I just point out lies when I see them.
Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner
- Thread starter ThatSmileyGuy
- Start date
I don't recall you ever pointing out posts that claim the ADS 'gave you everything' Max. I'd welcome your assistance
Unless something gets replaced then it obviously was just a placeholder.
The MK-III and IV have relative advantages. Whereas the FSS does everything the ADS ever did only better, so no need to retain the defunct stuff.
Gravitate to the games you enjoy, you definitely don't seem to enjoy ED.
It never did give you everything and I don't remember seeing anyone actually say that. But I haven't read every post.I don't recall you ever pointing out posts that claim the ADS 'gave you everything' Max. I'd welcome your assistance
You're so full of it's quite breath-taking.
[combat logs on new scanner]
Really. That's a matter of opinion.
Really, is it. That's news to me.
So are you, but I don't really care. In reality you are most likely looking in the mirror when you say such stuff.
The description of placeholder is meaningless, everything and nothing meets the description, it is a worthless statement.
The ADS & FSS have relative advantages, this is the point Max and others make - that the two cannot co-exist. They clearly can, the functionality for both exists in explored space.
Whether you think I enjoy the game or not is irrelevant, I play the whole game (well I don't do mining much), exploration is only a part of it. I have played (and enjoyed) various versions of Elite on & off for 30+ years and this is an easily solved, recent problem. It is my #1 issue at the moment, at the head of a very short list.
You do know that they were not going to add that in. That they added it in as a compromise for the travel explorers so its much easier for them to see if they are in a virgin system or not.
You see, they have already compromised.
Personally I would prefer it if they didn't, but understand that compromises need to happen.
There are a lot of flaws in the implementation of the new process, some of which I feel only made it into the live game because it was rushed out to meet a deadline. To use Stigbob's vernacular, the FSS is a placeholder.
But I don't really have an issue with that (it could be better but like multi-crew or lots of other addons I don't really mind either way), I only have an issue at all because the old stuff was needlessly removed. Had they left it in no player would lose out, if they added them back in no player would lose out. FDev are normally very conscientious about that, this was a rare exception that should be justified (I don't believe it can be) or corrected.
Are you alright?
Except when it fits perfectly as in this case obviously.
The two don't need to coexist the FSS as one of its functions has all the ADS functionality.
Its a hobby, as I used to say to Rafe Zetter a lot if you don't enjoy it you are doing it wrong or doing the wrong one.
I'm perfectly fine. It's you with the issue.
Not exactly. Not at least in the same amount of time.
That's why we are here.
We would like to see an optional way to reveal system map the way it used to be. As a compromise take the FSS away from the ship if You please.
This thread is about allowing photo explorers' gameplay with the use of optional module / engineering.
Should FSS do everything ADS did we would not be here. Sure, it does reveal system map but not in a way that encourages photo exploring type of play.
It adds a great cumulative time sink on top of that already required to find one percent of truly extraordinary systems.
We want to allow possibilities not take them away.
Last edited:
Yep, it also does it with added panache.
That does not make it a placeholder. And no it was obviously not rushed out as other areas of the game are now connected to it which requires some work. This sounds like desperation. Personally I don't see any flaws, there are things I would have done differently though, but calling them flaws is a bit strong.
You keep saying needlessly. Well that is a matter of opinion. It was not necessary to keep it in. As far as I am concerned the old stuff can rot. I cannot fathom why anyone would enjoy it and to be honest I see them as an embarrassment of I had done it. If I were Fdev I wouldn't want the old version in the game either. That is good enough justification for me, you may not like or agree with that, but that is irrelavent. Anyway they don't have to justify it to you. There isn't anything to correct. It works perfectly fine as it is, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it needs "correcting".
Edited
Added explanationI think we have reached the point where you have run out of objections and are just slinging mud to see what sticks Stigbob. The term 'placeholder' is meaningless without a definition (which you do not adequately provide), and does not need to be defined because it is irrelevant.
There is an ongoing desire for now missing functionality in virgin and partially tagged systems. That you refuse to acknowledge this is pedantry. The modules were in the game for several years, their functionality is well understood.
Your addition of the claim about enjoyment is an unwarranted and baseless personal attack. I play the game regularly, and have done for thousands of hours because I enjoy it. This issue is easily corrected and the logic stands up to the most ridiculous level of scrutiny. The modules simply need to be put back into the game to correct a completely understandable oversight, it's as simple as that.
Objectively there was no need to remove them. There is no justification, mechanically or for balancing reasons that the old modules needed to be removed from the game. This can be seen simply by playing the game in explored space where both methods of system discovery are retained. There is no reason why the ADS (the most powerful of the three removed modules) could not be retained, no reason why they could not be added back in that would affect any players that didn't choose to fit one. This was clear to me before final release, and should be clear to all now simply by playing the game. The solution you are looking for is mutual exclusivity for balance reasons. There is no balancing issue that isn't compensated for by the loss of a slot let alone the small power & weight requirements.