Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?

[Darkfyre99]

There's no difference between asking for it to be removed and objecting at every available opportunity to the suggestion of putting it back.

Over the last several months, I haven't heard any objections to adding something ADS-like back in as an optional module. Even the last "FSS and ADS shouldn't be installed in the same ship" holdout hasn't raised that particular objection for some time. What drags players like me into these conversations are proposals to changing the FSS back into something ADS-like. And the reason for my objection to that kind of proposal is very simple. What I long wanted from exploration didn't require a hammer. It required screwdrivers, needle nose pliers, saws, files, knives, bottle openers, corkscrews, and rulers, and all I had was a hammer.

Trying to use that hammer to do the kinds of things I wanted to do left me with mutilated fingers, stripped screws, unremoved thorns, splintered and rough wood, pulped vegetables, dented cans, splinters of glass in my wine, and unmeasured objects. Which is why I barely explored before the FSS, and most of that was spent trying out new ways to use the hammer I was forced to use. It never worked, and it left me frustrated.

The FSS is like one of those nifty multi-tools that has the most common tools people need... except for a hammer. It may not do them as well as a dedicated tool, and for some reason Frontier has seen fit to weld the corkscrew in place so I can't use it, but at least they're present. I would have no objection to having a tiny toolbox which could carry proper tools, including hammers, which would better suit various exploration play styles. It's transforming the entry level discovery multi-tool back into something hammer-like that I object to.

Honestly we've been sidetracked since beta out of desperation of finding the path of least resistance for frontier who find change difficult.

Given what a huge change the FSS is, and all the other changes Frontier has made over the years, they don't find change difficult. There's a difference between that and deciding that the change some people want isn't a good fit for their vision of the game going foreward.

Having the fuss completely in the cockpit would probably be the actual solution (but it would never be allowed because of some business manager demanding multi crew support).

Having the blobs rendered in cockpit, plus the ability to target them like you currently do for any other body, even unexplored ones, would be the real solution.

Personally, having the blobs rendered in cockpit, especially if they were targetable, would remove a huge portion of why I enjoy exploration so much currently, and why pre-explored are flythough territory for me. Having a huge neon sign in the cockpit view that says "there's a planet here! Look! A planet!" takes all the joy of discovering that planet in the first place, because I'm not the one discovering it. At least with the FSS, when I want to use it as a discovery tool, I need to actually use it to get the information I want, and it doesn't spoil the rest of the system for me.

The only things I want in the cockpit view are the waveform spectrum, body count, and a way to view the information provided by the system map once a body is targetable in the cockpit. Everything else I want to discover for my self, because that's why I explore in the first place.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Here's a suggestion to everyone's favor: How about creating a new "The ADS appreciation thread" that is closed and moderated, only voices allowed who really want the ADS (or part of it) back into the game. This way everyone could quickly see how many you actually are.

Again, you're intentionally missing the point.
The ADS was the hand that opened the book for our eyes to see.
The DSS opens the book and presents us with braille...

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

This thread is the answer to the question,”where’s the beef?”

 

[HAMM3R]

I was about to make a post but after reading this I now feel useless and unwanted Oh well, I'll be in Colonia if anybody needs me.

Over the last several months, I haven't heard any objections to adding something ADS-like back in as an optional module. Even the last "FSS and ADS shouldn't be installed in the same ship" holdout hasn't raised that particular objection for some time. What drags players like me into these conversations are proposals to changing the FSS back into something ADS-like. And the reason for my objection to that kind of proposal is very simple. What I long wanted from exploration didn't require a hammer. It required screwdrivers, needle nose pliers, saws, files, knives, bottle openers, corkscrews, and rulers, and all I had was a hammer.

Trying to use that hammer to do the kinds of things I wanted to do left me with mutilated fingers, stripped screws, unremoved thorns, splintered and rough wood, pulped vegetables, dented cans, splinters of glass in my wine, and unmeasured objects. Which is why I barely explored before the FSS, and most of that was spent trying out new ways to use the hammer I was forced to use. It never worked, and it left me frustrated.

The FSS is like one of those nifty multi-tools that has the most common tools people need... except for a hammer. It may not do them as well as a dedicated tool, and for some reason Frontier has seen fit to weld the corkscrew in place so I can't use it, but at least they're present. I would have no objection to having a tiny toolbox which could carry proper tools, including hammers, which would better suit various exploration play styles. It's transforming the entry level discovery multi-tool back into something hammer-like that I object to.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

The only things I want in the cockpit view are the waveform spectrum, body count, and a way to view the information provided by the system map once a body is targetable in the cockpit. Everything else I want to discover for my self, because that's why I explore in the first place.

Very much this. It would give the rather pointless analysis mode an actual point.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Over the last several months, I haven't heard any objections to adding something ADS-like back in as an optional module. Even the last "FSS and ADS shouldn't be installed in the same ship" holdout hasn't raised that particular objection for some time. What drags players like me into these conversations are proposals to changing the FSS back into something ADS-like.

At this point we're just spinning and trying to articulate every last detail about why the fss is crap to make ourselves feel better. With myself its more i keep using it... and i get so floored by what the damn thing does i have to continue to chime in. More sane people have given up on the game or exploration, nope not me, i still keep trying to force the peg into the ran out of development budget hole.

From reading many of your posts, i hope you can appreciate that your assertions are a fringe case:

• Based on not exploring primarily NOT using it, and certainly not in the way the developers described.
• Using a side effect feature of its design thats causing a data anomaly over the stellar forge.

I do respect that you've found your way though, that's what i keep trying to do, but the feedback at least from myself is more based on direct usage and not at all dependent on the fringe benefits completely separate from the tool and its operation.

Given what a huge change the FSS is, and all the other changes Frontier has made over the years, they don't find change difficult. There's a difference between that and deciding that the change some people want isn't a good fit for their vision of the game going foreward.

Releasing rough first pass features into the game? Maybe im just late to the party but thats not appealing. Over the months i know for a fact that had frontier wanted to, it would be very easy to navigate though forum feedback. Bored white knights, and the fact we have no scope for change or perspective into it means the conversations get tortured when the white knights arrive, but even back in beta a few non fundamental tweaks would have removed 80% of the problems.

Personally, having the blobs rendered in cockpit, especially if they were targetable, would remove a huge portion of why I enjoy exploration so much currently, and why pre-explored are flythough territory for me. Having a huge neon sign in the cockpit view that says "there's a planet here! Look! A planet!" takes all the joy of discovering that planet in the first place, because I'm not the one discovering it. At least with the FSS, when I want to use it as a discovery tool, I need to actually use it to get the information I want, and it doesn't spoil the rest of the system for me.

The only things I want in the cockpit view are the waveform spectrum, body count, and a way to view the information provided by the system map once a body is targetable in the cockpit. Everything else I want to discover for my self, because that's why I explore in the first place.

Just like you've already done with the fss, in the fantasy that some improvements or compromises were made, im sure it would be even easier to avoid any mechanism that would make a non visually sighted body targetable if that upset your exploration.

 

[tafkabb]

The problem I see in your suggestion is I don't enjoy using the FSS so I wouldn't be able to do that, however if You chose to make one and made it look and feel enjoyable I may be able to address my playstyle to find some enjoyment it the FSS.
My main problem with the 3.3 drop is the leaving a trail of unfinished business, were FDev to introduce an option for 'auto resolve' on/off in the same manner as 'report crimes against me' then I would shut the hell up!
probably

I quite like spending a minute or two fiddling with the scanner when I enter a system, it makes me feel like I'm discovering things.
It's far more enjoyable than spending an hour or more flying to planets which are already on your map in order to 'discover' them.
Just imagine both of these things as a video.

 

[GrandAdmiralThrawn]

Wouldn't it be better to just do a poll (with no discussion option) somewhere? To get the numbers of people who want either one or the other thing. Alternative ideas of the users could (and should) be included. Doesn't mean FDev will do a thing about it, but at least we'd know what people think overall.

Also, I agree with BongoBaggins. I like tagging worlds to be relatively quick and easy. I reaaally don't wanna have to fly there just to put my name on it. Lots of pain, little gain. I mean, I often visit planets just for fun, but I don't want to have to do it for every single tag.

I also get how that very way of doing things can make you miss interesting places like those 5 planets orbiting a common barycenter, just because you thought "Uh, no ELW/WW/AM here, moving on...". So looking for those things specifically is slower with the FSS, while just tagging planets is faster. Same for GGGs. It seems some want the ADS back because it was harder and more work to tag worlds, while others want it back because it was just much faster in very specific scenarios. A contradiction?

Having never actually experienced the ADS my view is of course biased, but neither of the two seems that much better than the other to me...

Anyway, just do a poll?

 

[Sunyavadin]

Also, I agree with BongoBaggins. I like tagging worlds to be relatively quick and easy. I reaaally don't wanna have to fly there just to put my name on it. Lots of pain, little gain. I mean, I often visit planets just for fun, but I don't want to have to do it for every single tag.

Well, that's the point of the DSS giving first mapped tags, people who enjoy the act of actually visiting worlds, not just marking them off a checklist and moving on, get a reward for doing the thing we actually enjoy doing in the game and were going to do anyway.

 

[Northpin]

I quite like spending a minute or two fiddling with the scanner when I enter a system, it makes me feel like I'm discovering things.
It's far more enjoyable than spending an hour or more flying to planets which are already on your map in order to 'discover' them.
Just imagine both of these things as a video.

Yes, basically this ^^

I always enjoy the moment i enter in an non-explored system, when i see only the stars in the system map and proceed to the FSS to discover the system
it actually gives me the sense of discovery.

 

[marx]

Moving on from opinions and people disrespecting and covertly insulting the developers by saying they couldn't do better than the FSS, let's take a look at some data.

First, the volunteer moderator above and some others have overstated travel times by saying they are "spending an hour or more flying to planets". See, the thing is, we have plenty of data to refute that claim. Incredibly few of the procedurally generated bodies are over a distance of 700k ls: on EDSM, it's only 1,672 bodies out of 113,924,466. So what's the highest travel time then, for that extremely rare scenario? See here: 15m 50s.
Or I can tell you the median distance for ELWs and AWs: around 1,100 and 1,600 ls respectively. Barely over one minute of flight in supercruise. You haven't spent hours in supercruise, only a couple of minutes at best.

So yeah, nobody has ever spent flying hours in a system to unexplored planets. In fact, if Frontier wanted to shave off time spent from exploration, the biggest offender there, and the biggest complaint about exploration from new players, would be to cut down all the unnecessary time spent with JJJJJJJ and doing nothing except looking at the witchspace loading screen. Starting from the bubble, you have to spend at least half an hour doing nothing but jumping if you want to find any undiscovered systems that aren't class M or below. And why else do you think so many complain about Palin's 5,000 ly requirement? Because they don't enjoy all that time spent jumping, and also don't enjoy the FSS enough to offset that.


As for opinion polls and whatnot: we actually have better than that already. There is in-game data on how much people are exploring (CG numbers, squadron leaderboards and Codex activity, although the latter naturally slows down over time as more things are found), and even more detailed data on EDSM, which we know is statistically hugely representative of the whole. What do these all show? That people are exploring less and less, while player numbers are fairly stable. (Granted, we only have Steam Charts on the latter, but I don't see why other platforms would be dropping significantly while Steam holds its place. I might be wrong about this, of course. However, based on DW2's stats, PC users account for 80% anyway.)

Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike the FSS, the fact remains that people on the whole explore less. We don't know if it's due to less people exploring the same amount, the same amount of people exploring a considerably less amount, or less people exploring less, but things don't look good on this front. The Chapter Four launch brought in a big spike in exploration alongside a big spike in player numbers, and DW2's launch has brought in an even larger one while there wasn't a large increase in player numbers, and now after the largest drop in exploration after DW2 reached Beagle Point, we're back below the pre-FSS highs (of the Return and Beyond Chapter One), and it's still decreasing.
So yeah, that there is a problem... or is it really? I mean, for us, perhaps it is, but as far as we know, Frontier doesn't really mind player activity and numbers decreasing before the late 2020 expansion. And if player numbers aren't decreasing and only exploration is, I'm fairly sure they mind that even less.

Also, before some people say they don't care about less people exploring because they personally explore more and/or there's more undiscovered stuff for them: bear in mind that Frontier have outright stated before that the less players use a feature, the less likely they are to work on it. And I think everybody here would like it if they worked more on exploration.

 

[Sunyavadin]

See, the thing is, we have plenty of data to refute that claim.

"Marx DESTROYS [insert argument or group here] with facts and logic!"

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Wouldn't it be better to just do a poll (with no discussion option) somewhere? To get the numbers of people who want either one or the other thing. Alternative ideas of the users could (and should) be included. Doesn't mean FDev will do a thing about it, but at least we'd know what people think overall.

Also, I agree with BongoBaggins. I like tagging worlds to be relatively quick and easy. I reaaally don't wanna have to fly there just to put my name on it. Lots of pain, little gain. I mean, I often visit planets just for fun, but I don't want to have to do it for every single tag.

I also get how that very way of doing things can make you miss interesting places like those 5 planets orbiting a common barycenter, just because you thought "Uh, no ELW/WW/AM here, moving on...". So looking for those things specifically is slower with the FSS, while just tagging planets is faster. Same for GGGs. It seems some want the ADS back because it was harder and more work to tag worlds, while others want it back because it was just much faster in very specific scenarios. A contradiction?

Having never actually experienced the ADS my view is of course biased, but neither of the two seems that much better than the other to me...

Anyway, just do a poll?

They stopped doing polls, when the results were not going their way.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

I quite like spending a minute or two fiddling with the scanner when I enter a system, it makes me feel like I'm discovering things.
It's far more enjoyable than spending an hour or more flying to planets which are already on your map in order to 'discover' them.
Just imagine both of these things as a video.

I suspect we have different tastes in video.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Moving on from opinions and people disrespecting and covertly insulting the developers by saying they couldn't do better than the FSS, let's take a look at some data.

First, the volunteer moderator above and some others have overstated travel times by saying they are "spending an hour or more flying to planets". See, the thing is, we have plenty of data to refute that claim. Incredibly few of the procedurally generated bodies are over a distance of 700k ls: on EDSM, it's only 1,672 bodies out of 113,924,466. So what's the highest travel time then, for that extremely rare scenario? See here: 15m 50s.
Or I can tell you the median distance for ELWs and AWs: around 1,100 and 1,600 ls respectively. Barely over one minute of flight in supercruise. You haven't spent hours in supercruise, only a couple of minutes at best.

So yeah, nobody has ever spent flying hours in a system to unexplored planets. In fact, if Frontier wanted to shave off time spent from exploration, the biggest offender there, and the biggest complaint about exploration from new players, would be to cut down all the unnecessary time spent with JJJJJJJ and doing nothing except looking at the witchspace loading screen. Starting from the bubble, you have to spend at least half an hour doing nothing but jumping if you want to find any undiscovered systems that aren't class M or below. And why else do you think so many complain about Palin's 5,000 ly requirement? Because they don't enjoy all that time spent jumping, and also don't enjoy the FSS enough to offset that.


As for opinion polls and whatnot: we actually have better than that already. There is in-game data on how much people are exploring (CG numbers, squadron leaderboards and Codex activity, although the latter naturally slows down over time as more things are found), and even more detailed data on EDSM, which we know is statistically hugely representative of the whole. What do these all show? That people are exploring less and less, while player numbers are fairly stable. (Granted, we only have Steam Charts on the latter, but I don't see why other platforms would be dropping significantly while Steam holds its place. I might be wrong about this, of course. However, based on DW2's stats, PC users account for 80% anyway.)

Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike the FSS, the fact remains that people on the whole explore less. We don't know if it's due to less people exploring the same amount, the same amount of people exploring a considerably less amount, or less people exploring less, but things don't look good on this front. The Chapter Four launch brought in a big spike in exploration alongside a big spike in player numbers, and DW2's launch has brought in an even larger one while there wasn't a large increase in player numbers, and now after the largest drop in exploration after DW2 reached Beagle Point, we're back below the pre-FSS highs (of the Return and Beyond Chapter One), and it's still decreasing.
So yeah, that there is a problem... or is it really? I mean, for us, perhaps it is, but as far as we know, Frontier doesn't really mind player activity and numbers decreasing before the late 2020 expansion. And if player numbers aren't decreasing and only exploration is, I'm fairly sure they mind that even less.

Also, before some people say they don't care about less people exploring because they personally explore more and/or there's more undiscovered stuff for them: bear in mind that Frontier have outright stated before that the less players use a feature, the less likely they are to work on it. And I think everybody here would like it if they worked more on exploration.

"Marx DESTROYS [insert argument or group here] with facts and logic!"

Except that data has already been pointed out to be flawed.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Moving on from opinions and people disrespecting and covertly insulting the developers by saying they couldn't do better than the FSS, let's take a look at some data.

First, the volunteer moderator above and some others have overstated travel times by saying they are "spending an hour or more flying to planets". See, the thing is, we have plenty of data to refute that claim. Incredibly few of the procedurally generated bodies are over a distance of 700k ls: on EDSM, it's only 1,672 bodies out of 113,924,466. So what's the highest travel time then, for that extremely rare scenario? See here: 15m 50s.
Or I can tell you the median distance for ELWs and AWs: around 1,100 and 1,600 ls respectively. Barely over one minute of flight in supercruise. You haven't spent hours in supercruise, only a couple of minutes at best.

So yeah, nobody has ever spent flying hours in a system to unexplored planets. In fact, if Frontier wanted to shave off time spent from exploration, the biggest offender there, and the biggest complaint about exploration from new players, would be to cut down all the unnecessary time spent with JJJJJJJ and doing nothing except looking at the witchspace loading screen. Starting from the bubble, you have to spend at least half an hour doing nothing but jumping if you want to find any undiscovered systems that aren't class M or below. And why else do you think so many complain about Palin's 5,000 ly requirement? Because they don't enjoy all that time spent jumping, and also don't enjoy the FSS enough to offset that.


As for opinion polls and whatnot: we actually have better than that already. There is in-game data on how much people are exploring (CG numbers, squadron leaderboards and Codex activity, although the latter naturally slows down over time as more things are found), and even more detailed data on EDSM, which we know is statistically hugely representative of the whole. What do these all show? That people are exploring less and less, while player numbers are fairly stable. (Granted, we only have Steam Charts on the latter, but I don't see why other platforms would be dropping significantly while Steam holds its place. I might be wrong about this, of course. However, based on DW2's stats, PC users account for 80% anyway.)

Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike the FSS, the fact remains that people on the whole explore less. We don't know if it's due to less people exploring the same amount, the same amount of people exploring a considerably less amount, or less people exploring less, but things don't look good on this front. The Chapter Four launch brought in a big spike in exploration alongside a big spike in player numbers, and DW2's launch has brought in an even larger one while there wasn't a large increase in player numbers, and now after the largest drop in exploration after DW2 reached Beagle Point, we're back below the pre-FSS highs (of the Return and Beyond Chapter One), and it's still decreasing.
So yeah, that there is a problem... or is it really? I mean, for us, perhaps it is, but as far as we know, Frontier doesn't really mind player activity and numbers decreasing before the late 2020 expansion. And if player numbers aren't decreasing and only exploration is, I'm fairly sure they mind that even less.

Also, before some people say they don't care about less people exploring because they personally explore more and/or there's more undiscovered stuff for them: bear in mind that Frontier have outright stated before that the less players use a feature, the less likely they are to work on it. And I think everybody here would like it if they worked more on exploration.

Supporting personal anecdote incoming:

Prior to 3.3 I took 2 trips to Sag A* during which I scanned every body in every system. During these trips I'd average 10-12 systems per hour - that's 6 minutes each system, which included 1 minute for the jump/load.

The idea the exploration pre-FSS required spending one to spend hours flying around a system is a complete myth.

 

[marx]

Except that data has already been pointed out to be flawed.

Where?
All I know is that you said that in your opinion, a sample of 20-50% of the total population (depending on how pessimistic you are with the estimate) is not representative, which is easily proven false. Pick up any introductory book to statistics, read at least the part on determining representative sample sizes.
Or do you have some actual proof now? If so, show me where I was wrong.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Moving on from opinions and people disrespecting and covertly insulting the developers by saying they couldn't do better than the FSS, let's take a look at some data.

First, the volunteer moderator above and some others have overstated travel times by saying they are "spending an hour or more flying to planets". See, the thing is, we have plenty of data to refute that claim. Incredibly few of the procedurally generated bodies are over a distance of 700k ls: on EDSM, it's only 1,672 bodies out of 113,924,466. So what's the highest travel time then, for that extremely rare scenario? See here: 15m 50s.
Or I can tell you the median distance for ELWs and AWs: around 1,100 and 1,600 ls respectively. Barely over one minute of flight in supercruise. You haven't spent hours in supercruise, only a couple of minutes at best.

So yeah, nobody has ever spent flying hours in a system to unexplored planets. In fact, if Frontier wanted to shave off time spent from exploration, the biggest offender there, and the biggest complaint about exploration from new players, would be to cut down all the unnecessary time spent with JJJJJJJ and doing nothing except looking at the witchspace loading screen. Starting from the bubble, you have to spend at least half an hour doing nothing but jumping if you want to find any undiscovered systems that aren't class M or below. And why else do you think so many complain about Palin's 5,000 ly requirement? Because they don't enjoy all that time spent jumping, and also don't enjoy the FSS enough to offset that.


As for opinion polls and whatnot: we actually have better than that already. There is in-game data on how much people are exploring (CG numbers, squadron leaderboards and Codex activity, although the latter naturally slows down over time as more things are found), and even more detailed data on EDSM, which we know is statistically hugely representative of the whole. What do these all show? That people are exploring less and less, while player numbers are fairly stable. (Granted, we only have Steam Charts on the latter, but I don't see why other platforms would be dropping significantly while Steam holds its place. I might be wrong about this, of course. However, based on DW2's stats, PC users account for 80% anyway.)

Regardless of whether you personally like or dislike the FSS, the fact remains that people on the whole explore less. We don't know if it's due to less people exploring the same amount, the same amount of people exploring a considerably less amount, or less people exploring less, but things don't look good on this front. The Chapter Four launch brought in a big spike in exploration alongside a big spike in player numbers, and DW2's launch has brought in an even larger one while there wasn't a large increase in player numbers, and now after the largest drop in exploration after DW2 reached Beagle Point, we're back below the pre-FSS highs (of the Return and Beyond Chapter One), and it's still decreasing.
So yeah, that there is a problem... or is it really? I mean, for us, perhaps it is, but as far as we know, Frontier doesn't really mind player activity and numbers decreasing before the late 2020 expansion. And if player numbers aren't decreasing and only exploration is, I'm fairly sure they mind that even less.

Also, before some people say they don't care about less people exploring because they personally explore more and/or there's more undiscovered stuff for them: bear in mind that Frontier have outright stated before that the less players use a feature, the less likely they are to work on it. And I think everybody here would like it if they worked more on exploration.

Please stop making sense. Your posts are too rational for this forum.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Where?
All I know is that you said that in your opinion, a sample size of 20-50% of the total population is not representative, which is easily proven false. Pick up any introductory book to statistics, read at least the part on determining representative sample sizes.
Or do you have some actual proof now? If so, show me where I was wrong.

You have no idea why some people stopped exploring. You are assuming that it is because of the new mechanics, but you have no data to prove that.

I have no proof either way like you don't so it could be true but it equally may not be. Also the drop off in explorataion with the people using EDSM started well before the FSS was introduced. Also you are assuming that everyone signed up to EDSM were still active players at the time, I doubt that very much, once signed up you are likely always signed up.

There is nothing that is representative about those stats. They are flawed.

 

[marx]

You have no idea why some people stopped exploring. You are assuming that it is because of the new mechanics, but you have no data to prove that.

If you read my post above, you'll notice that I haven't said a word about why people explore less and less. Just that they do. And the loss of activity is much more than what could be attributed to "some".

Also, you didn't answer my question, about why the data is flawed. What you spoke of would be the analysis.