Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner

[-VR- Max Factor]

Max, since You are an advocate of mutual exclusivity how would You see the system in which having equipped map charting module :
FSS is used only to plant a "discovered tag on a body".
FSS scan does not include any information nor does it provide credits or provides very limited amount of these.
Actual composition data, surface temp and all other advanced scan information is revealed only upon completing surface scan using probes.

The issue for me there is that I don't see the need to find stuff all over again using the FSS when you already have their pinpoint locations after a honk. To me it just makes little to no sense. Its not about rewards, credits or tags.

Now having the BDS/IDS/ADS as an optional module that can work with the FSS in some way, but still keeping most of its functionality would be okay by me. I can live with that. I would just see it as an automatic mapping module upgrade to the FSS. But the better the unit, the more it wieghs and the more power it consumes. The ADS also shouldn't have a infinite range. But you can fly out to other stars, do a honk to get more planets/moons.

I would also add a functionality to the FSS, that when you hover over a found planet/moon without zooming, it will add a placeholder image to the system map . To get a close up you either have to zoom in or fly to the target yourself to do an auto scan. It will also have an unknown added to the nav computer.

Also add the signatures in the FSS to analysis mode so that when you honk you can have a good idea of what you want to do.

I think that would add more variety and more ways to explore and should mostly cover all the bases and they would all work reasonably well with the FSS.

 

[ThatSmileyGuy]

The issue for me there is that I don't see the need to find stuff all over again using the FSS when you already have their pinpoint locations after a honk

It's not really about having pinpoint locations more than it is a matter of seeing how bodies are positioned in the system. Then further deciding if i want to get to know the pinpoint locations

Now having the BDS/IDS/ADS as an optional module that can work with the FSS in some way, but still keeping most of its functionality would be okay by me. I can live with that. I would just see it as an automatic mapping module upgrade to the FSS. But the better the unit, the more it wieghs and the more power it consumes.

Which has been proposed in the very first post in this thread

There is this post i like very much: Here
I think it is a very good idea to start building up anything even remotely related to compromise from.
What i like so much about the image is that it both reveals too little and little enough at the same time. If, say, You equip a system map charter You can at a glance see bodies' configuration and using a bit of knowledge and experience(reffering to FSS symbols here) one still has not got their surprise spoiled.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Totally agree. I can't emphasise this point enough, and I highlighted it months ago with example game designs FDev could have used. As did many others.

Primarily, that involved introducing uncertainty. The initial FSS/ADS honk should have resulted in a semi-ambiguous, incomplete, uncertain System Map or Orrery (preferably both) where not all planet types were initially known, eg. Rocky Ice World 90% / ELW 10% probability. Then allow the explorer to decide whether to concentrate on determining if that body is indeed an ELW, eg. by using an FSS to "zoom in". Or even make them fly closer, thus gathering enough valid data to resolve the uncertainty.

But this is what the ADS actually did.
The planet types were not known for certain until a proximity DSS scan was performed.
The images used in the system map were only indicative of body type.
That could be learned but there was still that ambiguity and the chance of a false positive where what you thought looked like an ELW was actually something else.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I remember the first time in my Keelback. I think I had something like a 27ly range. It was tough and I needed jumponium for that. Was great fun working out the route though. It actually makes me wish the jump range shouldn't have gotten so high.

When I first visited Beagle Point it was in the Corvette (19ly Jump range), I travelled up the Carina arm anti-clockwise & Beagle point was just at the end of that arm. I had to do a lot of manual jumps with jumponium (it took me 3 months to travel the last 2,000ly unassisted), the actual systems I jumped through were very much of secondary interest compared to the challenge of reaching the target system.

On my return I backtracked nearly 15,000ly to avoid crossing the abyss, I figured there was just no way I'd get my lumbering tank across that gap.

Later I returned to Beagle point (and beyond) in a 64ly Conda acting as support truck for a buddy, initially in a sidewinder then he gave up & suicided (for shame, I could not do that), I waited for him while he fast-tracked back out to my location in a T-6 and we crossed the abyss together, both plotting a disappointingly straight line. Again reaching the destination was the challenge, more important than the actual systems, which were just the icing on the cake.

Time to scan a system is as nothing compared to time to travel to the system and return.

I miss reading and contributing exploration stories

I don't know whether it's the solitary aspect of exploration, but explorers all seem to develop their own unique take on exploration, the way they experience it and what they hope to get out of it. I think from all the players posting here, Darkfyre's exploration methods differ most from mine. And still I totally get it, sure, that's the way you have developed your playstyle in this game, because you went out there and figured a way for yourself. I think it's because exploration isn't forced upon you through missions or objectives, but is driven by player preference. And it's that for me that sets exploration in Elite apart from about any other activity in about any other game. It's the degrees of freedom that has contributed to the very broad spectrum of exploration styles.Testament to this are the opposing sentiments: "Why did you scan every single body in this system you egomaniac! Leave some for other players" vs "I hate seeing systems only partially tagged, if you tag an ELW tag everything you lazy sods!"

Also this is why I think it's extremely wrong to tell players who enjoy exploration differently from you, their way of playing is inferior. or is not how exploration should be played.

And this is also why I feel removing ways of exploration is harmful to the community as a whole. Diversity is good.

 

[Faded Glory]

Also this is why I think it's extremely wrong to tell players who enjoy exploration differently from you, their way of playing is inferior. or is not how exploration should be played.

And this is also why I feel removing ways of exploration is harmful to the community as a whole. Diversity is good.

Indeed. The whole game is supposed to be 'blaze your own trail'.

And frankly, in nearly every other aspect of the game, at least the things I've done over the last four years, it's quite possible to achieve goals in a variety of ways, from the overarching stuff like getting credits, to specific missions and mission types. No one size fits all.

Removing the ADS simply removed (or at least made much less effective) the option to do things differently, to look for different things and to find and investigate those things differently. A strange thing to do in a game that is supposed to be sand-boxy.

 

[Enderby]

FSS pretty much did the opposite of improving exploration.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

What does the picture of Picard have to do with my post?

No, I'll let you figure it out if you want.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

No, I'll let you figure it out if you want.

There is nothing to figure out as it means nothing.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

It is simply a lazy form of exploration.

Fail.

I'd prefer to see exploration developed further (particularly adding lots more things to discover - perhaps even samples to collect and sell -, anomalies, etc.)

Success!

and not to regress back to some previous method that has already been replaced.

Fail.

 

[lenna]

Sorry, I must disagree. I prefer the new way of exploration.

That is besides the point, no-one is saying remove any current options - this thread merely is saying add options back in that should never have been removed in the first place.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

Can’t say I miss flying in supercruise for 15+ minutes just to look at a rock I thought was interesting. Or to each planet individually, if they were spaced far enough apart.

The changes were great for a lazy explorer like me. Just whip a periscope around a couple times and move on, as opposed to peeping a map and flying over to look at/get a detailed scan of a body.

They’ve added probes for mapping, too, so if you absolutely insist on supercrusin’ around to each body in a system, you still have reason to do so.

 

[lenna]

I must have missed that, because the only options available in the old method were to jump into a system, 'honk', look at the system map and fly upto a planet to scan it - is that what is being referred to? You want the ability to do that, or use probes? Regardless, there was nothing great about the old method. The new method is far better.

The debate is not about which approach is best - arguably the new approach is objectively worse in many respects - but rather that options were removed that should not have been and the new approach forced on people whether they like it or not. Fundamentally, it is a breach of FD's own game evolution guidelines.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

OK, please tell me, for the sake of time, what the options removed were. Thanks.

You could always read the thread. There's only 83 pages

 

[Burke]

Have we all seen the new bugs!

My roffle coptor... soi soi soi!

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Have we all seen the new bugs!

My roffle coptor... soi soi soi!

What bugs. The FSS is working perfectly for me.

 

[Burke]

What bugs. The FSS is working perfectly for me.

Well i read in the other thread about planets that move away when you try to aim at them. Lucky yours is working fine i guess.

 

[Riverside]

I must have missed that, because the only options available in the old method were to jump into a system, 'honk', look at the system map and fly upto a planet to scan it - is that what is being referred to? You want the ability to do that, or use probes? Regardless, there was nothing great about the old method. The new method is far better.

But would putting the old modules back into outfitting for others to equip detract from your own play?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well i read in the other thread about planets that move away when you try to aim at them. Lucky yours is working fine i guess.

Certainly seems to be fine at the moment. Not sure why others are having issues. I wonder if it's to do with control settings that aren't working properly. I don't have mine set up like others which may be helping me not see the issue.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I want to avoid that. However, I did read the opening post, and it appears that the features removed were the ability to honk and jump...

Here's a (probably incomplete) list of the things that explorers used to do, but can't do with the FSS:

Identify interesting planets (eg Glowing Green Gas Giants) without resolving ALL gas giants
Identify interesting orbits (eg 5 co-orbiting planets) without resolving ALL bodies in a system
Identify otherwise interesting planetary/stellar layouts without resolving ALL bodies in a system
Register a body (so it shows up in the Nav Panel) in order to fly to it (exploration by flying around) without also performing a Level 3 scan on it

As you can see, it's about gameplay, not about functionality. The FSS is a great tool for some playstyles but it's utterly horrible for others, hence the request to be able to optionally use the old system.

 

[Burke]

Not sure why others are having issues.

The FSS is multi fail is why.