We have covered that already (here or elsewhere), suffice to say we will never agree on the matter so no need to regurgitate the same debate again.
Yes and you haven't explained the actual issue or the wider implications.
Why I percieve the "new" scan as broken
- Thread starter Chrystoph
- Start date
- Status
Yes and you haven't explained the actual issue or the wider implications.
Maybe they already were, FDEV have access to the metrics so they already know who does what and how popular it is.
I have gone into some of it already, it is clear from the discussion we have had on the matter to date that further discussion of the specific concerns in question with you would be a waste of time. That is not saying you are deficient in any way, just it is clear you have a very different outlook to the game as a whole than I do. A lot of the disparity is due to differences in approaches to builds and gameplay as a whole, neither of us are necessarily wrong in our approaches.
My understanding of the Orrery is it is a 100% 1:1 representation of that system, and I don't know how far you can zoom in - such things will be revealed during the beta - but I can't imagine it being very limited. Of course, you won't see the planet surface, but then you can't do that right now anyway. And the orrery will show the planets in FAR more detail that you'll ever get from just the system map.
You cannot assess composition for shots from the 2d system map. And This is where I am really failing to understand the arguments - if you COULD, perhaps I might understand a bit - but you can't... and once you've scanned the system, the system map will be available as usual anyway.. so again, I'm not really seeing the issue, other than people have to spend a few more seconds to get information.
Actually... I suspect the issue, now I think on it, is that while the majority of explorers looking for 'things', are very much in favour of the scan taking a few moments longer in return for a LOT more information - including planetary geo-locations (and hopefully 'interesting things'), but those just looking for the next picture postcard don't need this info - therefore it's wasting their time.
Because there are probably 12 of you, I hope FDev discount the argument, because quite frankly, it isn't fair to change the new system for the sake of an incredibly small minority. And yes, I know the current trend this decade is to try and appease the loudest voice for the smallest minority, but I hope Frontier stick to their guns here and just tell everyone to deal with it - learn to scan and you'll do it in a very short space of time anyway.
I should also apologise if my posts are coming across slightly curt - this is just my irritation of yet another group of people complaining about something that only affects a very small subset of people, and therefore believes everything should change just to please them.
It's becoming more and more a trend in today's society and I am hoping that at least in this one game, such distasteful behaviour is ignored.
It's becoming more and more a trend in today's society and I am hoping that at least in this one game, such distasteful behaviour is ignored.
My point was more directed at those attempting to assert that what was presented in first 3.3 live stream is some kind of de facto fait accompli - or a done deal - which is clearly far from true.
I think the problem is that the implications are notionally wider than you are asserting, everyone has a right to express their viewpoint and to have it considered by FD.
Perhaps, but I've yet to see a compelling argument against the new system, other that it takes a very small amount of players a little bit longer to take a snapshot.
Rights to express a viewpoint are also open to be countered by other viewpoints. Expressing a viewpoint doesn't necessarily mean Frontier have to consider it.
But in the other thread you wanted peoples' threads shut down for voicing an opinion. I don't think the taco kid can give us both those things.
As I understand it, the topological sector map is staying as an option, also it is generally moot what you can or cannot discern from the 2D system map in that regard.
The 2D system map is far better for general simple navigation IMO - we are not plotting Apollo or Mars type missions where you have to factor in fuel consumption, time of flight, and orbital trajectories (c/f KSP for comparison).
For the case of taking shots and assessing scenes, you have to be at the right place at the right time to achieve the right composition. Even if it can be assessed from the Orrery, by the time you have flown their and set up the shot the situation is highly likely to have changed.
The orrery map may have utility in some use cases but it is far from a viable system for general navigation - IMO the galactic map is bad enough (errors in object selection being the primary complaint).
I made my position clear there - no need to drag it here too - the point is opposing anti-discussion threads is not contrarian to saying all viewpoints should be considered. The anti-discussion threads are diametrically opposed to the principles and purpose of a discussion forum.
If those running the anti-discussion threads want to contribute to the various discussions with their opposing viewpoints nothing is stopping them from doing so, but they should be trying to push FD to ignore certain other threads because they express a diverging viewpoint. Perhaps the moderators should just merge opposing threads rather than simply locking them, that is a matter for FD and the moderators though - not us.
Last edited:
You are focusing waaaaay too much on pedantic concerns, here and everywhere. This is a video game forum about pretending to be a spaceman. You don't need a "position", nobody is grading your debate skills.
When group X start saying ignore group Y, group Y need to openly oppose such thinking rather than let the other group silence them through intimidation or ridicule - a lot of that happens on these forums.
In the context of exploration, there have been some claims made that are demonstrably false given some of the discussions that have arisen. There are some genuine concerns that have been expressed, some of which may have been cleared up by the official recap thread but others are in abeyance pending further discussion and/or hands-on testing with the Beta.
Personally, I hope FD take their time (at least a month based on the scope I am aware of) with this Beta - there are lots of changes which will impact everyone and given the scope a longer Beta phase than normal for a live product may be in order so that FD have sufficient time to address or counter any concerns. While ED is FD's product and it is up to them how they develop it, it is also only fair and reasonable for them to consider any and all feedback and give themselves time to react to said feedback.
FD should implement a toggle switch to turn the god honk on and off, thereby allowing people can play their own way without imposing the rule on others.
While they are at it they can implement one for instantaneous ship transfers and SC boost as well
\o/ yay, everyone is happy
While they are at it they can implement one for instantaneous ship transfers and SC boost as well
\o/ yay, everyone is happy
You are the only one who demanded anyone be silenced.
So why do you feel the need to keep shouting it down? Just let them consider it. Especially since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'd actually change it because Adam has already said (paraphrasing) 'we considered it and we're doing this so suck it up'.
That seems reasonable, but logically implies giving different game mechanics to different groups for all manner of things, and undermining the game itself.
Let me put it this way - over the years I've found that I could inadvertantly ruin a game for myself, a game I was up to that point enjoying, by using a cheat code or mod. It seemed a brilliant idea, allowing me to play the game the way I wanted - no damage, more ammo - but in fact I ended up killing the experience.
I'm not at all suggesting this is the same, that by having toggles for 'god honk' etc we would be cheating, but I do suspect a developer risks watering down *their* game by attempting to appeal to both - or multiple - sides in a disagreement over mechanics. The developer needs to decide, and implement that solution. They can always change it, or re-balance it, that's what Beyond is pretty much about to be honest. But including both solutions might create the same problem I mentioned with modding or cheat codes in games - a loss of perceived value to the player.
But I could be completely wrong.
Telling people to ignore others is tantamount to the same thing so you are wrong.
I think Sewerratuk was not being entirely serious - that being said, I actually agree with you that implementing a toggle as described is probably a bad idea.
Adding the FSS as a separate upgrade and nerfing the information returned by the ADS (to match the level of detail of the shared data) might work (a credit penalty - reward wise - could be applied to using the ADS in that way too). FD could also apply an increased chance of being interdicted by pirates (or aliens) for a period of time after using the ADS too. Give the ADS mass, make draw energy on use, there are various options.
A cleaner approach might be to replace the BDS/IDS/ADS with the BFS/IFS/AFS (?) as currently seems to be the plan but add some kind of additional exploration upgrade (possibly a series of upgrades) that does automated processing of the FSS data at the expense of an upgrade slot, weight and power drain (and possibly slower than is potentially achievable by scanning manually). That may or may not be acceptable to those with concerns about the nature of the FSS mechanic during exploration of new systems but it would offer a potentially comparable degree of automation with notable trade-offs.
Personally, I am not as concerned now as I was at the start of this thread about the new exploration systems but I still don't like the proposed mechanisms (as a replacement) and would have preferred them being an add-on. However, it is clear that others are not as convinced as I am that the new systems is likely to have a net neutral impact to gameplay in general.
- Status