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

[Old Duck]

Still, it's a reasonable question, don't you think?

It may be a reasonable question for somebody else, but never have I made the arguments you are questioning. Go ask whoever it is who doesn't like flying to planets, because that ain't me.

Now if you want to know why I'm visiting more moons now that before, it's because POIs interest me. Flying to a moon just to DSS scan it is boring IMO.

 

[Eliza]

It's early, not enough coffee. My bad.

Still, it's a reasonable question, don't you think?

Much of the criticism of the ADS has revolved around it being boring to fly to bodies to scan them, and that the FSS is much better because it removes this requirement.
However, it's still necessary to fly to bodies in order to probe them - so why is flying around the system suddenly okay again?

You get moar money...and you can golf...whooohooo... /s

P.S.: to be clear...once again...(I have the odd feeling here are several forumites wich likes to misinterprete postings)... I like golfing around.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

LOL! At the end of the day we are all still just moving the cursor around and clicking buttons.

Indeed! Just now we spend less time per system doing it!

 

[Leper Messiah]

I don't need the ADS to go to the moon. I've visited more moons since the ADS was replaced with the FSS. In fact, the old ADS / DSS allowed you to scan moons from a further distance than our moon is from the earth, so sorry, but your analogy is rubbish

Sigh, the FSS allows you to get the info you got from the old DSS without having to Scruise there does it not? You choose to go to the moons for extra. Some people liked flying up to the moon in the first place, which the FSS has made obsolete in the bubble and impossible in undiscovered systems.

How do you work that one out. it's more like:

ADS = Don't really need to do anything to discover planets and is done with a five second press of a button (zero gameplay).
FSS = Need to actively use the scanners to discover planets (gameplay).

That is basically the difference, with some minor changes on the information gathered by each.

Because the FSS does what the DSS did.....why is this SO hard to understand!!

 

[Jenner]

Is there anything to be said for forcing players to do the frame shift drive calculations manually prior to a jump?

We need an in-game calculator app!

Joking aside, I do kind of wish that jumping involved more risk and/or skill than it does now. The DSS had suggestions along these lines and I wish some of that had come to pass. Heading out into uncharted territory should be inherently risky and prone to error.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

It's early, not enough coffee. My bad.

Still, it's a reasonable question, don't you think?

Much of the criticism of the ADS has revolved around it being boring to fly to bodies to scan them, and that the FSS is much better because it removes this requirement.
However, it's still necessary to fly to bodies in order to probe them - so why is flying around the system suddenly okay again?

The difference is that when I fly to a planet in the new system I know I will likely find something of interest on that planet which I can land on. For Earthlike and water worlds it is no different to before, you scan them for credits or tage or both. There is no real good reason to fly to a water world or any basic atmospheric planet except for credits, tags and if you are lucky the odd photo opportunity.

In the old system it was either scan an Earthlike or WW for credits and tags or fly to a landable planet in the hope that it will have something on it to find. There was no guarantee. You could have been flying for over an hour for no good reason as the ADS did not give you enough information.

That is the problem with the old system. I gave up flying to non-atmospheric planets as there was no way in knowing whether it was volcanic or not or had anything worth exploring on there.

I do find the the FSS makes it a bit too obvious with regards to POIs, some stuff should be left to the probes.

 

[Riverside]

We need an in-game calculator app!

Joking aside, I do kind of wish that jumping involved more risk and/or skill than it does now. The DSS had suggestions along these lines and I wish some of that had come to pass. Heading out into uncharted territory should be inherently risky and prone to error.

DDF? Too many TLAs

Manually plotting a jump to bypass a locked region would be good gameplay (bit like one-off neutron jumps are) but I wouldn't want it to be the norm.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Sigh, the FSS allows you to get the info you got from the old DSS without having to Scruise there does it not? You choose to go to the moons for extra. Some people liked flying up to the moon in the first place, which the FSS has made obsolete in the bubble and impossible in undiscovered systems.



Because the FSS does what the DSS did.....why is this SO hard to understand!!

But the old DSS does not do what the probes do. Whats the issue? Just think if atmospheric planets are the next big expansion (which I suspect it is) with loads of different POIs per planet with loads to explore on virtually every planet (minus earthlikes and water worlds and other planets with complex life on them which I think will come later). You still need to fly to those planets, probe them and then fly down to explore the planet if you so wish.

 

[CMDR Beltane]

It's early, not enough coffee. My bad.

Still, it's a reasonable question, don't you think?

Much of the criticism of the ADS has revolved around it being boring to fly to bodies to scan them, and that the FSS is much better because it removes this requirement.
However, it's still necessary to fly to bodies in order to probe them - so why is flying around the system suddenly okay again?

That i tried to explain when we discussed this earlier this morning...at least it was over here. With the FSS, mapping is just the cherry on top of the ice. But its optional, and not a requirement. The most important things i already get at step 2. Vital data about planets (not even talking about ELW or WW, but in general) and a neat picture of it. And of course, no need to hide it behind a bush, i get the first discovery (in case it was unexplored obviously). But the mapping afterwards, is purely my own choice. Do i want to fly 300.000ls to map the WW? At times i may, at times i might prefer to continue onwoard.

 

[Old Duck]

Sigh, the FSS allows you to get the info you got from the old DSS without having to Scruise there does it not?

The old DSS allows you to scan a moon at a greater distance than our moon is from the earth, does it not? So saying the ADS is the same as the Apollo missions to our moon just doesn't cut it. Now saying that mapping a moon using the new tools is like the Apollo missions, that I can agree with.

BTW, if you REALLY want to be like the Apollo missions - no supercruise, fly to that moon in normal space!

ps - we had to study the moon with telescopes before sending men there

Here's your original quote so people can see what I'm arguing against:

FSS = scientist looking at the moon via a telescope
ADS = Apollo missions TO the moon.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

The difference is that when I fly to a planet in the new system I know I will likely find something of interest on that planet which I can land on. For Earthlike and water worlds it is no different to before, you scan them for credits or tage or both. There is no real good reason to fly to a water world or any basic atmospheric planet except for credits, tags and if you are lucky the odd photo opportunity.

In the old system it was either scan an Earthlike or WW for credits and tags or fly to a landable planet in the hope that it will have something on it to find. There was no guarantee. You could have been flying for over an hour for no good reason as the ADS did not give you enough information.

That is the problem with the old system. I gave up flying to non-atmospheric planets as there was no way in knowing whether it was volcanic or not or had anything worth exploring on there.

I do find the the FSS makes it a bit too obvious with regards to POIs, some stuff should be left to the probes.

I'm a little confused:
You're happy to fly long distances when there are guaranteed results? But also you wish you didn't get guaranteed results until you probe?
What level of detail would you like from the FSS that makes it worth flying to a distant body?
(This is not intended as a criticism or 'true explorer' snobbery - just trying to understand)

 

[Old Duck]

I'm a little confused:
You're happy to fly long distances when there are guaranteed results? But also you wish you didn't get guaranteed results until you probe?
What level of detail would you like from the FSS that makes it worth flying to a distant body?
(This is not intended as a criticism or 'true explorer' snobbery - just trying to understand)

Forgive me, but why are you suddenly so obsessed with people's preference to fly or not fly to planets? You're going off script. The debate you want to win is bringing back the ADS, is it not?

 

[Riverside]

The old DSS allows you to scan a moon at a greater distance than our moon is from the earth, does it not? So saying the ADS is the same as the Apollo missions to our moon just doesn't cut it. Now saying that mapping a moon using the new tools is like the Apollo missions, that I can agree with.

BTW, if you REALLY want to be like the Apollo missions - no supercruise, fly to that moon in normal space!

ps - we had to study the moon with telescopes before sending men there

Here's your original quote so people can see what I'm arguing against:

I have flown between planets in normal space, just to see if it could be done. It took several hours, mostly fa-off with thrusters disabled to conserve fuel.

I landed no problem on the second body, deployed my srv & the game crashed after a minute or so of driving around.

Not sure fun is the word I'd use but it was a challenge and a box ticked

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I'm a little confused:
You're happy to fly long distances when there are guaranteed results? But also you wish you didn't get guaranteed results until you probe?
What level of detail would you like from the FSS that makes it worth flying to a distant body?
(This is not intended as a criticism or 'true explorer' snobbery - just trying to understand)

That is not what I said. Currently the FSS tells you how many POI are on the planet, just not where they are.

I would prefer the number of POI to be given with the probes. I would also like material percentages given to us by the probes.

The FSS should just tells us what it has detected, geological activity, biological signatures etc, the probes then should give us more information on what it has detected, numbers of POI and I would prefer search areas intsead of pinpoint cooridnates, percentage of material make up and so on.

 

[Leper Messiah]

I don't need the ADS to go to the moon. I've visited more moons since the ADS was replaced with the FSS. In fact, the old ADS / DSS allowed you to scan moons from a further distance than our moon is from the earth, so sorry, but your analogy is rubbish

The old DSS allows you to scan a moon at a greater distance than our moon is from the earth, does it not? So saying the ADS is the same as the Apollo missions to our moon just doesn't cut it. Now saying that mapping a moon using the new tools is like the Apollo missions, that I can agree with.

BTW, if you REALLY want to be like the Apollo missions - no supercruise, fly to that moon in normal space!

ps - we had to study the moon with telescopes before sending men there

Here's your original quote so people can see what I'm arguing against:

Yes, but with the old ADS system to get the extra info we now get via the FSS sat on our butts in the warm glow of the nearest sun, we had to SC up and close to the moon to get the DSS to kick in and scan it. THAT is the crux of my analogy. Many of the anti FSS people WANT to fly up to the moon Apollo stylee. I say let them, it makes no difference to me whatsoever and puts them at a disadvantage for money making which most of them care little about anyways......that's their choice....or it would have been if FD hadn't arbtrarily got rid of the ADS because they clearly thought it was all about the monies!


edit, also don't forget, what if humans had the capability of getting to the moon at the same time as being able to look at it via a telescope? Many would be happy using the telescope, but many would have wanted to go there up close and personal. The gameworld we play in should have the choice humans did not have in the past.

 

[askavir]

... but the FSS is not a problem - it works great, really quick and to me has only one issue - the need to slow down to get that first look at the frequency display.

So no, people throwing toys out of prams because they don't like change is not at all equatable with "beigification".

The beigening wasn't initially a "problem" either, it was an intended "feature", that's why it took so long to be acknowledged, it only became a "problem" because many people didn't like it.

Another thing in common with the beigification, is the fact that back then while many people were complaining and pointing at the issue, there were also a bunch of people obsessively trying to ridicule the complaints. Fortunately for us, we broke wind in the general direction of the people trying to ridicule the complaints and now the beigening is no more. Not saying the ADS will definitively be brought back, but if people shut up about it then it won't be for sure.

The FSS isn't per se a "problem", it's just many people don't like it and enjoyed the game much more without it, anyone who still thinks at this point is just "a few people" that don't like it are completely delusional. It may not be the majority (or can be, nobody knows except a few forum nostradamus), but it is obviously a significant number of people. And nobody is asking for a different game to be implemented instead, not even the FSS to be changed at all, just something that was already there for four years to be brought back.

 

[Ian Skippy]

The beigening wasn't initially a "problem" either, it was an intended "feature", that's why it took so long to be acknowledged, it only became a "problem" because many people didn't like it.

Another thing in common with the beigification, is the fact that back then while many people were complaining and pointing at the issue, there were also a bunch of people obsessively trying to ridicule the complaints. Fortunately for us, we broke wind in the general direction of the people trying to ridicule the complaints and now the beigening is no more. Not saying the ADS will definitively be brought back, but if people shut up about it then it won't be for sure.

The FSS isn't per se a "problem", it's just many people don't like it and enjoyed the game much more without it, anyone who still thinks at this point is just "a few people" that don't like it are completely delusional. It may not be the majority (or can be, nobody knows except a few forum nostradamus), but it is obviously a significant number of people. And nobody is asking for a different game to be implemented instead, not even the FSS to be changed at all, just something that was already there for four years to be brought back.

That is factually false, FD even explained how the beige bug came to be. And LOL at your "who knows if we are a majority?".

 

[askavir]

As far as I can see, there's only a few very loud people in this forum who want back the ADS and God Honk system.Go through all these endless threads and count the number of those people, you'll see there are indeed very few.

The same can be said about the people who openly like the FSS. They're always the same people, and quite frankly they don't seem to be more than the ones who dislike it. So the point is moot.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

The beigening wasn't initially a "problem" either, it was an intended "feature", that's why it took so long to be acknowledged, it only became a "problem" because many people didn't like it.

No it wasn't an intended feature. It was an uninteneded consquence.

Another thing in common with the beigification, is the fact that back then while many people were complaining and pointing at the issue, there were also a bunch of people obsessively trying to ridicule the complaints. Fortunately for us, we broke wind in the general direction of the people trying to ridicule the complaints and now the beigening is no more. Not saying the ADS will definitively be brought back, but if people shut up about it then it won't be for sure.

Really. I think there may have been one or two.

The FSS isn't per se a "problem", it's just many people don't like it and enjoyed the game much more without it, anyone who still thinks at this point is just "a few people" that don't like it are completely delusional. It may not be the majority (or can be, nobody knows except a few forum nostradamus), but it is obviously a significant number of people. And nobody is asking for a different game to be implemented instead, not even the FSS to be changed at all, just something that was already there for four years to be brought back.

A very small percentage so far are complaining. There maybe more that don't like it, but as they don't post I can only go by what is on the forums, reddit, facebook etc, and it is a tiny amount of people. I assume the rest of the 200,000 odd players are busy playing the game. Im sure if they thought it was awful as these few people say it is then they would all stop playing. Doesn't look like that is happening though.

 

[askavir]

That is factually false, FD even explained how the beige bug came to be. And LOL at your "who knows if we are a majority?".

Sure, it was just a illusive bug that went unnoticed for 6 months... It's not like planets were a common sight, it was hard to notice it.

As for minorities/majorities, by all means show me your numbers, oh Great Nostradamus! The only numbers on this matter who have been claimed, were pulled from rears.