FSS - my opinion

[marx]

This thread: needing to die

"So let me just bump it, with a provocative post"

FSS: living forever

I recall hearing the same from the few fans of the old Engineering. Because it was perfect, and thus, in no need of any improvement, and we should all just suck it up.
Meanwhile, explorer coming back from 3+ years: "I really, REALLY hate the FSS changes!!!!!"

 

[Mengy]

FSS: living forever

Probably. I very much doubt Frontier will ever spend much (or any) time improving exploration again, they are likely done with it now.

That makes me very sad just thinking about it.

 

[Pirin]

.....

I recall hearing the same from the few fans of the old Engineering. Because it was perfect, and thus, in no need of any improvement, and we should all just suck it up.
Meanwhile, explorer coming back from 3+ years: "I really, REALLY hate the FSS changes!!!!!"

I am a big fan of the old Engineering actually. It was the only gameplay element which i enjoyed, apart from exploration. In general i like all sorts of RNG in MMO games. To me the revamped Engineers and FSS are equally boring, repetive and pointless.

A bit of offtopic, i know Sorry.


Regarding cmdr Johnson's military style intervention: Not sure how FSS benefits the Galacting Mapping Project.

 

[marx]

Regarding cmdr Johnson's military style intervention: Not sure how FSS benefits the Galacting Mapping Project.

Interesting thought. Let's see... With the FSS, if there are less rare finds found, that means there are less rare find submitted to the GMP, which means there's less work to do.

One could look through the GMP thread, note down how many submissions were done over time, how many were rejected and accepted, and see how things might have changed there. Several problems with that though: one, the GMP doesn't add stuff based on rarity, and two, it would be quite a lot of work. Three, other factors might very well also influence how many finds are submitted anyway.

 

[Riverside]

There does seem to be some significant concern that there is a campaign to have the new stuff removed, and I can certainly empathise with those arguing against that. I think people just assume threads like this are about removing functionality when it's actually the opposite.

There is no need to remove any functionality, we have both methods available in explored (tagged) systems, we can have both in virgin & partially explored systems too. There was no need to remove the old functionality in the first place, the new stuff would have built on what was already there.

Simple QoL additions like adding a date to the tags would help too, without any downside.

 

[Heavy Johnson]

Seriously tho, after 26 pages, haven't you said everything there is to say on the opinion of the FSS?

There's plenty of other threads to yell about things you don't like...

 

[Heavy Johnson]

Interesting thought. Let's see... With the FSS, if there are less rare finds found, that means there are less rare find submitted to the GMP, which means there's less work to do.

Considering my backlog of stuff to do, that's a good thing. But seriously, finding more rare things good. I assumed that the FSS made more people stop and look at what was present - the ADS you could just honk; with the FSS you have to actively look at the thing.

One could look through the GMP thread, note down how many submissions were done over time, how many were rejected and accepted, and see how things might have changed there. Several problems with that though: one, the GMP doesn't add stuff based on rarity, and two, it would be quite a lot of work. Three, other factors might very well also influence how many finds are submitted anyway.

I can answer some of this: We reject far, FAR more than we used to, but that's due to a huge increase in submissions of things that aren't that unusual. Also we will add things based on rarity; if you find a one-of-a-kind object, or even a one-of-five object, it's likely we'll add it. Assuming also a good description is written. I reject a number of things that are just lazy submissions without a good writeup.

 

[marx]

I am still very pleased by the FSS, even after some 10000 light years with complete system scans (if this really needs to be emphasized again).

No offense, but 10000 ly is quite meaningless on its own. 10000 ly with what jump range? 134 systems if you have 75 ly, 200 if you have 50 ly, and so on. Maybe you just have 25 ly and you've fully scanned 400 systems.
To be frank though, 400 systems isn't a large number. Especially if you count it since the introduction of the FSS. If we go with Darkfyre's time estimate (15 seconds per system and 1 seconds per body), going with an average of 12 bodies per system, that would have taken you... three hours of FSS-ing.

You know, there's an interesting thought there. If we count 45 seconds per system for travel time, then those same 400 systems come down to 5 hours spent.
In total though, that's 8 hours spent exploring.

Seriously tho, after 26 pages, haven't you said everything there is to say on the opinion of the FSS?

There's plenty of other threads to yell about things you don't like...

Putting aside the fact that nobody here is yelling, why does it bother you if people are discussing the FSS?

 

[marx]

I assumed that the FSS made more people stop and look at what was present - the ADS you could just honk; with the FSS you have to actively look at the thing.

Not really. With the system map, you had to look at and interpret things more to find the rare stuff. With the FSS, it's click and be handed everything instantly. The increased shower of data is very good for one thing though: automatically trawling through journals for interesting stuff, like the Observatory does. That was probably the best thing about the FSS: the increase of body data.

I can answer some of this: We reject far, FAR more than we used to, but that's due to a huge increase in submissions of things that aren't that unusual.

Which leads to the question: why was there a huge (how large?) increase in submissions of things that aren't that unusual?
I won't pretend to know the answer, but I can offer some possibilities. One, the FSS favours the more common stuff (= body types) and hides the less common (rare configurations, GGGs, and so on), so as you said, you got much more of those that aren't that unusual.
Two, DW2 had a lot of beginners, and that was when you had the most submissions, and beginners can't really tell yet what's rare and what's not.
Three, perhaps more experienced players are no longer as interested in submitting to the GMP.
Four, they might not even be finding stuff they'd consider worthy of submitting there.

Also we will add things based on rarity; if you find a one-of-a-kind object, or even a one-of-five object, it's likely we'll add it. Assuming also a good description is written. I reject a number of things that are just lazy submissions without a good writeup.

I meant rarity as a more precise, better quantified guideline. Obviously the GMP doesn't do that, because it would require dozens of pages of guidelines - and even if someone actually wrote that much up, most people wouldn't bother to read them anyway. Absent that, it's what you find interesting instead - such as the good description you mentioned now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seriously tho, after 26 pages, haven't you said everything there is to say on the opinion of the FSS?

There's plenty of other threads to yell about things you don't like...

So, you haven't read the thread, but decided it had to die.
And to achieve this, you decided to post in it.

How is that working out for you so far?

edit:

Considering my backlog of stuff to do, that's a good thing. But seriously, finding more rare things good. I assumed that the FSS made more people stop and look at what was present - the ADS you could just honk; with the FSS you have to actively look at the thing.

And even though everything has been said, it seems you had a few things to say yourself

Final edit, what do you mean by actively look at a thing?

 

[marx]

Still any questions? Or do I have to write my resume now to convince you? In case of doubt: I have done much more research than just what I have described above, both with the ADS and the FSS.

Nope. Not sure why you bring up your resume either, since you were the one who said "I am still very pleased by the FSS, even after some 10000 light years with complete system scans (if this really needs to be emphasized again).", speaking as if that were a long total distance. But now, the routes that you elaborated upon for some reason add up more than ten thousand light years. So, if I'm reading this right, then that means you've done full system scans for 10000 ly, which with your effective jump range adds up to 179 systems - assuming no neutron boosts, of course.
So yeah, I don't see why it would need to be emphasized again that you personally are still very pleased by the FSS. You were the one who brought that up though. That's good for you, really. Me, I've likely done the same amount of full system scans with the FSS as you have (even assuming that you spent that ~40000 ly that you described fully scanning every system you jumped into), but I did it for the sake of data, not because I enjoyed the time sink. Does anyone's personal preferences and opinions invalidate those of others? Nope.

In order to forestall the unavoidable "but the ADS should never have been removed" and to adress one of its often abused justifications that most systems in human territory still work like with the old ADS: This is something that hurts me twice as it comes from the very same people to whom this compromise was made in the first place as FDev obviously expected some refusual so they must have hoped to mollify these people somewhat (didn't work, obviously). If it was me, I never would have went into this compromise as I really don't like it and which is one of the reasons why a former bubble explorer changed into a deep space explorer now.

Why do you assume that the body reveal was done for the sake of (some) explorers? I'd say that it was more for the sake of bubble players, those who don't explore. I think Frontier has seen some feedback on internal testing, on how the FSS was received by non-explorers, and this was also why they made sure that players can avoid using the FSS to resolve signal sources, by using the nav beacon as an alternative.
Although if you take a look at the guides players wrote up on finding HGEs and stuff, the nav beacons are usually the main method written, and the FSS is either not mentioned at all or just offered as an alternative.

 

[Faded Glory]

I have strong doubts the old ADS would ever have inspired me to do the same...

And that's genuinely great, that the FSS has inspired you to explore.

No one wants to take that away. And this isn't about FSS haters or lovers, many of the people that are accused of disliking the FSS are actually quite happy to use it, and are quite capable of using it effectively and efficiently. They'd (we'd) just like options, not to have all of exploration funneled through one mechanic, especially if that mechanic hides potential content behind fairly basic gameplay.

Every suggestion that has been made recently has suggested optional, and additional tools to use for exploration (you'd have thought that might even add depth), tools that you would never have to to even consider using if you find them that distasteful. If you think that I / (we) are asking for something because we find the FSS too difficult to use, then you are mistaken. It's not, and the devs never designed it to be so.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No one is suggesting to remove the FSS. Even those who wish to explore using just the ADS have no issues with the FSS being in game. The quality aspect of the FSS is that it opened exploration for many players. In my view, there is nothing inherently wrong with the FSS.

When I first saw it working, I was actually very pleased. Before I wondered what kind of hoops we'd have to jump through to play with the new toy, and apart from the obvious draw backs in the flow of exploration (coming to a complete stop, going into another mode) I felt the developers came up with a good solution.

The FSS isn't the problem. Adding the FSS to the game isn't the problem.

When the FSS was introduced, another tool many explorers relied upon was removed. It would be baffling to me how developers of a game would think that is a good idea, if I had any faith that the developers were aware of what drives and motivates explorers even though these players, along with the PvP player base, are the most vocal about their activities in a game.

Not giving the community an opportunity to provide feedback, because they didn't put the resources needed into the exploration update is the problem. The devs were quoted earlier saying re-introducing the ADS would render the FSS obsolete. But as you may have noticed, no reasons were given. Just the statement. A statement I call complete hogwash. There are ways the two can co-exist in the game, without anyone who dislikes either tool, ever having to rely on it. The actual reason is clear as day. But it's a reason they obviously couldn't state, since they are a business. The reason is, they ballsed it up.

But Ziggy, that is so harsh! No it's not. We all balls up sometimes when we have a job to do. Especially when it concerns development, and even more so when developing games. And lets not forget the developers aren't the ones who decide priorities and deadlines and workload. In this case, the developers have probably been given the short end of a very sticky situation. On the one hand they weren't provided with the most valuable resource of all: time. On the other hand, they are the target of the customers' ire when they couldn't deliver under those circumstances.

So when I say I blame FDev for handling the exploration update urinepoorly, I am not talking about the ones pounding the keyboards. I am talking about the ones going: "But it doesn't go Boom! We can't sell that."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh well, that treadmill again. Not with me again sweety, enough is enough.
Have fun, and... bye.

See you next page!

 

[Faded Glory]

Oh well, that treadmill again. Not with me again sweety, enough is enough.
Have fun, and... bye.

Well, you do seem to keep coming to these threads proclaiming that the ADS was an abomination to you so nobody else should be allowed to use it...

But without giving any convincing reasons why how somebody else plays the game disturbs you so much or would impact you.

(Sorry for the delay - I was just mapping three water worlds... )

 

[marx]

Btw, next time you quote me please don't try to distort my statements to your favour: I said 10000 light years (plural!) not just 10000 Ly as you were trying to marginalise that number. But nice try...

Sorry, but what are you talking about? 10000 ly means 10000 light-years. Of course it's plural, same as any units of measurement: you don't say "I drove two hundred kilometer", you say "I drove two hundred kilometers".
It took me a minute to now think about what you might have even meant with saying that 10000 light years is not just 10000 light years, which is a clear contradiction, and I think I've got it: did you mean to write tens of thousands of light years? (Or if you're in too much of a hurry to type it out, 10000s.) As in, multiples of 10000, so 20000, 30000, and so on? If so, then you made a mistake, not me. But if not, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Besides, I believe we've established well enough that on its own, distance is quite meaningless. If you're talking about full system scans, which you were, then what matters is the number of systems done. One might even stay inside the core and explore a thousand systems, jumping no farther than 10 ly at a time, and then their total distance travelled would still come to 10000 ly.

The point, anyway, now with emphasis: "Me, I've likely done the same amount of full system scans with the FSS as you have (even assuming that you spent that ~40000 ly that you described fully scanning every system you jumped into), but I did it for the sake of data, not because I enjoyed the time sink. Does anyone's personal preferences and opinions invalidate those of others? Nope."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I like how this thread, in this place, goes pages over some uncertainty aspect of the FSS, and then on for a while about the derogatory nature of stating a distance in some sort of manner.

Threads in Dangerous Discussions strangely never went there.

 

[marx]

Moving back a bit to planet ranges on the barcode, I found something interesting, that shows quite well how much of a leeway the FSS gives you to setting the slider incorrectly.
Take a look at this tiny ammonia moon, specifically, where I set the slider to to resolve it and where its signal actually is:

Quite a lot of leeway there. Meanwhile, in the bottom right corner, you'll only get the correct planet type if you set the center of the slider to precisely the middle of the signal. Most of the time, this doesn't make a difference, but if you look up @Frillop Freyraum 's earlier picture here, you'll notice that it's just slightly off the middle of the signal and giving a wrong type already.

As a fun aside, to better visualise the range in which you have to be correct to be able to click the scan, compare this (taken before resolving the AW):

to this:

(Apologies for amateur 'shopping.)

And this is why there's an overlap on the arrows displayed above, because the signal can be anywhere within this bar to be able to successfully resolve the blob.

 

[Faded Glory]

Moving back a bit to planet ranges on the barcode, I found something interesting, that shows quite well how much of a leeway the FSS gives you to setting the slider incorrectly.
Take a look at this tiny ammonia moon, specifically, where I set the slider to to resolve it and where its signal actually is:

Quite a lot of leeway there. Meanwhile, in the bottom right corner, you'll only get the correct planet type if you set the center of the slider to precisely the middle of the signal. Most of the time, this doesn't make a difference, but if you look up @Frillop Freyraum 's earlier picture here, you'll notice that it's just slightly off the middle of the signal and giving a wrong type already.

As a fun aside, to better visualise the range in which you have to be correct to be able to click the scan, compare this (taken before resolving the AW):

to this:

(Apologies for amateur 'shopping.)

And this is why there's an overlap on the arrows displayed above, because the signal can be anywhere within this bar to be able to successfully resolve the blob.

Exactly.

In order to make the FSS usable for all, there is significant leeway in being 'off' the signal but still being able to zoom / scan (not so much leeway in getting the reticules lined up), but no leeway at all in being off the signal and getting the 'correct' text.

Additionally, if there's any doubt about what you think you're looking at, the chevrons don't lie, as I pointed out to him regarding his picture in post #498.

It should be noted that in your picture, the tuning indicator is just inside the ELW zone, but the chevrons clearly indicate that what has been 'located' is not an ELW but a RIW. Since there are no signals that are clearly in the ELW zone, then this seems to be just a case of the 'tolerance' in the tuning mechanic allowing your tuning indicator to be far enough off the actual signal, but still allow you to identify it.

The only way that I could see this as genuinely being ambiguous would be if there were also an ELW signal very close by, but then a bit of precise tuning and checking of the chevron pattern would enable you to determine what you are looking at.

 

[iain666]

if there's any doubt about what you think you're looking at

Just zoom in and out, job done.