Allow use of pre 3.3 Advanced Discovery Scanner

All of a sudden im finding the autopilot really quite engaging. I might even log in and let my ship do some trade runs for me.
 
Dont you hold such an opinion about the incoming new features? When the patch drops im going to log in, let my ship undock itself, hell im going to take a cutter with no shields, pause outside the station for a moment and then let it dock itself for me. Its going to be so engaging.
Are you quoting the wrong poster ?.
 
Dont you hold such an opinion about the incoming new features? When the patch drops im going to log in, let my ship undock itself, hell im going to take a cutter with no shields, pause outside the station for a moment and then let it dock itself for me. Its going to be so engaging.
Stigbob is just throwing stuff out there, seeing what gets a reaction. The level of scrutiny this proposal is receiving (ie the depths to which the opposition has to stoop to oppose the idea) is surprising to say the least.

I think that the bar has gone so low is itself vindication that the idea has merit, otherwise there would be a better case to present. I would like to see the justification from FDev for removing existing long standing game elements several years after the game was released & bought, and if none can be made (and I don't believe it can be) they should be put back into the game. Fortunately in this case there are no balancing issues to contend with, no objections from the community (setting schadenfreude aside, what one player thinks of how another player plays is not an important factor in game design) , and with the functionality already in the game in explored space very little in the way of a feasibility test will be required.

It just needs a response.
 
Last edited:
I definitely wish FD would come out and end these senseless debates once and for all. However they wish, just state their decision.

That said, my wish is for the system to stay as-is, you know, if FD really wants to know, just throwing it out there. :D
 
I definitely wish FD would come out and end these senseless debates once and for all. However they wish, just state their decision.

That said, my wish is for the system to stay as-is, you know, if FD really wants to know, just throwing it out there. :D
Debates are only senseless if there is no legitimate room for compromise - if I had my way I would have FD scrap the FSS and Space-Golf and go back to the drawing board. However, I would settle for something along the lines of the OP's proposal and progressive (if slow) iterative improvement of the 3.3 exploration mini-games into proper mechanics that do not alienate any given approach to exploration.
 
Real world and video game comparison, lol.
Nope. FD wants this as real as possible. Yeah, they had to fudge some on the supercruise and a lot on the hyperspace. And even a bit on maximum speeds even with flight assist off. But that can be explained by in-game lore. But they did it to make it playable. Being as real as possible an Alcubierre drive is going to have an auto-pilot. No one says the pilot has to use it, but it will be there. It wouldn't even be optional equipment; all ships fitted with the drive would be fitted with an autopilot. Not having one is an immersion breaker. This is set in the early 3300's. They are going to have things that we can't even conceive of now. And cutting people down because they use it shows you to be an elitist snob. You probably look down at people who use flight assist on even though that's the default setting. I look down on people who never turn off flight assist as it seems to me they are flying an airplane in space, but I wouldn't denigrate them with name calling and suggestions that they should be booted off the server.

Real world and video game comparison? No. This is FD's vision of the real world in 3305. So, don't like the AP, don't use it. But don't tell others they shouldn't use it either.
 
That said, my wish is for the system to stay as-is, you know, if FD really wants to know, just throwing it out there. :D
FSS would stay "as-is".
We only would like to allow more flexibility in exploration playstyle by allowing use of optional modules that would change the nature of it.
Those who use FSS and like FSS style of gameplay would still play by its rules.
Those who would like old-style gameplay would equip new modules and be on their merry way.
This way everyone is happy.

Regarding the upcoming update and "Interstellar Initiatives" what Will said himself that players will be able to 'unlock new modules' in the course of these
i'm, for the first time, having my hopes up.
Hopes that we see that reintroduced in a way that everyone could perform exploration in the way that suits them the most.
 
FSS would stay "as-is".
We only would like to allow more flexibility in exploration playstyle by allowing use of optional modules that would change the nature of it.
Those who use FSS and like FSS style of gameplay would still play by its rules.
Those who would like old-style gameplay would equip new modules and be on their merry way.
This way everyone is happy.

Regarding the upcoming update and "Interstellar Initiatives" what Will said himself that players will be able to 'unlock new modules' in the course of these
i'm, for the first time, having my hopes up.
Hopes that we see that reintroduced in a way that everyone could perform exploration in the way that suits them the most.
My guess is there will be more Guardian/Thargoid/AX related modules as part of those unlocks as opposed to anything else.
 
My guess is there will be more Guardian/Thargoid/AX related modules as part of those unlocks as opposed to anything else.
It'll be more weapons, and probably more sizes of mining tools. I don't expect anything exploration-related to show up for another 4 years.
 
Seeing how incredibly important most people find planet sizes and gravitational dependancies, this is definitely the content one should at least put some work into. No ADS.

Perhaps unsurprising, a lot of Elite's appeal is purely visual.

It is kinda sad that the true content of exploration, what that planet actually is and its physical properties, are far less valued.
 
Seeing how incredibly important most people find planet sizes and gravitational dependancies, this is definitely the content one should at least put some work into. No ADS.
This is my preference to, but also open to a compromise.

Perhaps unsurprising, a lot of Elite's appeal is purely visual.
Yup, not surprised either.

It is kinda sad that the true content of exploration, what that planet actually is and its physical properties, are far less valued.
I think the real issue is that most of that doesn't really hold any real value in the game apart from credits. You find a Metal Rich planet close to the bubble, you get good credits for those planets, but after that nothing happens. You would expect some enterprising company would be out there mining the place, but nothing happens. That's what I find frustrating. You find all this stuff, but it has no meaning within the game.
 
What about something like that?
Hiding the pictures solves nothing and would be wasted effort - Cherry Pickers are already favoured with the FSS thus that common "excuse" for doing so is effectively moot.

Besides, the "thumbnail" topological map picture in itself is not necessarily indicative of anything. Ultimately, the exact image shown on the topological map is moot but there is a current approach for it and I do not believe it should be changed.

Seeing how incredibly important most people find planet sizes and gravitational dependancies, this is definitely the content one should at least put some work into. No ADS.
Huh? I disagree with the "No ADS" argument in terms of what the OP has essentially proposed. Planet Sizes and Gravitational Dependencies should essentially be already catered for in the Orrery map that FD introduced.

Perhaps unsurprising, a lot of Elite's appeal is purely visual.
The main issue with the FSS is that Frontier seem to have forgot this and concentrated too much on the audio aspect - not everyone has good enough hearing to be able to appreciate/learn the nuances in the audio aspects of the FSS.

It is kinda sad that the true content of exploration, what that planet actually is and its physical properties, are far less valued.
I disagree with the assertion that this information is far less valued - if it were less valued then people would not bother detailed scanning bodies except for bragging rights.

Ultimately, the topological map view is what it is - I do not believe there is a legitimate reason to change it as part of the OP's proposal. If particular individuals want other changes related to the topological map representation then I respectfully suggest creating a separate proposal/suggestion thread.
 
I would love the ability to choose which version of any given feature that I could use.
Old exploration mechanics, engineers old version, pre 2.4 crime and punishment etc.
Yeah, I know I can dream on. But some times I just prefer the old way.
 
Top Bottom