FSS - my opinion

[Zieman]

Honestly, would you still waste your 10 minutes an that 90 body system (quite awesome btw) when you know you could have just the same but instantly? I'm aware of some desperate attempts to dilute this instant reveal somehow. So far I've found none of them convincing.

I would. And more, to fly to those interesting (to) me bodies and map them.
What is this "instant reveal" that you're so afraid of?
I don't understand you extremist types, on either side of this argument.
Why everything has to be so binary, and instantly if you're not praising one idea, you "must be" dead against it?

BTW, the ADS didn't instantly reveal more than the body pictures and orbits. And to me it seems that folk who want some ADS functionality back, would be happy to get just the orbits.

 

[Faded Glory]

Oh, I didn't mean they should not sherry pick, I consider myself as a cherry picker, too! But there are so many (potential and real) cherries to pick, it can't be that one very special and dedicated process of cherry picking spoils most others. I'd rather accept a method that hampers one certain activity while supporting (ideally) all the rest. Honestly, would you still waste your 10 minutes an that 90 body system (quite awesome btw) when you know you could have just the same but instantly? I'm aware of some desperate attempts to dilute this instant reveal somehow. So far I've found none of them convincing.

I do see what you mean, but then as devils advocate, how about removing the energy spectrum so nobody could cherry pick... It's Ok, I'm not being serious, because I doubt anyone would explore given that condition.

With regards the 90 body system, believe it or not it was cherry picked. I cannot remember what was in it that I considered worthwhile from the spectrum, but there was obviously something, so in a sense, I did know instantly (as soon as I charged the FSD and glanced at the energy spectrum) that it was potentially a system of 'interest'.

On the subject of cherry picking, which as I say is not in my opinion a bad thing, (in fact I would say that anybody who didn't cherry pick at some level in a 400 billion system game world might be just a bit obsessive ), I found with the FSS that cherry picking just one or two bodies from a system, while perfectly feasible, was in fact pretty pointless, and was on the couple of occasions I tried it - to see how it worked - probably slower than had I just scanned the whole system.

 

[Faded Glory]

It should perhaps be mentioned that some systems are more tricky than others. I would be quite amazed if you could reproduce this trick anytime with an 80+ system and in 10 minutes. Not that I think I'm fast, but the last big system (~90+ iirc) cost me about 20 minutes - but in a pretty relaxed way. But 10 minutes is tough.

Well, at the time I was on an exploration trip, so was in the swing so to speak. As I mentioned earlier, I was not interested in revealing POI's, so I never waited for them to resolve and I got pretty quick, but yes, if I tried now I'm sure it would take longer, plus I've changed my controller.

In any case, 20 minutes for a 90 body system is pretty damn quick! It sometimes took longer than that to get to one far out body.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Oh, I didn't mean they should not sherry pick, I consider myself as a cherry picker, too! But there are so many (potential and real) cherries to pick, it can't be that one very special and dedicated process of cherry picking spoils most others. I'd rather accept a method that hampers one certain activity while supporting (ideally) all the rest. Honestly, would you still waste your 10 minutes an that 90 body system (quite awesome btw) when you know you could have just the same but instantly? I'm aware of some desperate attempts to dilute this instant reveal somehow. So far I've found none of them convincing.

A possible area of conflict is you’re looking at the fuss from a mandatory punitive angle rather than celebrating exploration. The same outcome gated by busywork because effort doesn’t compute and generates outrage in response even.

The mechanic needs to be improved, starting with fitting into elite dangerous then more or removed / choice allowed.

No one should be asked to just suffer something worse for the sake of it. The only reason it wormed through the masses was it bribes you with zero activity to achieve the gameplay rewards.. credits tags and scans. Absolutely for free and no requirement to get those now.

 

[CMDR CHIGGY VONRICTOFEN]

So, why should players looking for ELW's as an example be able to cherry pick with great ease, yet players looking for rare orbital conditions or glowing gas giants not?

ELW hunting is the only reason I go out exploring, the FSS isn't faster or easier...In fact, for ME, about the best I can do is search 40-45 systems an hour, with the old ADS I could routinely search 55-60 systems an hour. Putting the bar code thingie in the normal cockpit view would work wonders, and I wouldn't have near as many headaches from having to see the blue cascading blobs unless there was actually an ELW present.

 

[Sysmon]

Well, at the time I was on an exploration trip, so was in the swing so to speak. As I mentioned earlier, I was not interested in revealing POI's, so I never waited for them to resolve and I got pretty quick, but yes, if I tried now I'm sure it would take longer, plus I've changed my controller.

In any case, 20 minutes for a 90 body system is pretty damn quick! It sometimes took longer than that to get to one far out body.

Yeah the value of the tags have changed, which we shouldn't forget. Now the Mapped By tag is the one that shows the effort undertaken. The system could use a date added to the tags, to also give a sense of history.

S

 

[Faded Glory]

I'm usually not in a hurry when exploring, but this time I tried to push it to see if I could compete with your performance.
54 body system in 6 minutes and I had to break the scan as some bodies where covered by the sun. So what you say is definitely doable. Speed usually boils down to how many bodies with the same signature are close together, so you don't have to flip the tuner back and force all too often. I'm using a joystick btw for the FSS cursor (and the tuner with 2 key tabbing, like my digital thrusters), no mouse. I could imagine with a little practice the mouse would be faster but not more fun...

Haha... I don't think my 'performance' was particularly special, and remember, the devs did say it would be quick. But yes, a little under 10 seconds per body is quite manageable. I just wanted to make sure when I did my two FSS exploration trips that I used it as fastidiously as possible so that I couldn't be accused of disliking it on principle...

Yes, I use the joystick to pan around the interface, and since I'm in VR used a wheel on the throttle for tuning. It worked fine.

Like Ziggy, I don't mind using the FSS, but I don't want to (no, I won't) use it when it becomes the interface that I'm using for the majority of the time. I genuinely experienced the same feeling of ennui towards the end of my FSS exploration trips, (I did two of about a week to 10 days each) that I had got when faced with the prospect of a monstrous SC journey to scan a boring ice world to satisfy my completionist M.O.

I think with regards the conversations that we have here, I have to say that I in no way see exploration as competitive, and I think that it would benefit the game for players to have a variety of tools and even views to be able to decide whether they want to spend time in a system, and just as importantly, I think it's important that those who enjoy the FSS experience of slowly exposing a system should have that, and not have that removed by anything that might be added in the future. Again, I believe that my suggestion in post #175 would be a decent solution, but then I would wouldn't I...

 

[Riverside]

It should perhaps be mentioned that some systems are more tricky than others. I would be quite amazed if you could reproduce this trick anytime with an 80+ system and in 10 minutes. Not that I think I'm fast, but the last big system (~90+ iirc) cost me about 20 minutes - but in a pretty relaxed way. But 10 minutes is tough.

But in either system how much of an advantage would the player have with an ADS fitted? It's not unusual for me to enter a system that's unexplored by me but fully tagged. I generally use the FSS Scanner Screen to completion scan the system then cherry pick what I map. It doesn't usually take long (ie it doesn't feel like a chore because I'm not doing it for every system), the fact that the map is already populated is of no particular advantage or disadvantage, it's just another view of the system & being able to target a gas giant say means I can proximity scan or use the scanner screen as I see fit.

It just works.

 

[Sysmon]

Haha... I don't think my 'performance' was particularly special, and remember, the devs did say it would be quick. But yes, a little under 10 seconds per body is quite manageable. I just wanted to make sure when I did my two FSS exploration trips that I used it as fastidiously as possible so that I couldn't be accused of disliking it on principle...

Yes, I use the joystick to pan around the interface, and since I'm in VR used a wheel on the throttle for tuning. It worked fine.

Like Ziggy, I don't mind using the FSS, but I don't want to (no, I won't) use it when it becomes the interface that I'm using for the majority of the time. I genuinely experienced the same feeling of ennui towards the end of my FSS exploration trips, (I did two of about a week to 10 days each) that I had got when faced with the prospect of a monstrous SC journey to scan a boring ice world to satisfy my completionist M.O.

I think with regards the conversations that we have here, I have to say that I in no way see exploration as competitive, and I think that it would benefit the game for players to have a variety of tools and even views to be able to decide whether they want to spend time in a system, and just as importantly, I think it's important that those who enjoy the FSS experience of slowly exposing a system should have that, and not have that removed by anything that might be added in the future. Again, I believe that my suggestion in post #175 would be a decent solution, but then I would wouldn't I...

The #175 suggestion is pretty good in my view. I'd add a few refinements (as stated previously):

Firstly the distance of the bodies from the ship/main star and their relations to each other would be unknown at first: The DS honk could reveal a list of signals and their relative strength.

To get progressively more accurate distance and orbital configurations, the CMDR would have to move the ship tactically.

More info could be gained by moving closer to the object (even to the point where the remaining info bar PoI location info was revealed).

To get full information, and/or to circumvent the initial flying around bit, the FSS could be utilised.

S

 

[Faded Glory]

ELW hunting is the only reason I go out exploring, the FSS isn't faster or easier...In fact, for ME, about the best I can do is search 40-45 systems an hour, with the old ADS I could routinely search 55-60 systems an hour. Putting the bar code thingie in the normal cockpit view would work wonders, and I wouldn't have near as many headaches from having to see the blue cascading blobs unless there was actually an ELW present.

View attachment 166613

Yes, I know you hunt ELW's.

And to be clear I wasn't having a go at people looking for specific types of bodies. I believe strongly that people should have the right tools to be able to find whatever they are looking for. I mean the size of the galaxy is the natural barrier to finding things, we don't need additional ones put in place!

And it seems like it is primarily the FSS interface that is hampering you, I think you'll find you have company there.

 

[Faded Glory]

Yeah the value of the tags have changed, which we shouldn't forget. Now the Mapped By tag is the one that shows the effort undertaken. The system could use a date added to the tags, to also give a sense of history.

S

I guess, but as I said, I don't see exploration as competitive, and I also don't have an issue that bodies can be scanned from a distance. Anyway, the chances of anyone seeing tags, or at least paying them more than a cursory glance out in the black is pretty remote.

And for me at least, the 'effort' that I have put into doing something in the game is more for my benefit and satisfaction more than what someone else might think.

 

[Faded Glory]

The #175 suggestion is pretty good in my view. I'd add a few refinements (as stated previously):

Firstly the distance of the bodies from the ship/main star and their relations to each other would be unknown at first: The DS honk could reveal a list of signals and their relative strength.

To get progressively more accurate distance and orbital configurations, the CMDR would have to move the ship tactically.

More info could be gained by moving closer to the object (even to the point where the remaining info bar PoI location info was revealed).

To get full information, and/or to circumvent the initial flying around bit, the FSS could be utilised.

S

Bearing in mind that there could be two possible different views, which I actually do think should be mutually exclusive, and that the FSS as it is now would still be available, then sure, I'd be fine with there being very little information in a non targetable system map reveal. It would be redundant anyway, as if a player saw something they wanted to scan they would have to use the FSS as it is now to locate and scan it.

I think it would be reasonable for the nav panel view to show distances, as I suspect that view would most likely be used by players wanting to bypass the FSS altogether and fly to the bodies in question. And sure, they could target an unexplored body in the nav panel and align themselves with it and then use the FSS, but since they'd have no idea what the body they were targeting was I can't see why they would.

 

[Sysmon]

Bearing in mind that there could be two possible different views, which I actually do think should be mutually exclusive, and that the FSS as it is now would still be available, then sure, I'd be fine with there being very little information in a non targetable system map reveal. It would be redundant anyway, as if a player saw something they wanted to scan they would have to use the FSS as it is now to locate and scan it.

I think it would be reasonable for the nav panel view to show distances, as I suspect that view would most likely be used by players wanting to bypass the FSS altogether and fly to the bodies in question. And sure, they could target an unexplored body in the nav panel and align themselves with it and then use the FSS, but since they'd have no idea what the body they were targeting was I can't see why they would.

Yes, my view on things is coloured by my delight in uncertainty and using scientific methods to reduce it (which is what I do for a living in mineral exploration, really). I wish the exploration tools incorporated uncertainty as well as the means to reduce it. It became clear to me during the PoI resolution beta discussions that many people don't like uncertainty, and from the actions of FD it appears they are ok with not including uncertainty to appease the player base. A loss in my eyes, still, as having tools to reduce uncertainty might actually help some feel more empowered when exploring. I'm amazed the same principles haven't yet been applied to mining (by putting blinking lights and arrows on explodeable rocks after scan), or even to Ziggy's favourite scanner so we'd know what we were driving up to and how far we had to go with more precision.

With uncertainty from the get-go, but also the means to reduce it, exploration could be a lot more hands-on and satisfying a process as any activity would have meaning.

S

 

[Riverside]

You can't just remove a certain rule or obstacle just because you don't like it and then demand the game would be adjusted to your liking. That's not how gaming works. The players have to adjust, not the other way around.

That's exactly what was done when the FSS was added though. That's the point, there was no need to.

 

[Sysmon]

I like this way of thinking very much and any improvements to the FSS in this direction would be highly welcome!
Unfortunately, I also share your view about a majority of the community that doesn't seem to have much love for uncertainty.

The problem with the current system is that things will have to be hidden behind walls of busywork to be discovered or the gameplay is gone. And because uncertainty is zero, the busywork basically amounts to lock-picking. If there was a bit of actual risk, and a large part of the explorative process to reduce the risk involved sitting in the cockpit and doing something active such as flying the ship, it might actually feel rewarding. Even using the FSS would feel rewarding.

And, you are wrong, Riverside, there was a need to.

S

 

[iain666]

I don't think in advantage or competition when it comes to exploring, but also not in terms of punishments. I firmly believe that games need rules and obstacles. Both can be more or less equivalent but when both are missing, a game would just be an unstructured mess of chaos that nobody wants to play. Rules and obstacles have to be persistent for each player, it's unthinkable that a certain rule would only be in effect for some players but for others not. Same goes for obstacles. These two things are the bones and flesh of any game and make a game feel alive. You can't just remove a certain rule or obstacle just because you don't like it and then demand the game would be adjusted to your liking. That's not how gaming works. The players have to adjust, not the other way around.

In regards to your #175 proposal, and if I would have to chose between the two, I'd vote for the second proposal (populating the Nav panel) but please don't touch the local map after the initial honk. 4 years of ADS have me traumatised and it's already a bitter pill that all pre-scanned systems are like that now. Nobody has asked me if I would like this 'compromise' btw. - but then I also never complained about it.

If you have both that are mutually exclusive then FSS players don't see the full picture until they've done the scanning, ADS players see the limited picture but have to do the flying around and proximity scanning. Same rules, two options with different obstacles.

 

[Riverside]

And, you are wrong, Riverside, there was a need to.

S

There was no justification, there still is none, and you saying so does not change that. You may not have a problem with it, but it is a problem than has not been addressed.

 

[Faded Glory]

Yes, my view on things is coloured by my delight in uncertainty and using scientific methods to reduce it (which is what I do for a living in mineral exploration, really). I wish the exploration tools incorporated uncertainty as well as the means to reduce it. It became clear to me during the PoI resolution beta discussions that many people don't like uncertainty, and from the actions of FD it appears they are ok with not including uncertainty to appease the player base. A loss in my eyes, still, as having tools to reduce uncertainty might actually help some feel more empowered when exploring. I'm amazed the same principles haven't yet been applied to mining (by putting blinking lights and arrows on explodeable rocks after scan), or even to Ziggy's favourite scanner so we'd know what we were driving up to and how far we had to go with more precision.

With uncertainty from the get-go, but also the means to reduce it, exploration could be a lot more hands-on and satisfying a process as any activity would have meaning.

S

The problem with uncertainty is it has to be balanced, this after all is a game, supposed to be fun to do.

As I said in an earlier post, there are 400 billion systems, there right away you have tremendous uncertainty. Will there be anything, anything at all that I will want to examine in further detail when I jump into a system? If you are hunting ELW's as an example, you will know what stars are more likely to have such bodies and target them, yet even so your chances of finding one are small.

So, the possibility of failure... Surely that has to be balanced against the fact that if we are to 'fail' at something, then surely there has to be some positive that comes from it, otherwise why would we bother to play the game?

Believe me when I tell you I'm not suggesting an I win button, the game is already easy enough without one. What I'm looking for are the tools that will allow me to succeed at what I'm trying to do, and not put artificial barriers between me and my in-game goals.

 

[Faded Glory]

In regards to your #175 proposal, and if I would have to chose between the two, I'd vote for the second proposal (populating the Nav panel) but please don't touch the local map after the initial honk. 4 years of ADS have me traumatised and it's already a bitter pill that all pre-scanned systems are like that now. Nobody has asked me if I would like this 'compromise' btw. - but then I also never complained about it.

Well, do bear in mind that you would never have to use a system map reveal, that I hope has been made clear, that it would be optional. Don't want it? Don't upgrade your FSS with it.

And again, to be clear, the FSS has one huge advantage, which we have been discussing, the speed of being able to scan a system, not just build a system map, but scan a system. Proposal number one would give those who would like a system map reveal to have it, but then if they want to take advantage of fast scanning from a distance, then they must use the FSS just as it is now, by scanning with it, locating the bodies, tuning the energy spectrum and scanning the bodies.

For the second proposal, players who would prefer to fly their ships would still have the opportunity to see what types of bodies exist in a system by using the energy spectrum of the FSS, but they'd have no way of knowing which of the unexplored bodies that they select from the nav panel is that tasty ELW.

 

[Sysmon]

The problem with uncertainty is it has to be balanced, this after all is a game, supposed to be fun to do.

As I said in an earlier post, there are 400 billion systems, there right away you have tremendous uncertainty. Will there be anything, anything at all that I will want to examine in further detail when I jump into a system? If you are hunting ELW's as an example, you will know what stars are more likely to have such bodies and target them, yet even so your chances of finding one are small.

So, the possibility of failure... Surely that has to be balanced against the fact that if we are to 'fail' at something, then surely there has to be some positive that comes from it, otherwise why would we bother to play the game?

Believe me when I tell you I'm not suggesting an I win button, the game is already easy enough without one. What I'm looking for are the tools that will allow me to succeed at what I'm trying to do, and not put artificial barriers between me and my in-game goals.

That's where we are looking for the same thing. Because there is hardly any uncertainty in exploration. There is, however, plenty of risk. We know roughly what the probabilities are of finding the different types of bodies including GGGs, while some features are still not well constrained (NSPs). The cost to us is then pretty well defined as the time required to find what we are after. When we get there, the chance is 100% that the object will show up, however, and the only thing between us and getting the information instantly is the "artificial barriers" as you call them.

We accept a whole bunch of barriers already though: Firstly, we can't just open the galaxy map, access a system and see what is in it. So we have to go there if the information is not already available (by being unexplored by us). Secondly, we accept we have to do something when we arrive in a new system to get the data we want, whether to rock up a Nav Beacon or engage in the explorative game-play.

The crunch is probably what this game-play should be.

S