Yes, I agree. We're kind of fussy here. In fact, I appreciate certain forms of uncertainty in games in general, as they are a potential source of diversity. If it were me, I would want much stronger forms of uncertainty in games. So if one thing is certain: I certainly wasn't worried about this kind of uncertainty. And now I have pun'ed myself out of the conversation...
On a (slightly) more serious note, uncertainty is all good and well, but it being a game, something positive needs to come out of an event, as in it has to be worth the time invested in playing the game. At least that would be my take on it, and I imagine the devs don't want to actively waste their customers time.
I said "quite weak" only in the context of @Faded Glory using the fact that the spectrum analyzer tick was not lined up with the planet icon post resolution as evidence that I hadn't properly lined it up with the spectrum before resolving and was merely demonstrating that one is not a wholly reliable indicator of the other.
And again, just to be clear, I wasn't criticizing in any shape or form, just explaining how / why I can see that you get one reading from the tuner, and a different body type showing up. Certainly not criticizing you ability with the FSS!!
To be fair to the two Adam's, I believe (and have said this before), that they felt, quite possibly still feel that the FSS was a good mechanic that addressed a number of issues that FD very likely felt were holding exploration back - as in not as many players engaging in it as they had hoped.
1. They removed the need to passively fly potentially long distances to a body just to scan it and find that there was nothing there.
2. By revealing POI's from a distance they let players make informed choices about which planets to fly to and map.
3. The probing enabled players to find stuff that on planets that was simply not being found before - and that as we know upsets some people.
All these were in theory very nice enhancements to exploration, and we shouldn't forget
4. They introduced hands on gameplay where before there was only passive gameplay.
The problem is that by removing what had been there, they removed or at least made very challenging, gameplay that some players were enjoying. I'm not sure why they removed it. I sincerely hope that it was because of technical constraints, and not that they felt that the FSS was somehow challenging, and I'm pretty sure from watching some of the pre-release streams that this was the case. They were at pains to point out that they were designing it to be intuitive, learnable and quick to use.
From about 15 minutes in.
From about 48 minutes in.
Note - If you take a look at the second video, you see the two Adam's demonstrate the FSS. After they charge the FSS, they spend a bit of time analyzing the energy spectrum, speculating on what type and how many of each bodies the spectrum was indicating. The irony is, the system had 11 bodies in it, and could have been fully scanned in less time than it took one of the Adams to decide that there might be two gas giants present.
Don't you guys like elite dangerous? It almost makes me sick to think that increasing usage metrics was any design parameter to the feature. I don't really like flying parallax, and i don't like reading reddit statistics. Shouldn't we focus on the experience itself?
Sorry this point is unnecessary to the conversation, or my own mental health, so lets stop, but what they did was absolutely offensive still, and again writing the game from outside the cockpit. There's only so much of this you can do before it the illusion is cracked. Every feature they do is colored by this i know, and apart from the fss its been possible to pretend around it.. but they created a disconnect between the valuable experience the game gives and a pillar activity. I personally still consider this a shocking display of lack of care.
Its like a layer of academic ontop of the fiction we're already in.
It doesn't go away because everyone who cares on both sides has already proposed improvements 10 times over. Remmember pages 1-800? We were still assuming frontier had good faith in the game and there was a chance of some improvement, whosever it was, to the situation. Now we're just having fun with ourselves... And to stay healthy forgotten the maker.
PS. everything you said was quite true, and they did achieve it, pending resolution of the recent debate in this thread. still makes me sick that people like that are steering the game.
Yes, that's true. Only weird thing in that case is RIW text showing with ELW 'chevrons', otherwise no actual overlap or ambiquity.
The previous example of IW & RIW isn't as clear cut. And those go both ways.
The most overlapping are of course HMC & RW.
Yes, that's true. Only weird thing in that case is RIW text showing with ELW 'chevrons', otherwise no actual overlap or ambiquity.
The previous example of IW & RIW isn't as clear cut. And those go both ways.
The most overlapping are of course HMC & RW.
Interesting question. I'd say (potentially) anywhere far out on the rim, above or below the galactic plane as well. The question is, if we will be able to maintain the carrier so far out of civilisation...
There is a difference because we like different things, nothing wrong with that, but explorers are travellers. I don't like all the labelling to be honest. You can explore while travelling too.
Now this is an intriguing comment, but I am worried about digging into it more. Moderation is certainly never biased one way or the other, but certain topics spark more... heated... debate than others and not everyone knows when to step back and take a breath
Given that I had material suppressed related to this topic that didn't violate the forum rules for disagreeing with the mods because it disagreed with their position on this topic, yeah, that flies about as believably as the mechanics behind an Anaconda.
I wonder about these overlaps. When I move my cursor to the exact same position as above, it says Rocky Ice World. Can't be a difference in resolution or anything either: it's the same 1440p. But in his earlier video, you can see that when you set the slider to a wrong location by a considerable margin, the game will still allow you to resolve the blob. (Little wonder, as having to fine-tune it with a keyboard would probably be... not much fun.)
I wonder if an issue should be raised on the bug tracker (or bug popularity contest) for this, if someone can reproduce it. After all, it's a minor issue.
In any case, the issue was whether they can be easily mistaken for another or not, wasn't it? When in doubt, you can still take something like two seconds at most to resolve it. No need to listen to planet sounds or look at target holograms now. And if you've committed the layout to memory, or are using an overlay image, then something that falls on the bordere is something you should look at, not ignore.
Given that I had material suppressed related to this topic that didn't violate the forum rules for disagreeing with the mods because it disagreed with their position on this topic, yeah, that flies about as believably as the mechanics behind an Anaconda.
Yep. That's the one I was referring to when I wrote that "When I move my cursor to the exact same position as above, it says Rocky Ice World."
This matter mostly came up when somebody (might have even been me) said that there's no uncertainty about body types with the FSS barcode, as even if you somehow can't memorise the layout (or even just the parts of it that interest you), if you move your slider over it precisely, the game will tell you. Some people took issue with this, not sure why - perhaps because it means a part of the game was made easier?
Anyway, based on the above, I think I was probably wrong when I said it never makes mistakes there, although I couldn't reproduce this myself yet.
In other words, if a signal falls on the exact border between two body types, it might be either of them, and worth spending a couple of seconds on checking out.
It's certainly less uncertainty about body types than before. It makes sense though, because if you take a look at the contents of NSPs and biologicals, some of them require quite heavy cherry-picking. Whether that was a good decision or not is another matter, of course. (Although it does present an interesting chicken-and-egg scenario: was the FSS designed to help with the required heavy cherry-picking, or was the heavy cherry-picking added because the FSS was designed to help it?)
So you guys reached the conclusion both the ADS and the FSS have an uncertainty aspect? Or are we still at the stage: my GI Joe is better than your Mega man?
![[VR] optimal_909](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
