In the Beta Spirit...

[WR3ND]

Not sure what revelations you guys are getting at here...

Yes, I don't particularly care for spending my time dialing in the bits and bobs on the FSS – I don't think that's a secret. It's just a means to an end. I did mention this previously in the thread.

The time it takes itself though is also a relevant concern for me, since it means I'm less likely to find and bother looking for compelling systems within a given time frame while out in the black.

On the other hand, if I did enjoy the FSS game-play, then it wouldn't really be so much of an issue, since I'd be enjoying the time it takes, not just the systems I can reveal and explore further with it.

I don't think this necessarily has the same sort of contextual relevance, but similarly, I don't particularly care for spending a proportionally longer time fuel scooping, so I don't really care for use the Diamondback ships in the game in general either.

If these are things other players like or don't mind, fair enough. I don't think it makes them wrong and me right. I'd just prefer having other options that make some sense contextually in the game so I can get on more with those elements of the game I do enjoy.

If this can be done in a way without undermining the relevance of the apparent intended game-play, all the better.

 

[[VR] Merkir]

Kudos to all of the recent posters for being constructive and courteous. Quite an achievement considering past threads on this topic.

I'd support some of the recent compromise suggestions. While not new, they do encapsulate what many have been suggesting over the last 12 months, like the initial black body system map, etc. I won't call it a step in the right direction, as I'd scrap the entire system to do it completely differently. But I'll call it a step in a better direction.

 

[WR3ND]

Kudos to all of the recent posters for being constructive and courteous. Quite an achievement considering past threads on this topic.

I'd support some of the recent compromise suggestions. While not new, they do encapsulate what many have been suggesting over the last 12 months, like the initial black body system map, etc. I won't call it a step in the right direction, as I'd scrap the entire system to do it completely differently. But I'll call it a step in a better direction.

If you're referring to my previous compromise suggestion post in the thread (sorry, I'm not sure – I jumped into this thread a bit late), I wasn't meaning to imply that they should be black bodies, just that they wouldn't have any additional detailed information beyond their basic visibility (players could likely still infer the basic type of worlds they were, but wouldn't be specifically provided with this information) and location information.

I'm not actually particularly opposed to the idea of using black bodies for this and have suggested it in the past myself, but I don't think it'd mesh very well with the current exploration game-play mechanics and wouldn't be much of a compromise for those who are asking for ADS-like functionality.

Cheers.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Again, thank you for the reply, it is nice to be able to discuss an issue without being belittled and labeled a white knight for not following a certain train of thought.

Regarding the immersion bit, yes I can understand that and several Commanders have come up with quite reasonable mock ups of the FSS screen overlaid in the canopy. The issue I had with that train of thought (that going to a separate screen to use the FSS was terrible) is that often the very same people would be asking for a mechanic that would mean they spend more time in the system map - but apparently that wasn't a problem nor immersion breaking. Same thing I haven't heard too many complaining about the immersion destroying act of spending time in the Gal Map either, apparently that is okay as well, it is just the FSS screen out of all the other screens that is the problem.

As for the comment regarding clicking and panning and any other solution would have pleased everyone. Yep, we will agree to disagree on this one as well, I am quite sure that anything FD did, whatever mechanism they came up with for scanning, if it wasn't instant then it wasn't going to be accepted by some.

It is these types of inconsistences that I tend to pick up on and to me, dampen if not ruin someone's argument.

Yeah I'm curious about that too. Do the people who like revealing the system map go back to it part way through and look at their handwork as the system is revealed? Maybe, fair enough if so. The majority of my time in the system map is on the details panel further into activity so not sure about before that. I like the presentation of the galaxy map, looks nice so the time spent in there is interesting.

The only other suggestion was seeing a youtube clip on how x4 did exploration. They basically had blobs drawn in the cockpit view.. or it could be the same as the elite fss with the cockpit left on the screen and the ship does the panning. We probably don't have the right to say anything more than that makes so much more sense.

If you don't attack people there's no reason to receive something back. If you're noticing how people respond in threads, you must see that the vast majority of hostility doesn't come from people requesting a change. If anything I'm the worst offender.. been stuck in the trenches for too long. You can't get a rise out of most people here. Even earlier today I reacted badly.. because someone just randomly comes in implies their annoyance and that we shouldn't be having this conversation to cure their annoyance. How is that not just straight up off topic?

 

[WR3ND]

Here's an amusing thought I had...

For those of you who would like ADS-like functionality of some sort restored to the game in the form of an optional module, or at least would prefer it as an additional option compared to what we have in the game now, what would you be willing to pay for it in game credits? To be clear, I'm not actually suggesting this should be the case. This is purely hypothetical.

I'm up to something like 650+ million credits in the game, not include the value of my Python and a handful of small ships... OK, actually 683 something million credits in the game – I remembered I took a system map picture recently that happened to show it.

Spoiler

Yep, 5 humble (I use the term rather loosely here) years worth of credits doing mostly whatever I felt like in the game and I would trade it all (not my ships, well, I suppose if push came to shove, all but my Vulture) for the module.

I mean, how awesome does it sound be able to just fly your ship around targeting everything you see in front of you in a system regardless of its range or from the nav. panel, having detailed information popping up when it becomes available, free as a fat old crow in a pile of popcorn, all with the simple press of a button on a properly outfitted ship?

Yes? No? OK, maybe that's just me...

Spoiler

 

[Riverside]

Here's an amusing thought I had...

For those of you who would like ADS-like functionality of some sort restored to the game in the form of an optional module, or at least would prefer it as an additional option compared to what we have in the game now, what would you be willing to pay for it in game credits? To be clear, I'm not actually suggesting this should be the case. This is purely hypothetical.

Sure. It was a premium module before, price isn't really a balancing factor. Somebody once suggested adding the functionality as an engineering upgrade (although that wouldn't occupy a slot it could add mass) which might be a more meaningful 'currency' (mats) to 'buy' it with.

Coincidentally while I was out for 18 months in the corvette back in 2017 650m was my cash reserve. It didn't change while I was out of course, but when I sold the data the ship more than paid for itself (best part of a billion iirc). I made more than that in one post 3.3 trip in January 2019.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Coincidentally while I was out for 18 months in the corvette back in 2017 650m was my cash reserve. It didn't change while I was out of course, but when I sold the data the ship more than paid for itself (best part of a billion iirc). I made more than that in one post 3.3 trip in January 2019.

Why does everyone end up in a corvette? That's what I'm sitting in too. That's after a failed attempt in basically every ship in scope. I tried the type 9 twice, clipper probably 3 times.

 

[M00ka]

Why does everyone end up in a corvette? That's what I'm sitting in too. That's after a failed attempt in basically every ship in scope. I tried the type 9 twice, clipper probably 3 times.

Not everyone mate, not everyone lol I own a T-9, moderate engineering applied, probably flown it half a dozen times I guess. Keep on thinking I will get rid of it but then think I will keep it if I decide to do CG's etc.

Tried a Cutter during the 3.3 Beta, again even engineered it, end result is I will hopefully never buy one again. Hated flying the thing, so sluggish.

Don't have a Corvette and to be honest no real desire for one, just can't think of what I would use it for. Big ship combat isn't my thing (don't own a single turret weapon ) Only other large ship I have that I do fly is a Clipper and to me that is a Large ship in name only, flies more like the slightly slower and not as nimble older brother of the Courier. Thought a few times about a Conda, again can't think of a use for it that isn't covered by one of the other ships in my small fleet.

My two exploration ships are an Krait Phantom and an Asp Explorer, the latter is my bubble taxi and the only reason I have kept it is because it is so cheap to transfer back home. I am evidently strange, I really have to have a use for a ship, a defined role so to speak before I will even buy it. The Phantom has a good jump range (58ly) which is enough for me, I often jump shorter distances because I have found so many systems that it seems others have jumped past.

But each to their own regarding ships, some people love big ships, some don't - no judgement either way.

 

[WR3ND]

Why does everyone end up in a corvette? That's what I'm sitting in too. That's after a failed attempt in basically every ship in scope. I tried the type 9 twice, clipper probably 3 times.

I mean, what are your options anyway?

I could always recommend you a nice Cobra Mk III, Vulture, Eagle, Dolphin, iEagle, or, I guess Python, if that's your sort of thing.

 

[Riverside]

Why does everyone end up in a corvette? That's what I'm sitting in too. That's after a failed attempt in basically every ship in scope. I tried the type 9 twice, clipper probably 3 times.

If you mean for exploring that trip wasn't planned, I just left the bubble one day in the ship I happened to be in at the time. I ended up at beagle point 7 months later

AFAIK mine was at least the second Corvette to Beagle Point and (again AFAIK) the first fully armed & armoured one, it was in no way optimised for long distance travel & had a 19ly jump range. While I was out I wrote about my journey & some other players came out to visit me, most notably optimal_909 met me in Colonia having travelled there in his own Corvette. I was interviewed by a journalist about it, I don't think the story was ever published though.

Jump range aside it's a really nice ship to fly, and handles better in supercruise than a Conda while being able to carry basically the same stuff. The Wayward Wanderer is in storage now, it's a legacy engineered museum piece. I built another (Number Two) that I use regularly for CZs, gathering exploration data & some mission running.

 

[WR3ND]

Sure. It was a premium module before, price isn't really a balancing factor. Somebody once suggested adding the functionality as an engineering upgrade (although that wouldn't occupy a slot it could add mass) which might be a more meaningful 'currency' (mats) to 'buy' it with.

Coincidentally while I was out for 18 months in the corvette back in 2017 650m was my cash reserve. It didn't change while I was out of course, but when I sold the data the ship more than paid for itself (best part of a billion iirc). I made more than that in one post 3.3 trip in January 2019.

So, an Engineer, you say...

...one I could sell exploration data to and don't need any naval ranks to unlock?

 

[Faded Glory]

Just got an idea. What if such a re-introduced ADS would provide a fully populated local map, but only temporary: it's not going into your pool of exploration data. Once you leave the system, you are blind again towards the local map, so the ADS would only serve as temporary orientation (e.g. to decide what planets are worth to fly to).

Would this be ok for you?

Yes!

Edit - And if it also disabled the auto-scanning of stars and nearby bodies even better! Zero credits for the honk, no auto discoveries, just a tool that lets me decide if I want to investigate further. Sold.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Just got an idea. What if such a re-introduced ADS would provide a fully populated local map, but only temporary: it's not going into your pool of exploration data. Once you leave the system, you are blind again towards the local map, so the ADS would only serve as temporary orientation (e.g. to decide what planets are worth to fly to).

Would this be ok for you?

Why would your computer erase the information when you jump out? I don't get it.

 

[WR3ND]

Why would your computer erase the information when you jump out? I don't get it.

It doesn't bother saving it since the system wasn't noteworthy enough to bother exploring further, as determined by the player – there wouldn't actually be anything to save other than body locations, since further details wouldn't have been resolved yet. About as valuable as asteroids. Presumably though, it would still save the basic FSS honk information, so as not to cause needless game-play inconstancy.

Though personally, I would rather like having the option to not tag some systems I visit, but I don't think it's something that should be tied to some other game functionality.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

It doesn't bother saving it since the system wasn't noteworthy enough to bother exploring further, as determined by the player – there wouldn't actually be anything to save other then body locations. About as valuable as asteroids. Presumably though, it would still save the basic FSS information, so as not to cause needless game-play inconstancy.

Though personally, I would rather like having the option to not tag some systems I visit, but I don't think it's something that should be tied to some other game functionality.

That's kinda worse as you run the risk of continually visiting that system as there would be nothing to say you have been there.

I am all up for new mechanics, but they need to make some sense in a game world sense and they need to make sense with the current mechanics if they are not being replaced.

That idea makes very little sense.

 

[WR3ND]

That's kinda worse as you run the risk of continually visiting that system as there would be nothing to say you have been there.

I am all up for new mechanics, but they need to make some sense in a game world sense and they need to make sense with the current mechanics if they are not being replaced.

That idea makes very little sense.

Uh, what? Like I said, it would still save the basic FSS honk information as it does currently to not cause any game-play inconsistencies.

The discarded data would just be the additional unresolved system layout information from the ADS-like expansion module.

...

Sorry if I'm not following what you're saying very well. I've been working on a project and haven't gotten much sleep recently.

You may have missed this post which the discussion arrived to a little later in the thread, further refining and incorporating these ideas. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/in-the-beta-spirit.531554/page-14#post-8176639

The preference for an option to not tag systems at all is a tangent issue, in my opinion, which I agree isn't really fitting within the scope of the specific suggestion, as it would introduce game-play inconsistencies. If that sort of functionality where also introduced, it wouldn't make sense to limit it to an optional ADS-like expansion module.

Hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

If you mean for exploring that trip wasn't planned, I just left the bubble one day in the ship I happened to be in at the time. I ended up at beagle point 7 months later

AFAIK mine was at least the second Corvette to Beagle Point and (again AFAIK) the first fully armed & armoured one, it was in no way optimised for long distance travel & had a 19ly jump range. While I was out I wrote about my journey & some other players came out to visit me, most notably optimal_909 met me in Colonia having travelled there in his own Corvette. I was interviewed by a journalist about it, I don't think the story was ever published though.

Jump range aside it's a really nice ship to fly, and handles better in supercruise than a Conda while being able to carry basically the same stuff. The Wayward Wanderer is in storage now, it's a legacy engineered museum piece. I built another (Number Two) that I use regularly for CZs, gathering exploration data & some mission running.

Yeah mines armed to with a full outfitting of limpet controllers, fighter hangers, the lot. Its about 30 on mine, got the current model. I call mine Jax. It has the chrome paint.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Not everyone mate, not everyone lol I own a T-9, moderate engineering applied, probably flown it half a dozen times I guess. Keep on thinking I will get rid of it but then think I will keep it if I decide to do CG's etc.

Tried a Cutter during the 3.3 Beta, again even engineered it, end result is I will hopefully never buy one again. Hated flying the thing, so sluggish.

Don't have a Corvette and to be honest no real desire for one, just can't think of what I would use it for. Big ship combat isn't my thing (don't own a single turret weapon ) Only other large ship I have that I do fly is a Clipper and to me that is a Large ship in name only, flies more like the slightly slower and not as nimble older brother of the Courier. Thought a few times about a Conda, again can't think of a use for it that isn't covered by one of the other ships in my small fleet.

My two exploration ships are an Krait Phantom and an Asp Explorer, the latter is my bubble taxi and the only reason I have kept it is because it is so cheap to transfer back home. I am evidently strange, I really have to have a use for a ship, a defined role so to speak before I will even buy it. The Phantom has a good jump range (58ly) which is enough for me, I often jump shorter distances because I have found so many systems that it seems others have jumped past.

But each to their own regarding ships, some people love big ships, some don't - no judgement either way.

Yeah I like them. My background is tie fighter. When I was a kid spent 6 months and finished the game, that was an eternity to spend doing one thing back then. That set some expectations though. The small ships in elite are more ww2 than space space superiority in comparison. I like the large ships because they are closer to approximating something the size the lore and the models claim they are. The average ships are just that, not very convincing, but are no tie defenders either. Fighters are different story and kinda fun. Though having said I haven't engineered any racing models so could be missing out there.

Well out of boredom I took the opposite approach and tried them most of them to varying degrees. The federation and alliance combat ships being the exception I guess.

For me there's half a dozen or so ships that are in the favourites pool, and the point is to split them up over a few accounts so they aren't diluted. At the big end there's a lot of overlap.

You don't need turrets for a corvette, its pretty disappointing especially with engineering it handles closer to a python. Anaconda, TYPE 10!!!!!! and Cutter are really fun as turret boats. The concept makes sense when your ship doesn't handle, but the point of the combat then is to keep your nose down anyway. Its a notably different experience to ships that can keep on another tail.

 

[Riverside]

Yeah mines armed to with a full outfitting of limpet controllers, fighter hangers, the lot. Its about 30 on mine, got the current model. I call mine Jax. It has the chrome paint.

Number Two is about 27ly with a guardian booster, but it's got an SCB, MRP and a few HRPs, and IIRC a class B power plant. I used it as a test bed to see if I could make it better in every way than its predecessor. The original remains docked as a momento, although I take it out occasionally I wouldn't deliberately put it in harm's way any more.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Uh, what? Like I said, it would still save the basic FSS honk information as it does currently to not cause any game-play inconsistencies.

The discarded data would just be the additional unresolved system layout information from the ADS-like expansion module.

...

Sorry if I'm not following what you're saying very well. I've been working on a project and haven't gotten much sleep recently.

You may have missed this post which the discussion arrived to a little later in the thread, further refining and incorporating these ideas. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/in-the-beta-spirit.531554/page-14#post-8176639

The preference for an option to not tag systems at all is a tangent issue, in my opinion, which I agree isn't really fitting within the scope of the specific suggestion, as it would introduce game-play inconsistencies. If that sort of functionality where also introduced, it wouldn't make sense to limit it to an optional ADS-like expansion module.

Hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

I agree that there should be options not to tag anything. I also think that's a bit annoying. But that can be incorporated into the FSS.