You know, you could even survey all of the voting population and still fail to predict the outcome. Point is, statistics are not bulletproof but they aren't meant to be.
Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?
- Thread starter CMDR Karrde Sun
- Start date
- Status
You know, you could even survey all of the voting population and still fail to predict the outcome. Point is, statistics are not bulletproof but they aren't meant to be.
Well, do you rather assume what is less likely to happen? Mind you, EDSM has a far larger fraction of the actual playerbase compared to the mentioned polls so the margin of error is far smaller.
Of course. But as nobody seems to know what the sample size is, it's somewhat irrelavent.
I use this bizarre hybrid of FSS analysis, parallax, and using it the way that supposedly the devs "intend it to be used"... which I'm highly doubtful of, because I can't think of any reason for them to put in all that extra work on the stuff I'm using, if I'm not supposed to be using it in the first place.Don't worry, I'm exploring without using the FSS, so I'm completely messing up @marx's stats. Fortunately there are thousands of other people playing ED, so we're not statistically significant - though obviously we're both special snowflakes in our own ways
To show you're wrong, I can tell you meant to say "these numbers are prone to incorrect interpretations" which I already knew; regarding the first half of your post, I wasn't talking about interpretation, just the chance of having a correct extrapolation of the population based on the sample size.
Out on the rim, where I’ve been for 35 weeks, I can say definitively that stellar density, even at Y+0 stinks. It’s just short of non-existent. Yes, there is an occasional cluster at Y+/- >0 but these are exceptions, not rules.
Even travel along Y+0 can be difficult when systems are 100 LY or further apart, and I routinely have to move back from the edge to be able to jump at all.
Even travel along Y+0 can be difficult when systems are 100 LY or further apart, and I routinely have to move back from the edge to be able to jump at all.
That's what I used to do at times, it's really fun.
Well, bring that up to the person who brought up the point, I only commented on it.
I don't use the FSS, it is more of a pain that useful, _ If you find something, you have to go there anyway, so why bother with something that doesn't actually tell much of anything about the discovery in question - just that something is there - Now, the probes are useful on new planet/moon discoveries, - Like I said, if you want something you have to go there anyway.
You didn't bring it up and yes, I'm disinterested.
An interesting read and an interesting viewpoint.
While I don't wholeheartedly agree, you seem to have the benefit of experiencing NMS so I take what you say about it as more or less correct, but most people I know will inevitably 'fix' the game over a pint, no matter what game it is they can always come up with ways the devs should have done this that or the other, and included another much loved but dropped feature.
You possibly could have brought it up before but I didn't reply to that post so it's irrelevant and again you are wrong, I react to any post I deem worthy to reply, that includes both long and short posts.
Proper Exploration:
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
I use this bizarre hybrid of FSS analysis, parallax, and using it the way that supposedly the devs "intend it to be used"... which I'm highly doubtful of, because I can't think of any reason for them to put in all that extra work on the stuff I'm using, if I'm not supposed to be using it in the first place.
Well based on the livestreams, we're supposed to use it to scan the entire system without having to fly around.
I'm not sure what stuff you're talking about that isn't designed specifically to support that goal. Could you elucidate?
The funny thing there is that I always see Asteroid clusters to be undervalued, they should be seen as important data if for nothing than navigational hazards, they may also be seen as areas of mining and or even geological interest, giving more data to the system formation and historical layout, I've never really seen them as throw away data that FDev seems to have classed them as.Yes, and the time that the targeting failed message hangs around (to shorter!). And maybe the slowness of the scanned body announcements. We don't have much reason yet to care for dozens of announcements of asteroid clusters found...
Your "cartography" data probably contains a lot of intel...chock full of ELINT.
First and foremost is the chevron system.
On the waveform spectrum tuner, it'll show you what types of bodies are within the range you're tuned into, whether they have rings, and when combined with the "signals" on the waveform themselves, it's possible (though not necessarily practical) to determine their size.
On the main screen, when combined with the range you're tuned into, it'll show what types of bodies are in your field of view, whether those bodies are moons, main bodies, or part of a binary or larger system.
When you combine the chevron system with the temperature and distance readings, it's also possible to deduce whether a body is terraformable or not.
If we're supposed to just "use it to scan the entire system without flying around," none of this information is necessary for that purpose. Why encode this information into the interface when it'll be revealed by resolving the body in the first place? Encoding this information, planning these interconnnected systems, programming in the rules, and testing them requires development resources. If we're supposed to just play the "minigame", why all the extra work on stuff that should be ignored if we're using it "properly?"
Furthermore, in the livestreams I've watched, especially the introductory livestream, the development team seemed quite proud of the fact that you can deduce the properties of a body before you resolved it. I spent a lot of time going over that livestream getting ready for the beta, rewatching the hints they provided, hypothesizing about what most of the things I was most interested would look like on the FSS, other uses for the FSS besides resolving bodies, and most of my hypothesis turned out to be correct.
I think the livestreams focused on the "minigame" not because that's the way we're supposed to play it, but because the "minigame" is the most easily understood by most viewers. But just because its the easiest to understand, doesn't mean its the only way its meant to be used. It's just that the livestreams are meant for those who'll be new to using the FSS.
I didn't fall into my current exploration workflow, FSS analysis -> discovery via parallax -> "minigame," right from the start. At first I was playing the "minigame" along with everyone else. But because I had paid attention to parts of the livestreams that others ignored, or outright dismissed as "fluff," I was soon in a position to skipping over completing the "minigame" in favor of flying there directly, once I had determined that there might have been something there worth flying to. It saved a little bit of time, and more importantly it was much more fun.
And now they're killing off the galnet articles I'd listen to to pass the time faster
So once you've filtered to taste, you just open up the fss, dont do any panning, and tune for your blob. If its there remember the heading and go there and flash scan it?
Hmmm..... haven't tried that version. Can you prevent the fss from panning?
The navigation panel would be so much easier
An unknown target is exactly the same thing!Hmmmmmmmmmmm
ED grind baby. You have to rinse and repeat to earn your rewards.
- Status