Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?

[Riverside]

I read this quite a bit, "we told them in beta" but aside from tweaking some variables - to balance the game - it's really unrealistic to expect deeper code rewrites to happen, even during a month long beta, as code changes need planning out.

That's not evidence of Devs ignoring feedback, but an unavoidable fact of code writing.

Yeah, I wasn't surprised that the ADS didn't make it back into the game for the initial release, I was disappointed it didn't make it into the first patch though. Still waiting for them to be put back in & the delay isn't helping to solve the problem this event has created.

If I were more pessimistic, I'd presume the design philosophy is to suffer the mini-game for the bell ding reward at the end.

I think they think they have to take a hard stance on it because they knew some people wouldn't like it so they prepped for that instead of being more agreeable and open to the ideas of compatible workarounds for those of us who care to play the game differently, like, you know, piloting spaceships and things.

I think if someone at FDev wants to dig in their heels and stick with the decision to needlessly remove long standing game elements they can do that with a new game or allocate a budget for refunds to existing customers who want them. The obvious solution would be to just put them back in of course, there was no need to remove them in the first place and the alternative is not so amazing that it was worth the sacrifice, the DSS is just another pretty ordinary gameplay element with different pros & cons.

There have been plenty of times where something changed, it got harder or easier to achieve a particular goal, balance is tweaked. Some customers will be happier, some will be less happy & this is understandable. This change made nobody's game better and generated no new sales, there is no positive, only negatives.

 

[WR3ND]

New content instead of subverting existing content to be hidden behind a mini-game wall would have been a nice option as well. Just saying – I think game-play like the FSS sets a bad precedent in general (basically the video game equivalent of a fidget spinner), but I understand not everyone has the same tastes in games as I do. Fair enough, just don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Yeah, I wasn't surprised that the ADS didn't make it back into the game for the initial release, I was disappointed it didn't make it into the first patch though. Still waiting for them to be put back in & the delay isn't helping to solve the problem this event has created.



I think if someone at FDev wants to dig in their heels and stick with the decision to needlessly remove long standing game elements they can do that with a new game or allocate a budget for refunds to existing customers who want them. The obvious solution would be to just put them back in of course, there was no need to remove them in the first place and the alternative is not so amazing that it was worth the sacrifice, the DSS is just another pretty ordinary gameplay element with different pros & cons.

There have been plenty of times where something changed, it got harder or easier to achieve a particular goal, balance is tweaked. Some customers will be happier, some will be less happy & this is understandable. This change made nobody's game better and generated no new sales, there is no positive, only negatives.

It's not going to happen.
FDev have made it clear that the loss of a few players is acceptable collateral damage for the changes they want to make to exploration. It's a weird decision, which I personally don't understand, but it's what FDev want, so we're stuck with it.

 

[Hanerib]

FDev have made it clear that the loss of a few players is acceptable collateral damage for the changes they want to make to exploration. It's a weird decision, which I personally don't understand, but it's what FDev want, so we're stuck with it.

It's like they wanted people ranting about stuff in their forums. There are several methods for mining. Why not an alternate way of displaying information already revealed by the current ADS, and using comparably inefficient methods for scanning planets, if one wishes so. Use FSS for revealing the planet type, or ignore it altogether. This would mean black body system map, which has been tested on a few occasions, assuming FSS signal spectrum can't be accessed unless the module is used (/edit on target body). Modules work together. No rules are broken, sufficient compromise achieved.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

It's like they wanted people ranting about stuff in their forums. There are several methods for mining. Why not an alternate way of displaying information already revealed by the current ADS, and using comparably inefficient methods for scanning planets, if one wishes so. Use FSS for revealing the planet type, or ignore it altogether. This would mean black body system map, which has been tested on a few occasions, assuming FSS signal spectrum can't be accessed unless the module is used (/edit on target body). Modules work together. No rules are broken, sufficient compromise achieved.

Which we've been saying for 6 months, but FDev in their 'wisdom' said "Nope. Not happening".

In that, we're better off than the OOPP crowd who got teased with the idea they might get what they want, only for FDev to say "Well, maybe later" and then go silent, leaving them yelling at clouds for a year.

So be grateful we got an answer, even if it was the wrong one.

 

[yianniv]

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, please don't make assumptions for others.

 

[lenna]

It's not going to happen.
FDev have made it clear that the loss of a few players is acceptable collateral damage for the changes they want to make to exploration. It's a weird decision, which I personally don't understand, but it's what FDev want, so we're stuck with it.

Not entirely true, and they should at least address some of the non-ADS-revival related concerns. Arguably, by doing what they have done with the FSS/DSS they have broken the principle of maintaining form, fit, and function of a live product with arguably no good solid reason to not maintain it.

The FSS/DSS revisions were clearly an attempt to silence the so called anti-honk crowd rather than actually address the wider concerns properly.

 

[lenna]

In that, we're better off than the OOPP crowd

Actually, it is far worse than that - existing gameplay was removed - at least where the OOPP crowd are concerned gameplay has not been removed just prospective changes have not been implemented.

The anti-honk and the OOPP crowds have remarkably similar agendas - they essentially are opposed to gameplay options that they disagree with being available to others. FD should not be listening to such people IMO, or at least not implement changes that support such exclusive agendas.

 

[Faded Glory]

If I were more pessimistic, I'd presume the design philosophy is to suffer the mini-game for the bell ding reward at the end.

Personally I don't think it's that.

I'm sure that over time they have been stung by criticism of the passive and dull nature of exploration gameplay, the need to SC for long periods of time doing nothing only to do more nothing when you arrive there to finish the job. The FSS is their solution to that, and in addition it's their solution for enabling players to actively find things such as mission targets and not have them find the player by randomly spawning.

The issue for me at least is that I'm not really a great fan of the FSS game. I don't mind using it, it's easy and fast (as FD said it would be), but it isn't something I wish to use all the time. I was able to explore because I don't scan every system, so I wasn't spending all that much time in it. I don't use it in the bubble at all, much preferring to fly to the nav beacon or have whatever pirate I'm looking for interdict me.

It kind of surprises me when I read the list of improvements that people want, as even without them it's very easy and quick to use. I mean moving the tuner along the energy spectrum isn't exactly difficult, nor IMO is panning around the skybox to find whatever body I'm looking for. And I'm not convinced that it will ever become a HUD overlay, or that we'll be able to use it at anything but zero throttle, as we are not controlling our ships when we are in the FSS screen.

I do think the suggestion that the FSS only identify that a type of planetary POI exist, not the amount of them makes sense and leave the detail to the DSS a logical one.

I don't really understand the statement that they think adding in an alternative way to discover the presence of stuff would be detrimental to exploration, but I doubt we'll get an explanation. If it's that they think that the FSS is somehow skilled gameplay, then that's disappointing.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Good idea. When life gives you dead horses, you make horseade.

Carry on. o7

Or a weird martini...

 

[lenna]

If it's that they think that the FSS is somehow skilled gameplay, then that's disappointing.

The FSS is a world away from truely skilled gameplay - it lacks any real skill requirements and personally I think it is incredibly infantile in terms of implementation. It's grounding may be in solid science but it's implementation is sorely lacking.

Arguably, there is no solid way to enforce actual skill requirements for exploration - the idea that it is possible is just a tad ridiculous. The overall principle does not fit with the product I originally bought.

 

[Hanerib]

Which we've been saying for 6 months, but FDev in their 'wisdom' said "Nope. Not happening".

In that, we're better off than the OOPP crowd who got teased with the idea they might get what they want, only for FDev to say "Well, maybe later" and then go silent, leaving them yelling at clouds for a year.

So be grateful we got an answer, even if it was the wrong one.

I was one of those OOPP crowd, yet never an open only BGS supporter though. (Different modes/platforms need their shared thing.) I always wanted to get more serious in PvP, CQC included. Got CD-43 11917 permit at least, among all other legitimately accessible permits. I UA bombed. I liked lore when it was consistent, and know a little something about this game's stories. I read all the books and more. I liked old conflict zones. I never flied big ships, and avoided all credits/materials exploits, not including occasional board hopping though. AX conflict zones would have been a nice multiplayer feature, if half of them were not empty, and half not stuck to a never ending stream of scouts. Sometimes people just jump away anyway, when interceptors appear, having their grind disturbed. And I've been all around the galaxy. For whatever reason I still frequent these forums because I have nothing else to do in the game, fully provided entertainment for what I've paid for it, yet sad to see this game never to achieve it's potential, that is, there are some things done very well.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

The FSS/DSS revisions were clearly an attempt to silence the so called anti-honk crowd rather than actually address the wider concerns properly.

The "anti-honk crowd" clearly includes a senior decision-maker at FDev - this is why we are where we are, and why it isn't going to change.

 

[lenna]

The "anti-honk crowd" clearly includes a senior decision-maker at FDev - this is why we are where we are, and why it isn't going to change.

If that is true - then they need to start issuing refunds (and/or compensation) because they are turning Elite Dangerous into Barbie/Spot/Dorna Goes To Space (or something of that ilk).

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

If that is true - then they need to start issuing refunds (and/or compensation) because they are turning Elite Dangerous into Barbie/Spot/Dorna Goes To Space (or something of that ilk).

I would expect the EULA is worded in such a way as to make this a non-issue for them.

 

[lenna]

I would expect the EULA is worded in such a way as to make this a non-issue for them.

The EULA can not justify removing gameplay options especially given their long standing declaration that they "build on the past" as part of their key change management principles. Arguably, they have broken that covenant/mandate they set themselves.

[EDIT]I have just checked - there are no such "get out" clauses for them that can justify the removal of features.[/EDIT]

 

[WR3ND]

It's not going to happen.
FDev have made it clear that the loss of a few players is acceptable collateral damage for the changes they want to make to exploration. It's a weird decision, which I personally don't understand, but it's what FDev want, so we're stuck with it.

I prefer to proceed under the assumption that Frontier can eventually be reasoned with.

It's better than the alternative. You wouldn't leave your belligerently drunk friend to pass out in the cold. Would you?

 

[Riverside]

It made the game better for me, please don't make assumptions for others.

I am not presuming for anyone, I am not looking for anything to be taken away from the game. I am advocating for the win/win, both processes, old and new to be in the game. Some like the new stuff and that's great, it just didn't need to be at the expense of the old process - the two can happily co-exist. Putting the old modules back in would have no effect on your game other than giving you an alternative if you chose to equip it.

 

[lenna]

I am not presuming for anyone, I am not looking for anything to be taken away from the game. I am advocating for the win/win, both processes, old and new to be in the game. Some like the new stuff and that's great, it just didn't need to be at the expense of the old process - the two can happily co-exist. Putting the old modules back in would have no effect on your game other than giving you an alternative if you chose to equip it.

Unfortunately, if the dev that responded is truely representative of FD's position then a revival of the ADS is unlikely - though I personally think FD are wrong headed in ignoring our concerns/complaints and are likely to pay for their error in judgement in the long term.

The best we may be able to hope for is better integration of the FSS mechanics with the cockpit so it becomes less mini-game like in look and feel.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

It's better than the alternative. You wouldn't leave your belligerently drunk friend to pass out in the cold. Would you?

If I'd been telling her not to get drunk every day for past six months and she'd turned around and yelled "I'll do whatever I want!" whilst pounding shots, then yeah, I totally would.