Home Board Index » Website » Website suggestions » E:D suggestion "unexplored system" flag

E:D suggestion "unexplored system" flag



Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
Not an important addition but how about adding a flag in system view if a system has to be explored?
I know it can be seen ingame but it would be helpful for explorers to see if it is worth visiting.
And another flag if someone got the system fully scanned with those increadible expensive scanner(more than 1.4mCR). So we can be sure we have found all stellar objects in that vicinity.

I swear i will use next time the correct..area(suggestions)
Embarassed

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Roguey



User Badge
Please insert pizza!
I guess I could add an unexplored tag if that is useful, although wouldnt this change?

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
As it seems stations are "given" as targets even if the system has to be explored it could be useful.
With your site someone can keep many systems quick at hand in spite of having to type long names into the ingame map.

Sorry for confusing sentences(its not my first language..)
Here is a perhaps better explanation:
When we were visiting an unexplored system for the first time the ingame icon of the system changes from red to white even if we have not scanned the sun..
Some people really dont own this hyper-super exploration scanner which could detect all system bodies at once.
If they jumped into unexplored systems they hardly add more than the coordinates of the system.
So we dont know if the system has already been fully scanned and could never find other interesting sites (mining).

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Roguey



User Badge
Please insert pizza!
So, let me see if this is right;

add a box that lets you select if a system is;

- Fully explored,
- Partially explored,
- Undiscovered

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
Whew!
I gave you one little idea and you.. made a whole lot more out of it Nod

Because I am known for not being able to tell things in a proper clear "way" I will split this:
A nice-to-have addition would be a marking like "system initially explored" (or however this is called in clean english) so we know everything in this system is explored.
Nothing can be explored there as the game already "filled" all information.

The opposite to the above thing would be: "initially unexplored" to tell us we have to find those stellar objects by exploring vast areas ourselves.


The second point is your suggestion about those box-tag(fully/partially/undiscovered).
This is a brilliant idea!
New pilots will have plenty days without "full scan" abilities.
Only people with those "Advanced Discovery Scanner" can be sure to have found anything and therefore should tag those "fully explored".

It sounds confusing, like:
Lave (EXPLORED) (all stellar objects "initially" known) but
(system view) Partially explored (because not all bodies are already placed)

As opposite:
Minbar (unexplored) (we must find things on our own)
(sytem view) fully explored (all stellar objects placed in the system)

At least I tried to explain it.. Undecided

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Roguey



User Badge
Please insert pizza!
At least I tried to explain it..
- DHLF

Thanks for doing so. With complex things it can take time to get your ideas over to another person. I can also be a bit thick at times too Smile

So would the 3 state tagging on systems be okay? the Fully explored, Partially explored, unexplored

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
Yes, that sounds even better Smile

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Mayak



I think this is a good idea DHLF.

How about do it like this... start with just a checkbox:
[/] This system is explorable (i.e. you have to visit the system in game and scan it to see what is there)

Then maybe another checkbox:
[/] System map is complete (advanced scanner must be used for explorable systems).


Eventually adding features like this could develop into a real gold mine for explorers. For example I recently visited a system called Neits. This has:
4 stars, worth 1200 credits each
13 "high metal content" planets, these are worth 2000 - 4000 credits each.
1 rocky moon, these are only about 200 credits and not really worth the effort.
Total income 38,716 credits.

Would be great if there was an easy way of sharing this sort of information, though it would take a lot of work to get it right I think.

There is a nice guide to exploration here http://lavewiki.com/exploration

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
When I started exploration i added "exploration yields 4500CR" to some systems.
People will start complaining if they left some systems unvisited because of the little value given by me.
But with the default scanner you will miss some importent data...

Instead of adding more fields like "default scan yields 4577 CR","+detailed scan yields 8932 CR" which might be more preciese I suggest to keep it more simple:
Information if the system is not/patially/fully scanned and ONE field for the total money paid for FULL scan.
(Any object=AES is necessary;+DSS )

Putting information like "neutron star object" is nice but.. who will describe any special stellar object?
It sounds easier to me to scan a whole system(proper equipment needed) and write the total payment down.

Just adding the number of explorable objects could be also a possibility ..

@Mayak thank you for that link. Now I finally got it WHY some systems with only some planets were of greater value than a system with 12 ice planets Nod

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Mayak



Yeah sometimes I put things like "Exploration: Data is worth 19k with detailed surface scans." when I update a system. Most times I don't scan everything though, because icy planets are worth very little and it takes way too much time. Especially when you find there are 25 gas giant moons, or when some stuff is 100,000 Ls away.

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
Again @Mayak:
Of course you are right there, some systems are so full of objects they wont even fit in the system view.
Often people explore a whole system(and know the exact ammount of CR) but dont take the time to add those lesser important stuff into the system view here.
Therefore a "full scan yields 120.000CR Eek " entry seems important to me AND an additional tag like "Not all items shown(too many)" Smile
(or something similar)

Or if someone takes the time for filling a short description like:
Suns: 4
Planets: 22
A-belts (rocky): 2 (12 clustes)
A-belts (ore-rich): 1 (4 clusters)
A-belts (metal): 0
Total objects: 44

If too complicated just keep the A-belts to something like:
A-belts: 3 (16 clusters)

Detailed information of type(iced/rocky/..) could be added into the already existing fields "description".

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Roguey



User Badge
Please insert pizza!
Im too not a fan of over complex inputs/forms. The system tries to be too precise, people will moan its wrong (or wont use it). As DHLF said, this information could be added to the description box.

So this 3 tier tag, we want it on the system, just to be a quick way of tagging a system? I did think about adapting the rare-goods map to show unexplored systems etc. If that sounds okay, ill do it soon.

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
I am sorry for ..
the newly added 3 tier tag "forgets" its settings.
Whatever i choose.. after being taken back to the system view it says"unknown"

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Roguey



User Badge
Please insert pizza!
the newly added 3 tier tag "forgets" its settings.
- DHLF

Hehe, didnt take long for you to find it eh? I do hope its what you meant to add earlier. I went through the database and added the tag to all the ones you already added. As for the problem; I have fixed it (I forgot to add the line to read the input from the edit - D'oh!)

I have done two other things too; the rare-goods map is now x10 faster, and I created an explorer map. Is the map useful or not?

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
DHLF



User Badge
Too blind to see
Its my mistake noone understand what i wanted to say..
My thought was two of this description.
One would have mirrored the same as the ingame map like "(unknown)/initially explored/unexplored"
You use it already in your explorer map
-good idea though a "direct" link entry is missing in your menu atm
Maybe put it into the main menu on the left below "universe"
or at least @http://roguey.co.uk/elite-dangerous/universe/ somewhere over the searchbox.

The second would have told us how far the system in "Rogueys(TM) universe map" is "copied/verified/explored" .
Which answeres were all suns/stations/important planets put into your universe..

As on your R-Universe pages many people just take the time to add ONE station and went over to the next system, leaving stuff like travel distances between entry point and station empty.. or "forget" whole asteroid belts.
I do agree that it is NOT important to add any (dull) ice planet.
But for some systems it is nice to see things like travel distances WITHOUT having to be in the system ingame.

If I am looking for a system and the Allegiance/Population/Government fields are correctly filled and
there is one sun with one planet and one station.. I could believe there were no more (as more were not added).
For this case I asked for the second one like "partially explored" to show at once: more can be found and added..

[edit]
What? You were after my exploration data? Big Grin
To get not confused:
my initially explored refers only to the point that the ingame maps of the system are already "known" without the need of exploration.

It could be misunderstood as it does NOT say system data in Rogueys Universe has completely added for the system.
(sorry for my long, senseless sentences.. I dont do well in my home language either..)

Posted 6 years ago.
 avatar
Roguey



User Badge
Please insert pizza!
hi there,

I am not after your exploration data, I thought you were simply marking systems which required more exploring. So when someone enters a system, do they need to explore the area? I dont really know much about exploring to be honest, as I normally focus on either combat, trade or rares. However hopefully the explorer field is what you were after.

« Previous | Page: 1 2 | Next »


You need to log-in to post here.