FSS - my opinion

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

If you have both that are mutually exclusive then FSS players don't see the full picture until they've done the scanning, ADS players see the limited picture but have to do the flying around and proximity scanning. Same rules, two options with different obstacles.

Well, this is common sense. Assuming you're concerned with more than just beating down other forum explorers, in post fss exploration, the ads itself is actually needed only for a niche style.. cherry jonking.

Lets rise above our imaginations or hard intentions. In a more moderate environment, it validly is a meaningful choice whether you actually want the ads or one of the other assists. A docking computer is very valid for exploration depending on how paranoid you are, and same with supercruise assist depending on other factors.

If we were in civil conditions here, the ads would more correctly feel like the docking computer in multipurpose, something you like, but don't really need (anymore?!?) apart from in specific circumstances (like trade ships eg). Depending on what you took where, it is no more than a choice.

But we is not in civil conditions around here

 

[Faded Glory]

That's where we are looking for the same thing. Because there is hardly any uncertainty in exploration. There is, however, plenty of risk. We know roughly what the probabilities are of finding the different types of bodies including GGGs, while some features are still not well constrained (NSPs). The cost to us is then pretty well defined as the time required to find what we are after. When we get there, the chance is 100% that the object will show up, however, and the only thing between us and getting the information instantly is the "artificial barriers" as you call them.

We accept a whole bunch of barriers already though: Firstly, we can't just open the galaxy map, access a system and see what is in it. So we have to go there if the information is not already available (by being unexplored by us). Secondly, we accept we have to do something when we arrive in a new system to get the data we want, whether to rock up a Nav Beacon or engage in the explorative game-play.

The crunch is probably what this game-play should be.

S

Yep, agreed, and I just feel that the more options for different types of gameplay we have (which can include how we first look at the contents of a system) the better.

As many of us 'FSS haters' (I don't hate the FSS at all) have pointed out, we don't mind using it, we just want to use it because it's the right tool, not the only tool, for the job.

 

[Sysmon]

Yep, agreed, and I just feel that the more options for different types of gameplay we have (which can include how we first look at the contents of a system) the better.

As many of us 'FSS haters' (I don't hate the FSS at all) have pointed out, we don't mind using it, we just want to use it because it's the right tool, not the only tool, for the job.

And again we agree! Weird hey. I think the main issue is duplication of functions between the different tool options. Ideally there should be no to very little overlap. And the implication of the overlap should be insignificant. There has always been a certain degree of veiled competition in exploration, despite statements to the contrary: People have posted jump/hr and jump range as if either of these were metrics relevant to exploration efficiency. This certainly is the case if number of systems surveyed/hr is a metric to care for: If overlapping systems have an imbalance in this metric, there will be all sorts of complaints on the forum. We have some of that now, as these mammoth threads indicate. But it will be nothing compared to what would happen if the tools co-existed in their current forms (well, past form for the dead as a dodo ADS).

S

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Isn't there still a bit of overlap in places? Rings changing the signature of ice words especially, and rocky ice worlds having overlap with ELWs? Gas giants with life not being far different from gas giants without?

S

Never seen any kind of overlap.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Accidental / unavoidable scans from jumping.

The graph shows systems visited, not stars scanned. Before the FSS, explorer's scanned only one star in every three star systems, probably while fuel scanning.

And this shows the ADS wasn't popular ... how?

The FSS was not available at the same time the ADS was available. That is the point of all of this.

When the ADS was available, what proportion of explorers do you suppose chose to fit a BDS (quite a few, it was pre-installed on every new ship), the IDS (basically nobody) or an ADS (almost universally popular)?

You forgot the fourth option that explorers chose: they didn't explore at all.

Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that gamers don't play games they don't like. It is, after all, optional entertainment. If an aspect of a game doesn't appeal to them, and it's optional, they avoid it as much as possible. If it's a core aspect of the game, they stop playing it altogether. Gamers will vote with their feet.

Ah, I left out three words that I meant to say. To clarify, here's my edit: "even though you know that in that thread, "exploration activity" was often short-hand for "exploration activity via number of new systems"."

Again, I didn’t. I thought exploration activity was exploration activity. After all, why track other statistics like average number of stars, planets, ELW. and AWs scanned if they’re not representative of exploration activities?

We have the data we have, thanks to you, but it’s raw data with at least one glaring hole in it (mapped planets). It isn’t really enough to draw definitive conclusions, which is why we look at the same data and draw different conclusions.

While I definitely overlooked the addition of consoles to the mix, it would be useful to know the overall distribution of contributions by platform, to determine if the 10% uptick in visited systems represents console players. The artificial limitations on FSS use inflicted upon us by Frontier has effectively increased the absolute minimum time spent in a system by about 33%, since we can no longer multi-task FSD warmup and FSS use, and that assumes someone's only looking for ELW.

And from what I'm seeing in the data, players are doing more than the bare minimum when they're out exploring. It would be useful if we knew the median and average bodies per system, but players are engaging with the FSS at least long enough to resolve about five bodies per system. It takes a minimum of 15 seconds to pan through a system, without resolving a single body, and about one second per body. That increases the time in the average system by another 66%.

So far, the minimum amount of time spent in a system, assuming your typical ELW hunter, is twice what it was during the ADS era. If the overall exploration population remained the same, then I would've expected the number of system visited to have dropped by at least 40%.

Which brings us to the big unknown of the FSS era: how much other exploration activities are being done in systems? We know what the minimum was during the ADS era: two bodies were scanned every three systems. But since data about mapped worlds doesn't seem to be tracked, we don't know what the minimum rate is in the FSS era.

I suspect, though, that this has actually increased in the FSS era, if only because mapping takes longer than scanning did during the ADS era. I doubt the overall nature of explorers has fundamentally changed, which means that if a body was worth scanning in the ADS era, it is also worth mapping in the FSS era, and you're not tracking all the big money worlds: waterworlds and terraforming candidates. And you can't track (to the best of my knowledge) how often "worthless" worlds are being mapped, for geological PoIs and biological PoIs. And that is the kind of information that would put this issue to rest, one way or the other.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why did you quote me?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

But as you move the dial it tells you what sort of worlds you are hovering over. If you over a signal it literally tells you what it is. If you are not over it, then it might show a neighbouring type, but then its easy to see if you are over it.

I know. I'm not denying that, but that stops it being a one hit wonder as you need to do something else to discover exactly what those signals mean. You get a rough idea from their position though, but its only an educated guess as there is so much overlap.

People call the FSS a one hit wonder as they seem to think you press a button for five seconds and it tells you everything about the system. It does not. From first glance in the FSS after the honk (not touching anything) you get a very rough idea of what planets are there, but that isn't precise until you dial it in using the slider and even then there is some overlap, and then you have no idea how many of each planet there is unless it only has one type of planet. You have a system of 30 planets, it has three markers for gas giants, some ice planets and rocky/metal planets, you have no idea how many of each there are. You have to use the FSS to find out what is in the system, therefore it cannot be a one hit wonder which some people are saying it is.

The old ADS is more of a one hit wonder as after one hit you had precise coordinates of every planet/moon in the system and after clicking on a planet you had basic information and you could ascertain what the exact type of planet it was. It is far more of a one hit wonder then the FSS is.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Yes, my view on things is coloured by my delight in uncertainty and using scientific methods to reduce it (which is what I do for a living in mineral exploration, really). I wish the exploration tools incorporated uncertainty as well as the means to reduce it. It became clear to me during the PoI resolution beta discussions that many people don't like uncertainty, and from the actions of FD it appears they are ok with not including uncertainty to appease the player base. A loss in my eyes, still, as having tools to reduce uncertainty might actually help some feel more empowered when exploring. I'm amazed the same principles haven't yet been applied to mining (by putting blinking lights and arrows on explodeable rocks after scan), or even to Ziggy's favourite scanner so we'd know what we were driving up to and how far we had to go with more precision.

With uncertainty from the get-go, but also the means to reduce it, exploration could be a lot more hands-on and satisfying a process as any activity would have meaning.

S

I also like a bit of uncertaintly.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

If you have both that are mutually exclusive then FSS players don't see the full picture until they've done the scanning, ADS players see the limited picture but have to do the flying around and proximity scanning. Same rules, two options with different obstacles.

Lore wise, it makes little sense to have a mutually exclusive system, but I would accept it for those people that want the ADS back.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

People call the FSS a one hit wonder as they seem to think you press a button for five seconds and it tells you everything about the system.

People call the ADS a one hit wonder as they seem to think you press a button for five seconds and it tells you everything about the system.

The old ADS is more of a one hit wonder as after one hit you had precise coordinates of every planet/moon in the system and after clicking on a planet you had basic information and you could ascertain what the exact type of planet it was. It is far more of a one hit wonder then the FSS is.

A little puzzle

Here's a little puzzle. Who can tell what kind of planet the farthest one is in this picture? The one co-orbiting the two gas giants.

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

People call the ADS a one hit wonder as they seem to think you press a button for five seconds and it tells you everything about the system.

A little puzzle

Here's a little puzzle. Who can tell what kind of planet the farthest one is in this picture? The one co-orbiting the two gas giants.

forums.frontier.co.uk

I called it more of a one hit wonder then the FSS, which it is. But neither of them are really a proper one hit wonder as for both, you need to do more hitting to get the information you want.

I think you need to read the context in the posts a bit more.

As to the puzzle, i'm not sure why that's relevant to the conversation.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I called it more of a one hit wonder then the FSS, which it is.

Which it isn't. Because you're not able to quantify it.

As to the puzzle, i'm not sure why that's relevant to the conversation.

It contradicts: "The old ADS is more of a one hit wonder as after one hit you had precise coordinates of every planet/moon in the system and after clicking on a planet you had basic information and you could ascertain what the exact type of planet it was. It is far more of a one hit wonder then the FSS is. "

edit: So make the ADS produced system map not interactive, problem solved

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My take? It's circumstantial. It depends. It's not quantifiable. But you have to be consistent. If you call the ADS a one hit wonder, you have to realise the reasoning goes for the FSS in other and overlapping areas. And vice versa. calling it "more of an one hit wonder" means it can be quantifiable. Which it isn't

Neither are I-win tools. Neither is more or less an I-win tool. That depends solely for what you're going to use it for.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Wow, could it be that everyone knows in the back of their minds that the other side is arguing about a completely different "what you're going to use it for" so everyone is objectively very right from their own point of view.

Shhh. We would have nothing to talk about then. Them included. And definitely don't let pico know i said that, geez im in for it now

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I appreciate your apology. If you wanted to "try and diffuse the situation", it would have been better to remind certain participants to keep things civil. "What I mean was simply that ruminating on the same thing over and over again, especially something that you cannot control the outcome of is not good for anyone." suggests that you think they should stop discussing the matter.
And, um, Open Only threads, PowerPlay, and so on...

And engineers! I heard you think it. It cannot be hidden from me! I smell it because it is the rotten carcass that... let's not get carried away, tho...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ugh, getting flashbacks from collecting datamined wake exceptions for Facility Arsehere.

Now I know how vets from 'Nam must feel

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Not sure about my friends, I'm talking about memories of early postings on this forum. People did seem to like the ADS best, of course. Until it was made infinite range and concerns were raised.

It is a bit funny really, it seem like some really want the FSS gone and the ADS back to get some exploratory uncertainty back into the game. But they really must be a tiny but extremely vocal subset, as there was a massive outcry when uncertainty was introduced with the PoI scanning time fix. Yet it does make sense, because the infinite ADS-system map combo actually removed any uncertainty from the exploration experience. Shame, really, as exploration without uncertainty is just sightseeing. It is just a one-click-buy-map procedure.

Of course we could try to engage in meaningful conservation about how to get the FSS experience to be smoother, including adding functionality to the Discovery Scanner (which could even be a purchasable upgraded Advanced model). But instead one side of the discussion just seem to repeat "want the ADS back!", ensuring the discussion will never be truly fruitful.

Sad really.

S

I've played 500 in complete uncertainty what a planetary body would reveal. It's kinda frustrating. You get a space ship and are told to comb the desert with a shovel. Anyway, I think 500 hours trying to find stuff randomly is enough and I don't need that crap RNG anymore. Visiting a system and rolling for PoIs is RNG enough. There is no need to send players on further "Ooooh look, dat's interesting - shall we have a look? .... Aww, too bad it's been fake sensor echo - but maybe next time is a charm?".
What you call sight-seeing, I call proper tools for exploration.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was a completionist system scanner also (I only ever scanned uncharted systems) both under the old system and of course when I used the FSS. I mean why would you not completely scan a system with the FSS? It's so fast and easy, the largest system I scanned was 90 odd bodies and it took a whopping 10 minutes.

I got a couple of 100+ body systems completely scanned, 2 120+ systems. In the old method. Flying to each and every single body in that system.

But that's not true of course. #fake news. I just want instant reveal. And no uncertainty. Just listen to the people who know me and my motivators better than I do and don't waste any non-opportunities to tell me what kind of player I am

 

[Riverside]

You forgot the fourth option that explorers chose: they didn't explore at all.

You took issue with a straightforward expression that the ADS was almost universally popular. I could use different words & add a load of caveats, it doesn't change the basic point that when people had a choice between limited range and infinite range, infinite range was the choice the vast majority took.

Other options were available, people could do parallax discovery if they wanted to, most didn't.

In terms of numbers of players choosing to explore however many there are post-3.3 there would be more had the old stuff remained. Nobody would have explored until the 3.3 update, then stopped exploring because the old modules were not removed

 

[Darkfyre99]

Why did you quote me?

Because my answer to your question was the same as my reply to @Faded Glory. Namely that when gamers don’t like a game, or game mechanic, they don’t play it.

As I’ve said to @marx repeatedly, what I’m seeing from his exploration data isn’t a drop in exploration activity. Exploration activity hasn’t even remained constant, unless console activity represents the majority of exploration activity uploaded to EDSM, which I find unlikely.

What I’m seeing is is marked increase in exploration activity. That means that explorers who didn’t like the ADS, and quit exploring as a result, but at least tolerates the FSS, outnumbers those who don’t like the FSS, and have quit exploring as a result.