Powerplay Did they seriously just fix the retributor and give it to an engineer?
- Thread starter Szyslak22
- Start date
Well, that's fine, it's not like we were using it.
When are out other exploited system bonuses going to be fixed? Namely the 400% supply/demand modifier and the 5/10% agri equipment price reduction for Indi/Alliance systems respectively.
And why are Land Enrichment Systems and Pesticides not part of the Agricultural Equipment category? Whhy are Tobacco, Mineral Oil, Beer and Wine also not part of the Agricultural Goods category?
Last edited:
Mineral Oil is a petroleum byproduct and the vast majority of its uses (in the 21st century, anyway) are not food or agriculture related. Why would that be an agricultural good?
The others are probably due to either being added after Power Play or being in other categories for legal reasons (ie, so they can be banned by various government types).
Last edited:
How many upgrades to make the Cryptoscrambler worth using?
Because it's produced by agricultural stations and only them in the ED universe. They are very much a "good" produced by an Agriculture economy. If it's a mistake and was supposed to be produced from Refineries, that's fine by me, but I'm asking for consistency. Mahon boosts Agricultural systems, I want them boosted fully, even to the commodities that most people consider worthless.
Keep in mind that we have 3 categories specified.
Agricultural Goods
Agricultural Equipment
Agricultural Food Goods
And no, none of them were added later with Horizons, nor do the bonuses interfere with the government's ability to ban them. If a bonus is to alter banned commodities list, it's specifically mentioned and none of the modifier bonuses does that.
For example: Our bonuses mention a price reduction of 5% Agricultural Goods and Agricultural Equipment for Control systems, but 10% for Agricultural Food goods and Agricultural Equipment for an exploited system ruled from an Alliance faction.
By this, the Exploited system should have cheap Tea, but the Control system should have cheaper Tobacco. (if it's not a faction which bans it) This is how I know that Tobacco, Wine, Beer and Mineral Oil are not included in the category and has never been. Similarly, this is how it's known that the 10% price reduction in Agricultural Equipment for Alliance systems(5% for Independent) doesn't work. Because the cheapest prices are still in Control Systems, whereas they should be at Alliance Exploited Systems.
And once again, this is how I know that Land Enrichment Systems, Pesticides and Bio-Medicines (forgot about them) are not included in the Agricultural Equipment category, because Control Systems buy/sell them for the same prices as everyone else.
Keep in mind that Land Enrichment Systems and Tobacco are also the biggest credit makers when it comes to coming in and out of an agricultural station, so it's an even bigger slap to the face when we are specifically deprived of the most important commodities on top of some of the flavor ones.
And before you say that maybe this is for balance purposes: If you do a simple search for credits/ton in EDDB, with a minimum earnings floor of 2000 credits/ton and limited to Mahon space, you will have 0 results. If you remove the restriction, you will get thousands of results in Torval and Aisling space upwards to 2,800 credits/ton.
This change would still not get in the above the 2000 credits/ton club for any commodity related to our bonuses. So it's not a balance reason either, because we are at the bottom of the barrel and will remain so, while others have already been allowed to have up to 4 times more profit than up here.
Last edited:
Sorry, I should have elaborated, I was speaking from my database admin background. Anyway, things like tobacco, beer and wine are in the "Legal Drugs" category, which is a type banned by some station governments, and it's possible that they way FDev's data structures are made caused that whole category to be overlooked or omitted for your bonus. Whether this was intentional or even the actually case was conjecture on my part. However, in a similar vein, Land Enrichment Systems are technology, and pesticides (like mineral oil) are chemicals, two other categories that don't scream "Agriculture" to me, so maybe that's how they got missed. I do wish FDev were more explicit with these types of bonuses, the Aisling-lings [haha] spent several weeks figuring out what all the "High Value Goods" were and if it actually worked right.
By the way, I didn't see bio-medicinces on https://eddb.io/commodity ...
Last edited:
Agri-Medicines*, excuse me. They are in the Medicines category.
I also would like to mention that we are in Cycle 46 and at this point I don't care about the reasons why FD might have missed it in Cycle 1. I want them fixed. The bonuses are broken beyond just what is part of the categories.
The 5/10% agricultural equipment price reduction in Independent/Alliance systems doesn't work to begin with. With or without Land Enrichment Systems, Pesticidies and Agri-Medicines in the pot.
The 400% supply/demand modifier for Agricultural Goods foes Independent/Alliance systems and -50% supply/demand modifier for Federal/Imp systems also both don't work. With or without Tobacco, Mineral Oil, Beer and Wine in the pot.
And then I also expect the categories to be actually proper. Whether FD missed it or not implies a mistake on their part. It's quite a joy that some mistakes can be corrected, which is why I reported it. But it's been a while which is why I'm asking Sandro.
Additionally, contrary to Aisling's bonus (which was fully functional from Week 1), our categories are very much specific by name alone.
"Goods" refers to the merchandise of an economy. Since in ED there is no second hand selling, this would refer to its products. Heck, I'd go as far as to say that if a system is an Anarchy, this should boost the production of Narcotics as well.
The existence of a category referred to as "Food Goods" also indicates that it's supposed to be a sub-category of the other. Currently there is no difference.
The word "equipment" is also very specific. From Oxford Dictionary
So there is no reason for Agri-Medicines, Pesticides and Land Enrichment Systems to not be there.
Anyway, I consider your example nullified by Aisling's bonus alone. She takes commodities from multiple categories within a single bonus, so it wasn't any limitation of sort by data structure. She boosts commodities from Metal to Technology to Medicines. Thus it was simply an oversight. And the fact that we're in Cycle 46 and most of these oversights are still not fixed is simply insulting if you ask me.
Last edited:
Do you guys still have some of them broken as well? I remember that you were the other black sheep of the bonuses family, but I didn't check whether the latest fix did any good to you.
And you also suffer from a similar situation where Delaine only boosts the prices of Battle Weapons instead of all weapons, right?
Last edited:
I'm not sure any of those are working honestly.
We just got the 'legalize' slaves stuff fixed for our control systems.
It certainly appears we still have issues with 'increased demand and consumption' of narcotics and weapons - and I'm not entirely sure the black market bonus stuff is working either.
We just got the 'legalize' slaves stuff fixed for our control systems.
It certainly appears we still have issues with 'increased demand and consumption' of narcotics and weapons - and I'm not entirely sure the black market bonus stuff is working either.
Last edited:
They might consider [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Land Enrichment Systems something only used in terraforming, as that was the goods they wanted on that CG. After all reinvigorating the soil isn't something that is relay needed on an agricultural world. It's not like that isn't one of the biggest problems we are facing in the agricultural sector in the years to come (in the real world).[/FONT]
I really wish that Frontier would think twice about the experience of a player spending almost an entire year pledged with a power that isn't fully implemented.
I get that their plans for the game include putting in a lot of placeholders here or there that don't stand up to close scrutiny, to be fixed at a later date. That is okayish with me.
But I really don't think they have an understanding what it means to be pledged to a power for 46 weeks and not only does the vaunted module that you waited for a month for do nothing (as opposed to other power's modules, it's not just unuseable, it has no effect at all,) no, all the other modifiers are also borked.
Now, people rightly say that it could be worse: At least Mahon gets you trade dividends, which is a nice thing to have. (I think those have been fixed for a couple of months now, so there is progress.)
But a year of false advertisement and placeholders have made some of us (read: me) all extremely cynical about Frontier's promises. I became extremely frustrated and quit power play, vowing to never touch it again. (And I wouldn't have before the Big Snipe of 04/16, so thanks, Feds!) So I guess you'd have to view our comments through that lens. Which is why I think that the placeholder thing does not work in Frontier's favour when it comes to power play. I really hope they rethought their strategy and put some finished code into the Engineers beta this time (which I take is the reason for the delay.)
I get that their plans for the game include putting in a lot of placeholders here or there that don't stand up to close scrutiny, to be fixed at a later date. That is okayish with me.
But I really don't think they have an understanding what it means to be pledged to a power for 46 weeks and not only does the vaunted module that you waited for a month for do nothing (as opposed to other power's modules, it's not just unuseable, it has no effect at all,) no, all the other modifiers are also borked.
Now, people rightly say that it could be worse: At least Mahon gets you trade dividends, which is a nice thing to have. (I think those have been fixed for a couple of months now, so there is progress.)
But a year of false advertisement and placeholders have made some of us (read: me) all extremely cynical about Frontier's promises. I became extremely frustrated and quit power play, vowing to never touch it again. (And I wouldn't have before the Big Snipe of 04/16, so thanks, Feds!) So I guess you'd have to view our comments through that lens. Which is why I think that the placeholder thing does not work in Frontier's favour when it comes to power play. I really hope they rethought their strategy and put some finished code into the Engineers beta this time (which I take is the reason for the delay.)
Last edited:
Don't forget people play powerplay that won't have access to 2.1, due to systems issues rather than just not willing to pay. Even if they would want to it still isn't available on Mac or Xbox right?
Without Horizons you cant get to the Engineers as they will apparently all be planet based therefore no upgrading.
If looting works on ships in space, feel 1.6 users should get access to it even if they can only sell the stuff they gained. If 2.1 users could then buy player sold stuff in stations even better but probably hoping for to much there...
Thermal shock is for pulse lasers, since retributor is beam you can upgrade it to heal your allies shields while you overheat them
Thermal shock is for pulse lasers, since retributor is beam you can upgrade it to heal your allies shields while you overheat them
Brings a whole new meaning to "cauterizing a wound".
Good point, and one I admit I did not consider. Let's hope 1.6 brings substantial improvements to existing functionality.
It had better by Blaire's 2am reserve hot.
How would that work? You have to be pledged for a minimum of 4 weeks before he'll talk to you, and then once you have the upgrade you find out that it's just as effective as the current one?