![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
The keys words there are "that they set themselves". There's no 'external' requirement for them to retain any feature of the game - otherwise every nerf coukd be considered as a breach of the EULA.
It sucks, but it's done.
Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?
- Thread starter CMDR Karrde Sun
- Start date
- Status
The keys words there are "that they set themselves". There's no 'external' requirement for them to retain any feature of the game - otherwise every nerf coukd be considered as a breach of the EULA.
It sucks, but it's done.
Ultimately, it is irrelevant - they made a public declaration of intent, and then deviated - some might say they then subsequently misled their consumers into believing one thing then purposefully and wilfully did another. That could be considered legitimate grounds for accusations of fraud though I would probably would not go that far personally.
Changing things for technical reasons or balancing reasons are one thing, but there is no legitimacy to that argument in the case of the removal of the ADS in the first place.
While it may have been done, arguably due to various factors involved they are notionally obligated to address the issue because they have deviated from their self-proclaimed rule book. There are various things that could be done to the FSS mechanics to mitigate the ADS removal concerns/complaints while not adversely changing the FSS experience for those that currently like it.
Arguably, also due to their insistence during the live streams that the system was learnable because of the audio component they should at the very least provide a visual representation of that component on the FSS UI otherwise it could be argued that the changes do not appropriately consider the situation of those with impaired hearing. That could be considered a more serious infraction wrt their change management since the ADS mechanics did not have such a concern.
Last edited:
We don’t care if you’re happy with it or not. A large portion of the player base isn’t happy with it and we won’t shut up.
It's just a video game.
It's turning into Planet Elite. Minor factions that are "happy". What does it mean that they are happy? Is this dystopian science fiction space simulation game or park simulator? New alien lifeforms are found, people go see them and take pictures, but nothing really interesting happens, because they simply are there to be looked at. I have nothing against Planet Coaster or Planet Zoo or other games Frontier makes, but there really should be different kind of mindset when changing between developing different games, because these quite frankly are very different games.
Well, they say they welcome the feedback...
And were I to be pedantic...
... I'd say that (like pretty much everything else in ED), it's all subject to change depending on the metrics that FD get and their hopes / intentions for different aspects of the game.
After all, other than actually game breaking bugs, they rarely change things that people don't seem to like immediately as demonstrated by the changes to engineers, and the (so far) non changes to PP.
Well, they say they welcome the feedback...
And were I to be pedantic...
... I'd say that (like pretty much everything else in ED), it's all subject to change depending on the metrics that FD get and their hopes / intentions for different aspects of the game.
After all, other than actually game breaking bugs, they rarely change things that people don't seem to like immediately as demonstrated by the changes to engineers, and the (so far) non changes to PP.
You highlighted a bunch of words, but missed the important one: 'detrimental'.
It's not that they don't have the time/resources to change it now, it's that they actively don't want the ADS in the game.
If something fundamental changes in the game (maybe in the 'new era') then you may be able to argue that reinstating the ADS makes sense in the new context, but until that happens then FDev have made their decision.
They've had 6 months of metrics and it's clear even to me that exploration hasn't been destroyed by the FSS, and even players who hate it are still doing other things in game. Nothing there is going to force FDev to change their mind.
Engineers was hated by a few players. We still have Engineers. They just made it easier, like they do everything else. What they haven't done is provide an alternative way to get engineered equipment - you still have to jump through the unlock, upgrade grind.
The bottom line is that FDev don't like the ADS, so we won't get the ADS.
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Agree. It was insulting to give us no-risk no-skill pew pew busywork. They gave us sensors which are grounded in science, then put it in the form of a child's toy - "look mum, I can move this around and twiddle this dial and see planets".
Totally agree. The first 10 minutes of their exploration gameplay think tank should have had them rule out skills based as just silly. This is an intellectual pursuit. Make it strategy/option/choice based. Then insert an amalgam of the 6 or 8 very nicely described game designs put forward by players over the last 9 months.
But that would have taken time. They probably had 2 months to put something together. This is what we got.
Certainly you could be right, although they never indicated in what way they felt the ADS is detrimental to exploration, because it's not obviously detrimental, simply provides options to establish that things the FSS doesn't show are actually present without scanning stuff that you have no interest in - which I suspect becomes old pretty quickly.
Not of course that they have to say why they have come to a decision, but you'd think that if they actually had confidence in their decision they'd explain it. Can't be that complicated.
Sorry, but I still paid real world money for a product with certain features - the fact a feature was no removed for no good reason is unacceptable.
It does not matter what the product is, the sellers have an obligation to maintain the feature set they sold to their customers.
They don't because it is not a true reason just a poor excuse with no actual foundation in reality.Certainly you could be right, although they never indicated in what way they felt the ADS is detrimental to exploration, because it's not obviously detrimental, simply provides options to establish that things the FSS doesn't show are actually present without scanning stuff that you have no interest in - which I suspect becomes old pretty quickly.
Not of course that they have to say why they have come to a decision, but you'd think that if they actually had confidence in their decision they'd explain it. Can't be that complicated.
Or justify the change if customers ask
Sometimes stuff is rebalanced, like the engineers (legacy modules), sometimes stuff can no longer be supported (Apple platform). Customers may be unhappy but the situation is handled through communicating & explaining. Fdev normally go to great lengths to minimise the impact of necessary changes.I think it's entirely possible that despite all the forewarnings FDev may have been under the impression that this would not be a big deal for anyone.
To me it is though.
This trumps Clogging, cynical instance switching, exploiting loopholes & outright cheating, and the unredeemed LEP value. It went straight to number one on my short list of issues with the game.
Last edited:
I didn't mean it as a directly comparable analogy, just a perspective or outlook sort of thing, taking a step back and seeing what things are and what I'd prefer. I don't think Frontier intends to be contrary to a portion of their players, though it is a result for some of us to one extent or another, which Frontier was aware of. Instead of taking a hard line as they seem to be now for their way forward, I think there are viable alternatives.
Point being, I think there's still room for a reasonible discourse, but some concessions might well have to be made, on both sides of the spectrum. Granted, some of us have already made ours as we don't have much choice in the matter anyway. I think it's unlikely that we'll get the system map reveal back after the honk though, leastwise without "black bodies" or something along those lines.
Last edited:
When heading to and coming back from Beagle Point, I'm seeing a lot more systems previously explored than I generally do otherwise out in the black on my own. I think there's room for more beyond nothing after the system honk (stars and the body count not withstanding) and the reveal we have with already explored systems.
Ideally, I would of course have preferred that the FSS had been implemented to reveal more and new content instead of replacing the ADS and nav. panel functionality for the content that's already in the game. Apparently this is the game-play some were looking for though, and fair enough, I suppose. I'd just prefer some reasonible alternatives at this point.
Ideally, I would of course have preferred that the FSS had been implemented to reveal more and new content instead of replacing the ADS and nav. panel functionality for the content that's already in the game. Apparently this is the game-play some were looking for though, and fair enough, I suppose. I'd just prefer some reasonible alternatives at this point.
Last edited:
To date we have just been given flimsy whimsical responses along the lines of "tough, deal with it" in terms of gist - this is unacceptable as an official response. Rebalancing is not the same as what FD have done to exploration with 3.3 and any technical arguments would be pure bunk since the ADS code (bar the honk trigger in virgin systems) is essentially already present (any half decent coder should have been able to find a way to retain the two).Or justify the change if customers ask
You mean they possibly thought the opinions of the anti-honk crowd and/or the select group that all likelihood previewed it prior to the Beta actually mattered more to them than the wider customer base. With a change this fundamental they should have known such a line of reasoning would be contentious.
Ultimately, if certain UI improvements/adjustments were made to the FSS/DSS mechanics the problem might go away for FDev but I would not blame anyone for continuing to protest until FD reintroduce something along the lines of the ADS.
In no other case has FD removed either a core or DLC/Other-restricted aspect - all other cases have just rebalanced what was there (e.g. Engineering) or added supplemental changes (e.g. additional mining tools).
Last edited:
Jeez, is this silly thread still going on. The ADS is not coming back. It was no oversight, they do not need to justify it to anyone, get a grip and live with the decision.
Any business wishing to maintain a good relationship with its customers needs to justify its decisions.
Gaming is no exception to that.
In the April update the Advanced Docking computer was added as a module, and two toggles were added to the HUD to enable or disable docking assist & undock assist. The complete functionality of the existing Docking Computer module was included in the new module, only the price is different. The older module legitimately could have been removed here, with all DC owners having their modules replaced/upgraded, it would have been easy for anyone to see why, and the mass/power requirement/cost of the new module could have just been set at the same level as the older module.
But they didn't they just added the new module & toggles, anyone with an older DC just carries on or chooses to refit their ship. No issues, no problem, no customers lost out.
Retaining the old functionality would not snub the majority of customers. New functionality was added that generally seems to have successfully introduced exploration style gameplay to more players, and that's only good. It didn't need to be at the expense of any existing functionality for that to be the case.
Had the new features been added to the game & no features removed everyone would be better off or in no worse a position than before. As it is a section of the playerbase has lost out for no apparent reason. There was no benefit to removing any pre-existing functionality.
Last edited:
- Status