I do want exploration to demand some work and feel like an accomplishment.
Parallax is the way to go then.
I do want exploration to demand some work and feel like an accomplishment.
SOME work! Not a lifetime! I did try it out and it is a thrill to find things this way from time to time. Doing it regularely though... I have children to feed, man.Parallax is the way to go then.
SOME work! Not a lifetime! I did try it out and it is a thrill to find things this way from time to time. Doing it regularely though... I have children to feed, man.
Then the FSS was not the right approach - it is pure grind requiring little or no actual effort.I do want exploration to demand some work and feel like an accomplishment.
The fundamental problem is that FD have replaced a perfectly fine and decent mechanic (the xDS/DSS) with something far less palatable overall without properly consulting with the people it affects. Myself and others objected to the FSS implementation and proposed improvements, but were seemingly summarily ignored in the main. The removal of the xDS module should never have been on the table in the first place IMO, doing so flied in the face of their own guidelines for evolving the game.
It is not a grind, well I don't find it to be one.Then the FSS was not the right approach - it is pure grind requiring little or no actual effort.
They haven't. They have added an activity. Needless processes are generally called gameplay. A bit like flying your ship from station to station.Fundamentally, I am diametrically opposed to the idea of putting arguably needless process barriers in the way of ANY activity.
Thats good.I get it that some may feel differently but if you (or any one else for that matter) personally feel the FSS fills your/their perception of providing a sense of achievement then good for you/them.
Matter of opinion. They have fundamentally replaced a god awful passive mechanic (xDS/DSS) with a non passive mechanic (FSS/DSS).The fundamental problem is that FD have replaced a perfectly fine and decent mechanic (the xDS/DSS).
It isn't less palatable. And they don't need to consult anyone as it is their game.with something far less palatable overall without properly consulting with the people it affects.
Because they have already decided what they planed to do. They have also ignored all of my suggestions so far too. Don't get hung up about it.Myself and others objected to the FSS implementation and proposed improvements, but were seemingly summarily ignored in the main.
Matter of opinion. I disagree. I am happy to see the god awful non-mechanic go the way of the dodo. I hated it with a passion.The removal of the xDS module should never have been on the table in the first place IMO, doing so flied in the face of their own guidelines for evolving the game.
The FSS requires very little if any (additional) skill - to claim it does is laughable.There is vastly more interactiveness and skill involved now than the previous Do Nothing system of xDS/DSS and any claim to the contrary is purely delusional.
There is vastly more interactiveness and skill involved now than the previous Do Nothing system of xDS/DSS and any claim to the contrary is purely delusional.
Good point. I consider the system map to be a pain to use on the best of days, so I never bothered paying attention to it.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.
I mean the entire multi-sensor suite. There’s quite a bit of information you can deduce about a system and it’s bodies without playing the “lockpicking minigame.” It does require a minimal amount of tuning, and a bit of panning, though, so YMMV.
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.
The FSS does provide a lot of information that can make exploration fun, if you're preparedto not use its full capabilities. But it still ultimately fails if you're searching for bodies based on visual characteristics, since it requires playing the minigame to resolve that information.
Actually, the science behind it is pretty solid - it is just the implementation that is severely lacking. Space-golf on the other hand, that lacks any solid scientific basis for it - pure game mechanics for their own sake.Wrapped up as pretend ‘science fun’.
It depends upon what you mean by "full capabilities." Quite frankly, I consider spamming the "minigame" to be not using the FSS's full capabilities myself.
Funny, I thought the Fundamental Problem is that Elite has not ever, is not currently, nor is slated to be a Design-by-Committee game. It’s Frontier’s game, and they said they did not find the xDS/DSS mechanics to be in line with what They wanted, and they acted on this and showed how they felt about it.
There is vastly more interactiveness and skill involved now than the previous Do Nothing system of xDS/DSS and any claim to the contrary is purely delusional.
Actually, the science behind it is pretty solid - it is just the implementation that is severely lacking. Space-golf on the other hand, that lacks any solid scientific basis for it - pure game mechanics for their own sake.
Mass Effect Andromeda (and ME3?) had a probe mechanic that was far more science like than space-golf, still not good mechanics though.
It depends upon what you mean by "full capabilities." Quite frankly, I consider spamming the "minigame" to be not using the FSS's full capabilities myself.
All the people panning the FSS as "pretend science" have no idea what passive data collection is all about. It's 100% how we have learned about the Universe outside of a few local planets -- point an instrument at a target object and record or read its available spectral outputs, analyze them, get an idea of what the object is composed of. You think FSS is humdrum, try acquiring and analysing actual stellar (or planetary, which are much more limited as they are rarely emissive) spectra. Think about how long it took Penzias and Wilson to isolate and analyze the CBR -- microwaves, for gosh sakes, barely a step up from radio. That much better tools are available a thousand years later isn't stretching anything scientifically, but it won't change the basic procedures. By comparison, "honking" is apparently an active scan that breaks physics to pieces by being instantaneous over huge distances -- no light-bound delay in signal return. That is pretend science.