Are you sure because sense is one of the worst things in ED, there's a laundry list of inconsistencies within ED itself, its updates and modifications and with reality. And once more, you intentionally ignore the lack of sense already present to forcibly validate your complain.
Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner
- Thread starter ThatSmileyGuy
- Start date
Are you sure because sense is one of the worst things in ED, there's a laundry list of inconsistencies within ED itself, its updates and modifications and with reality. And once more, you intentionally ignore the lack of sense already present to forcibly validate your complain.
In your view.
ADC=Advanced docking computer.
Has it not occured to you that there are no such posts or threads because FDev have no threatened it yet
Yes it was. It was a poor example of an objective reason as it wasn't one. It was an assumption.
Oh I agree that there is a laundry list of inconsistencies. The more there are the more the game gets ruined for me. I am desperate for them to remove the inconsistencies. But I do understand some need to be in there, but most don't. Basically, I really can't take many more inconsistencies. In ED I want to feel immersed into the game world (or galaxy), but that is becoming increasingly more difficult as the more inconsistencies are added. Such as infinite range telepresence.
Ermm no, they have actually messed up pretty bad in some cases, just to name a few, CQC, MC and the recent BGS update. And you didn't answer the question.
Oh ok, controversial or not, the point holds, there where people who didn't want the autopilot to actually be introduced. Did they quit? Well, not aparently, otherwise some would have said so.
"threatened" quite the word choice... Answering, yes but as I said, we have a precedent of this situation but on a smaller scale and nothing terrible happened, just as you always told us, if FD does X, you just deal with it.
It wasn't an example and it was objetive, you really don't realize how many assumptions are encoded even in objective arguments.
And none of that adresses the second part of my post, there are already inconsistencies with the FSS. BTW, your conundrum can be explained just by saying that both modules do not transfer information between each other. Why? Well I don't know, you can find such instances in RL.
That's just stupid.
The worst thing is that most people would stop playing. I doubt it will happen though. What will likely happen though is that people will gravitate to what's easiest and always have both on board and then complain about how boring exploration is. It's what people do.
There is a difference though. One is just a slightly more advanced version of another. If anyone has an issue with the ADC, then they should have issues with the DC too. But to be honest, it such a minor thing that I cant be bothered to care that much. It doesn't effect the game that much. The ADS does.
What precedent is that. If you are talking about the ADC and DC, well that is nothing like it. That is more like when they added the IDS and the ADS when we only had the BDS.
No it's not objective because you are putting a personal bias on it as you are making assumptions. That is not objective.
Objective: A statement is said to be objective when it is based on facts, and it can be proved easily and is impossible to deny. Although in the absence of facts on a matter, then the statement becomes subjective, as the speaker presents his/her opinion, which is always biased.
I have not ignored what you have said, I disagree with your assertions. What reward aspect? I disagree it has ANY value outside of operational considerations. It certainly does not have any tangible in-game worth either in terms of credits or discovery claim rights.
And as for it being free - not really, based on the proposal put forward by this thread it would require additional kit to be fitted to get that map which in turn means that optional slot would not be available for other kit.
The overall concept is little different from that of docking computers, auto-pilots, or collector drones.
First of all, sorry for my long absence.
As a punishment for that i had some reading to do to catch up a bit.
As a punishment for that i had some reading to do to catch up a bit.
Thank You.
Could You please link mentioned post? I am unable to find it.
To be honest i don't like the idea but i can see the motivation behind that. Both sides want something different. If one is given the map upfront then maybe it should be slower for him to gather rest of the data. It all comes down to preffered playstyle. If that would be the tradeoff i would be happy to have it, since the map reveal is key mechanic for me and those i spoke with.
One would have to consider what is the reward of FSS mechanic. FD, at least the way i understand it, introduced it to allow more credits per hour in exploration gameplay. Not only does the introduction of this mechanic make it easier and faster to scan entire systems it also increased payouts for those scans. It seems that to FD map reveal is not the reward as much as are credits earned. Which is not what many want the most from exploration.
The map is not a reward it's a tool, the reward is the body/object that you go to and of course the credits/tag that comes with the logging of the data for the body/object.
if looking at a picture of a pretty model while standing in her presence is a reward for you then... OK, so be it... not for me though, I'd rather get in there! (in the least crude sense of course)
I am sorry but what you are preaching as fact is utter nonsense and total rubbish... just the usual anti-honk fallacy rhetoric.
The historic ADS in itself never granted discovery rights, a near-body pass was required for that. The ADS as proposed by this thread would not change the fact that it would in fact be notionally quicker to FSS scan a system (gaining the discovery rights in the process) than it would be to near-body scan the bodies in the system. There would ultimately be no negative effect for those that prefer the FSS.
The ONLY change that the proposed ADS replacement would have would be for those that have it fitted - it would not grant discovery rights or first discovery bonuses any quicker.
Last edited:
My statment could be seen as being slightly out of context... I was referring to the 'brokenness' of the FSS where with the latest update it would sometimes show black instead of planets and would twisd on it's side rendering it useless, Will Flannagan responded to one of the threads highlighting these issues... there has been an overlap of thread/post/topic.
The only motivation I see is sheer spite and aggression, the FSS should have been introduced as a supplemental mechanic rather than as a replacement but FD listened too much to the anti-honk crowd. What is done is done, no-one is suggesting there would/should be any gains to the FSS scanning mechanics from having the unit fitted (would still have to tune-pan-zoom) and near body scanning using the map would on average be slower anyway.
There are more factors in play since the proposed unit would not show EVERYTHING in the system on the map, just stars/planets/moons and asteroid clusters - essentially just populate the map with things that would show on the map in the case of an FSS-honk in a pre-explored system. In order for those positions to show on anyone else's map the relevant bodies would still need to be either FSS or near-body scanned. The FSS itself may be required for discovery of other things in the system and that is why the two should not be considered mutually exclusive.
The push to make the proposed replacement for the ADS mutually exclusive with the FSS mechanics is along the same lines as the push to remove the FSS all-together - neither argument has any legitimate objective grounds to support their position.
Last edited:
No need to fall into the trap of believing there's any merit to the argument that exploration tools need to be exclusive... That suggestion comes from the perspective that the FSS is somehow a harder (or perhaps more skilled) way of exploring, and while it is certainly more hands on (and that is its own reward), that's it. Harder or skillful it isn't. That some people don't enjoy using it is I am quite sure nothing to do with ability.
Again, I'm not bashing the devs, they've added a tool that provides deeper gameplay than existed previously, however, as I said earlier, the reward of faster scanning comes from scanning at a distance by using the FSS and so not necessarily flying to the body. It's nothing to do with being able to see a map of the system rather than the spectrum readout in the FSS (which is in fact faster and more accurate than looking at a system map reveal for all traditional reward based exploration).
As I said earlier...
In the current debate hardly anybody insists that they should be entirely separate, and the only reason (that I can see) for demanding that is that they find the FSS difficult to use (which it isn't) and think that the ADS is somehow easier.
In my counting, two or three people reject the compromise (which is to have the ADS as an optional module that you can use or not), and they don't make compelling reasons for that stubbornness. The idea that somehow being able to scan bodies from a distance is only granted as a reward for being able to read the spectrum in the FSS is bonkers. The spectrum ain't difficult to read.
Personally, I do think that the payoff of being able to scan bodies at a distance should be the ability to use the FSS to locate those bodies - but that isn't difficult either. Any player who would rather target a body from the system map, align their ship in SC with said body, throttle to zero, open the FSS, tune the spectrum to said body and then scan it is welcome to do that IMO, it would surely take far longer than just finding it using the FSS.
Now, there are players who don't enjoy getting a full system map on arrival in the system as it spoils the immersion and process of exploration for them, and that's a valid opinion, so while any module should absolutely be separate and optional, there's no good reason why they should be exclusive.
The map can be a reward and a tool at the same time. The FSS rewards you with a tool to use, which then rewards you with something else. It's generally called a gameplay loop.
This is wrong on so many levels.
Pathetic.
No it's not.
Yes, it is. I am assuming you are referring to me and that is not the reason I give.
It's a TOOL max, and pretending it to be otherwise through convoluted explanation is silly, I think you've gone too far for too long in your denigration of the ADS and it's supporters even its suggested revised function that you'd feel silly were you to accept its proposed reintroduction.