Link to that poll? Some sort of empirical evidence that shows 'most'?
If I wanted a 'radio-tuning' game I would have rather bought an old radio.
- Thread starter Spline
- Start date
- Status
Link to that poll? Some sort of empirical evidence that shows 'most'?
Which would be odd, since you're the 5th person with more posts in this thread.
How about you address some of the issues I posted and not nitpick.
So if he's the person repeating themselves the most in this thread, might that mean that dozens of other people haven't found a way to refute his claims and shut him up?
You could respond to this with a snippy little comment about how it really means he doesn't know when to shut up or how to listen, but don't you think I thought of that before posting this and decided my comment was relevant anyways?
Wow, you must be terrible with the FSS. On the way to WP2 I spent a lot of time in witchspace, a lot of time in SC flying to map planets, a fair bit of time exploring surface features & NSF (none of which I would have found without the FSS), and comparatively little time using the FSS - actually, I reckon I spent as much time using the System Map as the FSS.
From what I can see, most people are happy with both the experience and information from the FSS, and couldn't give a toss about the increased rewards.
Last edited:
Or I could simply not give a fart about it.
The FSS already holds information about the types on planets in a system and their positions.
Honestly, I don't see any reason why that information couldn't be displayed in the Navigation HUD.
Even so, if people were opposed to that being implemented, the sysmap could still provide a generic depiction of a system without providing distances or populating the Nav' HUD.
Instead, a player could simply honk, open the sysmap, look to see if there was anything in a system they find interesting, target it and then exit the sysmap and turn their ship to face it to establish it's distance and then decide if they want to travel toward it or not.
Honking already displays a list of every USS in a system to the Nav HUD.
A player can then either open the FSS and play the "mini-game" to identify each USS or they can look at their Nav' HUD, select a USS and then turn their ship to face the USS in order to identify it.
I see no reason why this functionality could not be extended to planets as well.
And, in terms of "realism" it seems a bit silly to suggest that our ships' sensors can locate a tiny debris field 300,000Ls away and allow us to identify it simply by pointing our ship's nose at it but isn't capable of allowing us to identify entire planets in a similar manner.
It is hardly nitpicking to pull you up for saying "most people aren't happy with the experience".
If you sat back and collated the number of people complaining you would find there were not actually that many in the grand scheme of things. Many people have posted that they quite like the FSS - see the thread in Exploration for example - so your "most people" is without foundation.
So essentially you're suggesting FDEV bring bag old-school god-honk exploration, with extra steps. Not gonna happen.
Edit: and while yes, the FSS does contain the position information on stellar bodies, it makes you put a modicum to extract the information and be able to use it. What you're suggesting is basically bypassing the entire effort part, straight into the rewards.
Last edited:
The important part of my post was explaining why the FSS was objectively garbage, but you can ignore that and complain about my statistical analysis which i actually prefaced with "FROM WHAT I CAN SEE" if you like.
If you put onions in your tuna and sprinkle a little garlic powder on your pizza, it'll do wonders for your "performance issues" (referring to the above quote, of course).
See, now that I'm back, this thread is interesting again
Last edited:
Annnd what're you offering to replace it with again?
I think I could find that to be subjectively garbage myself.
THERE's the classic Askavir dodge and distract that I remember and love! Good to have you back buddy!
Last edited:
Don't see why it couldn't happen.
If you need to use the FSS to scan planets then the incentive to use it would be to complete the scans and gather the information.
Conversely, the opportunity to just locate and visit interesting-looking stuff without using the FSS would appeal to players with different priorities.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that what I'm proposing, for planets, IS already possible with regard to USS's.
I see no reason why it coudn't also apply to planets.
You proposal is basically the same as everyone who wants to bring back ADS - to remove the need of using FSS from exploration.
USS are not "Exploration".
Since when was the ADS/FSS solely provided for use in exploration?
And how does what I suggest prevent it from being used for exploration?
When did I ever say anything like that?
I merely pointed out your suggestion is simply a "bring back ADS" disguised as something else.
Edit: I also pointed out that resolving USSes is not an integral part of exploration, and the reveal of their position in the nav panel does not in any form "spoil" the discovery process that exploration now entails.
Last edited:
So, why would applying the same thing to planets "spoil" the process of exploration?
If we're saying that, when presented with the choice, people would abandon the FSS and go back to just honking, looking at the sysmap and then manually going to look at interesting-looking stuff that's a poor reflection on the usefulness of the FSS.
In fact, it rather sounds like you're worried that people would really rather not use the FSS at all if they had the choice.
The resolution of USS in the navmap doesn't spoil the positions of unexplored stellar bodies. That's the part of the new system that actually makes Exploration feel like you're discovering previously uncharted territories.
Besides, having an effort-free alternative to anything that requires effort (no matter how small) will indubitably lead most people to take the path of least resistance, it's basic human nature.
IE: https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increase-organ-donation
"In countries such as Austria, laws make organ donation the default option at the time of death, and so people must explicitly “opt out” of organ donation. In these so-called opt-out countries, more than 90% of people donate their organs. Yet in countries such as U.S. and Germany, people must explicitly “opt in” if they want to donate their organs when they die. In these opt-in countries,fewer than 15% of people donate their organs at death."
Last edited:
You're citing an example of something which provides a benefit.
How does that apply to ED?
You're saying that it's good that something in ED is contrived and laborious for no good reason and that a simpler alternative should not be provided for no good reason either.
You just want the process to be contrived and laborious because.
By contrast, I'm saying that the contrived, laborious, process should provide rewards in terms of credits, rep and rank which the simple method wouldn't - and that the contrived, laborious, method would provide information that the simple method wouldn't.
And yet, despite this, you still think that people would default to the simple method?
Which, again, is a damning indictment of the perceived usefulness of the FSS.
- Status