I think I speak for all new players if I say that FA-On should only be allowed after at least 250h of in game time (not spent docked at the station).
General Overhauling Engineering: A Family's Request for a Streamlined Upgrade System
- Thread starter Daniel Dusk
- Start date
No, thanks.
I prefer checking, what dropped some spicy, big pirate in conda, and collect it, if dropped some g4/5
even it+missions in long shot can provide enough materials. Fact that relog exploit exist doesnt mean, that I have to milkt that each time, when I need any single material.
Your time is yours to waste. You can always do both, you know: fill up on your inventory, and keep an eye out for g4/g5 mats while doing your thing. You'll need to restock again eventually, however, because killing ships won't drop you all the materials you need to engineer more ships.
p.s. and in case it's been missed, the relog "exploit" is sanctioned by Fdev
It is, because the game presents it right off the bat with the rest of the mission types. There's nothing in the game's structure that tells a new player "only go try this if you think you're good at space combat & outfitting your ship properly for it". Most players learn this by the 'error' part of trial & error... which is an inflection point for "keep playing" or "stop playing".
Hitpoint inflation is a big part of the issue, but CZ missions having an innocuous "just like every other kind of mission" presentation is also a facet of the issue with disregarding the importance of proper outfitting & engineering.
That's my point.
I'm to weak in shooters to care about headshots
I did that rn, but more like for tests, than for doing it for benefits.
I tested my regular, AX clipper without fsd booster or experimental, just pure long range for FSD.
16,2 without enginering
G1 roll #1 18,07
G1 roll #2 18,56
G2 roll #1 19,65
G2 roll #2 19,89
G3 roll #1 20,84
G3 roll #2 21,10
G3 roll #3 21,36
G3 roll #4 21,57
G4 roll #1 22,16
G4 roll #2 22,69
G4 roll #3 22,90
G4 roll #4 23,05
G4 roll #5 23,21
G5 roll #1 23,57
G5 roll #2 24,05
G5 roll #3 24,43
G5 roll #4 24,58
G5 roll #5 24,70
G5 roll #6 24,82
G5 roll #7 24,86
G5 roll #8 24,90
For me completing grades is complete waste of materials, if I don't swim in them.
Hm, I was certain about 'sensor range doesn't matter in supercruise' - but digging more into it, it appears you're correct: long range doesn't provide any benefit, but wide angle does... which does give the blueprint a use, I suppose, and would explain why before when websearching I found multiple instances of "sensor range only affects normal space" to corroborate my understanding, yet this time also found several anecdotes to support your experience.
Engineering just can't be simple, can it...?
So just do the fight for the fight and pick up any mats afterward that you have less than a full bin of, after all in a fight like that if you are going to win you are either beyond the newbie stage or such a good pilot that it isn’t an issue.
Also it isn’t the Python that is Elite it is the one in the cockpit flying it, the Python is merely heavily engineered, but yes it would be nice if a rarer mat or two would drop from engineered ships.
One time per player, one time per HGE instancing, one time per location in the game? None of that sounds good, and how do you sell that to the new starter when there are players with bins full of that mat or storage full of the modules that mat created.
Replacing farming with a range of more skilful activities could be good as long as they aren’t like that horrible reflex based version of bio sampling that was trotted out originally.
Good I don’t want Elite to copy other games I prefer it to be itself.
Yes but it is a bit of a catch 22 example as while exploring in the black doesn’t help engineering much, you can’t easily explore much in the black without some engineering.
No matter where the XP goes I don’t consider tourist missions exploration. But driving around in an SRV works in my mind so that gets an explorer access to a whole range of raw mats.
Sticking with your dedicated explorer example how much engineering do you actually need to do.
I applaud that statement, so little if it is incorrect but the whole thing is so misleading.
I spend almost 100% of the time I am doing an activity in the game doing things that progress that activity the issue if there is one is how big a percentage of your total time in the game the activity consumes. Oh! and if you personally enjoy it. After all some people enjoy missions.
You should have just, as I did, spend time visiting new stations in the bubble buying G3 kit and then trying out the activities. I soon found that apart from exobiology there was little that interested me so while I have access, picked up in casual play, to a great many Odyssey engineers I have done no engineering with any of them.
Do you not think that it's bad design to set a goalpost for the player that is not advisable to actually reach for because of diminished returns? It doesn't make sense. Nobody would want to play football to score touchdowns if the field were shaped like a skater rink.
Which you can do by starting the next tier as soon as it’s nut symbol unlocks.
I noticed early on that the numbers inside the rings show where that property will top out at that tier and the current value so tend to stop engineering when there is no meaningful difference. No point chasing down fractions too small to display.
Neither. It's an objective statement. A newer player is going to have a harder time than necessary using fixed-only weapons, and only cannons, against NPC opponents that will be shielded, will be using SCBs, and will be maneuvering heavily - and especially in a ship that is not making full use of its defensive potential.
The suggestion that one takes a 'starter sidewinder' into anything and expects to survive well isn't even worth considering. Yes, smaller ships have higher agility in certain aspects (until you start engineering ships for combat, then medium ships easily match them), that's not the question here at all.
As a player with thousands more hours in the game who doesn’t use FA off for anything other than planetary landings I disagree with your proposal and your right to speak for new players in this matter.
How much of that "gametime" is spent just being in supercruise? Reading guides outside the game? Doing things you don't want to do in order to get over the barrier to entry hurdles to do the things you actually want to do?
A sophist might opine that that isn't truely 'playing' the game. Various loops of the game are inflationary time sinks. Hours played is a very misleading statistic in a game such as this.
It's almost panto season, so....
Oh no they are not!
I have dozens of the things. So I did the relog dance, but only for short spells when at a loose end for something to do.
Steve
At that point you have to question the intent of the design - if the intent of front loading the downsides is to get players to commit to filling it up (even though they don't know how many materials it will take because of the RNG based rolls system and how long those materials will take to gather because of the RNG based drop system) then encouraging players to not fill up the bar or not engineer everything to G5 means the design isn't quite doing it and could be improved.
The simple way to improve it here is to remove the rolls system entirely and have a fixed cost for each tier.
If the intent of the design is to get players to consider the downsides of the engineering more and not go all in on it then the downsides should be increased so that you give up more of one stat in return for another - ideally making mid tier engineering more meta. This wouldn't necessarily lead to a better system and would just introduce more trap choices than there already have unless it's executed really well.
Of course the current design is just something patched together from the corpse of the old, even more random, engineering system with different issues and it assuming there's some sort of deep design intent beyond it is maybe giving it too much credit and it might be better to look at it as many emergent, unintended effects that don't come together to form a cohesive, fun system.
So any suggestions/improvements have to decide not only how to nudge players to make the right decisions but also what the right decision is. This makes reaching a consensus nigh-impossible.
Personally I got the distinct impression it discouraged it the moment you do a roll and get get no noticeable progress.
Anything beyond that is just chucking mats away.
No, I don't.
It is possible to destroy an elite level FdL in an assassination mission with an unengineered Krait mk2. I'm not really interested in the details beyond that.
The thread is about the amount of engineering needed to progress in the game and someone has posted a video demonstrating that the answer to this can be 'none'.
Full G5 or it never leaves the hangar
(well, not always 100% true, but most of the time, yes - there were plenty of situations were i flew G3/G4 ships. Heck - on my Epic account i didnt bother to unlock Palin for more than a year so my ships were sporting only G3 drives)
Oddly, the opponents one meets, as a new player, in the starter sidewinder, are easily vanquished - even with fixed weapons - as the player becomes more competent (according to the ranking system) so does their opponents.
As much as one wishes?
I never have - so none at all. YMMV, naturally.
Guess what... I don't do things I don't wish to do - only the things I wish to do at that time...
Again, YMMV, of course.
Because of how random it can be the fact that there was no noticeable progress on a roll could just be bad luck.
I missed that, what was the video?
Also it obviously just because someone can do it doesn't mean everyone can/should progress through the game without engineering.
But if that was the takeaway then should the game be made harder across the board so that engineering becomes more relevant to everyone and is forced on players more?