FSS Vs ADS

[Ydiss]

I get that this has probably been argued to death and I'm not really looking for that argument to be extended needlessly but I just need to understand what the fuss was about. If it was just "I don't like mini-games" then you can probably leave by the same door you came in by; that's just an opinion and I'm not interested in that (you're welcome to them, I'm just not interested in them).

The FSS was introduced while I wasn't playing. I remember reading about it because I kept in touch with the game over the three years I was away and I was excited to try it out on my return. In 2015, I went on a month-long exploration trip to the Galactic Centre and used the old ADS extensively, as we all did, and found the whole process of honk, system map to check for anything interesting, super-cruise, super-cruise, super-cruise endlessly to scan every body... Absolutely dull. Worse when the planet that sort of might have looked like a water-world or earth-like was actually just a blue-ish metal body. Yay. Not particularly fun. Very. Very. Very slow. Yes, I know... Earth like worlds played a mysteriously different sound when we clicked on them. Compelling stuff. But if you wanted to scan it... super-cruise. Sometimes for very, very long times.

I initially found the FSS a bit overwhelming but after maybe 10 minutes, I was quickly scanning systems. I found it pretty fun. Way better than the old method at doing the job. So I commented about it here somewhere in a thread I can no longer find and have no intention of necro-ing back up. I was informed that it split opinions (not surprising, really) but that it was... and I paraphrase here...

The FSS was faster at fully scanning a system but harder to find systems with elements of interest, like Earth Like or Water Worlds.

Now, I get that. That would be an objective reason to prefer the old way. I took that comment as gospel and carried on my merry way.

I'm on an expedition to visit the region of space I previously located and mapped. I wanted to see the field of black holes again and see if anyone else had come by and tagged anything (pleasantly surprised no one has). I used the neutron highway to get back here much faster and, on that journey, I noticed quite a lot of the systems that were tagged were not fully explored. That, I told myself, was the legacy of the ADS... Who would bother scanning a full system back then? Not very many of us.

Now I'm here, I'm taking my time and scanning systems. It's been really fun and I've actually learned more about the FSS as I've used it (I didn't watch lots of videos to get any clues or tips, just wanted to see how intuitive it was myself). And this is now why I am confused; above, I thought it made sense that some people might dislike the FSS because you can't go into the system map to look for the bodies that might be worth exploring. But...

The FSS literally tells you if those bodies exist in the system as soon as you look at it.

Not only does it do that, the signal arrow patterns help you to very quickly determine what bodies you're hovering near (if you learn what the patterns mean) before you even hover over them... With practice, you can skim scan an entire system and pinpoint the terraformable bodies to map for millions of credits in scanning data (and mapping is extremely fast once you understand it, you don't even need to fly round the other side or get very close at all, so no issue with gravity wells). If you're only interested in Earth like or water worlds?

The FSS literally tells you if those bodies exist in the system as soon as you look at it.

Jump in, honk, throttle down, press J. Two seconds later I am either gleefully searching for terraformable bodies I know exist (and even better, I know if they're water worlds or earth likes too) or I'm jumping back out because...

The FSS literally tells you if those bodies exist in the system as soon as you look at it.

Not just that, it tells you if there are geological or biological signals, which I'm guessing we'd need to use the system map after every scan if we were still using the ADS. The whole experience has been way more rewarding, efficient and engaging than the old ADS system. Way more fun. But that's subjective, right? I guess some people just love super-cruise.

But... Objectively...

Why was there so much fuss about the FSS Vs ADS? How could anyone find the FSS worse, harder or lacking objectively at finding bodies of interest when it literally tells you if those bodies exist in the system as soon as you look at it? And then gives you the tools to locate them extremely quickly, a matter of seconds.

Exploration is way more rewarding now (objectively!) and I have found the whole process night-and-day compared to my 2015 expedition. So am I missing something? Can someone enlighten me, please?

Objectively, why does anyone think the ADS was better?

 

[Factabulous]

OK, I changed my mind - can we do the CM4 thread again - they're less argumentative

 

[Zieman]

I thought it made sense that some people might dislike the FSS because you can't go into the system map to look for the bodies that might be worth exploring. But...

The FSS literally tells you if those bodies exist in the system as soon as you look at it.

No it doesnt. For example:
You need to scan all gas giants to see if there's a glowing green one.
You need to scan all metal rich worlds to se if there's a terraformable.
You need to scan all (other than gg moon) icy bodies to see if there's a really large landable.

 

[Ydiss]

No it doesnt. For example:
You need to scan all gas giants to see if there's a glowing green one.
You need to scan all metal rich worlds to se if there's a terraformable.
You need to scan all (other than gg moon) icy bodies to see if there's a really large landable.

I'll take glowing green gas giants, I take it you could see they were glowing green in the system map then? Did they even exist before the FSS though?

I didn't know you could see if a planet was terraformable in the system map after an ADS without a close-up scan? That's better, if so.

I'll take the last one... I guess? Not going to lose sleep over something so specific. Why is this important, can you explain?

If this is the exhaustive list then I'd still have to disagree that the FSS is objectively worse. I find terraformables and gas giants extremely quickly (finding metal rich and gas giants is fast using the signals) and, of the three things you mentioned, all I'm interested in is the terraformables. So I'm still prefering the balance of all the other reasons the FSS is faster over this list. But if this list is everything to someone then I suppose I can agree that the FSS sucks... For them?

 

[Ydiss]

OK, I changed my mind - can we do the CM4 thread again - they're less argumentative

Bit like saying a discussion about black and white being the same is argumentative but I take your point. Let's get the CM4 discussion going. I've no idea what it is. You mention it a lot so it must be fun.

 

[Zieman]

All of which is objectively faster using the FSS

Not true.
Gloving green gas giants (albeit extremely rare planet type) were much faster to find with ADS.

Is that it? Is that the reason there was divided opinion?

Of course not just that, don't be silly.
Many complained that finding interesting orbital configurations, like nested barycentric orbits, immensely more time consuming.

My main gripes were/are:

• immediate devaluation of discoveries made with the old system, the easy mode (= FSS) scans are treated exactly the same by the game as old style DSS scans
• the lack of choice, I'd rather have them both to use at leisure however you want

Alas, FSS + new style DSS is all what we have, but I didn't stop exploring because of the change. I just find the absoluteness of the change slightly saddening.

 

[Ydiss]

Yeh, fair enough. Can /thread it then. I've got my answers. I was worried I was missing something critical that was biting me in the backside but I wasn't missing very much.

Objectively, there are some pretty specific reasons it's not better, then. Subjectively, none of that matters enough to me so that's good. Thanks for your replies.

@Factabulous, hope that satisfies your requirements for the usage of the forums. Your contribution was valuable.

 

[Ydiss]

Actually, one more question. Don't the green gas giants show as a specific pattern on the scanner? There's a really wide range for gas giants. Are the green variety a specific type or just a sub group of a broad type?

 

[Zieman]

Objectively, there are some pretty specific reasons it's not better, then. Subjectively, none of that matters enough to me so that's good. Thanks for your replies.

Yes, you're correct, it is highly subjective.
The change could of been handled better, maybe even retaining player choice.
But as said so many times in those threads back then: FDEV have made up their mind, acted accordingly, and for players it boils down to adapting or quitting the activity.
Of course, people can complain, but that doesn't usually lead anywhere with FDEV.

 

[Zieman]

Actually, one more question. Don't the green gas giants show as a specific pattern on the scanner? There's a really wide range for gas giants. Are the green variety a specific type or just a sub group of a broad type?

IIRC they're special versions of normal gas giants, so they do not have a signature of their own in the FSS (unlike Helium Giant or Water Giant for example).

EDIT: yes, here's the relevant thread:

Glowing Green Giants - The Definitive List

Most gas giants, even those which are classified as "life-bearing", are not particularly rare - about one system in ten seems to have a life-bearing one, with either "water-based life" or "ammonia-based life". They're so common that Universal Cartographics do not pay any premium for them at all...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Ydiss]

IIRC they're special versions of normal gas giants, so they do not have a signature of their own in the FSS (unlike Helium Giant or Water Giant for example).

Thanks. I'd just read about them now and see that.

It'd be good if they did have a more unique signature.

 

[marx]

So I commented about it here somewhere in a thread I can no longer find and have no intention of necro-ing back up. I was informed that it split opinions (not surprising, really) but that it was... and I paraphrase here...

The FSS was faster at fully scanning a system but harder to find systems with elements of interest, like Earth Like or Water Worlds.

See, there's the problem. You were obviously misinformed, but didn't realise this at the time. If you had read further, from others who made their points better, you probably would have. Or you could have watched the Frontier video where the devs introduced the FSS, where they also talked about how cherry-picking for body types will be easier.

Let me summarise what changes the FSS brought then:
1. Getting body scan data, and full system body scans, is a lot faster. I think there have been very few complaints about this. A likely-unintended-by-the-devs side effect is that now to find more interesting stuff, it's just easier to barrel through the mini-game and then run Elite Observatory to see if there was something worthwhile there.

2. Quite a lot of information we used to have at a glance is now hidden behind completing the mini-game. Body visuals (remember GGGs?), distance to arrival, orbital hierarchies, and so on. Another way of looking at it: to determine whether a system would be worth exploring, first you have to fully explore it. (Or technically, do the vast majority of it, since after you get through the mini-game, the only information left covered will be the exact locations of surface POIs.)

3. Cherry-picking for body types is much easier. The FSS was designed with this in mind, but not really for those elusive Codex finds, but simply to aid with getting credits.
However, despite full system scans being much faster than before, if you look at the data we do have, you'll find that people don't scan the majority of systems they discover.

4. Getting many more tags. Again, the FSS was designed with this goal as well, and the developers even emphasised that they'll make it easier for new players to get their tags on existing stuff with the "First mapped by" tag. (And hey, don't forget that we're going to get new tags with Odyssey again!)

5. Stars are auto-scanned, giving you info and tags by holding down a button. Personally, I very much like this, because having detailed star information for systems helps data analysis. As a comparison, on EDSM, about 20% of systems with ELWs before didn't even have the arrival star scanned!
Of course, if we still had to scan stars, the FSS barcode would most likely had to have been much wider than it is.

6. You can get to exploration Elite about ten times faster. This is the consequence of the developers adjusting data sale values up, but leaving the exploration rank requirements the same as before. (This was brought to their attention several times though, so either they ignored suggestions and bug reports, or this was a deliberate decision.) On EDSM, Elite has changed from a relatively rare rank to being the second most common exploration rank, with Aimless being the first.

If you talk with players, you'll likely find that quite many stop with their exploration careers once they reach Elite. (Polls could be much more accurate than this though, but they are banned from the forums.) It might even be likely that the developers speeded up rank progression because they saw that this will be the time where most players would drop off from exploration in the new system. This way, they can feel that they've done most of it, since they reached exploration Elite.


In any case, it has nearly been two years since the FSS was introduced. By now, plenty of players who dislike it have little to no experience, or even no knowledge, of how things used to be before. There's no comparison, it succeeds or fails on its own now.
So, how's its reception? This is just my personal experience, but the trend seems to be that even players who liked the FSS at first grow to be tired of it as they explore more, and once its novelty wears off, they end up viewing it as a grindy mini-game that they have to slog through to get the data they want. Or they'll start cherry-picking, as is the most common usage. Picking out gas giants in addition to the "classic" ELW/WW(/AW) combo seems to be moderately popular, too.
Oh, and the same goes for the DSS, but since it's much more repetitive and less varied, players reach the "this is a boring grind" phase much quicker than they do with the FSS.

If you look at the FSS's interface and mechanics with a critical eye, you'll find that it has plenty of room for improvement. (Of course, you could also set your standards low and say that it doesn't.) I think a lot of people would have been more happy if we got new gameplay mechanics back then, instead of being forced to use new tools to find the same old stuff. But well, using the ADS wasn't gameplay, the FSS mini-game could be much better (for example, a while ago, in an FSS improvement thread, I made a list of low-effort changes which could improve it considerably), so if Frontier will revisit exploration, it should go the way of Engineering 1.0.
At the end of the day, Frontier could do better than either the ADS or the FSS.

 

[Ydiss]

See, there's the problem. You were obviously misinformed, but didn't realise this at the time. If you had read further, from others who made their points better, you probably would have. Or you could have watched the Frontier video where the devs introduced the FSS, where they also talked about how cherry-picking for body types will be easier.

Let me summarise what changes the FSS brought then:
1. Getting body scan data, and full system body scans, is a lot faster. I think there have been very few complaints about this. A likely-unintended-by-the-devs side effect is that now to find more interesting stuff, it's just easier to barrel through the mini-game and then run Elite Observatory to see if there was something worthwhile there.

2. Quite a lot of information we used to have at a glance is now hidden behind completing the mini-game. Body visuals (remember GGGs?), distance to arrival, orbital hierarchies, and so on. Another way of looking at it: to determine whether a system would be worth exploring, first you have to fully explore it. (Or technically, do the vast majority of it, since after you get through the mini-game, the only information left covered will be the exact locations of surface POIs.)

3. Cherry-picking for body types is much easier. The FSS was designed with this in mind, but not really for those elusive Codex finds, but simply to aid with getting credits.
However, despite full system scans being much faster than before, if you look at the data we do have, you'll find that people don't scan the majority of systems they discover.

4. Getting many more tags. Again, the FSS was designed with this goal as well, and the developers even emphasised that they'll make it easier for new players to get their tags on existing stuff with the "First mapped by" tag. (And hey, don't forget that we're going to get new tags with Odyssey again!)

5. Stars are auto-scanned, giving you info and tags by holding down a button. Personally, I very much like this, because having detailed star information for systems helps data analysis. As a comparison, on EDSM, about 20% of systems with ELWs before didn't even have the arrival star scanned!
Of course, if we still had to scan stars, the FSS barcode would most likely had to have been much wider than it is.

6. You can get to exploration Elite about ten times faster. This is the consequence of the developers adjusting data sale values up, but leaving the exploration rank requirements the same as before. On EDSM, Elite has changed from a relatively rare rank to being the second most common exploration rank, with Aimless being the first.

If you talk with players, you'll likely find that quite many stop with their exploration careers once they reach Elite. (Polls could be much more accurate than this though, but they are banned from the forums.) It might even be likely that the developers speeded up rank progression because they saw that this will be the time where most players would drop off from exploration in the new system. This way, they can feel that they've done most of it, since they reached exploration Elite.


In any case, it has nearly been two years since the FSS was introduced. By now, plenty of players who dislike it have little to no experience, or even no knowledge, of how things used to be before. There's no comparison, it succeeds or fails on its own now.
So, how's its reception? This is just my personal experience, but the trend seems to be that even players who liked the FSS at first grow to be tired of it as they explore more, and once its novelty wears off, they end up viewing it as a grindy mini-game that they have to slog through to get the data they want. Or they'll start cherry-picking, as is the most common usage. Picking out gas giants in addition to the "classic" ELW/WW(/AW) combo seems to be moderately popular, too.
Oh, and the same goes for the DSS, but since it's much more repetitive and less varied, players reach the "this is a boring grind" phase much quicker than they do with the FSS.

If you look at the FSS's interface and mechanics with a critical eye, you'll find that it has plenty of room for improvement. (Of course, you could also set your standards low and say that it doesn't.) I think a lot of people would have been more happy if we got new gameplay mechanics back then, instead of being forced to use new tools to find the same old stuff. But well, using the ADS wasn't gameplay, the FSS mini-game could be much better (for example, a while ago, in an FSS improvement thread, I made a list of low-effort changes[/i] which could improve it considerably), so if Frontier will revisit exploration, it should go the way of Engineering 1.0.
At the end of the day, Frontier could do better than either the ADS or the FSS.

Really informative, thank you.

I'd add that from my perspective, there's a lot more stuff to find than before. But that perspective isn't common because it's pre Horizons exploration.

Nonetheless, fdev have introduced tons of things to do.

 

[Redfox]

As usual, not much to add to Marx's recap of this antiquated topic. Personally, what I miss most, is a) having to bring that little bit of knowledge/experience to the table in order to visually or accoustically determine e.g. if that 30min supercruise out there is worth it and b) to be able to discern interesting constellations/structures without having to scan the whole system.

But then again, the ADS was never suppored to have infinite range and thus always reveal all bodies in a system, so we did get too much to begin with, and going back from there was bound to be unpleasant. Then again, the community has thrown up so many ideas for this that it is hard to argue that the current FSS was even among the good options.

 

[Northpin]

FSS is objectively way better, no matter how you look at it.
For so many reasons that it's simply not worth mentioning

Some people will subjectively disagree tho.
That's understandably too.

Pretty much the way i think that the old Dolphin was much better than the current fire proof one.
But most people think it's way cooler (pun intended) to charge fsd while scooping and see the heat level staying under 60%

 

[Zieman]

FSS is objectively way better, no matter how you look at it.

That is your subjective opinion.

 

[Para Handy]

That is your subjective opinion.

 

[Northpin]

That is your subjective opinion.

Nope, it's FDev Objective Opinion and i adhere to it
Any other opinion on this matter is purely subjective

 

[Gut Rumble]

The FSS is for people who just want money easy , DSS was for Explorers ,
The FSS doesn't show me if there are any high mountains to climb , or an ice planet with a deep ravine to fly through . unless you scan all bodies and THEN look at system map.
The FSS makes the naming of the main star pointless as no one looks at it now
The FSS has no sense of achievement for scanning a whole system just by sitting there and playing the blue blob game.
.
I prefer the old system , it may have been slower.....But it had a soul.

 

[Northpin]

The FSS is for people who just want money easy , DSS was for Explorers ,

I feel more like an explorer analyzing the FSS data than taking wild guesses looking at the ADS system map and then flying to each body in the system.
Also Orrery anyone? That came with FSS too and its much more an explorer's tool than a fly-by at 30ls from a planet can ever be.

The FSS doesn't show me if there are any high mountains to climb , or an ice planet with a deep ravine to fly through . unless you scan all bodies and THEN look at system map.

yes, but with fss you can scan the system and decide if it's worth to fly 200,000 ls to that body and check it out closely.
Also Planetary POI's anyone? So much better than eyeballing the terrain.

All-in-All the entire FSS minigame feels much more like exploring and analyzing the data than the devoid of any meaning ADS' honk and flyby


I do have one beef regarding FSS... on PC i can adjust mouse sensitivity and if i'm in a hurry i can go really fast through the FSS-minigame
On XB - there is no such thing as sensitivity. And the process of scanning the system is much-much slower than on PC (still it is waaaaaaaay faster to fully scan a system than ADS flyby)