Perhaps you can state the obvious a little more clearly? <-- sarcasm, in case you missed it. Regardless of the composition of the forum participants, it's always the case that gripers will outnumber those who have no axes to grind. There are a lot of squeaky wheels seeking grease; those for whom the wheels turn smoothly aren't as likely to raise an issue.
Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?
- Thread starter CMDR Karrde Sun
- Start date
- Status
Actually I do
I'd rather honk once and have all system info delivered to me on a silver platter by robo-butler.
heh....
Oh, got a sharp one ‘ere!
Yes, nobody else seems to have recognized it. Oh well, some you win, some you lose.
![[VR] Merkir](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
I like the FSS the same as I like Tetris.
Tetris is a great game, as long as I don't play it more than three times in any calendar year.
Tetris is a great game, as long as I don't play it more than three times in any calendar year.
Mining was given new tools, without taking any existing ones out of play.
Does mining generate the amount of forum fury that the FSS does?
Does mining generate the amount of forum fury that the FSS does?
Given the repetitiveness of these FSS debates I won't be spending much time, just dropping by to post my support to current system. All FSS haters please understand that many of us thought previous mechanics was not exploration but revelation. So we love having at least some action we need to undertake to see the system.
Also please understand that I would hate it if previous revealing mechanics was left in place as I don't want anyone to have it too easy. To me, it would be a devaluation of my exploration. Sorry, but that's how I see things.
Also please understand that I would hate it if previous revealing mechanics was left in place as I don't want anyone to have it too easy. To me, it would be a devaluation of my exploration. Sorry, but that's how I see things.
You have a right to your opinion.
Mine, and many others opinions predicted this dissent last year. This is not a topic that will go away.
Only late 2020 will bring changes. It's going to be a long wait.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
Well, if we're going to use nebulous, abstract concepts, my exploration is devalued by the FSS providing level 3 detailed scans from 'infinite' range. So the FSS must be removed. Sorry, but that's just how I see things.
We should also get rid of the 'Conda because my AspX is devalued by its superior jump range.
The solution for both sides of the argument is to make the FSS better.
No matter how vehemently you argue your side you have to concede that the community is split on this subject. And this assumption that FD will simply delete the FSS or reinstate the old system as it was is a very unlikely outcome.
If it was a little more clear on the initial honk what was in the system,maybe an additional module that can detect earth like,water worlds,gas giants,number of bodies,system size etc signals at infinite distance,this could return some of the original functions.
Now I know their are objects of interest I’m more inclined to spend some time scanning the system. As I understand it I can glean this information from all the squiggles and such at the bottom of the screen but it all seems a bit long winded.
All I want is to enter a system,honk,is it interesting?
No matter how vehemently you argue your side you have to concede that the community is split on this subject. And this assumption that FD will simply delete the FSS or reinstate the old system as it was is a very unlikely outcome.
If it was a little more clear on the initial honk what was in the system,maybe an additional module that can detect earth like,water worlds,gas giants,number of bodies,system size etc signals at infinite distance,this could return some of the original functions.
Now I know their are objects of interest I’m more inclined to spend some time scanning the system. As I understand it I can glean this information from all the squiggles and such at the bottom of the screen but it all seems a bit long winded.
All I want is to enter a system,honk,is it interesting?
Last edited:
While I can understand your feelings, I simply can't see it that way. From my point of view:
1) From a pure credits point of view, the FSS "mini-game" wins by a landslide. If all you care about is your credits/hour rate, using something similar to the old ADS simply adds a few steps to the process. There's no real advantage to restoring an optional ADS analog back into the game.
2) The system map only reveals orbital heirarchies and icons of planetary types. The FSS is capable of doing both without needing to play the "mini-game", and you can use it to identify phenomenon that the orbital map doesn't reveal such as rare planetary alignments (like eclipses) and close orbiting binaries. This, IMO, makes finding scenic locations for screenshots, or simply gathering materials, easier than an optional ADS analog. Doubly so if Frontier goes with the "black body" approach.
3) If some people are correct, and the "new era" will mostly be about planetary POIs, gaining proficiency in the FSS will give you leg up on those who might've relied on an optional ADS analog for their exploration.
4) If I'm correct about there being even more information encoded in the FSS than what I've already discovered, then gaining proficiency in the FSS will also give you a leg up over those who simply spam the "mini-game" for credits.
First off, to the proponents of the FSS: you'd like to make it better, yes? How about helping a bit to make it so? As you might now, exploration multicrew is currently broken, and has been since its original beta, in that it doesn't reward crew with anything, even though it's supposed to. It was meant to give credits and rank progression, but those who join you (or if you join others) get nothing for the effort they put in. This also applies to the DSS.
So, if you wish to help Frontier make the FSS better, all you'd need to do is to reproduce and confirm this issue in the issue tracker. It won't take long. This isn't marked as "Confirmed" enough times there yet, and it would be better to put it on Frontier's radar again. There was also at least one duplicate issue, but apparently it wasn't merged.
Moving on...
Oh, and I assume you meant the FSS bar. We do already know what's encoded: the contents of the system. The FSS's purpose is to hide the system's undiscovered bodies from players behind a simple mechanic (the lockpicking minigame), because Frontier decided to add exploration gameplay this way, and to signal the game to generate the POIs for one specific body. Otherwise, it would have to generate them all, which could in some cases take a long while.
So, if you wish to help Frontier make the FSS better, all you'd need to do is to reproduce and confirm this issue in the issue tracker. It won't take long. This isn't marked as "Confirmed" enough times there yet, and it would be better to put it on Frontier's radar again. There was also at least one duplicate issue, but apparently it wasn't merged.
Moving on...
Not quite: the system map renders the bodies in the system. These aren't pre-set icons, but how they actually look. This is also why it was much faster to find GGGs (Glowing Green Giants) before the FSS, as you could see them visually, not just as yet another stripe on the bar, indistinct from all the common gas giants out there. (Note that the "drop rate" of them is terrible. We're talking about 13 from all the millions of gas giants discovered.)
That's a big if though. Not to mention we don't know what you've already discovered for yourself. So, mind sharing more on your thoughts on this?
Oh, and I assume you meant the FSS bar. We do already know what's encoded: the contents of the system. The FSS's purpose is to hide the system's undiscovered bodies from players behind a simple mechanic (the lockpicking minigame), because Frontier decided to add exploration gameplay this way, and to signal the game to generate the POIs for one specific body. Otherwise, it would have to generate them all, which could in some cases take a long while.
Last edited:
I would prefer if the FSS bar signitures was a bit more generic. Either remove what the signals mean so its something we can learn or have less of them. For instance have only two for gas giants, one with rings, one without. Have Rocky Planets, Ice Planets, Water planets and metal planets. Those can encompass many of the different types of planet out there. For me it's a bit too easy to tell from first glance, we should have to investigate a bit to find out what types of planet is in system.
But I am sure my idea will not be popular.
I am 99.9% sure you are not being serious with respect to having features removed, but hopefully those that object to the revival of the ADS in some shape or form will be able to see how your point illustrates why the ADS should not have been removed in the first place.
I can see how some might see an ADS equivalent might save "space-golf" mapping completionists some time but the simple answer would be for the FSS/DSS alternate that is analogous to the ADS being mutually exclusive with the DSS module (which facilitates space golf) and adding a passive orbital scanner option for surface mapping to the new module. Further more, remove the mapping "efficiency" bonus reward scheme and ensure that individual probes use ship fuel (the stick rather than the carrot approach to encouraging efficient surface mapping probe usage).
Precise implementation of the passive surface scanning alternate to the space-golf method could require the ship in question to throttle down while in orbit and be limited by line of sight or an even tighter FoV - Par 1 space-golf objects would be at least a par 2 using such an alternate passive approach. The situation with larger bodies may be less clear, but notionally would take longer to do with the proposed passive alternative. [EDIT]It could be implemented in a way that is analogous to firing a probe directly at the current visual centre of visual mass for those concerned about developmental effort.[/EDIT]
I am sure those of us that do not like the FSS in general would not be opposed to the extra time requirements of a passive surface scan.
[EDIT]The key point being that for those with the notionally option module fitted, the FSS would still be available as an option but space-golf would not.[/EDIT]
The black body approach makes no sense to me especially since the key argument in support of the black body approach has always been to do with cherry-picking which arguably the FSS makes easier and less subject to false positives. That being said I also see no good reason to for FD to remove the current "hints" that support cherry-picking with the FSS.
I don't actually see a benefit either way - the "space-golf" feature is the only bit that is likely to make a big difference in that area. The exception perhaps being exceptionally strong planetary based radio sources, but even in those cases the two methods are likely to be roughly equal with the FSS perhaps winning by a nose.
Fundamentally, the FSS is obviously a radio telescope implementation and while the audio component may help to identify additional details there is no visualisation of that component which arguably there should have been since day one. FD's focus on the audio component being learnable is part of the fundamental problem with the FSS. If the audio component is going to be a major aspect of the future of the FSS then FD should add some form of visualisation of it (c/f SRV frequency visualisation for surface exploration). [EDIT]The current system wide frequency spectrum bar is not even close to providing that IMO.[/EDIT]4) If I'm correct about there being even more information encoded in the FSS than what I've already discovered, then gaining proficiency in the FSS will also give you a leg up over those who simply spam the "mini-game" for credits.
Last edited:
And optional FSS with different grades available could have provided this. Higher grades provide better signal resolution, but are heavier, more expensive, power-hungry.
But that's empirically wrong...
I never ever read or heard anyone say that before 3.3
To be fair, there were people complaining about the god-honk being over-powered - though I don't recall any of them suggesting it be replaced with an even more over-powered god-scanner.
I am sorry but that proposition is pure and unadulterated bunk.
Text book definitions (see links):-
In summary - the only real distinction between the two is that revelation is inspiration based, while exploration is activity based. Regardless of the tools used, exploration is still exploration.
Agreed. I would like that to be honest. More choice is good. Add some of the other ideas and it would improve the FSS greatly in my view.
While I can understand your feelings, I simply can't see it that way. From my point of view:
1) From a pure credits point of view, the FSS "mini-game" wins by a landslide. If all you care about is your credits/hour rate, using something similar to the old ADS simply adds a few steps to the process. There's no real advantage to restoring an optional ADS analog back into the game.
2) The system map only reveals orbital heirarchies and icons of planetary types. The FSS is capable of doing both without needing to play the "mini-game", and you can use it to identify phenomenon that the orbital map doesn't reveal such as rare planetary alignments (like eclipses) and close orbiting binaries. This, IMO, makes finding scenic locations for screenshots, or simply gathering materials, easier than an optional ADS analog. Doubly so if Frontier goes with the "black body" approach.
3) If some people are correct, and the "new era" will mostly be about planetary POIs, gaining proficiency in the FSS will give you leg up on those who might've relied on an optional ADS analog for their exploration.
4) If I'm correct about there being even more information encoded in the FSS than what I've already discovered, then gaining proficiency in the FSS will also give you a leg up over those who simply spam the "mini-game" for credits.
All four correct - well, I hope no. 3 is correct, too. I'm not about the credits though. I do want exploration to demand some work and feel like an accomplishment.
Exploration being shallow was brought up frequently all the time. A lot of suggestions how to add any real gameplay were made, both for the mechanics and for the content.
- Status