No as quite frankly that would defeat part of the purpose.
Would You Explore More if Return Was Easier?
- Thread starter Schmack
- Start date
Agreed but I do think the distance travelled makes the information more valuable as it is rare information. And even if it's not exploitable it's "knowledge" and that has a value all of it's own.
Also ultimately this is about getting people to explore more so more payouts for "exploitable" information closer to the bubble, and more payouts for "knowledge" on systems further out with a danger money bonus for braving it so far from the bubble and help.
Plus FD putting more interesting things to discover out in the Galaxy!
Yet another fundamental disagreement that ends up being two sides of the same thin coin. I agree with the "let's have more things to discover in the first place, and more buyers" angle. With the piteous dataset we can retrieve now, there's not much worth in any of it, really.
I'd much rather have a range of directed exploration for various interested parties, where you could collect different data for different buyers. UC can continue its standard scheme of knowledge for knowledge's sake; but for example, a mining company would finally pay people to scan out all those poor unattended asteroid belts that current explorers only scan because of OCD.
Deleted member 94277
D
No, I don't mind the travel back. I'd explore more if the monetary returns were bigger. ATM exploration seems to be the least profitable 'job' in the game and, despite being a lot of fun and the most immersive in my opinion, it's simply not worthtwhile: A week exploring wield the same to me as half a day trading or one day bounty hunting.
I would rather have reasons not to come back in the starting area. I would rather have good reasons to deeply explore the galaxy and meet other type or new civilizations and stay there. It remains to Frontier to develop the idea. I pray very hard for this to happen soon. And even better if the road is dangerous.
Colossal you said? Frontier, do you mean extraordinarily? giant ? prodigious ? gigantic? huge? astonishing ? exceptional ? Hope so. Thank you.
Colossal you said? Frontier, do you mean extraordinarily? giant ? prodigious ? gigantic? huge? astonishing ? exceptional ? Hope so. Thank you.
Last edited:
No. THe return journey can be just as interesting, and i always do a bit of a circle when exploring so i don't cover the same grounds.
I appreciate everyone's input on this. It gives me a better understanding of how most of those who responded view exploration. The question was more intended for commanders who forego exploration for the reasons I mentioned in the OP. I understood from the onset that many of you prefer the way it is now, even if you'd like a few minor tweaks here and there.
As it stands now, we can jump 35LY. Plenty folks grab one of those ships to begin exploration. When you mention exploration and ships, you're often advised to get one with the longest jump range. I am sure there are instances where you need that range just to continue along your way without backtracking several hundren LY to reroute, and maybe that's why the higher range ships are recommended, however if there was a 50LY ship, would that be chosen over the 35? Where is the upper limit on jump range where it becomes "too much" or "magical"? I don't see anything more magical about 500LY as compared to 35LY jumps. Perhaps it makes the galaxy seem smaller, but then railways and airports make the Earth seem smaller in comparison to horse and buggy, and horse and buggy in comparison to foot travel. To get to Mars, it would take years. It would be nice to be able to get there in just days. I don't think it would ruin the scale of the solar system. One could still travel whatever distance they wanted between here and there.
I just see that we have 400 billion systems and a very finite amount of available game life to explore them. When FD decides to stop supporting it, we won't be able to play it any more. That means there will be billions of systems never explored. On the flip side, I'd hate to buy the game and not be able to find an unexplored system in 3 weeks of searching. I don't think you could explore systems faster with a longer jump range. I just think you could get from one spot to the other faster. Points in between would be undiscovered, still, just as flying over uncharted territory isn't the same as hiking through it, charting it.
As it stands now, we can jump 35LY. Plenty folks grab one of those ships to begin exploration. When you mention exploration and ships, you're often advised to get one with the longest jump range. I am sure there are instances where you need that range just to continue along your way without backtracking several hundren LY to reroute, and maybe that's why the higher range ships are recommended, however if there was a 50LY ship, would that be chosen over the 35? Where is the upper limit on jump range where it becomes "too much" or "magical"? I don't see anything more magical about 500LY as compared to 35LY jumps. Perhaps it makes the galaxy seem smaller, but then railways and airports make the Earth seem smaller in comparison to horse and buggy, and horse and buggy in comparison to foot travel. To get to Mars, it would take years. It would be nice to be able to get there in just days. I don't think it would ruin the scale of the solar system. One could still travel whatever distance they wanted between here and there.
I just see that we have 400 billion systems and a very finite amount of available game life to explore them. When FD decides to stop supporting it, we won't be able to play it any more. That means there will be billions of systems never explored. On the flip side, I'd hate to buy the game and not be able to find an unexplored system in 3 weeks of searching. I don't think you could explore systems faster with a longer jump range. I just think you could get from one spot to the other faster. Points in between would be undiscovered, still, just as flying over uncharted territory isn't the same as hiking through it, charting it.
I think we all can agree with this. In fact, it would make more sense for the Powerplay leaders to have large expanses of uninhabited space between them, and raids would require a convoy including refueling vessels and supply ships. Having them all in one inhabited bubble makes little sense in the scope of the 400 billion systems available. I get it that a LY is a hell of a long way, and getting goods to and from stations to bolster economies is time consuming, however there's absolutely no expansion happening. The world is static, and powers struggle for control of space simply because there are stations present. You can find pristine rings further out, yet no one is interested in building a station there. If a few commanders could pool their CR and have a station built to capitalize on the commerce, that could become interesting.
- - - Updated - - -
How about the option for it? We don't always jump full distance anyhow. We seem to like the option on our ships though.
I don't think I agree with that.
The reason I prefer Aunt Sally to Straw Man is that to us Brits (I too am a northern Briton, doing missionary work down south
) is that it is more obvious that it is an argument designed to be knocked down. The statement was just a question.
Last edited:
I don't think I agree with that.
The reason I prefer Aunt Sally to Straw Man is that to us Brits (I too am a northern Briton, doing missionary work down south
According to Wikipedia: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."
Although I'm not opposed to adding options to a game, however, I think in this particular situation it would not work.
The reason is for some CMDRS choosing a "short-cut" back home and others wanting to do it normally, there would be an issue of people getting (first discoveries).
Though this risk already is present, its even more of a disadvantage for someone who needs to make the trip back in to sell their data to claim the title for first discovery. Those who want to make the long normal journey home are basically way more likely to loose that honor because another CMDR took the short cut and beat the actual first person who discovered it to sell the data.
If FD had to where first discovery was given to the person who first scanned it and the simulation could automatically award that instead of having to sell the data first, then I would have no problem if this "option" existed. But since that wont happen, I'm highly against that option.
You gotta be kidding. Right? Exploration can be done any where. I found undiscovered stars and planets only lightyears from major stations. Exploration is NOT meant to be easy as it already is. The people who want instant gratification are wusses. Those who want outposts in uninhabited space are wusses. They should stay home and play with their toy space ships and leave exploration to those who want to live, breathe, and experience all of the joy and despair that comes with living on the edge.
That is what you get believing everything Wikipedia says, Wikipedia says that a Strawman is called an Aunt Sally. An Aunt Sally is an argument that is put forward to be knocked down.
I cannot find the original post that Surly_Badger quoted so I cannot check it. I might be wrong. I was once before in 1964, IIRC.
I think this idea is interesting in combination with some sort of a player guild system. I can imagine guilds of people collecting resources to build a guild station and then laying claim to outlying systems while other guilds say "nope" and fight for control of those outlying systems. If said stations were forced to be far apart, it could be a lot of fun.
Cradle2Grave
Banned
I agree - if there was some of sort, I dunno, mini-game thing that made a successful scan more of challenge (though repeatable if you failed). Atm all it is is jump to system>scan>fly to bodies and sit near em a bit. Yes it's a nice feeling thinking of the credits (if you need some more) but it's dull as flipping ditch water.
That is what you get believing everything Wikipedia says, Wikipedia says that a Strawman is called an Aunt Sally. An Aunt Sally is an argument that is put forward to be knocked down.
I cannot find the original post that Surly_Badger quoted so I cannot check it. I might be wrong. I was once before in 1964, IIRC.
An Aunt Sally is what this form of fallacious argument is called in the U.K. Here, it's called a "straw man". But yes, a straw man is an argument that is put forward to counter the actual argument with the intention of being easily knocked down. Which is basically what the Wikipedia article says (and confirms with everything I've been taught on the subject back in my college and graduate days). So what's your point?