Does anyone actually enjoy engineering?

[-VR- Max Factor]

True, because one is very well implemented mmo aspect in an actual mmo and the other is an attempt at an mmo aspect in a sandbox game

i am no fan of the power creep of Engineers. And to me that is what makes it bad. The rest though is fine.

Pretty much how I would describe a sidewinder

That's like describing a horse in a MMO as tiny.

Shinrarta?

What about it. 1 system in 20000 inhabited systems which you can still get into with a sidewinder.

No but there are time gates and material sinks, both very common and important aspects of mmos

Or commonly referred as gameplay.

I was speaking in general, I also didn't say it's actual end game content, I stated and I quote:

It's nothing like endgame content for me.

With reasoning I stated above, power surge equipment that "unlocks" current lore content.
My point was that ED is a sandbox game that for some reason has MMO aspects implemented in them, without a proper missions to accommodate it. Obviously it doesn't have fully fleshed out mmo design, because it is not an mmo. But since it's not an mmo, aspects taken from mmos are not very well done (in my opinion).

ED is mostly a sandbox with some optional theme park elements.

I think we're just spinning in circles over definitions, if you want to nitpick and say it's not a full mmo, I don't disagree, but to deny it's using mmo aspects, that's just not true.

It's possible you are correct.

 

[House0fDerp]

That's what the comment you were replying to said. They scrapped it.

They didn't scrap it so much as remove the capacity for it to be lossy.

When the same input can be used for varying results, that's still RNG.

 

[House0fDerp]

What about it. 1 system in 20000 inhabited systems which you can still get into with a sidewinder.

You can probably add every permit locked system as well.

And on the subject of arbitrary "level restrictions", rank locked ships as well. Historically missions worked like that too with pilot's federation ranks, but that was some time ago.

The engineers are locked behind arbitrary requirements and all but the starter set are further locked behind progression levels with their prerequisite engineers.

They may not be explicit global levels, but the game is structured around the same gamey progression gate principles.

 

[Jack Schitt]

The considerate way would be to have the power creep set in dedicated instances where players "choose" to go - instead of rolling the dice whether to encounter one.

At the core of this is the inexplicable decision to have random enemies "level up" as the player does, instead of spawning contextual ships according to location, security level, allegiances, legal status etc. There is some of that, especially around PP, but it's still heavily weighted by the player's combat rank. If FD did what I consider to be the sensible thing and removed that factor altogether (or even reversed it so that top-tier AIs with "life experience" would try to avoid tangling with high-ranked players who might pose an existential threat) then perhaps that aspect of the Engineering problem would also be mitigated to some degree.

Sadly I consider this to be a most unlikely change, especially now that "higher ranks = tougher enemies" is baked right into the game's instructions by virtue of the bottom-of-screen tips that appear while it's loading.

In the meantime I always build my non-combat ships around the ability to run away. Engineering isn't essential for this (although certain mods really help) but it does lead to an awful lot of drop-boost-evade-jump repetition. I don't mind this as I still enjoy the physical experience of flying the ship(s). But for players like Bill who have gone beyond a tolerance threshold, or those who are on the cusp, I understand how it must boil one's piddle so to speak.

The game definitely needs some sort of balance pass and/or logic overhaul for PVE encounters. Whether this is best served by a direct tweaking of the Engineering mechanics or by changing something more fundamental (or indeed a combination) is uncertain. And of course if FD don't see the current situation as problematic, it's academic anyway.

Let's hope they're at least aware, if not actively pursuing a solution.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

You can probably add every permit locked system as well.

And on the subject of arbitrary "level restrictions", rank locked ships as well. Historically missions worked like that too with pilot's federation ranks, but that was some time ago.

The engineers are locked behind arbitrary requirements and all but the starter set are further locked behind progression levels with their prerequisite engineers.

They may not be explicit global levels, but the game is structured around the same gamey progression gate principles.

You can unlock those with a sidewinder perfectly fine so no I disagree.

 

[House0fDerp]

You can unlock those with a sidewinder perfectly fine so no I disagree.

You can disagree if you want, you'll still be sidestepping that levels exist and are used, which was the point provided to you.

I can level cap several games in starter gear, it doesn't mean there aren't levels to cap or arbitrary restrictions based on those levels.

If the only crux of your argument is that starter gear remains potentially relevant even if horrendously inefficient then ED is hardly unique.

Engineering is just an arbitrary system that marries a gamey achievement system and a typical crafting level up system. Its implementation isn't really unique and certainly doesn't try to separate itself conceptually from other level up systems in games.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

You can disagree if you want, you'll still be wrong.

No I'm not.

I can level cap several games in starter gear, it doesn't mean there aren't levels to cap or arbitrary restrictions based on those levels.

But you were still forced level.

If the only crux of your argument is that starter gear remains potentially relevant even if horrendously inefficient then ED is hardly unique.

It's probably the most efficient ship in the game. It's free and it can do everything.

 

[House0fDerp]

But you were still forced level.

Depends on the game. ED for instance forces pilot federation ranking (unless you do next to nothing). Dark Souls and Eve Online allow closer to perfect freedom to not progress however.

It's probably the most efficient ship in the game. It's free and it can do everything.

By definition of cost effectiveness? Maybe. Depends on what you're doing, how long and whether it can do the job. Try making a core miner sidewinder.

Edit: Even by cost effectiveness everything else will eventually close the gap and make more credits earned per time spent eventually because of the low performance ceiling of the sidewinder. So there's that to consider too.

Edit 2: Initial edit said credits earned per credits spent but was intended to say credits earned for time spent and was changed.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Depends on the game. ED for instance forces pilot federation ranking (unless you do next to nothing). Dark Souls and Eve Online allow closer to perfect freedom to not progress however.

Lol. Pilot federation ranks are meaningless. Levels open up the next part of the game. Ranks do not. I haven't looked at my ranks in over a year. If they mean something to you, that's your choice.

By definition of cost effectiveness? Maybe. Depends on what you're doing, how long and whether it can do the job. Try making a core miner sidewinder.

But it can still mine.

Edit: Even by cost effectiveness everything else will eventually close the gap and make more credits earned per credits spent eventually because of the low performance ceiling of the sidewinder. So there's that to consider too.

And what do credits give you, new ships to get more credits to get more ships to get more credits. Again a meaningless cycle.

You are not helping your argument here.

 

[House0fDerp]

Lol. Pilot federation ranks are meaningless.

They affect mission earnings.

Levels open up the next part of the game. Ranks do not. I haven't looked at my ranks in over a year. If they mean something to you, that's your choice.

Which is why we also have Empire ranks and Engineering.

So are ships, modules and places in space are not parts of a game about flying ships in space? Because they are certainly locked and unlocked by arbitrary levels.

But it can still mine.

Which isn't what was asked for and as such is proof of it not being able to do everything, effectiveness aside.

And what do credits give you, new ships to get more credits to get more ships to get more credits. Again a meaningless cycle.

Not sure how you figure that. I've used credits to get ships to change my capabilities and open new ways to play and do things, which is a fundamental part of the game. The cycle is no more meanigles than really any other considering that everything is in service to self satisfaction with regard to the game. We don't do this as a job or for some greater end so I'm not seeing what that observation has to offer as a counter argument other than advocating never playing the game again.

You are not helping your argument here.

Not really sure how. I mean, if you don't care about ships in a game about ships I guess it makes sense?

 

[Starsong]

The thing with engineering is that it shouldn't be done all at once, so it's not so grindy. Go unlock one engineer and do a mod, then go fly around for a bit testing the new module on some pirates or whatever else you like doing.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

They affect mission earnings.

So what.

Which is why we also have Empire ranks and Engineering.

Empire ranks give you access to ships that are optional. You do it because you want it, not because you need it.

Engineer's, you can do most things in the game with any engineering. The only thing you do is combat. But even that is optional if you are careful.

So are ships, modules and places in space are not parts of a game about flying ships in space? Because they are certainly locked and unlocked by arbitrary levels.

You don't get it. What ship you decide to fly is purely optional. You are not forced to fly any ship in the game to open up vast areas of the game world.

Which isn't what was asked for and as such is proof of it not being able to do everything, effectiveness aside.

I never said it could.

Not sure how you figure that. I've used credits to get ships to change my capabilities and open new ways to play and do things, which is a fundamental part of the game. The cycle is no more meanigles than really any other considering that everything is in service to self satisfaction with regard to the game. We don't do this as a job or for some greater end so I'm not seeing what that observation has to offer as a counter argument other than advocating never playing the game again.

It's a fundamental way you play. The game is about choices and you decide that is how you want to play it. I don't. They are both valid, so saying I am wrong is utter baloney. We just see different things as important, which you seem.to not understand.

Not really sure how. I mean, if you don't care about ships in a game about ships I guess it makes sense?

What has caring about ships got to do with it.

A traditional progression based game forces that progression on you. You have no choice to level to access the game.

In ED that is not a requirement apart from some small purely optional parts of the game. In LOTRO you have no choice but to level up to access 99% of the game.

Now you might think it's badly designed because of that, but for me it is its biggest strength. It's in one of the main reasons why I love the game. Nothing is forced on me, I can do what ever I like in whatever ship like, when I like. Love it.

 

[House0fDerp]

So what.

So they aren't meaningless. They do something.

Empire ranks give you access to ships that are optional.

Being optional is irrelevant but thanks for pointing that out I guess.

Engineer's, you can do most things in the game with any engineering. The only thing you do is combat. But even that is optional if you are careful.

Which is again irrelevant. The game and it's systems are there to be played, not ignored. Them being optional adds nothing to the discussion, especially not when you're trying to create a conceptual division between this and other games considering there are other games that offer the same, but better in that respect.

You don't get it. What ship you decide to fly is purely optional.

Which is irrelevant, the ship is put there to fly, but in some cases rank locked, in all cases credit locked. This is a fact. Those locks being optional or not mandatory does not mean they don't exist. And that observation doesn't make them any less arbitrary or gamey in their means or implementation. Those things have nothing to do with each other.

I never said it could.

Corrct, you just avoided acknowledging it couldn't after stating it could do anything.

It's a fundamental way you play. The game is about choices and you decide that is how you want to play it. I don't.

Right, so pointing out one way is optional doesn't actually add anything to a conversation about playing that way. That's why you're wrong. Not because of any way you play. But because you've chosen to state arbitrary requirements to use parts of that game are not arbitrary requirements to use parts of the game.

What has caring about ships got to do with it.

It's the only way the stance of "the requirements don't count as requirements" makes sense. I stated there were plenty of arbitrary and gamey locks similar to other games in the mechanics I listed, you said there weren't because you could do them in a sidewinder which makes no sense because being able to do them in a sidewinder means they are there to do. So I'm not left with much else to attribute your stance to.

A traditional progression based game forces that progression on you. You have no choice to level to access the game.

Ok

In ED that is not a requirement apart from some small purely optional parts of the game. In LOTRO you have no choice but to level up to access 99% of the game.

Ok, but no one is saying it should be like LOTRO. The issue is that you're seemingly creating a false dichotomy where it either is forced LOTRO style leveling or wholly unarbitrary in requirements. These are far from the only possibilities.

Now you might think it's badly designed because of that

Please point to any statement I've made that advocated a LOTRO style leveling system. I'd like to know why you think I'm saying it's badly designed because it lacks one. If anything I'm saying the systems that are similar to those types of games, IE the gamey requirements of the engineers, clash with the otherwise sandboxy nature of the game, not that we need more of them.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

So they aren't meaningless.

The are to me.

Which is irrelevant but thanks for pointing that out I guess.

Oh I agree. They completely irrelevant.

Which is again irrelevant. The game and it's systems are there to be played, not ignored. Them being optional adds nothing to the discussion, especially not when you're trying to create a conceptual division between this and other games considering there are other games that offer the same, but better in that respect.

Never said they weren't there to be played. But how you interact with the game is down to you, the game doesn't force it on you.

Which is irrelevant, the ship is put there to fly, but in some cases rank locked, in all cases credit locked. This is a fact. Those locks being optional or not mandatory does not mean they don't exist. And that observation doesn't make them any less arbitrary or gamey in their means or implementation. Those things have nothing to do with each other.

I never said it wasn't a fact. But you do not need to have those ships to access 99% of the game. You choose. It's not forced on you like other progression type games.

Corrct, you just avoided acknowledging it couldn't after stating it could do anything.

I never stated it could do everything. I said it could do virtually everything.

Right, so pointing out one way is optional doesn't actually add anything to a conversation about playing that way. That's why you're wrong. Not because of any way you play. But because you've chosen to state arbitrary requirements to use parts of that game are not arbitrary requirements to use parts of the game.

There has been nothing arbitrary about anything I have said.

It's the only way the stance of "the requirements don't count as requirements" makes sense. I stated there were plenty of arbitrary and gamey locks similar to other games in the mechanics I listed, you said there weren't because you could do them in a sidewinder which makes no sense because being able to do them in a sidewinder means they are there to do. So I'm not left with much else to attribute your stance to.

They are purely optional which is complete different to a traditional progression type which is what I was talking about in the first place with another poster before you joined in.

Ok

Glad you agree. ED is nothing like that thankfully.

Ok, but no one is saying it should be like LOTRO. The issue is that you're seemingly creating a false dichotomy where it either is forced LOTRO style leveling or wholly unarbitrary in requirements. These are far from the only possibilities.

I was responding to someone saying that engineer's is end game content. It is not. That is what this conversation has been about from the beginning.

Please point to any statement I've made that advocated a LOTRO style leveling system. I'd like to know why you think I'm saying it's badly designed because it lacks one. If anything I'm saying the systems that are similar to those types of games, IE the gamey requirements of the engineers, clash with the otherwise sandboxy nature of the game, not that we need more of them.

You didn't, but you replied to my reply to someone saying that it was.

The requirements may have some similarities, but that is where it ends.

As to the gamey engineer's that is a completely different subject to what was being talked about.

 

[House0fDerp]

Never said they weren't there to be played. But how you interact with the game is down to you, the game doesn't force it on you.

I never said it wasn't a fact. But you do not need to have those ships to access 99% of the game. You choose. It's not forced on you like other progression type games.

I'm aware, so what remains is to ask why you think that diminishes or affects the argument? All I said was the game had arbitrary locks in response to one part of a post where you minimized the scope of those locks. You stated explicit disagreement. How does the observation of those locks being optional factor in?

I never stated it could do everything. I said it could do virtually everything.

It's probably the most efficient ship in the game. It's free and it can do everything.

There has been nothing arbitrary about anything I have said.

I didn't say there was, you made a statement in response to someone pointing out a permit lock as an example of a level gate, I pointed out there are a number of those as well as other equally arbitrary requirements. You said you disagreed while bringing up a sidewinder, but I never took objection to your mention of the means being low, only that the gates were there regardles of the tools used.

They are purely optional which is complete different to a traditional progression type which is what I was talking about in the first place with another poster before you joined in.

When someone point out gamey requirements for certain game features, "they are optional" doesn't address that in the slightest. That they aren't "level up" systems doesn't erase that criticism. Further I made my statementsclear, I'm not trying to answer for those arguments made by another poster or even brought them up as end game.

I was responding to someone saying that engineer's is end game content. It is not. That is what this conversation has been about from the beginning.

And I never made an objection to that. I just pointed out there were a number of gate mechanics, not just one system. I never weighed in on whether it was "end game" or not. It probably should be considered that as the case is that it entails creating the most powerful version of any given ship including the sidewinder,, given that ships themselves are a non-linear quantity of their own. But that's my first post wading into that topic here.

You didn't, but you replied to my reply to someone saying that it was.

Ok, let me back up here and say, that's not what I was saying or trying to support any such argument. I only was pointing out that there are a lot of Shinrarta style goals with their own requirements.

As to the gamey engineer's that is a completely different subject to what was being talked about.

Well, no, that's the very subject I've been talking about. Not the one you were hving with another poster, but the conversation I've been trying to circle back to ever since that was the focus of my initial reply to you.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I'm aware, so what remains is to ask why you think that diminishes or affects the argument? All I said was the game had arbitrary locks in response to one part of a post where you minimized the scope of those locks. You stated explicit disagreement. How does the observation of those locks being optional factor in?

You misunderstood what I was talking about as you didn't read the back story.

I didn't say there was, you made a statement in response to someone pointing out a permit lock as an example of a level gate, I pointed out there are a number of those as well as other equally arbitrary requirements. You said you disagreed while bringing up a sidewinder, but I never took objection to your mention of the means being low, only that the gates were there regardles of the tools used.

They are not level gates. Sure there are gates there, but they are not like level gates. They can be unlocked in any ship you want to. It has a gameplay gate sure, but that's the reason for having gameplay.

When someone point out gamey requirements for certain game features, "they are optional" doesn't address that in the slightest. That they aren't "level up" systems doesn't erase that criticism. Further I made my criticisms clear, I'm not trying to answer for those arguments made by another poster.

What are you criticising? All you have done is attack my post which you seem to have completely misunderstood the meaning of.

Regarding the sidewinder I meant combat, trade and exploring. It can do all of those.

And I never made an objection to that. I just pointed out there were a number of gate mechanics, not just one system. I never weighed in on whether it was "end game" or not. It probably should be considered that as the case is that it entails creating the most powerful version of any given ship including the sidewinder at it's limits, given that ships are a non-linear quantity of their own, but that's my firt post wading into tht topic here.

I never said there weren't any gate mechanics. As to end game you can start engineering in your sidewinder if you so wish, that does not constitute traditional end game. Of course if you are not interested in making the biggest most badass ship in the game, its irrelevant.

Ok, let me back up here and say, that's not what I was saying or trying to support any such argument. I only was pointing out that there are a lot of Shinrarta style goals with their own requirements.

Which I am not in disagreement with.

Well, no, that's the very subject I've been talking about. Not the one you were hving with another poster, but the conversation I've been trying to circle back to ever since that was the focus of my initial reply to you.

Why as I wasn't talking about whether they are gamey or not.

Are they gamey, to some yes, but like a lot of things, it's very subjective.

Do I like the ridiculous power creep, not one little bit.

 

[House0fDerp]

You misunderstood what I was talking about as you didn't read the back story.

I wasn't misunderstanding or commenting on the backstory. You know full well there is more than one rank locked system and I was relating it to similar mechanics. You seemingly assumed I was saying things were end game when I never said or quoted those parts of your post.

If I'd intended to do that, I would have done that.

They are not level gates. Sure there are gates there, but they are not like level gates. They can be unlocked in any ship you want to. It has a gameplay gate sure, but that's the reason for having gameplay.

Glad we're in agreement.

What are you criticising? All you have done is attack my post which you seem to have completely misunderstood the meaning of.

Attack? Reread my initial post. All I did was point out a series of similarly arbitrary mechanics to that one.

Regarding the sidewinder I meant combat, trade and exploring. It can do all of those.

It was ambiguous and apparently my interpretation was more literal.

I never said there weren't any gate mechanics. As to end game you can start engineering in your sidewinder if you so wish, that does not constitute traditional end game. Of course if you are not interested in making the biggest most badass ship in the game, its irrelevant.

The "What about it. 1 system in 20000 inhabited systems which you can still get into with a sidewinder." comment with the full knowledge other systems have requirements of the same nature doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. YMMV. For what it's worth I'd say deep performance customization would be end game period, regardless of whether it was the biggest and most bad ass, smallest and fastest, or most attuned to your playstyle regardless of peak effect.

My "endgame" wake scanner is a s---fit IEagle.

Why as I wasn't talking about whether they are gamey or not.

Are they gamey, to some yes, but like a lot of things, it's very subjective.

Do I like the ridiculous power creep, not one little bit.

Yeah, but I was talking about them being gamey. Because I think they are and there are lots of examples, some of which embody my frustrations with engineering. You made statement that didn't seem to make sense in the scope of the game as a whole even in that context though. So I addressed both because why not? It's there to be commented on after all.

 

[h347h]

I used to like it more before they ruined it.

But I still enjoy it to some extent.

 

[Rustnsawdust]

At the core of this is the inexplicable decision to have random enemies "level up" as the player does, instead of spawning contextual ships according to location, security level, allegiances, legal status etc.

Oh yes! I don't understand how Elite in 1984 got that so right, and ED in 2014 got it so wrong. I really have few complaints about the game but that is right up there at the top of the list.

And, merely to address the OP, yes, I do enjoy engineering. But largely because I don't do much of it. I buffed the jump range on my explorer Asp, and buffed the shields on my armed-trader Python, because they were useful upgrades and simple to do. And that's all the engineering I've done. Farseer and Martuk are the only engineers I've unlocked (and I've been playing for three years). Eventually, I guess I'll do some more, but I don't see the need right now.

 

[fus roh potato]

Just my personal position on engineering:

I never liked a single part of it, nor any of its versions since 2.1's release. It added work to the game that was neither challenging or interesting, completely threw balance out the window, dropped the PvP skill factor, and made PvE trivial. There are in fact a number of game development laws culturally held as standard by the industry, basic concepts used to guide development, that were violated with 2.1's concept as if the design leads had no previous development experience.

If it had been focused on horizontal expansion instead and required participation in more challenging activities (like how base scanning did), I might have liked it. I think the only support it received came from players who have addictions related to reward-based overindulgence and gambling.