Could Frontier please demonstrate how to use the FSS enjoyably?

[marx]

The great thing about statistics, though, is that you can pick your statistical tool to get the outcome you are after. It's about asking the question that fits the answer you want. Don't let details like reality get in the way of a good story!

Hey, funnily enough, I looked and posted about the exact same things when exploration activity was around its peak during DW2, before it had crashed.
But I digress.
If you can pick a different "statistical tool" and show a different outcome, by all means, share it with us! It ought to be interesting, and I don't mean this sarcastically.

[...] and the 20% could have been scanned by one or a few prolific CMDRs, rendering the use of this statistic even less valid when considering a perceived decline in exploration.

Uhh. Did you actually read at the very least the numbers? We're talking about tens of thousands of systems scanned daily, and thousands of players. Do show me any Commander who has ever visited thousands of systems and tens of thousands of bodies every single day.


As for the argument from you and others that random samples don't work: that's just your opinion though, and in reality, statistical analysis through random sampling does work. If it didn't, then we wouldn't be posting these on computers.
The whole point is that if you pick a large enough random sample, then you can use it to draw conclusions that would be true for the entire population, within a certain margin of error. This has been very well established - but hey, so has the fact that the Earth isn't flat.

Moving back to the argument here, there is one point where things could be attacked, but I didn't. You're probably not going to like it though. One could argue that random selection isn't at play here, because those who upload to EDSM inherently explore more than those who don't. Probably because they are better invested. The data from DW2 actually supports this: see that 70% of those who actually finished DW2 were on EDSM, while at the start, only 39.5% of participants were.
The reason why I didn't use this was because I find it only natural that people would be more invested in finishing an expedition than they'd regularly be. In other words, that there's no significant difference between explorers who upload to EDSM and explorers who don't. I still might be wrong on this account though.

Looking at the distribution of in-game exploration stats on enough people from the non-EDSM group could actually help decide this. However, we have no way of getting this info, short of having lots of people send in their screenshots voluntarily. Curiously though, whenever they bring up the subject of how much they've explored, the most vocal FSS advocates don't seem to want to share this - not that three or four samples would be anywhere near enough. (I don't mean just the Elite rank itself though, but all the in-game stats. Elite in exploration these days is cheap enough that even on EDSM, it's the second most-common rank, after Aimless.)


One thing that I don't understand:

Funnily enough, I already mentioned this, but was removed in the reply to me as he obviously had no answers.

Sorry, who are you talking about here?
Were you referring to how far players might have to go for new systems? Well, in that case, boy will I have some data for you - you're not going to like it though. I still want to double-check it, because even I myself was surprised at how close new systems are found, daily. But if you can't wait, you can check an automatically compiled sheet on EDAstro already.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Sounds like you still have not understood (or just ignore) why in the first place this compromise has been built in.

I have no idea what you're referring to, and honestly i don't care. Everything i've ever said about the fss has been based on in game experiences in the now. I had no theoretical objections or support for any ideas or intentions related to exploration, and still dont.

To right the situation, there are probably dozens of possible and very different changes that could be made to tip the balance so that the overall experience checks out. Many don't need to add back the ads. Its unfortunately impossible to list all the possibilities, so its only practical to speak of the issues (and chime in when something seems to work).

 

[marx]

Just to clarify, I haven't "already reached this stage." I started at this stage while I watched the introductory livestream and realized how much potential the FSS had beyond the proverbial "minigame", spent the month or so between the livestream and the beta creating hypothesis about the kind of rare orbital phenomenon I was most interested in, went through a testing phase where I'd FSS everything during the beta to make sure my hypothesis were correct, and have stayed there ever since.

Well, in that case, yours is nowhere near the intended main usage of the FSS, that the developers showed us. In fact, it's curious that you started with this then, and weren't satisfied with what they were going for.
Interesting as this is, arguing that the FSS is good because you can bend it pretty harshly to find the things you personally are interested in, but isn't what the majority

Which is pretty much standard for me with video games in general, and sandboxes in particular. In my experience, "typical usage scenarios" may be the easiest path to take, but rarely most efficient nor the most fun.

"Fun" is subjective though: some people find the FSS fun, some find Cookie Clicker fun, some find Dwarf Fortress fun, and so on. The most efficient though? Most efficient in terms of what? I mean, in terms of credits, the most efficient is to cherry-pick WWTCs and ELWs. In terms of tags, it's to scan everything. Judging by the data, people in general shoot for credits instead.

The fundamental problems with the FSS are not unsolvable, but FD need to be willing to listen but it seems they would rather stick their head in the sand and claim everything is fine when it obviously is not.

Well, exactly. When Frontier said that they are fine with how the FSS is, I shook my head. Not because it's obviously not universally liked, but because it's a fact that it has serious bugs hindering its usage for all. Just the POI scan times being too slow and tied to the frame rate is bad enough on its own already.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Seeing an unidentified light moving against the background stars and realizing that's a world never gets old IMO, and quite frankly approaching a world from its dark side or towards its terminator requires slightly different piloting than approaching from the sun. Plus it also varies how a planet might look as I fly by.

Either way, I'm pretty much looking at the part of the panel that lists vulcanism and atmospheres. Biological signs have been pretty sparse unless I'm deliberately going out of my way to search for them.

I'll have to double check when I get an opportunity to play later in the day, but IIRC, the other reason why I don't use the FSS just to get body information is that I'm pretty sure you can't get information about a body if you're too close to it. Maybe if I don't wait for it to autoresolve when I get close...

Yes its nice, and definitely does make your approach curve more in an arc.

Just in case.. for moons, if you kick off the system map from the popup new popup dialog from the navigation panel, it opens the system map on the zoomed in view for the body, which is kind of okay. The back button doesn't work, but if you press the system map button proper the map closes in one action.

If you can somehow can wedge in using the fss, that info is available in the fss once you've popped the planet. I guess its also completely redundant at that point because the scanner which explicitly states the result is running on the same screen... so nevermind i guess.

Yeah i it does have a minimum distance requirement. Can't fathom why, you have to hold it differently if you want to use the above function. I couldn't make that make sense with flash discovery either so..

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

...... - but only really in virgin systems.......

And that's the bit that concerns me, I explore unknown systems, I'm not interested in exploring what other players have already found, I consider my path to be Explorer not Tourist or piggyback info credit hunter... well, I used to.

 

[lenna]

And that's the bit that concerns me, I explore unknown systems, I'm not interested in exploring what other players have already found, I consider my path to be Explorer not Tourist or piggyback info credit hunter... well, I used to.

There is no change essentially from pre-3.3 with the ADS in that case.

Integrate the FSS with the cockpit via the current pointless Analysis Mode and in the main the pre-3.3 exploration experience would be restored (albeit without the map/nav population in virgin systems) - instead of targeting unknown bodies you would be flying towards FSS type blobs instead which would auto-resolve when in range.

There are other changes that are arguably required to fix the ALL design/implementation flaws but at least proper cockpit integration would make more sense than the current mini-game focused mess.

One of the key things FD should do is address the design hole that fails to accommodate those with hearing impairment. That is perhaps more critical than anything else since it would address a key element of the FSS that they taut as being learnable that would not be learnable by those with hearing impairment. FD failing to address that particular issue is almost worse than failing to accommodate those that preferred fly-by-scanning via proper HUD integration of the FSS. These two key changes should in theory silence most of the fair and justifiable critique of the FSS.

Updating individual CMDR codex's with historic data that they should have already but don't is a bit of a side issue but almost as important.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

There is no change essentially from pre-3.3 with the ADS in that case.

Integrate the FSS with the cockpit via the current pointless Analysis Mode and in the main the pre-3.3 exploration experience would be restored (albeit without the map/nav population in virgin systems) - instead of targeting unknown bodies you would be flying towards FSS type blobs instead which would auto-resolve when in range.

There are other changes that are arguably required to fix the ALL design/implementation flaws but at least proper cockpit integration would make more sense than the current mini-game focused mess.

One of the key things FD should do is address the design hole that fails to accommodate those with hearing impairment. That is perhaps more critical than anything else since it would address a key element of the FSS that they taut as being learnable that would not be learnable by those with hearing impairment. FD failing to address that particular issue is almost worse than failing to accommodate those that preferred fly-by-scanning via proper HUD integration of the FSS. These two key changes should in theory silence most of the fair and justifiable critique of the FSS.

Updating individual CMDR codex's with historic data that they should have already but don't is a bit of a side issue but almost as important.

Yeah, I could do that (fly towards blobs, and I'd have no idea of their orbital oddities, which is another setback to the traveller Explorer) but I'd still have a problem with autoresolve... I'm not a wheelie bin nor beggar that needs the pennies and tags from the petty autoresolve, I'd like to choose to switch it off, so much choice in the game but not where it counts, what a shame.

 

[lenna]

Well, exactly. When Frontier said that they are fine with how the FSS is, I shook my head. Not because it's obviously not universally liked, but because it's a fact that it has serious bugs hindering its usage for all. Just the POI scan times being too slow and tied to the frame rate is bad enough on its own already.

If you are talking about POI scan times via the FSS, they are near instant. If you are talking in terms of fly-by-scanning they are as per pre-3.3. Not a bug in either case in my books.

FD eventually addressed the critical bug about blob visibility for at least some VR users that was still in release after being reported in the Beta phase but they have yet to address other arguably critical flaws in their overall approach to the exploration changes.

 

[marx]

If you are talking about POI scan times via the FSS, they are near instant.

I'm talking about this. Surely you've encountered it already.
I wouldn't call scan times going into 30-60 seconds when a good number of geological POIs "near instant".

 

[lenna]

I'm talking about this. Surely you've encountered it already.
I wouldn't call scan times going into 30-60 seconds when a good number of geological POIs "near instant".

Nope - Not encountered it but you are seemingly talking about space-golf rather than the FSS which is an abomination of a mechanic I would rather see removed than have further time wasted on it.

Just to clarify - I have had no issues with FSS resolution times regardless of the nature of what is being resolved. Never even touched the DSS Mini-Game and intend to avoid it like the plague.

 

[marx]

Nope - Not encountered it but you are seemingly talking about space-golf rather than the FSS

No, I'm talking about the FSS. The bug report I linked, which I guess you haven't read, begins with "FSS" in the title, and "When scanning a system using the FSS" in the very first sentence. Steps to reproduce: "Scan a planet that has geological sites in FSS mode and time how long it takes between 30fps and 300fps. Compare it to the time it takes a planet with just biological sites to scan."
It's also currently the second most-voted bug present on the tracker.

 

[lenna]

cvbcxvxcv

No, I'm talking about the FSS. The bug report I linked, which I guess you haven't read, begins with "FSS" in the title, and "When scanning a system using the FSS" in the very first sentence. Steps to reproduce: "Scan a planet that has geological sites in FSS mode and time how long it takes between 30fps and 300fps. Compare it to the time it takes a planet with just biological sites to scan."
It's also currently the second most-voted bug present on the tracker.

Not encountered it - but then I have been avoiding exploration since the FSS was introduced since it is abomination of a mechanic in it's current form. Stuck mostly around the bubble since it was released since it kills exploration for me. The only FSS usage I have had is limited to rare and reluctant usage around the bubble.

If anything that kind of bug only emphasises my point that FD should probably admit their error in judgement and roll back the 3.3 exploration mechanics changes. Either that or fix the mess they have created. Neither seems to be likely to happen given their apparent love of the Ostrich Manouvre.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I have to disagree - the auto reveal of explored systems does not remove all the mystery any more than the initial pre-3.3 ADS honk did.

Oh, I know you disagree. But for me personally, the pre-3.3 ADS did remove all the mystery from a system I wanted to explore. Once something other than me had revealed all the interesting information of a system:

• Orbital Heirarchies
• Navigation Data
• Relative positions of any planets and moons

not much remained except for an uninteresting grind for credits, "discovered" by tags, or minor trivia.

Wait... pre-3.3, there was, at least in theory, still planetary exploration left to do. But you could spend weeks scouring the surface of a world looking for the POIs that were allegedly there and never find them, even though you were looking in the most obvious places, and Frontier itself had obviated the SRV's role in planetary discovery gameplay. Which is why I did very little exploration in a game where I was really looking forward to exploring a procedurally generated Milky Way Galaxy.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Well, in that case, yours is nowhere near the intended main usage of the FSS, that the developers showed us. In fact, it's curious that you started with this then, and weren't satisfied with what they were going for.
Interesting as this is, arguing that the FSS is good because you can bend it pretty harshly to find the things you personally are interested in, but isn't what the majority

People keep on saying this, and yet it was the very livestream where Frontier introduced the FSS that provided me with the information which would allow me to "bend [the FSS] pretty harshly" before the 3.3 Beta even began. Telling me some variation of "you're doing it wrong" isn't very persuasive, especially when a) Frontier created the game mechanic I'm using alongside the "minigame" and b) Frontier demonstrated, admittedly very briefly, the game mechanic I'm using along side the "minigame" during their introductory livestream.

Am I in the minority on how I use the FSS? Certainly. I'm also in the minority when it comes to Supercruise technique. I'm in the minority when it comes to my approach to Engineering. I'm in the minority when it comes to my approach to BGS manipulation. I'm in the minority when it comes to my approach to trading. I'm in the minority when it comes to my approach to surviving an interdiction attempt.

In my experience, the majority doesn't necessarily take the best approach to accomplishing their goals within this game. They generally take the easiest to understand. I very much enjoy blazing my own trail in this game, and it's a course I'll keep on taking.

Assuming that Frontier doesn't put artificial limits on me.
glares harshly at the throttle limiter attached to the FSS

"Fun" is subjective though: some people find the FSS fun, some find Cookie Clicker fun, some find Dwarf Fortress fun, and so on. The most efficient though? Most efficient in terms of what? I mean, in terms of credits, the most efficient is to cherry-pick WWTCs and ELWs. In terms of tags, it's to scan everything. Judging by the data, people in general shoot for credits instead.

For me, efficiency has always been about maximizing my fun, while minimizing the amount of truly "dead time" in a game, because my gaming time in general is limited, and this game in particular is one consumes my full attention, so it's not one I'm willing to play while my attention is divided. In the case of system exploration, I want to spend as little time as possible with my ship sitting idle going nowhere, while still identifying, as quickly as possible, where in the system I want to go next.

 

[Red Zephyr]

The key to making the FSS an enjoyable experience is to crank up the mouse sensitivity for it in Options. Then it doesn't take a month to scan a system.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Yes its nice, and definitely does make your approach curve more in an arc.

Just in case.. for moons, if you kick off the system map from the popup new popup dialog from the navigation panel, it opens the system map on the zoomed in view for the body, which is kind of okay. The back button doesn't work, but if you press the system map button proper the map closes in one action.

I'd rather not use the system map if I can avoid it. That being said, what you describe only works for landable worlds. There are definitely times when I'd like to launch probes at non-landable terraforming candidates, Earthlike worlds, water worlds, and ammonia worlds. As I've said previously, I may not care about credits, but I'm also not about to leave money lying on the ground when I'm nearby. Plus trying to get the efficiency bonus while still on the move can be a lot of fun IMO. YMMV

If you can somehow can wedge in using the fss, that info is available in the fss once you've popped the planet. I guess its also completely redundant at that point because the scanner which explicitly states the result is running on the same screen... so nevermind i guess.

Yeah i it does have a minimum distance requirement. Can't fathom why, you have to hold it differently if you want to use the above function. I couldn't make that make sense with flash discovery either so..

I've discovered that I have sufficient time to resolve the body I'm approaching via the FSS during the braking phase of my approach. The trick is going to be figuring out the right approach to do this and still have a large enough window when exiting AR to decide if I want to either escape or get captured by the "inner system" bodies I'm doing a flyby of. Right now, I'm getting captured every time.

I'm talking about this. Surely you've encountered it already.
I wouldn't call scan times going into 30-60 seconds when a good number of geological POIs "near instant".

I just realized I have an alt account, so I can vote for that issue a second time. Democracy for the win! Here's hoping that Frontier can actually fix it, or at the very least change it so that it doesn't reveal the number of POIs, just their presence.

 

[Sysmon]

Well since everybody else gets to say the same thing over and over and over again for months on end, I guess it's my turn:

As a serious explorer, I personally love the FSS and related tools. When I drop out of hyperspace, I’m entering an entirely new and potentially undiscovered solar system. I mean, wow! Once I refuel my ship, I put a little distance between me and the star, then I “park” the ship, pop out of my pilot’s chair and go over to my science station (cue slide of Mr. Spock looking into his scanner). This is a seamless transition, like getting into my SRV.​

​

This “science station” is the output of a visual, radio, and gravimetric telescope array built into my ship’s sensors. It sees 3D space around my ship, with the ability to zoom in and focus on specific objects in the solar system. In order to automatically focus in on a specific object (focusing over long distances is no trivial task), I need to match the frequency of the telescope’s focal algorithm to that of the planet or signal – the “tuning the dial” part of the procedure. This lets me zoom in and focus both optically and radiometricly to both “see” the planet and generate detailed statistics. Like Galileo, once I “discover” a planet using my telescope, I get credit for that discovery, assuming I’m the first.​

​

Speaking of discovery, I really like that the system map remains unpopulated until I actually find, magnify, and catalog a planet. I was never a fan of the “Google Galaxy” map view we automatically were given with the ADS. That’s not discovery, that’s tourism.​

​

Now I can continue to scan the entire system from this parked location, or I can choose to immediately go to a planet of interest and map it. One of the advantages of the latter is that my ship will automatically detect and catalog any planets nearby. So for example, if I select a gas giant with a dozen moons, I just need to scan the GG in the FSS, and then fly to the GG and the moons will be all scanned and cataloged using the close-range sensors, thus greatly reducing my time using the FSS. Not mandatory, but it’s a cool little trick for CMDRs who like having a reason to fly to planets to explore them.​

​

I personally find the FSS very similar to real-life stargazing. I scan the sky IRL with my high-powered binoculars, finding planets and stars of interest, then crosscheck them using my astronomical software, which gives me a page of statistics. Then I can go visit them in my SUV….. Wait, forget that last part.​

​

It is possible to be very fast and efficient using the FSS with practice. That said, I actually enjoy the extra time it takes me to scan and catalog a system, followed by mapping and even landing on planets of interest. It adds a sense of immersion, accomplishment, depth, and scale that was sorely lacking before 3.3 dropped.​

​

That’s not to say I find the FSS and DSS to be perfect. I have a list of very minor changes and adjustments I’d like made to the FSS, DSS, and Analysis HUD. But I find the concepts Frontier implemented to be fun, engaging, immersive, brilliant!​

And you get to yell "send out a probe!" when you run the DSS!

S

 

[Sysmon]

Demonstrate to me how to enjoy Brussels Sprouts please...

Stir-fry with garlic and slivered almonds. Yum.

S

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Hey, funnily enough, I looked and posted about the exact same things when exploration activity was around its peak during DW2, before it had crashed.
But I digress.
If you can pick a different "statistical tool" and show a different outcome, by all means, share it with us! It ought to be interesting, and I don't mean this sarcastically.


Uhh. Did you actually read at the very least the numbers? We're talking about tens of thousands of systems scanned daily, and thousands of players. Do show me any Commander who has ever visited thousands of systems and tens of thousands of bodies every single day.


As for the argument from you and others that random samples don't work: that's just your opinion though, and in reality, statistical analysis through random sampling does work. If it didn't, then we wouldn't be posting these on computers.
The whole point is that if you pick a large enough random sample, then you can use it to draw conclusions that would be true for the entire population, within a certain margin of error. This has been very well established - but hey, so has the fact that the Earth isn't flat.

Moving back to the argument here, there is one point where things could be attacked, but I didn't. You're probably not going to like it though. One could argue that random selection isn't at play here, because those who upload to EDSM inherently explore more than those who don't. Probably because they are better invested. The data from DW2 actually supports this: see that 70% of those who actually finished DW2 were on EDSM, while at the start, only 39.5% of participants were.
The reason why I didn't use this was because I find it only natural that people would be more invested in finishing an expedition than they'd regularly be. In other words, that there's no significant difference between explorers who upload to EDSM and explorers who don't. I still might be wrong on this account though.

Looking at the distribution of in-game exploration stats on enough people from the non-EDSM group could actually help decide this. However, we have no way of getting this info, short of having lots of people send in their screenshots voluntarily. Curiously though, whenever they bring up the subject of how much they've explored, the most vocal FSS advocates don't seem to want to share this - not that three or four samples would be anywhere near enough. (I don't mean just the Elite rank itself though, but all the in-game stats. Elite in exploration these days is cheap enough that even on EDSM, it's the second most-common rank, after Aimless.)


One thing that I don't understand:

Sorry, who are you talking about here?
Were you referring to how far players might have to go for new systems? Well, in that case, boy will I have some data for you - you're not going to like it though. I still want to double-check it, because even I myself was surprised at how close new systems are found, daily. But if you can't wait, you can check an automatically compiled sheet on EDAstro already.

When I went out on DW2 it was over 1500ly until I found a virgin system. But I am pretty sure there are loads that are close that haven't been found.

But no, that is not what I was talking about. I am saying that new explorers will likely be travelling the well travelled routes to visit the sites. While they are still exploring, they will be finding far less virgin systems.

While you maybe correct that there is a decline in exploration, it may not be as bad is you think. Also that decline started well before the FSS came out and I don't expect that to change much until new planets become landable and there are more exploration activities to do on planets.

 

[lenna]

Oh, I know you disagree. But for me personally, the pre-3.3 ADS did remove all the mystery from a system I wanted to explore. Once something other than me had revealed all the interesting information of a system:

• Orbital Heirarchies
• Navigation Data
• Relative positions of any planets and moons

not much remained except for an uninteresting grind for credits, "discovered" by tags, or minor trivia.

What you are referring to as interesting stuff is not … that is the niff-naff and trivial information.

The interesting stuff is the nature of the bodies which the pre-3.3 ADS honk did not reveal and neither does the auto-reveal of non-virgin systems.

The long and the short of it is FD have an obligation to retain the pre-3.3 exploration experience in some shape or form and to not do so would be essentially breeching the consumer rights of those that have invested in the exploration since release. FD may own the IP of their product but they are bound by consumer trading laws and essentially were ill-advised to change things as they have done.