POI from DSS in Q4 - FD can you number them please

Loving it all apart from:



Can we have the surface POI numbered / lettered please? If I find a particularly special lava spout and want to share with friends then I don't really want them to have to visit (in this case) up to 9 sites to find the one I mean. In fact it may still be faster to get there with lat / lon co-ords, which I don't think should be the case ;)

Thx!

Edit: To clarify: When I say 'number' I just want the POI to be distinguishable so we can share them. And ideally the id would not change when new stuff is added later ;)
 
Last edited:
Providing they are recreated in the same order each time they're scanned and can be numbered as such, sounds like a nice QoL suggestion.
 
Loving it all apart from:



Can we have the surface POI numbered / lettered please? If I find a particularly special lava spout and want to share with friends then I don't really want them to have to visit (in this case) up to 9 sites to find the one I mean. In fact it may still be faster to get there with lat / lon co-ords, which I don't think should be the case ;)

Thx!
Meanwhile, I want them to replace the "X marks the spot" system they're showing here with something more like a search zone containing 1 or more geological surface signals.....maybe 5 or 10 square km in size.
 
Yes, this would be good.

It's possible that they get more specific names when you visit them - so "Geological Site" becomes "Fumaroles Site 3" or something? Hopefully they at least do that or it's going to be tricky enough going back to the ones you found, never mind directing anyone else.
 
God yeah.

Don't number just mapping scans though, I think a generic mechanism would be better, this issue occurs in other areas, ie Barnacle sites.

Either number all items of the same type, or allow the user to add their own markers.

Maybe just extend the bookmark system into the ship HUD? Bookmarks for found stuff could do with adding too.
 
Perhaps they actuallly do, those entries seem to be "unresolved", so maybe after being scanned (if scanning individual things will still be a thing) the names change to the resolved names just like planets and stars.
 
Don't understand - there are 9 unknown things in the screen shot...

How would you number them? Which one first? - Surly the CO-Ords would be the identifier ?[blah]:S
 
Perhaps they actuallly do, those entries seem to be "unresolved", so maybe after being scanned (if scanning individual things will still be a thing) the names change to the resolved names just like planets and stars.
I guess if the names resolve and they resolve for everyone else via the shared codex then that is fine. Not clear that this is the case, so just throwing it out in case it's been missed.
 
Maybe not numbers, but some way of temporary identification would be very welcome. It might be difficult to pull off than we might thing - for example you would want to share these ids with others in instance.
 
Don't understand - there are 9 unknown things in the screen shot...

How would you number them? Which one first? - Surly the CO-Ords would be the identifier ?[blah]:S
Does it matter? There's 9 unique POIs, assign a persistent numeral to each one, the order is hardly relevantas long as it's the same every time. Coordinates are a lot less legible and intuitive as identifiers.
 
Last edited:
I guess if the names resolve and they resolve for everyone else via the shared codex then that is fine. Not clear that this is the case, so just throwing it out in case it's been missed.
I don't think those will be the kind of things we'll see in the rumours/reports area, those seem to be the "common" type of POIs. I think rumours and reports will be for things that will likely be more "special" like ruins or brainstrees and the like.Of course, I'm completely in speculation territory here. :)

Anyway the OP point stands, common or not, it would be cool as they (maybe after scanned?) would get more identifiable names.
 
Does it matter? There's 9 unique POIs, assign a persistent numeral to each one, the order is hardly relevantas long as it's the same every time. Coordinates are a lot less legible and intuitive as identifiers.
Though, co-ordinates would be fine if they were made part of the name
"Geological Site: 32.11 x -17.08"
"Geological Site: 76.54 x 128.60"
and it would save any dispute over consistency of numbering or issues if a planet had an extra site added to it later.

That would still be good enough to direct someone else to it later.
 
I think a even better solution for this use case would be the ability to bookmark them and to share a bookmark with other commanders.
 
Though, co-ordinates would be fine if they were made part of the name
"Geological Site: 32.11 x -17.08"
"Geological Site: 76.54 x 128.60"
and it would save any dispute over consistency of numbering or issues if a planet had an extra site added to it later.

That would still be good enough to direct someone else to it later.
*nod* Like. You might even be able to get away with only using the major numbers to save space, so:
"Geological Site: 32 x -17"
"Geological Site: 76 x 128" (although arguably that should be 77)
 
Yup... this needs to happen for virtually everything, not just planetary POI.

Ever had four High Intensity conflict zones spawn at a planet over 1,000Ls away from any dockable station^, when there's two wars going on, and only one of the CZ's has the factions you're interested in fighting? It's a royal pain to check every one each time you go back and not know which is which.

^ If they are near a dockable station, you can commit their distance from the station to memory... but even then the stations move and it's different the next day or something.
 
Top Bottom