Redesign the Engineering Grind

[Rubbernuke]

I agree with this, though I think it would require a rebalance of vanilla modules. Many A-rated modules are rubbish in comparison to even a modestly engineered C or D rated module. I usually use engineering to compensate for vanilla weaknesses (like the pathetic drop off range of lasers or jump range of certain ships). I've never built one of these "god ships" that certain people create just so they can complain that NPCs are too easy.

I'd also like a wider variety of experimentals that could also be given out as rewards for certain missions for tech brokers for example.

 

[Northpin]

Part of the point of engineers is to encourage people to try at least most bits of the game at least once. I didn't try mining until I needed to unlock Jean, but it turned out to be quite fun for me.

this, yes

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Just remove engineered AI dropping on you indiscriminately in the scripts. Move them to places where players can CHOOSE to go rather than getting them spawned by RNG or being everywhere in CZs.

CZs are exactly places where players can choose to go, though, and set up specifically to be the toughest non-Thargoid combat in the game. And even then the NPCs with engineering even coming close to player engineering don't appear in the low-intensity ones (but stacked HRPs and military armour make even unengineered NPCs really slow to kill). If the engineered NPCs aren't there, where would they be?

I really can't tell the difference between a Master NPC (no engineering) and an Elite NPC (small amount of engineering, no weapon experimentals) of the types that "drop in on players indiscriminately" like supercruise pirates (or even HazRES ones, which have to be sought out) - whatever engineering they do have isn't making them significantly tougher either in terms of damage dealt or difficulty to kill. (The better pip management on the Elite NPC does, though - 250% extra shields from that is far more significant than the 50% extra they might have from engineering)

I'd much rather, for example, face an Elite NPC Pirate Anaconda without a fighter bay than a Master NPC Pirate Anaconda with a fighter bay - the fighter bay gives way more extra firepower [1], and difficulty of dodging that firepower, than the engineering does, for the cost of a single non-engineerable internal.

[1] Okay, at the moment there seems to be a bug where NPCs never deploy their fighters. But before that came in...

 

[Brrokk]

...
Thank you for choosing to quibble over rhetoric rather than engage with the core concept; I hope your condescension has properly gratified your ego.
...

I think the "rhetoric" was actually key to justifying the following suggestions, and when you examine it it's easily seen to be based on a misconception: a game cannot make you do something you don't want to do. Claiming that it does so is ridiculous.

If OP could have advanced his suggestions as just positive changes, that would have been more effective. But whenever anyone says "widely considered" I see that as a claim to know what the bulk of players think about it, and if I think that's a wrong assessment it seems relevant to say so.

I've unlocked all the engineers in the bubble and the one in Witchhead and engineered about a dozen ships to G5 all over, and thoroughly enjoyed all the involved gameplay. The only requirement is that you have to enjoy flying a spaceship.

 

[Misty_Dark]

I think the "rhetoric" was actually key to justifying the following suggestions, and when you examine it it's easily seen to be based on a misconception: a game cannot make you do something you don't want to do. Claiming that it does so is ridiculous.

If OP could have advanced his suggestions as just positive changes, that would have been more effective. But whenever anyone says "widely considered" I see that as a claim to know what the bulk of players think about it, and if I think that's a wrong assessment it seems relevant to say so.

I've unlocked all the engineers in the bubble and the one in Witchhead and engineered about a dozen ships to G5 all over, and thoroughly enjoyed all the involved gameplay. The only requirement is that you have to enjoy flying a spaceship.

Seems like we are doing the same things... alot of things got much better with material traders, even if we could discuss their exchange rates... but now atleast it gave me and my friends a reason to pick missions for specific rewards, especially top tier mats that we used to exchange for other more desired but harder to get mats, even with the lousy exchange rates, it was often better than trying to get the desired mats directly, also being on the move and just check the local mission lists could now give us some easy missions for a couple mats that was just one jump away.... so by doing this, we collect mats doing other things and then when we want to engineer we often have access to all the required mats, either directly or by material traders...

So we can keep doing things we enjoy with a little extra effort, and mats and credits are good incentive for us to do some activities that we do not rank top fun, so this brings us variety to what we do, as we do a multitude of things instead of focusing on a single thing all the time, that way we got less burnt out. and it was a great way to lure each other back into the game to cash in on a couple of wing missions... free credits and mats are never bad thing....

 

[Masta Squidge]

The funny thing is it's been redesigned what, twice now?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

CZs are exactly places where players can choose to go, though, and set up specifically to be the toughest non-Thargoid combat in the game. And even then the NPCs with engineering even coming close to player engineering don't appear in the low-intensity ones (but stacked HRPs and military armour make even unengineered NPCs really slow to kill). If the engineered NPCs aren't there, where would they be?

I really can't tell the difference between a Master NPC (no engineering) and an Elite NPC (small amount of engineering, no weapon experimentals) of the types that "drop in on players indiscriminately" like supercruise pirates (or even HazRES ones, which have to be sought out) - whatever engineering they do have isn't making them significantly tougher either in terms of damage dealt or difficulty to kill. (The better pip management on the Elite NPC does, though - 250% extra shields from that is far more significant than the 50% extra they might have from engineering)

I'd much rather, for example, face an Elite NPC Pirate Anaconda without a fighter bay than a Master NPC Pirate Anaconda with a fighter bay - the fighter bay gives way more extra firepower [1], and difficulty of dodging that firepower, than the engineering does, for the cost of a single non-engineerable internal.

[1] Okay, at the moment there seems to be a bug where NPCs never deploy their fighters. But before that came in...

The CZ should certainly not ALL feature engineered environment. They didnt used to have them before engineers dropped and goalposting existing gameplay behind another grindwall is just bad game design.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The funny thing is it's been redesigned what, twice now?

How about FD tune them to deliver what they marketed their expansion with? That was 'mild' updates by engineers. Instead we got a universal nerf and bulletsponged gameplay. Great.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The CZ should certainly not ALL feature engineered environment. They didnt used to have them before engineers dropped and goalposting existing gameplay behind another grindwall is just bad game design.

The low-intensity CZs don't in any significant way. But they don't need to be to be serious bullet sponges - something like https://s.orbis.zone/54qr has 3000 hull and (with pips to systems, if it gets the SCBs off [1], if it gets shields back up a few times) about 4000 shields - without any engineering whatsoever, just for a mid-sized CZ ship.

And that's more than tough enough to be tedious to kill even with engineered weapons - in practice, whatever engineering they give the low CZ enemies is more than compensated for by not stuffing all their internals full of HRPs in the first place: the typical CZ medium has way less than 7000 HP, or even with engineered guns most players would need to synthesise multiple times to get a CZs worth of kills. So if they're weaker with some engineering than they could theoretically be without it, it's not really the engineering that's the issue here.

It's important to note that as well as engineering in 2.1, they also made two other big NPC-toughening changes then and since.
1) Better NPC AI - compared with the 2.0 one which would stop and spin on the spot if hit by sustained fire.
2) Slightly more convincing - though still unoptimal by player standards - builds. More HRPs, better (but still poor) use of SCBs, more coherent weapon sets, etc.
For a typical NPC enemy - not a high-end mission target or high-end optional zone, those two make far more difference than the limited engineering they get.


[1] SCBs on a Gunship? Terrible idea - but it's the sort of build NPCs have.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The low-intensity CZs don't in any significant way. But they don't need to be to be serious bullet sponges - something like https://s.orbis.zone/54qr has 3000 hull and (with pips to systems, if it gets the SCBs off [1], if it gets shields back up a few times) about 4000 shields - without any engineering whatsoever, just for a mid-sized CZ ship.

And that's more than tough enough to be tedious to kill even with engineered weapons - in practice, whatever engineering they give the low CZ enemies is more than compensated for by not stuffing all their internals full of HRPs in the first place: the typical CZ medium has way less than 7000 HP, or even with engineered guns most players would need to synthesise multiple times to get a CZs worth of kills. So if they're weaker with some engineering than they could theoretically be without it, it's not really the engineering that's the issue here.

It's important to note that as well as engineering in 2.1, they also made two other big NPC-toughening changes then and since.
1) Better NPC AI - compared with the 2.0 one which would stop and spin on the spot if hit by sustained fire.
2) Slightly more convincing - though still unoptimal by player standards - builds. More HRPs, better (but still poor) use of SCBs, more coherent weapon sets, etc.
For a typical NPC enemy - not a high-end mission target or high-end optional zone, those two make far more difference than the limited engineering they get.


[1] SCBs on a Gunship? Terrible idea - but it's the sort of build NPCs have.

Interesting. That might explain the gap I experienced between small and medium ships. It'd be the internal slots spammed with hull buffs to make it so damn bullet spongy.

 

[Iskariot]

Overview
The Engineering grind is widely considered one of the most soul-sucking chores currently in the game. I believe simply restructuring the grind, without necessarily reducing it, would dramatically improve the player experience while making Engineering in general feel more rewarding.

NOTE: Specific balancing changes exceed the scope of this suggestion.

Proposed Grind

1. Players must discover Engineers and earn invitations to unlock their services.
   • Remove the extra fetch-quests needed to unlock the Engineer's Workshop after receiving their invitation; this grind is relocated later in the process.
   • Consider rearranging the "chain discovery" trees to separate upgrade paths by module type. For example, traders shouldn't need to develop weapon upgrades to gain access to defensive upgrades for armor and shields (e.g., Tod > Selene > Didi). Reassign available upgrades per Engineer if necessary.
2. Players must increase their reputation with the Engineer to access higher-tier upgrades.
   • Engineer workshops provide an assortment of combat, exploration, and transport/trade missions offering reputation and various material rewards needed for research.
   • Players can still boost reputation through a thematic exchange (e.g., bounty vouchers, Universal Cartographics, or commodity trading) at the workshop.
   • Engineers start with all G1 blueprints unlocked. Unlocking G3-G5 blueprints requires fully researching at least 1 blueprint at each tier.
3. Players must research blueprints and experimental effects by supplying materials. (Replaces fetch-questing.)
   • Research is the "rolling for progress" mechanism currently used to upgrade modules.
   • Research does not actually upgrade any modules, and can be completed without the relevant module installed.
   • Material costs for each "roll" are significantly increased.
   • Rolling research to 100% permanently unlocks the upgrade for purchase with credits and unlocks the next upgrade tier.
   • Experimental effects require only a single delivery of materials at slightly increased cost.
   • Blueprints do not repeat across different Engineers; decrease the number of Engineers or blueprints per Engineer as-needed.

Quality of Life Changes

• Any unlocked blueprints and experimental effects can be purchased remotely.
• Upgrades can be pinned/unpinned remotely; pinning simply tracks required materials.
• Paying materials for researched upgrades eliminates the credit cost.
• Players can develop relationships and conduct research with Colonia Engineers remotely at a reduced rate, or locally at an increased rate.

Expected Benefits

• The grind is still sizable and time-consuming, but it at least involves more of the core gameplay loops (combat/exploration/trade) instead of semi-voluntary side activities (SRV prospecting, Signal Source hunting, or data scanning). These side activities are still available, but have better alternates.
• I believe my proposed reputation > research loop is a more plausible and immersive representation of developing a working relationship with each Engineer.
• Players no longer need to tolerate meaningless inconveniences like a limited remote workshop once they unlock upgrades. Inconvenience is not a good balancing factor, and doesn't add anything positive to the game experience. Requiring players to visit Engineers to unlock upgrades still encourages them to venture out and explore, while providing better remote support makes the grind a "one and done" activity.
• Allowing players to substitute materials for credit costs keeps resource farming semi-relevant for those who enjoy it.
• Players can decide whether they would prefer to travel more or grind more when it comes to Engineers stationed in Colonia. I believe a more flexible choice will ultimately encourage more players to make the trip as opposed to ignoring it completely (without forcing the issue).

Possible Shortcomings

• A general balance pass is still needed for blueprints and experimental effects. It's hard to imagine anyone but uninformed players from bothering to unlock upgrades like faster FSD boot sequence, low-emission power plants, or reinforced limpet controllers as they currently are.
• A redistribution of materials across available Synthesis recipes would be needed to keep material farming properly relevant as an aspect of gameplay.
• This does not address the tedium and convolution of finding specific materials without referring to 3rd-party websites.

Closing
Assuming you got this far, thanks for your time and consideration. Do you think my suggestion is viable? Are there problems I'm overlooking? Do you have ideas about how to address specific issues? Please feel free to weigh in with opinions, suggestions and criticisms; just keep in mind that I can only write from my own perspective regarding my own experiences, so if my proposal tramples over gameplay you feel is important I probably just haven't thought of things that way. I'm happy to look for solutions that keep both of us happy.

At first I thought "Another of those threads", but I actually really like what you are proposing.

 

[Sysmon]

The old engineering was the best version. Just a shame it was sold to us with that casino interface that made many cry "RNG" despite the fact that RNG is a staple of gaming in general and the only way really to model uncertainty into gameplay.

S

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

You are mostly suggesting to move things around for an obvious I want to play in credits later for all my engineering.... basically removing all elements of material gathering...

Yes, totally obvious in spite of being patently false.

1. Material requirements still exist in the research phase, and the required quantities per upgrade unlock are increased. The main difference is that players have a choice between running missions (slower, but tied to normal gameplay) or farming materials (faster, but side activities like SRV prospecting).

2. Materials can still be used to purchase upgrades.

3. I directly addressed this as a potential shortcoming and raised rebalancing Synthesis as a way to add value back into gathering.

My proposal is designed to frontload the material grind as a one-time requirement for players who don't enjoy it while keeping it as an option for those who do.

The invitation/discovery of engineers is one of the better parts of the engineering, what you call fetch-quests in this phase is in most cases there to promote you to do activities...
Take Selene Jean and her "fetch-quest" of mining 600 T of anything, is simply there to have you to try mining over most peoples comfort zones for what they believe are a booring activity, at worst, it is one time activity that you need to do only ONCE, to unlock the engineer. But some of these activities might give you some new insight on new things todo. Fro example, for a pretty long time, Selene Jean was considered one of the worst to unlock, due to the mining requirements, now people line up to go mining to make ALOT of credits.

1. You are misunderstanding what the "fetch quest" part is. I'm not saying to remove the "mine 500T" bit. I'm saying to remove the "great, now bring me 10 painite" bit. It adds nothing to double up on the unlock requirements.

2. Your example actually disproves your point; Selene Jean's requirement didn't teach players anything new about mining. MINING changed to become more worthwhile and players naturally flocked to it; Selene's unlock requirements became less painful as a result. You should encourage player participation by making mechanics interesting and rewarding, not giving them checkboxes on a to-do list.

Your reputation suggestions is mostly how it already works today, with the exception of specific missions....does not really add anything to the process... if anything, your version is even more grindier based on the number of blueprints... and what about blueprints that is available at multiple engineers, would you need to unlock that blueprint at ALL engineers you want to be able to use it from?

Please show you are putting some minimal effort into understanding my proposal before complaining about it. Everything here is clearly addressed in the OP:

1. I am not increasing grind, nor am I trying to significantly REDUCE it. I am only restructuring it to be more flexible.

2. As stated, blueprints would not repeat across different Engineers. Either the number of Engineers or blueprints offered per Engineer would be reduced to compensate.

3. With my changes to remote Engineering, there would be no benefit to unlocking the same BP multiple times. It would be a redundant entry in a pool of unlocked upgrades accessible from anywhere.

And your research thing is the worst of them all... first is adds a MASSIVE grind to unlock the blueprints, but once done, you simply bypasses the entire system by buying the upgrades with credits... totally missing hte whole point why engineering uses material/data instead of credits. I get it,

Clearly you don't get it, because this criticism is based on 2 mistaken assumptions:

First, that I would be significantly changing the grind required. The amount of grind should not change significantly.

Second, that I am making material farming irrelevant or pointless. This should not be the case, and I have explicitly raised it as a concern.

Then we get to your quality of life thing, where you newer again wants to visit an engineer once you have unlocked the wanted blueprints and experimental effects, as you here want to buy these remotely with CREDITS... If that is the goal, whjy even bother with the unlocking part then?

So what is the point of visiting an Engineer repeatedly? What does that add to the game, beyond arbitrary inconvenience? Why is remote Engineering BAD?

You are making all sorts of leaping assumptions about my intentions, which seems to be muddying your understanding of my suggestions.

Unlocking upgrades is a matter of progression, which is a good thing to have. It helps players engage with the game in a way that suits them and rewards them for doing so. However, I don't see any good reason to preserve inconveniences purely for the sake of having them. Seriously, what is the point of forcing players to REPEATEDLY fly to Engineer workshops?

You could basically replace most of your suggestion with simple buy materials for credits suggestion... as that is what this ini the end boils down to.. you have already hinted that some blueprints makes no sense to unlock, and with this it makes even less sense.... to even try any such things. as per your own suggestion unlocking a blueprint should be very time consuming...

Yet again you show that you clearly don't understand my proposal as well as you THINK you do.

1. Scrapping unlock requirements and slapping simple credit costs on upgrades or materials from the get-go REMOVES GAMEPLAY, which is not my goal. I am not simply pursuing the MOST CONVENIENT option; I am seeking to remove inconveniences which don't CONTRIBUTE to the overall game experience.

2. I didn't "hint" at anything. I explicitly raised useless upgrades as a concern indicating the need for a general Engineering rebalance. However, that's another thread for another time. Looking at changes in a vacuum in a poor attempt to discredit them accomplishes nothing; players already ignore those upgrades NOW, so continuing to ignore them under my proposal pending a rebalance changes nothing.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

I think the "rhetoric" was actually key to justifying the following suggestions

It was a premise, not a justification. The justification for the suggestions is that they would positively affect the game experience.

a game cannot make you do something you don't want to do. Claiming that it does so is ridiculous.

Interesting. Where did I make that claim?

If OP could have advanced his suggestions as just positive changes, that would have been more effective. But whenever anyone says "widely considered" I see that as a claim to know what the bulk of players think about it, and if I think that's a wrong assessment it seems relevant to say so.

I am the OP. Not sure why you switched to second person, but this is exactly what "quibbling over rhetoric" means. You're demanding an objective validation of a non-quantified, non-absolute, subjective statement in the context of a subjective discussion. That's absurd, even overlooking your insertion of a nonexistent majority claim into my statement. I understand you don't count yourself among the players covered by my statement, and I'm sorry that irritated you. But it's tangential to the topic at hand and built on a claim I never made.

I've unlocked all the engineers in the bubble and the one in Witchhead and engineered about a dozen ships to G5 all over, and thoroughly enjoyed all the involved gameplay. The only requirement is that you have to enjoy flying a spaceship.

In your subjective opinion, as determined by your subjective, non-universal experience. Do you not see the hypocrisy in getting upset about someone presuming to speak on your behalf (especially when they didn't), then turning around and proclaiming that there is 1 objective way to "properly" enjoy the game?

I'm glad that you're happy already, but other players are not bound by your self-imposed requirements or personal criteria for fun.

I enjoy flying my spaceships. I do not enjoy collecting data with a wake scanner, repeatedly respawning the Jameson site, breaking the law to scan settlement data points, or jumping in circles between suitable systems looking for HGE signal sources. I happen to find SRV prospecting rather fun, but I can recognize that there are probably players who don't and that offering alternatives shouldn't hurt anyone.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

The funny thing is it's been redesigned what, twice now?

Third time's the charm, maybe?

The old engineering was the best version. Just a shame it was sold to us with that casino interface that made many cry "RNG" despite the fact that RNG is a staple of gaming in general and the only way really to model uncertainty into gameplay.

S

OK, but why should there be uncertainty in player progression? I'd rather see that uncertainty packed into more fitting aspects of the game, like NPC encounters (e.g., why do Elite assassination marks always seem to be flying one of the Big Three?).

 

[Misty_Dark]

Yes, totally obvious in spite of being patently false.

1. Material requirements still exist in the research phase, and the required quantities per upgrade unlock are increased. The main difference is that players have a choice between running missions (slower, but tied to normal gameplay) or farming materials (faster, but side activities like SRV prospecting).

2. Materials can still be used to purchase upgrades.

3. I directly addressed this as a potential shortcoming and raised rebalancing Synthesis as a way to add value back into gathering.

My proposal is designed to frontload the material grind as a one-time requirement for players who don't enjoy it while keeping it as an option for those who do.

1. Once again, no examples about how much more is required...or put in other words, how many modules can you upgrade for the "increased" costs of reserach? Because that is the thing here... I do not expect you to say iut would be 50, 25, or even 10 times... or in other words, a way to get cheaper upgrades leater.

2. not practical, expecially when you decided to NOT give an example on how much in credits you expected a my 1 bullion would cost to upgrade... as the silence speaks volume on the real goal here...

Frontloading stuff like you suggestion is BAD, as that is the basic for Grinding... you would make things worse, and you would PUINISH players that only do a few upgrades, and rewarding players with massive fleets....

1. You are misunderstanding what the "fetch quest" part is. I'm not saying to remove the "mine 500T" bit. I'm saying to remove the "great, now bring me 10 painite" bit. It adds nothing to double up on the unlock requirements.

2. Your example actually disproves your point; Selene Jean's requirement didn't teach players anything new about mining. MINING changed to become more worthwhile and players naturally flocked to it; Selene's unlock requirements became less painful as a result. You should encourage player participation by making mechanics interesting and rewarding, not giving them checkboxes on a to-do list.

1. You are missing the point why they have that part... becuase it is not the 10 T of paininte you are actually after here, it is the rare goods you want to get rid off. And the rare goods are there to simulate going back and forth for a trading run... how do you do that without punishinig players in small ships? select a cargo that is available in small quanties, and thus ship size becomes irrelevant...

2. What does it disprove? it changes nothing, the mining are essential the same as it always was to unlock Selene, the only thing that really changed is the reward for doing mining... and ofcourse the possibility to blow up asteroids, but a terrible way to unlock Selene with... I know serveral players that avoided mining like a plague uintill they unlocked Selene Jean, before the changes... and got pleasntly suprised over that mining wasn't that terrible as they had thought, for us the increased payout for doing mining was a real bonus to a relaxed activity.

Please show you are putting some minimal effort into understanding my proposal before complaining about it. Everything here is clearly addressed in the OP:

1. I am not increasing grind, nor am I trying to significantly REDUCE it. I am only restructuring it to be more flexible.

2. As stated, blueprints would not repeat across different Engineers. Either the number of Engineers or blueprints offered per Engineer would be reduced to compensate.

3. With my changes to remote Engineering, there would be no benefit to unlocking the same BP multiple times. It would be a redundant entry in a pool of unlocked upgrades accessible from anywhere.

1. Now we getting close r to the issue... All your "frontload" grind, is going to be WORSE, but then again, you do not really want to increase the "research" phase, because that would be an even bigger grind and the way it is proposed to be, would basically be that players would treat that as a GRIND, meaniing they woukld try to get it over as fast as possible, and that would suck big time, so there would be calls to lower the requirements to do the "research"... so no grind at all... btw it is only grindy if you decide it is..

Clearly you don't get it, because this criticism is based on 2 mistaken assumptions:

First, that I would be significantly changing the grind required. The amount of grind should not change significantly.

Second, that I am making material farming irrelevant or pointless. This should not be the case, and I have explicitly raised it as a concern.

This is an obvious lie, because the amount require to upgrade 4 ships vs 40 ships would be WASTLY different in your system... you would punish the 4 ship person and rewqard the 40 ship person...
As you would no longer need material once you have done your "research", and as stated above, if the reasearch material requirement is increased alot it would be seen as an unfair grind, and punish player who only want todo a few ships, and still reward players who will do many ships, and there would be a break even point between the current system and your proposed system... and there is no way you say the amount of effort required to engineer ships would be the same, as the the entere concept you have outlined is very clear about we should later buy these upgrades with credits, and simply have the material as an "option"...

So what is the point of visiting an Engineer repeatedly? What does that add to the game, beyond arbitrary inconvenience? Why is remote Engineering BAD?

You are making all sorts of leaping assumptions about my intentions, which seems to be muddying your understanding of my suggestions.

Unlocking upgrades is a matter of progression, which is a good thing to have. It helps players engage with the game in a way that suits them and rewards them for doing so. However, I don't see any good reason to preserve inconveniences purely for the sake of having them. Seriously, what is the point of forcing players to REPEATEDLY fly to Engineer workshops?

What leaping conclusion you have more or less already validated my concerns. you want to reduce the engineering effort, into nothing more than a credit grind.... and you hide it behind talks about "research" should cost more, etc, but it is nothing more than you ijn the end do never want to visit an engineer again, and only using credits to upgrade stuff, as all the material is an "option" for those who like to gather them...


What is so terrible to fly to engineers in the first place? Because you seems to be missing a huge point of game that is all about you flying your space ship.... and now flying your ship is grindy?
You entire talk about forcing players to repeatedly fly there, tells me you are after to make it EASIER for those who already spent ALOT of time on the game... at the expense of those who plays less...

Yet again you show that you clearly don't understand my proposal as well as you THINK you do.

1. Scrapping unlock requirements and slapping simple credit costs on upgrades or materials from the get-go REMOVES GAMEPLAY, which is not my goal. I am not simply pursuing the MOST CONVENIENT option; I am seeking to remove inconveniences which don't CONTRIBUTE to the overall game experience.

2. I didn't "hint" at anything. I explicitly raised useless upgrades as a concern indicating the need for a general Engineering rebalance. However, that's another thread for another time. Looking at changes in a vacuum in a poor attempt to discredit them accomplishes nothing; players already ignore those upgrades NOW, so continuing to ignore them under my proposal pending a rebalance changes nothing.

But you are creating MORE concentrated GRIND, and will punish the regular players in favours of those who can spend LOTS of time on the game.... as the "research" cost will always be unfair towards those players who does it the least. So basically you punishing the the regular player in favour of the players who can spend ALOT of time on the game.


So your "clarifications" makes it even worse...

 

[Hooplah]

The Frontier Devs designed accessing the engineers all about different play styles in the game and at least checking them out. As a new player they might seem impossible. As an experienced player they are all so very easy. There are posts on the Forum saying that they are too easy wanting a more challenge. The point is a player who only goes with a limited play style and ignores all the rest not being able to access all the engineers in their limited play style gets upset about it.

Personally it was one of the brilliant game developments to experience the whole game just a little bit. Knowing the game I have three accounts and one going to Colonia with an explorer Orca to get there and an engineered Python transferred at great expense It is a different game in the black far away from the bubble. So while some may complain thinking how they play ED and nothing else matters think again.

Regards

 

[CAPT. Ho Chi Minge]

The old engineering was the best version. Just a shame it was sold to us with that casino interface that made many cry "RNG" despite the fact that RNG is a staple of gaming in general and the only way really to model uncertainty into gameplay.

S

Well for me personally the RNG on modules wasnt the only issue , it was the multiple rounds of RNG around it ... the RNG of tracking down specific USS , the RNG of what youll find in the USS then the RNG of the roll of the module itself. Im all for some RNG done well but this was RNG to the power of infinitum.

 

[Sysmon]

Third time's the charm, maybe?



OK, but why should there be uncertainty in player progression? I'd rather see that uncertainty packed into more fitting aspects of the game, like NPC encounters (e.g., why do Elite assassination marks always seem to be flying one of the Big Three?).

Uncertainty should be packed in everywhere, yes. And balanced. Ideally, too much engineering should also come with a chance of integrity loss each time an attempt at improving is made. So that when engineering, an improvement would be certain until near the maximum when any further attempt might result in a slightly worse result (or better). But too much fiddling might eventually break the module.

I'm a bit sad FDEV made the game pretty toothless, reward is really not worth anything without a bit of risk.

S

 

[Sysmon]

Well for me personally the RNG on modules wasnt the only issue , it was the multiple rounds of RNG around it ... the RNG of tracking down specific USS , the RNG of what youll find in the USS then the RNG of the roll of the module itself. Im all for some RNG done well but this was RNG to the power of infinitum.

RNG for RNGs sake is not good. Or at least the players should be given opportunity to improve on the odds in some form. Prospecting for mats, for example, could be done so that driving or flying around randomly and shooting at stuff would have pretty rubbish odds. But targeting the right parts of the right planets or belts could improve the odds tremendously. Just never to 100 %. Nothing is rare if it is certain to be found.

S