the FSS, watching paint dry....

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

CMDR Karrde Sun

CMDR Karrde Sun
I know this isn't battle evidence that is going to win over a knight, but in the few threads raised during beta, there was 5-10 people who posted in dismay and left.. they didn't even put up a fight.

Im sure that demographic exists.
 

Burke

B
CMDR acutefrenzy said:
There is no viable argument for the original methods over the new
Click to expand...

Tell us about your exploits with the original method....please do. Cause im mistaking you for somebody that never used it and really had no idea about it. Its mind boggling to think that fdev swept away one groups fun to appease another group who invested nothing in exploration.
 
Last edited:

Riverside

Riverside
CMDR Karrde Sun said:
I know this isn't battle evidence that is going to win over a knight, but in the few threads raised during beta, there was 5-10 people who posted in dismay and left.. they didn't even put up a fight.

Im sure that demographic exists.
Click to expand...

Numbers affected are not available, it is pointless to debate them. No players would have been affected by their retention, some players may have been/were affected by their removal.
 
Last edited:

da_wae

da_wae
Not even going to try to address your full diatribe (it would be the equivalent of trying to argue with a wall), however...

Riverside said:
So they need to be put back in, as soon as possible. Yes that wastes even more time, that it a shame but it will be easy to put them back in because unlike a bug there is no investigation required, the code is still there, the modules & rules for virgin system discovery just need to be put back to the way they were before 3.3.
Click to expand...

This is not at all how code works. Especially if the ED code-base is as spaghetti/lasagna as I think it is, there's probably enough inter-dependencies and interactions across the different game systems that would make re-adding ADS a non-trivial effort.
 

Riverside

Riverside
da_wae said:
Not even going to try to address your full diatribe (it would be the equivalent of trying to argue with a wall), however...



This is not at all how code works. Especially if the ED code-base is as spaghetti/lasagna as I think it is, there's probably enough inter-dependencies and interactions across the different game systems that would make re-adding ADS a non-trivial effort.
Click to expand...

You aren't arguing with actual inferences, just rebutting with conjecture da_wae. It doesn't matter how much work it takes to fix it, however much work is required will be less than it took to remove it because no investigation is required. It will be easier than almost any other change the game has undergone.
 
Last edited:

da_wae

da_wae
Riverside said:
You aren't arguing with actual inferences, just rebutting with conjecture da_wae. It doesn't matter how much work it takes to fix it, however much work is required will be less than it took to remove it because no investigation is required. It will be easier than almost any other change the game has undergone.
Click to expand...

It's called educated guesses. From your discourse I don't think you've ever written a single line of code in your life.

You sound exactly like any clueless tech manager in *insert random Fortune 500 company name*: "This is just a minor change, should be easy right? I'll tell the execs it'll be done by next week"
 

Riverside

Riverside
Burke said:
Yeah the spaghetti code is rather a stretch. You seem desperate for it not to work.
Click to expand...

Frankly I'm just glad the conversation has finally moved on from understanding that it didn't need to be removed to the actual meat of the debate - justifying putting them back in.

Only took 158 pages for someone to get there ;)
 

da_wae

da_wae
Burke said:
Yeah the spaghetti code is rather a stretch. You seem desperate for it not to work.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty valid deduction if you've been paying any attention to the development history of ED. I mean, they use fr eaking PHP and MongoDB for their backend [haha] [haha] [haha]
 
Last edited:

Riverside

Riverside
da_wae said:
It's called educated guesses. From your discourse I don't think you've ever written a single line of code in your life.

You sound exactly like any clueless tech manager in *insert random Fortune 500 company name*: "This is just a minor change, should be easy right? I'll tell the execs it'll be done by next week"
Click to expand...

It is a minor change compared to removing them. It is a minor change compared to investigating & fixing most bugs that get reported. It is a minor change compared to adding an orrery or a new module.
 

EnemyTrait

E
velospeed2002 said:
It's comical that the FSS tedious time-sink would even be necessary in an environment with such advanced technology. Surely, AI could do this task for us. The previous "honk" made so much more sense in that regard. And it made sense that we would be required to travel to bodies to get more detailed information.

Instead, for no good reason, we have to mindlessly chase blue blobs, circles and freaky sounds in some fugly mini-game that takes us out of our pilot cockpit perspective.

The more I use it, the more I hate it.

Why oh why is this thing mandatory, and not optional?!?!
Click to expand...

(Missed this)
Has anyone suggested having the old honk for the current system, and fugly blue mini-game for systems within jump range?
 

da_wae

da_wae
Riverside said:
Frankly I'm just glad the conversation has finally moved on from understanding that it didn't need to be removed to the actual meat of the debate - justifying putting them back in.

Only took 158 pages for someone to get there ;)
Click to expand...

The need or not to remove it is a completely subjective Game Design decision. There's no absolute right or wrong answer there.
 
Last edited:

CMDR acutefrenzy

CMDR acutefrenzy
"Tell us about your exploits with the original method....please do. Cause im mistaking you for somebody that never used it and really had no idea about it. Its mind boggling to think that fdev swept away one groups fun to appease another group who invested nothing in exploration."

The whole point that I've openly stated is that there was no reason to do the old exploration. It wasn't a thing. Honk and point cant even be argued for as gameplay. My exploration rank is trailblazer just because of travelling and honking. It was a side effect of my other gameplay, offering no entertainment in itself.
The new mechanics give me something to actually do. Something to make me want to go out and explore. How can that be a bad thing?
You seem to need the fastest possible return on your time.
Exploration should be the act of looking for things. You seem to want it to only mean finding things.
 
Last edited:

Riverside

Riverside
da_wae said:
The need or not to remove it is a completely subjective Game Design decision. There's no right or wrong answer there.
Click to expand...

There is, you just snipped it. There was no benefit at any level to the removal of existing gameplay features. There is no advantage the ADS has that is not outweighed by the relatively minor mass & power requirements of fitting one, and choosing not to fit one frees up a valuable module slot.

Have you actually used the new process in unexplored space yet? The difference is pretty obvious.
 

Riverside

Riverside
CMDR acutefrenzy said:
"Tell us about your exploits with the original method....please do. Cause im mistaking you for somebody that never used it and really had no idea about it. Its mind boggling to think that fdev swept away one groups fun to appease another group who invested nothing in exploration."

The whole point that I've openly stated is that there was no reason to do the old exploration. It wasn't a thing. Honk and point cant even be argued for as gameplay. My exploration rank is trailblazer just because of travelling and honking. It was a side effect of my other gameplay, offering no entertainment in itself.
The new mechanics give me something to actually do. Something to make me want to go out and explore. How can that be a bad thing?
You seem to need the fastest possible return on your time.
Exploration should be the act of looking for things. You seem to want it to only mean finding things.
Click to expand...

Yes the new stuff has a lot going for it & there are plenty of players trying out exploration now that didn't like the old way. That's a good reason to add the new stuff but not a reason for removing the old stuff.
 

da_wae

da_wae
Riverside said:
There is, you just snipped it. There was no benefit at any level to the removal of existing gameplay features. There is no advantage the ADS has that is not outweighed by the relatively minor mass & power requirements of fitting one, and choosing not to fit one frees up a valuable module slot.

Have you actually used the new process in unexplored space yet? The difference is pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there's tons of advantages at getting rid of legacy code, but that's from a technical perspective.

And yes, you are correct - the difference is astounding: In one method, you press a button for 5s and magically get all the information you need about whether or not the system is worth investing more time in, in the other you have to investigate a bit to discover what is hidden in the previously uncharted space.

One feels like you're discovering previously uncharted territories of space, the other feels like watching paint dry.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom