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

[M00ka]

Rather than a pretty picture like that (will be problematic with complex systems anyway), how about just showing the FSS frequency vs signal strength distribution instead? Then we just have a simple wriggle graph to look at. One should that way learn pretty quickly if there is anything exiting in the system without having to enter the FSS mode.

S

Why is entering the FSS screen so bad yet bringing up the System Map is okay - both screen take you out of the cockpit and would take roughly the same amount of time (personally I think the FSS screen is quicker to bring up and exit than the System map, but that just could be how I binded my keys)

 

[Kaltern]

Why?

Why not?

After all, the loudest voices here arguing FOR the use of the old ways just want to see the layout of the system. So why should they receive information that is, after all, not really much use to them if all they want to see is the overall 'look' of a system?

I'm not going to very impressed if people can simply scan and see everything, when the whole POINT of the new system was to make people WORK for the information. I don't give a rats tail if 'YOU' (as in, everyone who doesn't like the new system) want to use the old system to speed things along, and just get the info 'you' want - the new system gives EVERYONE EXACLTY what info THEY want, depending on what it is - it just takes longer in SOME cases. (and not for others - which has been argued extensively.

 

[Kaltern]

Rather than a pretty picture like that (will be problematic with complex systems anyway), how about just showing the FSS frequency vs signal strength distribution instead? Then we just have a simple wriggle graph to look at. One should that way learn pretty quickly if there is anything exiting in the system without having to enter the FSS mode.

S

I was being... what's the word... Nice. I mean, the argument I seem to be seeing FOR the Old Ways is they want to SEE the layout of the system, to decide if it's something THEY want to look at and explore (any other reason is completely moot). So as long as there is absolutely NO DATA on anything OTHER than what the basic layout looks like, and the possible types of planet (remember, some planets look quite similar to others), I don't mind. Of course, that info is available in the System Map as-is - the info panel will be completely empty (Not Enough Scan Data - Use FSS).

 

[Sysmon]

Why is entering the FSS screen so bad yet bringing up the System Map is okay - both screen take you out of the cockpit and would take roughly the same amount of time (personally I think the FSS screen is quicker to bring up and exit than the System map, but that just could be how I binded my keys)

Oh I agree. I frankly don't understand why people are so upset about the FSS view either. I find it less intrusive compared to the System Map, and I can actually do stuff with it.

But if we did have to have more exploration data creep into the cockpit view, I'd prefer for it to be as little and as simple as possible. You know, compromises!

S

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I was being... what's the word... Nice. I mean, the argument I seem to be seeing FOR the Old Ways is they want to SEE the layout of the system, to decide if it's something THEY want to look at and explore (any other reason is completely moot). So as long as there is absolutely NO DATA on anything OTHER than what the basic layout looks like, and the possible types of planet (remember, some planets look quite similar to others), I don't mind. Of course, that info is available in the System Map as-is - the info panel will be completely empty (Not Enough Scan Data - Use FSS).

As an optional module, that you don't need to fit, why are you so concerned about its functionality being limited?

 

[Kaltern]

Oh I agree. I frankly don't understand why people are so upset about the FSS view either. I find it less intrusive compared to the System Map, and I can actually do stuff with it.

But if we did have to have more exploration data creep into the cockpit view, I'd prefer for it to be as little and as simple as possible. You know, compromises!

S

The issue, is some people don't want to compromise.

The arguments I've seen so far are basically:

* They want to see the layout of the system to decide if they wish to explore further (Vista-seekers etc)
* It takes too long to decide if the system is worth scanning (money makers, speed-scanners)
* It's pointlessly complicated to achieve the same ends as the original scan (speed-scanners, unwilling to accept change)
* Those who wish to 'explore the old way' - no instant resolving of body positions and orbits (l33t explor3rs)
* People who feel they should be given a choice to play it their way (LEP owners, arch-conservatives*)

None of these arguments are really very compelling. These are almost always PERSONAL opinions, and certainly do not represent the vast majority of those who like the new system. These people will have you believe that we can't 'prove' this - how do we know there are many more who like it than don't - but I would suggest Frontier would likely be seeing a LOT more negative feedback from a LOT more players - and so far I'm seeing nothing to suggest this.

The idea of the completely basic system map is to appease those who fall into the first category in my list.

* I am joking of course.

 

[Kaltern]

As an optional module, that you don't need to fit, why are you so concerned about its functionality being limited?

Because:

* I do not want to have to do MORE work to gain the same information YOU can get by pressing one button. That is the specific reason the FSS was introduced - to make the scanning process a task (which yields MORE information) than just pressing one button, shrugging, and moving on.

* Being an optional module suggests it is designed to add extra functionality that the FSS doesn't give. NOT to override it. The extra functionality is basic mapping of a system. The module should not be capable of doing anything more than the built-in FSS. Think of the optional module as a visualiser for the waveform.

 

[Riverside]

Why is entering the FSS screen so bad yet bringing up the System Map is okay - both screen take you out of the cockpit and would take roughly the same amount of time (personally I think the FSS screen is quicker to bring up and exit than the System map, but that just could be how I binded my keys)

To enter the FSS Scanner Screen the player must be at zero throttle in Supercruise. The sysmap & galmap can be accessed at any time. If I'm parked next to some POI & want to find that moon with the Life POI on it (info available in the FSS but not the sysmap as an example) I can't just go look it up.

I use the sysmap to compare things. I can look at any single body's stats in the FSS Scanner Screen but not compare them so easily. Stuff like this will probably improve with feedback.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Many arguments against the 'Old' and for the 'New' are using the same old ammunition about the GodHonk!, the fact is most Explorers agree that the old GodHonk was 'SILLY' and dragging it up is just a playground mentality, but that said, many forget that if the Honk has discovered gravitational forces then it MUST know where they are!
The Orrere map could be put to good use for first impressions of the bodies orbits, with their actual masses and types reserved for a up-close scan, there really is no need for matching blobs with squiggly lines in a fuzzy 2D minigame.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Why does this small waste of time validate the experience for you? The having to fly out was a test. If you didnt fly out you didnt get the tag. Its almost a life lesson.

Possibly for the same reason that, no matter how many times I read this I simply cannot make sense of what you're trying to ask/say?

 

[M00ka]

To enter the FSS Scanner Screen the player must be at zero throttle in Supercruise. The sysmap & galmap can be accessed at any time. If I'm parked next to some POI & want to find that moon with the Life POI on it (info available in the FSS but not the sysmap as an example) I can't just go look it up.

I use the sysmap to compare things. I can look at any single body's stats in the FSS Scanner Screen but not compare them so easily. Stuff like this will probably improve with feedback.

Wow, you must have some convoluted throttle system. All I do is throw the throttle to zero, takes less than a second (and I could still be travelling at 100's of C) and press the button I have mapped for the FSS. Maybe you are confusing 'zero throttle' with 'zero speed'?

 

[Kaltern]

Many arguments against the 'Old' and for the 'New' are using the same old ammunition about the GodHonk!, the fact is most Explorers agree that the old GodHonk was 'SILLY' and dragging it up is just a playground mentality, but that said, many forget that if the Honk has discovered gravitational forces then it MUST know where they are!
The Orrere map could be put to good use for first impressions of the bodies orbits, with their actual masses and types reserved for a up-close scan, there really is no need for matching blobs with squiggly lines in a fuzzy 2D minigame.

While technically you're probably right, the orrery is simply not really fir-for-purpose just now; it's a little too cumbersome to use and would take FAR too long to use to select a body to scan.

I'm not actually against this idea.. but right now it's just not workable, and the waveform scan works just fine - I can read the wave in literally a split second and know exactly what' going to be out there - and a few more seconds will tell me how pretty they're likely to be too...

 

[Riverside]

Why not?

After all, the loudest voices here arguing FOR the use of the old ways just want to see the layout of the system. So why should they receive information that is, after all, not really much use to them if all they want to see is the overall 'look' of a system?

I'm not going to very impressed if people can simply scan and see everything, when the whole POINT of the new system was to make people WORK for the information. I don't give a rats tail if 'YOU' (as in, everyone who doesn't like the new system) want to use the old system to speed things along, and just get the info 'you' want - the new system gives EVERYONE EXACLTY what info THEY want, depending on what it is - it just takes longer in SOME cases. (and not for others - which has been argued extensively.

The old ADS would reveal all the bodies in a system but didn't reveal all the info. With the FSS Scanner Screen to resolve a signal is to know everything about it except the exact location of any persistent POIs.

There have been a number of proposals that restrict the ADS in some way or another (black bodies etc) but no compromise is required at all in comparison to the new process, it is so much more powerful a tool no compromise is required.

So why do you draw the line where you do? Would you use what you propose?

 

[Kaltern]

Wow, you must have some convoluted throttle system. All I do is throw the throttle to zero, takes less than a second (and I could still be travelling at 100's of C) and press the button I have mapped for the FSS. Maybe you are confusing 'zero throttle' with 'zero speed'?

This argument make absolutely no sense.

No, wait...

Yes it does. It means that this person doesn't want to actually scan the system before exploring it.

My FSS-WaveForm Visualizer module would solve this issue immediately. And it would probably fit into a size 1 slot. Should only cost about 150,000 credits too. And would allow you to look at the pretty system map so you can... compare... things.

I am now 100% convinced my suggestion, which is really just refining other people's, is the perfect solution and simply cannot be argued against - unless you simply don't like the new FSS - which is tough, because it isn't going anywhere.

 

[Riverside]

Wow, you must have some convoluted throttle system. All I do is throw the throttle to zero, takes less than a second (and I could still be travelling at 100's of C) and press the button I have mapped for the FSS. Maybe you are confusing 'zero throttle' with 'zero speed'?

How fast you are travelling will depend on how long you are in the FSS for. The Sysmap & galmap have no such restriction. I guess you quickly look at the wave profile & make a decision based on that. I scan the entire system to be able to make a decision based on the sysmap or info gathered from the FSS Scanner Screen search if only one body of interest was found.

Depends what you are looking for; I find the populated sysmap tells me what I want to know at a glance, now it just contains a bunch of extra stuff.

Horses for courses, different people look for different things.

 

[Kaltern]

The old ADS would reveal all the bodies in a system but didn't reveal all the info.

Rubbish. It revealed virtually everything except the specific planet type and composition. It showed all orbit info, locations in the system and other such info. The new FSS shows absolutely NOTHING unless you manually scan each body - which is how it should be, regardless if you or anyone else don't like it - it's by design.

There have been a number of proposals that restrict the ADS in some way or another (black bodies etc) but no compromise is required at all in comparison to the new process, it is so much more powerful a tool no compromise is required.

Pretty sure I answered this above - You cannot expect something introduced to deliberately increase the amount of effort required to reveal information, to be completely overturned by pressing a single button.

So why do you draw the line where you do? Would you use what you propose?

No, because I would rather use the slot for something else, and I personally like the new system. Asking me is a pointless exercise because I don't see anything wrong with the FSS as it is - I'm just suggesting a valid compromise for those who only want the system map and nothing else.

 

[Burke]

Possibly for the same reason that, no matter how many times I read this I simply cannot make sense of what you're trying to ask/say?

I see people say stuff like omg FSS so great and you are like "at least" such and such like its better in some way that you have to keep zooming on planets. I find it any number of variations on tedious and pointless but for you its an improvement. Whats it doing for you? Its just a set of hoops to jump thru before you can see that map.

 

[Kaltern]

Horses for courses, different people look for different things.

This is not really a relevant argument though is it - after all, you CAN find the exact same information as before. You just need to actually work for it now.

 

[Burke]

I do get the bit about not having to fly to planets and how great that would be for some. Even tho i think they shouldnt have it im not going to moan. But to hide the system map behind this nonsense. Kills my fun.

 

[Riverside]

Because:

* I do not want to have to do MORE work to gain the same information YOU can get by pressing one button. That is the specific reason the FSS was introduced - to make the scanning process a task (which yields MORE information) than just pressing one button, shrugging, and moving on.

* Being an optional module suggests it is designed to add extra functionality that the FSS doesn't give. NOT to override it. The extra functionality is basic mapping of a system. The module should not be capable of doing anything more than the built-in FSS. Think of the optional module as a visualiser for the waveform.

If what you are looking for can be found in the incomplete data & images the sysmap provided with an ADS honk what benefit is there to delaying it's reveal? The time taken to tag a system is as nothing compared to the time taken to get there & back if you want to claim a tag before another player, and that's all on jump range, time to identify a target & scan it isn't a significant factor.

Being an optional module means people who don't want to spoil their enjoyment of the slow reveal don't have to use it. The module should never have been removed in the first place.