Who are the exploration communities "leaders" just now?

[Vetinari]

Well, here's the thing. I made it to Sag A* before Carriers, unfortunately, I never kept any of the required info to add me to the list.

Me too, then found the thread months later but never submitted to it. Which means that me and you are on a more exclusive list, people whove been to Sag the hard way and didnt record it

But I was at a bit of a loss when I got there as was the end of the Expo I was on, didnt know what to do really, so I followed that nearby Science Megaship route of 6 systems iirc and got my name on a few planets as 1st Mapped in different systems they visit.

Are fleet carriers really any different from the above?

Yes for 2 reasons, whereas before the 'Visitors' list was more of an 'achievement' list, now it is just a visitors list because:

1. They theoretically reduce the journey to 50 Jumps, not sure exact number.
2. No need to be logged in to jump at all. Log out in bubble, log in in Sag A.

Not that theres anything wrong with a visitors list, but what it represents has changed.

except for a brief write up in the system description itself, which can only be read if you've actually been there.

I actually agree with that. If I make the journey I get the reward, the homage to the 1st who also made the trip.

Who cares about a visitor beacon or whatever in the Anaconda graveyard or those stars only available since FCs?

 

[Erimus Kamzel]

It'll be lost because a lot of great events and fantastic threads have already been lost after being closed. I'd really like to re-read about Zulu Romeo's adventure to Sag-A*, or Kamzel's thread where he documented his crossing of the Abyss and discovery of Beagle Point. Or Katejina's thread about the first circumnavigation. But they've all gone because at one time or another those threads were eventually locked or lost when frontier changed the forums over to this new host, and all we have now is broken links. I still remember reading about those events, especially Distant Suns, the pre-cursor to Distant Worlds. Reading and watching those is what brought me to elite in the first place, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

All of that early history has been saved and archived. It can be found in the Galactic Mapping thread, posts #2, #3, #4, #5. I even fixed all the broken links and recovered as much of the old posts, blogs, and threads as I could, as a lot of it was initially lost during the forum migration a couple of years ago.

As for Frontier not officially recognizing the main events in their lore, there's probably a reason why they always tread carefully with that. Some people paid a lot of money in the kickstarter to have their name and system lore write-ups put into the game. If Frontier then went and started doing it every time someone did something newsworthy in game, they'd probably get a lot of flak from those that spent a ton of money for the 'privileged'. Crappy I know, but RL money trumps all it seems.

Beagle Point is a prime example. They only recognised its historical significance a year after it was discovered and renamed the procedural name to Beagle Point off the back of DW1 - which was the biggest event Elite had seen at the time. So it wasn't such a big deal to rename that one system for them since DW1 brought them a lot of positive press. The actual system description wasn't added until the system became big news again, 2 years later, and was mentioned by an ex-astronaut and in New Scientist magazine during DW2. So again, it was massive PR boost for the game and as such Frontier acknowledged it in game. But that sort of gives you an indication of what kind of publicity is needed to warrant Frontier to consider certain community named locations and events for inclusion and make them part of their lore.

But I agree where the Codex is concerned. That was the perfect opportunity to have player created history archived within the game itself. Not just exploration history, but they could have mentioned all the main player instigated wars, notorious pirates of days gone by, the Dangerous Games, the early history of Colonia (which was all player created, initially). The Codex just seems really shallow while it ignores the rich history of events players have created over the years. A wasted opportunity imo.

 

[Viscera]

1. They theoretically reduce the journey to 50 Jumps, not sure exact number.
2. No need to be logged in to jump at all. Log out in bubble, log in in Sag A.

Now this is quite interesting to me.

The reduction in number of jumps is important?

So if i went in an unengineered ship with 30ly jump range, that would count as a great achievement.

But if i went in an engineered ship with fsd booster with 60ly jump range, that would be considered a lesser achievement?

Or is there a specific jump range that stops it becoming an achievement of note?

I better add, these records/achievements mean nothing to me. I have never been, and am very unlikely to ever go, to Sag A. My exploration is limited to mostly in bubble. The 5000ly jaunt for the engineer was for me, probably the most tedious thing I ever did in elite. I do not really want to repeat it.. (looks at my alt account and shudders). I just found the discussion interesting, and threw a few thoughts out there to give the op some ideas that may, or may not, have assisted them find the clarity they were seeking.

This reply is in similar vein, in that i find it interesting in where the line is considered drawn for certain activitys.

 

[marx]

One thing from earlier:

Although its a shame the sag-A visitors thread relies on EDSM to record visitors, Many of the early explorers went there before EDSM even existed, or don't even use it, so they never got a mention on the list. That one is a little misleading imo. Nothing can be done about it now though.

I think you missed the part of the thread where all the earlier versions' entries are listed, in the first post, going back to the very beginning.


As for @Erimus Kamzel 's post about player history: in my opinion, Frontier are shying away from including most of it because doing so would be guaranteed to offend some groups sometime. Especially about conflicts, but even on other matters as well. (Might even simply be "why was our stuff not included".) Some bias would inevitably make its way in, and then you'd have groups of people arguing about whether Frontier gave fair representation or not.
Not to mention that there are times when there'd be facts which would be embarrassing to Frontier. Like how CMDR Cly discovered Jaques Station through an error that FD made, or folks reaching systems through the double-neutron bug, and so on.

Sure, "they could have mentioned all the main player instigated wars, notorious pirates of days gone by, the Dangerous Games, the early history of Colonia (which was all player created, initially).", but look into these in detail, from various sources: you'll find that trying to give a fair and balanced report on all these would be like walking through a minefield. It would also have to be quite long, too. For what's in my opinion an excellent example, see the recent updates to Ian Doncaster's guide to Colonia, "Conflict in Colonia" section.

So yeah, in my opinion, it's actually better how players write the (hi)stories now, rather than if there were just one official history. If somebody feels there's more to a story than what was told by others, they are free to share their version too.

 

[Diostar50]

One thing from earlier:

I think you missed the part of the thread where all the earlier versions' entries are listed, in the first post, going back to the very beginning.

Yes, seen it now. Thanks!

As for @Erimus Kamzel 's post about player history: in my opinion, Frontier are shying away from including most of it because doing so would be guaranteed to offend some groups sometime. Especially about conflicts, but even on other matters as well. (Might even simply be "why was our stuff not included".) Some bias would inevitably make its way in, and then you'd have groups of people arguing about whether Frontier gave fair representation or not.
Not to mention that there are times when there'd be facts which would be embarrassing to Frontier. Like how CMDR Cly discovered Jaques Station through an error that FD made, or folks reaching systems through the double-neutron bug, and so on.

Sure, "they could have mentioned all the main player instigated wars, notorious pirates of days gone by, the Dangerous Games, the early history of Colonia (which was all player created, initially).", but look into these in detail, from various sources: you'll find that trying to give a fair and balanced report on all these would be like walking through a minefield. It would also have to be quite long, too. For what's in my opinion an excellent example, see the recent updates to Ian Doncaster's guide to Colonia, "Conflict in Colonia" section.

So yeah, in my opinion, it's actually better how players write the (hi)stories now, rather than if there were just one official history. If somebody feels there's more to a story than what was told by others, they are free to share their version too.

I'm not sure that would be the case at all. Frontier have often showcased groups on their livestreams, and invited representatives on to talk about what they're up to in game, whether its a war story, BGS, exploration, racing events etc. They even had a group profile spotlight in the newsletters at one point. I can't recall there being accusations of favoritism.

Besides, I don't think the Codex would need to have indepth write ups and tell the history of a conflict (for example) from one sides PoV or the others. All it'd need to have is the timeline of all the main events that have occurred. ie. simply listing the name of the event, and when it occurred. It would slot into the current time line of Elite (which is also missing from the Codex incidentally). Then players could instantly see in game a list of historical events, and as @Chrystoph mentioned, players could simply google that event and get the deeper background to what went on during it. Obviously it would only list events that made major headlines in the community and beyond (there's been a few over the 6 years that have).

I guess the point I'm making is the only way players can get a inkling of what history Elite has produced over the years is if they specifically go looking for it out of game (google etc), and again as was mentioned, they need to know exactly what to look for. The forums are not good to rely on for that kind of thing as only a small percentage of the playerbase actually visit them. Whereas an in-game timeline of historical events, listed in the Codex, would not only acknowledge the rich history of what's happened in the Elite Dangerous universe over time, but it'll also give all players, new and old, a simple listing of event names that they can go look up and read about elsewhere.

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

I'm seeking the opinions of such notorieties before I decide on a way forward.

Really not as ominous as it sounds but before I go public I need some sensible opinions!

GB

I am Spartacus !

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Explorers are like cats. No leaders and pretty weak herd mentality.

 

[marx]

The reduction in number of jumps is important?

So if i went in an unengineered ship with 30ly jump range, that would count as a great achievement.

But if i went in an engineered ship with fsd booster with 60ly jump range, that would be considered a lesser achievement?

I don't know about achievements, and what's of note to others and what's not, but I do know that with double the jump range, the trip takes half as long. In essence, a trip to Sgr A* in a 60 ly ship is the equal to half a trip there with a 30 ly ship.
Back in 3302, I went there in a 25 ly Clipper. Around 1,050 jumps there and the same amount back, since there was no Colonia, no fleet carriers, no places to dock outside the bubble, no neutron boosting. Now I could take my DBX with a bit over triple that jump range, and be there in about 114 jumps if I used neutron stars, or 337 jumps if I didn't.
Or hey, even my Clipper does 55 ly now.

Of course, the good thing is that if I wanted to recreate the same thing as way back then, I could: we have more options now. A "classic journey to the centre" is still possible. More difficult to verify than just being at Sagittarius A*, sure, but not impossible.

 

[marx]

I'm not sure that would be the case at all. Frontier have often showcased groups on their livestreams, and invited representatives on to talk about what they're up to in game, whether its a war story, BGS, exploration, racing events etc. They even had a group profile spotlight in the newsletters at one point. I can't recall there being accusations of favoritism.

I was talking about writing official histories, and not about what groups receive some promotion. It's also a matter of past vs present, too.
As for favouritism, I can recall there being plenty of such accusations. However, I'd rather not go into this in more detail here.

Now, on to the main point of your post, which was about in-game writing about main events: there's the matter of Frontier deciding what qualifies as a main event. Honestly, with the bubble being as huge as it is (20,000 inhabited systems, after all), and so many things going on between small groups as well, pretty much the only feasible way would be to list only the official events, community goals and whatnot that Frontier started. There are the GalNet archives for that. Although a short, quick summary of official stuff for 3301, 3302 and so on might be useful. (Especially if you wanted to look up something like the Imperial succession, for example. You can go back on the GalNet archives to the time it happened, but how do you find when that was? Only by digging through third-party sites.)
However, including all the stories of various player groups would simply not be feasible, and then you'd have to be picking out events and leaving out others - which could again easily lead to accusations of favouritism.

 

[Chrystoph]

I'm not sure that would be the case at all. Frontier have often showcased groups on their livestreams, and invited representatives on to talk about what they're up to in game, whether its a war story, BGS, exploration, racing events etc. They even had a group profile spotlight in the newsletters at one point. I can't recall there being accusations of favoritism.

While the mentioned resources are all "official", they are not "in game". The problem expressed is that, especially for the older materials such as Jaques, Frontier's involvement in a lot of the material is to provide an environment for it to have occurred in. As a result, the only records are the one provided by players. That, in and of itself, makes them discriminatory for the simple reason that most people, myself included unless I explicitly try not to, write from their own perspective.

Besides, I don't think the Codex would need to have indepth write ups and tell the history of a conflict (for example) from one sides PoV or the others. All it'd need to have is the timeline of all the main events that have occurred. ie. simply listing the name of the event, and when it occurred. It would slot into the current time line of Elite (which is also missing from the Codex incidentally). Then players could instantly see in game a list of historical events, and as @Chrystoph mentioned, players could simply google that event and get the deeper background to what went on during it. Obviously it would only list events that made major headlines in the community and beyond (there's been a few over the 6 years that have).

Again, you are now requesting "officialdom" based on individual, and necessarily skewed, observation.

Also, as was pointed out in the past, it would force Frontier into airing their dirty laundry. As an example, there were several times in the formulation of Colonia where Frontier undercut activities scheduled by the player base with hastily implemented "official" events that occurred the week before a similar player driven occurrence.

Both events in each of those situations are historically significant, but if you put them in the Codex, there is no way not to see that the players and Frontier ended up explicitly at odds in that time period and that Frontier is the later scheduler, often by months. Frontier did not respond to calls of problematic behavior then, I doubt they'd be likely to admit anything now.

 

[Rock-Hermit]

Whereas an in-game timeline of historical events, listed in the Codex, would not only acknowledge the rich history of what's happened in the Elite Dangerous universe over time, but it'll also give all players, new and old, a simple listing of event names that they can go look up and read about elsewhere.

There's a quick way to get the timeline that includes historical community events. The Elite Dangerous Wiki time lime. Its regularly updated too.

34th Century Timeline

I agree that something like that in the codex itself would be useful, adding a lot to its meaning too.

 

[Arnoldo]

Hi Gunner Bill, I'll start with a sincere thanks for the effort you've put in to maintain the list prior to posing the question in the OP - its great that you and others devote your own time to create and maintain these lists.

Not that it matters a hoot but I think your decision to maintain as a visitor's list is the best way to go.

o7 Cmdr and keep scribing

 

[iain666]

Hey @GunnerBill - do you regret you started this thread yet?

 

[GunnerBill]

Hey @GunnerBill - do you regret you started this thread yet?

No I think it's been quite enlightening! I suppose my choice of the word "leaders" was marginal but then maybe not because in the end I did find the people who care most about exploration and I did get the answer I needed.