The ADS

[MadDogMurdock]

I like to argue more than I probably should, but it's never an argument with that one. It's just a single-sentence comment on one out-of-context thing said. No engagement.

As for the ADS, outside of the very narrow context of GGGs not being super easier to find, is there anything that made the ADS good? I see so much "FSS is bad" rhetoric and I can't help but think it's all surrounding the fact that the FSS is more than a button press. And yes, it's one button press, jumping to another system is not a function of the ADS, what a ridiculous argument that is.

It’s not just about GGGs.
It’s a flip in the entire basis of how you want to explore a system.

The FSS provides full detail of each and every body, one by one in order to build a picture of the whole system.
The ADS provided an overview of the whole system, from which you then chose which details to fill in, which contrary to repeated misinformation, the honk did not provide.

A bottom up process will never satisfy explorers who want a top down experience.
For people who are looking for interesting systems, the FSS is a massive time waster.

But as repeated ad nauseum, there’s plenty of room for both options without any needless compromise limiting explorers to one or the other.

 

[Thatchinho]

There were no USS in deep space last i looked, but as for planet surface POI i think they ought to reveal if you fly out there and scan it up close. Which many ADS explorers would do, i know i would.

Where do you consider to be deep space? Not that it particularly matters, because it's not just about deep space is it. And do you really think that not a single one of those locked areas out in deep space will contain no USSs when they eventually open?

No arguments here with signals being detected on approach, and locations revealed on DSSing. The point that had been made though is that there was no difference between the FSS and ADS, which is factually incorrect. No point in working from a factually incorrect basis.

Part of what needs to be taken into consideration is that the mechanism(s) need to work in such a way that they will encourage people into a form of use which will lead to them naturally discover things using them. When it comes to POIs, the FSS does that much much more effectively than the ADS ever did. (For clarity, I'm just pointing out a key consideration that needs to be taken into account there, and not presenting a personal argument for the FSS and against the ADS.)

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I like to argue more than I probably should, but it's never an argument with that one. It's just a single-sentence comment on one out-of-context thing said. No engagement.

As for the ADS, outside of the very narrow context of GGGs not being super easier to find, is there anything that made the ADS good? I see so much "FSS is bad" rhetoric and I can't help but think it's all surrounding the fact that the FSS is more than a button press. And yes, it's one button press, jumping to another system is not a function of the ADS, what a ridiculous argument that is.

It gave you the system map instantly*, the FSS doesn't.

*5 secs or so.

 

[Burke]

Deep space is when you dont see the signals any more

 

[GJ51]

How would you keep the new discovery playing field even? If everyone doesn't have the same requirements, wouldn't everyone just drop on the fastest way, rather than the way they would normally play?

.03% of 400 Billion systems have been discovered. Do it as slow or fast as you want. It is statistically insignificant.

 

[GJ51]

It’s not just about GGGs.
It’s a flip in the entire basis of how you want to explore a system.

The FSS provides full detail of each and every body, one by one in order to build a picture of the whole system.
The ADS provided an overview of the whole system, from which you then chose which details to fill in, which contrary to repeated misinformation, the honk did not provide.

A bottom up process will never satisfy explorers who want a top down experience.
For people who are looking for interesting systems, the FSS is a massive time waster.

But as repeated ad nauseum, there’s plenty of room for both options without any needless compromise limiting explorers to one or the other.

Zack Lee

 

[M00ka]

There were no USS in deep space last i looked, but as for planet surface POI i think they ought to reveal if you fly out there and scan it up close. Which many ADS explorers would do, i know i would.

Care to explain how you know that since you have been telling the entire world that you can't/won't do any exploring since the ADS went the way of the dinosaurs?

 

[GJ51]

The Philosophy Departments at just about any major/credible University teach logic courses.

ED players need not apply

Waste of time.

 

[Sysmon]

Now that we can, go count up all the unique approvals in prior what are you doing threads and see that indeed there are many randoms who come in, feel the same and leave. Even this thread, notice how you're white knighting with about 4 people that have never picked up the baton before?

It seems rather it is the same few people who cannot let go of the ADS (which can't possibly have meant to be the sole exploration tool in the game because shudder the radio telescope and signal filtering tools have been invited ages ago but hey, this is about flying spaceships around) who keeps yelling the same non-arguments and wonder why the people who actually enjoy the new tools either get tired of listening to their repetitive complaints and go post somewhere else, or just get on with game.

Sorry, gentlepeople, but repeatedly stating a position is not how debating or discussions work. Neither are personal attacks and accusations. If anything needs discussing, it is how to further improve on the tools we have got.

S

 

[Thatchinho]

Thank you for making my point - didn't expect that.

So the ADS overview wouldn't give you the same information as the FSS - but would allow you to decide if a system was worth further investigation.

I guess we're in agreement.

No, unfortunately not, the ADS wouldn't in general give you the requisite info, though it might in some cases. Unless we're talking at cross purposes here?... I'm talking with the Signal/POI side of things in mind, but know there's other interests for people and other things which would constitute a system being worth further investigation. What in your view would the ADS provide that would allow you to decide if a system was worth further investigation?

 

[Burke]

Care to explain how you know that since you have been telling the entire world that you can't/won't do any exploring since the ADS went the way of the dinosaurs?

Well cause i used enjoy flying around ADSing stuff. Thats why i put when last i looked, in case it had changed.

 

[GJ51]

No, unfortunately not, the ADS wouldn't in general give you the requisite info, though it might in some cases. Unless we're talking at cross purposes here?... I'm talking with the Signal/POI side of things in mind, but know there's other interests for people and other things which would constitute a system being worth further investigation. What in your view would the ADS provide that would allow you to decide if a system was worth further investigation?

ADS allows a player a quick overview that may warrant further investigation with the FSS for more detailed information and the possibility of deciding to do a DSS.

If nothing appears to be worth further investigation, you just make another jump.

Also consider that many experienced explorers go out in the black with a wide variety of different objectives. There's no one size fits all and any one explorer may have different objectives at any time and they may change on any given venture and at any point in any journey.

Traveling - Just getting to a particular region to begin more detailed data investigation/collection.

Materials replenishment.

Search for particular Star classes - BH/NS fields.

There are countless different approaches that can change multiple times.

To argue as if there's a one size fits all best way to do exploration is absurd.

The FSS only crowd - sorry, I've edited several times but it appears that the posts aren't accepting the changes - See below

The only crowd has only succeeded in limiting the ADDITIONAL variety that would have been available if the ADS had been retained with the ADDITION of an FSS to add more depth to exploration - which was the original goal stated by FD back in the day.

The one or the other approach with the removal of the ADS was a huge mistake and an unforced error by FD.

As evident by this entire thread

The FSS only crowd has only succeeded in taking away additional options rather than allowing FD to make an addition which would have given everyone more exploration game play options and hurt no one.

Hope this is my last attempt to clarify - not sure why the forum is wonky...

 

[Mohrgan]

.03% of 400 Billion systems have been discovered. Do it as slow or fast as you want. It is statistically insignificant.

The 'It doesn't effect me defense'. Much despised in many circles.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

It seems rather it is the same few people who cannot let go of the ADS (which can't possibly have meant to be the sole exploration tool in the game because shudder the radio telescope and signal filtering tools have been invited ages ago but hey, this is about flying spaceships around) who keeps yelling the same non-arguments and wonder why the people who actually enjoy the new tools either get tired of listening to their repetitive complaints and go post somewhere else, or just get on with game.

Sorry, gentlepeople, but repeatedly stating a position is not how debating or discussions work. Neither are personal attacks and accusations. If anything needs discussing, it is how to further improve on the tools we have got.

S

The only person in every single fss thread that brings up head count is Max Factor. Everyone else sticks to talking about the feature itself. Its a last ditch tool of naysayers because all the discussion around the designed feature makes sense and cant be challenged. My post was only a response to max.

The other side doesn't care because the impact is right there, every play after hitting they keybind. You don't need approval or a popularity contest to see the fss.....

 

[Sysmon]

ADS allows a player a quick overview that may warrant further investigation with the FSS for more detailed information and the possibility of deciding to do a DSS.

If nothing appears to be worth further investigation, you just make another jump.

The spectrum in the FSA does that just as well.

The one or the other approacg with the removal of the ADS was a huge mistake and an unforced error by FD.

Personal opinion (and not a popular one). Also, leaving old mechanics in a game when new ones are introduced just make a mess of things. It is unbalancing as well as poor decision-making. We can only look forward to how FDEV will build further upon the FSA/DSS mechanics.

S

 

[Ezren]

It’s not just about GGGs.
It’s a flip in the entire basis of how you want to explore a system.

The FSS provides full detail of each and every body, one by one in order to build a picture of the whole system.
The ADS provided an overview of the whole system, from which you then chose which details to fill in, which contrary to repeated misinformation, the honk did not provide.

A bottom up process will never satisfy explorers who want a top down experience.
For people who are looking for interesting systems, the FSS is a massive time waster.

But as repeated ad nauseum, there’s plenty of room for both options without any needless compromise limiting explorers to one or the other.

I can glean a lot of information just from the FSS readout, if we're talking about top-down overview. And frankly speaking, I only started using the FSS a few days ago and went in blind while hitting my 5k requirement for engineer unlocks after restarting, so I've not been using it very long, nor did I do anything but figure it out as I went.

It didn't take long to be able to look at the spectrum readout and know the gist of what was in the system. I shortly after figured out how to identify planets with POIs on them using the FSS. Noted where water and earthlikes are on the spectrum.

The difference is getting information that you extrapolate from, and a straight-up map with pictures.

If it's a "time waster", why explore at all? Exploration is not an instant gratification choice. I don't think that argument really holds water - it takes longer, but so does shooting down stronger NPC enemies, and as I said before, space potato target practice was easier, not better. The two are not synonymous.

Mechanically, the FSS is more engaging when clearing a system. The ADS got a full picture of every stellar body, which was pretty iffy when there was sometimes a star in the way and you were going several times the speed of light.

The ADS is gone. Wanting changes to the FSS to improve usability is fine. Wanting both systems is not a "compromise", that's just wanting to get the ADS back.

 

[GJ51]

The 'It doesn't effect me defense'. Much despised in many circles.

And for no valid articulated reason.

 

[Sysmon]

The only person in every single fss thread that brings up head count is Max Factor. Everyone else sticks to talking about the feature itself. Its a last ditch tool of naysayers because all the discussion around the designed feature makes sense and cant be challenged. My post was only a response to max.

The other side doesn't care because the impact is right there, every play after hitting they keybind. You don't need approval or a popularity contest to see the fss.....

I do agree that the numbers game is pretty pointless, as 1) it appears rather difficult to precisely show how many actually play Elite Dangerous (regularly), 2) how many explore relatively actively, and 3) how many newcomers came into the game when the FSS was introduced.

Using DW2 expedition data is problematic as it only shows that a subset went exploring with the expedition. I am also unsure that the specific mechanics of exploration is what attract people to the game. Rather, it is the opportunity to fly a spaceship in a multiplayer setting (without playing spreadsheets in space) and experience the 1:1 scale galaxy (or at least the inhabited parts). Using forum likes, while appearing to be acceptable currency in the 21st century, also just shows the activity of people on the forum.

Focussing on the numbers could also lead to the conclusion that we have game development by democracy. I certainly hope not, and that FDEV has a game plan they are sticking to, rather than changing tack based on the loudness of voices they are subjected to.

S

 

[GJ51]

The spectrum in the FSA does that just as well.

Personal opinion (and not a popular one).

Personal opinion (and not a popular one). Also, leaving old mechanics in a game when new ones are introduced just make a mess of things. It is unbalancing as well as poor decision-making. We can only look forward to how FDEV will build further upon the FSA/DSS mechanics.

S

Personal opinion (and not a popular one).

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

I do agree that the numbers game is pretty pointless, as 1) it appears rather difficult to precisely show how many actually play Elite Dangerous (regularly), 2) how many explore relatively actively, and 3) how many newcomers came into the game when the FSS was introduced.

Using DW2 expedition data is problematic as it only shows that a subset went exploring with the expedition. I am also unsure that the specific mechanics of exploration is what attract people to the game. Rather, it is the opportunity to fly a spaceship in a multiplayer setting (without playing spreadsheets in space) and experience the 1:1 scale galaxy (or at least the inhabited parts). Using forum likes, while appearing to be acceptable currency in the 21st century, also just shows the activity of people on the forum.

Focussing on the numbers could also lead to the conclusion that we have game development by democracy. I certainly hope not, and that FDEV has a game plan they are sticking to, rather than changing tack based on the loudness of voices they are subjected to.

S

Yeah absolutely. To be fair, when people have used those numbers to support change on the fss i was equally unmoved.

Its a little used thing around elite circles.. but personal experience is ultimate guide. The entire system relies way too much on the value of the rewards rather than the gameplay itself (which is point and click with no depth). Something so shallow is going to be questionable to new players and becomes a negative score after repeated use.

The fss sucks side comes in with a better prior experience. The fss white knights come in with preexisting imaginations and hatreds. Even removing all of the above its a sub optimal mechanic.