Engineers Medium Security Settlement List and Guide for Modified Embedded Firmware
- Thread starter Devari
- Start date
Judging on your discription I can only assume that you are speaking about M2M (Medium size "Refinery"[med.sec]), or that one. Am I right?
Last edited:
Actually I suspect that it's base size, more than the security level, that's the main determinant of getting MEF as a possible data drop. I'm not sure if there is much of an advantage going from a +++ Medium security to a +++ High security base to try to get better MEF drops based on what I've read. The High security bases are dramatically more effort due to combat/bounties and this would likely mean that any small improvement in MEF drop rates is likely not worth the effort of trying a High security layout. I've only ever ran through the +++ Medium security bases or the ++ Extraction layouts (either Medium or High security) as they can be done without shooting in 20 mins or less. The only exception to this seems to be that the Extraction layouts can drop MEF both in Medium or High security variations despite being classified as Medium sized ++ settlements but they seem to count as "Large" settlements for data drops due to their unusual base layout (core base area with mining extraction clusters several km away from the main area).
Devari, look for page 12 of the current thread. The things have changed, size was important before 2.1.05, and now it is not anymore. Only security matters. So MEF can be found in any of SxM, MxM and LxM (and higher security, I suppose). This is confirmed by many commanders and me.
Last edited:
This thread is gold. I just got 1 (actually 3) MEF from "Godnan Mine ++ (Med)" in "Catuntinigi". It has the same layout as the quoted image. I failed at my first attempt to scan all data points in time yet my 2nd run yielded 3 data packages, one of them MEF.
BTW is there a way to disable those force fields or are we supposed to jump around with our SRV? After all there are lots of other knobs in that settlement but they did not seem to do anything except one of them made the skimmers and turrets hostile.
Yes, there are some ways to disbale them, but they are "unauthorized" in most cases, i.e. counts as aggressive act. I mean in some case scanning special terminals (in most cases they are in "private" access mode) or blowing up dedicated generators (always counts as aggression). The result is predictable - all defensive measures will chase you + bounty on your head. But yes, "gates" will be opened=) If you prefer this way...=)
So far I remember only one settlement layout - L3M - where you can open one gate without violating the owne's rules - but you nedd not to do it=)
P.S. As an example, look for the "path" map for M4H layout in my mapping spreadsheet. As this layout is hi-sec and fully fenced the only way for a DAP scan run is the "full assault" with taking down defenses.
And on the DAP scan path itself (as shown) you must blow up minimum two generators in the order given to open gates (they will remain only open for a limited amout of time) and access all datapoints (case of non-neglectable gravity)
And on the DAP scan path itself (as shown) you must blow up minimum two generators in the order given to open gates (they will remain only open for a limited amout of time) and access all datapoints (case of non-neglectable gravity)
Last edited:
That is what I missed, I did not try shooting things [big grin] Maybe next time on an anarchy faction ruled settlement, I have enough MEF for now. Thanks for the info.
Heard different things if the already scanned station get reseted after a certain time. At least with me it this did not work after 4 weeks revisiting those stations. And if anybody of you driving experts made some videos driving through the different layouts, for sure many newbies would appreciate this very much! This is really an amazing thread!
Rare case=) - here I can't reply as an expert. As you, I've only "heard" about resetting (in two weeks), but never tried investigate this question it detail ("vagabond" gameplay style - as a general rule, I don't visit any place - or settlement - for the second time). So, your information already pushes this reset time limit up to at least 1 month cooldown.
The only related case I've really investigated - the case when your ship was destroyed before delivering "inteligence" DataVaucher (CDT scan or those "ridiculous" 5-20K cr you've got as a result of the DAP scan). As a remark, I've found here an issue that I'm personally count as "disbalancing" factor. Instead of the same case, say, with "exploration" data, in the same circumstances you can not re-scan (re-explore) same settlement before "supposed" cooldown.
The same kind of issue results in that simple fact, that I can't use my own lists to rebuild/refine datadrops statistics
LOL wait what? So after I scan one of these bases and yet again discover that it doesn't have the one type of firmware that I'm actually frakking looking for because there's nothing at all I can do to influence my chances of it having the type I need, it doesn't even reset after I leave the instance, or the planet, or even the system but actually remains unscannable for A MONTH? AN ACTUAL MONTH? Dear Jesus, who dreams this stuff up? Spending a weekend looking for the stuff I need to roll a modification to a gun, or rather for one single component of the modification. Get in the sea.
Considering that virtually nothing in the game is persistent, I have to say that the decision to make this one of the few things that is has genuinely amazed me.
Considering that virtually nothing in the game is persistent, I have to say that the decision to make this one of the few things that is has genuinely amazed me.
Last edited:
I haven't come across any large data comparisons since 2.1.05 and I've only run through a very small number of bases myself since this patch so that might well be the case. I did notice a slight increase in MEF drop rate in the High security Extraction vs. Medium security Extraction bases even prior to 2.1.05 but the base numbers were so small (only 3 bases of each type) that I couldn't really draw any conclusions. Do we have any idea how much "better" the MEF drop rates are for High security vs. Medium security bases and if that difference would be worth the trouble of taking on High security versions of the layouts? The difficulty here of course is getting enough data from the High security bases which unless you have a wing or a very powerful ship (i.e., modded Corvettte with ridiculous shields) it will be hard getting enough data drops to see if the High security versions are worth considering as a source of MEF for most players.
From my base runs on high-g worlds the gravity has never been so high that I couldn't just jump over forcefield gates so I never bothered trying to disable them. The ramp leading up to the roof on the Exploration layout bases is a good alternative to driving/boosting up the wall if the gravity is too high although it does take some practice to time the jumps right (you need to tilt forward and boost). I only ever bothered jumping over the forcefield gates if I was on a high-g Exploration layout or if I found myself trapped inside the courtyard on a high-g Industrial layout (i.e., when the gate closes behind you or you fall off the roof/wall) as it can be a good option for getting to the roof of these bases when you can't boost/drive to the roof due to the high gravity.
Last edited:
Honestly, I'm speaking not about High security Medium/Lagre sizes. I'm speaking about ANY size medium security bases - not only Large or "special" M5M layout. MEF was recorded as a drop from "normal" medium size/Medium Security, Also from Small size/Medium security.
Last edited:
That makes sense, you mean that the main determining factor for MEF drops is base security rather than base size, not that there is necessarily a difference between medium vs. high security versions of the same layout (although I would probably expect this to be the case as well). Given that higher security layouts are supposed to be more "difficult" to get scans from than medium/low security bases that does makes sense but unfortunately it will be hard to test the High security bases in the numbers we would need especially given that the RNG has issues with "clustering" the drop results. The other issue here is that for a proper comparison we would really need to start recording all Grade 5 data drops instead of just MEF to see how "good" the data drops are. I've definitely gotten into a tendency to consider the other data mostly "junk" except for Cracked Industrial Firmware and MEF even though the game is technically giving us other Very Rate data such as Classified Scan Fragments which are actually equivalent to MEF in terms of rarity (i.e., Very Rare Grade 5 data).
Yep, exactly - since 2.1.05 the base security level is the main determining factor (this and the data "grade") for all kinds of data (including MEF). That was not true prior to 2.1.05 when size was also one of the factors. My statistic after 2.1.05 reset is also very poor - I haven't recorded any new entry since 19/08 due to this highly dissapointing news about new kinds of "magic" planned to be introduced by FD in 2.2.
Also, from the very beginning I record all data obtained - UEF SLF TEC MCF CSD CIF OSK SFP DSD MEF CSF
Check the "Data" section at the right extremity of my mapping spreadsheet - on the new "ED:H 2.1 BIG" tab
Last edited:
Ok maybe it's just me but with all the changes this is starting to get really hard to follow. Is the consensus that medium security bases, regardless of type and size, are the best for MEF? Or does the size and type also come into play? Or are we just not sure?
Is the general guide just do the bases listed in the first post?
Is the general guide just do the bases listed in the first post?
I can tell you my own experience from yesterday:
Medium security +++ exploration layout - MEF received from 4 out of 5 checked
Medium security +++ industrial layout - MEF received from 0 out of 4 checked
So it seems that in general med sec +++ bases still give out MEF; however the type of base is a major factor in whether you get it. The industrial bases gave me cracked industrial firmware by the way, which does seem to have some logic to it at least.
Those are obviously very small sample sizes though.
Last edited:
Ok thanks for this. from what I can tell, Med Security +++ Exploration is "L2M" ? on the spreadsheet. Am I right with that?
There's 16 of them on that spreadsheet, including 2 on 89 Leonis I've already done. So that's 14 I could try.
In the reality of 2.1.05:
For type I can not confirm due to poor statistic (but it was non-dependent prior to 2.1.05, however this proves nothing). But dependence on medium secutity and no dependency on size - yes.
And for the list - the one in the spreadsheet has much more entries.
Due to drop-off mechainc of 2.1.05 (more in quantity, less in variety) - exactly this. 4-5 gives nothing as statistical representation.
Yes, Large exploration med.sec is L2M by my original classification.
As I've said, I can not exclude or include layout type dependency (but so far no good enough proofs), but it is not size-dependent. At least for 3 layout from 5 of MxM (Medium size/Med.sec) the drops are proved.
Same situation with Small Size/Medium Security bases.
You can look on "ED:H 2.1 Big" tab on the main mapping spreadsheet.
The rightmost area - "Data" - is about proved(or not) given datatype in a given layout/security
white "+" on green background - encoutered by me
Orange "+" - by some other commanders
Grey "+" - encountered on in other layout of the same real size and same security level
The only solution so far - call for help for commanders doing runs using provided lists
I can create spreadsheet form that anyone can copy and fill up of ALL data that he got along its way for each settlement scanned (in "seeds", not in data storage "units").
So they can be lately collected, assembled and the so needed statistic obtained