Please allow multiple nav beacons per system, or at least default them to the most populated star

[DarthMarth]

Intrasystem hyperjumps are a feature people have been requesting for a while. Though I personally would like to see this feature implemented, I understand the arguments against it and why FD has not implemented it. Assuming the in-universe justification for this is that you can only jump to the brightest star in a system/the star with a nav beacon, this raises the question of why no stars in the bubble have more than one nav beacon. They seem much cheaper than stations, so why do those who settle a second star in a system never think to get a nav beacon for their star to avoid forcing everyone to supercruise to it? Maybe we could even have community goals to add second nav beacons to systems where multiple, highly-separated stars are populated. This would allow for a more controlled implementation of intrasystem jumps, or (equivalently) allowing commanders to choose which star (with a nav beacon) in a system to jump to.

If even this is too extreme a step, please at least fix systems like 10 Arietis, where the star you jump to (10 Arietis B in this image) has no bodies or stations orbiting it, and the star with all the planets and stations is 17k light seconds away. Systems like these make no sense, either in-universe or otherwise, and serve no purpose other than to waste commanders' time.

 

[varonica]

Intrasystem hyperjumps are a feature people have been requesting for a while. Though I personally would like to see this feature implemented, I understand the arguments against it and why FD has not implemented it. Assuming the in-universe justification for this is that you can only jump to the brightest star in a system/the star with a nav beacon, this raises the question of why no stars in the bubble have more than one nav beacon. They seem much cheaper than stations, so why do those who settle a second star in a system never think to get a nav beacon for their star to avoid forcing everyone to supercruise to it? Maybe we could even have community goals to add second nav beacons to systems where multiple, highly-separated stars are populated. This would allow for a more controlled implementation of intrasystem jumps, or (equivalently) allowing commanders to choose which star (with a nav beacon) in a system to jump to.

If even this is too extreme a step, please at least fix systems like 10 Arietis, where the star you jump to (10 Arietis B in this image) has no bodies or stations orbiting it, and the star with all the planets and stations is 17k light seconds away. Systems like these make no sense, either in-universe or otherwise, and serve no purpose other than to waste commanders' time.

Normally a jump would take you to the most massive star in a system, certainly not the brightest but that's often the case, however the most massive star is usually the primary, in the case of 10 Arietis the most massive star is actually B, which is most unusual, the only thing I can think of that would result in this arrangement is if the system was hand crafted by FDEV possibly as a homage to the original game, however this is one system, and it's ony 17kls, I really don't see the issue with it, are you visiting it thirty or fourty times a day? I could see it might get irritating if that was the case, but if not, what's the issue?

It's one peculiar system, like Mitterand Hollow is one a peculiar moon. Yes I have heard people in the past ask for Mitterand Hollow to be "fixed". It would be a sad day if we were to take all the peculiar things in this virtual galaxy and "fix" them because one player demanded it. The occaisional peculiar thing is nice, Miterhand Hollow, Mount Lookithat (oops sorry wrong scifi universe). Some thing have been fixed that shouldn't have been fixed, Mt Neverest springs to mind, that 30klm deep crater I once visited only to find it "fixed".

As for why most systems in game in the bubble have only one nav beacon, why do you need more? They are near the point of entry to the system, they give the system information for all stars and bodies in a system, why would you have a nav beacon near a secondary star? You start off saying you understand why intra-system jumps aren't a desired solution, and then end by saying secondary stars should have nav beacons so in the future when intra-system jumps get implemented people can jump to them more easily? Sorry that makes no sense.

and serve no purpose other than to waste commanders' time

You do know you can choose not to go there? How can it be a waste of time if you choose to go there? if you choose to go there then you have made that decision to spend the time to go there, all 17kls....wow, so it's not wasted time, it's time you have chosen to spend in this manner. Here's a tip, never make the mistake of taking a mission to Hutton Orbital, the free Conda's are nice but if you think 17kls is a long trip..................

 

[Para Handy]

........
........... and the star with all the planets and stations is 17k light seconds away. Systems like these make no sense, either in-universe or otherwise, and serve no purpose other than to waste commanders' time.

Seriously, you need to understand that nobody is forcing you to make these long trips. So the only person wasting your time would be you.

 

[Lestat]

Intrasystem hyperjumps are a feature people have been requesting for a while. Though I personally would like to see this feature implemented, I understand the arguments against it and why FD has not implemented it. Assuming the in-universe justification for this is that you can only jump to the brightest star in a system/the star with a nav beacon, this raises the question of why no stars in the bubble have more than one nav beacon. They seem much cheaper than stations, so why do those who settle a second star in a system never think to get a nav beacon for their star to avoid forcing everyone to supercruise to it? Maybe we could even have community goals to add second nav beacons to systems where multiple, highly-separated stars are populated. This would allow for a more controlled implementation of intrasystem jumps, or (equivalently) allowing commanders to choose which star (with a nav beacon) in a system to jump to.

If even this is too extreme a step, please at least fix systems like 10 Arietis, where the star you jump to (10 Arietis B in this image) has no bodies or stations orbiting it, and the star with all the planets and stations is 17k light seconds away. Systems like these make no sense, either in-universe or otherwise, and serve no purpose other than to waste commanders' time.

Maybe what you need to start using features like Galaxy map and system map before accepting a mission or going to a new location is buy system data. If it too far. Don't go to that system. We have over 1,000 systems with stations. Its our own choice not to go long distance. Asking to have a shortcut because your unwilling to use other features of the game is your own fault.

 

[DarthMarth]

Of course I know to check for the distance to a mission objective from the drop-in point. But I'm not doing missions in these systems, I'm searching for materials. I have no idea how the system is laid out before I jump there. And then I do jump there and see that everything of interest is X hundred thousand light seconds away and realize I just wasted my time by jumping here. Only a minute, true, but they add up. Why do we have these systems that no one wants to visit because it takes an extra 10-15 minutes to get to anything of interest in them? Why would people (particularly those living there) tolerate such a situation for long?

 

[Para Handy]

..............I'm not doing missions in these systems, I'm searching for materials. I have no idea how the system is laid out before I jump there. And then I do jump there and see that everything of interest is X hundred thousand light seconds away and realize I just wasted my time by jumping here

.......... Why would people (particularly those living there) tolerate such a situation for long?

With the new FSS you don't have to travel to get the materials information - in the old system you would have had to make the journey to get in range of your detailed surface scanner or detection range of USSs - the FSS does all that for you from the arrival point. Perhaps that is your peeve - you see HGEs a long way away and don't want to do the time to get to them?

You probably need to reboot your imagination and dismiss your prejudice to make the population of those places "logical" not to mention "tolerable". Take a look at the systems where most of the stations are around the secondary star - because all the resources (or specific ones) required can be found in that vicinity. That is the reason populations are found around "secondary" stars - to exploit the resources there.

You should also consider that we are talking about populations that live, work, trade, etc within their system - only a very small part of the population whizzes about in spaceships. So to the populations of those systems it mainly doesn't matter that spaceships have to make a 30 minute cruise on arrival in a system - it takes them longer than that to get to work in the morning.

I can't understand how people find working in London tolerable, it takes ages to commute-in to the office - where is the sense in having an office in London?

Finally, just in case you have not accepted it yet, the arrival point is determined by the most massive star in a system - not the brightest - and has nothing to do with nav beacons.

 

[moorison]

Normally a jump would take you to the most massive star in a system, certainly not the brightest but that's often the case, however the most massive star is usually the primary, in the case of 10 Arietis the most massive star is actually B, which is most unusual, the only thing I can think of that would result in this arrangement is if the system was hand crafted by FDEV possibly as a homage to the original game, however this is one system, and it's ony 17kls, I really don't see the issue with it, are you visiting it thirty or fourty times a day? I could see it might get irritating if that was the case, but if not, what's the issue?

It's one peculiar system, like Mitterand Hollow is one a peculiar moon. Yes I have heard people in the past ask for Mitterand Hollow to be "fixed". It would be a sad day if we were to take all the peculiar things in this virtual galaxy and "fix" them because one player demanded it. The occaisional peculiar thing is nice, Miterhand Hollow, Mount Lookithat (oops sorry wrong scifi universe). Some thing have been fixed that shouldn't have been fixed, Mt Neverest springs to mind, that 30klm deep crater I once visited only to find it "fixed".

As for why most systems in game in the bubble have only one nav beacon, why do you need more? They are near the point of entry to the system, they give the system information for all stars and bodies in a system, why would you have a nav beacon near a secondary star? You start off saying you understand why intra-system jumps aren't a desired solution, and then end by saying secondary stars should have nav beacons so in the future when intra-system jumps get implemented people can jump to them more easily? Sorry that makes no sense.


You do know you can choose not to go there? How can it be a waste of time if you choose to go there? if you choose to go there then you have made that decision to spend the time to go there, all 17kls....wow, so it's not wasted time, it's time you have chosen to spend in this manner. Here's a tip, never make the mistake of taking a mission to Hutton Orbital, the free Conda's are nice but if you think 17kls is a long trip..................

The nav beacons began as a POI like Conflict zones or Res sites DarthMarth, a place where NPCs spawn. The scanning option was added later.

I think if you face the system with the secondary star in front from your starting system, you stop at that one or do I misremember something?

 

[varonica]

The nav beacons began as a POI like Conflict zones or Res sites DarthMarth, a place where NPCs spawn. The scanning option was added later.

I think if you face the system with the secondary star in front from your starting system, you stop at that one or do I misremember something?

With a close orbiting binary system you will often drop out further from the primary to make it safer for snowflakes who don't want to melt in the corona of the other star, but it's usually the most massive star that's the target.