The epic fail of Beyond

[Devari]

Is it nonsense though. People complain about the RNG, so FDev remove It, so now people complain about something else. People complain about the lack of a crime and punishment system, so one is added and people still complain.

Players want improvements to the existing system, not complete redesigns that create as many new problems as they solve.

Is there more grind? The only reason to grind is to get God rolls, so the new system will be better as it will be less grind for God rolls.

Yes, of course there will be more grind in the new system. Right now I can generate as many grade 5 rolls as I have mats for with each roll generating a new grade 5 module. In the new system it will be around 12-15 rolls just to get a single module to where I can get it now with one roll.

 

[Ian Skippy]

now explain to the good people why it's taken FDev 2+ years to get around to it.

While you're at it you might want to make a start on the reasons you'll give to justify why the original plan has been cut in half, thus making the "improvements" largely worthless.

Please don't trot out the same old "they have been working on other content", because it'll just annoy people - fact is when something is NECESSARY you do it FIRST - when your car needs new tyres because it doesn't handle very well anymore you FIX (buy) THE TYRES, you don't waste time (and money) adding a spoiler and uprate the suspension in the hopes that will fix the issue of bad handling.

FDev have been monumentally naive in beleiving that adding more content will distract people from the core problems.

Sure "Beyond" is supposed to address that but right off the bat the first core problem "fix" - C&P - is only getting 50% of what it needs.

I've been playing a game called "Empyrion - galactic survival" - it's a survival game, my first; anyway recently they did a big update and what came with it was a 5/6 page questionnaire: "what would you like us to do next?" with a bunch of possible ideas to choose from - ranging from new content, fleshing out existing content or FIXING (updating optimizing) CONTENT.

Guess which choice got the most votes? I'll give you just ONE guess. go-on have a try see if you can guess which was the most requested thing they plan in the next developmental stage.

Here's a lesson FDev never learned: people will wait for new content if the existing content works properly, and what's more it's easier to build new content WITHOUT BUGS, if the previous content is BUG FREE.

The recent steam sale (and others) of ED and Horizons highlighted something to me that I had previously overlooked: the price.

No I don't mean that it's cheap now compared to what we paid for it at the start - I mean it's cheap now. FULL STOP.

Look at how much Skyrim still costs, Dishonored 2, Fallout 4 (1 DLC far harbour, ON SALE, still costs MORE than ED+horizons), Sniper Elite 4, The Witcher 3 (including ALL DLC's), Far Cry 4, there are literally scores and score of games older than ED (or similar age) that even on sale cost more than ED does.

Worthy games can still command a decent price and people will pay it - I know people who won't even buy ED on sale for £10.

Says a lot that does.

BTW planet coaster is already being sold 75% off - less than £8 - it was released a year ago. LOL.



because FDev has ALWAYS DELIVERED what they said at expo right?

what do you mean "no"?

Here is some stuff you NEVER LEARNED. LOL. FULL STOP.

1) People dont owe you any explanation. LOL.
2) I pretty much by all my games on steam at 50-75% within the first year. FULL STOP
3) I know people who wont buy [random game X] for [random value]. Who cares? PERIOD.
4) Some people have other opinions than you. You want X. Others want Y. LOL.
5) Skyrim got a full remake a year ago. FULL STOP!
6) What you want FIRST is not what OTHER people want FIRST. PERIOD.
7) LOL.
8) FULL STOP.

 

[Devari]

90% of all complaints about the Engineers have been about the RNG

The complaints weren't just about RNG, there were many other issues, including the mat grind, lack of mat storage and lack of commodity or cargo storage. RNG was just one aspect that was criticized and in many cases the complaints were from players who didn't seem to understand basic math, i.e., they would complain when a top-end grade 5 module didn't necessarily get better with a single roll. They didn't look at the RNG logically using basic math or statistics, they looked at it like someone gambling and complaining that they "lost" something. The reality was that RNG was just as likely to work in your favor as it was to work against you and anyone who set up reasonable expectations based on an understanding of basic math was rarely disappointed or surprised by the average RNG results.

which is what they want to address with the update.

Except that they've replaced a moderate amount of RNG with a large amount of grind. Overall that is not an improvement for most players, it is a massive step backwards that no one was asking for.

On the second part, you are assuming that our feedback is homogen. It isn't. We provide lots of feedback and rarely agree with each other.

There are however some very common requests and idea that would have been very easy to implement without reworking the entire system and adding more grind. A materials broker for example could have been implemented without changing the entire Engineering system.

Beyond will also be more than just C&P and Engineers.

Yes, but those are the main goals along with some sort of "rework" for exploration and other core game mechanics. if they can't get Engineers and C&P working well then I don't expect them to be able to improve the other core game features either.

 

[babelfisch]

Players want improvements to the existing system, not complete redesigns that create as many new problems as they solve.

Interesting, someone said just a few pages ago that he wants a redesign rather than improvements.
Anyway, don't bother replying, like I said earlier I don't discuss with people who confuse their opinions with facts.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Players want improvements to the existing system, not complete redesigns that create as many new problems as they solve.

Not from what I have read.

Yes, of course there will be more grind in the new system. Right now I can generate as many grade 5 rolls as I have mats for with each roll generating a new grade 5 module. In the new system it will be around 12-15 rolls just to get a single module to where I can get it now with one roll.

Nope. It will be 12-15 rolls for a guaranteed good roll. For a lot of modules you could roll 15 grade 5's and get worse then your current G4. Is that a good system?

 

[Devari]

Interesting, someone said just a few pages ago that he wants a redesign rather than improvements.
Anyway, don't bother replying, like I said earlier I don't discuss with people who confuse their opinions with facts.

So you're replying to tell me not to bother replying.

How does that work exactly?

 

[Devari]

Not from what I have read.

Nope. It will be 12-15 rolls for a guaranteed good roll. For a lot of modules you could roll 15 grade 5's and get worse then your current G4. Is that a good system?

It is still far more work then the system we currently have. If you put that effort into the current system and make several grade 5 rolls you will have put in far less effort than if you had to roll every single module from grade 1 up to grade 5 each time.

I have a large fleet of ships (26 fully-Engineered ships currently) and to repeat this Engineering with the new system would be terrible. Most of my ships only require 1-3 grade 5 rolls to get a good result that is worth keeping (i.e, 48% FSD range increase, 34% optimal mass increase and so on), not a dozen rolls per module.

Many players also seem to be ignoring the loss of secondary effects which is a massive loss. I have many ships that use grade 1 low emissions power plants or overcharged power plants that rely on secondary effects to improve power generation or thermal efficency in order to be viable for those ship builds. Those penalites will be fixed with the rework and there will be no way to improve on them with secondary rolls. There are also certain weapon builds that will no longer be possible to obtain. I have been rolling a large number of grade 5 incendiary multicannons to obtain as many as possible with reduced thermal load secondaries. It requires a large number of rolls but many of my ships can't handle the thermal load without these secondary effects so it is worth the effort. In the new system I won't be able to generate these mods at all.

 

[Deareim]

No troll here. But the actual new solution for engineer is adding quite a lot of grind or timesink to the game.... And the actual G5 will probably be obsolete.
If it is what FD thinks has "improvements" I am a little doubtful for the rest.
We'll see.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Everyone should listen to this guy. He is the smartest, most down-to-earth and mature guy here. Everyone else is just immature, whiny little brats. He's DEFINITELY not a pompous self-important jack .

Yes, start the year by hurling insults at strangers on the internet! LOL! FULL STOP! PERIOD!

 

[Stealthie]

Nope. It will be 12-15 rolls for a guaranteed good roll. For a lot of modules you could roll 15 grade 5's and get worse then your current G4. Is that a good system?

Very true.

And that's something that FDev definitely should fix by creating a robust delineation between the grades, with minimal overlap.

I, for example, went nuts and made 34 rolls for a G5 FSD a few days ago.
From those 34 rolls, 32 of them were within the scope of a G4 mod (<=40%)
The remaining 2 were, IIRC, 41% and 42%.
In fact, checking back, 12 out of the 34 rolls were actually within the scope of a G3 mod (<=30%).

When a person makes the effort to obtain G5 mat's, they certainly should be rewarded with an upgrade that reflects that effort.


However, having said that, it's utterly absurd to fix one issue and then deliberately put a different, equally contrived, obstacle in people's way instead (presumably in aid of "balance").

Just make it so that higher grade mod's require mat's which are more difficult to obtain.
And, to be clear about this, making mat's difficult to obtain should NOT just mean making them difficult to locate (by dialing up the RNG).
Everybody should be able to locate every mat's fairly easily.
The challenge should be in the difficulty required to obtain them.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Yup. Look at me hurling insults like a two year old. You, however, would NEVER be insulting and condescending.

No idea what got your 2018 off to such a foul start, but take it easy. You're taking this forum waaaaay too seriously. I am not important, you are not important, chill down. PERIOD!

Very true.

And that's something that FDev definitely should fix by creating a robust delineation between the grades, with minimal overlap.

I, for example, went nuts and made 34 rolls for a G5 FSD a few days ago.
From those 34 rolls, 32 of them were within the scope of a G4 mod (<=40%)
The remaining 2 were, IIRC, 41% and 42%.
In fact, checking back, 12 out of the 34 rolls were actually within the scope of a G3 mod (<=30%).

When a person makes the effort to obtain G5 mat's, they certainly should be rewarded with an upgrade that reflects that effort.


However, having said that, it's utterly absurd to fix one issue and then deliberately put a different, equally contrived, obstacle in people's way instead (presumably in aid of "balance").

Just make it so that higher grade mod's require mat's which are more difficult to obtain.
And, to be clear about this, making mat's difficult to obtain should NOT just mean making them difficult to locate (by dialing up the RNG).
Everybody should be able to locate every mat's fairly easily.
The challenge should be in the difficulty required to obtain them.

I think (not just in this case, but in general) Sandro should start by providing a detailed insight into:

1) What he hopes to achieve, and which goals take priority.
2) How he envisions the game will play out after the changes.

At this point I simply dont know if any 'criticism' of his ideas will have him go 'oh wait, I didnt mean that to happen!' or 'yeah, that is exactly what I want!'.

 

[babelfisch]

So you're replying to tell me not to bother replying.

How does that work exactly?

I thought it would be just fair to tell you before you are wasting your time.

 

[JosiahD]

It is still far more work then the system we currently have. If you put that effort into the current system and make several grade 5 rolls you will have put in far less effort than if you had to roll every single module from grade 1 up to grade 5 each time.

I have a large fleet of ships (26 fully-Engineered ships currently) and to repeat this Engineering with the new system would be terrible. Most of my ships only require 1-3 grade 5 rolls to get a good result that is worth keeping (i.e, 48% FSD range increase, 34% optimal mass increase and so on), not a dozen rolls per module.

Many players also seem to be ignoring the loss of secondary effects which is a massive loss. I have many ships that use grade 1 low emissions power plants or overcharged power plants that rely on secondary effects to improve power generation or thermal efficency in order to be viable for those ship builds. Those penalites will be fixed with the rework and there will be no way to improve on them with secondary rolls. There are also certain weapon builds that will no longer be possible to obtain. I have been rolling a large number of grade 5 incendiary multicannons to obtain as many as possible with reduced thermal load secondaries. It requires a large number of rolls but many of my ships can't handle the thermal load without these secondary effects so it is worth the effort. In the new system I won't be able to generate these mods at all.

But it will have a known endstate from that effort, unlike the current system. And it is a more quantifiable amount of work to get there, unlike the current system. As it is now, you don't know how much effort might be required to get a 'god roll' - you might get it first go (after raising your rep with the engineer to 5 of course), you might need hundreds of rolls (and the necessary mats). At least with the new system, you'll be able to better quantify just how much effort is required and we'll have the ability to hold more mats to support that (100 per mat). You won't know for certain as I guess it's still going to be a bit random as to just how much improvement you'll get on successive rolls but at least each roll will always be an improvement. I'm not so concerned about losing the secondaries actually - while I've enjoyed the little bonus each time (and hated the odd negative), the layered RNG nature of it is..... irksome. The new system will have flaws, but the current system is just too painful. That said, reducing the amount of RNG will reduce build diversity. I'm happy to wait and see the outcome of beta testing the new system though, before I judge one way or the other for certain.

 

[Ian Skippy]

But it will have a known endstate from that effort, unlike the current system. And it is a more quantifiable amount of work to get there, unlike the current system.

This. I suspect the goal simply isn't to make Engineers a fast one-stop process at all, Sandro pretty much said as much. So people who want to get 'engineers over with' will be disappointed no matter what, because they want Engineers to be something FD doesnt inted it to be. The goal is to change the RNG itself, not the time it takes to get somewhere.

 

[Achilles7]

Anyway, don't bother replying, like I said earlier I don't discuss with people who confuse their opinions with facts.

....social media in a nutshell!

 

[Stealthie]

I think (not just in this case, but in general) Sandro should start by providing a detailed insight into:

1) What he hopes to achieve, and which goals take priority.
2) How he envisions the game will play out after the changes.

At this point I simply dont know if any 'criticism' of his ideas will have him go 'oh wait, I didnt mean that to happen!' or 'yeah, that is exactly what I want!'.

Indeed.

We can only comment based on the information we have.

Personally, I'm fairly easy-going with my mod's.
If I collect G5 mat's for an upgrade, I'll be happy with anything that's "mid-range" or better.
So, in the case of an FSD, for example, I'll be happy with anything that's around +45% or better.
Usually I can manage that within half a dozen rolls.

That being the case, having to do 12 rolls and an unknown number of G5 rolls seems like a bad idea to me.
Added to which, although G1 and G2 mat's are usually easy to find, gathering G3 and G4 mat's can be time-consuming and frustrating.

And then there's the issue of how a given class of mod' will progress.
People seem to have this idea that because it'll take 3 rolls to "level up" to the next class, a given class of mod will only take 3 rolls to max-out.
This is a fallacy.
For all we know, although the next class of mod will be unlocked after 3 rolls, it might take 10 or 20 rolls to max-out a class of mod.

And then there's the issue of randomness.
We've been told that (to paraphrase) "every roll will be better than the last" but that still leaves a lot unexplained.
If I'm rolling for, say, a G5 FSD upgrade, will it still be completely random what my initial result will be?
Is there a chance that my initial roll will be +48% and then my subsequent rolls will improve on that?
Or, will the initial roll be deliberately nerfed so your first roll is, perhaps, +41% or +42%, thus requiring you to then make a heap of additional, incremental, rolls in order to improve the mod' to an acceptable standard?

Worst case scenario would be that we end up having to collect 25 mat's and make 12 rolls just to reach G5 and then your first G5 roll will be lousy and you'll have to make a heap of G5 rolls to improve that until you achieve a reasonable result.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

No idea what got your 2018 off to such a foul start, but take it easy. You're taking this forum waaaaay too seriously. I am not important, you are not important, chill down. PERIOD!





I think (not just in this case, but in general) Sandro should start by providing a detailed insight into:

1) What he hopes to achieve, and which goals take priority.
2) How he envisions the game will play out after the changes.

At this point I simply dont know if any 'criticism' of his ideas will have him go 'oh wait, I didnt mean that to happen!' or 'yeah, that is exactly what I want!'.

He said already in his 'quick' post - which turned out last news on this in 2017 - that system was meant to be a progression, not one gap stop shop as many treat Engineers today.

It is quite simple. People just clash against idea they will have to work long and hard to get max out ships. That's all there is.

Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't think anyone knows.

As always there are:

a) people who just want to play with teh best stuff, and everything that stands in their way is a grind. Getting Anaconda is expensive? Grind. Getting it maxed out with Engineers? Grind.
b) people who want to 'experiment' with stuff, min/max of their true nature.
c) PvP players who think for them to 'compete' they need 'best gear'. Again, it is just how this thinking has been embedded in gaming community. There's not much PvP as 'we compete on skill', as more of 'who has bigger stick'. I see it as quite pointless to be frank;

All of them hate to work towards their goals, and their goal is gear at the top. They don't want 'some' leverage, they want it all.

I don't believe anything FD will do will fully address their desires.

 

[Stealthie]

It is quite simple. People just clash against idea they will have to work long and hard to get max out ships. That's all there is.

Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't think anyone knows.

It's quite simple.

If people are complaining about the current system and it's replaced with one that provides more of what people are already complaining about then it's wrong.

 

[Sylveria]

It's quite simple.

If people are complaining about the current system and it's replaced with one that provides more of what people are already complaining about then it's worse.

This is probably THE most concise description I've read of the proposed changes to Engineering I've read that makes complete sense.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It's quite simple.

If people are complaining about the current system and it's replaced with one that provides more of what people are already complaining about then it's worse.

I think you don't even try to understand dev perspective.

For people who complain getting G5 is a goal. It is all there is for them. For them it is a shop.

For the rest of the game it is however should serve a more feasible goal.

As I said, for those people Engineers could even not exist, just give them modules to buy.