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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Kamiyoda

Kamiyoda
anfuerudo said:
at least you've communicated it clearly.
Click to expand...
Correcting yourself roughly two weeks afterwards is communicating it clearly?
Cmdr ChiggyVR said:
I think I can see what Fdev are aiming for here, "reward" or purchasable modules that are unique, but not as effective as a fully engineered one, side stepping the engineering grind for those that don't want to do it?. Unfortunately if this is the aim the implementation is at fault due to the expectation from previous CG's. IMO this is the wrong way to go, the game needs more options for ships and modules, giving individuality and choice, not "shortcuts" to sidestep a long standing game feature (engineering in general).
Click to expand...
What the heck is it sidestepping, it takes more mats to get an pre-engineered FSD than engineering one yourself. The 18 Datamined Wake Exceptions alone blows it out of the water.
 

Xae

X
This wasn't exactly some big secret.

It was openly discussed on these forums and everywhere else people discuss Elite.

It was documented and talked about in videos on YouTube.

If it wasn't intented then why did no one, either in dev or live test that it couldn't be done?

This level of detachment from basic core gameplay by the development team is staggering.

What else that we ground for hours for is could be taken away now as a bug? What else is broken and unintended that we don't know about, but it is the cornerstone of our fittings and ship?
 

[VR] TheBlackCat

[VR] TheBlackCat
What the players have learned today:

The devs DO NOT play their own game. Long suspected, now without a doubt confirmed. I have no doubt at all now. None.

The devs don't want the players to have fun.

A Server Error when trying to apply an experiment effect on these reward FSDs indicates to players of a coding issue & a feature -- previously working on all modules purchased or granted as rewards from CGs -- not working as intended / broken / to be fixed; and the lack of such an error on the previous reward FSD and all other modules we buy indicates intended behavior. Instead of admitting that and allowing for fun & options for the players, the devs jump through hoops to explain it backwards and justify blocking it.
Similar behavior was seen in May when Odyssey released "complete" about 2 weeks after the alpha test closed, and has take 6 months of focused fixing & patches to make it decent.


Mitterand Hollow be "fixed" next then, yes?


Without being able to add the experimentals on these three reward FSDs, they've given me no appreciable gains in jump distance over simply engineering them myself Long Range 5 with Mass Manager, as I've done for my entire fleet of ships over the years.
Having these reward FSDs and adding an experimental effect for that extra, otherwise-not-possible boost to jump range made these rewards special and worth the competition of that CG.


(Sally, I'm sorry you're caught in the middle of this. Let's not ever shoot the messenger!)
 

Go'Gen

Go'Gen
For "technical reasons of space travel" I'd swallow an excuse that "6A is too big module and additional experimental would make it unstable", ok :rolleyes: but then allow 3A and 4A to have one.
Allowing only 5A now is just plain s....... making all of us look like i......

Thank you.
 

anfuerudo

anfuerudo
Cmdr ChiggyVR said:
I think I can see what Fdev are aiming for here, "reward" or purchasable modules that are unique, but not as effective as a fully engineered one, side stepping the engineering grind for those that don't want to do it?. Unfortunately if this is the aim the implementation is at fault due to the expectation from previous CG's. IMO this is the wrong way to go, the game needs more options for ships and modules, giving individuality and choice, not "shortcuts" to sidestep a long standing game feature (engineering in general).
Click to expand...
Not to play devil's advocate, but dbl-eng 6A has about 5 ly more than a normal one with range and mass manager.
That being said, I want to be able to add experimental effect on this one as well - I want my Conda to reach that 80 ly jump range.
 

Cmdr. Numa

Cmdr. Numa
anfuerudo said:
Not to play devil's advocate, but dbl-eng 6A has about 5 ly more than a normal one with range and mass manager.
That being said, I want to be able to add experimental effect on this one as well - I want my Conda to reach that 80 ly jump range.
Click to expand...
That very much depends on the ship and it's previous range, as it's a percentage upgrade. My Vette didn't gain much at all.
 

Rebel Yell

Rebel Yell
I can't even distinguish which one I have as only one mod is listed..

EDIT: awww sorry the other I have was from tech broker I guess and has experimental :D
 

Red Anders

Red Anders
Russet Meles said:
I have an observation.

I went to the engineer Liz Ryder with CG rewarded double engineered seeker missile rack. And Liz didn't allow me to put another experimental effect on the module, the "Server Error" message was displayed. That was expected. HOWEVER, she allowed me to remove the original pre-engineered "Drag Munitions" effect from the module.

How does that is consistent with the statement "it is by design that pre-engineered modules cannot be further modified." ?

That looks more as a bug other than "by design" solution.
Click to expand...
Haha you did that 'logic' thing again didn't you :D
 

skyfish321

S
SCiARA said:
out of curiosity, is there any chance of getting an understanding as to why this decision was made?
Click to expand...

why bother to ask for that, when the only thing we should be asking for is the same ability to add an exp eff to the drives as we did on the V1 and all the other FSD drives in existence.

ask for what you want, not "clarity" on why you are getting less.
 

ubermick

ubermick
LeoBartlet said:
You might need to update the alt-community schedule.
Click to expand...
1637171576014.png
 

styles784

S
The fact that this new behavior resulted in error messages while the long-standing previous behavior did not is proof enough that it was never intended behavior - kinda disappointing to see them pretending they totally meant to do that, instead of just correcting the mistake and keeping the newest module consistent with all of the others. This is a community that collectively remembers many obscure details - we won't be gaslit, only let down :-/
 

whothe

W
What a sad sad response to what is obviously a bug. At the very least you guys should have added the effect to this latest reward. Stating that this was never intended just shows how you completely missed something so incredibly obvious to anyone who plays the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spaceman-FXL5

S
Florenus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep,
This only added 2ly to my 'conda.
 

Tathris

T
This is a bafflingly bad decision that ensures that one special class of FSDs (the 5aV1) will forever be the best ones now because they are the only ones that can have experimental effects added.

To think that i was happy when the other sizes were finally offered up as a reward because more ships would be useful again instead of "whatever can carry a 5a" and then nope, only one size of ship is going to matter still. Forever.

Fix your mistake here Frontier, because this answer is not good enough.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom