Elite Dangerous - Community Goal FSD Reward and Modification/Application of Experimentals

[psykit]

It's weird to me that it was so easy with one double engineered fsd to add the experimental, but now we can't with the others? I'm not so sure that the CG would have been completed quite as quickly had we known this to be the case in advance.

 

[Vandaahl]

Ok how would you say we should better indicate that you can't further tinker with pre-engineered modules? It's always nice to get thoughts!

Do not offer the functionality?

Handing the functionality and throwing a technical server error isn't really kosher in my eyes.

I mean I cant engineer guardian weapons, so somewhere a distinction can be made.

 

[yianniv]

If it matters, I'd like to vote to be able to apply experimental effects (and no other modifications) on pre-engineered modules. As it was possible until now.

 

[Red Anders]

It's a bit puzzling that it's apparently always supposed to have been like this. You know, with the clear confirmation we've had in the past that these modules can in fact have experimentals applies to them, when we asked about that when they were originally announced. In particular with reference to the class 5 double engineered FSD, which most definitely can accept experimentals.

 

[Kzak]

Suddenly not allowing experimental effects to be put on double-engineered modules is rather surprising. And a little disappointing. Why change how the game works based upon a single incident, when things were working pretty much perfectly until now?

I presume much of the current error with the class 3, 4 and 6 double-engineered FSDs can be fixed by copying over much of the code from the class 5 double-engineered FSDs, which work perfectly and allow experimental effects like all other applicable modules.

 

[Deleted member 287816]

I am very disappointed and upset now.
I think you should make it clear before CG started, so I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[HaLfY]

Ok how would you say we should better indicate that you can't further tinker with pre-engineered modules? It's always nice to get thoughts!

Including this piece of information in the CG/Tech Broker description text.

 

[sallymorganmoore]

No, as others have already said here, all double-engineered FSDs and other equipment could have experimental effects applied on them.

I'm reading them. I'm literally not defending the fact I was a bit suprised. I'm not even denying it.

It has never been this way before, not being able to do so is a new thing. As evidenced by so many bug reports coming in when these new modules failed to work the same way as the other double-engineered ones already do.

Again, don't worry, I do feel as extremely bad about the things you're typing out here as you want me to, and should have cherry picked every single one of those so many bug reports you speak about out, in line with all the other ones that come in.
Again, trying to get stuck in now for you.

I'd urge Frontier's designers to reconsider their stance and allow experimental effects to apply to double-engineered modules intentionally.

That's exactly the kind of meeting being had now - well - to discuss all of these thoughts in line with the original post and what's falling out of it.

 

[Vandaahl]

Tbf, the whole double engineered module thing created a new layer of pain, and makes your engineers look like complete idiots.

They were supposed to be the top of the bill, the front line of engineering... now they are not, and you have to drag yourself to a tech broker, and pull something from their vending machines.

 

[sallymorganmoore]

Do not offer the functionality?

Handing the functionality and throwing a technical server error isn't really kosher in my eyes.

I mean I cant engineer guardian weapons, so somewhere a distinction can be made.

Yeah that's the suggestion I included in the post.

 

[Alec Turner]

Uh... to clarify, All prior double-engineered modules bar the missile rack Did allow both re-engineering (Though that overwrote/erased the double-gineering, it was still possible) and experimental effect application, hence the issue reports and confusion at this one.

If this was never intended... oh dear.

 

[CMDR HollowPointPC]

Right...It's like, you flip over a stone and then there's a stone under the stone.

Commanders, I've grabbed all your comments on experiences with double engineering on 5As and all sorts of things like that and I'm discussing with the team.
If anyone pings or comments with more experiences of having done this please, can you direct them to this comment of mine?

Going to get my head down with the team on more info.

Thanks o7

Can also confirm it was always possible in the past to add experimental values to double engineered parts obtained either via the CG's that created them, or buying them from tech brokers after the fact. I have about 5 of the v1 FSD's for a c5 slot, all of which had Mass Manager applied to them after obtaining them.

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

If the official stance is that pre-engineered modules cannot be further modified, I suggest it be changed ASAP to fit in line with reality up until this point.

 

[Spacerschoice-00]

This isn't a new design decision. It's been this way for...ages right? We're addressing the issue now


Apologies that things have been so heavy on this side since Friday and, as I say, that it's only being addressed openly today.
If I had a time machine, I'd be sat in it for you right now.

No.

 

[rod7424]

Greetings Commanders, hope you're doing well this fine Wednesday.

So first up, apologies that this may be coming in a little on the late side following your reports from the end of last week, but after catching up today and with further discussion held, I'm here with some clarity on the issue you've been facing with attempts to modify the newly rewarded FSD module as part of a recent Community Goal.

To recap the discussion:
Lots of discussion and confusion around since the release of the CG FSD last week, with many of you attempting to modify/apply experimentals once aquired, only to find you were hitting a 'server error'.

Some clarification:
I can confirm that it is by design that pre-engineered modules cannot be further modified.
As this FSD is a pre-engineered, this falls into the 'cannot further modify/add experimentals category of module.

The Issue ("Server Error"):
There's really no other way for me to word this, other than with raw honesty right now but - we absolutely see that by simply displaying 'Server Error' is not a clear indication that you are unable to further modify pre-engineered modules.
Displaying 'Server Error' only makes things look as though you can further modify the module because the option is available for you to do so, but you can't because to you it looks as though 'something is broken regarding the server'.

Action:
While I know this will come as highly frustrating news for many of you, the team have this morning established a priority action plan to address the messaging of this to be clear, as we move toward Update 9. These action points include (but are not limited to, where other options may become available from here on through development toward U9):

• Players will be prevented from selecting pre-engineered modules for further modification (button greyed out + message in the module selection popup).
• The proposal of specific indicatation through new iconography, to show which modules are pre-engineered and cannot be further modified or take experimental effect, so that Commanders know in advance of putting all their efforts and hard work into achieving a pre-engineered module which cannot be further modified/tinkered with.

Again, our sincere apologies for the confusion on this - the team have had a really good discussion as I say, this morning, so we can further futureproof against the current scenario you've been experiencing.

Very best as always.
See you in the Black o7

As always since you have been following our reactions carefully on the Forum, we have a clear and precise answer from you Sally. Again thank you for your follow-up and your explanations. Personally I very much appreciate your follow-up And it doesn't matter if you don't answer right away, everyone is entitled to a vacation

 

[Grimscrub]

Will just say as a sidenote - Sorry Sally that y'all got blindsided - i guess in the end, we all just assumed as it was possible from the start it was intentional to match.
Thanks for working on gettting to the bottom of this.

So, the Class 5 CGFSD for example, LR + Fast Boot - Optimal Mass 1,785T.
With Mass Manager, mine's been running at 1,856.4.
If retroactive action is required, It's in my Crusader, AIV Soyuz - or i can just hit remove experimental, depends how you go.

Class 3 CG Power Plant - Armoured + Overcharged, 18.24MW output. Applied thermal spread, taking the thermal efficiency from ~0.45 to ~0.41.
currently fitted to my type 6, AIV Granin.

...I missed the rails and shield generator, KWS and ECM so, can't comment for those.
The DSS doesn't have experimentals so was safe i think - noone had reason to re-engi it to be worse.
Salvation's CG stuff of course, there was no guardian engineer so, not seen anything happen there.

 

[BL1P]

Makes you wonder how many things we as players "think" are intentional, yet fdev don't know are happening and would remove them if they found out.

 

[millstonebarn]

Nothing much to add except I have added experimentals to several V1 FSDs - one from the original CG, and then others I have "bought" from the broker as a result; a complete surprise that there has been a change of design here. These things should be kept consistent. Expectations have already been set.

 

[Spacerschoice-00]

Well I... , I'll start new Skyrim character for rest week.

 

[maehara]

Just to add my 2p, for all that it's worth:

Folks had a legitimate expectation, based on previous experience with other double-engineered modules including the 5A FSD, that experimentals would be permitted. There are plenty of discussions on the boards about what people were using and why; it really shouldn't be a surprise to FDev now that this was happening.

Even accepting that that may not have been intentional, you have to approach the "rules" regarding experimentals with consistency; and I doubt FDev want to deal with the salt of revoking experimentals that players have had in place for months now on their existing double-engineered modules.

So take your licks and allow experimentals on these & future double-engineered modules as well.