Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner

There is no logic to that at all, there is no good reason why the two systems could not co-exist.

[EDIT]Also there is the point you would probably annoy most FSS users unless you add yet another optional slot to EVERY ship in ED.[/EDIT]
There is no good reasen why both systems should exist either. It's all down to personal preferences.
 
Perhaps the FSS needs to be changed so that it isn't built in...
I don't think that would be necessary as far as lore is your concern. It always could be some sort of interference of the way more primitive brute force module ADS that would harm the more fine grained electronics of the FSS, thus it has to be deactivated while an ADS is installed. You just couldn't change it "on the fly", you would need to dock somewhere to sell (or store) the ADS again to get the FSS functionality back.
 
There is no logic to that at all, there is no good reason why the two systems could not co-exist.

[EDIT]Also there is the point you would probably annoy most FSS users unless you add yet another optional slot to EVERY ship in ED.[/EDIT]
That's just an empty statement that never was thoroughly explained but about 500 times repeated, which makes up for a good brain washing attempt at best. Followed by a very speculative weak argument. It's not an optional slot as you comfortably say, it's the consequence any decision should bring. You want more options but no consequences? Good luck with that. In the end you'll get nothing cause you are hanging your fruits way too high. But that's your decision that I have to accept of course. :D
 
There's no other module that can't coexist with every other module, so you'd need to justify why the FSS/ADS situation justifies being different. Your argument so far has come down to "I don't like it", which isn't particularly convincing.
That's true with all modules in the optional slots. But I can't think off the top of my head any modules with overlapping functionality that can coexist in the optional slots. That's the difference.
 
I would think that an explorer sets out to be an explorer, and therefore designs the ship with this in mind. As such, I'd prefer to see a situation where ships have only very basic discovery tools. If you want to explore to a greater degree, then it should require using dedicated ship modules and utilities - not in-built systems and scanners (I can't stand all these scanners that have been added).

If a ship has no exploration tools available, it should not be possible to explore a system, except by a very drawn out process.
 
That's just an empty statement that never was thoroughly explained but about 500 times repeated, which makes up for a good brain washing attempt at best. Followed by a very speculative weak argument. It's not an optional slot as you comfortably say, it's the consequence any decision should bring. You want more options but no consequences? Good luck with that. In the end you'll get nothing cause you are hanging your fruits way too high. But that's your decision that I have to accept of course. :D
I don't think there is any need for tin-foil-hattery, there is simply an ongoing demand for long standing features that were (as it turns out) needlessly removed.

They just need to be reinstated, nobody loses out, it is that easy.

This is not a complex problem.
 
Last edited:
I would think that an explorer sets out to be an explorer, and therefore designs the ship with this in mind. As such, I'd prefer to see a situation where ships have only very basic discovery tools. If you want to explore to a greater degree, then it should require using dedicated ship modules and utilities - not in-built systems and scanners (I can't stand all these scanners that have been added).

If a ship has no exploration tools available, it should not be possible to explore a system, except by a very drawn out process.
That does make sense, and is how the game worked from launch to 3.3. However this proposal is only about reinstating the old functionality (in an optional way to avoid oppressing anyone). If you start a new proposal thread (with literally just what you wrote here) I'm sure many would be happy to discuss it.
 
That's true with all modules in the optional slots. But I can't think off the top of my head any modules with overlapping functionality that can coexist in the optional slots. That's the difference.
The ADS and DSS coexisted with overlapping functionality prior to the FSS.
You could scan a body with the ADS - the DSS just provided an extra level of info.

The FSS now provides the functions of both, but only does the DSS part well.
The ADS could quite easily come back in its previous form and the overlap would be identical to before.
 
I would think that an explorer sets out to be an explorer, and therefore designs the ship with this in mind. As such, I'd prefer to see a situation where ships have only very basic discovery tools.
That was the way it used to be, FD wrecked that - FSS is the new basic.

In essence the FSS being considered "a very basic discovery tool" is a fair and reasonable assessment of it. What is essentially being suggested is that an ADS-replacement/SMC module is added to provide the topographic map on honking in ANY system for those that miss that feature for whatever reason.

Balancing should not really be a concern in the main.
 
There is no logic to that at all, there is no good reason why the two systems could not co-exist.

[EDIT]Also there is the point you would probably annoy most FSS users unless you add yet another optional slot to EVERY ship in ED.[/EDIT]
Wait, I'm a bit sick and slow. You actually managed to trick me into this nonsense. The FSS freed-up a module slot, and a mutually exclusive ADS module would bring exactly the same situation back to you as it was before the FSS.

And what you call "tin foil-hattery" is what means something to me. You still want your case to be considered? Then good luck with this attitude. You constantly ignore that you are the one who wants the impossible while ignoring any sense of sane game design. No professional game designer would do what you propose, doesn't matter how often you repeat your salmon of "the devs have just forgotten to re-implement the ADS". That is just disrespectful and disingenuous, sugar-coated in friendly words. They've done that for a reason - a good reason.
 
With the same stubbornness that is constantly repeated "there was never a reason to remove the ADS" I could repeatedly state now "there was never a reason to fill the local map with one single push of a button".

With the only difference that it wouldn't be quite true, as the game needed this placeholder to help let the game going and to provide a fast and efficient way to give us a quick and dirty sense of the true vastness of the galaxy. That's totally in line with how the game was developed from day one. But now these roles are obsolete and it was high time to remove it from the game. The only surprising part is that it took so long and - not so surprising - that the devs never openly spoke about their plans to us (leave alone "with" us).
My stance is still, if you want it, you'd have to take the consequences. You want it all = you'll get nothing. Easy like that. My stance, not my decision of course.
 
Last edited:
That's true with all modules in the optional slots. But I can't think off the top of my head any modules with overlapping functionality that can coexist in the optional slots. That's the difference.
Regular cargo racks and corrosive-resistant cargo racks?

But why limit it to optional slots when the FSS isn't optional? There are plenty of optional modules that improve the functionality of core ones:

SCBs
HRPs
Guardian FSD Boosters

And in the utilities you have Shield Boosters.

Talking of utilities, would a 'Body Location Scanner' utility that populated the System Map using the direction and distance information already known by the FSS be more acceptable to you? It could be A-E rated, with the higher levels giving extended ranged, at the cost of weight and power - just like SCBs
 
I would think that an explorer sets out to be an explorer, and therefore designs the ship with this in mind. As such, I'd prefer to see a situation where ships have only very basic discovery tools. If you want to explore to a greater degree, then it should require using dedicated ship modules and utilities - not in-built systems and scanners (I can't stand all these scanners that have been added).

If a ship has no exploration tools available, it should not be possible to explore a system, except by a very drawn out process.
That's actually what I was hoping the 3.3 exploration update was going to provide - more optional tools, more outfitting choices. Instead we got exactly the opposite.
 
Well, if FD fixes this, I'd like them to re-level the PvP playing field to pre-engineer standards. Otherwise it isn't right. You explorers get to go back to the way it was, us PvP'ers have the same right.
 
Top Bottom