Yes, but I think T1 should be harder to reach across the board (perhaps 50%) before CGs "succeed".To my knowledge there has only been one CG in the whole time they've been run that has not hit tier 1. It's a fundamental issue with the system, and certainly not specific to this CG.
...
?Don't forget it's not just the AWs that are giving reports for the CG.
Isn't the module just a fully engineering module?
Isn't the module just a fully engineering module?
Yes please.Can a dev/moderator please clarify?
I don't disagree, but that's a wider issue. There's a lot of unwarranted negativity in this thread (not singling you out) for FD introducing a new style of CG. Must be very disheartening to read.Yes, but I think T1 should be harder to reach across the board (perhaps 50%) before CGs "succeed".
I haven't reached the bubble yet so I can't confirm my own findings, but based off of Factabulous' observations it seems that you get some reports based on the overall value for the system. Probably just systems that contain the Ammonia Worlds.?
Have I missed something?
To my knowledge there has only been one CG in the whole time they've been run that has not hit tier 1. It's a fundamental issue with the system, and certainly not specific to this CG.
AW aren't that rare, certainly not compared to some of the Gas/Water Giants, or even ELWs. I've been travelling through Kepler's Crest and I found about 10 in two days. Who would have thought for an Exploration CG you might need to travel outside of the bubble
I'm sure a lot of the developers don't explore as much as they do combat, but how would we know. You see them doing combat on the streams (though that's mostly the CM team) because they make for more interesting streams than exploration. I've seen plenty of the team posting pictures on social media of them exploring. But I'd still probably agree that it's the least chosen profession. Might explain why we had to wait for 4 years for any updates to it.
Don't forget it's not just the AWs that are giving reports for the CG.
Also Water Worlds don't tie in with the narrative.
Can a dev/moderator please clarify?
I can't confirm more that what's written in the first postYes please.
That reads to me as a fully G5 engineered DSS, but with twice the normal probe coverage that would give you.full engineered Detail Surface Scanner with twice the normal probe coverage.
Well that might be your experience, but it's not true for me.No I love that's It's a exploration CG, and requires leaving the bubble, but you're not finding alot of AWs without getting a list of already reported AWs from a site
What does the info panel say for a non engineered DSS? 20%?
In truth, I don't think I've been overly negative in this thread. I was just disappointed that they adjusted the threshold as this would have been one of the few CGs that had even the remotest chance of failing to meet T1. Having a failed CG would have been an interesting development in itself, but failing this one in particular could have had meaningful ramifications down the Thargoid storyline.I don't disagree, but that's a wider issue. There's a lot of unwarranted negativity in this thread (not singling you out) for FD introducing a new style of CG. Must be very disheartening to read.
...
Inara is incorrectly adding the base +20% to show you +50%. A non-engineered DSS mentions +20% probe radius. A G5 one expands it to +30%.
Actually, it's any Mission Board, anywhere in the galaxy!"To be eligible for rewards you must sign up as an active participant before delivering Ammonia World exploration data to Betancourt Base in the Musca Dark Region PJ-P b6-1 system."
Where does one sign up for this?
At Betancourt base, in the Mission Board