Malfunctions: increase in chance with engineering grade to reduce power creep

[Rubbernuke]

I'm not entirely opposed to something like this, but I don't like not being informed of the relative downsides of something before spending my time on having my CMDR acquire it. A chance for malfunction that only shows up at G5 would mandate many extant G5 modules be remade at a lower grade to serve there purpose.

I don't think FDev would ever for it without either grandfathering all extant stuff, or buffing G5 module's positive effects further. They have proven exceedingly adverse to most nerfs and the last the game needs is another wave of legacy modules and buffs.

I think any positive change is unlikely, but the most likely ones would have to apply to everything, so they at least kept their relative appeal to each other. Targeting only the top-grade seems overly arbitrary.

In my head you would be explicitly told about the malfunction risk- it would never be black boxed.

For me the problem is that G5 these days does not come with downsides and you have to have them. For example OC powerplants enable everything on ships, and can only be countered by direct damage that for most never happens. So its not a downside that might make you think to keep lower. There are vanishingly few cases where G5 is not everything.

It would be nice to be able to downgrade and reclaim mats though- sort of liquidation.

All nerfs are unpopular, so the best nerfs are massive ones that achieve the desired end result in one blow.

Weaning people off of current heights would result in more total and much more protracted ill-will than just kicking them in the nuts and being done with it.

I simply can't see FD doing that sadly. Plus I'd rather have the agency of risking it all on a crazy build that could fail (or not if you decide to).

 

[Sylow]

Would also need to finally do away with legacy modules.

I would support this even without anything else done. I also still have some modules around, which can not be reproduced in the current system. (E.g. some old overcharged power plants, which despite being overcharged have less heat and less mass than the default one. They are far out of reach of current engineering. ) But i'd be ready to give up these old advantages to have a more level playing field again.

On malfunctions: i guess it's the same thing as some other rework suggestions recently made by Rubbernuke. They would've been great when the things were introduced. But now, after that many years of the things in game, this might be extremely unpopular. Especially as some already pointed out: there are people out there, far in the void, who might after this change suddenly have malfunctions and no chance to make it home alive. I kind of already see the headline on some gaming news sites: "Elite dangerous changes game mechanic, killing many long range explorers".

I would very much prefer it if FD would gather up all their courage and finally, after several failed attempts, does significant nerfs of blueprints. I would limit this to things like weapons, armour and shield boosters. After all, it it's "only" the combat related blueprints which really should be nerfed. Somebody out there in the void having a few LY more or less of range doesn't affect us. Him being nerfed affects only him, and again might result in a "can only get home via self destruct" situation, which is not desireable. But people roaming around in ships which seem like they could absorb one or another nuclear bomb without having any issues should finally be taken care of.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I would support this even without anything else done. I also still have some modules around, which can not be reproduced in the current system. (E.g. some old overcharged power plants, which despite being overcharged have less heat and less mass than the default one. They are far out of reach of current engineering. ) But i'd be ready to give up these old advantages to have a more level playing field again.

You could quite easily make legacy modules the most unreliable of all, so you can keep them but they malfunction from time to time.

On malfunctions: i guess it's the same thing as some other rework suggestions recently made by Rubbernuke. They would've been great when the things were introduced. But now, after that many years of the things in game, this might be extremely unpopular. Especially as some already pointed out: there are people out there, far in the void, who might after this change suddenly have malfunctions and no chance to make it home alive. I kind of already see the headline on some gaming news sites: "Elite dangerous changes game mechanic, killing many long range explorers".

People out in the void would not be exploding all over- at worst sensors might be glitchy for a second, FSD might take a little longer or rarely reboot. If you have a G5 OC PP then that chance might make things tricky depending on the malfunction rate and what that malfunction is set at. It could be it reduces power by 50% rather than a full burnout. Anyway it would make up for those zero mass modules

I would very much prefer it if FD would gather up all their courage and finally, after several failed attempts, does significant nerfs of blueprints. I would limit this to things like weapons, armour and shield boosters. After all, it it's "only" the combat related blueprints which really should be nerfed. Somebody out there in the void having a few LY more or less of range doesn't affect us. Him being nerfed affects only him, and again might result in a "can only get home via self destruct" situation, which is not desireable. But people roaming around in ships which seem like they could absorb one or another nuclear bomb without having any issues should finally be taken care of.

I disagree slightly with that, mainly as powerplant OCing is the main reason why many builds are overpowered. If this could be changed in isolation it would prevent people having so much power they can run any combinations of weapons, shields etc they like. Cut that and it makes choosing important again.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Long range FSD: the higher the grade, the more chance of glitches that either reboot or delay the module when engaged? This would then put more emphasis on Guardian FSD boosters, neutron jumping / synthesis because the highest grade FSD engineering is on the edge of reliability (which again could be attenuated by experimental effects that mitigate failure instead of hitting mass manager or deep charge which might make things worse).

This made me think of Star Wars when the Falcon's hyperdrive kept malfunctioning lol.

I am not a huge fan of RNG malfunctions, especially without fun gameplay to correct said issue. We cant yell at Chewie to go sort out the issue while evading enemy fire.

I think that the suggestion has good motivation and reasoning, but the end result would be annoyance. I think we would need a good way to bring them back online. Perhaps a malfunction would shut the module off, and it needs to be reactivated via power management menu. That would cause some nerves mid-fight, but I dont think it would be popular

 

[Rubbernuke]

This made me think of Star Wars when the Falcon's hyperdrive kept malfunctioning lol.

I am not a huge fan of RNG malfunctions, especially without fun gameplay to correct said issue. We cant yell at Chewie to go sort out the issue while evading enemy fire.

I think that the suggestion has good motivation and reasoning, but the end result would be annoyance. I think we would need a good way to bring them back online. Perhaps a malfunction would shut the module off, and it needs to be reactivated via power management menu. That would cause some nerves mid-fight, but I dont think it would be popular

Thats the thing though- if you keep to G4 levels the rate of malfunction would be pretty much zero- its only if you went to the top of G5 would it come in- so at most it would be from mid G5 (1%) rising to 'full' G5 being something like 5% chance. So it acts as a soft cap that you can risk doing but only with blatantly overused mods that logically fit the idea (so lightweight hull is simply lightweight, it suffers no penalty).

For me engineering is pointless, as in reality all its done is created a new tier of modules just as A-E grades were before. G5 is just an inevitability rather than a choice with design and that irks me a bit.

Of course the other option is to go higher to an 'experimental' band above G5 (but not by a huge margin) and make the reliability even worse (say -10%). No-one is affected and those who want to live dangerously can. But I'd much prefer keeping G5 as the 'crazy' level.

 

[Sylow]

I disagree slightly with that, mainly as powerplant OCing is the main reason why many builds are overpowered. If this could be changed in isolation it would prevent people having so much power they can run any combinations of weapons, shields etc they like. Cut that and it makes choosing important again.

Hmm, depends. Most of my ships which i engineered up the last year or so actually use armored power plants. It also adds power output, but doesn't make it as fragile as the overcharged one. At the same time yes, you are right here: the additional power we now freely have available allows us to overstack our ships with plenty of things, which pre-engineered ships simply were not able to keep powered.

For me personally i wouldn't see a big problem when PPs were nerfed. I might have to crawl back to SD on a ship first. Then switch things around a bit and be back to operational. I usually am in or near the bubble. Things look different for those far out in the void.

And in the end yes, it would depend on how it's implemented. Explorers exploding out there might be overexagerated. But still, the feedback will be very negative when this kind of gameplay is hit by "now your equipment is unreliable" nerfs. This is why i still think that nerfs should mostly be focused on combat oriented equipment. And in the end, additional power draw on engineered weapons, shields and shield boosters might also do the job, while not being felt by the explorer.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But still, the feedback will be very negative

I've never actually seen a happy explorer to be honest, so nothing would change really.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Hmm, depends. Most of my ships which i engineered up the last year or so actually use armored power plants. It also adds power output, but doesn't make it as fragile as the overcharged one. At the same time yes, you are right here: the additional power we now freely have available allows us to overstack our ships with plenty of things, which pre-engineered ships simply were not able to keep powered.

For me personally i wouldn't see a big problem when PPs were nerfed. I might have to crawl back to SD on a ship first. Then switch things around a bit and be back to operational. I usually am in or near the bubble. Things look different for those far out in the void.

And in the end yes, it would depend on how it's implemented. Explorers exploding out there might be overexagerated. But still, the feedback will be very negative when this kind of gameplay is hit by "now your equipment is unreliable" nerfs. This is why i still think that nerfs should mostly be focused on combat oriented equipment. And in the end, additional power draw on engineered weapons, shields and shield boosters might also do the job, while not being felt by the explorer.

Lots of good points here. 1) armored PP is the best. i never understood how overcharged was the meta

2) OC weapons being the focus of this type of nerf would make the most sense. I find it odd in general how some engineering mods are a harsh choice (plasma slug at the expense of 10% damage) with others like efficient have literally no downside

 

[Rubbernuke]

Lots of good points here. 1) armored PP is the best. i never understood how overcharged was the meta

2) OC weapons being the focus of this type of nerf would make the most sense. I find it odd in general how some engineering mods are a harsh choice (plasma slug at the expense of 10% damage) with others like efficient have literally no downside

OC PP is massively popular as its a short cut to whatever you want. Its what depresses me about engineering as you could have a system that has a ton of nuances, that in the end people just blindly go G5 OC PP, dirty+drag, OC mulits, lightweight life support, long distance FSD etc. Its simply just A grade modules that rather than simply buying you click 30 times to get.

Once upon a time ships like the Vulture were power starved and they generated hundreds of pages of people debating how to use every scrap of power. Now, just OC the PP and problem solved.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

OC PP is massively popular as its a short cut to whatever you want. Its what depresses me about engineering as you could have a system that has a ton of nuances, that in the end people just blindly go G5 OC PP, dirty+drag, OC mulits, lightweight life support, long distance FSD etc. Its simply just A grade modules that rather than simply buying you click 30 times to get.

Once upon a time ships like the Vulture were power starved and they generated hundreds of pages of people debating how to use every scrap of power. Now, just OC the PP and problem solved.

I agree with this as well. It is as if some mods were designed to be the no-brainer meta ones. I like to have options myself and find that other mods dont require G5. For example, I only ever G2 the long range mod on my lasers because anything else is usually overkill for my builds.

I do wish that all of the mods offered a similar level of nuance. Perhaps OC PP and weps just need to finally get a proper downside, like 100-200% heat gen or something

 

[Rubbernuke]

I agree with this as well. It is as if some mods were designed to be the no-brainer meta ones. I like to have options myself and find that other mods dont require G5. For example, I only ever G2 the long range mod on my lasers because anything else is usually overkill for my builds.

I do wish that all of the mods offered a similar level of nuance. Perhaps OC PP and weps just need to finally get a proper downside, like 100-200% heat gen or something

I can think of possibly two or three cases where G5 is not the be all and end all which is sad. Without the RNG aspect to engineering G5 is almost inevitable and everyone winds up the same.

The other problem that I have which led to this thread, was that I really miss the idea of making ships that are god like but come with serious drawbacks- not just minor things but ships that can bite you back because they push the limit.

Don't laugh, but during engineers V1 I made it my mission to build the fastest, most nimble PvE Corvette I could because I got bored. What I wound up with was exactly that, but it was horrifically compromised to get there. It ran on a 4A G5 OC PP, D distributor, twin lightweight cannon (and nothing else), efficient low power shields- 2A jump drive (that could only work with synthesis to get 4 Ly). Even in PvE it was a coffin, but I loved every second of it because I knew any mistake would be death as I had to sacrifice so much to get it so extreme. I'd love some of that feeling, where every 'core' G5 mod (i.e. PP, drives, FSD etc) put you into Chuck Yeagar / Eric Brown territory.

 

[Bigmaec]

Such a change would likely have significant consequences for players who may not have docked for a very long time (and don't plan to any time soon).

If every change is shot down because some players chose to stay away from port for years, I guess we'll never see any change any more.
Honestly I'm sick of that argument, no offense Robert, but it got us extra slots, modules without power requirements and no-idea-what-else-I-forgot...

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

If every change is shot down because some players chose to stay away from port for years, I guess we'll never see any change any more.
Honestly I'm sick of that argument, no offense Robert, but it got us extra slots, modules without power requirements and no-idea-what-else-I-forgot...

I am kind of on-board with this, especially now that there are stations in Colonia and near Sag A. I think it is similar to the "wot about people without Horizons" argument.

If they cant be bothered to get horizons or show up to a station, why should we care about them?

 

[Sysmon]

Such a change would likely have significant consequences for players who may not have docked for a very long time (and don't plan to any time soon).

That's where engineering for stability could come in handy.

S

 

[Sysmon]

Pretty simple really: the higher you go, the higher the chance of failure.

Back long ago, ED had more severe malfunctions (rando firing weapons etc) which made life much more interesting when the sparks started flying. These have been toned down but I miss how they would make situations much more chaotic.

Now, with the introduction of engineering to me at least this is like taking your CPU and overclocking it- you take your i9 A grade module and push it incrementally upwards. But, should each step up come with the increased chance of a temporary glitch or two?

This then makes engineering on its own risky the more you push. In this way it acts as a brake on blanket G5 grades, makes lower grades an option and vanilla modules not a death sentence.

Examples:

OC powerplant: high grades allow many ships to be loaded with anything but with MRPs, shields etc being what they are the fragility is not often an issue, what would life be like if G5 had a 5% chance of random power delivery? It could go 50%, 70% or nothing for a few seconds. Would this make lower grade engineering more popular because it is more reliable? And if you don't care or want maximum powah you take the risk anyway (and occasionally get caught out?). Experimentals like double braced might then have stats to limit this failure rate as a bonus rather than monstered which might make it worse again).

Weapons: OC or SRB (i.e. massive increases in DPS)- should they have surges and misfires that take a second or so to clear?

Long range FSD: the higher the grade, the more chance of glitches that either reboot or delay the module when engaged? This would then put more emphasis on Guardian FSD boosters, neutron jumping / synthesis because the highest grade FSD engineering is on the edge of reliability (which again could be attenuated by experimental effects that mitigate failure instead of hitting mass manager or deep charge which might make things worse).

Dirty Drives: these are so good, everyone has them. But, according to the description these have all safeties removed. Ships are now stupidly fast- what if dirty drives occasionally stopped working? All that potential speed could also be lethal in a battle. Perhaps chain boost might lead to an inevitable stall. You might then offer clean drives which don't suffer from this with the penalty of lower speeds.

Sensors: at max G4 or at G5 they glitch (a bit like Thargoid / Lagrange cloud lightning interference) occasionally.

-----

Together these then make full on G5 ships proper 'hot rods' on the edge of performance but also reliability. It (to me anyway) is a sensible route to reducing the god status of G5 without taking it away because reliability becomes a factor. Its power is still there, it just comes at a price that sits outside MRPs, thick shields etc. I know its RNG, but it throws in a new factor that adds complexity to situations- a G5 big balls pirate might wind up with a powerplant glitch that allows the trader to escape or fight back, a duel between a G5 hot rod and a G3 ship would be more even... the G5 might win if all his systems work reliably with no misfires but the G3 guy knows that he can rely 100% on his ship and weapons. Over time it might lead to G5 being less common, and gently reign in the outright power creep we see.

Combine glitching with limited space-legs within our ships, and we could have a whole bunch of game-play revolving around keeping our seriously engineered rides going while deep in the black.

This could also make B-rated modules more useful, as these could be the most engineerable.

S

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Elite Dangerous community: "I don't want to be killed for no reason"

Also Elite Dangerous community: "I want Frontier to add RNG that will get me killed for no reason"

 

[Sysmon]

Elite Dangerous community: "I don't want to be killed for no reason"

Also Elite Dangerous community: "I want Frontier to add RNG that will get me killed for no reason"

Well, the game as it stands demands tactical thinking of the players, but no real long-term strategic thinking. That is a bit jarring when exploring, as flitting around seeing new exciting stuff is really only about 5% of exploration. 95% of it is getting there and back alive. Giving our ships back ways to break down as well as new ways to break down can add heaps of the latter. Add also fun things like degradation from solar wind, and there could be parts of the galaxy that actually was dangerous to go to without proper preparation. That station at Sag A*, for example, would probably not last long...

S

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Well, the game as it stands demands tactical thinking of the players, but no real long-term strategic thinking. That is a bit jarring when exploring, as flitting around seeing new exciting stuff is really only about 5% of exploration. 95% of it is getting there and back alive. Giving our ships back ways to break down as well as new ways to break down can add heaps of the latter. Add also fun things like degradation from solar wind, and there could be parts of the galaxy that actually was dangerous to go to without proper preparation. That station at Sag A*, for example, would probably not last long...

S

I'm thinking about combat.

Epic PvP fight and then RNG be like "I'm about to end this man's whole career".

 

[Linnunrata]

Add also fun things like degradation from solar wind, and there could be parts of the galaxy that actually was dangerous to go to without proper preparation.

No offense, but this would be hilariously far-fetched. If the ships can skim a neutron star cone, they sure as hell wouldn't "degrade because of solar wind"

 

[Sysmon]

No offense, but this would be hilariously far-fetched. If the ships can skim a neutron star cone, they sure as hell wouldn't "degrade because of solar wind"

Depends on the shielding. In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes FDEV made with this game was to make space largely toothless. Neutron charging could be an extra dangerous way to gain extra jump range, by shields/hull degrading extra fast while overcharging the drive. A bit of uncertainty about exit point could be added too! No risk as it is, Elite not-that-Dangerous indeed.

S