2yrs and counting...

Well I once tried under the old system to "explore" star systems along one lenghty route I wanted to cover, and pretty much all systems after initial honk were exactly same. And the time consumption of trying to actually scan down everything, have caused burnout, that took over a year to overcome. Yeah I have literally just parked the ship on random planet, logged off and not logged back in for over a year back then. I finished the trip under new system and I was achieving same level of data, but without spending hours cruising from planet to planet. Which was to me much more enjoyable experience.
I can imagine for that kind of completionism.

But that's the thing why these discussions always derail. Players have to acknowledge there's as many ways of exploring as there are players. If you're a completionist, the new system will work very well for you. If your aim is coverage, or you're hunting for ELW or another specific type of planet, the FSS will accommodate that type of exploration nicely. If you're looking for outliers in system configuration, it won't. Because outliers by definition are rare. I think I usually had a hit ratio of an interesting system once every 50 systems or so while traveling. Depending on where I was. Near the core the systems seem to be a little more wacky.

So for you, every system is a 'hit' because you want coverage. For me to get a 'hit' I have to scan 50 systems which are duds. The scanning isn't my objective, finding odd stuff is.

Which is why a universal FSS is better than the ADS or vice versa is always nonsense. They serve different functions and it always depends what you want to use them for. In my opinion having both cooperating in the game would have been preferable.
 
I made steak fajitas yesterday... Coincidence? 🤠

I had like 10 of them too. My route plotter is still recovering.

Happy trails. o7
Whenever I make those for supper, I pronounce them as they're spelled, my teens not amused.
 
Eh, as I always say, Frontier could do better than both the FSS or the ADS. It doesn't seem like they want to, though - at least, certainly not for Beyond Chapter Four and since. Checkboxes ticked, good enough, move on to the next thing.
However, one problem is that of longevity. Try asking around, talk with explorers who started after the FSS (so they aren't "tainted" by what was before), see what their opinions of it are. Sure, those who only explored a few thousand systems in the two years since might still be content with it, but from those who explore(d) more actively, the response is often that it's an unenjoyable grind.

Or hey, try looking at guides about getting materials from signal sources and such. You see, there's an alternative there: rather than use the FSS to shoot all the blue blobs, you can just drop at the system's nav beacon, scan it, and you get all the signals revealed too. It's quite telling that pretty much all of the guides recommend doing this in lieu of using the FSS, with only some even mentioning that the FSS is an alternative, despite the FSS being faster at this task. But I think you can tell how fun people find it, and how fun internal testing must have found it for bubble players, seeing that all the discovered bodies are revealed there.
So yeah, in my opinion, it's quite telling how there are viable alternatives to using the FSS, as long as you don't go exploring. (Or if you're exploring for NSPs, because not using the FSS for those is actually superior.)

Oh, you could also try asking folks why they explore, which is more important to them: because they enjoy the gameplay of the FSS, or because they enjoy the galaxy? Which is more important to them? There's some food for thought there.


I'd say though that the problem goes deeper than Frontier hastily slapping together a mini-game (sorry, @Ozric , but you know that the audio team could put in considerably more work than the person(s) making the rest of the FSS), there's a problem of gameplay mechanics. Specifically, I'd say that the primary gameplay loop of exploration shouldn't be body scanning. Rather, it should be actively looking for phenomena, analyzing and interpreting various signals, patterns and the like, flying / driving / walking around to search for and find what you're looking for. (In this regard, the DSS was two steps forward, one step back with pinpointing the precise location of POIs: you don't need to search for them. Pewpew the planet, and there you go, you can drop in right above what you're looking for.)

But well, this is a legacy of the game's launch: exploration couldn't have had any other gameplay then, because we didn't have any landable planets, and practically zero content out in the deep galaxy. Pretty much because the launch schedule was tight, exploration was not a priority, and it's not like there was a lot of content inside the bubble as well.
Of course, that was then, and here we are now, six years later. Horizons was a good step forward in respect to this, especially considering how the SRV waveform scanner was much better integrated than either the ADS or the later FSS, but Beyond Chapter Four was... well, let's just say a mixed bag. Some good ideas, let down immensely by hasty execution and some poor decisions. (I'm not talking about just the FSS here, but also the NSPs, the Codex, the DSS - everything that came with the update.)

So hey, it has been two years and counting since exploration received a major update. Before that, the previous such update (Horizons 2.0) was three years earlier. We'll see how Odyssey will be like (and when): hopefully, by this time around, they'll have gathered more feedback earlier, designed things better. Hopefully, we'll spend less time with body scanning (which pretty much means only the FSS at this point) and more time exploring more actively.

But for body scanning, I think the best would be to get a better integrated means of doing it (not a clunky out-of-cockpit mini-game bolted on top), then having the game alert you to potentially interesting stuff. Functionality similar to Elite Observatory could be built in (rare orbital configurations, planetary characteristics etc), and if you wanted to find various phenomena, sites or such that were there, then you'd have to fly and explore actively. A more engaging process, for more engaging rewards.
Even the DSS could be much better if it told you what it found, but not precisely where it is. For example, "Biological Signal 32: Bark Mounds", and using the current "search zone" mechanic. Rather than the current unnamed signals and a precise location.

In any case, in a few months we should see how important Frontier thought exploration for Odyssey.
 
In the grand scheme of things, given that player numbers have been getting higher over the last couple of years... A drop in the ocean. Just like I was in LOTRO.
You know, it's quite remarkable how little exploration activity (EDSM uploads, which represent almost half of the official totals, and squadron leaderboard points) has increased during the all-time highs on fleet carriers first and the Epic sale later. Especially when you compare it to other stuff, like traffic in the bubble. (So it's not that new players aren't uploading to EDSM or EDDN.) You yourself have said here that there have been lots of new players during these times, but it doesn't look like exploration gripped new players with nearly the same rate as they've been coming in.

Let's see, before the FSS, there were larger changes on the charts, and according to the official numbers, players discovered more systems per day then than they did after. So what might be the reason for these? Less players playing the game in general? Nope, that's not it, that actually went up. So, changes to exploration specifically? Let's see what has changed since... Larger jump ranges, the addition of the Codex and NSPs, the rework with the FSS and DSS... Yeah, I don't think it's a difficult question to choose which might be the reasons. Perhaps they might need to be looked at and revisited. Time for that Engineering 2.0 treatment.


And sure, a Frontier employee (who's IIRC no longer with the company) has said earlier that they are fine with the then-current state of the FSS. Others have also said during the fleet carrier beta that the carriers aren't going to have Universal Cartographics, because they wish to keep "the experience of returning" intact.
People and even corporations can change their minds, especially when they see that something isn't working as well as they thought it would.
 

Ozric

Volunteer Moderator
You know, it's quite remarkable how little exploration activity (EDSM uploads, which represent almost half of the official totals, and squadron leaderboard points) has increased during the all-time highs on fleet carriers first and the Epic sale later. Especially when you compare it to other stuff, like traffic in the bubble. (So it's not that new players aren't uploading to EDSM or EDDN.) You yourself have said here that there have been lots of new players during these times, but it doesn't look like exploration gripped new players with nearly the same rate as they've been coming in.

Let's see, before the FSS, there were larger changes on the charts, and according to the official numbers, players discovered more systems per day then than they did after. So what might be the reason for these? Less players playing the game in general? Nope, that's not it, that actually went up. So, changes to exploration specifically? Let's see what has changed since... Larger jump ranges, the addition of the Codex and NSPs, the rework with the FSS and DSS... Yeah, I don't think it's a difficult question to choose which might be the reasons. Perhaps they might need to be looked at and revisited. Time for that Engineering 2.0 treatment.


And sure, a Frontier employee (who's IIRC no longer with the company) has said earlier that they are fine with the then-current state of the FSS. Others have also said during the fleet carrier beta that the carriers aren't going to have Universal Cartographics, because they wish to keep "the experience of returning" intact.
People and even corporations can change their minds, especially when they see that something isn't working as well as they thought it would.
I really don't want to come back into this discussion :) My reply you quoted, was responding to play time in general not specifically exploration.

But, how can you say that EDSM uploads represent almost half the official totals? EDSM uploads to determine whether people are doing something is about as good as posting steam stats.

What official stats show Exploration discovery by day? Please don't say you're comparing the growth of the last two years, compared to the first 4 because that clearly wouldn't make sense. Though I'd be interested to see the stats anyway.

I've seen and been part of some good tinfoil hattery in my time with this game, but that's up there :D
 
My reply you quoted, was responding to play time in general not specifically exploration.
My bad, I misunderstood that. The person you were replying to (@SystematicChaos ) was a bit ambiguous, and I took their meaning to be that they play less because they explore less. Well, I suppose you could claim that it's not because of that, but this would all be some rather pointless splitting of hairs, so let's move on. The point was me remarking that despite there having been significantly more players playing lately, it's interesting that players in total don't explore more (or even explore less) than they used to. Both by new systems discovered and by squadron exploration points, both of which are official data.

But, how can you say that EDSM uploads represent almost half the official totals?
Simple. Frontier have posted several times how many systems have been discovered to date. Thus, we know how many new systems have been discovered since their last quotes. Then we can compare how many new systems have been uploaded to EDSM between those two dates. The latest figure, between 2019/12/16 and 2020/11/13, was that total new systems on EDSM were 46.21% of the official total.

EDSM uploads to determine whether people are doing something is about as good as posting steam stats.
Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong. We don't know what percentage of the total the Steam players are, Frontier never shared anything specific there. Compared to this, we do know how many new systems were there in total and how many were uploaded to EDSM then.
And, you know, that's the metric that Frontier used when they talked about how much people have explored. By the way, I'd love it if they shared some more exploration-related data with us, even if it were one time only. Hey, with the anniversary coming soon, maybe they could post some? ;)

More importantly, you can also choose to completely ignore crowdsourced data, and the conclusion based on the official numbers alone is still that players have been exploring less. In fact, if you choose to ignore this more detailed data, the picture you paint then will look worse than what you get if you don't. So, which will it be?


One more thing. There's another source of official data on exploration, although it's rather different: squadron exploration leaderboards. The main differences being that the points there (mostly) represent Cr of data sold, and not systems discovered, and also that we have no idea how many explorers are outside squadrons and how many are inside. So it's useful for determining how much exploration data folks in squadrons sell, compared to previous seasons. The numbers there are clear too: there has been no large increase that would have corresponded with the influx of new players. We do seem to be on an increasing trend, but only of the usual winter holiday sales, and not of the same magnitude as the increases seen elsewhere.
You can look up all the exact data I referenced above in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I really don't want to come back into this discussion :) My reply you quoted, was responding to play time in general not specifically exploration.

You should come back. Alot of people take exploration very personally. I think with the other game it might be true that there's a (not always) silent majority where exploration is the first pillar of a space game. The type of pain it causes isn't acute or fashionable to make developers jump and ask how high (like combat) the moment its triggered, but its seems its pretty fundamental once a condition has set in. It means alot to people.
 
My bad, I misunderstood that. The person you were replying to (@SystematicChaos ) was a bit ambiguous, and I took their meaning to be that they play less because they explore less.

I don't think stating facts about space games is saying the game is dead or any such thing, but there you go. Starter areas of any MMO are usually full of people, but how long do they stick around?

The fact that people are not playing is not out of choice. Most of us have played any number of games where things changed and we didn't like it but we carried on anyway. It's hardly something to shout from the rooftops like it's some kind of unique achievement that makes you special.

Many people have invested more time and money into the elite franchise than probably any game in their entire lives. The offhand way that the FSS was introduced was a total insult and deal breaker. To paraphrase 'We even know that it's going to trash entire playstyles but to hell with it, we're just going to do it anyway'
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: EUS
I can imagine for that kind of completionism.

But that's the thing why these discussions always derail. Players have to acknowledge there's as many ways of exploring as there are players. If you're a completionist, the new system will work very well for you. If your aim is coverage, or you're hunting for ELW or another specific type of planet, the FSS will accommodate that type of exploration nicely. If you're looking for outliers in system configuration, it won't. Because outliers by definition are rare. I think I usually had a hit ratio of an interesting system once every 50 systems or so while traveling. Depending on where I was. Near the core the systems seem to be a little more wacky.

So for you, every system is a 'hit' because you want coverage. For me to get a 'hit' I have to scan 50 systems which are duds. The scanning isn't my objective, finding odd stuff is.

Which is why a universal FSS is better than the ADS or vice versa is always nonsense. They serve different functions and it always depends what you want to use them for. In my opinion having both cooperating in the game would have been preferable.

Your post makes awkwardly lot of sense and fair points.
Now question is how exactly in function does FSS honk differ from ADS honk. Because for all my usage I don't see the difference between just honking pre or post patch, it's how you interact with honked result that has changed to me. (For example someone mentioned bodies don't show up in nav panel even as nameless "unexplored" entry, while for me that only happens for bodies without "first discovered by" tag, so it's handy way for me to know if system contains stuff others have missed or left out, I didn't quite try to use system map after honk either in old nor in new exploration mechanics)

EDIT:
It's quite telling that pretty much all of the guides recommend doing this in lieu of using the FSS, with only some even mentioning that the FSS is an alternative, despite the FSS being faster at this task. But I think you can tell how fun people find it, and how fun internal testing must have found it for bubble players, seeing that all the discovered bodies are revealed there.

It's not often mentioned because dropping at the nav beacon and scanning it is the faster method - just scan that one object and you have ALL of USS in the system marked in nav panel, FSS require you to actually find those blue blobs and do it one by one....
 
Last edited:
It's not often mentioned because dropping at the nav beacon and scanning it is the faster method - just scan that one object and you have ALL of USS in the system marked in nav panel, FSS require you to actually find those blue blobs and do it one by one....
At first, I also thought that it's the faster method, but if you actually time it, it isn't. Unless you are too slow to use the FSS, or are scanning fifty-something signal sources before you find the one(s) you're looking for. (I am making an assumption here, which is that you're looking for some specific signals, and stop once you find what you're looking for.)
Consider this. The nav beacon method requires:
1. Flying to the nav. beacon POI and dropping down on it
2. Flying to the beacon itself and waiting out the scan timer
3. Flying away and low-waking out
During the time you're doing these, you could be grinding out the FSS instead.

Of course, the difference is that with the nav beacons, you get all the possible scans done at once when you finish, so that feels better - and instead of playing a simple mini-game out of your cockpit, you're flying your ship instead, which also feels better. So you trade speed for more fun.
 
At first, I also thought that it's the faster method, but if you actually time it, it isn't. Unless you are too slow to use the FSS, or are scanning fifty-something signal sources before you find the one(s) you're looking for. (I am making an assumption here, which is that you're looking for some specific signals, and stop once you find what you're looking for.)
Consider this. The nav beacon method requires:
1. Flying to the nav. beacon POI and dropping down on it
2. Flying to the beacon itself and waiting out the scan timer
3. Flying away and low-waking out
During the time you're doing these, you could be grinding out the FSS instead.

Of course, the difference is that with the nav beacons, you get all the possible scans done at once when you finish, so that feels better - and instead of playing a simple mini-game out of your cockpit, you're flying your ship instead, which also feels better. So you trade speed for more fun.

There are couple fair points, i suppose if you stop FSSing as soon as you find first HGE then you will get to it faster than with beacons, but if you do all signals scan (which often will take longer) you can have overview of all HGEs in the system and pick the best one. And you can do that faster with nav beacon. also nav beacon requires no additonal skils aside from basics of navigation, while FSSing requires to well understand the tool, which apparently (and that is kind of beyond me xD) is a problem to people.

Myself I use FSS because I find it more fun in overal than nav beacon scanning, even if within my own experience of usage I'd get better results with the latter.
 
...
There are couple fair points, i suppose if you stop FSSing as soon as you find first HGE then you will get to it faster than with beacons, but if you do all signals scan (which often will take longer) you can have overview of all HGEs in the system and pick the best one.
...

Good points. I was recently finishing up some Engineering builds and was doing a bit of a HGE blitz. I found the FSS method handy because you get to see how long the HGE has left before it pops and I could target the one with the least time left first and have a mental count of what others are hanging around and their timers too. The scanning/tuning process in the FSS is second nature to me now so the "extra" effort to hunt down the USSes was not prohibitive. But I can understand for those who don't like it at all that will not be attractive at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom