Belt and braces is about extra backups not reduced utility.
Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner
- Thread starter ThatSmileyGuy
- Start date
Belt and braces is about extra backups not reduced utility.
It's about choice. The argument against choice is intended gameplay and balance. The time taken to scan a system is insignificant (minutes) compared to the time taken to get there and back to sell the data (hours or days).
There is no balancing issue not outweighed by the 'cost' (power, mass, a slot) to having both FSS & ADS fully functional (the most extreme example), and intended gameplay reasons have not been justified following the changes in 3.3 beta that undermined the original justifications (that the ADS had infinite range and that the two processes were incompatible).
FDev have not justified the removal (this is an oversight) of a long standing tool, so putting them back in is reasonable given all remaining circumstances have no downside to any customer.
They don't need to justify it and it wasn't an oversight. They probably expected the inevitable whining that happens after every single patch/nerf/upgrade and decided to ignore it as the constant background noise of the forum.
Yeah maybe
Or maybe it was overlooked & either the change can be justified (I don't think it can) or they will add at least the ADS back in for players to buy from outfitting. Either way it is an unresolved issue, this thread is about putting it/them/some equivalent functionality back into the game.Yeah maybe
They'd probably have done that along with the new noob friendly modules if they were going to.
I suspect they will base any decision on metrics, It's what they do.
After all, the noob friendly stuff is also coming from metrics, players that buy the game but stop playing for reasons, and FD have decided that those reasons are docking / undocking is too difficult and wanting to provide a safe environment for players starting out. Likewise players not understanding how SC deceleration works. And none of these things are mainstream forum gripes, well, perhaps the safe space for beginners has been a forum suggestion.
So, if players explore as much as FD hope they will, then they may well leave it be (or they may not, after all reinstating an optional ADS wouldn't affect anyone negatively, especially as they've just added more module slots on small and medium ships), but if, after the initial excitement of the FSS wears off they may well revisit exploration.
Why don't you get off your perch? Actually they do need to justify destroying peoples games. They even admitted that the FSS wouldn't cover all the play styles they had identified, so we are left wondering why they imposed it anyway. Maybe they like ruining the game for people or, just because explorers are a minority, they thought they could screw us over and to hell with it. Could you imagine them doing something similar to the pew-pew crew? I have two PC accounts that are not now being used and not likely to be while we are stuck with the rancid FSS.
As for the slots argument; all they need to do is to put a mode switch in the system panel: scanner mode FSS/ADS - job done.
Since half the "bring back the ADS" crowd quit the game after today's announcement, this probably won't happen.
Is there anything to back that up?
While I understand You being passionate about exploration aspect of the game I can't help but notice that most likely FDev wouldn't break the game for its players on purpose. This could have been just a matter of questionable designer team leadership. Maybe They thought the new mechanics would fit everyone. Which, sadly as indicated by threads like this, did not happen. I believe it was rather an oversight or poor estimation on their behalf rather than purposeful action.
Interesting remark. However since FD have admitted that such updates are now the responsibility of smaller developer team we might now expect not to see proposed changes(even looking outside of this thread) in nearest future. If FD are aware and trying to do something in that regard then new player oriented modules have been in development by smaller team for probably longer period of time(it's april already and new update comes 23.4). In these conditions I can't imagine them introducing anything faster than in a few months time.
Because I'm right. If this very popular upgrade (that's justification enough) has "destroyed" the game for you move on its just a video game. Once the fun stops so should you.
Could be wrong but I don't think a 1.5mCr module would fit in the remit of 'noob friendly'
This thread is about discussing adding stuff to the game, not justifying not adding stuff to deliberately frustrate customers. Unless you have something new to add I think all objections are easily countered (they boil down to the same 'it's supposed to be hard' argument many are making in the April update thread against the new automated flight modules). Whether it is done now or later, or not at all remains to be seen.
And you come to the realisation that if you were actually happy and not complaining, this game isnt for you any more.
Could be wrong but I don't think a 1.5mCr module would fit in the remit of 'noob friendly'
This thread is about discussing adding stuff to the game, not justifying not adding stuff to deliberately frustrate customers. Unless you have something new to add I think all objections are easily countered (they boil down to the same 'it's supposed to be hard' argument many are making in the April update thread against the new automated flight modules). Whether it is done now or later, or not at all remains to be seen.
The FSS is free making the proposed alternative 1.5 million is another reason not to use it.
Exactly Stigbob, it will be an optional module
By the time a new player is able to afford it they would be in a position to make an informed decision on whether they want to fit one or not. There really is no reason not to do it, it was an extremely popular choice among the exploration community before the 3.3 update.
I can't see how it was an oversight when they removed it. That has to take effort and has to be deliberate. It was no oversight or overlooked, it was a deliberate act.Yeah maybe
If it was left in, then that could be seen as an oversight or overlooked.
If something were to be left in by mistake and it caused no issues there would be no problem. In this case something was going to be removed for a reason, that reason went away but the thing was removed anyway. It shouldn't have been, time could have been saved on a short deadline release by not removing the thing. However it may already have been too late down the line to avoid (the work may have already been done before it was realised there was no need to do it).
This required some justification which has not been provided, the logical resolution is that that justification is provided (I don't believe it can be justified) or the three modules (I only really care about the ADS, but the point stands for all three) be reinstated.
As a final note, that a person does not see (or think there is) a problem does not mean that there is not a problem. Fundamentally existing gameplay elements should not be removed on a whim
They didn't just remove it they did it I such a way that explorers out in the black didn't have to return&refit, they also refunded people with it fitted.
Seems about as deliberate and preplanned as you can get really.
So I was having a bit of a think about this and perhaps it might be possible (with a bit of rebalancing). It's a common gaming mechanic that stuff that automates tasks or makes them more convenient has some drawback over doing it by hand so to speak, either in terms of time taken or quality of result of whatever is produced. Take the docking computer in ED for example; the benefit is that you can dock hands off but the price you pay is the time taken to do it - it is quicker if you do a manual landing.
So looking at the ADS in the same vein, I thought perhaps the ADS could come back with a few tweaks. Instead of the instant reveal of the honk it is something that you switch on and it does a progressive scan of the system. It starts to populate the system map with bodies in the order of proximity to the ship. The more bodies there are the longer it takes to fully scan a system. In terms of balance with the FSS the ADS:
1. The time taken to fully scan a system scales according to the number of bodies in it.
2. The time taken to scan a body in the ADS would be less than it takes in the FSS in line with the reduced information the ADS scan reveals (as before) compared to the FSS scan.
4. ADS scan would not give the discovered by tag (as before). To get the discovered tag it would need a FSS scan or a fly by close enough for auto resolution.
5. What happened to 3?
6. Perhaps the throttle needs to be zero while ADS scanning, or perhaps not. Personally I'm ambivalent about this.
3. Here I am. Sorry I am late.
Now all of this doesn't take into account the effort to implement it and support it but in principle how does this sound?
So looking at the ADS in the same vein, I thought perhaps the ADS could come back with a few tweaks. Instead of the instant reveal of the honk it is something that you switch on and it does a progressive scan of the system. It starts to populate the system map with bodies in the order of proximity to the ship. The more bodies there are the longer it takes to fully scan a system. In terms of balance with the FSS the ADS:
1. The time taken to fully scan a system scales according to the number of bodies in it.
2. The time taken to scan a body in the ADS would be less than it takes in the FSS in line with the reduced information the ADS scan reveals (as before) compared to the FSS scan.
4. ADS scan would not give the discovered by tag (as before). To get the discovered tag it would need a FSS scan or a fly by close enough for auto resolution.
5. What happened to 3?
6. Perhaps the throttle needs to be zero while ADS scanning, or perhaps not. Personally I'm ambivalent about this.
3. Here I am. Sorry I am late.
Now all of this doesn't take into account the effort to implement it and support it but in principle how does this sound?