Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner

But it's great Tennis to pull this whole thing up like a court case, even more ridiculous the attempt to put those in the dock whose only offence is to like what they got. Just brilliant! :ROFLMAO:

And then this never ending haggling like camel merchants over something that never has been offered in the first place. Mind-bogglingly. 🥳
While some of these armchair advocates meanwhile sound like a broken record
The broken record cuts both ways including you ;)
 
You still can fly to planets to explore them. You can honk. Open up the system map. Cherry pick what might be interesting and fly to it. You get close enough poof it’s discovered, game even tells you it’s discovered. That function was not removed. You can choose to not use FSS and still do it the previous way.
 
You still can fly to planets to explore them. You can honk. Open up the system map. Cherry pick what might be interesting and fly to it. You get close enough poof it’s discovered, game even tells you it’s discovered. That function was not removed. You can choose to not use FSS and still do it the previous way.
Honking nowadays reveals nothing in the system map.
 
Okaaay. Not too sure what your issue is. None of what you are saying makes any sense. Why are you in combat mode when exploring. Why are you unneccsarily coming to a halt to honk. You are the one complaining about it. All I was doing is showing you that there is a faster and more efficient way to do it. If you like it as it is, why are you complaining.

All it is, is showing you there are other ways. I don't give a rats backside if you change it or not. I just find it a bit odd. Lets complain about the time it takes, then someone shows you that it can be shorter, then you shout at them for telling you that. Also I don't get the bit about not being able to steer your ship.

Also what the hell has four years of honking got to do with anything I said. I have had well over four years of honking. Does that make me the winner?

Your post is unnecessarily aggressive.
I owe you an apology here MAX..
I have just re organised my keybinds, and at the time of this 'heated discussion' I did not realise that I could Still honk from outside the FSS, I had bound my buttons incorrectly (probably still have) and was having to be very careful lest I enter FSS mode while skimming at flat out and crash into the star,
My fault, I was wrong.

I apologise.
 
I owe you an apology here MAX..
I have just re organised my keybinds, and at the time of this 'heated discussion' I did not realise that I could Still honk from outside the FSS, I had bound my buttons incorrectly (probably still have) and was having to be very careful lest I enter FSS mode while skimming at flat out and crash into the star,
My fault, I was wrong.

I apologise.
No worries mate. Glad you got your bindings sorted.
 
As stated in post #1 it's not about credits nor cherry-picking.
Sure. While I'd say looking for glowing green gas giants is the high league of cherry picking, don't you think so? Cherry picking never had to be about credits and in a way we're all cherry picking. ;)

And that's the point. Take credit cherry picking out for a moment and realize that an unresolved local map means to me what GGGs means to others. Both totally subjective and about personal preferences. Just to demonstrate that what you guys want isn't so innocent as you make it sound. We both want something that is inherently incompatible and telling otherwise is just false or dishonest. Taking away something from a game is sometimes just necessary to gain some gameplay in return.
 
Last edited:
Taking away something from a game is sometimes just necessary to gain some gameplay in return.
Sometimes it is. In the other thread DarkFyre99 gave an example of surface deposit surveying, which was made obsolete by including the mats data in the DSS scan results. The FSS provides this detail too, albeit not longer in an optional way as it was before 3.3. I provided an example where the 20,000ly route plotter effectively eliminated a challenge I enjoyed too.

In both cases it was improving the game, but at a cost - power creep. Lots of updates have done this kind of thing.

That isn't the case with the removal of the old discovery functionality, one set of features was added, and another, separate set of features was removed. I gave an analogy of adding jump gates & nerfing jump ranges, again in another thread. Adding jump gates has pros & cons, but doesn't require any change to the pre-existing fast travel mechanism, they can both co-exist. Same with this.
 
Sometimes it is. In the other thread DarkFyre99 gave an example of surface deposit surveying, which was made obsolete by including the mats data in the DSS scan results. The FSS provides this detail too, albeit not longer in an optional way as it was before 3.3. I provided an example where the 20,000ly route plotter effectively eliminated a challenge I enjoyed too.

In both cases it was improving the game, but at a cost - power creep. Lots of updates have done this kind of thing.
I disagree here. I think having the material percentages shown was not good. That should be done with the probes. It would make a better gameplay loop for planets without POI.

That isn't the case with the removal of the old discovery functionality, one set of features was added, and another, separate set of features was removed. I gave an analogy of adding jump gates & nerfing jump ranges, again in another thread. Adding jump gates has pros & cons, but doesn't require any change to the pre-existing fast travel mechanism, they can both co-exist. Same with this.
That is a matter of opinion. I found the old mechanics cheap. To add them back in would cheapen the game for me.

Jump gates would also cheapen the game for me.

So in my view, it would have a negative effect on the game whether I don't have to use it or not. Just like galaxy wide telepresence cheapens the game for me, even though I don't use it.

All these inconsistencies, even though I don't have to use them would add a detrimental effect on the game for me.
 
I disagree here. I think having the material percentages shown was not good. That should be done with the probes. It would make a better gameplay loop for planets without POI.


That is a matter of opinion. I found the old mechanics cheap. To add them back in would cheapen the game for me.

Jump gates would also cheapen the game for me.

So in my view, it would have a negative effect on the game whether I don't have to use it or not. Just like galaxy wide telepresence cheapens the game for me, even though I don't use it.

All these inconsistencies, even though I don't have to use them would add a detrimental effect on the game for me.
There are a shed load of things that (like you) cheapen the game for me, some of which greatly disadvantages my chosen way of playing (since Game Drop), telepresence can affect other players not doing it (if I understand correctly) as someone many light years away away can 'te-pres' in to their mate's game and shoot you, affecting you in a negative way.

Me on the other hand having a 'map module'* (I don't want to call it an ADS because it wouldn't be that) could only affect your game in a positive way if at all, by leaving a 'virgin/pristine' system for you to discover when I passed through, all first discoveries would be yours should I choose not to scan the system, but for that 'affect you' part you'd have to be visiting the stars I visited... so you wouldn't really even know I'd been there or that you were being affected by me having the map module, with the exception of seeing it as a module in the shop you couldn't see it affecting you, unless, it's like seeing Marmite on the shelf and not wanting other people to have it.

*Fitting the map module should turn off Auto discover... I detest that more than anything else... with a darkness
 
Sure. While I'd say looking for glowing green gas giants is the high league of cherry picking, don't you think so? Cherry picking never had to be about credits and in a way we're all cherry picking.
I don't think we understand eachother. However i can see the root of this misunderstanding, let me explain. Glowing gas giants have been brought up in this thread however should You re-read the very first post i stated as follows:
...magnificient system is noticeably increased by enforcing players to perform whole scan and gauge whether it's worth staying(and now the important part - not for the credits but for the views). Oddities such as quaternary systems of moons and stars, odd orbits, bodies orbiting very close to eachother.
Take the "GGG"s for all i care. Seen one, seen them all. It's only a texture that changes. Similar applies to credits. With FSS credits are even easier to obtain.
I don't really care for what is in the system. But how it is. Where it is. More on that under next quote.

And that's the point. Take credit cherry picking out for a moment and realize that an unresolved local map means to me what GGGs means to others.
Agreed. Many have stated that they take joy in revealing the map bit by bit. Which is fine. I had the same feeling, bellieve me. FSS reveals everything an aspiring explorer / cherry picker would need to know. Then again for me i don't care for virtual values such as "surface temperature", "atmospherical pressure" since until we get atmospheric landings these mean nothing.
Once again i would bring a concept picture introduced earlier in this thread: (padron me not linking the post proper)[EDIT] LINK
136064

This to me looks like a fair compromise between showing what is in the system and letting players reveal the map. Because, You see what interests me and many players is what is the setup of the planets. Are they straight lines as shown above or maybe there would be a system with quaternary orbits [EDIT]Excellent post by Marx explaining the point. Based on that i could already decide whether i want to spend my time in this system and scan it or move one because there is nothing of interest to me. Say i've already seen thousands of times systems such as shown above. I can at a glance decide to go on. Look for a system that provides something more unique. After thousands of hours in this game You realise that whatever Stellar Forge spits out is nothing remarkable large portion of the time. And the only joy of exploration after this time is finding one unique system every once in a while. One which both You and I agree is very hard to come by in 400 billion star system game. One could argue that, of course, FSS-ing the whole system takes little to no time if You are good enough. Sure thing. FSS is quick to master in that aspect, however a cumulative time spent on this is time not spent moving on, travelling and searching. Which in one session stacks up to minutes if not an hour(depending on the size of generated star system). Add to that growing frustration of finding all mundane systems along the way and still being forced to scan it all because maybe, just maybe, this is the one interesting system.

Taking away something from a game is sometimes just necessary to gain some gameplay in return.
Agreed. However in this case let's be frank more has been added than taken away. There was little to no exploration gameplay previously. FSS feels like a proper scanner.
Then again FSS quickly becomes a very tedious task. Once You've mastered it there's no challenge at all. What is left is a gameplay which is most of the time unrewarding. With most of the star systems being a main star and couple of rocky / metal bodies in a straight line.
Of course maybe we would like some form of ADS to return. But if it's not a "best" solution / game mechanic it's because it's what we've had all these years, gotten used to and have no better idea of a system which would suit exploration gameplay. After all, pardon us, but we are not(guessing, may not apply to everyone) game developers. So we are asking for something we know. And making it optional. Hopefully, balanced.

To sum up this essay of a post, i understand both parties. I've read a lot of these threads. I've spoken with people on Elite discord channel. I've spoken with independent CMDRs. I am biased, not denying, the change affected my gameplay too. But i understand both sides. I just wanted to voice my opinion. However now that we got official response on another thread it seems like FSS is here to stay. To which i can only say "ok". I don't like that but it is a deffinitive answer. One of my main gripes was with FD being so reluctant to speak about anything people would say about changes made to the game(FSS aside). And it took so many threads to get one answer and then the communication cut again. But that's a topic for another thread.

Maybe we want something that is incompatible.
Maybe we want something that appears incompatible.
Saying "we" means nothing to companies. It's their product and they will do what they want after all.
I'm not being hostile but to this:
We both want something that is inherently incompatible and telling otherwise is just false or dishonest.
I can only say that "we" are not game developers. Maybe there is a way to make everyone happy. Maybe it's completely and utterly different from what we've seen introduced to this date.
Anyone claiming otherwise is just false or dishonest.

If You read through the entiriety of this post take this cookie 🍪
 
Last edited:
I don't think we understand eachother. However i can see the root of this misunderstanding, let me explain. Glowing gas giants have been brought up in this thread however should You re-read the very first post i stated as follows:
If what you are hunting for is possibly the last remaining illusion of some truly procedurally generated content, not this randomized pre-configured boredom that pretends to be PG, then yes: I can understand that all too well. It's just not the kind of exploring that I ever liked or want to support (talking about the mechanics, not the lacking PG content where we're sitting in the same boat I guess). I do understand that I was a bit too long in defense mode, while doing basically the same with my prefered method that you did with yours. The difference is that my position incidentally has "officially" won (certainly not my merit, so don't blame me nor am I proud of anything) and there's no reason to me for being defensive anymore.

We're both very different, maybe even the polar opposite of explorer types: My 'deepest' explorations where two trips to the Formidin Rift and one to Sgr A*, and yet I don't feel any less explorer as I'm exploring more or less all time but preferably in the bubble, as I'm more focussed on planetary surfaces where the possibility of finding something extraordinary seems higher there. But I shudder when thinking of these enormous distances some explorers have already left behind. The problem with that is, exploration as it is now is still utterly boring. The FSS is finally the right tool to give sense to that sort of future content that I have in mind - and not the other way around, as there would be no sensible or non-mindboggingly way to detect said content. I take the current state as a test run. With this tool in place we're not even halfway there but it's finally a giant step in the right direction. While keeping the ADS (more about below) would potentially mean laying down the status quo, no reason to ever create some truly procedurally generated content beyond some exciting extraordinary planetary constellations - because hey what, you've already got fancy local maps (every one in thousand or so).

Let me elaborate on your compromise below, something I meanwhile don't strictly oppose anymore, from gut feeling at least. I think I could live with it, though I still have 2 caveats. The first one is minor and more of speculative nature. I am, like you, no developer but I still don't understand why FD didn't want/weren't able to implement a mini copy of the FSS signal sources somewhere into the cockpit hud. I think there's a lot more voices (compared to your agenda) supporting this small feature that certainly won't cost much performance (if any) as it's more or less a copy and paste job. Whatever reason they had in mind when they decided not to provide this small but urgently wanted QOL feature, it speaks volumes either way. No matter how you take it, be it performance reasons or just not taking care about tiny but vocal minorities, in both cases the chances for anything ADS-like being ever re-introduced are shrinking below zero I'm afraid.

...
Once again i would bring a concept picture introduced earlier in this thread: (padron me not linking the post proper)
...
... [broken link removed, wasn't quotable]

The second and less trivial caveat is about coherency and the believability of the current implementation. Something you most likely don't care about since you don't like the FSS anyway. Along the course of these discussions I often heard the words "but the FSS already knows the location of all stellar bodies after the initial Honk". If you think your schematic compromise is harmless in this regard, then there you are mistaken:

All what the FSS knows about after the initial Honk are probability clouds of energy/gravity occurrences, but no clear positions or clear energy concentrations, with the exception of nearby objects.

The details are carved out by what you usually refer to as the "Whack-a-mole minigame". I do agree in that's certainly not the peak of game design but even in its barebone symbolic nature it sets a clear sign about how it's meant to be: as a process of working out each single position from a field of possible locations to exact locations - and that's being meant as a manual process. You skip all that with a single wooshhh of the ADS, even with your apparently innocent compromise. You need to be able to explain how or by what you want to justify this discrepancy to the FSS. Because - again - the FSS does NOT KNOW the exact positions nor constellations of planetary bodies immediately after the initial Honk.

In other words: If you don't care about lore, why should they care about you?

But then don't forget, it really doesn't matter what I have to say on this topic. The last word has always FD and this has been spoken. That you can't accept this easy fact is something I've got to leave yourself to work out...



...and thanks again for the cooky! :D
 
Last edited:
Then again FSS quickly becomes a very tedious task. Once You've mastered it there's no challenge at all. What is left is a gameplay which is most of the time unrewarding. With most of the star systems being a main star and couple of rocky / metal bodies in a straight line.
Certainly, IMO this is true, the FSS isn't challenging and if the reward is nothing (another rocky / icy uninteresting body - NOT credits), why would I want to spend any time at all looking at it, let alone examining it?

Ironically, after being a completionist explorer under the old system, I've actually started to cherry pick using the FSS. Perhaps because I resent being forced to use the FSS, no matter how quick and easy it is, but also because of the auto-scan issue which means that whatever I do I am leaving my name somewhere on the system, so where before I have looked at a system, decided I didn't want to scan all of, so left the whole system completely untouched, even if there were 'valuable' bodies present, now I just scan those valuable bodies (and whatever else was auto-scanned) and move on.

Of course maybe we would like some form of ADS to return. But if it's not a "best" solution / game mechanic it's because it's what we've had all these years, gotten used to and have no better idea of a system which would suit exploration gameplay. After all, pardon us, but we are not(guessing, may not apply to everyone) game developers. So we are asking for something we know. And making it optional. Hopefully, balanced.
I must say, I personally have never called for or suggested the FSS be removed. I know some people hate it with a vengeance, but I don't. I just feel it should be one of a number of tools that players have to explore, not the only tool.

I certainly agree that any and all tools should be optional so players can choose exactly how they want to explore, that can only add depth and give players varied ways to play the game. I also believe (and have stated many times), that advantages should come at a cost, just as they do for example with weapons, so if players want the benefit of scanning a whole system without the burden of long SC trips they should have to actually use the tool that enables that. Personally, I think something like this simplistic idea could allow that and give players looking for most of the commonly requested different styles of exploration the experience they are looking for...

So, to keep it as simple as possible.

Option 1: A basic system map module providing a targetable map with generic bodies with no identifiable information. This would allow those who either don't care what they are looking for, or want to use their skill and knowledge of the stellar forge to make educated guesses, then target the bodies and fly to them (or subsequently fire up the FSS).

Option 2: A nav panel module that lists all bodies as unexplored and available for targeting. No map view.

Option 3: An advanced system map that provides shape and color information, but which is not targetable. Players can identify things from the map, but must use the FSS to locate and scan them.

Only one map module can be installed in a ship at a time. :)
Edit: Oh, and please do remove the auto-scan function so that I only have to leave my name on things I actually to want to. ;)
 
Last edited:
I must say, I personally have never called for or suggested the FSS be removed. I know some people hate it with a vengeance, but I don't. I just feel it should be one of a number of tools that players have to explore, not the only tool.
Same here. Along the course of this thread i have explained numerous time that i do not encourage nor support removal of FSS numerous times.
I completely agree with You. Tools should be selected for the right job. It's strange how a beginner pilot in a sidewinder after just getting their Pilots Federation license can go exploring with a top shelf gear. A thing one would have to gradualy build up to after having decided that exploration is what they would lke to dedicate portiong of their time to prior to the update.

Edit: Oh, and please do remove the auto-scan function so that I only have to leave my name on things I actually to want to. ;)
Or make it toggleable through the new ship UI. We got a lot of spare space in there after all.
 
Top Bottom