Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner

I've only ever known the fss and I don't see any issues with it. When I'm in a hurry I just honk on arrival, open the fss, look at the frequency bar to see if there are any planets worth visiting. If it's just gas giants and ice worlds (70% of systems I visit) I charge up for the next jump.

When I use the fss to populate the system map it only takes a couple of minutes and I usually scoop at the same time so I'm not really loosing any time on the fss.
 
I've only ever known the fss and I don't see any issues with it. When I'm in a hurry I just honk on arrival, open the fss, look at the frequency bar to see if there are any planets worth visiting. If it's just gas giants and ice worlds (70% of systems I visit) I charge up for the next jump.

When I use the fss to populate the system map it only takes a couple of minutes and I usually scoop at the same time so I'm not really loosing any time on the fss.
I think some people are annoyed for its own sake or that they were not consulted rather than any actual issue with an in game mechanic. The FSS is a huge improvement.
 
I've only ever known the fss and I don't see any issues with it. When I'm in a hurry I just honk on arrival, open the fss, look at the frequency bar to see if there are any planets worth visiting. If it's just gas giants and ice worlds (70% of systems I visit) I charge up for the next jump.

When I use the fss to populate the system map it only takes a couple of minutes and I usually scoop at the same time so I'm not really loosing any time on the fss.
I think a lot of people don't have a problem with it, I don't mind it and have used it a lot. This thread isn't about the new discovery process.
 
The oversight was failing to justify the removal. Not removing them (or now putting them back in) is the solution. It is easy to implement and has no downside for any player.

What players think about it very clearly isn't irrelevant Max, this is a proposal thread in the suggestions section, and FDev are often stated as regularly visiting this section to acquire feedback.
They do not need to justify what they do to their own game.
 
About four people claim they have an issue with it, and at least two of them have never actually tried it.
I have accumulated rep or likes from around a hundred, and am aware of at least that many more that cannot find the energy to respond to contributors like yourself. I don't know how many are going to the Manchester meet.

otoh there seems to be only you that doesn't want to have the ADS back in at all. Max (and many others) just want it to be exclusive (ie disables the FSS), removing the ADS was generally considered undesirable but inevitable. I argue it did not need to be inevitable, it could have been left in along with the other modules (BDS & IDS). This is why I don't think their removal can be justified & that they should be put back in.

It's a simple idea to grasp, and everybody wins or at least doesn't lose out. You will not lose out from this either Stigbob.
 
I have accumulated rep or likes from around a hundred, and am aware of at least that many more that cannot find the energy to respond to contributors like yourself. I don't know how many are going to the Manchester meet.
Well done I guess, I have more forum points than you though so you've obviously been roundly defeated.

otoh there seems to be only you that doesn't want to have the ADS back in at all. Max (and many others) just want it to be exclusive (ie disables the FSS), removing the ADS was generally considered undesirable but inevitable. I argue it did not need to be inevitable, it could have been left in along with the other modules (BDS & IDS). This is why I don't think their removal can be justified & that they should be put back in.
Waste of dev time. They don't need to justify it to anyone who understands what an upgrade is.

It's a simple idea to grasp, and everybody wins or at least doesn't lose out. You will not lose out from this either Stigbob.
See above. They can't cater to every edge case with a bugbear.
 
I have accumulated rep or likes from around a hundred, and am aware of at least that many more that cannot find the energy to respond to contributors like yourself. I don't know how many are going to the Manchester meet.

otoh there seems to be only you that doesn't want to have the ADS back in at all. Max (and many others) just want it to be exclusive (ie disables the FSS), removing the ADS was generally considered undesirable but inevitable. I argue it did not need to be inevitable, it could have been left in along with the other modules (BDS & IDS). This is why I don't think their removal can be justified & that they should be put back in.

It's a simple idea to grasp, and everybody wins or at least doesn't lose out. You will not lose out from this either Stigbob.
I would accept either Full ADS functionality like it was before if they are mutually exclusive. If they are not to be mutually exclusive, then the BDS/IDS/ADS would need to change in my view. The better the scanner the heavier it becomes and the more power it uses. I would also remove the infinite range of the ADS. That is what I would find acceptable. My preference is that it isn't in the game at all as it just requires more dev time to implement and would need testing to make sure nothing clashes with the new system and when future updates come there would be even more testing to be done. Also I just don't like it.
 
This thread is not about justifying the removal, it is about adding the old modules back in again.
You are the one saying it is an oversight and they need to justify it, not me. I am just pointing out that you are wrong. So now you know that is incorrect. The removal was no oversight and as you agree that they do not need to justify it to you or anyone of us, then that is not an oversight, you can stop calling it one, yes?
 
You are the one saying it is an oversight and they need to justify it, not me. I am just pointing out that you are wrong. So now you know that is incorrect. The removal was no oversight and as you agree that they do not need to justify it to you or anyone of us, then that is not an oversight, you can stop calling it one, yes?
You are pointing out that you disagree Max. It's okay to disagree ;)

If I were wrong you would have given some sort of evidence that cannot be refuted.
 
You are pointing out that you disagree Max. It's okay to disagree ;)

If I were wrong you would have given some sort of evidence that cannot be refuted.
Wrong about what. The proof is front of you.

It was not an oversight to deliberatly remove the Old ADS funtionality as that takes some effort and planning. That is obvious to anyone with a bit of intelligence.

As to giving justification, you yourself agreed that they do not need to. So how is it an oversight when they do not need to?

I don't need to prove that. It is blindingly obvious that none of it was an oversight. If they wanted to keep the old ADS they would have built the new mechanics on top of it instead of completely new mechanics. It isn't rocket science. They obviously wanted to get rid, hence the reason for the brand new mechanics.
 
I would accept either Full ADS functionality like it was before if they are mutually exclusive. If they are not to be mutually exclusive, then the BDS/IDS/ADS would need to change in my view. The better the scanner the heavier it becomes and the more power it uses. I would also remove the infinite range of the ADS. That is what I would find acceptable. My preference is that it isn't in the game at all as it just requires more dev time to implement and would need testing to make sure nothing clashes with the new system and when future updates come there would be even more testing to be done. Also I just don't like it.
I like simple solutions. Just not removing them was the simplest solution (regardless of balance), that horse has bolted so the next simplest solution is to just put them back in (ie no extra rules to give exclusivity etc). After that (in terms of ease of implementation) come various possibilities that include adding extra rules & caveats that would require investigation.

Easiest of all in terms of dev time would be to simply justify their removal (which I don't believe can be done) or to explain the situation. The time to do that would have been before or at release, but it wasn't so just putting them back in is the simplest solution (in terms of dev time).

I have a preference, you have a preference, Stigbob just wants to keep arguing for the sake of it I think.
 
I like simple solutions. Just not removing them was the simplest solution (regardless of balance), that horse has bolted so the next simplest solution is to just put them back in (ie no extra rules to give exclusivity etc). After that (in terms of ease of implementation) come various possibilities that include adding extra rules & caveats that would require investigation.

Easiest of all in terms of dev time would be to simply justify their removal (which I don't believe can be done) or to explain the situation. The time to do that would have been before or at release, but it wasn't so just putting them back in is the simplest solution (in terms of dev time).

I have a preference, you have a preference, Stigbob just wants to keep arguing for the sake of it I think.
The simplest solution is to accept that the game has moved on.
 
I like simple solutions. Just not removing them was the simplest solution (regardless of balance), that horse has bolted so the next simplest solution is to just put them back in (ie no extra rules to give exclusivity etc). After that (in terms of ease of implementation) come various possibilities that include adding extra rules & caveats that would require investigation.

Easiest of all in terms of dev time would be to simply justify their removal (which I don't believe can be done) or to explain the situation. The time to do that would have been before or at release, but it wasn't so just putting them back in is the simplest solution (in terms of dev time).

I have a preference, you have a preference, Stigbob just wants to keep arguing for the sake of it I think.
Surely the simplest thing is to do nothing and leave it as it is.
 
Top Bottom