Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

sallymorganmoore

Senior Community Manager : Elite Dangerous
Greetings Commanders.

Regarding the latest post on addressing confusion around the inability to add further modification/experimentals to the latest CG FSD reward: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...fication-application-of-experimentals.593774/

I thought this information below would be better in a new post for you, just incase this statement got drowned out in the original post.​

I can absolutely confirm from all sides that:
Any future improvements made to in game UI clarification of the inability to not further modify/add experimentals to pre-modified module rewards, will not negate any previous modifications/added experimentals you have to currently owned reward modules already acquired.

To be double clear, you will not be able to add experimentals on the new CG FSD reward from the latest CG.

I'd also like to add that we are not stating that all future reward modules will not be able to accommodate applied experimentals.
We just need to be clear with which are able to and which aren't. This is all in heavy discussion and noted.

​
Moving forward on this issue:
It goes without saying that conversations had from today have left us with more to discuss internally as to how we handle your interactions and expectations with reward modules.
I know at first I mentioned that we would aim to fix the In-game UI indication of whether a reward module could be further "tweaked" or not as an aim for Update 9, but the experience as a whole needs deeper rework based off feedback gathered and discussed today, so I can no longer confidently say that timeframe is possible (of course, we'll keep you updated as we go).

We will do what we can to make it clear if a reward is able to be tweaked or not by other means still in discussion (watch our..spaces).

The positive I want us to take from this though is that we have this all flagged up with all of your feedback and we will keep you in the loop with developments as we move forward on plans and discussions ahead around the matter.

Again, my apologies for the confusion and any frustration caused.
 
Last edited:

Darth Ender

D

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

Why do people ask to leave it this way and just remove the error message? Why? This game does not need more inconsistencies. The class 3, 4 and 6 FSDs should behave exactly the same way as the class 5 one does. There is no reason to introduce even more inconsistencies. How should any new player...
forums.frontier.co.uk forums.frontier.co.uk

problem solved. Nearly no code changes needed. Just need to stop using engineers in way they were never supposed to be used.

Meh....
 

Florenus

Florenus
First of all, those unique modules rewards are not such a great idea to begin with.

But, since we're here, instead of making it "double engineered", you should've just make some special, unique experimental effect added to the reward.
It would solve problems with players tinkering with it, as it would be simply impossible, without loosing unique modification.
 

SlothOfDoom

SlothOfDoom
If these aren't going to be engineerable (which seems silly but at this point ugh.. whatever) then they shouldn't be named the same as other drives, which is just going to cause confusion. When I look at my list of stored drives these should stand out as "THESE ARE SUPER SPECIAL DRIVES THAT DONT FOLLOW THE LORE OR RULES OF THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE DONT TOUCH THEM PLEASE".

Thanks for the update, Sally.
 

sallymorganmoore

Senior Community Manager : Elite Dangerous
Drelthar said:
Yes but, did the designers know the original modules could be modified with experimentals, or were they unaware?
Click to expand...
If it helps with whatever validation you're looking for in this answer - It's known. We just need to work on how things are handled for ones which are not able to be modified in future - for example this one obviously drew a lot of attention and wasn't made clear enough to your all that it was unable to be modified.
 

Danieros

D
I highly recommend a keyword like "delicate" or something like that to associate that it can't be further modified before you actually acquire it and go to the engineering UI find out you can't do it, because as you mention it is not a guarantee whether a CG module will be able or not to be modified.

Just the CG text or socials will eventually become outdated, so as time passes explaining that specific module X or Y is not able to have experimentals by linking stuff from months/years ago would feel like doing a lawyer thing ;)
 

tremor3258

T
sallymorganmoore said:
If it helps with whatever validation you're looking for in this answer - It's known. We just need to work on how things are handled for ones which are not able to be modified in future - for example this one obviously drew a lot of attention and wasn't made clear enough to your all that it was unable to be modified.
Click to expand...

Given the mechanics of the drives was in the community goals - why wasn't it placed there?
 

SCiARA

SCiARA
I'm really sorry (its been a long day and another thread had fried my brain some what) but I cant see if this is saying we can or cant with the new fsd modules? or is it a case of still don't know?
 

SlothOfDoom

SlothOfDoom
SCiARA said:
I'm really sorry (its been a long day and another thread had fried my brain some what) but I cant see if this is saying we can or cant with the new fsd modules? or is it a case of still don't know?
Click to expand...
You cant with the new ones, you can with the old ones, you might be able to with the future ones. Why? How? Nobody knows. Discard your logic, ignore all reason, and come with us to....THE FDEV ZONE! cue spooky theme music
 

Sbirch123

Sbirch123
sallymorganmoore said:
Greetings Commanders.

Regarding the latest post on addressing confusion around the inability to add further modification/experimentals to the latest CG FSD reward: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...fication-application-of-experimentals.593774/

I thought this information below would be better in a new post for you, just incase this statement got drowned out in the original post.​

I can absolutely confirm from all sides that:
Any future improvements made to in game UI clarification of the inability to not further modify/add experimentals to pre-modified module rewards, will not negate any previous modifications/added experimentals you have to currently owned reward modules already acquired.

I'd also like to add that we are not stating that all future reward modules will not be able to accommodate applied experimentals.
We just need to be clear with which are able to and which aren't. This is all in heavy discussion and noted.

​
Moving forward on this issue:
It goes without saying that conversations had from today have left us with more to discuss internally as to how we handle your interactions and expectations with reward modules.
I know at first I mentioned that we would aim to fix the In-game UI indication of whether a reward module could be further "tweaked" or not as an aim for Update 9, but the experience as a whole needs deeper rework based off feedback gathered and discussed today, so I can no longer confidently say that timeframe is possible (of course, we'll keep you updated as we go).

We will do what we can to make it clear if a reward is able to be tweaked or not by other means still in discussion (watch our..spaces).

The positive I want us to take from this though is that we have this all flagged up with all of your feedback and we will keep you in the loop with developments as we move forward on plans and discussions ahead around the matter.

Again, my apologies for the confusion and any frustration caused.
Click to expand...

Sorry it may just be me but does that mean we can't add experimentals on the new CG fsds?
 

Darth Ender

D
Why is fdev so obviously opposed to calling these things variants as their own module ID like they should be since that would solve all of the problems being brought up regarding them? As well as that making the most sense lore-wise seeing as how they are acquired.

Is it a "it's way easier to just tweak a market to provide an existing module with engineering attached than it is a new module id because it involves bothering less people" thing?

Because that doesn't appear to be the case anymore.

Why continue on this path ...and not just correct it to what it should have been in the first place? Still less work I'd think. Or is there some other reason why fdev is so opposed to creating more module variants?
 

Horse372

Horse372
Sbirch123 said:
Sorry it may just be me but does that mean we can't add experimentals on the new CG fsds?
Click to expand...
No
1637167638346.gif
 

oztrich

oztrich
It doesn't make sense to me that we now have the same double-engineering on 4 sizes of A-rated FSD and only one of those can have an experimental effect applied. It's unnecessarily confusing, and there seems no obvious reason for there to be a difference.

But either way, having clarity about the situation is something. :)
 

szymciu07

S
Adding experimentals on the double engineered modules was adding a some personal touch to it.
To both weapons and internal modules.

Missiles could have drag or thermal cascade, that changes the weapon a lot.
Not having the option to tweak modules is inconsistent with existing game.

Especially that 5A v1 FSD can have experimental applied to it.


And on a side note:
Frontier is one of the most detached game companies from their playerbase, really, look around. This is a very good opportunity to actually listen to your playerbase and turn this mistake around to a good outcome.
 
Last edited:

Phill P

Phill P
If the double engineered modules were prevented from being re engineered but could still have experimental effects added that would actually be perfect. I don't want to re engineer the thing and would welcome not being able to by accident or design, but adding experimentals is a separate matter that does not involve re engineering the module at all so it shouldn't even be an issue here.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom