Yeah again with the classic strawman, your steam argument failed as well BTW.
Anti ADS people JUSTIFY your no compromise stance here.
- Thread starter Leper Messiah
- Start date
- Status
Yeah again with the classic strawman, your steam argument failed as well BTW.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Hmmm. Orrery as a start point.
Spitballing here:
Change the FSS view to be an orrery representation of the system, with the ship at the center and able to move around the system (no parking in SC).
Blue blobs still show up and can be targeted by moving the orrery around - similar functionality to the Gal Map.
Targeting a blue blob gives mass, temperature and distance from drop in, and populates the Nav Panel.
The player now has two options:
1. Fly to the body and resolve it 'manually'.
2. Switch to 'telescope' mode for tune-n-zoom resolution
That would work for me, and I don't think it destroys the "I want to discover bodies manually" gameplay or the "let me fly around the system" style.
It would show interesting body configurations so that gameplay would be restored.
The only thing it doesn't really help is the Jolly Green Giant hunters.
[Edit]
It also works for people looking for USSs
Last edited:
And you is a pee-pee head!
Oh I knew I would get a bite from you Drew. I had a quick look at the linked post, hell I have even suggested a compromise but that was a 'all or nothing' solution meaning that if someone wants to still use an ADS they lose the ability to use the all the new mechanics.
But tell me Drew, you have stated (and stated and stated) that you only want the honk to populate the system map with hollow circles so you can valiantly head out to discover the planets. Does that mean you won't be really satisfied if the full system map is bought back in? Or should your concept be adopted as the ultimate compromise, knowing it will upset those who are demanding the full system reveal? Or as someone else suggest, a limited reveal that only populates the system map a certain distance from the primary star. Yes there have been lots of compromises put forward, some genuine, some (like mine) just in the forlorn hope of shutting up the crowd. Can you tell me which compromise will be the best?
I can't say I agree it's invalid as they seem to be hunting for specific things, repeatedly doing a "thing" (fss blue blob game) that you dislike over and over and over again is probably not too good. The FSS mechanic is purely for "harvesting" a system for as much money as quickly as possible, I'm certain monetary reward is NOT what they are after, but either way the details of what the ADS reveals is not what this thread was originally about.
Oh well at least more are actually discussing compromise now. 
maybe we can get round the camp fire and sing kumbaya.
maybe we can get round the camp fire and sing kumbaya.
Hey, I agree 99% with you. Heck I even went out of my way to come up with a detailed proposal (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/467736-Exploration-Beyond-3-3) that would give you exactly what you want. Plus solving other people's issues too, while keeping the FSS as it is for people who want that. Got almost no responses and zero traction of course, because the only way to get things going here is by being contrarian and just generally disagreeable.
As for the advantage: as you say it evidently has an advantage to you (heck, why else would you ask for it?), and it has an advantage over others in rather niche situations. Obviously plenty of explorers care about getting their name on fancy and unique systems (not credits, but weird configurations and such). Your ADS would give you an advantage as you can screen systems faster, so per hour played you have a higher chance of finding such a rare system. To which extend that is important enough an argument to deny the ADS is an entirely different matter. Clearly, having written a detailed proposal where I give you what you want, I'm inclined to believe that this is an advantage I wouldn't be fundamentally opposed to. But I can also see why others might disagree with me on that.
The thing that annoys me is not that you want something diabolically and unspeakably evil or something. Not at all. What annoys me is the way some people go about it. Having a different opinion on what FD should spend their resources on doesnt make one selfish, or at least not any more selfish than anyone else. There are advantages to the ADS. Exploration has multiple in-game incentives for competitive elements. That doesnt make wanting the ADS back wrong, but people should be straight-forward about it without throwing others on ignore lists and yelling insults.
In the Dutch language we have a term called 'gun-factor'. It basically (and I dont have a translation for it) refers to the willingness of others to 'grant' you something. Some free sets of strings when buying a new guitar. A slightly more expansive company car. Generally just stuff that people arent entitled to, but can often get depending on their attitude and whether people like them. This discussion is very much about this gun-factor. Suppose the narrative was 'Hey guys! We dont really ask for much generally, but there is a small thing that would mean the world to us! It would barely take up much time from FD (but we do understand you all have stuff you want them to work on!), it would be completely optional and very very few people would really have an objective issue with it. Can we have it? We would really appreciate it!"
I am sure most of would shrug and say:"Its probably not much work for FD, so even though I personally would rather see them spend that week on something else I'm cool with you guys getting this.". But instead we get this spamming, whiny, dishonest, ignore-list nonsense that over time has resulted in people saying:"Screw you. I dont actually care too much but I just dont want you to have it.". Which is also petty as heck, but that is humans for you. As for me: my opinion is in the topic I created, but beyond that I am bored enough while I am in between projects to point out any inconsistencies.
I should really remember the number of occasions when after having an initial shout, we discover that we do broadly agree about a topic
Your proposal (which I'll be honest, I didn't see because I wasn't on the forum too often in the run-up to Christmas and was avoiding threads about the FSS/ADS when I was here) is one I actually like a lot, chiefly because it's one of the few I've seen that starts with recognising that one size does not in fact fit all, which is absolutely the root of the problem here.
I have to add that I'm not actually that obsessed with tagging stuff, so much as simply finding it - that's the kick for me. Sure it's nice if I get a permament little 'discovered by Cmdr Red Anders' tag on it too but I'm not kidding myself that they're going to amount to much when I'm standing before my maker and the final reckoning is at hand. I did have a list of about six things I wanted to tag when I started playing (the usual, an actual cataloged star, a planetary nebula etc) but I've already ticked those off ages ago.
Last edited:
The ONE thing I don't like about the ADS is the case when you need to zoom in and out and in and out and in and out just to mark planets / objects. It causes a headache. I don't mind the zooming when it's actually needed (i.e. multiple objects in near each other) but otherwise I'd rather the object was just discovered without the need to zoom in. The zoom in for details option should still be there, but it should be optional rather than mandatory.
There are a whole range of compromises that I've said I'd be prepared to accept. Here's some off the top of my head:
Full restoration of ADS functionality. Not my favored solution - I'd prefer less information available at range.
Black body ADS. Mass/temperature/distance only - this is the one I've been pushing.
FSS which populates the Nav Panel and/or System Map without tune-n-zoom resolution. I still don't like the FSS interface, but it's a single mechanism that allows the some player control.
Orrery style FSS. My newest spitballed idea, available in this very thread.
There are probably others that I've agreed to.
I don't like limited range options, since I prefer not to use parallax to find stuff. It's okay on the orbital plane, but there's a lot of bodies at long range off the plane that are virtually impossible to find by parallax.
In short, I'd like to be able to locate bodies without resolving them - so I can use thinking to decide whether it might be an ELW (for example) rather than pattern-matching - then fly off and explore them directly.
[Edit]
Oh, I'd also take the ADS or FSS pick one and stick with it option.
Last edited:
Quit beating around the bush. That's all this pro-ADS crowd has been doing and it gets pretty repetitive. The reason for clinging to the ADS is purely, as babelfisch said, so that the contents of a system can be revealed more quickly than the FSS can render them. I'll go a bit further and spell it out bluntly: allowing the user to make a decision on whether or not there is an item or body worth flying to and scanning during the time it takes to scoop and spool up the FSD.
Fdev decided (and I agree based on 4000+ hours of general play and nearly a year spent doing nothing but exploring from one end of the galaxy to the other) that this does not constitute "game play" and that keeping the ADS as an option would promote gameplay that they don't approve of, as well as invalidate the gameplay that they do.
Last edited:
My main issue with a compromise is that one compromise may good for some, but may not be for others. If you start putting in compromises in for you group, you will need to cater for all of the others. Some people want stuff in that will dilute and make a mockery of the FSS and make it pointless using it.
Personally I think the best solution is to leave it as it is as there is no compromise that will make everyone happy. The new FSS is not exactly what I would have done. My method of exploring has disappeared and I have had to adapt and explore differently. It should be no different for anyone else.
If these people can get their personal exploration mechanics in the game, why can't I. Then it just turns into a convoluted mess and a confusing mashup of different ideas that do not work well together.
I think we just need to leave FDev to design what they think is best for their game. The new FSS is now integrated into many other parts of the game I would assume that will be the case when new expansions turn up. If atmospheric planets become a thing in the next expansion, then I can't see a need for the old ADS in any shape or form as exploration will be completely different for everyone.
Personally I think the best solution is to leave it as it is as there is no compromise that will make everyone happy. The new FSS is not exactly what I would have done. My method of exploring has disappeared and I have had to adapt and explore differently. It should be no different for anyone else.
If these people can get their personal exploration mechanics in the game, why can't I. Then it just turns into a convoluted mess and a confusing mashup of different ideas that do not work well together.
I think we just need to leave FDev to design what they think is best for their game. The new FSS is now integrated into many other parts of the game I would assume that will be the case when new expansions turn up. If atmospheric planets become a thing in the next expansion, then I can't see a need for the old ADS in any shape or form as exploration will be completely different for everyone.
So you don't actually care what the compromise is then, just those against it have to prove to you (and you alone) their justification on what they don't want it, whatever IT is of course. Yet where is the justification from those wanting a compromise, or don't they have to state why, their very existence is enough proof for you.
Oh well at least more are actually discussing compromise now.
I think this post sums up your entire premise, you want to be seen as the great arbitrator, the one who solved the problem. You freely admit you like (oops can't use that statement but you have several times) the FSS but you also want to be seen as the only one sympathetic to those who want the old system in some shape or form. You don't care what the compromise is, you don't care how it impacts that game (if it does), you don't care that the majority are quite satisfied with the new mechanics, you just want to be seen as the champion for the downtrodden. Very noble I guess
Okay, give me an ADS where I have to hold down the honk button for 60 seconds, but then I get a System Map.
Now I'm slower than the FSS in my decision making, but I still get to fly to bodies in order to explore them.
@Mooka
Another acceptable compromise
Last edited:
Half right. Some are exactly about this. Others miss having to fly in SC in a straight line for an eternity to get any meaningful info about whether you want to land there. Which is exactly what FD said they want out of the game, but still. It is a valid preference, even though we know that FD considers it to be not what they want for this game.
FWIW: obviously FD is interested in adding more stuff to exploration in the form of atmo planets. We're supposed to spend less time jumping and honking and supercruising, and more time with gameplay. And the FSS is just a small part of it, a part that should guide us to the planet where we can leave SC and enter the good part of the flight model.
As I've been getting overly involved in the disc...er arguments about the ADS I thought I'd try a thread where those against it's return can justify their reasons. Can we ALL try to be civil here? (and yes I AM looking at myself
caveats:
1) Not liking the ADS is NOT a valid reason
2) Liking the new FSS mechanic is NOT a valid reason
3) Not liking others to have a choice is NOT a valid reason
all those above are purely selfish reasons and thus why I class them as not valid. Please try to not be selfish.
please also realise that:
a) The ADS does not make exploring faster or easier or more lucrative.
b) You HAVE to use the FSS in unexplored areas to get planet locations.
c) no one (reasonable) pro ADS is asking for a complete roll back.
The ONLY valid reason I have heard so far over are
1) Dev time.
2) dilution of the FSS mechanic
3) introduction of bugs
TBH you have added so many requirements to get through your logic gates it seems like only want one type of argument/person to get through?
I have an opinion on it and haven't actually posted it in any other discussion; but I don't pass your test :S[heart]
Half right. Some are exactly about this. Others miss having to fly in SC in a straight line for an eternity to get any meaningful info about whether you want to land there. Which is exactly what FD said they want out of the game, but still. It is a valid preference, even though we know that FD considers it to be not what they want for this game.
FWIW: obviously FD is interested in adding more stuff to exploration in the form of atmo planets. We're supposed to spend less time jumping and honking and supercruising, and more time with gameplay. And the FSS is just a small part of it, a part that should guide us to the planet where we can leave SC and enter the good part of the flight model.
Seeing as how the old joke (that isn't a joke at all) of watching Netflix while the timer counted down arose from this practice of flying way out there to check out a planet directly, it's perfectly understandable why Fdev would want to remove it. And let's face it, if that is really what they were holding onto in the sense of being purists, then they can still fly out there anyhow to nab the all important selfy regardless of having/not having the ADS.
Yes, that's what I had in mind. Seems to be the best proposal to me so far. Frontier is not going to implement it though...
- Status