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

[MadDogMurdock]

The trouble is that half the people on here are complaining that the FSS is painful to use and a waste of time, and the other half want to spend ages flying around the system.

There is not going to be a solution that satisfies both of them. Sure, retro-fit the ADS if it makes you happy; it certainly wouldn't me. I'm happy with the FSS. It makes sense and it has just the required amount of grind. Flying 100,000 ls to discover ten icy bodies orbiting a secondary is neither enjoyable nor profitable to me.

Actually, I’m in both halves of that proposition.
I feel that the time spent in the FSS is largely wasted, compared to the much greater amount of time I spent flying around before.
The key to understanding that is that the latter was an active choice that I made based on the info I got from the ADS.

Time spent finding out whether I want to explore a system, often with a negative result is time I consider wasted.
Time spent flying around a system I find interesting is time well spent.

That is the whole point.

As for the distant icy bodies, I’d rarely fly out there either.

 

[Sunyavadin]

Actually, I’m in both halves of that proposition.

Ditto.
It's a waste of time which I could be spending exploring systems, which also causes my eyes to water and migraines if I look at it long enough to get all the data from it to determine if a system is worth starting exploring in.

Time spent finding out whether I want to explore a system, often with a negative result is time I consider wasted.
Time spent flying around a system I find interesting is time well spent.

That is the whole point.

Louder for the people in the back!

 

[Sunyavadin]

If “some” is a small enough number, it doesn’t really matter. Just ask the Powerplay crowd.

I now wonder if Frontier's eventual "fixing" of powerplay for everyone unhappy with the state of that particular aspect of gameplay, will be to add some kind of minigame where you tab out of your cockpit view to get to a sliding block puzzle you have to complete every time you enter a system for the first time each week in order to find out the data which is presently displayed on the galmap's powerplay filter.

 

[lenna]

I have mixed feelings about which of these would be more viable and better received by players in general, and of course which I would actually prefer.

The FSS as it stands is a disaster zone, it has some positive aspects but it is too badly implemented and has too many flaws. Reintroducing the ADS has seemingly been ruled out by FD, and major rework of the FSS has also seemingly been ruled out.

This ultimately leaves us with painting the pig and at least making it passable.

IMO the key elements that need to be changed/added:-

1. Better support for those with hearing impairment - this needs to be done otherwise FD are being notionally "illegally" prejudicial against those players with hearing impairment. The main issue would be resolved by adding a visualisation of the audio component that is allegedly learnable
2. Better support for VR users - the current implementation is abysmal in VR, this could be addressed at least in part by integrating the FSS with the cockpit
3. QOL interface changes such as FSS tuning memory - it is ridiculous that this was not a thing at release and breeches best design practices
4. Remove the mini-game feel from both the FSS and DSS - remove par scores, and better integrate the solutions with the cockpit

If FD are not willing to at least address the above points then they need to reconsider their position on completely reworking the exploration mechanics in their entirety from the ground up - and this time do a proper consultation with the user base.

 

[Enderby]

The FSS system needs a serious re-working.

 

[Soron Silin]

1. Better support for those with hearing impairment - this needs to be done otherwise FD are being notionally "illegally" prejudicial against those players with hearing impairment. The main issue would be resolved by adding a visualisation of the audio component that is allegedly learnable

I hardly notice the sound. I scan the frequencies by reference to where the planet is in the system and what frequencies still remain to be resolved. I don't use the oddly shaped cursors either (other than to point directions). To my mind, if you need either of those then you will have significantly more trouble than I have, which might be mitigated by changing your control scheme.

2. Better support for VR users - the current implementation is abysmal in VR, this could be addressed at least in part by integrating the FSS with the cockpit

The only people who have said that they used VR have said that it isn't that bad but could be better. That's not abysmal. On the other hand, I imagine it would be great if the whole thing was rendered on the inside of a sphere.

3. QOL interface changes such as FSS tuning memory - it is ridiculous that this was not a thing at release and breeches best design practices

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I think it can be defeated by mapping the tuning to your throttle or another slider. Admittedly, game-pad users miss out on that at least as regards a slider that stays put. I have a dedicated кnob so of course it remembers where it was between scans, but the throttle is a good alternative if it's stable enough. (My joystick cost £18 -- the throttle jumps around a bit too much.)

4. Remove the mini-game feel from both the FSS and DSS - remove par scores, and better integrate the solutions with the cockpit

Does this apply to the station menu as well? It's definitely taking place in the pilot's seat because you can access the side panels.

I agree that the FSS could do without the hazy blue overlay, and the blue planet overlay in the DSS is intrusive and gets in the way. The par score for the DSS gives you an idea of the size of the planet and the probe pattern you should use. I don't see any reason to give a bonus for beating it though, especially as doing so generally means that you haven't really scanned the whole planet.

At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, if you haven't already tried this and if you are using a HOTAS, try binding the tuning to the throttle (in absolute mode, not velocity mode if that's an option), the cursor movement to the mouse, zoom in to left click and zoom out to right click.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Could they? They gave us a 1:1 representation of the galaxy to fly around in, so they certainly could.

Should they? That’s a bit tougher to answer, as they’ve stated they changed because it wasn’t what they wanted. They gave us something more in line with what they want. However as stated above, it can certainly be improved upon, though I doubt it would ever be the kinds of improvements approaching what the ADS was, so there would still be cries to restore a function that isn’t in keeping with their desires.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Another thing to keep in mind is frontier also created a huge exception pass from the exact impact we are discussing to all the systems in the bubble. Whether this was knowing design or by accident we don't know.. but had the mainstream players the same conditions applied to the bubble as they do to exploration.. well certainly the fss would be different now.

The point being the feedback regarding the discovery mechanics even at 1k+ pages is certainly artificially low.

 

[Soron Silin]

Another thing to keep in mind is frontier also created a huge exception pass from the exact impact we are discussing to all the systems in the bubble. Whether this was knowing design or by accident we don't know.. but had the mainstream players had the same conditions applied to the bubble as they do to exploration.. well certainly the fss would be different now.

What was that?
It only makes sense that everything in the bubble has been scanned and mapped for several decades. I can see all the planets in the system map as soon as I enter the system.
Outside the bubble, if a system has previously been scanned, then all the planets in the system appear on the system map.
What's the difference?

 

[Faded Glory]

What was that?
It only makes sense that everything in the bubble has been scanned and mapped for several decades. I can see all the planets in the system map as soon as I enter the system.
Outside the bubble, if a system has previously been scanned, then all the planets in the system appear on the system map.
What's the difference?

I think he's referring to the fact that everything the FSS can be used for in the bubble can also be achieved by other means...

Finding mission targets, identifying USS's and so on, there are other ways that these can be done without ever having to use the FSS. So there's choice...

For exploration, there's really no viable in-game way to do it (I'll say parallax isn't a mechanic, more a workaround) without the FSS.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

What was that?
It only makes sense that everything in the bubble has been scanned and mapped for several decades. I can see all the planets in the system map as soon as I enter the system.
Outside the bubble, if a system has previously been scanned, then all the planets in the system appear on the system map.
What's the difference?

Yes that would be the basis sure, but the the point is you can entire avoid the fss if you want (or just use it actually as a tool for the thing right infront of you thats interesting) etc.

Also it seems that demanding that people not be allowed to avoid the fss is the core argument for the naysayers.

 

[Soron Silin]

Yes that would be the basis sure, but the the point is you can entire avoid the fss if you want (or just use it actually as a tool for the thing right infront of you thats interesting) etc.

Also it seems that demanding that people not be allowed to avoid the fss is the core argument for the naysayers.

You wouldn't get any argument from me if USSs went away and were just immediately resolved. Those really are a pain. Since most of them are putting out active signals that could be identified, I don't see any immersion reson that the FSS or a nav beacon scan is required.

But did the ADS resolve them? or are USSs that recent?

Honestly, I don't care if the ADS is added to the game or not. Just don't take away my FSS.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Honestly, I don't care if the ADS is added to the game or not. Just don't take away my FSS.

Noone has ever asked for the fss to be removed (and if so been taken seriously). That would simply be horrible, unkind, spiteful, miserable and anti player to people who actually enjoy it. The extremity of some of the responses could lead you believe that people are demanding all sorts of things.. but reading the text not really.

 

[lenna]

...

Your counter points to my observations are without merit and are flawed

1. WRT the audio component - you may not notice it personally, but FD made a big thing about how it made the system learn-able during the live streams. Also it has absolutely ZERO to do with the control setup.
2. WRT tuning memory - What you are suggesting is totally impractical
   1. You have to throttle down to use the FSS and then as soon as you do that you would lose your position.
   2. I have a number of other rotary dials on my HOTAS but
      1. The same issue (memory loss) would apply due to re-use and would create problems in other areas (on exit from FSS) if reused
      2. Most of the supplemental analogue rotary inputs on most HOTAS do not have sufficient resolution to be usable as fixed position tuning devices (even the throttle may not be fit for purpose in that regard)
      3. Most HOTAS solutions do not have enough rotary analog inputs to avoid re-use
      4. Even if you could tolerate reusing the throttle as you suggest it would not solve the fundamental issue in play
   3. Overall it also ignores the fact that the lack of tuning memory is a design flaw with no viable workarounds in practice
3. WRT VR usage - As an actual VR user, I disagree - the implementation was broken at release (no blob rendering) but while it was eventually fixed this is not the real problem. The real problem is with the overall experience, it was obviously not properly thought through and is jarring to say the least.
4. WRT Mini-game feel - I will refrain from saying what your condescending response truly deserves. Suffice to say my original post covers it in the main (nothing to do with the blue haze), the FSS and DSS are the only aspects with a mini-game feel and if anyone can't see why then it is pointless discussing it further.

Overall though, I would like to draw your attention to the OP's request

Let me just say to please not discuss other player's opinions here nor their validity. I'd rather this not degrade into another poo flinging match we've seen of late when these sort of topics come up.

If you wish to discuss the matter further then I suggest we take the discussion elsewhere, but overall I do not see the point in doing so and can only see it going downhill.

 

[Faded Glory]

But did the ADS resolve them? or are USSs that recent?

Honestly, I don't care if the ADS is added to the game or not. Just don't take away my FSS.

No, the ADS never did anything with regards to signal sources (although you could honk it to get mission updates).

USS's aren't new at all, have been in since the beginning. Originally they were exactly as described, unidentified, and if you wanted to know what was in one you dropped into it.

Then they became identifiable by targeting them and passively scanning (the same way you scan a ship or a nav beacon) and they resolved and identified what they were. Still not great, but mission signal sources were at least identified by your ship so you knew they were there. (The nav beacon did nothing to resolve signal sources at this stage.)

Now you have three possible choices with USS. You can scan the nav beacon which will identify all currently spawned USS. You can also still target an unidentified one and it will resolve just as before. You can also use the FSS to identify them (and target them) individually. So there are a number of choices depending on how you enjoy playing.

And as mentioned, nobody seriously wants to remove the FSS. Some of us just want choices in how we play the game, specifically when it comes to exploration...

 

[lenna]

No, the ADS never did anything with regards to signal sources (although you could honk it to get mission updates).
...
And as mentioned, nobody seriously wants to remove the FSS. Some of us just want choices in how we play the game, specifically when it comes to exploration...

The fallacious claims of some that the ADS was a honk-and-done mechanic are probably part of the reason why FD removed the ADS in the first place, and personally I think they made a major mis-step in implementing the FSS/DSS the way they did. They did a far better job with the mining update and should have done the same with exploration but they did not.

The FSS does not need to be removed but a serious rework of the FSS to address the broad range of critique is most definitely in order. FD may be opposed to spending any more time or resource on the FSS and related aspects but they have made a major mis-step with the exploration changes.

 

[Sunyavadin]

Now you have three possible choices with USS. You can scan the nav beacon which will identify all currently spawned USS. You can also still target an unidentified one and it will resolve just as before. You can also use the FSS to identify them (and target them) individually. So there are a number of choices depending on how you enjoy playing.

And as mentioned, nobody seriously wants to remove the FSS. Some of us just want choices in how we play the game, specifically when it comes to exploration...

Imagine how people would have responded if they removed entirely the ability to identify them via nav beacon. That's basically the comparison those of us who want specific aspects of the old functionality back are experiencing. Every other aspect of 3.3 added stuff in addition to all the existing means of doing something, only in this one specific instance did they take the existing options away.

 

[Maolagin]

WRT tuning memory - What you are suggesting is totally impractical

1. You have to throttle down to use the FSS and then as soon as you do that you would lose your position.
2. I have a number of other rotary dials on my HOTAS but
   1. The same issue (memory loss) would apply due to re-use and would create problems in other areas (on exit from FSS) if reused
   2. Most of the supplemental analogue rotary inputs on most HOTAS do not have sufficient resolution to be usable as fixed position tuning devices (even the throttle may not be fit for purpose in that regard)
   3. Most HOTAS solutions do not have enough rotary analog inputs to avoid re-use
   4. Even if you could tolerate reusing the throttle as you suggest it would not solve the fundamental issue in play
3. Overall it also ignores the fact that the lack of tuning memory is a design flaw

Just throwing in my 2p, I guess it depends on your control setup, but I've never had a problem with this. When I use KB+M controls, I have keys bound to the "tuning +/-" options. On my HOTAS I have one of the rotary knobs dedicated to FSS tuning. In both cases, when I leave the FSS and come back later, the tuning is always set wherever I left it.

Regarding precision, I found that the small rotaries on my x56 throttle have just enough precision to work well for tuning. I frequently find myself making single "tick" adjustments, but the ticks are small enough to do the job and the setting is stable over time. I think those are the least precise of the four rotaries on that model.

 

[lenna]

Regarding precision, I found that the small rotaries on my x56 throttle have just enough precision to work well for tuning.

Good enough for relative input but not absolute input - all 4 of the rotaries on the X56 are only 8-bit (256 position) rotary devices and the throttle is only 10-bit (1024 position) and none of these are truly workable as an absolute position control for tuning - the Throttle for reasons that should be obvious and the rotaries because they lack the required precision.

Yes - the rotaries are workable as a differential input device for tuning but that was not the usage being countered. What was being suggested was to use the "physical" position of the relevant analogue input to mechanically preserve tuning memory.

As for control setup and tuning memory - all I can say is that last time I checked the FSS resets to the centre point every-time I leave and re-enter it and I have the Logitech version of an X-56 configured as my primary controller. K+M are too impractical to use on a regular basis in VR.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Good enough for relative input but not absolute input - all 4 of the rotaries on the X56 are only 8-bit (256 position) rotary devices and the throttle is only 10-bit (1024 position) and none of these are truly workable as an absolute position control for tuning - the Throttle for reasons that should be obvious and the rotaries because they lack the required precision.

Yes - the rotaries are workable as a differential input device for tuning but that was not the usage being countered. What was being suggested was to use the "physical" position of the relevant analogue input to mechanically preserve tuning memory.

As for control setup and tuning memory - all I can say is that last time I checked the FSS resets to the centre point every-time I leave and re-enter it and I have the Logitech version of an X-56 configured as my primary controller. K+M are too impractical to use on a regular basis in VR.

Is it not odd that some VR users think the FSS is an abomination yet declare the ADS as the Bee's Knees? As a VR user myself the ADS was an abomination in VR and the FSS a delight...

Now tell me that I am wrong

If there was a sufficient input from 'new' names in each of the "1000 pages" it would be interesting, but 99.999% of that number was multiple posts from the same names (Yes, including me!)