If I wanted a 'radio-tuning' game I would have rather bought an old radio.

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I prefer this version of the fss i just wish the planets would appear on the system map when you honk

That is precisely what this thread (and all the others that were locked) is all about. When people say they want the ADS back, it's because they want the planets to show on the system map when you honk. They don't want to take the FSS away from the ones who like it.
 
Last edited:
I stopped caring about getting my name on things around the time I stopped caring about credits. Flying to a body I already know everything about, including what type of POIs it has, doesn't meet my criteria for exploration. In addition, the infinite probe aspect of the DSS, coupled with being provided the exact location of whichever of the half dozen identical anomalies are present, renders it another exercise in box-ticking, rather than exploration.

I can 100% confirm planetary POI’s are not identical. I had suspicions at first when attempting to confirm a nitrogen ice geyser, but kept finding Fumaroles, until I tried “one more time”, and lo, there was that N ice geyser, right there, on the same planet, just at site #11, where 1-10 had only fumaroles.
 
It's still considered exploration, because before you enter the system, no one knows about anything in there. Then you honk and discover how many gravitational sources there are, then you open the FSS and zoom into those gravitational sources and discover the planets.
Now you want global maps of those planets, so you fly to them and lob some probes at them to create a map. The fact that probes are in infinite supply can be explained by having a replicator creating them.

You can consider it exploration if you like. I don't. Hence why I'd like the old system as an option.

Regardless of what head-canon you use to justify infinite probes, the resultant gameplay becomes meaningless spamming of probes - which FDev attempted unsuccessfully to mitigate using the nonsensical 'efficiency bonus'. If you have infinite resources efficiency is meaningless.
 
That is precisely what this thread (and all the others that were locked) is all about. When people say they want the ADS back, it's because they want the planets to show on the system map when you honk. They don't want to take the FSS away from the ones who like it.

That would be a good solution, it would also help finding whether there are interesting things like 25000km radius landables without being forced to leave your name on everything first.
 
Thats it. If the system map is populated as before then the FSS becomes a choice to either fly or zoom. What could possibly be so bad about that? A choice. In a game. Thats meant to be fun and was advertised on player choice.
 
Last edited:
The claim that FDev posted in the forum is wrong.
Feel free to prove otherwise - and you'll have my sincere apologies.

Ask Riverside, he knows exactly what the quote is. He can then also tell you why FD is wrong about their own statement, so we dont have to waste our time with the same circular arguments that have been posted for hundreds of pages.
 
That would be a good solution, it would also help finding whether there are interesting things like 25000km radius landables without being forced to leave your name on everything first.

That's what we have suggested many times, to have the ADS back as the same old optionally installable module which only reveals planet locations on the system map.
 
I have no idea why you even play these games. Seriously. Do you think bumping the thread helps you? Is that the goal?

It just gives me something to do while I wait for FDev to reinstate the ADS.

duty_calls.png
 
It just gives me something to do while I wait for FDev to reinstate the ADS.

It was actually a serious question. Why do you insist on pretending FD didnt respond? Do you think FD will forget themselves, forget what made them post, and just do what you want on a whim? Or are you hoping to convince any 'neutral bystanders' who somehow stumble into this topic, will assume you are right and then start chanting along with you? I am trying to understand the reasoning here, because from my perspective 'being disingenious' isn't a really good strategy. FD knows what they responded. They may or may not change their mind, but 'being honest' might help you with the sympathy vote and all that.
 
Ask Riverside, he knows exactly what the quote is. He can then also tell you why FD is wrong about their own statement, so we dont have to waste our time with the same circular arguments that have been posted for hundreds of pages.

If I knew exactly what quote you were referring to I would post a link myself. I believe you are either interpreting something ambiguous differently from me, or are referring to out of date information from before the beta. Asking for a citation is reasonable, and your lack of one suggests it is far from an iron clad refutation.
 
There seems to be a genuine but mistaken belief that thread postcount forces FDEV to respond.

I agree with that. I'm having to regularly restate significant points because many contributors (quite understandably) are simply not reading the whole thread. I've also started several other threads in the suggestions section for topics related to this thread but many contributors seem unable to grasp the scope of this one (some like the new stuff, some don't, and various proposals to deal with this are coming up).
 
Last edited:
If I knew exactly what quote you were referring to I would post a link myself. I believe you are either interpreting something ambiguous differently from me, or are referring to out of date information from before the beta. Asking for a citation is reasonable, and your lack of one suggests it is far from an iron clad refutation.

Lol, it isn't 'out of date'. They explicitly said: we know some dont like it, we'll do it anyway." You disagree? Fine. Just say:"FD came to the forum, told us no, and I disagree with that." Your "But I feel their opinion is no longer correct!" is just you disagreeing with FD. Cool, noted.

Then we'll explain everyone and their dog has stuff they disagree with, and that is no reason to spam the forums every single day about this one issue. Most of us are polite enough to not consider ourselves so important that we need to spam out singular issue hour after hour, day after day, week after week and month after month.
 
Last edited:
Lol, it isn't 'out of date'. They explicitly said: we know some dont like it, we'll do it anyway." You disagree? Fine. Just say:"FD came to the forum, told us no, and I disagree with that." Your "But I feel their opinion is no longer correct!" is just you disagreeing with FD. Cool, noted.

Then we'll explain everyone and their dog has stuff they disagree with, and that is no reason to spam the forums every single day about this one issue. Most of us are polite enough to not consider ourselves so important that we need to spam out singular issue hour after hour, day after day, week after week and month after month.

Can you just post a link please, or a timestamp in a livestream or something. You are making this a much bigger deal than it needs to be.
 
and that is no reason to spam the forums every single day about this one issue. Most of us are polite enough to not consider ourselves so important that we need to spam out singular issue hour after hour, day after day, week after week and month after month.

This thread bothers you doesnt it? You know what? Nobody cares. Its not for you or aimed at you. We are entitled to discuss whatever we like so long as we remain within the rules and we are entitled to ask FD to hear our pleas. If you dont like it, dont post in here, if you think its spam dont post in here you just make it worse. You would like to get it closed wouldnt you?

6h1ACsC.jpg
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom