Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?

[lenna]

You don't have to go somewhere to get that info, all the information we get from the fss can be received about objects in our solar system by modern day astronomy equipment.

Think of the FSS as a telescope to get a picture of the objects in the system. THEN we fly there and map it.

I disagree that the analogy is even close to being a good one.

Besides which, if I wanted a Radio Telescope emulator then I would have bought one - ED is supposed to be about flying space ships and to a degree surface exploration (at least as of Horizon). The FSS is nothing but a PITA and a boring grind wall with the enjoyment value of chewing chalk.

 

[Sysmon]

I disagree that the analogy is even close to being a good one.

Besides which, if I wanted a Radio Telescope emulator then I would have bought one - ED is supposed to be about flying space ships and to a degree surface exploration (at least as of Horizon). The FSS is nothing but a PITA and a boring grind wall with the enjoyment value of chewing chalk.

That seems a bit pedantic. So you don't mind having to land the ship at times and leave it stationary while you do very non-flying actions such as trading and picking/completing missions? You also have to be docked to replace modules and engineer upgrades. You can't even change ships on the fly! All these non-spaceship-flying things must really grind your gears then.

S

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You mean precision might be tighter. Accuracy can still be way off, depending on how representative a slice the EDSM users are of the general ED player base.

S

Given the numbers by Marx, EDSM has* a little less than 20% of all registered systems. That's more than enough.

*On the 2nd of march 2018.

 

[lenna]

That seems a bit pedantic. So you don't mind having to land the ship at times and leave it stationary while you do very non-flying actions such as trading and picking/completing missions? You also have to be docked to replace and engineer upgrades. You can't even change ships on the fly! All these non-spaceship-flying things must really grind your gears then.

S

It is you being pedantic, and selectively so... The acquisition of materials for engineering need not be a grind and the materials/data can be acquired via various means. Docking and Landing are natural parts of flying a space ship. Peering through a telescope of any kind is not a natural expectation and the overall implementation of the FSS is too pervasive and unavoidable to NOT be considered a grind wall given the mechanics it replaced.

Let's put it another way, as a Radio Telescope emulator the FSS leaves ALOT to be desired - it is an atrocity of software design and has numerous implementation flaws.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

I don’t think you need statistics or facts.

Position yourself 100% in good faith looking at the game positively, but removing any emotional adoration for frontier developments, a special friend who may have bought you steak, paid for your drinks for a bender, communicated news exclusively and only to you at your event when being completely zero info to the greater public for 6 months or more.

All you have is the game infront of you and puppy dog eyes to see the latest and greatest.

You don’t need stats to tell you the fss is boring grind at first blush as soon as you get to a system with a higher number of bodies, or do this sequentially on your next jump. There is nothing going on and it’s a boring grind.

Every single defender of the fss uses it in an alternate, repurposed way to what was on the tin during the livestream. And respect to them too for working it out. But sadly if they did it.. so will the majority need to do something as they did to work through it. Given that requirement, naturally people who don’t see this, want to see this or think they shouldn’t have to will fall off.

 

[Shadywack]

I think what theymeant was 'Everyone should know it'

The FSS is an atrocity of software design given the context of the product it has been designed for - this has only a little to do with the removal of the original honk mechanics but more importantly it is due to various implementation and design errors.

Well, I disagree.

It's not factual that it's an atrocity, that's just your opinion and that's fine. It's my opinion that it's a great example of software and gameplay design. We don't all have to like the same things, but putting it in terms of absolutes is pretty outlandish. You're not speaking for everyone, clearly.

 

[Sysmon]

It is you being pedantic, and selectively so... The acquisition of materials for engineering need not be a grind and the materials/data can be acquired via various means. Docking and Landing are natural parts of flying a space ship. Peering through a telescope of any kind is not a natural expectation and the overall implementation of the FSS is too pervasive and unavoidable to NOT be considered a grind wall given the mechanics it replaced.

Let's put it another way, as a Radio Telescope emulator the FSS leaves ALOT to be desired - it is an atrocity of software design and has numerous implementation flaws.

Really? Nobody would ever use a telescope to study space? And is studying the surrounds and navigating not part of flying or driving? Do you see the best and most realistic method of charting 1000 years in the future to be using Mk I eyeball out of the window, ignoring any technological means we have available for such today?

On a side note, would you prefer studying maps at speed when you are driving? Yes, one could say we are able to when sailing or flying today. However, let's not reduce the pace in Elite to match that of modern flying. Rather, compare it to driving a car. I think the throttle-to-zero for FSS use is really a safety thing.

What does the FSS have to do with software design? I don't use it for software design.

As others have pointed out, you are confusing your opinion with fact. And you are confusing concepts too, if you compare the FSS to software design. Maybe also hold back on the superlatives, they are not really helping support your argument.

S

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Really? Nobody would ever use a telescope to study space?

I'd just like to point out that people would probably spend a lot less time looking through telescopes if they had access to an FTL spaceship.
Carry on.

 

[Sysmon]

Given the numbers by Marx, EDSM has* a little less than 20% of all registered systems. That's more than enough.

*On the 2nd of march 2018.

More than enough for what? That is still 80% uncounted for, and the 20% could have been scanned by one or a few prolific CMDRs, rendering the use of this statistic even less valid when considering a perceived decline in exploration.

If the addition of new scanned systems to a database is declining it could simply be that there is less low-hanging fruit now. People, probably the majority, that go exploring may be doing so to see the sights that already have been discovered and mapped. Thereby adding nothing new. But they still see stuff!

S

 

[Sysmon]

I'd just like to point out that people would probably spend a lot less time looking through telescopes if they had access to an FTL spaceship.
Carry on.

IF you stand in a forest, would just looking around give you a good idea about the number and kinds of trees in it? It would have to be a small forest! A better way to find out is to study it from a distance. Similarly, people, even the future kind, would probably find it more convenient to be able to map out a star system without having to truck around it to see everything. Then they could instead go study the bits that appears interesting enough for closer scrutiny. The FSS provides the opportunity to do that.

S

 

[Shinji Ikari]

More than enough for what? That is still 80% uncounted for, and the 20% could have been scanned by one or a few prolific CMDRs, rendering the use of this statistic even less valid when considering a perceived decline in exploration.

If the addition of new scanned systems to a database is declining it could simply be that there is less low-hanging fruit now. People, probably the majority, that go exploring may be doing so to see the sights that already have been discovered and mapped. Thereby adding nothing new. But they still see stuff!

S

Ever heard of a sample? Yeah you can draw strong conclusions even with a small sample, for example, we don't need to survey all people in the world to know that IQ has a normal distribution, to know how IQ fluctuates as times progresses, etc. As you may notice the vast majority of people haven't taken any IQ tests but you never hear anybody say "but you haven't accounted for 99% of the population".

Regarding your other claim, you can personally check how many systems the top contributors have discovered in EDSM and even if your complain is valid, it'd only change mean that people on average are exploring less if we assume there are still the same amount of people.

For your last complain, I can only comment that >99% is still unexplored not to mention that people often only care to just get nices vistas.

 

[Sysmon]

Ever heard of a sample? Yeah you can draw strong conclusions even with a small sample, for example, we don't need to survey all people in the world to know that IQ has a normal distribution, to know how IQ fluctuates as times progresses, etc. As you may notice the vast majority of people haven't taken any IQ tests but you never hear anybody say "but you haven't accounted for 99% of the population".

Regarding your other claim, you can personally check how many systems the top contributors have discovered in EDSM and even if your complain is valid, it'd only change mean that people on average are exploring less if we assume there are still the same amount of people.

For your last complain, I can only comment that >99% is still unexplored not to mention that people often only care to just get nices vistas.

That seems a bit two-dimensional, but also illustrates my point: There is a variety of types of intelligence, and IQ measures only one such (and how well is up for debate). Focussing on IQ alone fails to describe the range and depth of the capability of the human mind. But some really like the IQ metric, and I suspect they comprise mainly those that score well on it. Similarly, focussing solely on EDSM stats is very likely to show nothing but a decline in the use of EDSM. The actual exploration effort can vary happily within the unaccounted-for 80%.

I'm not really complaining, except that we could use more stuff to discover. I suspect we might get more stuff with, say, atmospheric flight. While on the other hand "space legs" would just take time away from flying.

S

 

[lenna]

Really? Nobody would ever use a telescope to study space?

From a space station or planetary body only - observations made from a distance are subject to error and assumptions. Also studying space is far from being the same as exploring space.

Your forest example is flawed, when considering examination of a local environ the logical and natural approach is to take samples for analysis which requires proper exploration of the environ as opposed to examination from a distance. Distance based scans may play a part but if you consider a dense rain forest it would be next to impossible to explore it properly from a distance.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

That seems a bit two-dimensional, but also illustrates my point: There is a variety of types of intelligence, and IQ measures only one such (and how well is up for debate). Focussing on IQ alone fails to describe the range and depth of the capability of the human mind. But some really like the IQ metric, and I suspect they comprise mainly those that score well on it. Similarly, focussing solely on EDSM stats is very likely to show nothing but a decline in the use of EDSM. The actual exploration effort can vary happily within the unaccounted-for 80%.

I'm not really complaining, except that we could use more stuff to discover. I suspect we might get more stuff with, say, atmospheric flight. While on the other hand "space legs" would just take time away from flying.

S

I'm merely using IQ as a parameter, I made no claims regarding its relation to general intelligence (commonly refered to as the g factor in psychology) and that is completely irrelevant, the thing is, you can predict the IQ of a population with a (relatively) small sample, substitute IQ with another statistic and you get the picture.

EDSM usage was shown to be very high on DWE2, Marx posted the exact numbers one or two pages ago which again indicates you are wrong.

At last, IQ has shown to be a reliable predictor in job performance, hell, even the US Army has used IQ to select aplicants, this is however, off topic.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

From a space station or planetary body only - observations made from a distance are subject to error and assumptions. Also studying space is far from being the same as exploring space.

Your forest example is flawed, when considering examination of a local environ the logical and natural approach is to take samples for analysis which requires proper exploration of the environ as opposed to examination from a distance. Distance based scans may play a part but if you consider a dense rain forest it would be next to impossible to explore it properly from a distance.

Hence, we send probes to study planets better.

 

[lenna]

What does the FSS have to do with software design? I don't use it for software design.

It is software, ED is software, you and others have no clue about what makes good software if you genuinly think the FSS is a great example. It is blatantly and factually not good software for numerous reasons that have been pointed out by both myself and others.

 

[Sysmon]

From a space station or planetary body only - observations made from a distance are subject to error and assumptions.

Your forest example is flawed, when considering examination of a local environ the logical and natural approach is to take samples for analysis which requires proper exploration of the environ as opposed to examination from a distance. Distance based scans may play a part but if you consider a dense rain forest it would be next to impossible to explore it properly from a distance.

The lack of uncertainty of measurements in the FSS is actually something that saddens me slightly. We have a little bit of uncertainty in the illustrated spectrum, but when the body is resolved in the FSS we see a picture of it. I'd happily trade that with just a stylised depiction. That would incite people to fly around systems more and maybe use the little data we see to deduce if a body warrants a closer-up look.

Sampling a tree in a forest will not tell you anything about the size and composition of the forest - you would need a huge amount of samples to get a good grasp of that! There is a reason remote sensing is such a strong tool in geography and resource management; you get a lot more exact data over large areas and systems (although in my opinion in a less fun manner than tramping around and mapping stuff). What the sample data do get us is detail we can only assume from the remote sensing. The game still lacks such mechanic, but I think it is a logical next step so fingers crossed!

S

 

[lenna]

Hence, we send probes to study planets better.

Except space golf is one of those things that should NEVER have been implemented in ED - the whole design philosophy behind the 3.3 exploration changes is childish and flawed. The problem is more with the execution/implementation than the intent though.

 

[Sysmon]

It is software, ED is software, you and others have no clue about what makes good software if you genuinly think the FSS is a great example. It is blatantly and factually not good software for numerous reasons that have been pointed out by both myself and others.

Aaaand we are back to the concept-mixing. The FSS is an instrument, simulated by software since we after all don't really have spaceships and we aren't able to flit about and look at stuff light years away. It has an interface that we can probably agree could use a bit of TLC, but I wouldn't try to imagine what the code underneath it looks like in a thousand years. It is meant to look somewhat radio telescope-like and that it does.

Yes, it could probably be fully automated so we just got a Nav Panel log of observed bodies. Then again, flying the ships could be automated too, as MoM's minions do so well already. So the entire game could be automated and we wouldn't have to do anything. But something should be left for the player/CMDR to do or it wouldn't be interesting!

S

 

[lenna]

The lack of uncertainty of measurements in the FSS is actually something that saddens me slightly. We have a little bit of uncertainty in the illustrated spectrum, but when the body is resolved in the FSS we see a picture of it. I'd happily trade that with just a stylised depiction. That would incite people to fly around systems more and maybe use the little data we see to deduce if a body warrants a closer-up look.

Sampling a tree in a forest will not tell you anything about the size and composition of the forest - you would need a huge amount of samples to get a good grasp of that! There is a reason remote sensing is such a strong tool in geography and resource management; you get a lot more exact data over large areas and systems (although in my opinion in a less fun manner than tramping around and mapping stuff). What the sample data do get us is detail we can only assume from the remote sensing. The game still lacks such mechanic, but I think it is a logical next step so fingers crossed!

S

Overall the problem with the 3.3 exploration change are the overall implementation and the attempt to satisfy the super-cruise-is-boring and anti-honk crowds without thinking things through properly. It is half-baked and poorly considered on many counts.

As for the sampling aspect, that is nominally used to confirm details and you should know that. As I said, distance scans may play a part but without sampling or detailed exploring you will never know for certain. Remote observation tools are only useful to a point.