I like to dip the edges
Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.
- Thread starter sallymorganmoore
- Start date
- Status
Not me then
"the module cannot be modified" usually it's a lookup table match, verifying the item to be submitted is in the non-mod-able list or not.
I doubt that checker is based on item type not actual item id. Some CG items like FSD, missiles which share the same item type with normal versions are likely to escape "the module cannot be modified" verification. So when we submit mod request to server, server recieved these CG item ID but cannot find the correct entry to apply special effect. That is the error we are seeing now. The easier way to fix is to simply hardcode the special effect slot defined in CG FSDs with a most popular one, but unfortunately not everyone prefer mass manager haha. Then the harder way is to fix the special effect codes in CG FSD declearation, turn them into the same style of normal modules. Then everyone can install whatever they want there.
Last edited:
Just to point again - as community communication:
The CG did not indicate the modules would be different when there was and has been plenty of discussion on experimental effect on the Class 5 double-engineered.
There was never a follow-up on the Class 5 was in error.
The community goal totals meant people who play on the weekend never got a chance.
Before the double-engineered were delivered there were a good number of posts on what the new maximum ranges for paper ships would be with the experimental effect. There wasn't communication on this.
After the double-engineered were delivered, these working as intended gave a server error value instead of, say, dithering the experimental effect button. Communication was then confused on these resulting modules versus the behavior of the previous Class 5 double-engineered.
The CG did not indicate the modules would be different when there was and has been plenty of discussion on experimental effect on the Class 5 double-engineered.
There was never a follow-up on the Class 5 was in error.
The community goal totals meant people who play on the weekend never got a chance.
Before the double-engineered were delivered there were a good number of posts on what the new maximum ranges for paper ships would be with the experimental effect. There wasn't communication on this.
After the double-engineered were delivered, these working as intended gave a server error value instead of, say, dithering the experimental effect button. Communication was then confused on these resulting modules versus the behavior of the previous Class 5 double-engineered.
Getting three unique FSDs that can be improved upon, as it was the case before, was a huge motivator for the community goal. I had genuine fun. Judging by the fact that this CG was one of the fastest ever despite a dwindling user base, suggests there were many players that felt the same.
Fast forward, no, I can't have my cake and eat it too. What good is cake if I cant eat it??
This whole enterprise seems like a total waste of time, I consider selling the FSDs in protest. Or will that produce a server error too?
Fast forward, no, I can't have my cake and eat it too. What good is cake if I cant eat it??
This whole enterprise seems like a total waste of time, I consider selling the FSDs in protest. Or will that produce a server error too?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you just solved the mystery and answered a lot of questions. If FDEV owned up to it and explained right from the start (instead of providing an excuse that it was always their intention), the community would've been much more forgiving.
Hey, Sally, I have a solution that I think will make everyone happy: just add mass manager to all the special FSDs as standard. (Yes even the size 3 and 4 ones. Mass manager is more utilitarian than deep charge for the smaller FSDs too.) And any future specially engineered module Fdev decide to add should be completely engineered with primary and experimental effects.
Not only would this solve the frustration in this case, but it would also keep the game logic consistent while letting you guys balance the modules the way you want to.
Not only would this solve the frustration in this case, but it would also keep the game logic consistent while letting you guys balance the modules the way you want to.
Nope, this will build a different level of frustration
for example i might want Double Braced on my Size 3 and 4 FSD. Maybe even on the size 6 if i fit that to a combat Corvette
You can add Mass Manager to tech-broker-purchased Double-Engineered FSD. Done just prior to posting this message.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9ynzJ-0yzU
Last edited:
So basicly fdev changed their opinion, that double eng. modules can't have an experimental effect, but just didn't tell anyone?
Fdev really knows how to screw up the community for playing their game. gg.
Fdev can I get back my wasted time on this? Thanks in advance.
Fdev really knows how to screw up the community for playing their game. gg.
Fdev can I get back my wasted time on this? Thanks in advance.
I'm not placing blame here, on anyone. However, like most, I am extremely frustrated that I wasted time playing many hours on this CG based upon the wording and past experience in the game with like CGs. I cannot fathom why someone who is in the professional game dev/publishing scene would expect their customers to think differently.
FDev, you are completely lacking in consistency with regard to this scenario. The flavor text was identical to the old flavor text, where experimentals were allowed. This is why the CG finished in record time. The feeling that you are out of touch with your players is growing. One step forward, two steps back, at times.
FDev, you need to see this as an opportunity to look through the lens and see what your players want. Sometimes what the "dev" wants needs to take a back seat. I get it if you can't fix the modules already given. Acceptable; it is what it is. But now that you know what you players desire and expected at large, you might want to extend an olive branch by coming up with another CG with the modules people want, the way they want them, and for Pete's sake make the tiers so the thing isn't over in 3 days. This is how you forge and cement better relationships with your playerbase.
FDev, you are completely lacking in consistency with regard to this scenario. The flavor text was identical to the old flavor text, where experimentals were allowed. This is why the CG finished in record time. The feeling that you are out of touch with your players is growing. One step forward, two steps back, at times.
FDev, you need to see this as an opportunity to look through the lens and see what your players want. Sometimes what the "dev" wants needs to take a back seat. I get it if you can't fix the modules already given. Acceptable; it is what it is. But now that you know what you players desire and expected at large, you might want to extend an olive branch by coming up with another CG with the modules people want, the way they want them, and for Pete's sake make the tiers so the thing isn't over in 3 days. This is how you forge and cement better relationships with your playerbase.
Right, my 3A was supposed to get Stripped Down, since I was planning on putting it on my mass sensitive iCourier.
Right, didnt even considered Stripped Down, but i can see now that literally all kind of Experimental can have their use
Tech broker yes. 5A cg reward yes, another 5A cg reward yes.
Newest CG reward - 3A, 4A, and 6A you can't, because supposedly we weren't supposed to be able to do that ever. Except we were, and they supposedly didn't know, despite evidence of us doing it were everywhere.
Last edited:
The main annoyance with this entire debacle is that I still don't understand why the decision was made.
Forgive me Sally, you do a great job as a Community Manager, and I'm sure there's stuff you can't say because you don't have clearance or whatever, but this decision makes no sense and it really needs to, and it's surely the Community Manager's job to communicate this to the community.
Again, I apologise as I'm sure you have plenty on your plate at the moment but your job would be much easier right now if this just all went away and if I understood the reasoning then I, and probably many other CMDRs (though I can't speak for them), would stop hassling you for answers.
Forgive me Sally, you do a great job as a Community Manager, and I'm sure there's stuff you can't say because you don't have clearance or whatever, but this decision makes no sense and it really needs to, and it's surely the Community Manager's job to communicate this to the community.
Again, I apologise as I'm sure you have plenty on your plate at the moment but your job would be much easier right now if this just all went away and if I understood the reasoning then I, and probably many other CMDRs (though I can't speak for them), would stop hassling you for answers.
I have my own theory
Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.
This all reminds me of The Holdo manouver (C) Disney, when millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and said, "You can't do that!" Happens when decision makers are not quite connected with story&lore and drop changes just like that.
AKA - might be related to whatever happened in U7 when engineering went all nuts.
Then the seekers from Grom CG could not be tinkered using experimentals
Now the 3A, 4A and 6A FSD cannot either
What most concerns me about all this is that Frontier Devs claiming they didn’t know that all these pre-engineered modules could get experimental effects. There are hundreds of not thousands of forum posts and YouTube videos and Reddit posts about these modules and in every one there is mention of experimental effects. There is a major disconnect somewhere and it doesn’t bode well what we can expect from the development of Elite.
The decision to now stop allowing modification of the V1 5A FSD after nearly a year of this being widely discussed on various platforms and added to the meta for explorers is just plain ridiculous. Speaks to FDev being either ignorant or not in touch with the playerbase, yet again.
At most players can eek out a couple more lightyears with MM in a game that has 65KLY of travel distance, I don't see how that impacts game balance in the slightest.
To me this is the wrong decision to make. Considering you are allowing some in the future to be modified and some to not be which is adding yet more inconsistiency. You should just bring the new FSDs into line with the V1 class 5A and leave it at that. I'd understand if this was a weapon, god gauss, or infinite instant recharging SCBs, but it's an engine.
Edit: I'd like to add as well given how salty or personal people can be, I refer to FDev as a whole, not the community managers or any staff individually. I know Sally is the bearer of bad news, she does a tough job along with the other CMs.
At most players can eek out a couple more lightyears with MM in a game that has 65KLY of travel distance, I don't see how that impacts game balance in the slightest.
To me this is the wrong decision to make. Considering you are allowing some in the future to be modified and some to not be which is adding yet more inconsistiency. You should just bring the new FSDs into line with the V1 class 5A and leave it at that. I'd understand if this was a weapon, god gauss, or infinite instant recharging SCBs, but it's an engine.
Edit: I'd like to add as well given how salty or personal people can be, I refer to FDev as a whole, not the community managers or any staff individually. I know Sally is the bearer of bad news, she does a tough job along with the other CMs.
Last edited:
And it's a good theory. But I wish you hadn't posted it because if FDev make a statement now that echoes your theory my suspicious mind is going to think that they read your theory and thought "that sounds feasible and will get us off the hook" without it being related to the truth.
Northpin may be correct.. perhaps we share a little blame for not shouting loud enough over the fact that experimentals couldn't be added to the seeker missile CG rewards. But to be honest...there are so so many bugs that it gets real tiresome to be what seems to be the only failsafe against this car careering off into yet another unforseen bad decision. I'm not getting payed by Fdev, it's not my job.. I come on to relax and have a good time after work and I get sick of having to work for it.
Also people did point it out if I'm not mistaken but it wasn't a popular module so not enough of a stink was caused. Just goes to show that if you want something seen to the best way is to cause an almighty ruccous. Which isn't pleasant for anyone involved.
Also people did point it out if I'm not mistaken but it wasn't a popular module so not enough of a stink was caused. Just goes to show that if you want something seen to the best way is to cause an almighty ruccous. Which isn't pleasant for anyone involved.
Last edited:
- Status