Engineers Suggestion for RNG and maths materials.

[palazo]

I would like to know the opinion of the commanders on this suggestion and if they feel it would be good to add it to the game, to improve the RNG in raspawn materials.

Being a lover of astronomy I do not find much sense to the current RNG.

My pesonal in the RNG does not bother me as this has a meaning, but currently is not.

I believe that should be added to the following conditions RNG of materials within the planet's surface. Raspawn increasing depending on how the planet has undergone meteorites and how aggressive is your supeficie.

I will explain.

If a planet is close to its star and the planet has no satellites should have more impact craters, so the number of meteors should be increased, thus increasing the RNG of the materials in.

If the density of a planet is greater the force of gravity increases attracting more material within the space and promoting the RNG in denser bone materials such as metals.

The RNG of materials within a planet should also have a relationship with the temperature thereof, for example the volatile elements should not be able to be found on planets with high temperatures, this would not make sense since evaporated.

These are just some examples, there's obviously a lot more conditions, but I think if Elite wants to be a good space simulator must take care of these conditions.

It makes no sense to find mercury in solid state at 500 ° C.

I really believe that adding this is not difficult because the data is there, it's only relate algorithms raspawn materials.

If you want you can also suggest new conditions to make it easier to present to developers.

This would make more sense to do more exploration and fun to look for materials.

Sizes: outdrops, metallic meteorites and mesodendritas may also vary by these conditions increasing the gameplay. Increasing raspawn materials.
The post is here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...t-to-break-hard-and-large-rocks-for-materials

I appreciate your support on this polls, if you want this to go ahead.

If you want you can also suggest new conditions to make it easier to present to developers.


07 Commanders.

 

[foebits]

Sounds good and makes logical and realistic sense to a point; but FD has already put its foot down on this garbage and it seems that all of our suggestions, no matter how good or easy to implement, are summarily ignored on the principle that it didn't come from FD themselves.

 

[palazo]

Sounds good and makes logical and realistic sense to a point; but FD has already put its foot down on this garbage and it seems that all of our suggestions, no matter how good or easy to implement, are summarily ignored on the principle that it didn't come from FD themselves.

Thank you for your comment, but I think we have hope to be heard.

We did it with the idea of surface scanner, maybe this too can succeed.

 

[Arindor]

OP, you make sense. Good common sense. Unfortunately FD only hear what they want to hear, and pander to those who feel the same about the direction ED should take as they do. Fly safe Commander!

 

[DragonIan]

I fully support and endorse your proposals.

 

[palazo]

OP, you make sense. Good common sense. Unfortunately FD only hear what they want to hear, and pander to those who feel the same about the direction ED should take as they do. Fly safe Commander!

I have the hope of being heard by the developers, but first this idea should have more support from the community to move forward.Today I will share in REDITT, I ask who like and can the share between friends or groups.

 

[foebits]

There is the hope yes. Sadly FD has shown what we have been stating. We like your idea and perhaps it isn't to far from FD's vice grip of an ideal that they might think on it.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Too good to get implemented [downcast]

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Yes!

Voted

PS: I believe there is already a certain amount of "logic" in some of the materials in the game, i.e. metals are more often found in metal asteroids or metal planets etc. But FDEV could potentially build in even more of that in the game as suggested in the OP.

The potential issue is that beyond a certain level of detail the benefits to our playability start to diminish very fast and do not justify the development effort while sacrificing other priorities.

 

[The Tick]

I have to disagree. Please consider that in any case, shortcuts have to be taken to merge gameplay with real science. And currently, FDev has already included science wherever it's possible. Planet composition and surface structure are certainly science based. So you got your wish.
On top of that, there is some algorithm which derives material spawns from planet composition. We don't know the exact algorithmn yet, but the Rock Rats have collected so much data that they were able to find correlations.
However, gameplay wise, there needs to be a way of correlating 'value' of a crafting recipe and the rarity of the material. At this stage, any game has to have a clear definition of rarity. Exact science does not help here, IMHO.

On your mercury example: you are right, but many of the materials are rarely found in pure form. Mercury is rather found as cinnabar. Should we introduce ores and refineries in SRVs?
Any anyway, the whole crafting/enineers part does not make any sense, science wise, anyway It's a game, after all.

 

[palazo]

I have to disagree. Please consider that in any case, shortcuts have to be taken to merge gameplay with real science. And currently, FDev has already included science wherever it's possible. Planet composition and surface structure are certainly science based. So you got your wish.
On top of that, there is some algorithm which derives material spawns from planet composition. We don't know the exact algorithmn yet, but the Rock Rats have collected so much data that they were able to find correlations.
However, gameplay wise, there needs to be a way of correlating 'value' of a crafting recipe and the rarity of the material. At this stage, any game has to have a clear definition of rarity. Exact science does not help here, IMHO.

On your mercury example: you are right, but many of the materials are rarely found in pure form. Mercury is rather found as cinnabar. Should we introduce ores and refineries in SRVs?
Any anyway, the whole crafting/enineers part does not make any sense, science wise, anyway It's a game, after all.

I accept your opinion friend, it's a game and I often mention it when someone crosses the line with the realistic.

But I think as simulation game one of the big differences with others is just having a relationship with reality and this is something to value.

If someone wants to play a game that resembles our reality play "Elite" will not play a NoManSky or Star Citizen.

So while developers maintain close to what is actually approach. This will be a profit in the future to compete with other games.

 

[Flavourless]

FD have the stated opinion that playability is better than realism.
That is fine in its own right, but I am not sure how many of the actual players agree that their development of ED has made it more playable, unfortunately.

 

[Bokugo]

I think they also need to get rid of that rarity limit per planet. It's silly only 1 type of rare material has ever been introduced on an entire planet over the corse of its entire existance. I can understand from the gameplay perspective to keep it as is, but imo this does not add more than it removes.

It would make more sense imo that higher density materials are closer to the star, metals in craters, satellites on the equator etc.