Presumably worthless, but at least I tried. That's all any of us can really do anyway, right? https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...tegrating-an-optional-ads-like-module.532442/

Coming up with a new interface and a new way of tuning signals to use the radio waves emitted by stellar bodies, combining it with the sounds taken from arctic research stations of actual space! And you think they still need to use a bit of imagination lol.
I'd love to see what you call imaginative then, as this is obviously so common and poorly thought out.A 2.5d out of cockpit tacked-on blob hunt - wow!
Given the way you're getting involved in discussions shouldn't you be taking your mod hat off?
I won'tI'd love to see what you call imaginative then, as this is obviously so common and poorly thought out.
Moderators can't take their hats off any more. It's clear I am taking part in this thread as part of the discussion though, and so as you will remember, cannot moderate it.
I will also resist from posting the song...
Two suggestions I posted some time some where. Search functionality here is borked, so forgive the lack of linkageI'd love to see what you call imaginative then, as this is obviously so common and poorly thought out.
You see the main issue here Ziggy is that you think things out and offer ideas, rather than just slate FD and say they're unimaginative.Two suggestions I posted some time some where. Search functionality here is borked, so forgive the lack of linkage
(very early on) Have exploration be a driving factor in the expansion of the Bubble. The Bubble would expand towards systems that are often scanned, and have lots of resources. Which would result in the life cycle of new systems: exploration -> construction (refineries) -> colonization. But Frontier hardcoding Jack's jump location would be the new free for all for combat types after explorers hauled all kinds of stuff there to repair jack was another nice ef you from Frontier to explorers. " We just want to see you guys shoot up each other". Bunch of Doofus Yoghurts.
Before 3.3 Invest in exploration of planets. make us have a reason to land on any of them apart from shooting rocks for materials. This would mean that each system would actually gain actual depth. Not a tacked on mini game, but content that factors in the system lay out. Content that relates to the rest of the game. Content that is a little more imaginative than: here's a field of <insert item> which make up the POIs now.
Is your opinion on the FSS that it is an imaginative and well thought out mini game? If so, you're in luck my brother, because you're easily impressed. I am envious of that.
That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the profession overall, or that I don't think it can't or shouldn't be expanded upon. They're not mutually exclusive.
Indeed!If anything to me the issue is not with the gameplay of the FSS, but that the FSS is pretty much the only gameplay. It is pretty cool as a brief starting point of a larger gameplay loop.
Jump->scoop->honk->FSS->SC->Land->???-profit.
But with the ??? currently consisting only of a few mediocre art assets that offer absolutely zero gameplay beyond 'hold button for five secs' it all just gets reduced to jump/scoop/scan until you die of boredom. So I hope Odyssey manages to add (significantly) to what is supposed to happen after the FSS is used.
The FDev MO. Gate absolutely everything behind asinine mini-games and call it 'content'. Maybe they could try using a bit of imagination.
But are you open only content?I'm not content, but I am content.
Content is statistics of solar bodies, interplanetary jellyshrooms, giant glow-in-the-dark cactuses and other such whatsits.The new way to do it is new content. There was no FSS before, its a new mechanic. Unless you want to claim mechanics are not content. Then we have a disagreement in semantics.
Also true, but even with more end content, gating it behind the FSS would still stink.If anything to me the issue is not with the gameplay of the FSS, but that the FSS is pretty much the only gameplay. It is pretty cool as a brief starting point of a larger gameplay loop.
Jump->scoop->honk->FSS->SC->Land->???-profit.
But with the ??? currently consisting only of a few mediocre art assets that offer absolutely zero gameplay beyond 'hold button for five secs' it all just gets reduced to jump/scoop/scan until you die of boredom. So I hope Odyssey manages to add (significantly) to what is supposed to happen after the FSS is used.
Though I think it's quite obvious that you wouldn't accept any kind of information or proof as justification...
And you think they still need to use a bit of imagination lol.
The methodology you use to find them is not content, it is, as you yourself pointed out, mechanics.
No, not at all.You really are full of yourself aren't you?
Yes. It was not a good time.The long promised focused feedback was binned. Any number of suggestions were made during beta and all seemingly ended up in the shredder.
For Exploration, quite probablyIt's pointless offering any feedback or making suggestions as FDev have clearly demonstrated that they are not interested in the slightest.
No, I don't think it does at all. Especially if you think how long it would have taken to get to agreements to go and record at the arctic research base.The FSS smacks of something being tacked on just so they could claim they kept the promise to do something about exploration.
Unfortunately over the last few years. YesIt's all about the credits... right.
Content is statistics of solar bodies, interplanetary jellyshrooms, giant glow-in-the-dark cactuses and other such whatsits.
The methodology you use to find them is not content, it is, as you yourself pointed out, mechanics. They are not synonymous because mechanics only Provides data, and both methods under discussion provide the Same data.
Above, you removed the part in red, which changed the value of what you responded to significantly. Tsk, tsk, I didn't take you as the, "edit the post to discredit it with selective responding", type.Mechanics are content in my book. If you disagree, fine. But then we need to rewind back a number of posts, clarify what is being discussed, and then take it forward again, so we are on the same page.
Above, you removed the part in red, which changed the value of what you responded to significantly. Tsk, tsk, I didn't take you as the, "edit the post to discredit it with selective responding", type.
No, I'm saying that, by leaving out that paragraph, what you responded to was not the original intention.Yes, because we disagree on what is content. You're saying you define what content is. I disagree. You say i'm wrong for disagreeing. Oh well...
No, I'm saying that, by leaving out that paragraph, what you responded to was not the original intention.