Why I percieve the "new" scan as broken

[lenna]

FTR - I have reviewed the initial post of the recap thread and it seems that my concerns may be unwarranted since:

COMMUNAL DISCOVERIES

Thanks to feedback from the exploration community, we’ve made an important change in how exploration data will be shared across all Commanders.

Once any Commander has discovered and sold data about any stellar body, every single Commander’s ship computer will be updated no matter where you are in the galaxy, giving you the basic information for those bodies once you enter the system. This information is similar to the data you currently receive from an initial system scan; many populated systems will provide more data including the name of the bodies.​

Hopefully this also applies in the case of systems with compromised nav. beacons with only the supplemental information missing.

The upshot of this is that the FSS search mechanic should only significantly impact the case of first discoveries.


​

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I asked your college book to help me find it, no luck though book seems lost.

You can thank me for refreshing your memory

 

[Kubicide]

The thing that blows my mind about this whole discussion is how many of the people who were "honking on" (intended) about how lacking in depth and involvement the current exploration mechanic is are the same ones objecting to having more to do in exploration now.

If you want more depth than "hold the trigger and fly on, job done!" then didn't it occur to all you rocket scientists that if you're getting that extra depth you will have to do more to play through it?


"We want more gameplay around X"
(FD develops more gameplay around X)
"Ewwww! Minigame!" "Respect our game time darn it" "This takes too long!"

FailFlail.

Perhaps the obvious needs to be stated here which is about the gameplay itself. Many folks are - once again - not happy with what was designed based on what has been revealed so far.

We've seen this (disappointment from the community) with multi-crew, SAR missions, etc., and it seems Elite will continue to be a game that evolves with tacked on elements that really are not well thought out and many people simply don't like. The infinite ammo probe screams of telepresence in the SLF feature where something was quickly made up for "gameplay reasons" but is totally out character for the rest of the game. Oh well, it's FDev's game and you either like it or not.

 

[Chrystoph]

The thing that blows my mind about this whole discussion is how many of the people who were "honking on" (intended) about how lacking in depth and involvement the current exploration mechanic is are the same ones objecting to having more to do in exploration now.

If you want more depth than "hold the trigger and fly on, job done!" then didn't it occur to all you rocket scientists that if you're getting that extra depth you will have to do more to play through it?


"We want more gameplay around X"
(FD develops more gameplay around X)
"Ewwww! Minigame!" "Respect our game time darn it" "This takes too long!"

FailFlail.

Just wanted to point out that I have not said anything about the mapping or the, hopefully, improved PoI or the persistent USS mechanics. The ONLY thing I have commented on is the expected additional time it will take to determine that a system is viable for additional activity.

 

[Stigbob]

You can thank me for refreshing your memory

Try one on English, as that makes no sense at all.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Try one on English, as that makes no sense at all.

Well it was your quote but if you insist I can fix it some more.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Just wanted to point out that I have not said anything about the mapping or the, hopefully, improved PoI or the persistent USS mechanics. The ONLY thing I have commented on is the expected additional time it will take to determine that a system is viable for additional activity.

That could actually be faster with the new system.

 

[Faded Glory]

That could actually be faster with the new system.

Well, if that's the case, then there's no reason why players who prefer a visual (system map populated with unexplored bodies) representation shouldn't have that, and players who like the more 'scientific' look (numbers, gravity distortion map and energy distribution line with markings) can still use that...

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I think you will find that it is not necessarily the same group. What FD are proposing with the FSS is effectively to throw the baby out with the bath water rather than refreshing the bath water and adding bubble bath. Not the best analogy but it serves the point.

It's an awful analogy. Currently there is no bath water and bubbles. Just a little dribble of water at the bottom which you can't actually play with. FDev look like they are now filling the bath. It's about time. Hopefully it will be good.

There are some that have been anti-honk, others that have been pro-improvement-to-exploration, and others either in both or neither camps. The combined impact of the new systems is at best unclear and will only truly become obvious with the Beta.

Agreed.

The impact of the DS/FSS change has wider implications, but these implications could already be mitigated - if not, FD have a chance to mitigate them before release.

Still can't we what the wider implications are.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well, if that's the case, then there's no reason why players who prefer a visual (system map populated with unexplored bodies) representation shouldn't have that, and players who like the more 'scientific' look (numbers, gravity distortion map and energy distribution line with markings) can still use that...

Thats fine as long as they have to use the original DDS and ADS and not have probes and have to use the mk2 eyeball mini-game.

No issues from me with that.

 

[lenna]

Still can't we what the wider implications are.

We have covered that already (here or elsewhere), suffice to say we will never agree on the matter so no need to regurgitate the same debate again.

 

[Kaltern]

Because I clearly have no reading comprehension, and no understanding of the millions of people who dislike this new system, instead of just saying things like 'we don't understand what the OP is trying to say', or 'we clearly can't read', how about someone please explain, in the same sort of detail I posted numerous times about how this system works compared to the old one, exactly what is wrong with this new system, why it means you'll never be able to explore again, and how FDev have completely missed the point?

Because I've yet to see a coherent, clear answer. Unlike my responses, which couldn't be clearer if they were invisible.

 

[Stigbob]

Because I clearly have no reading comprehension, and no understanding of the millions of people who dislike this new system, instead of just saying things like 'we don't understand what the OP is trying to say', or 'we clearly can't read', how about someone please explain, in the same sort of detail I posted numerous times about how this system works compared to the old one, exactly what is wrong with this new system, why it means you'll never be able to explore again, and how FDev have completely missed the point?

Because I've yet to see a coherent, clear answer. Unlike my responses, which couldn't be clearer if they were invisible.

Misery loves company.

 

[Toumal]

The honk never should've revealed all planets completely. Planetary surface scans should never have been a matter of just waiting. POIs should always have been discoverable from orbit.

 

[lenna]

The honk never should've revealed all planets completely. Planetary surface scans should never have been a matter of just waiting. POIs should always have been discoverable from orbit.

Should haves are moot in the main - the only thing that is really relevant now is how the new system impacts gameplay and what can (perhaps) be done to mitigate individual concerns.

 

[Kaltern]

Should haves are moot in the main - the only thing that is really relevant now is how the new system impacts gameplay and what can (perhaps) be done to mitigate individual concerns.

Why should Fdev mitigate individual concerns?

 

[CMDR M Kozak]

The thing that blows my mind is the poor quality of reading comprehension on this forum causing inane comments like this.

Christ, what a post. You may not like it, but the dude is right.

 

[Kaltern]

Christ, what a post. You may not like it, but the dude is right.

And yet another post which doesn't actually answer the question as to what everyone else is missing. This isn't a very useful forum postage...

 

[lenna]

I think I missed this one on my first pass through this thread, but based on your recent comment I thought I would go back and review at least some of the points you have raised that I may have missed.

I would also say that those who like looking for 'sights' are also viewing things all wrong - lets say you do an initial scan and you see a few gas giants. You're looking for a nice ringed giant with perhaps a couple of closely orbiting moons for that awesome shot of an SRV sitting on a rock, with the rings dwarfing you in the background. How do you do that right now? You look at the 2d system map, see there is indeed a ringed gas giant about 100,000Ls away, orbited by a couple of moons.

So you make the long trip, only to discover it just isn't 'right', and you wasted that long SC jump for nothing.

The new system? You see the gas giant signals, you locate and scan the area, then you see the individual bodies, scan them all, and you find it is a delightful green giant with delicate rings (you can't see THAT level of detail in the current system map), and so you think this could be just what you're looking for... but you want be sure the moons are orbiting close enough to be worth the long trip. So you jump to the orrery, zoom to that planet, and literally SEE the orbit lines of all the moons, decide on a specific moon as you destination... select it, jump back to cockpit view and off you go - DIRECTLY to the moon and planet you wanted.

I can guarantee this will take well over half the time off for each trip, and you gained MORE information about the visuals of the planets in FAR less time than you do currently. This is absolutely a win-win for everyone, and I am confused as to how traveller players are not seeing this,

I think you over simplify things - shot composition is unlikely to be discernible from the orrery map as you seem to claim. The only true way to know if a shot composition is right is to actually see it in practice. It is more than specific colours of planets - it is an overall subjective assessment of the scene at the time of the shot.

I think the new system is case of swings and roundabouts (after a fashion), but in the case of assessing composition for shots - unless they can be done directly from the Orrery itself the Orrery is irrelevant in the main in that context.

 

[lenna]

Why should Fdev mitigate individual concerns?

Just because only one person notices something does not mean it wont be significant to a larger group further down the road. Not everyone perceives things the same way, and just because only one person reports a given concern does not make that concern irrelevant in grander scheme of things.

It is easier to talk in terms of specifics than metaphysics, philosophy, or hypotheticals - what I am saying is all viewpoints should be considered and mitigated if deemed appropriate to do so.