∞ probes?

[VR SenseiMatty]

When Beta drops,

all of the people that want synthesis try this experiment.

Set probe number to 200 (or whatever value you personally want)

Go and scan planets, once you hit that 200 probes shot (you might need a pen and paper to record this), regardless of your materials in your magic bag of holding go and land on a planet and mine/gather 3 Iron and 3 carbon, jettison them and count to 20 and add 50 probes to your count, repeat until you are back up to your 200, then take off and continue scanning.

Do that for 10 systems and report back how it went.

You should also do the an experiment. Map 10 planets without thinking about probes and then map 10 planet forcing yourself to match the efficiency target. If you overshoot the target leave the planet, don't map it anymore. Then tell me which mode you'll find more challenging, knowing that to map a gas giant you can't shoot forever. My guess is that after 10 successful mapping in limited mode you will feel like a pro, while shooting infinite will get you bored soon.

About your sueggestion I can already report it that is fine for me. Everytime I finish an exploration session I look for a planet. I land and I investigate with the SRV the nearby to be sure it's a safe place (just for RPG) then I go back to my ship and I quit the game. I could use the same time to prospect some common material. I have absolutely no issue with that.

 

[Kayweg]

I think that's the point of contention though: some see probe synthesis as an inconvenience, while others see it as a more engaging mechanic.

This is why I love the idea of engineered probes bring finite but stock being infinite; it provides options for both viewpoints.

I'm not into all the details of this, but isn't that already being covered by engineered scanners (or probe launchers or what they're gonna be called), something about being able to launch 4 instead of 3 probes at a time ?
We couldn't improve consumables (ammo, limpets, etc.) through engineers before 3.3 either, could we, engineers improve modules ?

 

[Old Duck]

You should also do the an experiment. Map 10 planets without thinking about probes and then map 10 planet forcing yourself to match the efficiency target.

You do realize that it won't take long for most players to hit the efficiency target without thinking about it. I have infinite bullets in Overwatch, yet thanks to lots of time playing the game, I usually land highly-efficient headshots without any conscious effort. Hitting another player in PvP using a DS4 controller is vastly more difficult than the minigame of landing probes that I saw in last week's video, unless you are playing D.Va or Bastion

"I don't even feel the cold."

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Many of us our outliers. If I had my way, probes would be finite but storable as cargo (100 probes per ton). I would also only allow synthesis / 3D printing of basic materials like bullets, fuel, repairs, but not complex electronics like seeker missiles, limpets, and probes. This means that explorers wanting to map large parts of deep space away from the Bubble would need to use large ships with lots of probes in their cargo hold (realism) - you run out of probes, you need to go back to a station to resupply, or call the Fuel Rats to restock you with more probes

This, of course, makes me more of an outlier than you, LOL. Not only do I find infinite probes "arcade-y", I find synthesizing probes from rocks to be even more arcade-y. This is why I advocated for "Realism Settings" awhile back, allowing each of us to customize our experiences to our own preference (like MS Flight Simulator and Silent Hunter), but that idea got shot down for the typical stupid reasons...

So these days I pick the "least offense" option on the table that suits my preference for realistic gameplay, which in this specific case is infinite probes active sonar pings.

You are mistaken .. I would LOVE that mechanism as well... And indeed one of my many posts touched on this
Having megaships roaming the outer edges of the bubble resupplying exploration ships etc. (And then missions on the mission board to outfit the megaships)
But your suggestion of allowing ships to fly out to resupply ships is better. It would be another job for the fuel rats .

 

[Mengy]

Yes, yes it is only 11% want finite probes only.

Incorrect. To be precise, 63% want infinite stock probes but also finite engineered probes. The majority want a compromise which satisfies both sides of the issue.

 

[Factabulous]

Incorrect. To be precise, 63% want infinite stock probes but also finite engineered probes. The majority want a compromise which satisfies both sides of the issue.

It's the 2.8% row all over again - damn you OA, damn you to hell!

 

[Alecz]

You're mistaken.

We 17 guests were providing feedback on the vast majority of players in the communities we're involved with, including edge case scenarios. Those that explore without srv's or mining equipment cannot create probes, or those without Horizons (So can't synthesize or prospect; therefore first-mapped becomes Pay2Win).

Gameplay > immersion/grind/pay2win.

Infinite probes is the perfect solution.

So what is wrong or Pay2Win with scooping probe packages from USS's, like 1 canister = 100 probes?

 

[DaggerSnake]

What’s the incentive for trying to hit that efficiency target? That’s the only thing that makes limiting probes matter.

More credits is weak.
Limiting them to create busy work is not good game design.

If managing probes were needed, then there has to be a reason. I have yet to see a great incentive for watching probe counts and getting good with them. All we have is that efficiency target. What does that even do? Better discoveries on the RNG tables?

 

[Dural]

60 pages, nice!

Try for 100 pages before the beta is released

 

[lecorsobreton]

Sometimes, gameplay is more important than realism. Infinite probes is good. Less micromanagement means more time to do everything else.

 

[Weps]

More credits is weak.

Yup, that's why there was a suggestion to still have unlimited probes, but make their respawn significantly slower, with a generous available pool / clip size.

That way you still get the advantages of the unlimited probe mechanic, but you are incentivized to try and stay between a certain efficiency target, otherwise you would eat through your probes faster than the game can make them.

 

[DaggerSnake]

Yup, that's why there was a suggestion to still have unlimited probes, but make their respawn significantly slower, with a generous available pool / clip size.

That way you still get the advantages of the unlimited probe mechanic, but you are incentivized to try and stay between a certain efficiency target, otherwise you would eat through your probes faster than the game can make them.

But that’s not good game design.

The incentive should be forward thinking and add to game play. Like better efficiency yields more interesting and beneficial discoveries (to be designed)

Having a limit that reduces player time playing will just result in people logging off while waiting for respawn.

The loop needs to be Efficient scan = rewards
NOT inefficient scan = waiting

 

[c00ky1970]

Then tell me which mode you'll find more challenging, knowing that to map a gas giant you can't shoot forever. My guess is that after 10 successful mapping in limited mode you will feel like a pro, while shooting infinite will get you bored soon.

I don't think you get the point - if I choose to spam probes at a planet I will still get "first mapped" (providing I submit it first), I wont get the efficiency bonus (which is probably not a game breaking bonus) and I can carry on. As demonstrated in the steam the number of probes in flight is limited to 3, you can only have more if you engineer the module. So "spamming" will be in shots of 3 and slowed by the apparent flight time to its destination.

If I am not a good judge then I wont get the planet in the target number involved - but that target is probably what will drive players, it was commented on in stream and subsequently on the forums how that target has parallels with a game of golf in some ways.

My proposed experiment is to get people who really think finite probes is a great idea is to test out this great idea when the Beta drops, I think having to reload after 200 shots, regardless of spamming them or being careful in their use, is not a rewarding gameplay mechanic, but a time sink that a majority of players will quickly pronounce as another Grind in Elite.

The 2nd part of the experiment was to demonstrate to those that feel the need to have a limited amount of probe ammo, can roleplay that without any change to what has been proposed. Meaning for once the entire player base is happy. Some will require discipline and accounting to keep up the pretence of a limited ammo capacity, others can have fun playing the game their way.

heck, if you don't like my idea, you could test out Old Duck's proposal of 1 tonne of cargo equating to how many limpets and transport cargo about and jettison when your internal counter reaches whatever magic number you decide is "reasonable" for a refill.

Either way you can limit your gameplay the way you want and not have you gameplay affect others.

 

[Stigbob]

Incorrect. To be precise, 63% want infinite stock probes but also finite engineered probes. The majority want a compromise which satisfies both sides of the issue.

You've skipped the inconvenient verifiable fact that only an 11% minority want craftable only. Which is what this threads about and seems to be the current fashionable cause of "WAH".

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You've skipped the inconvenient verifiable fact that only an 11% minority want craftable only. Which is what this threads about and seems to be the current fashionable cause of "WAH".

You are both right ...... Not that it matters. Being in a minority should not mean you can't give your opinion.... It just means FD are less likely to base decisions on your view.

 

[Factabulous]

You've skipped the inconvenient verifiable fact that only an 11% minority want craftable only. Which is what this threads about and seems to be the current fashionable cause of "WAH".

Mengy et al are ignoring that the middle option is also infinite, instead holding on to the 'crafted'.

Others complain it's not a representative poll while ignoring the poll size of > 6k players (which is a lot for a dead game).

Numbers cannot prove anything to one with True Faith™ in the finite nature of probes.

 

[Old Duck]

What’s the incentive for trying to hit that efficiency target? That’s the only thing that makes limiting probes matter.

I think the "efficiency target" itself is weak... What incentive do I have for being efficient? Well time, of course. These probes are not being fired from a fully-automatic UZI, they are being shot at a relatively slow speed with 3 or 4 in flight at the most. If it takes me 20 probes to map a planet that could be done with 5, that means it took me 4 times as long, which may well be many minutes of wasted time. And we don't need a credit bonus for efficiency - the more planets mapped per hour, the more credits I make. It's elementary math, my dear Watson

 

[Ignition]

Sometimes, gameplay is more important than realism. Infinite probes is good. Less micromanagement means more time to do everything else.

For me is the opposite, complexities are part of what I like for the gameplay.

Taking care of the ship, systems, equipment, ammo, is part of the gameplay and adds another element to take into account in a situation.

More micromanagement for me is better, more simplicity dumbs down the game a lot and doesn't give me a reason to load up the game.
In Elite there aren't a lot of things to do, we don't need more time for that. We need more steps in the activities and choices so the game can take off from its shallow runway.

 

[Stigbob]

Mengy et al are ignoring that the middle option is also infinite, instead holding on to the 'crafted'.

Others complain it's not a representative poll while ignoring the poll size of > 6k players (which is a lot for a dead game).

Numbers cannot prove anything to one with True Faith™ in the finite nature of probes.

The good news is that most of us support choice.

 

[Julio Montega]

Interpreting the 63% liberally would be:
Give us an infinite method to map the planet (fall back scanner)
but allow us to use better tools (probes with bigger sensor radius),
like i suggested.

Secondly the improved probes should be reusable if used correctly
for the small cost of ship fuel, to refuel them.

Thirdly tie in USS mechanic changes and allow to retrieve damaged probes
or parts to cheapen the construction of "improved synthesis probes",
along with giving the AFMU another field of use, namely repairing probes.