In the Beta Spirit...

[MadDogMurdock]

I'm sure my ideals wouldn't fly with Frontier and the intended game-play they seem to have for exploration either.

This is why I try to come up with reasonible compromises.

Compromises are great, but then we collide with the current situation.
Many of the compromises require changes to what the ADS did, or even changes to the FSS, or even some combined hybrid module.

The current development schedule rules any of that out until after the next DLC.
The clearest, simplest, and minimal effort solution is to just reenable the modules.
Something that could happen quickly, after a bit of regression testing.

We waited years for an exploration revamp, and look what that got us.
I don’t see any good reason to wait for a compromise solution instead of a simple reinstatement of what is still existing functionality in parts of the game.

 

[Ezren]

Again, you’re interpretation of my words is wrong.
I still maintain that the images do not represent absolute certainty - in game proof via a DSS scan is required.

The last post was a specific rebuttal of your attempt to misrepresent my used of ‘detailed’.

And yes, the map was extremely useful. It told me enough to decide whether to stick around and find out more, or to not bother and move on. That decision didn’t require the extra detailed information.

No contradictions, just your continued efforts to try (and fail) to make a point.

You see how I match up your words and compare and make a point and you just repeat denials in response?

I'm making a point, by objectively referencing things, like the definitions of words, and the exact words said. And, again, your acceptance does not validate or invalidate a point.

And the point is that the argument seems to be whatever is convenient for you to contradict whoever you're currently arguing with. I've pointed this out repeatedly - and you literally just made this point for me with this statement:

The last post was a specific rebuttal of your attempt to misrepresent my used of ‘detailed’.

You contradicted your previous claims that you couldn't know the type, just to "rebut" what I wrote.

This thread has had a lot of productive conversation. However that was far removed from whatever you're attempting to do here.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

yup


Even then it wasn't that important.


Where did I highlight it was a good thing?

By saying that the DSS was a lower priority outfitting choice for you.
Choices are a good thing.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

You see how I match up your words and compare and make a point and you just repeat denials in response?

I'm making a point, by objectively referencing things, like the definitions of words, and the exact words said. And, again, your acceptance does not validate or invalidate a point.

And the point is that the argument seems to be whatever is convenient for you to contradict whoever you're currently arguing with. I've pointed this out repeatedly - and you literally just made this point for me with this statement:

You contradicted your previous claims that you couldn't know the type, just to "rebut" what I wrote.

This thread has had a lot of productive conversation. However that was far removed from whatever you're attempting to do here.

Your efforts to misrepresent are far from objective, but I’m sure you’ll keep at it.

 

[Ezren]

The clearest, simplest, and minimal effort is to just reenable the modules.

More simple and minimal than just leaving the FSS in the game, you mean?

A lot of your statements are predicated on the assumption that what you want is somehow a necessity. This is not the case.

 

[Riverside]

More simple and minimal than just leaving the FSS in the game, you mean?

A lot of your statements are predicated on the assumption that what you want is somehow a necessity. This is not the case.

As simple as not removing them in the first place. They can be reinstated while a better addition is devised and eventually implemented that doesn't needlessly remove existing functionality. No one loses out that way.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

More simple and minimal than just leaving the FSS in the game, you mean?

A lot of your statements are predicated on the assumption that what you want is somehow a necessity. This is not the case.

Oh, I missed the word ‘solution’ from that sentence.
You did something useful for once, if unintentionally.

I’d very much like to play the game again, so yes I do want a solution, and for me fixing this is a necessity.

It might be polite and woke to present what you really want with ‘wouldn’t it be nice if’ or ‘pretty please’, but weak opinions aren’t worth squat.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

By saying that the DSS was a lower priority outfitting choice for you.

I never said that either.

Choices are a good thing.

Oh, I agree. I just don't agree with the choices you propose.

 

[Ezren]

Your efforts to misrepresent are far from objective, but I’m sure you’ll keep at it.

So using the words you factually said and stating the definitions of words is not objective?

You do realize things you don't like can be objective, right? Calling something a "misrepresentation" does not make it so.

Your argument for how useful the ADS was changed based on whatever point you were trying to make in the face of whatever you were arguing against. It went from Extremely Useful, to not detailed, to it it did too much. My statement is backed up by direct, objective references, so you can call it a "misrepresentation" but the proof's right there.

No matter how you howl, history does not change for you.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

So using the words you factually said and stating the definitions of words is not objective?

You do realize things you don't like can be objective, right? Calling something a "misrepresentation" does not make it so.

Your argument for how useful the ADS was changed based on whatever point you were trying to make in the face of whatever you were arguing against. It went from Extremely Useful, to not detailed, to it it did too much. My statement is backed up by direct, objective references, so you can call it a "misrepresentation" but the proof's right there.

No matter how you howl, history does not change for you.

The only one howling at the moon is you.
My words speak for themselves.

Your commentary and interpretation of them are just your vain efforts to misrepresent them.

 

[Faded Glory]

This is false. GGGs are anomalous entities that cannot be identified by their spectrum signal.

In case anyone's interested, there are some people who thought the FSS was better for the job of hunting such bodies. Which is a departure from, say, wanting this information to be available beforehand.

I said body types. I'm well aware you cannot tell a GGG from the spectrum (you need to read some of my other posts lol). But you can tell a GG.

(Nor can you tell a gas giant with a santa hat, but you'd know a gas giant was there.)

 

[[VR] Merkir]

How does something that you will probably never see ruin your immersion or roleplay. They won't know, the people that turn up to the systems after won't care. Just pretend as its highly likely they will never notice.

My Hypocrisy Discovery Scanner just melted... again.

 

[Riverside]

Perhaps a more productive line of reasoning would be to follow up on Morbad's suggestion that to remain competitive players would feel compelled to fit the ADS if it were available?

Just how much of an advantage could the combination provide in virgin systems?

 

[Enderby]

more choice for system scanning
the fss is a woeful effort

 

[WR3ND]

Perhaps a more productive line of reasoning would be to follow up on Morbad's suggestion that to remain competitive players would feel compelled to fit the ADS if it were available?

Just how much of an advantage could the combination provide in virgin systems?

Does anyone go exploring as a competition anyway? Or is this meant in game progression terms?

Either way, the notion seems very foreign to me.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Perhaps a more productive line of reasoning would be to follow up on Morbad's suggestion that to remain competitive players would feel compelled to fit the ADS if it were available?

Just how much of an advantage could the combination provide in virgin systems?

There’s only one that I can think of and it’s pretty marginal in my opinion.
Spotting an ELW in the map, selecting it, turning in SC, and then opening the FSS to tune and scan with it right in front of you might be slightly faster than tuning and finding it in the FSS.
There are those planets off the plane that are a bit harder to find but typically they’re low value icy or rocky worlds.

Completion scanning would certainly still be much faster just with the FSS. Hopping in and out to align with the ship would be very inefficient.

But of course, the real time spent is more about how long it takes to get back and sell the data and register the tags.
ADS users would be carrying an extra ton, with a slight reduction in jump range.

 

[Faded Glory]

more choice for system scanning
the fss is a woeful effort

More choice for system scanning definitely...

As to the FSS, I'm sure it would be fine if players could choose to use it...

 

[Faded Glory]

There’s only one that I can think of and it’s pretty marginal in my opinion.
Spotting an ELW in the map, selecting it, turning in SC, and then opening the FSS to tune and scan with it right in front of you might be slightly faster than tuning and finding it in the FSS.
There are those planets off the plane that are a bit harder to find but typically they’re low value icy or rocky worlds.

Completion scanning would certainly still be much faster just with the FSS. Hopping in and out to align with the ship would be very inefficient.

But of course, the real time spent is more about how long it takes to get back and sell the data and register the tags.
ADS users would be carrying an extra ton, with a slight reduction in jump range.

I'll be honest with you, from my experience using the FSS, your scenario of spotting an ELW in a system map (and confirming that's what it is), targeting it, then exiting the map, lining up with it and opening the FSS and tuning to the correct frequency and then scanning would take longer than just finding it using the FSS. Unless it's a huge system, it's quicker to just scan it all.

As to bodies off the orbital plane, they aren't that difficult to find, you usually just have to SC a little further from the star, and they reveal themselves pretty quickly - I suspect the longest it ever took me was a minute or so.

As to exploration being competitive, if it's tag stealing people are talking about, I can only say it has never, not once, happened to me that a system I scanned as undiscovered I didn't get first discovered by. If people are referring to the 'race' to Elite exploration rank, well that ship sailed a while back, and went up onto hydrofoils after 3.3. I got to Elite under the old system, with something over 300 million in exploration data (maybe less, was in July 2017). That took me seven exploration trips of generally two to four weeks each. Three short trips (about a week each) after the FSS was introduced netted me in excess of 500 million credits.

 

[biot]

As to exploration being competitive, if it's tag stealing people are talking about, I can only say it has never, not once, happened to me that a system I scanned as undiscovered I didn't get first discovered by.

That's because you are the one doing the stealing! ... just kidding

By the way, just want to say I heartily endorse the use of Monty Python gifs/clips in moderator posts.

 

[Enderby]

That's because you are the one doing the stealing! ... just kidding

By the way, just want to say I heartily endorse the use of Monty Python gifs/clips in moderator posts.