Ignoring the community after taking our money makes me think David B. has delusions of grandeur.
Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?
- Thread starter CMDR Karrde Sun
- Start date
- Status
At least he isn't Chris Roberts.
They're not the first company in the history of business to shed "bad" customers. My own company has done this before as well. When a customer continues to demand more and more than they pay for and ultimately cost more to maintain than they're worth - well, losing them is ultimately a good thing.
Now Elite is a bit of a different creature - and a different kind of business model. You pay for the right to use the software. They've got your money. If you play again or not isn't their concern - and it doesn't have to be.
Things like "acceptable losses" and "collateral damage" are also applicable to military operations. The loss of 10,000 our of a force of 30,000 might be within the realms of "acceptable losses" for a given operation, but Elite isn't a military operation. It's a game. Nothing more. If you like it, you play it. If you don't, you don't. None of us are important enough that our absence will change anything.
Exactly, so put them back & we can all just get on with enjoying it. If it is not a big deal, and it's not hard to implement, and no players' game is worse off, just put them back into outfitting so players can fit them again.
Everybody wins
Thank God for Chris Roberts! Without him, Mr. B would be indefensible.
Personally I quite enjoy the way exploration is now.
There are, however, quite a number of small tweaks and changes which would make the FSS more enjoyable to use.
* Provide a small non-interactive summary of the "honk" on the HUD - just the frequency graph. This allows for snap decision making whether or not to spend more time scanning a system, which should alleviate at least some of the complaints against the FSS. (My mockup from WAYYY back)
* Fix scanning speed of Geological POIs. Personal preference: don't display counts in the FSS, just whether or not a type of signal is present on a planet. Leave the actual counts to the Surface Probes.
* As others have said, consider removing the requirement for needing to throttle to zero
* Change the zoom-in-zoom-out so that the HUD elements don't zoom.
* Remove the unnecessary large overlays and duplicated information such as "Zoom failed" and "Body Discovered" which hide other information.
* Fix long lists of discovered bodies (esp asteroid rings) from backing up and spamming notifications.
* VERY nice-to-have would be using the FSS as an overlay screen in the cockpit similar to the station screens but I appreciate this would probably be a significant amount of rework.
So mostly little tweaks to the UI which, IMHO, would vastly improve usability. But overall, thank you for having revamped exploration.
EDIT: PS: @Adam Bourke-Waite - thank you very much for commenting. While obviously it didn't please everybody overall I think it is good for the game and the community for the developer to step in and comment on issues and events. Would be great if there were more official responses in the forums.
Last edited:
He hasn't. He has hired community managers to do that for him.
This depends on how you measure your standards. Removing the outlier of SC, there many examples of games who are far better and worse than frontier in this regard. I think its been well proven, that frontier simply will not meet even average expectation of online game developers, so given that impossibility, it seems more better to actually measure on how they compare to the rest of the industry. Doing that is really telling. Frontier are perfectly in line with other single player games. Think about SCS software, or Paradox interactive. What frontier do and the nature of the responses they give are exactly as a supported single player game would be. They are simply not acting the role of an online / mmo / service based game as far as community management do. There's no other conclusion that won't lead to disappointment i think (because they dont match reality).
Point being it does make sense where people are coming from. Especially given how frontier were different during the first few years of elite dangerous... but then at end of the horizons tangibly changed. You could argue they didn't have to tell anyone of their change in attack, but many people, myself included, were calibrated by frontier of the past. Sometimes it takes a while. Frontier of course don't help themselves by building dud features but thats a separate topic.
It is a game. But in terms of the elite dangerous universe, what could the victory be that would justify the loss of any players? What high goal has been achieved? A new state or glory, a wrong righted? None of the above. Getting stuck in metaphors is probably crap though, so if anything its just a
EDIT: SCS Software are amazing btw. Every release they hold up and keep their chosen one title. They even beat frontier by adding features to allow users to customize flashing truck lights because people were suffering from headaches. Id like to see frontier respond to medical concerns!
Last edited:
Please. No.
Not all of us are, or aspire to be glassy eyed science nerds.
Just make it usable on the move, that's all fine.
I think it's an awesome idea if the nav. panel and the like could be used for it, but I wouldn't say to replace the current FSS functionality with it though for those who want to use it as it is.
This wouldn't help so much with the initial system reveal, but it'd give me the option to pilot my ships around and explore in first-person more reasonably in the game at least.
Regarding the dialing of the bits and bobs though, I don't see much fun nor sense in needing them in first-person game-play. We'd be flying our ships around anyway, so just a rough heading toward unidentified objects seems well enough, basically the blue blob equivalent from the FSS view, but in first-person.
I suppose if people are wanting to speed up the process a bit more in supercruise, these headings could be locked onto and resolved by targeting them and keeping them in the view of sensors, sort of like how the DSS used to work, but from further range.
Last edited:
I'd be fine with needing an additional small sensor module for the added functionality I mentioned in the post above yours. We seem to have gotten a few extra slots recently anyway.
The key difference here is a feature was effectively removed and damaged/removed gameplay as a result. There is not a single legitimate technological nor balancing argument that can excuse what has been done.
At least with PP and Engineers gameplay and options were added, regardless of how bad some may think they are.
No additional gameplay has been added to PP since its introduction, so I don't really know what you are talking about there.
Plus, isn't this thread a bit pointless, since you've got an answer (more than with Powerplay it seems)?
Before the mention of the exploration changes, I had a crazy idea for a secondary first-person HUD view (that we sort of got now with the two HUD modes) that would show gravity well strengths for people to more interactively pilot their ships in supercruise to avoid slowdowns and the like, instead of just sitting and waiting until they got somewhere. I understand it might not be for everyone though to have this sort of overlay, so I think it should be an optional feature regardless, so maybe used as an optional additional module or something that can be toggled on and off. Anyway, point being, if the observable strength of these gravity wells was displayed dynamically by mass, range, and relative ship speed (where one could compensate for the shortcomings of the others – moving faster toward distant objects kind of makes sense anyway), it might make for some interesting "action exploration" game-play for some.
Not sure how likely it would be to have something like this implemented, but it's something your post made me think about none the less.
So, just as a rough example of what I'm talking about, something a bit like this...
...
Well, the other crazy idea I had in that thread was basically implement (an optional topographical world terrain overlay, for being better able to tell where the surface is in the dark), so you never know...
Last edited:
Please, don't kid yourself. Your side is the majority in this thread, but it would be a mistake to assume you are the majority of the players. The FSS works for most of us (well, at least for me, especially when they fix the current bug) but it's boring to repeat that at every chance we get.
You are the very vocal minority, we just enjoy the game too much to keep posting in such threads.
Get Over IT!!! It's a sign of growing up...
It has received a response, the issue (as I see it) is still outstanding - the issue in the OP is also outstanding although it's not particularly a concern I share.
Powerplay has had a focused feedback, something exploration did not. 'Feedback' in the thread Will started announcing the new stuff was an utter mess in comparison to even the anarchistic POOP discussion.
An underlying theme is shared between the two proposals though (exploration and POOP) - that of removing features from existing players. The POOP FF was started shortly after I proposed adding a new layer of manipulation only affected by PvP on the assumption that PP could/would not be changed at the expense of existing players:
Meaningful PvP Proposal
Last edited:
But the devs have given you a direct answer that is days old, to a question that can't really be answered and is not really feedback, suggestion or otherwise (IMO anyway). I find it amusing that I get called out for beating dead horses, when FD cared enough to give you an answer and people ignore it. I wish FD cared enough for PP to actually engage and answer that as well.
The Dev post wasn't ignored, lots of contributors have replied to it. Fundamentally the issue is not resolved here, just as it has not been for powerplay (the only focused feedback that did not result in any changes to the live game I believe).
To give another example there was actually a beta test of nerfing shield boosters. We knew it wouldn't make the final cut but again, ultimately the game was made no worse for any player.
Removing the pre-3.3 discovery modules is (afaik) unprecedented in this respect. And unlike POOP or the shield booster nerf it has had a marked detrimental effect on some players for no benefit - exploration is no better overall, it is just a different slice of the same cake.
Last edited:
I think a developer has the right to develop their game as they like. If they want feedback they ask for it.
Except for leading to crazy engineering imbalances which made shields OP.
But I'm off topic.
- Status