Engineering Under Threat - Open Letter etc

If engineering was deleted from the game overnight, I don't think it would effect many at all. We would all quickly get use to the new ceilings, we would each have our individual meta builds, they would just be different to what we had with the Engineers. In other words, WE WOULD ADAPT, just like we did when Engineers was introduced.

As for the idealist dream that nerfing Engineers would somehow get rid of gankers. Nope, can't see that happening. We are talking about a group of people who think it is enjoyable to attack inferior ships, to fly around stations ramming people in their free Sidewinders. Get rid of engineering and all that would happen is these low life's would just revert back into flying around in A rated meta builds looking for those in weak, lower spec'd ships (and of course religiously avoiding any ship that might pose a threat to them, after all aren't all gankers just reverting to their schoolyard bully persona :D )

You are right on the second part. Removing engineers would merely be an inconvenience to the gankers, but it would not stop them. If anything, it might result on one of them occasionally being blown up, as his FDL doesn't have the defences any more which somebody of his skill level needs to survive the withering firepower of a Hauler...

On the first part though i dare to disagree. I mean, there was a time before engineers. The game was live for two years before they were introduced. So it's not like "no engineers" would be pure speculation. We do know how things were at that time. And while indeed many people also gravitated towards meta setups, there were a number of those around. Without blueprints so dominantly dictating which setup is so much more survivable than any others, a much bigger diversity of setups was viable and being used. A number of vastly different combat stypes were used.

Blueprints and the overwhelming effects of stacking effects eliminated them. They hit the wall of +800% or more of defense increase, which they just were not able to overcome. Engineering blueprints completely changed the game and eliminated many formerly used options, without granting actual new options of gameplay. All it brough was power creep, while supporing a much smaller diversity of setups than before.

This is not speculation. This is how the game was. I mean, the game now has many more ships than in 2014. But if you go back to the very old meta discussion threads of that time, you will see that the actual number of ships being used in meta setups was much higher than it is today. And many of those ships even had several vastly different setups (shieldtank, hulltank and stealth fighter were the most common things around, but there were much wilder setups which were also considered to be viable) which were seen as valid choices.

So yes, i know that FD will not ever, even when their companies survival would depend on it, undo what they did with Engineers. But it's not mere speculation if the game would be better and if ship diversity would be higher. We very much observed the introduction of Engineers and at first hand saw the resulting changes. And they were not good.
 
Ok, I'll do that. But first you must mail me a certified check for the amount of $1000.00 and once it clears the bank I'll give you the first clue.
148591
 
I have a DBX that can jump almost 100ly with boost, I suspect it has an OP FSD - only because of Engineering.. I've done some Eng to Power Dist too, but I've not maxed anything out and don't see a need. With my standard build, I have enough range to get almost anywhere and the places I can't get simply require a little weight management..

Short version is, I can take or leave Engineering, although having paid for Horizons, I might feel a little cheated if it was removed.
 
It was a question, there is nothing to double down on.

Maybe you misunderstood. The no idea part was about how many left. The second part is if the game lost people due to engineering, then is it wise to lose even more by upsetting more players? Would it bring more players back?

Its hypothetical, i know.
 
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
There are limits to what FD can do in terms of providing NPC opposition and addressing the combat imbalance due to engineering may actually help with that point as well.
 
Last edited:
3g is child's play, come back to me when you land on a real high G planet with a fully loaded vette and then we'll talk
I said at least 3g, cant remember the exact details of the case I was referring to but it was possibly more than that - the point it is still a DFDI situation and you are still ignoring the point that planetary landing shield damage in high-g circumstances is not a reason to let the issues with combat imbalance to persist.

As I already pointed out, if a suitable level of non-absolute weapon type damage resistance penalties were applied to handle the combat circumstance cases, shield on shield/hull damage made to be one or more of Thermal/Kinetic/Explosive, and ambient body collisions to be made to be absolute, then the main complaints in combat circumstances should be addressed and anyone wanting the high levels of shields for planetary landings should be unaffected.
 
Last edited:
Engineered modules should have a rate of decay instead of nerfing. The engineered module buff/bonus should not be completely permanent but still OP when fed full with mats. Then the devs will just have to decide the rate of decay per grade of module.
 
Engineered modules should have a rate of decay instead of nerfing. The engineered module buff/bonus should not be completely permanent but still OP when fed full with mats. Then the devs will just have to decide the rate of decay per grade of module.

Not what I paid for..

That said, Engineering doesn't really need any work.. C&P needs to work properly.
 
Ok @Gavin786 ,

likeyou, I spent a lot of time and energy engineering my fleet.
just be very careful about you generalisations...calling labourers lazy is not only insulting, it is grossly inaccurate.
The difference between doctors and labourers is not about how hard they work, unfortunately it has more to do with what you were born with...which none of us has any control over.

having said that I agree with the sentiment about leveling or balancing non-engineered ships with engineered ones...should not happen....but...i do not recall reading anywhere that FD intends to , or even implied they’re going to do this...please post a link to where this was stated or implied.

Clicker
Just re-read what I wrote and it can be read that way.
It was not my intention to say that(demean labourers), I meant 2 general categories, not that labourers were in that category, it was not the intent of my words, so apologies if they were taken that way. I do not look down on anyone.

Gavin786
 
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
Dont do any seal clubbing, mate.

I have never destroyed any CMDR low combat rank or unarmed ship.

Adles Armada fought against seal clubbers for a long time in Eravate.

Get your facts right.

I understand symbiosis. We need danger in the game which means we NEED seal clubbers. Does NOT mean I am one.

Gavin786
 

The base stats are also what the modified stats are derived from. You cannot improve the unEngineered vessel without improving the Engineered vessel, unless you are willing to reduce the positive effects of the blueprints.

That's the core of the problem with engineer mods in ED and cause of all the balancing problems. Multipliers that are applied to a base value, this causes the difference between ship types to get bigger with engineering. Breaking anything resembling balancing that was in the game in the process.

A lot of the frictions in this community is a result of the ever increasing unbalance between ship types and usage scenarios.
 

I understand symbiosis. We need danger in the game which means we NEED seal clubbers. Does NOT mean I am one.

The game doesn't need "seal clubbers" it needs in-game reasons for PvP. (And a game architecture that actually supports PvP)

"Seal clubbers" are hurting the game, are hurting PvP as an accepted part of the game.
Engineering removed the danger you say is needed in the game for those engaging in "seal clubbing".
 
Back
Top Bottom