You need SC to map, but mapping non-landable bodies provides nothing except credits. It's essentially a KWS for planets.You still need to SC to explore. Saying you don't is just a lie.
Therefore, you don't NEED to SC to explore.
You need SC to map, but mapping non-landable bodies provides nothing except credits. It's essentially a KWS for planets.You still need to SC to explore. Saying you don't is just a lie.
The old modules don't necessarily need to be re-instated as was, the end-effect is the important factor - viable alternatives to the pointless Blob-hunt/Space-golf mini-games that replicate on the most part the exploration experience that was available pre-3.3 is the key point.I literally just stated what I am looking for, you quoted it. Maybe you should instead accept that this is not a problem that is going to go away until the old modules are reinstated, and that suggesting I give up is not a productive line of reasoning.
If the FSS is "pretty much a lousy mini-game for kids", how do you think the ADS could possibly be attributed? Words fail me here. Exploration for monads perhaps? The fact why the FSS works for most of us is not at least thanks to the total mind absent groundwork the ADS built for way too long now.We got the crappy fss that pretty much is a lousy mini-game for kids
I'm no Nostradamus but my predicting was right...If the FSS is "pretty much a lousy mini-game for kids", how do you think the ADS could possibly be attributed? Because words fail me here. Exploration for monads perhaps?
Which was?I'm no Nostradamus but my predicting was right...
C'mon Pi, you should know it, it's about you!Which was?
Please learn to talk like a human and not this mysterious gaga. I can only guess that it's the fact I'm back at all - since you already commented my post count in this thread. If that's an argument for you, I'd suggest to have a look at your own: it's meanwhile dangerously close to mine. It's also dangerously close to commenting my person instead of my posts...C'mon Pi, you should know it, it's about you!
I'm a human so by definition I'm talking like a human. And yes you guessed right, starting to see the irony here? At last, this was never meant to be an argument against the topic but against your (repeated) claims that you are bored and this is a waste of time, the irony comes from the fact that your own posts disproved that so there's that.Please learn to talk like a human and not this mysterious gaga. I can only guess that it's the fact I'm back at all - since you already commented my post count in this thread. If that's an argument for you, I'd suggest to have a look at your own: it's meanwhile dangerously close to mine. It's also dangerously close to commenting my person instead of my posts...
You obviously didn't get the memo where we were told the ADS was a zero-gameplay placeholder until actual exploration gameplay was introduced.If the FSS is "pretty much a lousy mini-game for kids", how do you think the ADS could possibly be attributed? Because words fail me here. Exploration for monads perhaps?
I see a lot of people saying they want the ADS back, alongside the FSS.The FSS mechanics (not the Honk itself!) might not be ideal but far closer to a scientific solution than the ADS ever was and a promising start in the right direction. If anyone would start a campaign to build a more sophisticated version of the FSS I'd certainly support this. But not this 'back to nothing' horse poo, thanks.
Your name is your bond, eh? You can try to 'rulez' your poodle, might be more satisfactory.I'm a human so by definition I'm talking like a human. And yes you guessed right, starting to see the irony here? At last, this was never meant to be an argument against the topic but against your (repeated) claims that you are bored and this is a waste of time, the irony comes from the fact that your own posted disproved that so there's that.
If you mix up something with nothing you end up with nothing. It's a division by zero.I see a lot of people saying they want the ADS back alongside the FSS.
Please tell us which people are saying "back to nothing"?
Ah see? That's just insulting. Keep digging.You name is your bond, eh? You can try to 'rulez' your poodle, might be more satisfactory.![]()
Hmmmm, I'm sure 1/0 in either direction is not 0.If you mix up something with nothing you end up with nothing. It's a division by zero.
You are talking about tags. Tags have never been exploring, they are just a means to say I was here first and get some credits for it. Nothing more, nothing less. To truly explore the system, the rings, the planets, you have to SC. That is just a simple fact.You need SC to map, but mapping non-landable bodies provides nothing except credits. It's essentially a KWS for planets.
Therefore, you don't NEED to SC to explore.
Rubbish. Jumping from system to system simply to discover what's in those systems is, by definition, exploring.You still need to SC to explore. Saying you don't is just a lie.
The problem with that intuitively decent sound idea is that all processes and activities are inherently needless and pointless in any game. Because games are pointless beyond inducing some measure of fun. In other words, any process of activity is either fun, or pointless. You calling an activity pointless therefor is just another way of saying you don't find it fun. Others do find it fun so to them it isn't pointless.Fundamentally, I am diametrically opposed to the idea of putting arguably needless process barriers in the way of ANY activity.
That is comically reductionist, and by that definition you didn't need SC ever to explore in ED, because you always found out about the star from the entry point.It requires no travel to planets. Even if I learn only a single fact about a system before jumping away from it, I am, by definition, exploring.