Am I the only one that finds the FSS rather addicting?
- Thread starter DukeIronHand
- Start date
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Yes, you want an automagical button that will work like the previous ADS would: 1 honk = all positional information on system bodies automagically revealed in Nav panel to enable you to effortlessly and mindlessly fly around the system pointing your ship at stuff.
Not gonna happen.
Flying space ships is just one thing I like about this game. I also like trading without relying on the automated trading programs like those found on EDDB and other 3rd party sites, managing my pips in combat, finding out the material distribution on the surface of planets by taking surface samples for geological POIs, and generally relying on memory and the knowledge and skills I've developed to accomplish things, rather than relying on the game (or 3rd party program) do all my work for me.
If you take the automation argument to its logical conclusion, what you have left is an idle game, one where you give an entity in the game a task, and leave to do other things, checking on them once in a while. While I enjoy idle games from time to time, I played the heck out of Fallout Shelter for about a year, I certainly wouldn't buy a high-end HOTAS or VR to play one. Generally, I use my iPad to play that kind of thing.
The FSS gives you all the positional information. Why is that okay but skipping the point-and-click adventure part unacceptable?
FSS gives you the information after putting some effort into discovering the origin of the signals. It's not a 1-button wunderhonk.
Not from my point of view. As a tool for discovery gameplay, it wasn't just bad game mechanic, it was an anti-mechanic, because it killed any desire for many of us to actually go out and explore the galaxy.
Most of the arguments I've seen have been of the "it's a game" variety, along the vein of "if everything was automated, we wouldn't have a game."
Absolutely. Which is why this entire line of arguments is a dead-end. ED is a game where complete nobodies are flying incredibly advanced high-tech spaceships for no discernible reason whatsoever. Does it make sense? No. Is it fun? Yes. The very reason we have fiction as a form of entertainment is that what is realistic and makes sense generally isn't very much fun, which is why we pretend to be space pilots in the first place.
Last edited:
Hogwash. The reason so many are up in arms is that it's way more work than "just clicking". You're using an advanced telescope to collect the data on planets in a system you had to travel to (by flying a spaceship), so yeah, it should give you "first discovered" tags. It should also give you detailed statistics about the planet. Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930, and he wasn't in a space ship when he found it, and we knew a good chuck of stats and facts back when I was a kid in school, long before any probes had visited the "planet".
However, I do agree that we should not be able to pull up the surface map of a planet in the System Map unless we actually visit that planet. I'm talking about that fully zoomed-in and rotatable map. I personally just avoid using this feature (especially since it never looks as good as visiting the actual planet anyway).
As for anomalies, if you are talking surface POIs, then I think the reports should be slightly less detailed (don't need the number), which ideally would speed up the scan time. On the other hand, probes should give us more detail, like the exact nature of these sites if we've already "confirmed" their type in our Codex.
One area I think is a little too "god mode" is the identification of terraformable planets. I could see the FSS reporting a "potential terraforming candidate", but requiring a surface scan to determine if the planet actually is terraformable or not. You wouldn't want to create a colony on a world with super-active plate tectonics, for example.
You're almost there. "It's a game" is a perfect excuse for why something doesnt need to be realistic (or even sensible). It is on itself not enough though, because a game needs to be fun. That is at the end of the day the only relevant argument. Of course, people disagree on what is fun. You liked the old system better. It made no sense, wasnt realistic but it was fun to you. I like the new system better. It makes no sense, isn't realistic but it is fun to me.
It just doesnt make for a very compelling setup for a debate-class session, so we ignore it for a bit to allow us to introduce all kinds of exotic, but ultimately pointless, arguments. Does that make sense? No, but debating is also just a game. And it is fun to ignore the fundamental truth that in the end this is just discussing what is the best topping on a pizza.
And the final step is to acknowledge that while this is all fun, in the end the best is probably to have a pizza place where there is some level of choice regarding your toppings...
Last edited:
You're almost there. "It's a game" is a perfect excuse for why something doesnt need to be realistic (or even sensible). It is on itself not enough though, because a game needs to be fun. That is at the end of the day the only relevant argument. Of course, people disagree on what is fun. You liked the old system better. It made no sense, wasnt realistic but it was fun to you. I like the new system better. It makes no sense, isn't realistic but it is fun to me.
It just doesnt make for a very compelling setup for a debate-class session, so we ignore it for a bit to allow us to introduce all kinds of exotic, but ultimately pointless, arguments. Does that make sense? No, but debating is also just a game. And it is fun to ignore the fundamental truth that in the end this is just discussing what is the best topping on a pizza.
All peace & chill would be rather easier to do if the bit you like hadn't been needlessly removed. It just needs to be put back in & everyone's happy. Well everyone except the ones that want others to suffer because reasons
Your attempt to twist the community doesn't compute because the same people are not demanding that the old ads suddenly gets grafted the fss god mode capability. The defenders of god seem to never mention how godly the new system is when casting down how easy the old system was.
The rest of your suggestions make alot of sense!
I find it quite addictive and have to force myself away from it when flying to a specific location.
Which I couldn't care less about.
Which I generally considered to reveal trivia pre 3.3, as opposed to useful information. You didn't even have to fly within visual range to do this, just fly in a straight line, and kill the throttle once the scan started. It was truly the epitome of high stakes flying. [hotas]
Oh, and post 2.1, the DSS kind of ruined discovering what surface materials are on a planet for me. Thankfully, the FSS is a bit more frugal than the system map in that regard, so that sense of discovery is back when I'm taking surface samples from geological sites, which are often a lot of fun to gather IMO.
For me, it's less about gaining knowledge of anomalies, and more about confirming my suspicions about what's there, at least in regards to geological anomalies. Still haven't done much in depth investigation of biological anomalies yet. I wouldn't be "clicking" on them if I didn't already have reason to believe there was something interesting there.
You forgot to mention that the ADS gave you so much information about the system you're in, that it essentially explored it for you, no effort required. Just hold down a button and *boom* it's done. As a consolation prize, I could choose to grind for "discovered by tags," unimportant trivia, and/or credits.
At least with the FSS, I'm motivated to actually land on, or at least fly within visual range of, planets these days. Heck, I'm spending more time landing on planets these days than I ever did pre 3.3, either in the Bubble or out in the black.
Yep, differences in perception and adjustment of when value is received is the root of every single comment that's ever been raised about this topic.
When you first think about it, frontier must have felt that whatever they made wasn't enough to convince joe average to want to use the fss. Then we got what we have now, including the dumbness of double tagging etc.*
*.. i love the double tagging in the bubble i have my home system now
Definitely a ship name in there.
I like the FSS except for the concentrated signal sources....guess I'm supposed to bind more keys for step zoom or something? I dunno. Please PM me if you know the answer.