FSS - my opinion

No, I don't.

I think that the "rare unicorn hunters" are a tiny, though vocal, minority, primarily because those aren't the kinds of things you can actively search for. They're the kind of things you can only stumble upon.

I think what keeps explorers out there exploring are sights like these:

planet-png.136327



20200316135720_1-jpg.165754



ps_messages_20200319_043510-jpg.165987



And it is here, in my opinion, that the FSS can really shine. Because I can actively use it to search for things like these:








I really wish VR allowed you to easily take good screenshots. If I didn't have to switch to pancake mode to do so, I'd take more of them.

Have you seen the links in my sig? I think not.

Saying that unicorn hunters are tiny minority of explorers, despite the evidence of the contrary on the forum and on EDSM and without providing any arguments or data to back up this statement.... well. Obviously we cant have a meaningful discussion here.
 
And to think...

All of these conversations, discussions that have been going on since the very first reveal of the FSS, could have been entirely avoided had FD allowed players some choice in how they went about exploring.

It's truly one of the strangest decisions that I think I've seen in the game's development (only been around since beta, but still...). I cannot think of another area in the game where there is one way and one way only of doing something. In fact, I can't really think of one thing that has to be done one way. I was going to say datamined wake exceptions - then I remembered material traders.

It's a shame. I'd like to explore, the stellar forge galaxy is really pretty cool and the exploration trips that I did under the old system were enjoyable - sure the gameplay was passive and it took time, but I mixed it up with other things. Unfortunately I don't find the FSS to be either compelling enough, and frankly, nor does it feel as though I'm playing Elite when I'm in it. It's a different game altogether (to me), and one I would never have bought.
 
@marx:

First:

I've written about my constructive criticism and opinions of the FSS extensively, and you've read those posts, or at the very least some of them. Now here you are, saying that instead of everything I talked about, my problem is that I'm so impatient that I'd consciously choose not to employ basic observational skills? Please make an effort to keep an open mind, and listen to what people are saying before you start making assumptions about them - especially when those assumptions are negative.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I meant that you don't use them because they're an unnecessary step in whatever your exploration process is, not because you're in impatient.

Moving on, yes, we're definitely wrapping up here, since we're going in circles. Just to address a couple points you brought up:

1) Based on my experiences on these forums, and in real life, I prefer to underestimate people's experience, knowledge, and intelligence, as opposed the reverse. I don't know everything, and despite how knowledgeable I believe I am about this game, I'm still learning things, sometimes even "common knowledge" or the incredibly obvious. As the old saying goes, when there's doubt, it's better to communicate a piece of information unnecessarily, than assume its known and not communicate it at all.

2) My definition of mini-game pretty much aligns with Wikipedia's:

A minigame (also spelled mini-game or mini game, sometimes called a subgame or microgame) is a short video game often contained within another video game, and sometimes in application software or on a display of any form of hardware. A minigame contains different gameplay elements than the main game, may be optional, and is often smaller or more simplistic than the game in which it is contained. Minigames are sometimes also offered separately for free to promote the main game. Some minigames can also be bonus stages or secret levels.


I don't feel like the FSS fits this definition, because first and foremost its a information source, similar to the system map or the orrery, as opposed to a "short video game." It can be certainly used like a short video game, just like the system map can be used like a short video game, but I don't consider that its primary purpose, just the its most obvious use. That's why I typically compare it to Supercruise, where parking the throttle in the blue zone and leaving it there is its most obvious use, and one of two techniques most mentioned in the forums, but there are far quicker techniques to get your destination.
 
Just a note on that. The passive range of the scanner was increased substantially with the FSS. Just swoop by relatively close to the moons/giant, and you'll sweep all of them with you instantly. Then you can have a look at them in the system map while you fly to the next planet.
The range is so far that you'll be nowhere near the strong gravity well effects, and you can go at any speed you like.

Yes for sure. That's the primary technique, but then i figured you miss out on the god mode surface reveals, so wanted to have it both ways :) Its a bit odd how it works, because if you are still out of range for the flash scanning, the fss usually complains about being too close, but if you get closer so its flash discovered the fss will zoom in on it just fine. Great engineering there.
 
I've not followed the discoveries of others, I don't particularly socialise with other explorers, I didn't go on DW2 (or any other group event), and I no longer explore uncharted territory.

Is there anything that has been discovered in the last 15 months or so that the ADS would have made it too easy to find? Was it removed because it would have spoiled the surprise reveal of some new feature that was secretly added?
 
And, just to be sure, you're not saying that the system map is a mini-game, are you?

At least in prior discussions, we used to go back and forth for hundreds of pages before the top 3 blue screen protagonists would state that opening the system map body by body is indeed a minigame for them, and this is the primary value of the fss above all else... everything else.

My mind was blown over and over again because i still cant perceive the value of this today. Ask max if he checks the incomplete system map while using the fss. :p

Course noone is wrong this was just an epic unspoken assumption that doesnt compute for the other side.
 
Have you seen the links in my sig? I think not.

Saying that unicorn hunters are tiny minority of explorers, despite the evidence of the contrary on the forum and on EDSM and without providing any arguments or data to back up this statement.... well. Obviously we cant have a meaningful discussion here.
You mean, something like this?

Hi all,

I just wanted to drop by and clear up a few things:

After the first presentation of Exploration, we received a vast amount of feedback and I personally took the time to read a large amount of this. Having done so, we set out to look at the different types of explorers we have in the game and came up with nearly a dozen different types. One of which was the type presented by the OP here. We then tried to use that information to look at the new mechanics to make sure they would work for as many of those types as possible. Unfortunately we weren’t able to come up with a solution that allowed players, like the OP, to maintain their current flow without severely altering the gameplay of the other types or changing the design direction of the FSS.

We’ve made the FSA as readable at a glance as possible, with a lot of information being presented if you wish to master the system. Also as we showcased on the stream, you can become very proficient and quick with the FSS, and we believe that the additional time required isn’t too dramatic.

The Orrery view also means that you should be able to find interesting orbits or clusters of planets without having to actually visit them.

We would love for you to try out the new mechanics during the beta and provide us with feedback on how it impact the way you play.

Hello Commanders,

I wanted to drop in and let you that we have been reading your comments and are aware how some of you feel about the FSS.

When first designing the FSS, we wanted to ensure that it was engaging for as many different player types as possible, but also understood that it would not be possible to design a system that would work for everyone. Before the FSS was implemented, we also collected feedback from discussions on the forum and the beta.

Today, in its current iteration, we’re happy with how the FSS operates and feel that reinstating the ADS would be detrimental to the experience of exploration as it is now.

At the current time, we won’t be making changes to the core of the FSS. While we understand that this may be disappointing for some of you, we would like to thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and feedback with us.

All but killing the "rare unicorn hunter" exploration playstyle wasn't an accident on Frontier's part. It was a deliberate choice of Frontier's. It also isn't a move I think Frontier would make if that particular play style represented the majority of explorers out there, or even a significant minority.

Now, personally, I think an optional module similar to the ADS wouldn't have had a detrimental effect on exploration, the key word here being optional. Frontier Developments obviously disagrees, and they're the ones that have been calling the shots.
 
All of these conversations, discussions that have been going on since the very first reveal of the FSS, could have been entirely avoided had FD allowed players some choice in how they went about exploring.

It's truly one of the strangest decisions that I think I've seen in the game's development (only been around since beta, but still...). I cannot think of another area in the game where there is one way and one way only of doing something. In fact, I can't really think of one thing that has to be done one way. I was going to say datamined wake exceptions - then I remembered material traders.
A good point. The reason for all this wasn't that Frontier made a serious mistake - that happens, and those mistakes can be fixed. They've made some and changed them. Instead, the puzzling thing is that in this case, after they made one, they doubled down on it as hard as they could. I still wonder why they did this: they wouldn't even have to admit that they made any mistakes, they could just make a few minor changes which would solve many complaints.
Perhaps there were ego issues at play there ("I personally took the time to read a large amount of [the feedback]") at first, but later on, it became a consequence of barely allocating any resources to the live game.

Of course, it's entirely likely that the developers themselves have no idea about the issues of the FSS because the CM team doesn't forward any feedback about it that has negative points to them. Exploration has historically been a low-priority issue for the developers anyway.

All but killing the "rare unicorn hunter" exploration playstyle wasn't an accident on Frontier's part. It was a deliberate choice of Frontier's. It also isn't a move I think Frontier would make if that particular play style represented the majority of explorers out there, or even a significant minority.
No offence, but I think you're assigning more competence to Frontier on this matter than they actually had. I mean, just think of the FSD booster at first, or the Type-7 "minor" buff in a beta. The "The Orrery view also means that you should be able to find interesting orbits or clusters of planets without having to actually visit them." part was kind of funny, too. (By the way, thanks for digging up those dev posts!)

Instead, what happened was that they designed something without input from anyone well-versed in exploration (not even the streamers invited to talk about the prototype stuff had any among them), and were genuinely surprised when the initial feedback wasn't all positive. They likely expected the same universal acclaim that they got from the handful of invited streamers. (Disregarding a few comments when they said it felt clunky at first, but thought it would be good later.) Bear in mind that this feedback thread was made once it was already too late for them to make changes, apparently.
But the FSS was targeted at new players first and those who didn't explore before second, so any negative feedback from those who did was brushed aside. Don't forget that the only FSS feedback they acted upon was to re-introduce credit payouts to just honking, since it was originally planned to be changed to no credits.


No, I don't.

I think that the "rare unicorn hunters" are a tiny, though vocal, minority, primarily because those aren't the kinds of things you can actively search for. They're the kind of things you can only stumble upon.

I think what keeps explorers out there exploring are sights like these:
First, anyone who posts on a forum is already part of a tiny minority.
Second, you can actively search for rarities - I'm not sure where you got the notion that you can't, but you can. In fact, one can improve their chances of finding rarities quite drastically by restricting what systems they search, as opposed to just going out at random - but the thing is, even then you still have to explore a lot of systems. We're talking about four-five digits there.
Unless you happen to luck out and stumble upon something much sooner than could be expected, of course.

As for making pictures, compare these two threads here:
The Official Explorers Photography thread, started on 2016. Sept 25: 88 pages.
The Galactic Mapping Project thread, started on 2015. Feb. 19: 236 pages.

Little wonder, as rare finds are much more interesting and useful for others than screenshots are, even the uncommon good photos. (Especially when they've seen plenty of Earth-likes or eclipses already.) So I'd say that "professional" photographers are an even more tiny minority.

Then there's what we can see from the data: most of the traffic is to Colonia, followed by Sagittarius A*. Players explore along the way. Then they tend to go to other known destinations, exploring along the way: mixing tourism and exploration, if you will. Only a small minority (of the already small minority of those who head out from the bubble) head out into what I call the "deep galaxy": far from any known landmarks, and not to specific destinations.

Now, if known destinations can be that important to people, it would make sense that they keep exploring with the hopes of finding their own. If they keep exploring, of course. I think the new rank requirements for Elite in exploration were targeted to hit just about the time when most people would quit exploring. (I'd say it could have been an accident, because they didn't change rank values, but then I remember that this was reported in the first beta, and all subsequent ones.)
It's a pity though, because Elite's galaxy is what makes the game unique (the rest of the game is of high quality in many places too, and it helps that there's little competition - but it's not unique) and it wouldn't even take a lot of resources to improve upon it so much more. The foundations are already there, but they've been sitting there without any further work for years.
 
You mean, something like this?
Sorry, but how do those quotes contradict "Saying that unicorn hunters are tiny minority of explorers, despite the evidence of the contrary on the forum and on EDSM and without providing any arguments or data to back up this statement.... well. Obviously we cant have a meaningful discussion here. "

Can you point out where Adam says it's a tiny vocal minority? Because it's odd that a majority of the explorers I went on DW1 was a tiny minority of explorers. There were probably less in DW2, since most of them quit, and by now, yeah, they possibly are a tiny minority, since they have no game left.

All but killing the "rare unicorn hunter" exploration playstyle wasn't an accident on Frontier's part. It was a deliberate choice of Frontier's.
That's also not in the quote. Please point out where Adam says they deliberately targeted that particular demographic.

You listed a number of easy improvements to the FSS which would make exploration a better experience for you. None of those were far-fetched, and I agree with you there are some pretty obvious ones.

If we apply Occam's razor, we arrive at a very probable scenario. The FSS was a rush job. The fact I've been without my exploration fix for more than a year isn't because Frontier targeted me as a player with an unwanted playstyle. It's because they didn't allow us to give feedback, and they needed the update out by December.

That, or Frontier sat down and said: You know fellers, we need to get rid of those pesky rarity seekers.

I do think I know which one of those I deem to be much more likely.
It also isn't a move I think Frontier would make if that particular play style represented the majority of explorers out there, or even a significant minority.
That's a baseless assumption.

Another explanation would be that Frontier is rather clueless with regard to what draws explorers. The focus on credits in the first livesteam showcasing the FSS made that apparent. Now we can disagree on favourite playstyles, but I do think, having read these forums, we can agree that credit rewards is not very high on the vast majority of dedicated explorers. Given how it's never paid well, and still was a very popular past-time for players.

Keep in mind that their solution to the complaint: "We miss the information from the ADS" was increasing the honk reward. This was explicitly stated on the livestream. We have read the complaints and made some changes, we increased the honk pay out. While no one was complaining about the honk payout.

Again, all signs point towards: the FSS was a rush job, and there wasn't any time left for improvements. Which include non-ADS related improvements.
Now, personally, I think an optional module similar to the ADS wouldn't have had a detrimental effect on exploration, the key word here being optional. Frontier Developments obviously disagrees, and they're the ones that have been calling the shots.
No, Frontier does not obviously disagree. They just decided not to have an optional ADS.

Frontier doesn't spend much time thinking about exploration. The long dry spell of new features, the postponing and cancellation of the Focused Feedback round for exploration all point to this. And the reason is pretty simple. Marketing. You can sell Fleet Carriers easier than a well thought out exploration system. Or you go: space legs, and watch the crowd go ape. Look! The rock exploded! Yay \o/

I just keep arriving at the same conclusion. The FSS was a rush job. And reading your own criticisms on the FSS, of which some could be easily alleviated given a bit of development time, isn't that the far more obvious possibility? I happen to be the unlucky one, you happen to be the lucky one.
 
Last edited:
If there is to be an optional ADS, make it an engaging one. The previous iteration just was not engaging at all.

My version was posted in an earlier form higher up in this thread: An automated system that after the initial honk populates the system map (and NAV panel) with black bodies (and Unexplored entries) over a duration of time. The duration and degree of the completion will depend on the relative velocity of the scanning ship in relation to each body to be resolved, as well as on the size and radiation signature of the body. Stars and gas giants will be easy, while smaller and more distant object will take longer or take more time. This tool would not work well too close to strongly radiative objects, so the user would need to move a bit away from stars, for example.

To fully resolve a body without the FSS, a ship will have to be within, say, 1000 - 10 ls depending on body size and facing the body. That will allow the ADS to scan it automatically as if in the default configuration of the FSS with a set position of the "filters" we seem to apply. The user would then not have to enter an FSS, although there could be some information not available by ADS scanning, such as PoIs other than volcanism.

The FSS could then be used to scan far-away objects and for more detailed PoI data before the DSS is needed. But as ship would not have to carry both ADS and FSS, unless the user likes to mix up methods.

:D S
 
If there is to be an optional ADS, make it an engaging one. The previous iteration just was not engaging at all.
It didn't need to be. It's just a baseline on which I base my gameplay. The gameplay comes as a result of the information of the ADS.

For me what comes after is engaging. Which is why I put all my hopes on interesting POIs. If those had been fun, the FSS would have worked for me. My focus would have shifted from finding the wonderful or weird in systems towards finding it on planets. If I could have spend hours investigating planets in a single system, because each POI could be potentially something wonderful or weird, I'd still be playing.

But ... POIs are boring cookie cuttered content, not worth the time.
 
It didn't need to be.

Yes it did. Stellar Forge is impressive, but suffers from the same issue as the PoIs as it was left just short of getting the last details in. And the tools we used to observe it weren't that exciting either. I think FD could do well by filling in the gap between the ADS and FSS with something, as well as adding more detail to what we can find. Either in the form of more variability, or more ways to interact with it. That's the magic word, interact; there was nothing interactive about the ADS.

:D S
 
If there is to be an optional ADS, make it an engaging one. The previous iteration just was not engaging at all.

My version was posted in an earlier form higher up in this thread: An automated system that after the initial honk populates the system map (and NAV panel) with black bodies (and Unexplored entries) over a duration of time. The duration and degree of the completion will depend on the relative velocity of the scanning ship in relation to each body to be resolved, as well as on the size and radiation signature of the body. Stars and gas giants will be easy, while smaller and more distant object will take longer or take more time. This tool would not work well too close to strongly radiative objects, so the user would need to move a bit away from stars, for example.

To fully resolve a body without the FSS, a ship will have to be within, say, 1000 - 10 ls depending on body size and facing the body. That will allow the ADS to scan it automatically as if in the default configuration of the FSS with a set position of the "filters" we seem to apply. The user would then not have to enter an FSS, although there could be some information not available by ADS scanning, such as PoIs other than volcanism.

The FSS could then be used to scan far-away objects and for more detailed PoI data before the DSS is needed. But as ship would not have to carry both ADS and FSS, unless the user likes to mix up methods.

:D S
That would be exactly what I would want.....to spend even MORE time in a system to find out there was nothing I wanted to look at! Maybe instead of the pulsating blue blobs...we could have an audio enhancement...maybe nails scraping across a chalkboard?
 
That would be exactly what I would want.....to spend even MORE time in a system to find out there was nothing I wanted to look at! Maybe instead of the pulsating blue blobs...we could have an audio enhancement...maybe nails scraping across a chalkboard?

The thing is, all systems really should have something. Look at all the excitement we are getting today from looking at ice blocks like Pluto and Europa.

:D S
 
Sorry, but how do those quotes contradict "Saying that unicorn hunters are tiny minority of explorers, despite the evidence of the contrary on the forum and on EDSM and without providing any arguments or data to back up this statement.... well. Obviously we cant have a meaningful discussion here. "

Can you point out where Adam says it's a tiny vocal minority? Because it's odd that a majority of the explorers I went on DW1 was a tiny minority of explorers. There were probably less in DW2, since most of them quit, and by now, yeah, they possibly are a tiny minority, since they have no game left.


That's also not in the quote. Please point out where Adam says they deliberately targeted that particular demographic.

You listed a number of easy improvements to the FSS which would make exploration a better experience for you. None of those were far-fetched, and I agree with you there are some pretty obvious ones.

If we apply Occam's razor, we arrive at a very probable scenario. The FSS was a rush job. The fact I've been without my exploration fix for more than a year isn't because Frontier targeted me as a player with an unwanted playstyle. It's because they didn't allow us to give feedback, and they needed the update out by December.

That, or Frontier sat down and said: You know fellers, we need to get rid of those pesky rarity seekers.

I do think I know which one of those I deem to be much more likely.

That's a baseless assumption.

Another explanation would be that Frontier is rather clueless with regard to what draws explorers. The focus on credits in the first livesteam showcasing the FSS made that apparent. Now we can disagree on favourite playstyles, but I do think, having read these forums, we can agree that credit rewards is not very high on the vast majority of dedicated explorers. Given how it's never paid well, and still was a very popular past-time for players.

Keep in mind that their solution to the complaint: "We miss the information from the ADS" was increasing the honk reward. This was explicitly stated on the livestream. We have read the complaints and made some changes, we increased the honk pay out. While no one was complaining about the honk payout.

Again, all signs point towards: the FSS was a rush job, and there wasn't any time left for improvements. Which include non-ADS related improvements.

No, Frontier does not obviously disagree. They just decided not to have an optional ADS.

Frontier doesn't spend much time thinking about exploration. The long dry spell of new features, the postponing and cancellation of the Focused Feedback round for exploration all point to this. And the reason is pretty simple. Marketing. You can sell Fleet Carriers easier than a well thought out exploration system. Or you go: space legs, and watch the crowd go ape. Look! The rock exploded! Yay \o/

I just keep arriving at the same conclusion. The FSS was a rush job. And reading your own criticisms on the FSS, of which some could be easily alleviated given a bit of development time, isn't that the far more obvious possibility? I happen to be the unlucky one, you happen to be the lucky one.

This level of negligence winds me up though. I had to forget coming to the same conclusions myself. Combine the atrocity with white knights and their marketing imagine and wow. Sorry go back to the forgotten place and look forward to the next feature.
 
I'm not comparing anything in Elite to real life so the, 'I don't like because it just isn't like real-life' arguments are not in my filed of interest - I simply don't want an ultra real life space simulator, thanks.

I don't see much point comparing old versus new either, more about where you go from here:

In that instance, I'm not a fan of the current system. I would prefer the Honk identified all the planetary and non-planetary objects in the system (including USS and NSP) which would be displayed on the system map (I like both the current system map layouts). However, the information provided would be basic planetary type and general location of USS and NSP only.
Then you would have a second level of scan that could be undertaken directly from the system map screen, that allowed finer detail of material types for surface prospecting, geological or biological features, potential for terraforming, possible type of USS or NSP etc. to inform whether you wanted to go to the final level of scan - which means actually going out there and getting close to the object to scan it (not probes - pointless mini game in my experience). Same would apply for USS and NSP.

I don't really like the whole roaming and tuning game - I don't see the point and/or value to the effort.
 
Regarding comparisons with real life, it's rather ironic, because the ADS provided far more verisimilitude than the FSS.

An analogy for the FSS in the 21st century might be if manufacturers recalled every radio and TV in existence and replaced them with an obsolete version where the user has to manually tune stations with a rotary dial.

As many others have said, the FSS was rushed out the door (unfinished until a few weeks after release). FDev wanted it to be their own lock-picking mini-game. That's fine, except for the implementation. Unlike Skyrim where their lock-picking required hand-eye coordination which mimicked very well the technology level and context of the Skyrim game world, FDev's FSS mini-game is completely nonsensical in the technology level and context of the ED game universe.

And yes, I understand most players don't care that the FSS is nonsensical. Indeed, many have said it seems realistic! <massive facepalm>

That aside, I agree with others who point out that most mini-games are meant to be infrequent (look at Skyrim, Fallout). FDev have made their mini-game core gameplay for explorers, changing what is supposed to be an infrequent side-task into monotonous tedium.
 
Last edited:
Reading what @Merkir has said, a new thought came to me. While I still maintain that body scanning shouldn't be a gameplay of exploration, let alone The main gameplay of it, but it is what it is, for historical (and lack of development) reasons. Now, stars are auto-scanned but next to nobody complains about that, because the vast majority of the time, they are uninteresting. Why not have uninteresting bodies auto-scanned with an alternative module (the usual question of alternatives, risk and reward, getting less credits for auto-scanned stuff and so on), and have a more involving mini-game that only needs to be done for interesting stuff?
Of course, defining "interesting" is the tricky part, but body types alone could help there. For more involved and more interesting criteria, one need only look at Elite Observatory. Toggleable options would go even further; some Commanders might not be interested in WWs, for example.
But the main point would be that Commanders would always feel they are rewarded for the effort they put in, since they only need to do so when something worth looking for is present.
(Imagine if Skyrim were like Elite, and 99% of locked doors would have nothing but some junk items behind them.)


Anyway, this was a question of what could be, if Frontier put in effort, so let's move on instead to what is:
2) My definition of mini-game pretty much aligns with Wikipedia's:
You've yet to say what your definition of it is, though. But assuming it's the same as Wikipedia's, then thank you for proving my point for me.
Let's see: "A minigame [...] is a short video game often contained within another video game, and sometimes in application software or on a display of any form of hardware. A minigame contains different gameplay elements than the main game, may be optional, and is often smaller or more simplistic than the game in which it is contained."
So far, so good. Something can't be both a mini-game and not a mini-game. But just to check what's referred, here's Wikipedia's definition of a video game:
"A video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a two- or three-dimensional video display device such as a touchscreen, virtual reality headset or monitor/TV set."
Once again, this reinforces that by following simple logic, something can't be both a mini-game and not a mini-game. If we follow the above definition, your argument runs into a contradiction. To solve that, you'd need to use a different definition, one that would allow for a sort of quantum superposition, where the FSS's default state is a combination of both mini-game and not mini-game, and depending on how one interacts with it, it suddenly breaks down to a different state of mini-game or not mini-game.
Which would obviously be false, as the FSS is always the same.

I don't feel like the FSS fits this definition, because first and foremost its a information source, similar to the system map or the orrery, as opposed to a "short video game."
Even the developers talked about replacing flying time with gameplay, a more engaging process and so on. On the reveal livestream, they mostly talked about how you scan things now, how you can cherry-pick better and how it's much faster to scan whole systems, and so on. Comparing it to the system map or the orrery (notice how they didn't talk about how to use the orrery, for obvious reasons) is somewhat amusing.

Oh, and let's not forget that the FSS is the only part of the game where the developers thought that it needed a separate mandatory in-game tutorial. Little wonder, because it's quite divorced from the rest of the game, and rather unintuitive. Now why would an "information source" even need a tutorial? Let alone a mandatory one.


However, I feel like we've been side-tracked by this. The more interesting question (from earlier) is whether the FSS is even a mini-game, or a time sink. Given that it has no consequences for making mistakes, no possibility of failure, and the only reward for getting better at it is a decrease in the time spent, I'd argue it's the latter.
Generally, people don't appreciate time sinks. (A good time sink is one where you only realise it's one if you analyze the gameplay.)
 
[snip]
Now, stars are auto-scanned but next to nobody complains about that, because the vast majority of the time, they are uninteresting.

Just to be pedantic, but I do, and did. :)

I loathed the fact in my two FSS exploration trips that I was auto-scanning and putting my tag on a star in a system that I subsequently had no interest in scanning.

In my pre FSS exploration, I was a completionist scanner for most of my exploration play, and if I scanned anything in a system I scanned everything, and those systems that I didn't want to scan I left completely untouched. Got told I was OCD once, but it was just roleplay, just as I never scanned anything in a system if it had already been visited by another player, no matter how 'valuable'.

Anyway, I know that's not the real point of your post, so carry on. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom