Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Thing is with the probes - I only really scan ELW,WW and maybe AW.

Not because it is particularly 'fun' but because I am role playing as an explorer looking for habitable and interesting worlds then that is what an explorer looking for these things would do.

And I know I have a method where I can pretty much scan any of the above with just 5 probes - unless they are really really big.

Interestingly enough i found my first ringed elw - orbiting the secondary star 300,000 ls away - bit of a super cruise and there you go.
 

Jenner

I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
I liked the game I bought. I want to be able to continue to play that game if there is no technical or balancing issue that prevents it. This is not an unreasonable position.

Suggesting that someone bought the wrong game when the problem is with gameplay removed for no good reason years after it was purchased isn't a reasonable position, it is churlish.

It's not unreasonable, but it's also not realistic given the nature of the game. It was always sold as something that would be undergoing continual development. Nowhere did it say development would only ever be additive past version 1.0. I sympathize with people who don't like the changes, but it is what it is.

Frontier have always welcomed feedback, though.
 
It's not unreasonable, but it's also not realistic given the nature of the game. It was always sold as something that would be undergoing continual development. Nowhere did it say development would only ever be additive past version 1.0. I sympathize with people who don't like the changes, but it is what it is.

Frontier have always welcomed feedback, though.
It doesnt need to be additive, it just needs to be justified. There is no justification for this, it has made the game worse for some and made the game better for no one.

No sales were generated by removing the old modules, no sales would have been lost by retaining them.

There is no nature of the game that accounts for this, afaik it is unprecedented in ED's development since launch that existing stuff was removed or changed that was not justified or reverted when queried.

Fortunately it is an easy problem to solve.
 

Jenner

I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
It doesnt need to be additive, it just needs to be justified. There is no justification for this, it has made the game worse for some and made the game better for no one.

No sales were generated by removing the old modules, no sales would have been lost by retaining them.

There is no nature of the game that accounts for this, afaik it is unprecedented in ED's development since launch that existing stuff was removed or changed that was not justified or reverted when queried.

Fortunately it is an easy problem to solve.

It made the game better for me. I'm not saying exploration is perfect now, but it was an improvement as far as I'm concerned.
 
It made the game better for me. I'm not saying exploration is perfect now, but it was an improvement as far as I'm concerned.
Adding the new stuff made the game better for lots of people. Removing the old modules didn't improve your game, it didn't improve anyone's game. It made some customers worse off with no corresponding benefit. It was completely unnecessary as it turned out, rumours of incompatibility were proved unfounded by the amendments to the way pre-tagged bodies are discovered.

This situation needs to be rectified, and inaction will not achieve that. At this stage I'd say an assurance it won't happen again either would be very helpful.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for not being "anyone" in your book. :D
You're still blowing out unfounded assumptions as facts while at the same time proving that you're not caring about other one's opinions.

If I didn't care I wouldn't be asking for it to be optional. I don't need it to be optional ;)

Putting the old modules back into the game (ie made available in outfitting, it is far too late to revert their removal from players' ships) is the middle ground. It is not ADS vs FSS, both can happily co-exist. There are some that preferred the old stuff, and some that prefer the new. I'd imagine plenty would take the belt & braces approach & just use both, either/or as the situation or mood dictates. It's probably what I would do on a ship prepped for self-sufficiency rather than competitive play.
 

StefanOS

Volunteer Moderator
Hello Commanders,

I wanted to drop in and let you that we have been reading your comments and are aware how some of you feel about the FSS.

When first designing the FSS, we wanted to ensure that it was engaging for as many different player types as possible, but also understood that it would not be possible to design a system that would work for everyone. Before the FSS was implemented, we also collected feedback from discussions on the forum and the beta.

Today, in its current iteration, we’re happy with how the FSS operates and feel that reinstating the ADS would be detrimental to the experience of exploration as it is now.

At the current time, we won’t be making changes to the core of the FSS. While we understand that this may be disappointing for some of you, we would like to thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and feedback with us.

How about making non-core changes?
For me the main flaw of the FSS is that it gets too time consuming if you have many bodies in a system, and its feels to much like work if you do it for hours and days in an exploration tour.
My take would be.
1. The good old honk reveals all bodies without any details
2. I target the bodies and scan for details and get info on any surface points
3. I send drones that give me exact details on the planet surface, the POI like geological or biological sites
4. Having that info I decide to go and visit the POI I am really interested in
 
1. The good old honk reveals all bodies without any details
2. I target the bodies and scan for details and get info on any surface points
3. I send drones that give me exact details on the planet surface, the POI like geological or biological sites
4. Having that info I decide to go and visit the POI I am really interested in
I would be happy with this. The good old honk wouldn't even have to yield any rewards. I just want to see the system structure, without further details, in both system map and orrery view, before deciding whether to spend time in that system, or jump to the next one. Once one has seen thousands of systems, searching for interesting systems as such becomes a hobby. Not necessarily those that make credits. Some of us would be able to guess the type of planet to some degree, without much details or visual clues, based on some knowledge, which I can't see being a bad thing.
 
Except Mining was not so fundamentally changed. It was added to, and operates by different mechanics, different chunks of program code. The additions that were made were not an exclusive set of changes.

We’re also not Entitled to know why, beyond what we actually have been told by Frontier:

They did not like the old system. That’s all the reason for changing it they need. I’m not wrong, this is a fact.
I'm not claiming any entitlement to Frontier's command decision.

I am entitled to (legally) alter my playstyle and purchasing as I choose with Frontier products.
 
And that is exactly the part I decline. Optional, yes. But not at the same time in the same ship. That's not my idea of decent game design. Whenever we come to this point you usually come up with the new mining tools. The main differences here are that on a well fitted mining ship you're already very short on available module slots and on top of it both mining methods are not really overlapping. I don't see e.g. how strip mining would help with deep core mining. Choices here make sense as the wrong choice or "I want to have it all" mentality would be painful at least. That's what I'd call acceptable game design. But not your conception of just getting the best of both worlds without some strong downsides. That's a prime example of weak game design, something the game's already suffering from on various issues.

You are mistaken Picommander, I don't want to have it all. I don't see a reason why we cannot have both old & new co-exist, I'm personally only interested in the old stuff. I don't mind the new stuff, I use it, and there is no balancing or technical reason why they cannot co-exist, which was the common propaganda propagated by the same people that used phrases like 'god honk' to describe the ADS but curiously not the far more powerful FSS. You have been brainwashed by a smear campaign ;)

The ADS wasn't brilliant. But it didn't need to be removed.
 
The ADS is gone, but there was no need to remove it & that functionality should be put back. This problem is not going to go away through inaction.
I'm afraid that any suggestions are going to be tabled as well.

They will not change this decision. All we can do is adapt.

Pity, as there are many good suggestions for using the FSS better. I'm afraid all possibilities of suggesting change are now blocked.

Time to get up, and change poker tables.
 
Sorry, but I can't see anything but a huge and blatant contradiction in your words here. All the more so do I not get why you strongly reject the mutually exclusive solution with that stance.

There is no need to compromise. I understand you want to compromise, or rather you seem to want to force others to compromise, but there is no need. It is not complicated.
 
The ADS wasn't brilliant. But it didn't need to be removed.

I think you might be making one assumption though, in that moving the ADS into FSS freed up a slot. That makes smaller ships more viable as explorers and could easily have been part of FDev's thinking imo. Partly because more small ships will be explore ready multitaskers and also because the discovery focus has shifted a bit, on to planet surfaces. Extra slot means small / medium ships can take SRV more easily .. or repair limpets/ARU etc. and I wouldn't be surprised if FD see some value in that extra slot for new players in starter ships.
 
I think you might be making one assumption though, in that moving the ADS into FSS freed up a slot. That makes smaller ships more viable as explorers and could easily have been part of FDev's thinking imo. Partly because more small ships will be explore ready multitaskers and also because the discovery focus has shifted a bit, on to planet surfaces. Extra slot means small / medium ships can take SRV more easily .. or repair limpets/ARU etc. and I wouldn't be surprised if FD see some value in that extra slot for new players in starter ships.

And having the choice to follow your suggestion on slot usage and use the FSS alone or to put an ADS in that slot would be bad because...

Remember that the ADS was optional before - many ships didn't carry one.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom