The Compromise to End All Compromises - Exploration Scanner Edition

PROPOSAL:

Much noise has been made about finding a compromise, but I say forget that noise. How about NO ONE compromises!! It is true, there is no real way to combine the systems that won't destroy the integrity of the either the Old or the New system, so we can only have one set or the other. But I don't see why we can't have both sets of scanners in the game. Hear me out: as long each set will only work with its paired scanner, eg New with New and Old with Old, but no mixing of Old ADS + New DSS (or New ADS + Old DSS), because the technologies are incompatible. Of course, both sets would still be able to launch probes.

I think I would actually be just fine with this because the new set has some rather serious advantages:

NEW SYSTEM BENEFITS:

1) infinite range
2) easier cherry picking
3) faster scanning with no travel times, and will allow for use of probes without necessarily increasing the time relative to the old system

OLD SYSTEM BENEFITS:

1) instant reveal of system map
2) you can still watch Netflix
3) will take FOREVER once you add probes to the old point+travel+wait mechanic, which gives you more time to watch Netflix per system

ANALYSIS:

If the diehard fans of the old ways want to hold onto their old ADS and old DSS combo why not let them? They'll be moving along like happy little snails. As long as they're happy who cares how much faster people with the new set collect high value tags?

But perhaps the best argument to made here is that Combat pilots and even miners have a seemingly infinite set of possible loadouts. But Explorers really only have one possible loadout. I know this is asking Frontier to create code for 2 new modules, but I have to ask: don't explorers deserve to have options too?

POSSIBLE ISSUES:

The issues I foresee (besides having two versions of the ADS/DSS mucking up the code):

How to give people in deep space the option of upgrading. This could be done in several ways: A popup dialog at 3.3 launch asking if they want to upgrade or keep the old set for their current ship. Or automatically upgrade the new system so people could try it, and then let people know that if they didn't like it, they could simply contact Customer Service to have their scanners reverted to 3.2. People will likely know by the end of Beta, so maybe an Opt Out form could be created as well.

Wings would have to be altered so that they only share Level 2 or Level 3 scans (ie DSS or basic scanned objects). Currently they share all Level 1 scan data (eg ADS honk data). So if you have people with different sets in the same wing you have infinite honk + infinite scan = massive exploit.

One other possible issue is based on an unknown: if the new USS discovery mechanic relies on the distribution filter to resolve them (which I suspect it might since they used the word "skill" to describe finding them), then people with the old set of ADS/DSS might have to keep using the old USS mechanic of bumping into them in SC, which will still be a valid way to find USS in 3.3 btw. Also, explorers aren't really running into USS very often anyway. I explored for 5 hours last week looking specifically just for USS and found a total of TWO, so this may be a non-issue for most people who want to hold onto the old set.
 
Last edited:
The more this gets revised, the more viable it seems to me. Certainly a better point of discussion than what some of the other threads are turning into :D
 
This is basically what I wanted all along.
Just give me a better way to find something interesting on a planet (assuming I'm in the mood for driving around, which is rare) but leave the rest of the mechanics alone.

+1 from a Netflix-watching cherry-picking snail.
 
One thing though:

If the new ADS gives the ability to detect persistent objects in space - megaships, generation ships, funky new stuff - then probably the old ADS should get it to. You'd still need to fly out to it to resolve what it is though. The new timed USSs should only show on the new ADS.
 
One thing though:

If the new ADS gives the ability to detect persistent objects in space - megaships, generation ships, funky new stuff - then probably the old ADS should get it to. You'd still need to fly out to it to resolve what it is though. The new timed USSs should only show on the new ADS.
That's kinda included in the "ISSUES" section about USS functionality. The default sensor suite (which will still function in 3.3) has a range of 1000Ls for persistent signal sources, which is still very functional and useful for most systems upon entering them, or shortly after. The new system has a potentially infinite range, but it looks like that infinite range might depend on using the energy distribution filter to find them which takes a little bit of time as well (the Devs used the word "skill" to describe finding them).
 
PROPOSAL:

Much noise has been made about finding a compromise, but I say forget that noise. How about NO ONE compromises!! It is true, there is no real way to combine the systems that won't destroy the integrity of the either the Old or the New system, so we can only have one set or the other. But I don't see why we can't have both sets of scanners in the game. Hear me out: as long each set will only work with its paired scanner, eg New with New and Old with Old, but no mixing of Old ADS + New DSS (or New ADS + Old DSS), because the technologies are incompatible. Of course, both sets would still be able to launch probes.

I think I would actually be just fine with this because the new set has some rather serious advantages:

NEW SYSTEM BENEFITS:

1) infinite range
2) easier cherry picking
3) faster scanning with no travel times, and will allow for use of probes without necessarily increasing the time relative to the old system

OLD SYSTEM BENEFITS:

1) instant reveal of system map
2) you can still watch Netflix
3) will take FOREVER once you add probes to the old point+travel+wait mechanic, which gives you more time to watch Netflix per system

ANALYSIS:

If the diehard fans of the old ways want to hold onto their old ADS and old DSS combo why not let them? They'll be moving along like happy little snails. As long as they're happy who cares how much faster people with the new set collect high value tags?

But perhaps the best argument to made here is that Combat pilots and even miners have a seemingly infinite set of possible loadouts. But Explorers really only have one possible loadout. I know this is asking Frontier to create code for 2 new modules, but I have to ask: don't explorers deserve to have options too?

POSSIBLE ISSUES:

The issues I foresee (besides having two versions of the ADS/DSS mucking up the code):

How to give people in deep space the option of upgrading. This could be done in several ways: A popup dialog at 3.3 launch asking if they want to upgrade or keep the old set for their current ship. Or automatically upgrade the new system so people could try it, and then let people know that if they didn't like it, they could simply contact Customer Service to have their scanners reverted to 3.2. People will likely know by the end of Beta, so maybe an Opt Out form could be created as well.

Wings would have to be altered so that they only share Level 2 or Level 3 scans (ie DSS or basic scanned objects). Currently they share all Level 1 scan data (eg ADS honk data). So if you have people with different sets in the same wing you have infinite honk + infinite scan = massive exploit.

One other possible issue is based on an unknown: if the new USS discovery mechanic relies on the distribution filter to resolve them (which I suspect it might since they used the word "skill" to describe finding them), then people with the old set of ADS/DSS might have to keep using the old USS mechanic of bumping into them in SC, which will still be a valid way to find USS in 3.3 btw. Also, explorers aren't really running into USS very often anyway. I explored for 5 hours last week looking specifically just for USS and found a total of TWO, so this may be a non-issue for most people who want to hold onto the old set.
Hmm, at the risk of running up against Godwin's law. There was another case where one side compromised constantly with the other.......it was called the 1930's :p
 
Hmm, at the risk of running up against Godwin's law. There was another case where one side compromised constantly with the other.......it was called the 1930's :p
That was WW1: the War to End All Wars. This is different because it's a "compromise" that doesn't actually involve any compromise. Hence the double entendre.

More like if you took pre-WW1 europe: melted all the guns, created a second europe, and everyone won without firing a shot.
 
That was WW1: the War to End All Wars. This is different because it's a "compromise" that doesn't actually involve any compromise. Hence the double entendre.

More like if you took pre-WW1 europe: melted all the guns, created a second europe, and everyone won without firing a shot.
I was actually thinking of the Munich Agreement & other capitulations with Hitler ;).

Anyway, I personally say that FDev should push on with its current plan, largely unchanged, perhaps pilfering aspects of the old system to merge in with it that will allow players to partially replicate elements of their current exploration activities, whilst ditching the worst aspects (like having the honk give low-res scans of planets out to a certain distance; and allowing players to fly out towards the approximate gravity well of a stellar object, then do an active scan from within a certain range-a range further out than when the current, passive scan takes place).

The key difference, as I said, is that these compromise approaches will always lead to smaller credit payouts & slower increase in Exploration Rank.......then we will see how many of the cherry pickers are motivated by altruism rather than greed :p.
 
I was actually thinking of the Munich Agreement & other capitulations with Hitler ;).

Anyway, I personally say that FDev should push on with its current plan, largely unchanged, perhaps pilfering aspects of the old system to merge in with it that will allow players to partially replicate elements of their current exploration activities, whilst ditching the worst aspects (like having the honk give low-res scans of planets out to a certain distance; and allowing players to fly out towards the approximate gravity well of a stellar object, then do an active scan from within a certain range-a range further out than when the current, passive scan takes place).

The key difference, as I said, is that these compromise approaches will always lead to smaller credit payouts & slower increase in Exploration Rank.......then we will see how many of the cherry pickers are motivated by altruism rather than greed :p.
We'll have to wait and see what Frontier comes back with in next info release. I am hopeful that we'll get a solution that will be fun for most players, even the ones that might have to adapt. My major worry is that we'll end up with a compromise system that either takes out all of the mystery, in a similar way to the current ADS, or it will end up breaking the the proposed active filters. I eagerly await more info from Frontier.
 
The ultimative compromise would be first testing the proposed system in beta, to get a feeling, how it really works compared to the old system!😉
 
We'll have to wait and see what Frontier comes back with in next info release. I am hopeful that we'll get a solution that will be fun for most players, even the ones that might have to adapt. My major worry is that we'll end up with a compromise system that either takes out all of the mystery, in a similar way to the current ADS, or it will end up breaking the the proposed active filters. I eagerly await more info from Frontier.
I hope they keep what they have created but maybe sped it up a bit and give a "discovered by" percentage on the initial honk.

Thats what is needed. So people can see if it's been partially discovered or fully discovered. If the scanning is done quicker like having planets that orbit each other and planets and moons as a single signal, I can see that being acceptable to most. Yes you will not please everyone though.
 
The new system still has got my vote all the way. Only thing I am interested in, is how good I will be able to see if there is an unusual contellation in the system, like planets very close to the sun and so on. But that can wait until the beta drops.
 
How about we stop bargaining and accept that it wasn't proposal but way FD will do things anyway?

Also convoluted compromises leads nowhere in game design. We all know people will learn to live with new system and even enjoy it. We just don't might not want to, but that's different story.
 
We'll have to wait and see what Frontier comes back with in next info release. I am hopeful that we'll get a solution that will be fun for most players, even the ones that might have to adapt.
We'll ALL have to adapt... some of us will just enjoy it more than others ;)
 
I think if FD would take their well known approach to please all an everyone seriously, they're well adviced to not ignore all the heavy dissonances seen in the original thread and have a very close eye on Ziljan's idea. The only alternative I see is to just remove the current ADS from the game.
 
A big issue - and Ziljan stated so in his OP - is really the duplicated code and the necessity to a) maintain both variants, b) ensure future content does work with both and c) solve those edge cases where both mechanics conflict with each other.

No sorry, I really don't believe in a compromise here - at least not, if the compromise is to keep both mechanics. It is a burden for all future development and binds worktime that should be spent on more productive code.
 
I think Frontier is not so good with compromises... They will probably try to please as many as possible (or the loudest crowd) and choose the worst possible solution.
I fear this, too.

And the terrible thing is: They do it with the best intentions!
 
I think Frontier is not so good with compromises... They will probably try to please as many as possible (or the loudest crowd) and choose the worst possible solution.
I fear this, too.

And the terrible thing is: They do it with the best intentions!

That's also my concern.

However, if they are open to Ziljan's idea, they should at least investigate it. If there are warning clouds on the horizon that this will only cause more problems, then they shouldn't bother. But if it would be an easy addition, then why not consider it?
 
Top Bottom