If I wanted a 'radio-tuning' game I would have rather bought an old radio.

[Riverside]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Not in this case. We could have had both, it works, it was overlooked.

If you are wondering why I am repeating this it's because of the lack of understanding. Accept that the old stuff was needlessly removed or justify it of you can, no one else has been able to.

 

[Burke]

Basicly i dont play anymore. This thread represents my last hope of getting any enjoyment out of the game. Im still amazed at the changes made and i have to wonder if we got into this situation cause of people shutting down threads.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Not in this case. We could have had both, it works, it was overlooked.

If you are wondering why I am repeating this it's because of the lack of understanding. Accept that the old stuff was needlessly removed or justify it of you can, no one else has been able to.

Windows XP still "works", but it was killed off to make way for new technologies.

The rotory phone, over-the-air-broadcasts, the AGP socket, all killed off because:

If you continue to hold on to the past it becomes an anchor against the future.

You claim removing the old ADS was needless, I burden you with proving this. Fetch me some internal design notes that show there are not more things planned that will require use of the FSS and that the compiled game code would not be adversely affected by retaining old code.

I know, you can't, and that's ok. None of us know what Frontier has in the works, until they release it, start a Focused Feedback about it, or bring it up in a livestream.

But here's the thing, and it's going to be a hard, bitter pill to swallow - this could all very well come down to a simple matter of "That's not the way we wanted it to be. Now it is.", which is very much what:

Please see the full patch notes for Elite Dangerous: Beyond - Chapter Four below!


New Features

Exploration

• Discovery Scanner upgraded to include access to the new Full Spectral System (FSS) scanner mode

• Players use the FSS Mode to discover stellar bodies, stellar phenomenon, USSs, scenarios, distress calls, mission targets and more
• There is now only one Discovery Scanner available in game, which is based on the basic variant. Commanders that have purchased either the intermediate or advanced scanners will receive a credit refund

sounds like.

You say "overlooked", but where's any evidence to support this?

As I see it, since the FSS has all the functionality of the ADS, just in a different manner - finding signal sources, populating the system map, locating mission targets, nothing was "overlooked", just changed. Change, for some, is hard, scary, makes them sad, but in the end, they learn to adapt, even if someone has to roll up their sleeves and drag them, kicking and screaming into the future.

 

[Burke]

Fetch me some internal design notes that show there are not more things planned that will require use of the FSS and that the compiled game code would not be adversely affected by retaining old code.

This is why we are politely asking for a reply. A single sentence would probably cover it. If somebody had minute one day....

 

[Burke]

Something else comes to mind. When everybody else left cause of whines about bad multiplyer and massive disspointments, some of us might still be here. Loyal FD customers that just got a bad deal, they might even think about helping us out. Assuming we arnt all driven away in meantime.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

This is why we are politely asking for a reply. A single sentence would probably cover it. If somebody had minute one day....

We should all know by now the odds of that happening are close to the odds of being struck by lightning, a meteor and winning the lottery at the same time. Frontier has far too many things to do than sit around answering forums. Even the moderators have other things to do, and don't speak for the development team. If you REALLY want an answer, ask during the next live stream. I'm sure there's one coming up sooner or later.

Back seat mods and ur typical smart*** beta males that condescend every topic fishing for rep. No way they would talk to anyone IRL like they do on the anonymous internet. Cowardly nerds are cowardly, that is what this forum has turned into. "Can i haz ur stuff" and "doomed" are consistent replies from the same douches.

Back to the topic, how about we have a poll??

Double alpha here, and I say a lot worse in the real world. I have to behave here because of behavior police. If it weren't for them there'd be a lot people crying into their therapists pillows on a regular basis. Because what are they going to do? Try to hit me? I can take care of myself, and my lawyer can take care of the rest.

As for polls, we're not allowed polls any longer, because everyone votes for "Bacon" anyways. Plus polls are really pretty worthless. They only sample a small cross-section anyways, and off-site polls are even less reliable, as they only take smaller cross-sections. Kind of like Steam Charts, but even less valuable.

 

[Riverside]

Windows XP still "works", but it was killed off to make way for new technologies.

The rotory phone, over-the-air-broadcasts, the AGP socket, all killed off because:

If you continue to hold on to the past it becomes an anchor against the future.

You claim removing the old ADS was needless, I burden you with proving this. Fetch me some internal design notes that show there are not more things planned that will require use of the FSS and that the compiled game code would not be adversely affected by retaining old code.

I know, you can't, and that's ok. None of us know what Frontier has in the works, until they release it, start a Focused Feedback about it, or bring it up in a livestream.

But here's the thing, and it's going to be a hard, bitter pill to swallow - this could all very well come down to a simple matter of "That's not the way we wanted it to be. Now it is.", which is very much what:



sounds like.

You say "overlooked", but where's any evidence to support this?

As I see it, since the FSS has all the functionality of the ADS, just in a different manner - finding signal sources, populating the system map, locating mission targets, nothing was "overlooked", just changed. Change, for some, is hard, scary, makes them sad, but in the end, they learn to adapt, even if someone has to roll up their sleeves and drag them, kicking and screaming into the future.

Windows XP still works, I have an old Nikon Slide Scanner that only works with XP (or win2K) and use a dedicated XP PC with it. The overlap between XP being maintained and newer OSs being available don't make this an analogy that supports your argument IndigoWyrd.

Rotary phones, or rather analogue household phones again had a long overlap with digital phones. Early touchtones were analogue, eventually the infrastructure supporting analogue was switched off but digital rotary phones are still available - they just work differently behind the 'classic' user interface. So again this analogy doesn't support your argument.

Continuing with the past & moving on is not a good argument for dropping support as soon as a potential replacement comes out. It doesn't work in lore for the game where stuff like Jameson's old Cobra shows previous variants remain in the game, and it doesn't work mechanically because the full functionality is retained in the game for fully tagged systems.

You may not have bothered to read it but I have established that there was no justification for removing them, they neither needed to be removed for balancing issues nor did they need to be removed to free up a slot. The stated way in which the ADS was OP was by having infinite range, yet the FSS also has infinite range.

If the Devs wanted the old process to be removed to streamline the codebase for example (analogous to your rotary/analogue phone example) the goal was not achieved because the complete functionality remains in tagged systems so again there was no benefit in removing them.

I don't need to produce internal documents IndigoWyrd, because I can just play the game and see that regardless of whether the background mechanism is analogue or digital the concept of using a rotary dial still works.


I think your pointing to patch notes that state what has changed is simply stating 'they were removed because they were removed' which is no argument or justification at all.

FDev did their utmost to avoid disrupting existing players, just as they normally do except in this one instance. To have no justification for removing them but removing them anyway is either knowingly causing needless frustration to some players, or an oversight. Of the two I choose to believe oversight.

If it's an oversight it just needs to be corrected. And if it's apathy or deliberate it needs an explanation, which over the past several weeks I have time and again established is missing.

They just need to be put back into the game.

IndigoWyrd, please read through the thread we are posting in and try to add something new, because I've clarified all of this more times now than I care to remember, and a lot of that is in this very thread.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Windows XP still works, I have an old Nikon Slide Scanner that only works with XP (or win2K) and use a dedicated XP PC with it. The overlap between XP being maintained and newer OSs being available don't make this an analogy that supports your argument IndigoWyrd.

Rotary phones, or rather analogue household phones again had a long overlap with digital phones. Early touchtones were analogue, eventually the infrastructure supporting analogue was switched off but digital rotary phones are still available - they just work differently behind the 'classic' user interface. So again this analogy doesn't support your argument.

Continuing with the past & moving on is not a good argument for dropping support as soon as a potential replacement comes out. It doesn't work in lore for the game where stuff like Jameson's old Cobra shows previous variants remain in the game, and it doesn't work mechanically because the full functionality is retained in the game for fully tagged systems.

You may not have bothered to read it but I have established that there was no justification for removing them, they neither needed to be removed for balancing issues nor did they need to be removed to free up a slot. The stated way in which the ADS was OP was by having infinite range, yet the FSS also has infinite range.

Given how many pages back my collection of replies, rebuttals and rebukes go, I'd say I have read "it", unless of course, you're claiming I haven't read some other "it", or are just pulling things out of the ether to support what is a growing untenable position. As for old technology being abandoned, believe it or not, this happens far more than you realize. Some things are more notable than others. XP is not maintained however. There have been no updates for it since 8 Apr 14. Rotory (analog) dialing might have hung on longer where you are than where I am - and it doesn't really matter. How about you head on down to your local Western Union and send me a telegraph?

As for Lore... well, now here's a pretty fun little thing to try to wrap around an argument. Do show me where, in the Lore, it states what manner of scanner Jameson had on his ship? It could have been an FSS scanner for all anyone will ever know.

If the Devs wanted the old process to be removed to streamline the codebase for example (analogous to your rotary/analogue phone example) the goal was not achieved because the complete functionality remains in tagged systems so again there was no benefit in removing them.

If something was previously known, why would or should it become Unknown, simply because a mechanic changed. This makes no sense.

I don't need to produce internal documents IndigoWyrd, because I can just play the game and see that regardless of whether the background mechanism is analogue or digital the concept of using a rotary dial still works.

Huh? Sure, the Concept still works. The concept of sending a telegraph still works too. There's just no infrastructure to support it. Try plugging in a rotory phone and making a call with it. Let me know how that goes.

I think your pointing to patch notes that state what has changed is simply stating 'they were removed because they were removed' which is no argument or justification at all.

FDev did their utmost to avoid disrupting existing players, just as they normally do except in this one instance. To have no justification for removing them but removing them anyway is either knowingly causing needless frustration to some players, or an oversight. Of the two I choose to believe oversight.

And if it's an oversight it needs to be corrected. And if it's apathy or deliberate it needs an explanation, which over the past several weeks I have time and again established is missing.

I'm standing fast by 'it wasn't an oversight', and unless you've got enough Frontier stock to be invited to a board meeting, you and I and I'll wager everyone else here, isn't OWED anything. Where ever that notion came from, it needs put back right now, sealed up, set on fire, burned to ash, and that ash scattered into the winds.

They just need to be put back into the game.

IndigoWyrd, please read through the thread we are posting in and try to add something new, because I've clarified all of this more times now than I care to remember, and a lot of that is in this very thread.

The do not NEED to be put back into the game. They need to be let go of. If Frontier wanted it, it would be here, plain and simple. I've gone back searching through this miserable thread, and I don't see anywhere that you've clarified anything. Made some self-serving pitches to cling desperately to something that is no longer, sure, several times.

That's the only thing that's clear here. I'll even wager you probably missed, back many pages ago, that I offered up a compromise to this stupid non-situation. How about you go back, find that, think about it for a while and come back with a valuable contribution and something we can actually discuss?

 

[Kaltern]

To have no justification for removing them but removing them anyway is either knowingly causing needless frustration to some players, or an oversight. Of the two I choose to believe oversight.

Sorry, but you're missing out the third option - Fronter made the change as a design decision - which they're entitled to, in order to maintain interest, spark NEW interest, and re-igniting interest in those who'd previously lost it. And I would suggest in the VAST MAJORITY they have succeeded. And although You and a handful of other don't like it, I suspect Frontier staff can sleep at night quite happily.

And if it's an oversight it needs to be corrected. And if it's apathy or deliberate it needs an explanation, which over the past several weeks I have time and again established is missing.

Frontier don't NEED to explain anything, seeing as it is their game. We may suggest things, but I don't believe there is any contractual requirement for them to explain their decisions to us. And those suggestions do not need to be acknowledged or acted upon.

 

[Faded Glory]

Sorry, but you're missing out the third option - Fronter made the change as a design decision - which they're entitled to, in order to maintain interest, spark NEW interest, and re-igniting interest in those who'd previously lost it. And I would suggest in the VAST MAJORITY they have succeeded. And although You and a handful of other don't like it, I suspect Frontier staff can sleep at night quite happily.

Frontier don't NEED to explain anything, seeing as it is their game. We may suggest things, but I don't believe there is any contractual requirement for them to explain their decisions to us. And those suggestions do not need to be acknowledged or acted upon.

Of course they are making design decisions, and of course they can sleep fine at night.

But they constantly ask for feedback. Constantly. And that is what they are getting.

They can act on that feedback or not, that's up to them. But they have not come in and asked for the feedback to stop, and in the main the feedback has been polite, constructive, and suggesting compromises that might work for those who don't like the FSS.

Not sure why so many forumites are so put out by that feedback being given when it wouldn't affect them one way or the other even if FD did decide to act upon it.

 

[Jenner]

Discussion about locking the thread and calls for the mods to do so is considered off-topic and will be removed as such.

 

[Kaltern]

Of course they are making design decisions, and of course they can sleep fine at night.

But they constantly ask for feedback. Constantly. And that is what they are getting.

They can act on that feedback or not, that's up to them. But they have not come in and asked for the feedback to stop, and in the main the feedback has been polite, constructive, and suggesting compromises that might work for those who don't like the FSS.

Not sure why so many forumites are so put out by that feedback being given when it wouldn't affect them one way or the other even if FD did decide to act upon it.

No, no feedback is great, we NEED a balanced view of things. But feedback is not trying to make up stuff that is clearly incorrect, passive aggressiveness from the posters who are not getting what they want, or inventing new 'reasons' why their stance is correct. Nor does feedback mean demands for acknowledgement from the game developers, or threats to stop playing.

Feedback is the giving of a suggestion with regard to the game. Then, as this is a forum, to explain their position to those who question it. At some point, these discussions become repetitive, at which point the thread just stops.

We're WAY past the point this thread (and others like it) are useful - all that needs to be said has been said, and it's just a repeat of the same points over and over, and it needs to stop. It's a very old trick, the smallest crowd shouts the loudest.

 

[Faded Glory]

No, no feedback is great, we NEED a balanced view of things. But feedback is not trying to make up stuff that is clearly incorrect, passive aggressiveness from the posters who are not getting what they want, or inventing new 'reasons' why their stance is correct. Nor does feedback mean demands for acknowledgement from the game developers, or threats to stop playing.

Feedback is the giving of a suggestion with regard to the game. Then, as this is a forum, to explain their position to those who question it. At some point, these discussions become repetitive, at which point the thread just stops.

We're WAY past the point this thread (and others like it) are useful - all that needs to be said has been said, and it's just a repeat of the same points over and over, and it needs to stop. It's a very old trick, the smallest crowd shouts the loudest.

That's fine, but it's not reasonable to blame those on one side of the discussion only.

Every time someone comes in and tells those who don't like it to suck it up and shut up, they bump the thread, and must be very naive if they think the others will 'do as they are told' and shut up.

Plenty of posters with very high post counts here are doing just that, telling the others to shut up. I'm afraid it goes both ways. If you and others want the thread to dry up, stop bumping it telling the other side to stop posting.

 

[Riverside]

The do not NEED to be put back into the game. They need to be let go of. If Frontier wanted it, it would be here, plain and simple. I've gone back searching through this miserable thread, and I don't see anywhere that you've clarified anything. Made some self-serving pitches to cling desperately to something that is no longer, sure, several times.

That's the only thing that's clear here. I'll even wager you probably missed, back many pages ago, that I offered up a compromise to this stupid non-situation. How about you go back, find that, think about it for a while and come back with a valuable contribution and something we can actually discuss?

IndigoWyrd you are looking but you do not see, there was no need to remove them in the first place, this is my entire point.

Putting them back in is something I think they should do, and would require some justification but that does not constitute any kind of argument about why they were removed in the first place.

FDev sold a retro game to a bunch of people who like retro things, why is it a surprise to you that FDev normally go out of their way to maintain backwards compatibility?

I would like you to understand that there was no justification for their removal. I have even gone over quite likely contingencies that they wanted the old process to be removed but in order to justify that work there needs to be a benefit to doing so, whether that be financially (no more sales will be generated because the old stuff was removed, no sales will be lost because of their retention) or in terms of gameplay (no balancing issues not easily outweighed by the small mass & power of the module, plus the loss of a valuable module slot), all of this I have stated many times before.

It's simple, there was no justification for removing them.

Now I do not need to persuade you that they should be put back in, any more than I needed to persuade Stigbob a few pages back or any of several others because you are not the one that decides. But I would like you to understand that this will not affect your game, and it will only benefit those that it does affect.

I have put a proposal thread here:

A More Advanced Discovery Scanner

If you can offer some compelling reason why this is a bad idea because it will be detrimental to any players by all means post it there.

But if you can't then maybe the best thing you could do to help the wider community is stop bumping this thread.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

IndigoWyrd you are looking but you do not see, there was no need to remove them in the first place, this is my entire point.

Once again, there's no way you can know this.

Putting them back in is something I think they should do, and would require some justification but that does not constitute any kind of argument about why they were removed in the first place.

FDev sold a retro game to a bunch of people who like retro things, why is it a surprise to you that FDev normally go out of their way to maintain backwards compatibility?

Where do you get that Elite: Dangerous is in any way a "retro-game". It appears to be a very modern game, right down to VR and SBS3D support. Is it a derivative of something from the 80's? Sure, but it's no more "retro" than Final Fantasy XX will be, simply because the original title came out in the 80's.

I would like you to understand that there was no justification for their removal. I have even gone over quite likely contingencies that they wanted the old process to be removed but in order to justify that work there needs to be a benefit to doing so, whether that be financially (no more sales will be generated because the old stuff was removed, no sales will be lost because of their retention) or in terms of gameplay (no balancing issues not easily outweighed by the small mass & power of the module, plus the loss of a valuable module slot), all of this I have stated many times before.

I would like you to understand there does not need to be any justification. Frontier doesn't owe you any explanations. They don't owe any of us any explanations beyond "we've changed this." because it's their property to do with what they will. That's all the justification they need. I've got a giant maple tree in my yard. It does throw a nice patch of shade on my neighbor's back patio, but if I choose to cut it down, do I owe my neighbor any explanation as to why? No, I don't. My yard, my tree.

Elite is Frontier's yard, the ADS was their tree. They cut it down. That's all you need to know.

It's simple, there was no justification for removing them.

Now I do not need to persuade you that they should be put back in, any more than I needed to persuade Stigbob a few pages back or any of several others because you are not the one that decides. But I would like you to understand that this will not affect your game, and it will only benefit those that it does affect.

I have put a proposal thread here:

A More Advanced Discovery Scanner

If you can offer some compelling reason why this is a bad idea because it will be detrimental to any players by all means post it there.

But if you can't then maybe the best thing you could do to help the wider community is stop bumping this thread.

I read your proposal. I reject it. NO ADS. Use the FSS instead.

Of course, I suspect you haven't bothered to flip back a half-inch of pages here to find my compromise. You'll find it is a much better idea, far more balanced, and more thought out than "Gimme back the ADS."

I really can't wait for an Official Statement of "No." I'll shall petition for it to be declared an International Holiday.

As for WHY this is a bad idea... sure, I'll offer up some rationale.

1. People Out In The Black, with refitted ships have no way to gain this module without heading for the nearest port. This would only benefit those who have not refit their ships, giving an unfair advantage to those people.

2. Enabling is bad for society, and this would only Enable whining-to-get-your-way, a behavior that should be removed from society by corporal punishment.

3. The ADS is not compatible with the FSS style of locating and identifying signal sources. We have no way of knowing what further plans Frontier have for this functionality, and time spent restoring a system they clearly did not want is a waste of their time, money, and talent. Time that could be spent furthering enhancing signal source detection is instead wasted on something they don't want.

Is that enough compelling reasons? I could probably go on for several pages if necessary.

 

[Riverside]

Once again, there's no way you can know this.



Where do you get that Elite: Dangerous is in any way a "retro-game". It appears to be a very modern game, right down to VR and SBS3D support. Is it a derivative of something from the 80's? Sure, but it's no more "retro" than Final Fantasy XX will be, simply because the original title came out in the 80's.



I would like you to understand there does not need to be any justification. Frontier doesn't owe you any explanations. They don't owe any of us any explanations beyond "we've changed this." because it's their property to do with what they will. That's all the justification they need. I've got a giant maple tree in my yard. It does throw a nice patch of shade on my neighbor's back patio, but if I choose to cut it down, do I owe my neighbor any explanation as to why? No, I don't. My yard, my tree.

Elite is Frontier's yard, the ADS was their tree. They cut it down. That's all you need to know.



I read your proposal. I reject it. NO ADS. Use the FSS instead.

Of course, I suspect you haven't bothered to flip back a half-inch of pages here to find my compromise. You'll find it is a much better idea, far more balanced, and more thought out than "Gimme back the ADS."

I really can't wait for an Official Statement of "No." I'll shall petition for it to be declared an International Holiday.

As for WHY this is a bad idea... sure, I'll offer up some rationale.

1. People Out In The Black, with refitted ships have no way to gain this module without heading for the nearest port. This would only benefit those who have not refit their ships, giving an unfair advantage to those people.

2. Enabling is bad for society, and this would only Enable whining-to-get-your-way, a behavior that should be removed from society by corporal punishment.

3. The ADS is not compatible with the FSS style of locating and identifying signal sources. We have no way of knowing what further plans Frontier have for this functionality, and time spent restoring a system they clearly did not want is a waste of their time, money, and talent. Time that could be spent furthering enhancing signal source detection is instead wasted on something they don't want.

Is that enough compelling reasons? I could probably go on for several pages if necessary.

I can infer IndigoWyrd, and so can you if you look. The released 3.3 version of the game works in a certain way. How the things are achieved isn't important, what is clear is that the functionality is still in the game.

Frontier as a profit making company don't need to justify anything to anyone but their shareholders, who will not want money to be spent in ways that do not contribute to the bottom line. This is what I mean when I say there was no financial benefit.

I think you have a different understanding of what 'Retro' means to most.

Your justifications:

1. People already out cannot fit one - this is true. Had this oversight been caught & addressed sooner this would not be an issue of course, but making the ADS module available in outfitting would mean that those who wished to could fit one just as they can optionally fit an AFMU or a refinery and mining laser.

2. Enabling - I don't see correcting an oversight as enabling, but at this stage it's just another proposal. Normally FDev would not end up having to re-introduce something because they would have done their utmost to avoid inconveniencing any players when there is no balancing issue and there is no balancing issue here.

3. ADS not compatible - just play the game and you will see that it is. I have posted a video demonstrating that the complete functionality of an ADS is retained in any system that you have not visited before but that has already been fully tagged by another player.
Emulating the ADS in 3.3


If you want to go on for several pages with justifications on why my proposal should not be implemented I would very much prefer that you do that in the appropriate thread (my proposal thread now, the other one actually requesting objections was closed). Many others have put forward their thoughts and have not been able to provide justification beyond those stated in the OP of the now closed thread. It is linked to a few pages back if you want some ideas.
Anti ADS people JUSTIFY your no compromise stance here.


This thread is about whether people like the new stuff or not, and my proposal is intended to be satisfactory to both sides of the argument. You are objecting to a solution that satisfied all players, seemingly on the basis that because it was not done there must be a reason. It wasn't done because it was overlooked until it was too late, that's all

 

[Alwayslate]

Think of something interesting. Anything. Then repeat it for 400 billion time.

Finished? But that was only for the stars.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I can infer IndigoWyrd, and so can you if you look. The released 3.3 version of the game works in a certain way. How the things are achieved isn't important, what is clear is that the functionality is still in the game.

Frontier as a profit making company don't need to justify anything to anyone but their shareholders, who will not want money to be spent in ways that do not contribute to the bottom line. This is what I mean when I say there was no financial benefit.

I think you have a different understanding of what 'Retro' means to most.

Your justifications:

1. People already out cannot fit one - this is true. Had this oversight been caught & addressed sooner this would not be an issue of course, but making the ADS module available in outfitting would mean that those who wished to could fit one just as they can optionally fit an AFMU or a refinery and mining laser.

2. Enabling - I don't see correcting an oversight as enabling, but at this stage it's just another proposal. Normally FDev would not end up having to re-introduce something because they would have done their utmost to avoid inconveniencing any players when there is no balancing issue and there is no balancing issue here.

3. ADS not compatible - just play the game and you will see that it is. I have posted a video demonstrating that the complete functionality of an ADS is retained in any system that you have not visited before but that has already been fully tagged by another player.


If you want to go on for several pages with justifications on why my proposal should not be implemented I would very much prefer that you do that in the appropriate thread (my proposal thread now, the other one actually requesting objections was closed). Many others have put forward their thoughts and have not been able to provide justification beyond those stated in the OP of the now closed thread. It is linked to a few pages back if you want some ideas.


This thread is about whether people like the new stuff or not, and my proposal is intended to be satisfactory to both sides of the argument. You are objecting to a solution that satisfied all players, seemingly on the basis that because it was not done there must be a reason. It wasn't done because it was overlooked until it was too late, that's all

You still keep claiming "oversight" based on inference. I keep asserting that the basis for your inference is flawed. You are proceeding from a position that implies some knowledge and understanding of the Cobra Engine that you do not possess.

And per your request, and to save you the trouble of looking, I've added my own proposal to your thread. I suggest you give it a read and let it digest.

 

[Riverside]

You still keep claiming "oversight" based on inference. I keep asserting that the basis for your inference is flawed. You are proceeding from a position that implies some knowledge and understanding of the Cobra Engine that you do not possess.

No I am not IndigoWyrd, you are assuming I am despite clearly understanding that I have access to no more information than you.

I am assuming it's an oversight because I don't believe they would do this deliberately (or not care) if they thought they had a choice. So I conclude they must have thought there was no choice.
And at the beginning of the Beta this was arguably the case. But not by the end of beta, and not in the live game. The justifications for removing the old stuff disappeared with changes made in beta, leaving no justification for removing them. It could be argued that those changes should not have been made, but no one has in this thread and I do not either because it was a good idea that benefits everyone and disadvantages no one. As with not removing the old modules.

I don't need to know how a thing works to be able to see what it does IndigoWyrd, and neither do you

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

I don't believe they would do this deliberately (or not care) if they thought they had a choice, so I infer they must have thought there was no choice.

Im pretty sure its deliberate. There's actually some design gottchas that forced their hand. Its probably interesting to wonder if frontier were well meaning but caved to their own design, or this is another one of those crime and punishment we're right and you're wrong events.

- Frontier needed to exempt bubble players from using the FSS. They invented some whacked out logic that you have a constantly synced connection to universal cartographics that only updated once you jumped into the system. The sad part about this is, the functionality from this "community exploration / we're scared pooless of what combat players forced to use the fss would say" feature is its doing the exact same thing as the ads. Technically its the same thing, but i think they logically couldn't make it though how both concepts could exist. Its really easy to rebut this because its dumb, but if you think this scenario though, only one option makes logical sense and they chose the communal thing.

- As max factor pointed out weeks ago, if you've ads honked, the notion of "discovery" doesn't make sense when you do it a few moments later in the fss. They could nerf the rewards of the fss.. but then those same noise majority..... or you could buff the ads to be like the fss, but that doesn't make sense either.

This is why its difficult. The fact that the pieces landed where they are should make any simulator explorer reasonably angry... because.....