along. I'm sure there are completionists out there that will feel the need to complete the scans of bodies left behind by the cherry pickers, but there are obviously no obligations to do so. Even if the cherry pickers have scanned all of the 'interesting' bodies in the system, it may still be possible to extract some valuable data from those bodies upon closer inspection. In particular, if something like the physical sample suggestion is implemented, then there may be added incentive to actually land and explore the surface.

Third while you haven't implied this in the suggestion I can tell you that there's a horrible and sometimes terrifying alternative to this: warping in so close to a star you're ending up with your ship performing an emergency stop. There are several videos to this happening to commanders (one of them warping into a system that contained 3 black holes).

Space is indeed vast, which makes the probability of dropping into a system in the same location as a planet or a star incredibly small. However infinitesimal, the probability of collision is still non-zero. This is the risk one takes when exploring the unknown. I'm sure FDEV could even add a few lines of code to perturb a perfect collision course to avoid this situation, but I'd prefer that the possibility of danger remain.

Finally, I work in maths for a living. Between vector and data analysis for statistical reports for pointy haired managers, to sifting through data that's pure numbers.

I also work in maths for a living, writing computational fluid dynamics solvers. While I do love a good problem that can be solved with a bit of properly applied mathematics, I am by no means a fan of doing math for math's sake. I am also not suggesting that we have to solve math problems to make each jump. I am suggesting that there be a couple of knobs to turn that would allow an experienced pilot to get his ship to within a bubble a few thousands of light seconds wide.

My point is that when one is in uncharted territory it should take more effort to get your ship into proximity of the target system. Rather than talk around it, let me give a more concrete example of the type of interface I'm suggesting. Let's say we can set a heading, a power level and a duration. From the power level and duration, the computer can spit out an estimate for how far the ship will jump and the expected fuel consumption. The heading only fixes the initial direction of the ship's trajectory. The path of the ship through hyperspace can be subsequently perturbed by the presence of gravitational bodies along the trajectory. So, it should be possible to make short jumps fairly accurately, since there would be fewer gravity wells encountered. Longer jumps, however, have the potential to experience greater deflection due to the presence of more systems in proximity to the ship's trajectory. For the longer jumps, you will most likely drop in hundreds of thousands of light seconds (or maybe even a couple of light years) away from the intended target system. From there it should be relatively easy to make a second shorter jump that will take you the rest of the way. As I said in the original post, the more you play this little mini-game, the better you will get at judging the deflections, and the more accurate you should get.

For those of you who don't want to bother with this particular game mechanic, then you should be able to buy an auto-nav module that will compute the necessary settings. However, the accuracy of the jumps should still be dependent on the distance and intervening gravity influences. As with the manual approach, a second jump may be necessary to arrive somewhat close to the target star. Of course, if a nav-beacon is present at the destination star, then the incoming ship should be able to dynamically adjust its trajectory to arrive close to the nav-beacon's location in a single jump.

One other advantage to this mode of travel is that you no longer have to travel along a convoluted path (with star systems at both ends of each jump). If you have a large enough fuel tank, you should be able to keep going in a straight line. When you start to run low on fuel, you can make a side trip to a nearby scoopable star. Just think of all of the places, currently unreachable, that would be unlocked with this approach. A properly outfitted ship might even be able to cross the gap to the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. The only downside to this approach to navigation that I can see is that FDEV will have to come up with a new game mechanic to keep pilots away from permit locked systems.

I like this thought, however I'm having problems with it. Nav Beacons are generally deployed in civilized (read: settled) star systems. While this might be some excitement for we Deep Space Explorers, the fact remains that it's a pittance of a "job" within the game taking no more than 5 minutes of game time. Between the amount of cherry picking going on with systems outside the bubble, coupled with the slow manner the devs deploy new stations in the game (Ceos/Sothis was launched years ago and both stations are still in under construction status), this rapidly becomes unrealistic and perhaps even immersion breaking.

The deployable nav-beacons tie back into the previous point about navigating in uncharted space. We get from place to place rapidly by using well traveled routes where nav-beacons have already been deployed. The fact that they are being deployed by commanders means that we don't need to wait for FDEV to populate a new system. If there is an exciting discovery in one corner of the galaxy, then fairly soon there will be a nav-beacon super-highway that will take you there. It's kind of like how ants forage for food. The more ants travel the path, the more efficient it becomes.

I like the thought of an abandoned quarry more. While this might be more like something out of Mass Effect (particularly Mass Effect 2), I can't see the devs going anywhere near something like this that would cut down on the RNG for surface mining.

Abandoned mines are nice for systems near the bubble, but I would not expect such convenient locations much further out. The RNG for spawning resources is still in effect, but it is modified by a probability distribution function that has a spatial component to it (as opposed to just using the overall percentages for the entire planet).

I can't express how vehemently I disagree with this other than to swear enough to make a sailor blush. I prefer Privateer's Alliance suggestion on top of mine months ago to enticing Deep Space Explorers to complete system scan and then taking away the first explored by credit for the planet. But this? Nope, sorry... I don't want the cherry pickers to have easy access to hundreds of thousands of credits for a whole system scan for doing *&($*@ NOTHING but dropping a satellite. I am a Deep Space Explorer through and through, and this seems not only too easy but takes away from the splendor of a near orbit fly by of some of the beautiful worlds I come across.

I never understood why the scanned data had to be uploaded in person at a station. One should be able to accomplish the same thing when dropping in at a nav-beacon. The exchange of exploration data would have to be initiated by the pilot and the length of time it requires should be proportional to the amount of data to be transmitted. To me the scanned data is not really the most interesting thing that can be discovered while exploring. Consequently, I think it should be valued accordingly. For the true die-hard explorers out there, the thing that will bring in the really big payouts are actual physical samples from interesting geological or biological sites. These must be delivered to a UC rep at a station or outpost before payment can be received and would be lost if the ship carrying them is destroyed. In other words, the exact same game play mechanics that you appear to be enjoying currently with the added caveat that you have to work just a little bit harder to get the good stuff. But here's the thing, you can still get a decent payout for these samples, even from a so-called 'cherry-picked system'.

In the end, I really want to have something interesting to do while exploring. I'm tired of just cruising from one system to another and scanning from a distance. I'd really like to make planetfall occasionally, but right now the only reason to do so is to admire the view. There are no compelling reasons to go to down in the first place and no way to distinguish which parts of the planets are actually interesting enough to justify closer inspection.

 

[E_K693]

I like a few of your ideas. Heck I even made my own thread about one of them. But traveling through the black is tedious enough as is especially for extreme distance trips such as to Beagle. Or in my case a 110,000LY trip to Beagle because I didn't head straight there.

 

[MBaldelli]

I'm sorry that you feel so strongly about this. I also only have a few hours a week to play, but when I want to go explore I would like to have more to do than: charge the FSD, honk the horn, then fly around pointing my ship at stars and planets. I wouldn't mind spending more time in a system if there was something more to do. As is stands right now, there is no incentive to stick around in a system after you've scanned all (or some) of the bodies. There is not even any real reason to get close to the planets since doing so would require extra time to fly back out of the gravity well. If all you want to do is put as many systems and planets under your belt as possible, then there should be a play mode to support that. However, for those of us that would like a richer game play experience while exploring and enjoying the immersion in this rich sandbox, there should be some game play mechanics to support that play style as well.

As I understand it, we're still waiting for the ability to land on Atmospheric Worlds. Something that has been promised to happen sometime in the undisclosed future. There's also so many other things that have been suggested about landing on non-atmospheric worlds which you didn't touch upon and I've stumbled across other threads covering this (along with the physics of the SRV) However, dropping satellites and then moving on isn't going to be enhancing anything other than increasing the tedium of surveying.

However, I have a counter-proposal to your suggestion if you're feeling that you're not getting a richer experience from the current work as an explorer:

1. Dropping satellites don't give you the planetary first discovered by in the system.
2. You realize that you don't have an unlimited cargo space and that like limpets, you're going to have to carry x amount. Based on the current maths of the game 1 satellite = 1 ton of cargo space. And,
3. Satellites deployed can be destroyed.

With the second option, the only ships that can fully take advantage of carrying a butt-ton of satellites will be Pythons, Explorer-Anacondas, Explorer Type 9s and Explorer Corvettes.

That's right with the third option... Based on your recommendation and the sometimes sadistic way this game can be crafted by the devs and played you have just introduced to Deep Space Exploring a new way to griefing. And as a DBX/ASPX Explorer I will more than happily join the ranks of the griefers and ensure to destroy any of these probe satellites I see.

Because what happens when those satellites are destroyed? That's right, you're not getting added income.

Cherry picking or not, when I explore I like to feel like I'm exploring unknown territory. If I arrive at a system that's already been picked over, then that's my signal to move along. I'm sure there are completionists out there that will feel the need to complete the scans of bodies left behind by the cherry pickers, but there are obviously no obligations to do so. Even if the cherry pickers have scanned all of the 'interesting' bodies in the system, it may still be possible to extract some valuable data from those bodies upon closer inspection. In particular, if something like the physical sample suggestion is implemented, then there may be added incentive to actually land and explore the surface.

This while being an outstanding and moral attitude to the First Discovered By of the cherry pickers, seems to work against what has currently been done by the devs as a concession for the monetary problems for Deep Space Explorers. I have come to learn that I can -- what I call double-dip -- scanning already explored planets and moons on previously First-Discovered HMCs, ELWs, MR, and WWs. While I might not get the opportunity to having my name on the planet because it's been done by someone else, I can still cash in on them without the bonus the added of first discovered by. And with ELWs and WW (terraformable or not), I'm still getting a big percentage of that cash promise for the planet.

I have come to learn that this seems to have been applied for a long time, as I've discussed this with other Elite Explorers, some of them never having left the comforts of the bubble to getting their money and rank. And believe me, the amount of ELW and WWs in the bubble is outrageously against the odds for an area.

So until such time as the issue of cherry picking is truly addressed by the devs... Something I suspect will never be done... Then allow me to give you piece of advice given to me by my grandmother: don't inflict your higher than normal morals on others for the sake of making them honest. Lead by example and stand back to see if they've learned.

I also work in maths for a living, writing computational fluid dynamics solvers. While I do love a good problem that can be solved with a bit of properly applied mathematics, I am by no means a fan of doing math for math's sake. I am also not suggesting that we have to solve math problems to make each jump. I am suggesting that there be a couple of knobs to turn that would allow an experienced pilot to get his ship to within a bubble a few thousands of light seconds wide.

So basically you're suggesting adding more RNG to a game/program that already has too much RNG?

Oh sure, we can turn a couple of knobs and decrease the possibility; it's still RNG. And as I've experienced in another game -- no matter how accurate you think you are on the odds, it's still creating more margins of error.

Is it too much to ask for less during our/my off time instead of more? Along with a little less grind?

For those of you who don't want to bother with this particular game mechanic, then you should be able to buy an auto-nav module that will compute the necessary settings. However, the accuracy of the jumps should still be dependent on the distance and intervening gravity influences. As with the manual approach, a second jump may be necessary to arrive somewhat close to the target star. Of course, if a nav-beacon is present at the destination star, then the incoming ship should be able to dynamically adjust its trajectory to arrive close to the nav-beacon's location in a single jump.

So you want a nav computer like our landing module to remedy that? If I recall correctly that landing module can still error -- sometimes even catastrophically. Are you willing to pay for the rebuy for players that buy the module you suggested when it fails? Because if the devs can't work out the kinks in the landing computer, I guarantee the same fate's going to occur based on this suggestion.

One other advantage to this mode of travel is that you no longer have to travel along a convoluted path (with star systems at both ends of each jump). If you have a large enough fuel tank, you should be able to keep going in a straight line. When you start to run low on fuel, you can make a side trip to a nearby scoopable star. Just think of all of the places, currently unreachable, that would be unlocked with this approach. A properly outfitted ship might even be able to cross the gap to the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. The only downside to this approach to navigation that I can see is that FDEV will have to come up with a new game mechanic to keep pilots away from permit locked systems.

Both McDevitt's Academy Series and Donaldson's The Gap Series along with several other science fiction writers discuss why this is the case. Put simply, the fact is that the void between the stars is just that: a void. Nothing to be seen there, move along now. To put things like rogue planets, rogue black holes, rogue anything is opening up more RNG to the game. You honestly think that RNG will solve your boredom? If so... land on planets more often. Farm materials for the sake of it and jettison them before lift off. Look for the downed satellites and crashed space ships and then tell me -- how believable will they be when you're 10K LY from the bubble?

And you are aware the Magellanic Clouds are extra-galactic? You don't have enough stars to look at within the Milky Way? We need to head out of it to see what... more stars and gaseous nebulae?

I never understood why the scanned data had to be uploaded in person at a station.

This part I might like to see implemented, but I think the reason why it's done locally is part of the problem with the amount of data one would need to transfer interstellar. Couple this with signal distortion occurring because of stellar objects: black holes, neutron stars, stellar nurseries/nebulae. Never mind gravity lensing that exists in the galaxy even if it doesn't in this game. Or Quasars for that matter. While I can see the information our computers on-ship being able to make it digestible for our amusement, I have discussed this sort of thing with scientists and science-fiction writers, that the amount of data collected from a simple survey mission goes beyond the amounts of numbers and facts/factoids we're seeing on the screen. Do you want to trust that data transmitted 2,000 LY (or more) to get there 100% intact?

Because here's another manner for gipping the player out of credits. Think -- yep you guessed it -- RNG of the signal being anywhere from 0% - 100% intact. Do you want to take the loss if it was never received properly to the location you're attempting to transmit it to? I'd personally hate to lost 175K credits that way. What if it doesn't give me the First Discovered by on the planet after I transmitted it? I would be rage quitting.

And I believe you wouldn't be happy either.

In the end, I really want to have something interesting to do while exploring. I'm tired of just cruising from one system to another and scanning from a distance. I'd really like to make planetfall occasionally, but right now the only reason to do so is to admire the view. There are no compelling reasons to go to down in the first place and no way to distinguish which parts of the planets are actually interesting enough to justify closer inspection.

I would suggest to you like I do with my time. Rotate my goals between In Bubble and Out of Bubble. While I can be more than bloody minded in the Deep Black for as long as I have music to listen to, even at 30 days outside of the Bubble, I need a change of pace. As it stands (at the time of this response), I'm back in testing my fighting skills by performing bounty hunting and Res Sites/Conflict Zones. I'm staying in until I'm sure I like the changes in 2.4 and after that, I'll be dusting out again for some random amount of time. Probably longer as I need to work on Palin's requirements.