Engineering Under Threat - Open Letter etc

[lenna]

It would be exceedingly extraorinary rare for anyone to loose an internet connection only when your loosing in combat. And an occurence like that would be one in a million.

You would need to prove that is only where it happens and coincidences can happen - incidents need manual policing and proper investigation. Even penalising one play in a million is unacceptable - the basis for your argument is inherently flawed and totally arbitrary.

 

[Havvk]

because it is 100% necessary to throw out the non-combat-related good points of engineering, when throwing out the bad game-ruining combat-related aspects of engineering while we're talking about how engineering affects combat balance.

Because every time somebody bitches about engineering, it's always combat oriented in some way.


I've never seen somebody about "waaaaaaaah that guy's stripped down exploraconda can do 80+ lyrs per jump so p2w waaaaaaah" or something like that

 

[M00ka]

I mostly disagree with this sentiment - because engineering ought not to have been about pure buff - like you appear to be commending.
Instead, there ought to always have been some balancing issues for the individual to address (not balance between different CMDR's builds, but balance for each individual modification). We got that in a very small way - like overcharged MCs increase DPS, but at a small cost to power consumption. Really, the power consumption increase ought to have been greater than the DPS increase.

I would liken this to increasing a car's horsepower. Each increased step of engine horsepower, in the real world, comes at exponential cost steps. For instance, to increase the bhp output on my Evo from 300-ish to 350-ish costs in the region of £500 to £1,000. To add another 50 bhp the costs spiral upwards and the next extra 50bhp, taking it from 350 to 400, the costs are now £1,500 to £2,500 over and above the already upgraded 350bhp. Moreover, the first extra 50 bhp might gain you 4 secs a lap of a race circuit, if you're lucky. That's 4 sec per lap improvement for £500. However, the next spend of £2,000, let's say, would only improve your lap time by a further 2 sec. This is the inescapable law of diminishing returns. On both the power versus investment, as well as the lap time gained versus power. So what we're now discussing, for the final outcome of raw lap time potential versus cost, is the law of diminishing returns SQUARED.

Engineering in Elite ought to have been similarly embodied.
As the example - increased DPS from MCs - add 10% DPS for increase of 30% power draw; add 15% DPS for increase of 90% power draw; add 20% DPS for increase of 180% power draw, or numbers somewhere in that relative curve. Shield hitpoints and hull reinforcement ought to follow a silmilar principle. where the drawbacks to shield is power consumption - which then affects your ability to deploy weapons - in a far larger way than what we have now, and hull reinforcement comes at the diminishing returns against weight, which adversely affects acceleration/deceleration and manoeuvrability - both far, far more than it does now.

It ought to be up to the individual CMDR how he likes to fight to his strengths and to leverage those strengths while defending against the inherent weaknesses imposed by his choices. (The so-called "consequences" that so very many CMDRs evangelise about - while those evangelists always ensure they eradicate any chance of "consequences" to themselves - through the medium of boners engineering.). Instead of what we have now, which is pretty much a large benefit for little cost and a larger benefit for less increased cost overall. Kind of an inverse squared law of cost versus returns.

That would open up a whole new dimension to combat engagements in particular. What we have now is a one-tactic affair - where you know your build responds best to one line of tactics. Instead - the second by second tactical choices wold be much more dynamic in an environment where actual trade-offs were taking place in engineering. For example, it might be that there is a limited opening to choose to go all-out attritional, but the opening is finite, and once past that opening it is not tactically sound to press for attrition, instead taking a more defensive stance until the window of opportunity might open again.
(And I know what I'm talking about here from real world air combat - if anyone knows anything about one-circle versus two-circle air combat engagements; and moments when you can press toward an advantage that if you don't attain it in time, it rapidly becomes a disadvantage to you... and that you need to recognise the closing window and honour that threat before it actually closes on you.)

If game PvP were more like this, a balancing of your own capabilities, then I might become interested. But it isn't. And symmetrical engagements are just not interesting. While asymmetrical engagements are far too asymmetrical.

Really well said and covered the points I was going to make (probably fair more eloquently than I would have as well lol).

For me, the problem isn't just engineering, but the way FD have allowed certain builds without any downsides, for example, stacking of certain modules. Take any ship, throw a shield generator into the appropriate slot then fill the rest with HRP's. Then compound the effect and G5 mod all those HRP's. Suddenly the player has ship with a damn near indestructible hull for very little downside. What I would like is for every stacked module there is a both an increase (in what the module is supposed to do, i.e. integrity with HRP) and a massive downside (PP generates 10% more heat, Thrusters are 10% less effective, Shields are 10% weaker, FSD range is 10% less). Stack another one and the downsides are now 15% or 20%. So in the end the player has to make a decision, does he want an impervious hull on his Cutter but now that Cutter can't turn, makes a snail look fast, overheats if you look at it funny and has a single digit jump range.

Look we all know if FD did anything to Engineering or to the module stack problem, salt would flow freely. But I think most would understand as all that is happened is the meta ceiling has been lowered, and lowered for all. The only ones that would rant and rave are those umm less educated (can't really call them blithering idiots can I) that don't understand the changes and think it is only their ships that are effected and not everyone elses.

 

[lenna]

Because every time somebody bitches about engineering, it's always combat oriented in some way.


I've never seen somebody about "waaaaaaaah that guy's stripped down exploraconda can do 80+ lyrs per jump so p2w waaaaaaah" or something like that

That is because people with 80+ Ly Condas typically don't go ganking other players in them.

 

[Havvk]

That is because people with 80+ Ly Condas typically don't go ganking other players in them.

Then the problem is gankers, don't blame Bill Turner or Tod 'The Blaster' McQuin for ganker behavior.

The real fix would to make the C&P actually work to make it just as risky for PK'ers as it is for careless carebears

 

[galahad2069]

Except that is an unfair penalty for anyone who encounters internet issues outside of their control. Anyone who thinks that proposal is reasonable is out of their tiny mind.

[EDIT]If people have issues with encountering combat logging incidents, report them to FD and let them deal with it as they see fit. The report feature is there for such cases, use it. FD will of course need to look at each report and identify trends, investigate, then act appropriately.[EDIT]

I support the same idea (rebuy screen on disconnect, nice explosion shown to the remaining CMDR's in the instance), but as for the penalty, you are right. It would be utterly pointless and unnecessary, as no one in their right mind would want to clog if they knew that it wouldn't save them from the rebuy screen anyway.

 

[Screemonster]

I mostly disagree with this sentiment - because engineering ought not to have been about pure buff - like you appear to be commending.
Instead, there ought to always have been some balancing issues for the individual to address (not balance between different CMDR's builds, but balance for each individual modification). We got that in a very small way - like overcharged MCs increase DPS, but at a small cost to power consumption. Really, the power consumption increase ought to have been greater than the DPS increase.

I'd love it if instead of just a straight "your ship gets faster but a little hotter", thruster engineering was tuning like "your boosts cost less, but are less effective" and "redirect power from main thrusters to lateral/vertical thrusters, boosting agility at the cost of top speed" and so on.

 

[Cmdr_Ajay31091]

The Op only likes to seal club anywho, as mentioned in another thread... So I can see why he's so annoyed lol o7 Ajay

 

[lenna]

Then the problem is gankers, don't blame Bill Turner or Tod 'The Blaster' McQuin for ganker behavior.

The real fix would to make the C&P actually work to make it just as risky for PK'ers as it is for careless carebears

Arguably the problem is both gankers and game balance - the later is easier to resolve than C&P.

 

[Havvk]

Arguably the problem is both gankers and game balance - the later is easier to resolve than C&P.

[Citation needed]

 

[lenna]

I support the same idea (rebuy screen on disconnect, nice explosion shown to the remaining CMDR's in the instance), but as for the penalty, you are right. It would be utterly pointless and unnecessary, as no one in their right mind would want to clog if they knew that it wouldn't save them from the rebuy screen anyway.

The problem is the circumstances that can result in a disconnect are not JUST because of active player action but also external forces outside of their control. Despite the claims of some, the underlying causes are not infrequent nor unexpected.

Like I said anyone that supports the idea you are proposing is being entirely unreasonable and I would probably put you all in the wannabe-ganker/pixel-bandit group. Ultimately such an automated response is too extreme to be justifiable.

 

[lenna]

[Citation needed]

Not really - simple common sense.

The issues with game balance are well reported, as are the issues with gankers. Eliminate the imbalance that allows gankers to flourish and the ganker issue is lessened as a direct result.

 

[Havvk]

I support the same idea (rebuy screen on disconnect, nice explosion shown to the remaining CMDR's in the instance), but as for the penalty, you are right. It would be utterly pointless and unnecessary, as no one in their right mind would want to clog if they knew that it wouldn't save them from the rebuy screen anyway.

If this goes through, I'll menu log 100% of the time until it's reverted

Not really - simple common sense.

The issues with game balance are well reported, as are the issues with gankers. Eliminate the imbalance that allows gankers to flourish and the ganker issue is lessened as a direct result.

So you can have a noteriety of 10 and get away with ganking players all you want with no risk to your own CMDR. Okay

 

[Babellon]

Engineering is an annoying convoluted mess. You get g3 with one need g5 so go to the next one that has that, and have to start all over just to get that g5, making all the progress you did with the first engineer pointless and a waste of time, mats, and the effort it took to get the mats or travel to the location. The in game panel does not list all of the modules you can do at which engineer, another of Frontiers "guessing games" and instead spend your time you could actually be playing watching some video or reading one of various websites to get the information that frontier didn't feel should be a part of the players information in the game.

Do I think non engineered ships should be just as strong as engineered ships? no, otherwise what is the point of that extra grind and time involved. I disagree entirely though with the idea that any of it should be modified to facilitate pvp. Far to many would be PVPers spend far to much time attacking unarmed ships, trade and exploration vessels and conflate easy targets for skilled game play.

People keep calling soloists carebears and complain we want the game to hold our hand.
Yes, I want the game to hold my hand
I want it to make love to me on some distant outcrop overlooking the galactic rim
I want it to ravish me in the wake of a neutron star
embrace me in a black hole
I want it to show me all its wonders, its beauty, its majesty
and I want to feel completely enraptured in it.

I don't want to play a guessing game. I am not trying to make up for a lack of accomplishment in life by reliving it in a fantasy world. There is no reason for the stark bare bones information feedback, no reason for senseless grinding to get to another grind gated behind a elongated time loop of endless repetition.
We are not carebears because we do not want to face off against a would be pvper in our unarmed exploration vessel coming back from some long trip into the black. We're players who want to enjoy our game, our way.

 

[Rampant]

The problem is the circumstances that can result in a disconnect are not JUST because of active player action but also external forces outside of their control. Despite the claims of some, the underlying causes are not infrequent nor unexpected.

Like I said anyone that supports the idea you are proposing is being entirely unreasonable and I would probably put you all in the wannabe-ganker/pixel-bandit group. Ultimately such an automated response is too extreme to be justifiable.

External forces outside their control?

You are referring, of course, to peer-to-peer internet connection attacks - remotely disconnecting your adversary by means of electronic trickery - a notion which belongs to the same realm of mindset as the player who suggests that "any disconnect is a destruction and rebuy".

PMSL.

 

[Morbad]

Have fun with your crappy 30 lyr jump ranges on your conda then

30ly is more than plenty.

because it is 100% necessary to throw out the non-combat-related good points of engineering

Logistics are part of combat too, but even if the game didn't have any combat, I'd still be in favor of reducing jump ranges. Overly rapid travel has really degraded the sense of scale of the galaxy.

 

[Havvk]

30ly is more than plenty.



Logistics are part of combat too, but even if the game didn't have any combat, I'd still be in favor of reducing jump ranges. Overly rapid travel has really degraded the sense of scale of the galaxy.

Have fun never being able to see the literal edge of the galaxy even with max jumponium+neutron boost(if you can even find one lmao)

 

[Rampant]

Engineering is an annoying convoluted mess. You get g3 with one need g5 so go to the next one that has that, and have to start all over just to get that g5, making all the progress you did with the first engineer pointless and a waste of time, mats, and the effort it took to get the mats or travel to the location. The in game panel does not list all of the modules you can do at which engineer, another of Frontiers "guessing games" and instead spend your time you could actually be playing watching some video or reading one of various websites to get the information that frontier didn't feel should be a part of the players information in the game.

Do I think non engineered ships should be just as strong as engineered ships? no, otherwise what is the point of that extra grind and time involved. I disagree entirely though with the idea that any of it should be modified to facilitate pvp. Far to many would be PVPers spend far to much time attacking unarmed ships, trade and exploration vessels and conflate easy targets for skilled game play.

People keep calling soloists carebears and complain we want the game to hold our hand.
Yes, I want the game to hold my hand
I want it to make love to me on some distant outcrop overlooking the galactic rim
I want it to ravish me in the wake of a neutron star
embrace me in a black hole
I want it to show me all its wonders, its beauty, its majesty
and I want to feel completely enraptured in it.

I don't want to play a guessing game. I am not trying to make up for a lack of accomplishment in life by reliving it in a fantasy world. There is no reason for the stark bare bones information feedback, no reason for senseless grinding to get to another grind gated behind a elongated time loop of endless repetition.
We are not carebears because we do not want to face off against a would be pvper in our unarmed exploration vessel coming back from some long trip into the black. We're players who want to enjoy our game, our way.

Brilliant.

You managed to place the words: rim; hole; fantasy; bare; grinding; coming; long; and enjoy. So very innocently. I salute you.

o7

 

[Morbad]

Have fun never being able to see the literal edge of the galaxy even with max jumponium+neutron boost(if you can even find one lmao)

Less than a hundredth of a percent of the galaxy can't be reached with a 30ly jump range.

 

[Havvk]

Less than a hundredth of a percent of the galaxy can't be reached with a 30ly jump range.

And that's why engineering should stay and instead we should fix the actual problems players cry about instead of punishing everybody else just because a couple of people think it's the cutest idea ever to ruin one's gameplay