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

[da_wae]

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.

There's no benefit for the deceased person to donate their organs. The benefit itself is for society, but even then people don't take the small necessary steps to opt-in.
It's just an example of how the path of least resistance is part of human nature.

And no, the FSS is not contrived or laborious, the amount of effort is negligible - but even then it's enough to opt for the effort free alternative if it's provided due to just sheer human laziness.

 

[[VR] Merkir]

And no, the FSS is not contrived or laborious, the amount of effort is negligible - but even then it's enough to opt for the effort free alternative if it's provided due to just sheer human laziness.

The FSS mechanic is about as contrived as it could possibly be.

 

[da_wae]

The FSS mechanic is about as contrived as it could possibly be.

You've obviously never played EVE: Online [haha][haha][haha]

 

[Stealthie]

There's no benefit for the deceased person to donate their organs. The benefit itself is for society, but even then people don't take the small necessary steps to opt-in.
It's just an example of how the path of least resistance is part of human nature.

Yes.

And where's the comparison to ED?
Where is the benefit in forcing people to use the FSS and denying them a simpler alternative?

As I've said, what I propose would mean the simpler method wouldn't yield any credits, rep or rank, it wouldn't generate codex entries and it wouldn't provide people with any information about a planet either.
It would just be a quick way for, say, miners to locate ring-planets quickly or for sight-seers to locate interesting-looking planets.

The simple method would do very little to undermine the function of the FSS.
Conversely, the FSS might still be useful for those interested in doing things aside from exploring.

And yet, you continue to insist that if a simpler alternative to the FSS was available, players would use it in preference to the FSS.
Very strange.

It really seems like you know the FSS is an unweildy nuisance and yet, for some reason, you're determined that nobody should be able to avoid using it.

That's kind of like insisting that every radio in the world should be locked to a smooth jazz station because you like smooth jazz and you just like the idea of everybody else having to suffer it.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

You've obviously never played EVE: Online [haha][haha][haha]

I actually miss beboping around probing for hostiles in my Stratios/Legion.....

Good times.....

 

[sollisb]

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".

Can't believe this thread is still going ...

Anyways..

Both can co-exist. If you want to use FSS go ahead, if the ADs then go ahead.

Why do people want to dictate how others play?

While I am still getting to used to the FSS and using it, I still claim it's like some thing from a 1930s Frankenstein radio. For me, it's a thing that's there if I want to use. I don't particularly want to. But it has one thing going for it as far as I'm concerned. I can tune and find all the USSs really really fast. The rest I just ignore.

 

[da_wae]

Yes.

And where's the comparison to ED?
Where is the benefit in forcing people to use the FSS and denying them a simpler alternative?

As I've said, what I propose would mean the simpler method wouldn't yield any credits, rep or rank, it wouldn't generate codex entries and it wouldn't provide people with any information about a planet either.
It would just be a quick way for, say, miners to locate ring-planets quickly or for sight-seers to locate interesting-looking planets.

The simple method would do very little to undermine the function of the FSS.
Conversely, the FSS might still be useful for those interested in doing things aside from exploring.

And yet, you continue to insist that if a simpler alternative to the FSS was available, players would use it in preference to the FSS.
Very strange.

It really seems like you know the FSS is an unweildy nuisance and yet, for some reason, you're determined that nobody should be able to avoid using it.

That's kind of like insisting that every radio in the world should be locked to a smooth jazz station because you like smooth jazz and you just like the idea of everybody else having to suffer it.

I actually prefer Free Jazz, but I know it's an acquired taste.

It seems though that I had misread your suggestion, if you're suggesting the reintroduced honk doesn't contribute to any exploration data, it wouldn't invalidate the FSS. However it would still require a greater than zero amount of dev time, which is way above the maximum amount I think this issue warrants.

 

[[VR] Merkir]

That's kind of like insisting that every radio in the world should be locked to a smooth jazz station because you like smooth jazz and you just like the idea of everybody else having to suffer it.

Another analogy for the FSS mechanic would be if every current-day car manufacturer decided to remove automatic route planning from their Sat Nav systems, because "it will be more fun and more rewarding" for drivers to plan their own routes. That's what the manual FSS mechanic is to me, an exercise in contrived busywork, and that was FDev's choice for game design.

Edit: And if anyone considers this a post about ED autopilot technology, or lack thereof, they've completely missed the point.

 

[Stealthie]

Both can co-exist. If you want to use FSS go ahead, if the ADs then go ahead.

Why do people want to dictate how others play?

Indeed.

If people are talking about, say, making the docking-computer an integral part of the ship then I would take issue with that.
You currently have the choice of either fitting a DC and having easy landings but losing a slot or ditching the DC and having an extra slot but having to land manually.
There's a trade-off and it's up to the player to decide what their priority is.

In this case, though, there is no trade-off.
You either use the FSS and get a bunch of credits, rep, rank, codex entries,and information or you don't use it and don't get that stuff.
The only thing you do get is to avoid using the FSS.

Why would anybody who likes using the FSS care if people who don't like using it have a way to avoid using it?

"I like smooth jazz and therefore EVERYBODY must listen to smooth jazz!!!"

 

[da_wae]

Another analogy for the FSS mechanic would be if every current-day car manufacturer decided to remove automatic route planning from their Sat Nav systems, because "it will be more fun and more rewarding" for drivers to plan their own routes. That's what the manual FSS mechanic is to me, an exercise in contrived busywork, and that was FDev's choice for game design.

If you think about it, it's a very consistent game design decision given their previous work. Do they really expect players to believe that in the year 3000, currently existing autopilot technology would go extinct?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Can't believe this thread is still going ...

Anyways..

Both can co-exist. If you want to use FSS go ahead, if the ADs then go ahead.

Why do people want to dictate how others play?

While I am still getting to used to the FSS and using it, I still claim it's like some thing from a 1930s Frankenstein radio. For me, it's a thing that's there if I want to use. I don't particularly want to. But it has one thing going for it as far as I'm concerned. I can tune and find all the USSs really really fast. The rest I just ignore.

Has nothing to do with dictating how others play, and everything with practicality.

Two redundant systems to be developed around, de-bugged and balanced for the rest of ED's lifespan? No thank you.

What's there to build off of with the ADS? Practically nothing, it was featureless and thus you can't add many new features to it. What can you add to the FSS? Worlds. Literal worlds of features. Why waste resources on the ADS, which is going to be a constant liability, when you can take a step forward with the FSS?

There's just no practical reason to keep it around.

 

[da_wae]

Indeed.

If people are talking about, say, making the docking-computer an integral part of the ship then I would take issue with that.
You currently have the choice of either fitting a DC and having easy landings but losing a slot or ditching the DC and having an extra slot but having to land manually.
There's a trade-off and it's up to the player to decide what their priority is.

In this case, though, there is no trade-off.
You either use the FSS and get a bunch of credits, rep, rank, codex entries,and information or you don't use it and don't get that stuff.
The only thing you do get is to avoid using the FSS.

Why would anybody who likes using the FSS care if people who don't like using it have a way to avoid using it?

"I like smooth jazz and therefore EVERYBODY must listen to smooth jazz!!!"

You must really hate smooth jazz.

 

[Stealthie]

It seems though that I had misread your suggestion, if you're suggesting the reintroduced honk doesn't contribute to any exploration data, it wouldn't invalidate the FSS. However it would still require a greater than zero amount of dev time, which is way above the maximum amount I think this issue warrants.

I think you'll find that it was creating a replacement for the ADS which many people don't like which took the time.

Reinstating a cut-down version of the ADS functionality to solve that problem would probably be relatively trivial.

I notice that your ultimate response to anything people dislike seems to be "Well, I don't think FDev should spend the time required to satisfy those people" and that seems rather vindictive to me.
I'd sugest that if that's your only objection, you let FDev decide, for themselves, what they have the time for.
I also hope you never find yourself concerned with some feature of the game or, if you do, people are more sympathetic to your grievances.

 

[da_wae]

I think you'll find that it was creating a replacement for the ADS which many people don't like which took the time.

Reinstating a cut-down version of the ADS functionality to solve that problem would probably be relatively trivial.

I notice that your ultimate response to anything people dislike seems to be "Well, I don't think FDev should spend the time required to satisfy those people" and that seems rather vindictive to me.
I'd sugest that if that's your only objection, you let FDev decide, for themselves, what they have the time for.
I also hope you never find yourself concerned with some feature of the game or, if you do, people are more sympathetic to your grievances.

With what I've heard and read about the ED codebase, I don't think there are a lot of "trivial" tasks that involve it.
Also, I'd rather they fix the existing (numerous) bugs, than invest time trying to fix something that isn't broken in the first place (you can disagree with the design choices, but it works) - crazy idea I know.

 

[Stealthie]

Also, I'd rather they fix the existing (numerous) bugs, than invest time trying to fix something that isn't broken in the first place (you can disagree with the design choices, but it works) - crazy idea I know.

Were you saying that a year ago when a replacement for the prefectly serviceable ADS was proposed?

Or, y'know, were you okay with FDev devoting time to developing that instead of fixing bugs?

 

[da_wae]

Were you saying that a year ago when a replacement for the prefectly serviceable ADS was proposed?

Or, y'know, were you okay with FDev devoting time to developing that instead of fixing bugs?

You mean when they replaced placeholder mechanics with a fleshed out new system? Time well applied.
Bringing back said placeholder mechanics because a few people cried in the forums? Waste of time.

 

[Stealthie]

You mean when they replaced placeholder mechanics with a fleshed out new system? Time well applied.
Bringing back said placeholder mechanics because a few people cried in the forums? Waste of time.

Ah, right.

So your opinion is based purely on whether or not the thing in question is something you approve of or not.

"I like smooth jazz and therefore EVERYBODY must listen to smooth jazz!!!"

 

[da_wae]

Ah, right.

So your opinion is based purely on whether or not the thing in question is something you approve of or not.

Indeed, I guess that's why they call it "opinions"?

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

It's not an intuitive system,that much is clear. And to compound matters it tells you you've "FAILED" at every opportunity?!
Just throwing the player into a situation where they need to tweak the nosrangler to the correct contrafibularity comes across as a little silly.
I get that this new system adds to the game play but this should be an additional layer of complexity and not simply the way you explore the galaxy from the get go.
God knows what the new player experience is like know.

 

[sollisb]

Has nothing to do with dictating how others play, and everything with practicality.

Two redundant systems to be developed around, de-bugged and balanced for the rest of ED's lifespan? No thank you.

What's there to build off of with the ADS? Practically nothing, it was featureless and thus you can't add many new features to it. What can you add to the FSS? Worlds. Literal worlds of features. Why waste resources on the ADS, which is going to be a constant liability, when you can take a step forward with the FSS?

There's just no practical reason to keep it around.

I agree in the main... But hey we didn't ask for this FSS! They gave it to us and took the other away. You talk about 'building onto the FSS'. maybe they should have built the ADS into he FSS?

That does not negate that the entire thing is like some b-movie prop, that gives RSI and is a complete whack job to use in VR.

Let's be honest here, you say the ADS was featureless. OK. And the FSS is what? Feature rich? It's a screen for Christs sake that forces you to wander around with a hat switch and then press a button to zoom in or out. And all the while it's playing Frankenstein'esque noises. It's about as feature rich as a roll of wall paper.

My real question tho is why they wasted resources on this at all. I mean really is that it? That's the 'exploration' add-on? A screen with squeaky noise effects?

Far more in-line would have been the ads + plush planetary probes and a huge list of procedural generated POI which could have been explored for materials or data or just credits. Instead what they did was just give a heap of credits to players for twiddling a few knobs and called it 'exploration'.

I've seen more imagination in the bottom of a toilet bowl.