Could or should Frontier enhance the FSS or add in and incorporate an optional ADS-like expansion module?

I actually quite like it in VR. Not really sure why some VR users have issues with it, other than to just have issues to gripe about.
well, it isn't vr at all. it's a 2d cinema panel with an awkward guard system so that valiant explorers don't bump themselves against the walls in the room while they are ... erm ... seated in a cockpit frantically chasing balls around the panel with a controller? vr just makes it more painfully evident how rubbish the implementation is.

the way the fss was slapped together, then thrown at vr and just left that way is actually the worst sign i've picked up about the future of vr in this game. not looking good.
 
Perhaps a definition of Discovery might shed some light on the difference in exploration styles:
Discovery is the act of detecting something new, or something previously unrecognized as meaningful. With reference to sciences and academic disciplines, discovery is the observation of new phenomena, new actions, or new events and providing new reasoning to explain the knowledge gathered through such observations with previously acquired knowledge from abstract thought and everyday experiences.
For Bryan, every undiscovered system is novel and interesting, and worthy of investigation, because it is meaningful to him.
For me, many systems are not interesting because I’ll have been to many other seemingly almost identical systems before. In that case I might feel that further exploration of that system is unlikely to reveal anything new and would therefore not be meaningful to me.

As is often the case, it’s subjective and nearly everyone is right.
Every planet does have the potential to be unique and is worthy of discovery, mapping, and investigation.
However, proc-gen on such a large scale has its limits.
After seeing enough of the same kind of system, I might decide that certain systems aren’t very interesting or novel anymore. I might feel that there is nothing new or novel to be found here and be eager to move on to the next system.

That might make me less of a surveyor than Bryan, but no less an explorer.
 
Your blatant trolling aside, there is the point that people do recognise that the ADS is unlikely to return as-was pre-3.3 BUT that does not mean the FSS can not be improved to provide the experience some are missing (at least in part) because the ADS was removed.
I love being called a troll - particularly by those who, if they were absolutely honest with themselves, are doing just that...

I do understand that others consider their opinion to be the only valid one and that to gainsay such opinion would have to be declared as incorrect :)

Keep up the good work :)

Of course, in my opinion, the only improvement the FSS requires is that the orbit lines be put back in VR - otherwise it appears to be perfectly adequate for the purpose it was inserted into the game.

Complete functionality is provided by the 2 tools we now have, why the urge to re-invent the wheel yet again?
 
I love being called a troll - particularly by those who, if they were absolutely honest with themselves, are doing just that...
Heres the definition of a troll: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument". I think its plainly obvious who those people are.

Hint, the majority of posters here are taking issue with a software feature. The remaining trollish population take issue with those people who take issue with the feature. Clearly there are trolls.
 
Hint, the majority of posters here are taking issue with a software feature. The remaining trollish population take issue with those people who take issue with the feature. Clearly there are trolls.
What are you talking about? There are two productive viewpoints being expressed in free and open debate.

Group A: "I think that this videogame mechanic is lacking in these specific areas and could be improved by making certain modifications, here are some suggestions"

Group B: "Well I think you're a poopyhead for not liking the exact same things I like!"

In other words, the internet.
 
Heres the definition of a troll: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument". I think its plainly obvious who those people are.
I think I fail on the troll part then.... I'll have to work on the provocative/maximum disruption bit :)

But thank you for providing the definition, it is appreciated.

Hint, the majority of posters here are taking issue with a software feature. The remaining trollish population take issue with those people who take issue with the feature. Clearly there are trolls.
The majority of the posters here, myself included, continue to reiterate the same opinion over a changed game mechanic, a hint is not required (unless of course the troll blinkers prevent such awareness) to recognise the topic in hand, possibly as it has been aired so many times, with the same 'solutions', by so few.
 
I’m always amazed by the seething hatred I manage to accidentally trigger from people I thought were more mature here. I’m also amazed by how much the forum doesn’t like copypasta-ing definitions and their format.
Just to be clear, that wasn't 'seething hatred' mate, it was mild irritation. I can do seething hatred but I tend to save it for things that are actually important.

My point was that any argument on this topic can be made without the need to categorise other players. It adds nothing to a discussion of game mechanics and always raises a strong suspicion that the person doing it is doing so as an attempt to dismiss another player's opinion based on a subjective opinion of the validity of their gameplay style.

It's funny - when I read threads about combat I don't usually see people suggesting that players who only attack ships when they get interdicted, rather than heading out to go bounty hunting, aren't 'proper' fighters.

I'm now going to return to my self-imposed policy of not commenting on these threads because my tolerance level for the 'no true Scotsman' approach to categorising explorers is still essentially zero after last year's threads about this topic.

(Funnily enough, I've noticed that a few players who were extolling the virtues of the super-duper FSS back then and throwing shade at anybody who dared to mention that it might get old fast have been completely absent from the forum for the last several months. Imagine that.)
 
Last edited:
No need to bring back the ADS or to remove the FSS. Add the ability to peek what the composition of the system is you're in while hiding as much details as possible and my game would be perfect
 
No need to bring back the ADS or to remove the FSS. Add the ability to peek what the composition of the system is you're in while hiding as much details as possible and my game would be perfect
As I said earlier:
So on that note, what is required?
  1. Less fiddly tuning so it can be done with rotary controls no matter how the controller is configured. Fingers can only get so accurate anyway and teasing the last tenth of a degree is not fun game-play.
    1. Set the sensitivity for about 256 divisions no matter what the controller says it can deliver, or
    2. Make it configurable in the bindings.
  2. Persistent tuning for those that like to use buttons.
  3. Honk reveals orbits in the system map but no details of the bodies.
Personally I think the FSS minigame is complex enough, the game is about flying spaceships, after all. But maybe for those who want more detail...

Optional Iron Man mode.
4. You don't get a white circle, just a signal level meter. You have to tweek the position and tuning for a maximum. And/Or​
5. No zooming. If you want to resolve two close signals, you have to fly closer. And/Or​
6. No pretty GUI. Do the whole thing with an analogue meter and six thumbwheels. (Right ascension and declination)​
(Point 1 is already implemented in the game.)
 
Ah yes, the question of interesting stuff. No matter how you slice it, "interesting" is a subjective opinion - but "rarity" is objective, you can measure it. Individual thresholds will vary, of course: for some, 1 in 50 systems counts as rare, for others, routine.

The FSS is faster if your concept of rarity is around body types, because it's faster to tell at a glance all the body types in a system. (The glaring exceptions are GGGs.) As the developers talked about it, body types are what they think makes a system interesting or not.
With the DSS's magical precision, and the FSS's magical (but currently deeply flawed) POI finder, as a secondary concern there is the presence of POIs on landable planets. But the developers know full well the quality of what is there to be found, hence why it would be secondary - to them.

For other kinds of rarities, if you're interested in things other than body types and POIs, you were negatively impacted by the FSS.

The problem, of course, is that these two targeted interests don't last long, and explorers over time tend to lose interest in them - and Frontier have made it much slower to find the more rare stuff. Not more difficult, just slower. Put another way: as player experience with exploration grows, "1 in 50" shifts from rare to routine.
So the solution to the stagnant activity would be either to add (many) more new things of interest, or to do whatever is needed restore previous functionality.
But the biggest problem against this is that Frontier have also demonstrated that they aren't much concerned about how the live game will fare before the next expansion. Since exploration has always been near (but not at) the bottom of the priority list, don't expect anything major to happen before the end of next year. (Assuming the expansion doesn't get delayed.)
 
Last edited:
Frontier have made it much slower to find the more rare stuff. Not more difficult, just slower.
What rare stuff are you thinking of?

Would your problem be fixed like this?
  • Make the honk reveal orbits but not the details of planets. They can be targeted however.
  • The FSS could then reveal the existence of Abnormalities, which it catagorised as Geological, Biological or Unknown, but not the exact type or number of sites of each.
(I'd say just Abnormalities with no categories, but then you'd have to visit a whole lot of geological sites before finding any other type.)​
  • The types present might be determined by the automatic scanner within 1000 ls but only the DSS could determine the exact number of each.

Would that fit your needs?
 
Off the top of my hat, here's what's missing from the FSS without scanning the blobs:
  • Orbital hierarchy - in other words, where the bodies were in the system map and what they were connected to
  • Body visuals - mostly needed to spot GGGs
  • Distance to arrival point - mostly needed to spot trojans
I might have forgotten about some. But basically, the system map.
Any solution that gives these back at a glance, without having to slog through the repetitive minigame, sounds good to me.
 
Off the top of my hat, here's what's missing from the FSS without scanning the blobs:
  • Orbital hierarchy - in other words, where the bodies were in the system map and what they were connected to
  • Body visuals - mostly needed to spot GGGs
  • Distance to arrival point - mostly needed to spot trojans
I might have forgotten about some. But basically, the system map.
Any solution that gives these back at a glance, without having to slog through the repetitive minigame, sounds good to me.
'Body visuals' seems to be the sticking point for those who don't want ADS functionality back in the game. Unless FDev provide another mechanism for detecting GGGs there's probably no way past that. It could, however, be resolved by giving GGGs a discreet location on the FSS spectrum.
 
Off the top of my hat, here's what's missing from the FSS without scanning the blobs:
  • Orbital hierarchy - in other words, where the bodies were in the system map and what they were connected to
  • Body visuals - mostly needed to spot GGGs
  • Distance to arrival point - mostly needed to spot trojans
I might have forgotten about some. But basically, the system map.
Any solution that gives these back at a glance, without having to slog through the repetitive minigame, sounds good to me.
Okay, so the only thing my suggestion wouldn't allow is the visuals. That's rather against the spirit of the FSS so maybe a compromise.

  • In addition the the orbit lines, the honk also measures mass. So the system map shows grey circles the same size as the planet.
  • An option to go to FSS directly from the system map, with the cursor centered on or near the body you want to scan.
So you only have to FSS the gas giants. That's more work than just the ADS but you might feel productive; each step of the process works toward what you are looking for, rather than mindlessly working your way through blobs.
 
Okay, so the only thing my suggestion wouldn't allow is the visuals. That's rather against the spirit of the FSS so maybe a compromise.

  • In addition the the orbit lines, the honk also measures mass. So the system map shows grey circles the same size as the planet.
  • An option to go to FSS directly from the system map, with the cursor centered on or near the body you want to scan.
So you only have to FSS the gas giants. That's more work than just the ADS but you might feel productive; each step of the process works toward what you are looking for, rather than mindlessly working your way through blobs.
It's still a LOT of gas giants to scan before you find what you're looking for - and popping in and out of the System Map sounds even more dispiriting than panning around in the FSS.

As I said above, if there was the ability to identify whether a system contained a GGG from the FSS Spectrum, then this problem would go away. It simply becomes the same kind of 'cherry-picking' as looking for ELWs.
 
What's so special about the visuals?
You can recognise such things as Earth-Like Worlds and Green Gas Giants without scanning lots of blue blobs.

It's still a LOT of gas giants to scan before you find what you're looking for - and popping in and out of the System Map sounds even more dispiriting than panning around in the FSS.

As I said above, if there was the ability to identify whether a system contained a GGG from the FSS Spectrum, then this problem would go away. It simply becomes the same kind of 'cherry-picking' as looking for ELWs.
I've got nothing specifically against that. It's a good solution.

However, it's a good solution only if GGGs are the only sorts of planets that you are looking for. At the moment, they probably are but that isn't necessarily going to remain true. Perhaps fleet carriers require us to scoop gas giants by flying through their clouds. Suddenly GG with life will become great places to visit. Or maybe we find a use for icy bodies with pink streaks.

At the moment I honk while I am fuel scooping and then flash over to the system map to see if there's about the right number of bodies in it. If it looked the same whether it was previously discovered on not, I'd have to look in the individual tags. Added to which I like the surprise of not knowing what I am going to find. A populated system map would give the game away.
 
Top Bottom