It would certainly be an improvment. But not much of one. I just want to see what order the planets are in and what colours they are.
If I wanted a 'radio-tuning' game I would have rather bought an old radio.
- Thread starter Spline
- Start date
- Status
It would certainly be an improvment. But not much of one. I just want to see what order the planets are in and what colours they are.
In case you've missed my many, many, MANY posts on this topic:
"I would personally accept the return of the ADS as the separate, optional, expensive, power-consuming module it once was."
My argument was with your analogy, not the ADS itself, especially since I personally love using the telescope to "scope" out a solar system in order to find which planets to fly my "Apollo" mission to! In other words, I neither need nor want the ADS in order to visit moons and planets. If you do, I don't have a problem with that. Just use a better analogy
And I agree with you, in fact I probably repped you on it
I also love the FSS
My analogy works within the premise of those who WANT to fly up to the moon to discover the extra info, and in some systems (unless they want to use parallax method as mentioned above) they have no idea where to go to do that unless they use the FSS first.
As I stated the people requesting for the return of the ADS want it for a myriad of reasons and my analogy worked for just ONE type. I really hope that makes it clearer as we are basically on the same page.
Last edited:
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Criticism of the FSS gameplay is frequently met with the response "but flying in straight lines for hours is boring", and yet the same people are saying that the reason they love the FSS is because they can find things on planets - which involves 'flying in straight lines for hours'. If I can understand why those people differentiate between 'flying to scan' and 'flying to probe' then maybe I can make them understand why I like 'flying to scan'. People who understand my gameplay preferences are more likely to support my requests for tools to restore said gameplay - which will hopefully result in FDev making the necessary changes to the game.
This sort of compromise (with various differences) has been mooted by several people myself included. Sadly reasonable compromise tends to get shouted down and or drowned out by silly arguments.
It would work for me, definitely.
It wouldn't be suitable for everyone who doesn't like the FSS, since it impacted a wide range of exploration styles, some of which rely on the visual representation.
After over 200 pages of discussion in various threads, if FDev haven't noticed the issue yet then I doubt they'll notice another thread in the Suggestions forum.
You'd think so, but sadly it isn't the case.
That's very true, and if you know my posting history I was vehemently against the idea of the FSS for years. But I've been converted to the new way of things now TBH.
In my subjective opinion, exploration has become more enjoyable precisely because there's a "skill & judgement" thing now; "According to the FSS frequency bar, there are some Gas Giants here, there are also some icy, rocky icy, and rocky planets here. There is also at least one metal rich." - in which case if I'm in the mood to investigate, I'll scan the gas giants to see if they have moons orbiting. If they do I'll then scan the moons becuase you never know, they might be interesting. This gives you their colour, their orbits, volcanism, if they're landable, basically everything you need to decide if there are any owrth visiting. Bonus for me is if there is a gem of a moonlet with intersting canyons and volcanism, I then can decide to fly up to it and bomb it with probes.
Then there are lovely systems; "According to the FSS frequency bar there is at least one Water World - but it's right on the line between Water World and Gas Giant so it's also likely that's a Water Giant" , or "According to the FSS there is at least one Earth-like World here!".
So, yeah, I personally have been converted. I like this stuff.
That's very true, and if you know my posting history I was vehemently against the idea of the FSS for years. But I've been converted to the new way of things now TBH.
In my subjective opinion, exploration has become more enjoyable precisely because there's a "skill & judgement" thing now; "According to the FSS frequency bar, there are some Gas Giants here, there are also some icy, rocky icy, and rocky planets here. There is also at least one metal rich." - in which case if I'm in the mood to investigate, I'll scan the gas giants to see if they have moons orbiting. If they do I'll then scan the moons becuase you never know, they might be interesting. This gives you their colour, their orbits, volcanism, if they're landable, basically everything you need to decide if there are any owrth visiting. Bonus for me is if there is a gem of a moonlet with intersting canyons and volcanism, I then can decide to fly up to it and bomb it with probes.
Then there are lovely systems; "According to the FSS frequency bar there is at least one Water World - but it's right on the line between Water World and Gas Giant so it's also likely that's a Water Giant" , or "According to the FSS there is at least one Earth-like World here!".
So, yeah, I personally have been converted. I like this stuff.
And that works for you. Imagine if you didnt really care what the planets were. If they looked nice that was all that mattered to entice you further in. There is pages and pages of pictures taken that are all an argument to keep the ADS and the purple gas giants picture. Thats why it has to come back. Its a mighty loss to gameplay.
Last edited:
Ahhh, well then that I might be able to shed some light on. For me personally, it's ROI (return on investment). Spending a long time in supercruise is not something I consider fun. I doubt even you point your ship "toward black space" and just "fly in a straight line" for hours just to see the little dashes flash by.
I'm exploring to "seek out new life and new civilizations", so for me it's what I can do once I get to the planet that I enjoy. Mapping the planet for POIs, then landing on the planet and investigating those POIs, that's the gameplay I enjoy. A long supercruise journey is just the necessary evil (personal opinion) to get there.
I'll also fly out to a planet if it promises a unique and exciting view. Flying to each and every planet for a bunch of numbers on my system map, that never did anything for me.
ps - while I'm not a fan of flying in supercruise, I have flown from one POI to another "the old fashioned way", as that reminds me of actual flying, especially if the ground below is offering a nice view!
Last edited:
I figured it was an ROI thing.
It's simply that different people perform the calculation in different ways ("You're all individuals").
But it does mean that the "flying around is boring" argument doesn't hold any water. The argument should be "the results gained from flying around are insufficient to justify the effort involved", which is clearly subjective.
Thanks for the response, and apologies again for my pre-coffee crankiness.
What gameplay would that be? From what I can tell the new FSS adds to the gameplay that is already there. The old ADS is a dead end mechanic that cannot be evolved, the reason why i think it was scrapped altogether.
That get the same ADS back would be ideal indeed, but I be willing to get just wireframes in the sysmap and even no credits over the blue balls.
Last edited:
Before, with the old system, I never could immerse myself into the illusion of actually 'exploring'. To me it always appeared like entering a photo gallery with one bell for each entry door and that was the honk of the ADS. I can very well understand those people who got totally fixated over the time on these aesthetic aspects. What I still can't understand is that they in all seriousness feel offended if I don't call that 'exploring'. The new system might not be perfect but comes much closer to something that deserves this term.
When I say 'illusion' then because we're still playing a game were everything is an illusion anyway, if you're looking at it in a more pedantic way. All what matters though is how this illusion is dished out and that's what makes all the difference to me between rushing through photo collections and a real game.
Btw, I've actually heard voices speculating that especially some of the older people have a hard time to adopt to the new system. I can tell from first-hand that this is not the case (assuming I'm no exception): I'm 62 (kinda old, eh?
I turn 50 this year so I'm no spring chicken myself, and I'm enjoying the FSS. Before then I would have called it the <a slightly different acronym which the forum is not allowing me to post haha>, not now though
Last edited:
Before, with the old system, I never could immerse myself into the illusion of actually 'exploring'. To me it always appeared like entering a photo gallery with one bell for each entry door and that was the honk of the ADS. I can very well understand those people who got totally fixated over the time on these aesthetic aspects. What I still can't understand is that they in all seriousness feel offended if I don't call that 'exploring'. The new system might not be perfect but comes much closer to something that deserves this term.
When I say 'illusion' then because we're still playing a game were everything is an illusion anyway, if you're looking at it in a more pedantic way. All what matters though is how this illusion is dished out and that's what makes all the difference to me between rushing through photo collections and a real game.
Btw, I've actually heard voices speculating that especially some of the older people have a hard time to adopt to the new system. I can tell from first-hand that this is not the case (assuming I'm no exception): I'm 62 (kinda old, eh?
We all have our own definitions of what constitutes exploration and that's fine.
What's not fine is saying that other people shouldn't be able to explore using methods that meet THEIR definition, just because it doesn't meet YOURS.
I'm sure that each player who misses the ADS misses it for a different reason. each player would be willing to compromise the ADS's functionality in some different way. I don't use orbital eccentricity and I only use distance from the main star as a guide for how long it will take me to get to it.
But the ADS module as it worked in 3.2 is a known quanitity. Anyone that was happy before & no longer is would be willing to accept the fully functional ADS.
And since it is clear that the fully functional ADS fits in with the new process (because of the behaviour in tagged systems) there is no need to offer compromise solutions (if you were happy with the ADS before).
If a player was unhappy with the ADS before they now have an alternative, the popular FSS. If this doesn't satisfy them either (as at least one contributor in this thread has stated) then putting the ADS back in isn't going to make their game better for them, but it won't make it any worse either.
I turn 50 this year so I'm no spring chicken myself, and I'm enjoying the FSS. Before then I would have called it the <a slightly different acronym which the forum is not allowing me to post haha>, not now though
I'm putting the new discovery process to good use, making money & spamming my name on everything not already claimed while the update is fresh. I know already that I miss looking at the sysmap while scooping, and that the FSS wave pattern does nothing for me either aesthetically or practically (I generally look for small moons). The new process is effective, the basic idea of encouraging players to find all the things is a good one, but I look forward to having the choice 3.3 should have offered as soon as it became viable.
Nobody is saying you cant play your way using whatever means or tools available to you in-game. You are demanding the game be changed for you, and that is something people may very well disagree with.
"I want FD to spend time on [x] because that is what I want!"
"I'd prefer they didn't."
"YOU CANT SAY THAT!"
Well, people can. And they do. Welcome to discussing games. The very idea that it is 'not fine' for people to disagree with you on what FD should do is hilariously silly.
Last edited:
- Status