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

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Disappointing that you need to post on Reddit to get an official response, while the forums continue to get ignored.

 

[da_wae]

Did you read Stealthie's post? It would only populate the system map with a representation of the data already found by using the current honk in the FSS. It wouldn't populate the map with the data you find by tuning or zooming in unless you've already done that.

Doesn't matter, it would still populate the unexplored system map with the exact positions of stellar bodies and allow selection via the Nav panel. No-go from me.

Nav panel should only be able to display data that has been explored manually first (via FSS), and uploaded to the Codex.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

Doesn't matter, it would still populate the unexplored system map with the exact positions of stellar bodies and allow selection via the Nav panel. No-go from me.

Nav panel should only be able to display data that has been explored manually first (via FSS), and uploaded to the Codex.

The FSS doesn't give the exact location of an object on the initial honk, so the Nav panel, system map and orrery wouldn't give that info either.

 

[Old Duck]

Disappointing that you need to post on Reddit to get an official response, while the forums continue to get ignored.

Not being on Reddit myself, what is the official response?

 

[S3B4ST13N]

Dont see why not. Its probably the simplest solution that needs minimum dev time.

I can't speak for Frontier, only to my own experience; allowing one set of users to work one way, and different set to work another was a development and testing headache for us. It added several hours to a project as we needed to consistently take into account how the change would affect the "other" way of doing something, when it came to testing our QC team had to test both ways to ensure continued compatibility.

Now, granted this was specific to our system and is a different industry (medical) and it's not to say it would be a hassle for every company, but it didn't work our end (and it hasn't worked in any company I have worked for).

It's usually better just to make the change apply to everyone.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Not being on Reddit myself, what is the official response?

There was no 'official response' there. Someone posted they hated exploration before, but now loved it. It got massive upvotes. Other people commented they loved the FSS too. DB responded to one of them.

I've criticized Elite for years, so it gives me immense pleasure to say: the exploration changes are textbook good game design. They require full engagement from the player, there's a learning curve, once you master it you can explore a system very quickly without any downtime and without having to travel to every planetary body, you can focus on finding the planets that matter most to you, the geological sites you're most interested in visiting, signal sources, scenarios, etc. You get better rewards for doing things well (such as probe efficiency). Plus there's all the great little details such as listening to a celestial body, as they all emit signals that can be converted to sound.

It really is a brilliantly designed system. It's not often I can say this regarding any of Elite's systems, but... I can't really think of a way to improve it as far as the overall design goes. I mean, I'd appreciate some little things such as the ability to do a few scans while travelling in supercruise (currently you need to be still to scan) and zooming in on a planet you're already close to so you can check its info after a probe scan. But overall? Can't really think of an improvement. If they get the payouts to match that of other activities in the game, then they've nailed it.

What's still missing and has been missing for years is better-looking celestial bodies. Better textures for earthlikes (you can see how low-res the surface is), accretion disks and proper distortion effects for black holes, more detailed nebulae (Space Engine, developed by one guy, is going to deliver astonishing looking nebulae in the upcoming update), more varied star shapes (supergiant stars are bulbous, not spherical) and so on and so forth. Lots of graphical assets need to be updated. But large and complicated updates such as 3.3 give me a lot of hope they're on the right path now.


I'm honestly so glad.

Then David Braben said:

Your kind comments will be much appreciated. The team have worked hard to make this work well.

Thats it. Someone complimented FD, and DB thanked him for it in one line. And that causes some here to be angry, because how dare people briefly thanking others for a few words of kindness. The official response to the 'ADS was better!" people was posted in these forums, months ago. FD said:"Yes, we know some like the old way better, but we're not keeping it. Sorry folks."

This topic is just a handful of people not accepting that, making stuff up and feeling sorry for themselves.

 

[da_wae]

The FSS doesn't give the exact location of an object on the initial honk, so the Nav panel, system map and orrery wouldn't give that info either.

Then how would one display the information exactly, if there's no location for it? Randomly in the system map / orrery? In a probability cloud? Telepathy?

Just seems to create more problems for FDEV to solve, without almost any upside for them and most of the community.

Edit: also, how would that solve the problem the ADS crowd is complaining about? Mainly the issue of not being able to honk and see list of stellar bodies in Nav panel / System map that they can select and navigate to using the regular "nav mechanics"?

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

Then how would one display the information exactly, if there's no location for it? Randomly in the system map / orrery? In a probability cloud? Telepathy?

Just seems to create more problems for FDEV to solve, without almost any upside for them and most of the community.

You're right, there's no point in discussing any possible changes to the FSS that might make it better for people that like it but could envision improvements or could work as a compromise for people that are a bit unhappy with it's current design. I like the FSS but I wouldn't mind if I could get the same data presented in different ways. But I also realize that any improvements are unlikely to happen, not something FD is really good at implementing.

 

[da_wae]

You're right, there's no point in discussing any possible changes to the FSS that might make it better for people that like it but could envision improvements or could work as a compromise for people that are a bit unhappy with it's current design. I like the FSS but I wouldn't mind if I could get the same data presented in different ways. But I also realize that any improvements are unlikely to happen, not something FD is really good at implementing.

I never said that. I merely asked for implementation details.

 

[Burke]

Its not the thankyou that bothered me, its the outragous ** hes spouting and that FD appear to take that feedback. I still cant say 100% either way if hes trying to be a comedy act or not.

 

[da_wae]

Its not the thankyou that bothered me, its the outragous ** hes spouting and that FD appear to take that feedback. I still cant say 100% either way if hes trying to be a comedy act or not.

You mean his opinion? If that's your take on it, is it logical to infer we can have the same take on yours?

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

There was no 'official response' there. Someone posted they hated exploration before, but now loved it. It got massive upvotes. Other people commented they loved the FSS too. DB responded to one of them.




Then David Braben said:


Thats it. Someone complimented FD, and DB thanked him for it in one line. And that causes some here to be angry, because how dare people briefly thanking others for a few words of kindness. The official response to the 'ADS was better!" people was posted in these forums, months ago. FD said:"Yes, we know some like the old way better, but we're not keeping it. Sorry folks."

This topic is just a handful of people not accepting that, making stuff up and feeling sorry for themselves.

DB commenting on a post is pretty much my definition of an 'official response'.

I'm not even saying that there should have been a response to this (or the previous) threadnaught - there have been plenty of "I love new exploration" posts in Dangerous Discussion and the Exploration subforum, none of which have been responded to by FDev employees. That's what I find disappointing, not that DB isn't listening to me personally.

Re-reading I see you're talking about a response in the forum - any chance of a link, since I don't recall seeing it?

 

[Burke]

You mean his opinion? If that's your take on it, is it logical to infer we can have the same take on yours?

I would be happy if my opinion was equally valuable to his. Especially as he got a reply.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

I never said that. I merely asked for implementation details.

I don't have all the implementation details, it was Stealthie's idea and I wouldn't want to attempt to take over his suggestion with my own thoughts. I could see it as something that like-minded players might crowd source and then present to FD. Again though, this forum is probably not the best place to crowd source ideas. The usual response is "no", not "well, how about?"

As for the ADS crowd, I don't think any solution besides returning it and its god-honk will suffice.

 

[da_wae]

I would be happy if my opinion was equally valuable to his. Especially as he got a reply.

A reply that didn't commit FDEV to any particular course of action, acknowledging a "thank you" - which is very different from the type of reply that would satisfy you.

 

[da_wae]

I don't have all the implementation details, it was Stealthie's idea and I wouldn't want to attempt to take over his suggestion with my own thoughts. I could see it as something that like-minded players might crowd source and then present to FD. Again though, this forum is probably not the best place to crowd source ideas. The usual response is "no", not "well, how about?"

As for the ADS crowd, I don't think any solution besides returning it and its god-honk will suffice.

I'm all about improving stuff, but without going back in time haha.

Things that they definitely need to improve with the FSS (but also affect the overall game):
- Accessibility issues (it's not super friendly to colorblind people, or people with certain motor issues)
- Hopefully finding a way of integrating the FSS / Orrery / Galmap / Sysmap into the main ship UI (maybe like the Station UI, an overlay on top of the cockpit, instead of replacing it).

 

[Burke]

A reply that didn't commit FDEV to any particular course of action, acknowledging a "thank you" - which is very different from the type of reply that would satisfy you.

You are the one obsessing over it. I said i didnt like his post.

 

[da_wae]

You are the one obsessing over it. I said i didnt like his post.

No, you called his post a bunch of names and said you wished you'd get a reply from FDEV on your post, just like he did on his.

When pointed out the kind of reply DB gave is a generic non-committing acknowledge of a "thank you", and that kind of answer probably wouldn't satisfy you, you turn around and try to avoid dealing with the cognitive dissonance caused by your own intellectual dishonesty by calling me "obsessive" and try to deflect attention from it [haha][haha][haha]

 

[Witzo]

whoa 150 pages

 

[gumbie]

If the fss interface was shown on a monitor somewhere giving you context it would have less issues. As it is, the ship is gone, the hud is gone, all that's there is a blue transparent window. There is zero connection of the mechanical system to anything tangible in the game apart from the bodies. You're literally taken out of every single reference to being in the game. You might be fine with this, but many people (myself included) find this not good relative to how forcefully the in seat element is in place for the rest of the game.

If there was a reference like the ship panels, or even turning your head to look at a new side panel... Even the external camera provides you with an anchor to what you're doing.

Also, thinking in terms of honks and fidgets is completely out of scope for all this discussion, and its a trivial basic element of it. Both of them are daft as each other. The issues people are talking about is the experience of exploration, the logical sequence of in your head ideas and experiences that people do when entering an unknown system to go about exploring it. Its funny that the people who defend the fss seem to bring up the actual buttons you need to push like its a meaningful part.

Same as saying squeezing the trigger is the experience of combat.

This is the issue, it forces you out of your 3D high resolution cockpit with 1:1 skydrop, headtracking and quality textures SPACEFLIGHT SIMULATOR. Into an ugly, clunky, 2D, low resolution telescope simulator. It's not even phone app quality. And this is where exploreres are expected to spend most of their time.

I can't even fathom people being happy with the FSS as an experience, and from what I can see most people aren't happy with the experience but love the "rewards".