Most people would rather have guaranteed incremental progress rather than hoping they can get what they want and not constantly shoot themselves in the foot for trying.
So let me get this straight...
- Thread starter Knightshark
- Start date
Most people would rather have guaranteed incremental progress rather than hoping they can get what they want and not constantly shoot themselves in the foot for trying.
LOL! Welcome to the Frontier forums...this is just a quick thunderstorm...if you really want to see a Jovian storm of intensity and longevity come to the Modes subforum....we do not mine salt there we sculpt it into chessboards, chairs, and tables!
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
I absolutely see that point. I don't however see how having your "Engineer level" reset on every single module isn't considered "shooting themselves in the foot" though.
A common criticism of the Engineers have been exactly what you describe, often presented as "why don't the Engineers learn from their previous build and make a better one the next time?". With the new system, they're basically saying that the Engineers get absolute amnesia when you bring them a new module. The logic is disappearing, and the base work needed to get there is worse [where is it]
For the materials trader, I hope you saw the numbers there. If you mine Grade 1 materials, you will have to mine 1296(!!) mats to get 1(!) Grade 5 material!!
I'll tell you this much - with grandfathering, I'm pretty sure that engineering will be a very popular activity for the next month or so.
I think a lot of people might be due for a shock in terms of what the new grade 5 being 'better than' the current grade 5 means because so much of the usefulness of current mods is tied to secondary effects and if they have been balanced with offsets in the new system, it's nothing like as simple as looking at the headline feature of a 'new system' mod and saying 'oh it's 3% better than the old maximum, therefore this is better'. Not if the old mod had 10% better heat efficiency, a 15% mass reduction and a 10% integrity increase.
If secondaries are balanced in the new system or included as part of the main mod, you're going to see things like mass decreases being tied to an integrity decrease, lower power draw being tied to less thermal efficiency and so on. That's where grandfathered mods will play a part because a lot of players have ships built that simply would not be possible without the combination of secondaries, all of which can be positive under the current system and as soon as you change a couple of values on one module, the knock on effects could see you having to re-engineer half of the ship for very little net gain, if any.
However if the new system doesn't allow mods which are the equal of old mods with a full set of favourable secondaries, it actually makes the situation worse for the very players who have been complaining about having to do thousands of rolls to get god mod gear because if they don't have them by changeover day, they'll just never be able to get them at all.
This is going to be interesting.
Last edited:
But what are the grade 5 mats and how many do you need....1295 nickel (if that is the case we are talking about) is pretty quick and easy to get, particularly with the new filtering system for mining.
I get that not all modules will need nickel...or mineable materials...but 1300 of anything as easy to find as nickel is really not that bad...when compared to other games systems of crafting.
And it really is much better than having random chances of failure, after spending any amount of time collecting anything.
Last edited:
As for everyone thinking the broker will solve your data gathering/manufactured gathering/metal gathering woes: it won’t. By which I mean that you still need to get manufactured mats to get manufactured mats, data to get data, metals to get metals. Which is kinda sad, really, because they left a complaint of the current system untouched 
I really hope they spread out mission rewards for mats and buff them to take into account that one bundle is 3 mats nowadays.
I really hope they spread out mission rewards for mats and buff them to take into account that one bundle is 3 mats nowadays.
Proof Pudding
1 Cup Pudding
1 Oz Proof
Mix Proof into Pudding, Chill until Open Beta.
Log in to Open Beta
Purchase new Module
Store Old Module
Engineer New Module to Maximum
Compare results by re-equipping Old Module
If New Module > Old Module Then
Do (Replace Old Modules) with (New Modules) Until
Done
1 Cup Pudding
1 Oz Proof
Mix Proof into Pudding, Chill until Open Beta.
Log in to Open Beta
Purchase new Module
Store Old Module
Engineer New Module to Maximum
Compare results by re-equipping Old Module
If New Module > Old Module Then
Do (Replace Old Modules) with (New Modules) Until
Done
It will be dependent on the purchasable secondary/experimental. As long as those are powerful enough to shift the meta...the current OP weapons could become average/useless within the new metas.
As for everyone thinking the broker will solve your data gathering/manufactured gathering/metal gathering woes: it won’t. By which I mean that you still need to get manufactured mats to get manufactured mats, data to get data, metals to get metals. Which is kinda sad, really, because they left a complaint of the current system untouched
I really hope they spread out mission rewards for mats and buff them to take into account that one bundle is 3 mats nowadays.
Granted, it will depend on how long it takes to gather the items needed...
But completely removes the RNG...wake scans are all movable up or down the system as needed...which makes all scans worthwhile to gather...instead of waiting for those high ends ones you need....
I don't care how long it will take to G5.
I don't care.
Because I never got why Engineers is all about that sweet G5 roll and frankly it has been absurd. So big system....just for that last grade? What?
All I want to have after visiting Engineers is upgrade. Good, solid upgrade. New system promises that.
The progress is guaranteed, however the size of the increments is not. WIth this new system the RNG aspect is superfluous. Getting from G1 to G5 may take you 30 rolls or it may take 10, and you still end up with the same module at the end. It seems like a total half-measure in trying to fix the RNG problem with engineering. IMO it leaves an even more sour taste clicking through a ton of tiny improvements with guaranteed results than rolling twice and having to compromise losses on some attributes for unexpected gains on others.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
Remember that you can only store 100 at a time with the new system. That means you can get 2-two-Grade 3 materials between each time you go to the materials trader. Now calculate how many times you have to visit that materials trader to get one Grade 5 material. It's not all sunshine and roses
I agree, it would be better for a static number of times you have to roll to get through to the next level...that would be wonderful...but if the devs want RNG..to me...this is a better way to use it. Every roll is an improvement...with no possibility of failure. Also remember, the path to the next level does not require a 100% on the previous set of rolls.
Remember that you can only store 100 at a time with the new system. That means you can get 2-two-Grade 3 materials between each time you go to the materials trader. Now calculate how many times you have to visit that materials trader to get one Grade 5 material. It's not all sunshine and roses
But it beats failing collecting hundreds of times to get the right materials to start with. I agree, it's not all roses...but does seem to limit the RNG to not being as harsh as gathering for hours and lose ground on bad rolls.
Sure it will, because my only material gathering woes are a handful of material types that I would otherwise have to go too far out of my way to get or than RNG hasn't been kind with.
I'm fine with this. Seems like good balance between making resource gathering meaningless and having it be overly tedious.
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
I agree that they have removed a bit of the RNG for engineers, which is a good change. The net result is hard to figure out without actually testing it in the beta. From the outside, it however seems that they have shifted and increased the grind for most players who do G5 upgrades for more than one ship or module type.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
For a casual player any mod is a "guaranteed result".
If I currently do a single G5 fsd mod on a fresh module, it is guaranteed to increase the range significantly.
I can do that without going through G1-4 too.
That goes for every module that engineer works on,
That will no longer be possible.
It affects the casual players the worst, objectively.
Nope, to "get it straight" most modules with current engineering will be WORSE than the best the new system offers. They did say that at least twice although admitted there would be edge cases that would be slightly switched.
To me that means it's things like FSDs with increased fuel use per jump and things like that. I expect that key things like dirty drives and stuff will be better on the new system.
Although lets speculate some more, I'm sure we can argue with actual data on Thursday or Friday...
Also duplicate thread of : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...progession-quot-my-A**-listen-to-our-feedback!
If this is really a duplicate then why isn't it closed?
This is probably my biggest grip tbh. It would be fine if we had a sane upper limit on the amount of rolls, both to be able to advance in rank and to max the modules. But I doubt the current has any such thing in place.
Having to pay a straight up 3x fee to advance to get where you can advance to the next rank would be nice (optionally - if you rolled once the cost is 2x, if you rolled twice the next upgrade would guarantee a possible rank up). Then being able to pay a fixed fee to apply the finishing touches, with the option of the small increments would be nice as well (with those increments being random, but a fixed amount of rolls until you max the module).
Or, you know, they could just ditch the rng and give us upgrade levels with diminishing increases between those levels instead. With the downsides then being dynamic between those levels as well, proportional to the increase in the positives. That would be cool.
Last edited: