Ta-ra

[marx]

To me it looks like a lot of thought and work has gone into it, the way it ties into mining, civilised space and the codex. I really fail how anyone can think like this to be honest. It's insulting to FDev and their developers.

Frontier don't need you to defend your image of their honour, really. But in case you or any others wanted to understand what I meant about the FSS's low quality of implementation, allow me to elaborate.

• VR. The way it launched in the first beta showed that either nobody at FD tested the FSS in VR, or their feedback got lost in the process if they did.
• Controls, especially on HOTAS. Which used to be what the game was geared towards. Lack of options and settings, and a lot of features (such as adjusting sensitivity) needed to be added later that should have been there in the first place.
• UI design in general. Plenty of issues there, so this could be several points. But don't take my word for it, ask some UX designers to see in which areas it fails. However, we've often seen that Frontier's designers can do good stuff here given time, which leads me to believe they weren't given enough time.
• Multicrew, although supported, didn't work at all in the first beta, and even later it has been wonky. Meanwhile, the DSS worked much better there. (Although not without errors, mind.)
• The FSS worked even without having a D-Scanner fitted. Again shows the lack of testing.
• Balancing issues. Ended up being solved by removing D-Scanner equipment entirely, and reducing the power draw of the DSS to zero. Meanwhile, the one(!) mod for the DSS now has no drawback at all, which means it's just a straight-up upgrade that does nothing but add a bit of busywork for players. Would have been easier to balance the efficiency target if they just had a static probe radius for the DSS, and no mods for it.

Perhaps I could go on, but you get the idea. There were few, if any, areas where the FSS was implemented well, and it has been a scramble to make it better since. Unfortunately, design issues would require more than just simple tweaks and fixes, which means that a future update will have to make extensive changes to it, it's too late to do it in the beta phase. Assuming Frontier will want to assign resources there, of course.
All of the above doesn't show to me that the FSS has undergone extensive testing before it was released to the players in early access. (Open beta is pretty much that.)


Oh, and there's this little gem:

The beauty of the new mechanics is that they can keep adding stuff every update.

Which... they could anyway, and did, since day one...

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Frontier don't need you to defend your image of their honour, really. But in case you or any others wanted to understand what I meant about the FSS's low quality of implementation, allow me to elaborate.

You seem to have an odd view on what defending someones honour is. How bizarre. Just voicing my own opinion, but as usual, people seem to try to ridicule it. Such odd behaviour.

Now lets carry on to here:

VR. The way it launched in the first beta showed that either nobody at FD tested the FSS in VR, or their feedback got lost in the process if they did.

With a massive lighting change as well. Perhaps all of these things have caused issues with VR. Perhaps they new about the issues and instead of delaying the beta went ahead with the beta with the idea of fixing it as they went along. A lot has already been fixed and I am sure more will be fixed when it goes live. This is what beta is for.

Controls, especially on HOTAS. Which used to be what the game was geared towards. Lack of options and settings, and a lot of features (such as adjusting sensitivity) needed to be added later that should have been there in the first place.

Worked fine on my hotas from the get go. People were using the wrong binding, but it was good of FDev to add in a whole load of options. Again, that is what beta is for.

UI design in general. Plenty of issues there, so this could be several points. But don't take my word for it, ask some UX designers to see in which areas it fails. However, we've often seen that Frontier's designers can do good stuff here given time, which leads me to believe they weren't given enough time.

That is a purely subjective thing. But It is not my favourite part of the exploration update. I would much prefer if it was a large holographic pop-up in the cockpit and the same goes for the system map and galaxy map.

Multicrew, although supported, didn't work at all in the first beta, and even later it has been wonky. Meanwhile, the DSS worked much better there. (Although not without errors, mind.)

Then no different to what we have now.

The FSS worked even without having a D-Scanner fitted. Again shows the lack of testing.

Doesn't show lack of testing. An oversight yes. Lack of testing no. Again that is what beta is for, to find out all these things.

Balancing issues. Ended up being solved by removing D-Scanner equipment entirely, and reducing the power draw of the DSS to zero. Meanwhile, the one(!) mod for the DSS now has no drawback at all, which means it's just a straight-up upgrade that does nothing but add a bit of busywork for players. Would have been easier to balance the efficiency target if they just had a static probe radius for the DSS, and no mods for it.

What busy work is that? If you find finding POI as valueless, then don't bother with the new DSS. It's purely optional. Myself and lots of others very much enjoy using the probes to find POI on planets. For me discovering those POI has value.

Perhaps I could go on, but you get the idea. There were few, if any, areas where the FSS was implemented well, and it has been a scramble to make it better since. Unfortunately, design issues would require more than just simple tweaks and fixes, which means that a future update will have to make extensive changes to it, it's too late to do it in the beta phase. Assuming Frontier will want to assign resources there, of course.

I don't see it as a scramble. I see it looking at the feedback from players and streamlining the process to make it as enjoyable as possible

All of the above doesn't show to me that the FSS has undergone extensive testing before it was released to the players in early access. (Open beta is pretty much that.)

Of course open beta will be the main testing. There is only so much the QA can do in a pretty small company like FD and with such a big update. I am happy to help them out as much as possible.

Oh, and there's this little gem:

Yup.

Which... they could anyway, and did, since day one...

Off course they could, but hardly anyone would find them unless they were pretty much told (which is what it is like in live), which would make all that work go to waste.

They test to see if there are any gamebreaking bugs. Most were likely ironed out before the beta went live. Now it needs to be stress tested which is were we come in. QA would do basic testing of mechanics to make sure they are working mostly as intented, which they did.

It's up to us to fine tune it and make suggestings to enhance the processes, which they have listened to and acted upon. It is very difficult to see the flaws when you are that close to it. That is why having a beta like this is a good thing.

Basically I see your post as just a load of hyperbole.

 

[marx]

You had one question, where you appear to have misunderstood what you quoted from me, so let me explain.
The original: " Meanwhile, the one(!) mod for the DSS now has no drawback at all, which means it's just a straight-up upgrade that does nothing but add a bit of busywork for players. Would have been easier to balance the efficiency target if they just had a static probe radius for the DSS, and no mods for it.
Your question: "What busy work is that?"
The answer is simple. When it's just a straight up upgrade, and your only choice at that, adding a single engineering mod accomplishes nothing but makes people spend time on engineering equipment. There are no trade-offs: it's better in every way than stock, and not worse in any way.
Basically, it's "spend your time and materials to turn your Basic DSS into Improved DSS". So, it would be a nice QoL change to just roll the radius increase back into the stock module.

Now, engineering was originally meant to be a way of giving people choices on what paths people could customize their equipment. (See the original docs in the newsletter, for example.) This particular implementation goes entirely against that - and to top it off, it even caused some minor balancing issues, what with the efficiency target calculation.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

You had one question, where you appear to have misunderstood what you quoted from me, so let me explain.
The original: " Meanwhile, the one(!) mod for the DSS now has no drawback at all, which means it's just a straight-up upgrade that does nothing but add a bit of busywork for players. Would have been easier to balance the efficiency target if they just had a static probe radius for the DSS, and no mods for it.
Your question: "What busy work is that?"

The DSS is a completely different mechanics which does something totally different to the previous DSS. They are unrelated and not an upgrade.

The answer is simple. When it's just a straight up upgrade, and your only choice at that, adding a single engineering mod accomplishes nothing but makes people spend time on engineering equipment. There are no trade-offs: it's better in every way than stock, and not worse in any way.

Basically, it's "spend your time and materials to turn your Basic DSS into Improved DSS". So, it would be a nice QoL change to just roll the radius increase back into the stock module.

Ahhh, you mean engineering. Purely optional upgrade. Not necessary. I doubt I will bother myself. And again, its only busywork if you find what you get from that as valueless. If you don't value it, don't bother with it. If that upgrade is of value to you, it isn't busywork.

Now, engineering was originally meant to be a way of giving people choices on what paths people could customize their equipment. (See the original docs in the newsletter, for example.) This particular implementation goes entirely against that - and to top it off, it even caused some minor balancing issues, what with the efficiency target calculation.

It does give you choice depending on what you want to do. I go exploring and have a mixture of lightweight and effecient weapoons. But I think I know what you mean, they should have been more side grade and not pure massive upgrades.

Myself I would get rid of the grading and just have the special effects. It makes them not over powered, maybe very slight upgrade, but with a degrade to something else. Much easier to balance too. No overpowered weapons, no overpowered shield or armour. The downside is that we would still only have max jump range of in the 30's, not including synthesis and and neutron jumps.

But all of this is personal opinion. That is what I would have preferred. There are plenty that love them as they are. And the current implementation is vastly better then the last as it least has an upgrade path instead of going straight to grade 5 most of the time which made the previous grade pointless.

 

[Jackie Silver]

How do you envision exploring a solar system would be done in real life?

A very good question. The main tool we have in Elite that we don't have RL is the ability to move around fast, which makes spotting local objects by parallax easy - a "real" ship exploring in the Elite galaxy (I am not saying this would make for a terribly engaging gameplay experience) would jump in and then fly away from the primary star in super cruise for a considerable distance using an automated blink comparator* / image differencer to pick out moving (i.e. local) objects. You'd probably alter course to move perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic once you'd pulled enough bodies to guess at that. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong!) this would give the full orbital parameters for bodies though, you'd have to observe them moving, although again because we can move our ship around it would be possible to get the orbital parameters by closer observation. I think with that we could get the mass of the planet, and we could also easily get the radius of objects. Having identified objects you'd point a spectral analyser at each one and try to determine atmosphere and/or surface compositions. (Which would not be dissimilar to the FSS, except with actual meaningful useful spectra related to what was on the planet.). At this point we should have information corresponding to the results of a "god-honk", although we would have needed to fly around a lot more - let's say upwards of fifteen minutes flight time at supercruise speeds - and would have no guarantee that we hadn't missed objects.

(An alternative would be to arrive in system, fire off a set of super cruise probes orthogonal to each other, and let them beam back their results - or just rock up with a wing of exploration ships flying in different directions and linking their sensor results.)

So - that's how I think the good people of 3304 would "really" go about exploration, given the ships at their disposal. I can imagine people saying "but that's like the new system", except that the devil is in the details here. Meaningful spectra, and some time - not months, but not seconds either - flying around, and no-one would be manually reconfoobling the energymotrons with a mini-game because life's too short. I imagine the Elite star explorers jumping in to a system, pointing the ship away from the star and making themselves a nice hot cup of Heike tea while Victor does the dirty work.


*manually spotting objects moving has gone the way of the dinosaurs; this stuff is done routinely, accurately and fast by computers.

 

[Pirin]

A very good question. The main tool we have in Elite that we don't have RL is the ability to move around fast, which makes spotting local objects by parallax easy - a "real" ship exploring in the Elite galaxy (I am not saying this would make for a terribly engaging gameplay experience) would jump in and then fly away from the primary star in super cruise for a considerable distance using an automated blink comparator* / image differencer to pick out moving (i.e. local) objects. You'd probably alter course to move perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic once you'd pulled enough bodies to guess at that. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong!) this would give the full orbital parameters for bodies though, you'd have to observe them moving, although again because we can move our ship around it would be possible to get the orbital parameters by closer observation. I think with that we could get the mass of the planet, and we could also easily get the radius of objects. Having identified objects you'd point a spectral analyser at each one and try to determine atmosphere and/or surface compositions. (Which would not be dissimilar to the FSS, except with actual meaningful useful spectra related to what was on the planet.). At this point we should have information corresponding to the results of a "god-honk", although we would have needed to fly around a lot more - let's say upwards of fifteen minutes flight time at supercruise speeds - and would have no guarantee that we hadn't missed objects.

(An alternative would be to arrive in system, fire off a set of super cruise probes orthogonal to each other, and let them beam back their results - or just rock up with a wing of exploration ships flying in different directions and linking their sensor results.)

So - that's how I think the good people of 3304 would "really" go about exploration, given the ships at their disposal. I can imagine people saying "but that's like the new system", except that the devil is in the details here. Meaningful spectra, and some time - not months, but not seconds either - flying around, and no-one would be manually reconfoobling the energymotrons with a mini-game because life's too short. I imagine the Elite star explorers jumping in to a system, pointing the ship away from the star and making themselves a nice hot cup of Heike tea while Victor does the dirty work.


*manually spotting objects moving has gone the way of the dinosaurs; this stuff is done routinely, accurately and fast by computers.

I doubt a real spaceship will ever be able to magically jump 50ly forward in the middle of a star system. This kind of technology is in the realm of the SiFi dreams. Not to mention that nobody would want to risk to jump blindly in the middle of a star or planet, which will be a real possibility in this case. It seems much more likely to me that the ship will approach the system in normal flight mode. Even now scientist are able to observe the nearby systems and detect planets there based on the minor brightness and orbit variations of the main star. So i guess in 3304 this kind of tools will be much more powerful and precise. The ship approaching a system will be able to detect the system composition based on this method. And when closer to the system it could use the parallax method, described by Jackie, to confirm the positions of the planets. But by that time they should already have a pretty good idea in what area the planet/star should be.

 

[Burke]

Real life exploration allowing for a certain amount of sci fi i would imagine you land in the system and deploy tens of not hundreds of seeker drones and then you spend an amount of time waiting for them to map the system for you.

Non sci fi exploration? We are still finding small bodies in our own system and some still say there is another planet.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Real life exploration allowing for a certain amount of sci fi i would imagine you land in the system and deploy tens of not hundreds of seeker drones and then you spend an amount of time waiting for them to map the system for you.

Non sci fi exploration? We are still finding small bodies in our own system and some still say there is another planet.

Would all these seeker drones go faster then light speeds?

 

[Allitnil]

PSA: If you find yourself needing to respond to essentially the same point to the same person more than three times then your best course of action is to make use of the "ignore user" feature. If you do not then your best hope is that people think you are only slightly less stupid than you think your opponent is.

As Mark Twain possibly observed (or even if not there are plenty of equally good alternatives): “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

[whilst it is utterly regrettable that the Exploration sub-forum has been invaded by the DD mentality, it has at least provided good fodder for the ignore user list. If you choose not to make use of it then that's your loss!]

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Well, one needs to just take a critical and detailed look at the FSS and how it was implemented (bugs galore, and plenty of tweaks to be made) to see that it was most likely a rushed job. Even when compared to the new DSS (probing) mechanics. Which is quite a let-down, considering how the update was supposed to be the exploration update. When it comes to quality though, mining and squadrons have been done remarkably better. Maybe the discovery parts of the Codex will (and frankly, I expect this was probably the most difficult to actually implement), but without seeing things live, that's a bit difficult to tell.

Mining has got the new gem types in Beta 4 - that's a late change of plan as a result of Beta feedback which fundamentally changes what deep-core mining is for and what mining ships in general might look like (in my opinion massively for the better) compared with all the previous statements on it.

The FSS by comparison has seen a lot of usability improvements but nothing so fundamental.

I think it's just a case of these being fundamental changes (to both mining and exploration) for which no amount of theorising and in-house testing can really substitute for having lots of people try them out and give feedback.


On the proc-gen versus hand-placed stuff, I think it's probably always going to be a lot like that. Procedural generation of assets is incredibly difficult to get right - procedural placement and tweaking is much more practical. But there's certainly a much wider variety of things to find which gives a much higher chance of finding those visually interesting environments. (And statistically of course we're probably only finding the really common stuff in Beta - there may be rarer things which are more of an "exploration" task to even find)

 

[Orvidius]

That was actually the case in beta 3. In beta 4, short before I self destructed to start some mining tests, it was gone again. Looks like a temporary bug to me, but don't quote me on that in case it's still there.

Yeah, beta 3, now that I think about it. I was seeing it early in the week, before beta 4 launched. Scanning one asteroid cluster to get them all, I'm pretty sure was an intentional feature. It's still working this way. I just scanned a system a few minutes ago with this in effect.

 

[askavir]

It is not skillful or difficult to master. It was tedious and boring. Oh I could do it easily enough, but I hated it.

I can understand exactly how you feel, as that is precisely how I feel about the FSS.

It is not difficult or skillfull to master (if we could even use the term "master" about hovering some circles). It is indeed very tedious and boring. And I can also do it easily enough (well anybody can), but I hate it.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I can understand exactly how you feel, as that is precisely how I feel about the FSS.

It is not difficult or skillfull to master (if we could even use the term "master" about hovering some circles). It is indeed very tedious and boring. And I can also do it easily enough (well anybody can), but I hate it.

Each to their own. I really enjoy it. We all have different tastes and I cannot see fdev catering to everybody. That will be impossible unfortunately.

 

[Orvidius]

Really? That's a surprise and since my latest experience is telling me something else, we should consider the possibility that this effect only appears under certain conditions. Can anyone else confirm that it's still there or gone?

Now that's making me wonder. If it's not doing that for everyone, then I wonder what's going on. Maybe it's revealing all of the asteroid groups for one star only? Admittedly I haven't had much time in the beta for the last week or so, and I think most of what I scanned were either single-star systems, or ones where the asteroid clusters were all around one star.

 

[Mengy]

Now that's making me wonder. If it's not doing that for everyone, then I wonder what's going on. Maybe it's revealing all of the asteroid groups for one star only? Admittedly I haven't had much time in the beta for the last week or so, and I think most of what I scanned were either single-star systems, or ones where the asteroid clusters were all around one star.

Yeah I just tested it in the beta, scanning one asteroid field autoscans them all. Very nice!

 

[Rat Catcher]

Now that's interesting - I was out earlier in a couple of systems with asteroid fields, those closest to the arrival star were disclosed passively, the second belt were revealed after scanning the first in that belt and the belt by the secondary star revealed the same way. Brilliant that all get done just by the first being logged!

In VR (Rift) the blue blobs are as they should be - it is very much similar to the current live, although I still haven't shifted into a mining ship to check out mining the new way because I'm having way too much fun out exploring

 

[iain666]

Edit: and just let me say basic forum skills and etiquette should teach you that if you charge headlong towards other forum goers shouting the odds and talking down to everybody like some awful school teacher addressing a naughty child then your credibility is 0

Well hello there, Mr Pot. Have you met Mr Kettle yet?

 

[SMcA]

A very good question.

And a detailed answer.

Spoiler

The main tool we have in Elite that we don't have RL is the ability to move around fast, which makes spotting local objects by parallax easy - a "real" ship exploring in the Elite galaxy (I am not saying this would make for a terribly engaging gameplay experience) would jump in and then fly away from the primary star in super cruise for a considerable distance using an automated blink comparator* / image differencer to pick out moving (i.e. local) objects. You'd probably alter course to move perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic once you'd pulled enough bodies to guess at that. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong!) this would give the full orbital parameters for bodies though, you'd have to observe them moving, although again because we can move our ship around it would be possible to get the orbital parameters by closer observation. I think with that we could get the mass of the planet, and we could also easily get the radius of objects. Having identified objects you'd point a spectral analyser at each one and try to determine atmosphere and/or surface compositions. (Which would not be dissimilar to the FSS, except with actual meaningful useful spectra related to what was on the planet.). At this point we should have information corresponding to the results of a "god-honk", although we would have needed to fly around a lot more - let's say upwards of fifteen minutes flight time at supercruise speeds - and would have no guarantee that we hadn't missed objects.

(An alternative would be to arrive in system, fire off a set of super cruise probes orthogonal to each other, and let them beam back their results - or just rock up with a wing of exploration ships flying in different directions and linking their sensor results.)

So - that's how I think the good people of 3304 would "really" go about exploration, given the ships at their disposal. I can imagine people saying "but that's like the new system", except that the devil is in the details here. Meaningful spectra, and some time - not months, but not seconds either - flying around, and no-one would be manually reconfoobling the energymotrons with a mini-game because life's too short. I imagine the Elite star explorers jumping in to a system, pointing the ship away from the star and making themselves a nice hot cup of Heike tea while Victor does the dirty work.


*manually spotting objects moving has gone the way of the dinosaurs; this stuff is done routinely, accurately and fast by computers.

Yes, I could live with your vision.
Enter a system, seed it with probes and watch the data come in. The further the probes fly the better the data. So there is time to jump to another star system and seed that return and read the data. Then decide if there was anything worth a closer look. (Not my idea, I read it on the forums.)
It is still a mini game, though. But RL is full of them too.


When I started playing the Beta, the DS had not been released. So you had to find planets by their apparent motion and fly towards them. When you came in range they would be scanned. For me the best way to see them. Was to fly below and parallel to the ecliptic plane, looking up. Everyone should try it at least once. It is not easy. [yesnod]

 

[Chrystoph]

And you would be wrong. There are plenty that search for the unusual who prefer this system, me being one of them. And for me it vastly improved the sense of exploration and I don't care much about credits. I suggest you review your thinking on this.

You are doing what Burke is doing. Trying to belittle the people who like it so you can happily dismiss their opinion.

I will admit that I belittled Ratkather for the post I originally responded to, but not about their position. I despise, and have always despised, the behavior in that post, and I did notice that there was an apology for overzealousness later. I tend to become aggressive about it and I will admit that it was the case. @Ratkatcher, apology accepted and please accept one of mine.

As to my thinking on this, it stands. I feel that the new system is roughly equivalent to going from modern 21st century astronomy back to 18th century astronomy. You are no longer using a computerized system that generates an image, but manually pointing a telescope at the objects.

My two points on this are that it removes the ability to decide that the system is not worth further time by forcing you to invest the time before you can make that decision, and that it gives you less information than the existing mechanics strictly to make a mini-game out of determining what is there. This is especially true when you consider that, in every other aspect, your sensor suite is omni-directional, but you are stuck with a hand operated camera to sense planets.

I regularly go looking for unique and scenic vistas, and I love the new mechanics?

Your use of the word "all" might be a tad too strong...

I will refrain from using All in the future, and change it to most, but I would counterpoint that your chastisement is based on an incorrect premise as I am talking about personal experience, not the total base of the conversation.

You get an image and the data up on a planet when you resolve it in the DSS - no need to hop to the System Map all the time. And the DSS resolves surface features you would have had to eyeball before. And I don't understand why anyone would be against finally getting features in the we asked for from the beginning. Unless of course those people are just generally against change. Which seems to be the case.

You make my point for me. In order to make an Informed decision about whether the system is worth expending additional time on, you have already expended the time. To be clear, this is not about what the value of the system is, it is about whether the system is NOT worth the time.

It doesn't benefit anyone. It changes how we explore. So instead of a one button reveal everything, now instead we have to explore the system with our scanner instead. Those unusual things are still there, but you have to find them instead of having them handed to you on a plate.

It's not about benefit, it's about how it makes you feel when you discover something yourself.


Because half the time the reasons make little or no logical sense.

You know, for someone that doesn't like being dictated to(you, specifically), the above statement is atrociously presumptuous. If you are going to tell me that you have the right to tell me how I feel while I am playing the game, I'll be expecting a real world transfer of $100.00 from you to pay for the game you are telling me how to enjoy.

As to the one button push statement, as I said above, what I object to isn't about what I can see but rather about seeing that the system is not worth the additional time.

These Johnny-come-latelies just have more advanced gear than we did back then.
Do you remember the days when there was no discovery scanner and you had to find the planets by eye? Flying through the system fast and looking for parallax movement.

Heh, actually, I don't recall. I joined just a couple of months prior to DWE 3302. That said, I don't agree with calling this more advanced, only different; reference my earlier comment on 18th century astronomy.


In summary, I feel that this new system is a time sink in a game with too many time sinks. While it may make some aspects of the game more enjoyable, I feel that the negative aspects outweigh the positive ones.

Specifically, the surface scan mechanics for MAPPING are a definite improvement. I feel that the DSS mechanics are joke, and a poor one at that.

The Orrery is pathetic compared to the concept art originally offered. I would expect it in the original game, not something written in the 21st century.

At best, this release is another instance of a gaming company tripping over the "pretty" and making good game play a secondary priority.

More realistically, I feel it was an intentional bait-and-switch based on the lack of a development feedback process, not meeting commitments in order to provide things most people weren't asking for in the first place, etc.

To me, the fact that people are accepting it is like a man asking for an airplane, being given a helicopter, and thinking, Well, it doesn't meet the requirements I put forth, but this hovering ability is kind of interesting.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I will admit that I belittled Ratkather for the post I originally responded to, but not about their position. I despise, and have always despised, the behavior in that post, and I did notice that there was an apology for overzealousness later. I tend to become aggressive about it and I will admit that it was the case. @Ratkatcher, apology accepted and please accept one of mine


I will refrain from using All in the future, and change it to most, but I would counterpoint that your chastisement is based on an incorrect premise as I am talking about personal experience, not the total base of the conversation.

No need to apologise I think my 'passive aggressive' comments were eclipsed by others made on this topic!

Again, with respect, if you are changing the word 'all' to 'most' when 'talking about personal experience' the most logical change would be to use either 'I' or 'my' rather than being inclusive of others who have not consented to your commenting on their behalf.

Naturally, this is just a polite observation & suggestion, but no doubt it will be interpreted once again as aggressive