Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 123458 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 381

Thread: Sandro confirmed roll 1-5 for every new module..

  1. #31
    In my opinion, this is a completely stupid move, that negates any other planned improvement to the Engineers (100 of each material storage, pinned blueprints to be executed at stations, any roll better than the previous one, materials exchange, etc.).

    So, after a monstrous grind unlocking most of the engineers and go to grade 5 with them, instead of simply benefiting of grade 5 modules (it's not like the grade 5 materials are abundant), FD will make us apply the grade 1-5 to each module now. And this means multiple rolls for each grade for each module (you can go to the next grade once you've maximized the previous one). Even with a "positive" RNG (no roll worst than previous) and depending what "maximize" means we're still talking of many rolls with a lot more materials involved (all grades) for each module.

    I never looked for secondaries and none of my grade 5 mods are using more than 2-3 rolls, so this means a lot of grind from now on for a single module.

    As for what was discussed in the stream: yes, you can grandfather your mods, they will be kept 100% like now, even after FD will remove the secondary effects. If you try to mod that module again, it will go by the new rules starting from grade 4 maxxed or something like that.

    So they don't want to upset the obsessed people who threw 1000 rolls for a broken secondary (no offense), but they seem to forgot about "normal" people like myself, with limited gaming time (but with enough dedication to unlock all minus one engineers and raise them to grade 5) that apply just a few rolls to get a decent FSD (45-50%) or DDT (27-29%) and move on.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    The new requirement to craft every grade of modification on every module does not seem, to me, to be designed to encourage players to engage in Engineering.

    It places four new barriers between players and Grade 5 modifications that do not exist, i.e. the requirement to gather materials for modifications that are not wanted to then craft them and surpass them on the next modification - and if more than one roll at each grade is required before being able to move on to the next grade it will be even worse. The outcome of the change is to effectively increase the ingredient list of the first Grade 5 modification by a huge factor, taking Increased Range FSD G5 as an example, from 3 "units" to 9x number of rolls at each lower grade to achieve threshold for higher grade + 3 "units".

    Players that engage in "casual" crafting (I would consider myself one of them) are not interested in farming bucketloads of materials / data before crafting a module - for me it's more "collect 3 or maybe 6 of each ingredient and then apply that blueprint to as many modules as I have mats/data for" (maybe rolling up to three times in total per module).

    On reflection there may be a case to remove modification grades altogether and simply link the capability of the output to the rarity of the materials / data used for the modification itself - noting that there are five rarities of each "group" of both data and manufactured materials and partial coverage of elemental materials.

    Current Engineer related data, grouped:

    Data Group
    Very rare
    Rare
    Standard
    Common
    Very common
    Data
    Classified Scan Fragment
    Divergent Scan Data
    Classified Scan Databanks
    Unidentified Scan Archives
    Anomalous Bulk Scan Data
    Emission
    Abnormal Compact Emission Data
    Decoded Emission Data
    Unexpected Emission Data
    Irregular Emission Data
    Exceptional Scrambled Emission Data
    Encryption
    Adaptive Encryptors Capture
    Atypical Encryption Archives
    Open Symmetric Keys
    Tagged Encryption Codes
    Unusual Encrypted Files
    Firmware
    Modified Embedded Firmware
    Security Firmware Patch
    Cracked Industrial Firmware
    Modified Consumer Firmware
    Specialised Legacy Firmware
    Shielding
    Peculiar Shield Frequency Data
    Aberrant Shield Pattern Analysis
    Untypical Shield Scans
    Inconsistent Shield Soak Analysis
    Distorted Shield Cycle Recordings
    Wake
    Datamined Wake Exceptions
    Eccentric Hyperspace Trajectories
    Strange Wake Solutions
    Anomalous FSD Telemetry
    Atypical Disrupted Wake Echoes

    Current Engineer Manufactured / Salvaged materials, grouped:

    Manufactured
    Very rare
    Rare
    Standard
    Common
    Very common
    Alloys
    Military Grade Alloys
    Proto Radiolic Alloys
    Proto Light Alloys
    Thermic Alloys
    Phase Alloys
    Precipitated Alloys
    Galvanising Alloys
    Salvaged Alloys
    Tempered Alloys
    Capacitors
    Military Supercapacitors
    Polymer Capacitors
    Electrochemical Arrays
    Hybrid Capacitors
    Grid Resistors
    Chemical
    Pharmaceutical Isolators
    Chemical Manipulators
    Chemical Distillery
    Chemical Processors
    Chemical Storage Units
    Components
    Improvised Components
    Configurable Components
    Mechanical Components
    Mechanical Equipment
    Mechanical Scrap
    Composites
    Core Dynamics Composites
    Proprietary Composites
    High Density Composites
    Filament Composites
    Compact Composites
    Conductors
    Biotech Conductors
    Conductive Polymers
    Conductive Ceramics
    Conductive Components
    Basic Conductors
    Cooling
    Proto Heat Radiators
    Heat Vanes
    Heat Exchangers
    Heat Dispersion Plate
    Heat Resistant Ceramics
    Heat Conduction Wiring
    Crystal
    Exquisite Focus Crystals
    Refined Focus Crystals
    Focus Crystals
    Flawed Focus Crystals
    Crystal Shards
    Shielding
    Imperial Shielding
    Compound Shielding
    Shielding Sensors
    Shield Emitters
    Worn Shield Emitters

    Current elemental materials, grouped:

    Elemental
    Very rare
    Rare
    Standard
    Common
    Very common
    Carbon Group
    -
    -
    Tin
    Germanium
    Carbon
    Chromium Group
    -
    -
    Molybdenum
    Tungsten
    Chromium
    -
    Iron Group
    -
    Ruthenium
    -
    -
    Iron
    Manganese Group
    -
    Technetium
    -
    Manganese
    -
    Nickel Group
    -
    -
    -
    -
    Nickel
    Nitrogen Group
    -
    Antimony
    -
    Arsenic
    Phosphorus
    Oxygen Group
    -
    Tellurium
    Polonium
    -
    Selenium
    Sulfur
    Scandium Group
    -
    Yttrium
    -
    -
    -
    Titanium Group
    -
    -
    -
    Zirconium
    -
    Vanadium Group
    -
    -
    Niobium
    Vanadium
    -
    Zinc Group
    -
    -
    Cadmium
    Mercury
    Zinc
    -
    I could be wrong, but so far it seems everyone is just assuming that engineers should be all about G5, and that everyone should have easy access to it. To me, it appears to be designed as a tiered system, where the more time you put in it the more you are rewarded. Most 'casuals' (and PvE people in Open like me with 2000+ hours) do not need uber-roll G5s. It should be a big reward after a journey, not the 'minimum acceptable'. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that many here complaining about the 'hellish grind' would rather have the entire engineer system be replaced with a one-off default buff to all modules. I am not saying there is anything wrong with any opinion, but it doesnt seem to be what engineers is for. Which, to me, appears to be to create an on-going development of customizing your ship. You cant have that if there is just one tier, and it is clear that currently g1-4 are too easily skipped completely. So easy, in fact, that most dont even acknowledge these tiers as being a perfectly viable choice. Which is a problem given the idea behind engineers, and why they propose what they do.

    tl;dr Engineers doesnt appear to be designed as a 'must-grab buff', but rather on-going customization. The current proposal fits that better than what we have now, while simultaneously reducing the impact of randomness and luck.

  3. #33
    I agree that this adds time to what should be a quick and simple process and is not a good idea for a number of reasons. You have grade 5 unlocked, you want the Engineer to upgrade a new module, you should just go to them with the module and ask them to do the modification you specify. It makes no sense for the Engineer to say X amount of times 'I'm going to craft you this lower-spec mod you don't really want'. That is nonsensical, time-wasting and not at all fun. I think this problem stems from an internal belief that it should be hard to get high-level mods and from a design perspective it's easier to use time as a barrier than skill, as you are then rewarding, in the designer's mind, dedication. That perspective overlooks the nonsensical, time-wasting and, most importantly, not fun part of engaging with the process. Modding a module just needs to be quick and if the good suggestions by many people here on modding were followed, in particular allowing players to control a set of auto-balancing sliders for primary attributes instead of rng, then getting good modules becomes more about decision-making (with only a small element of luck) in how you set up your ship and the work and dedication involved in making and then testing those mods in the field to fine-tune that ship. In other words, getting a good ship should be more about player choice than grinding to max stats. That's more in keeping with Elite as well - you play it your way, you make your choices and live or die by them in battle.

  4. #34
    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    I could be wrong, but so far it seems everyone is just assuming that engineers should be all about G5, and that everyone should have easy access to it.
    The problem is that it has been like that since their introduction. And not just G5, any grade you may need. We have direct access to it, regardless of what it "should" be like. You can roll a thing once and be done. It's great. Many enjoy it that way.

    Also my ongoing customisation is not pushing one build further towards it's extremes (re rolling a G5 into madness now or continuing to roll a modification in the proposal).
    That's not interesting regardless of how you go about it.
    I refine how my builds work.

    Better performance often isn't tied to your primary value. It's more often the right balance between other values.
    Overall thermal load versus distributor draw for example.
    Total hull mass/integrity versus various optimal masses.
    Matching projectile speeds.
    And so on.

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    I could be wrong, but so far it seems everyone is just assuming that engineers should be all about G5, and that everyone should have easy access to it. To me, it appears to be designed as a tiered system, where the more time you put in it the more you are rewarded. Most 'casuals' (and PvE people in Open like me with 2000+ hours) do not need uber-roll G5s. It should be a big reward after a journey, not the 'minimum acceptable'. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that many here complaining about the 'hellish grind' would rather have the entire engineer system be replaced with a one-off default buff to all modules. I am not saying there is anything wrong with any opinion, but it doesnt seem to be what engineers is for. Which, to me, appears to be to create an on-going development of customizing your ship. You cant have that if there is just one tier, and it is clear that currently g1-4 are too easily skipped completely. So easy, in fact, that most dont even acknowledge these tiers as being a perfectly viable choice. Which is a problem given the idea behind engineers, and why they propose what they do.

    tl;dr Engineers doesnt appear to be designed as a 'must-grab buff', but rather on-going customization. The current proposal fits that better than what we have now, while simultaneously reducing the impact of randomness and luck.
    Whether we "need" G5 rolls, or not, is moot - we have access to them and can currently craft them as and when we choose to (subject to having the required ingredients).

    The proposed change ensures that all modifications, other than G1, will take longer to achieve - which is not an improvement, in my opinion.

  6. #36
    Remember guys, there will be a Materials trader, so with that in place, the grind may not be any worse, or it could be better then it is now. Also if its only one roll per grade, I can live with that, but what we will need is to be able to see all of the blueprints so we know what materials we have and what we need, otherwise it will be pretty stupid. I shouldn't have to be using an out of game tool to do this.

  7. #37
    Form everything i heard by now Engineering will only get worse (and as consequence PvP/OpenPlay), increasing tedious monotonous gameplay with no skill involved. The fact that we haven't heard any response for two weeks (there is not a single dev-community interaction in this forum section) doesn't make me very optimistic.

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by Zenith View Post (Source)
    Looks like I need to get started on engineering all my ships fully before this change comes in.
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    I was more concerned that Sandro said that god rolled modules now would still be better than the best in the new system.
    Originally Posted by UnhappyDev View Post (Source)
    My sympathies, I'm panic-rerolling my modules.
    These reactions show that grandfathering is a really bad idea. I am also thinking about playing again just un unlock all engineers to G5. But i don't rally want that because it is not fun. I was hoping they make a change that makes the game more fun.

  9. #39
    Disclaimer: Getting rid of the 1-5 grind for each module wouldn't bother me. I'm just stating why I believe it makes sense.

    I know it sounds bad, but think about it for a bit. Unless each roll just screws you over and barely improves the roll, you're going to need just a few rolls per grade. Still sounds better than now.

    Optimistic Example: G4 mod 20-40% increase. First roll hits 32%. Okay, now it's 32-40%. Second roll wavers and gives a sad 34. Still, it's 34-40%. Third try nets you 38%. Oh, threshold reached. G5 available. Yay!

    Sounds like too much work? Well, guaranteed progress comes from just that. I'm not against slashing the 1-5 grind for each module, but I'm not up in arms about it for the above reasons. It may seem like it punishes those who just roll one G5 per module, but they're basically just "buying" S-rated modules at that point. I don't think thats what engineers is meant to be all about. I always saw it as a process you went through with your ship, similar to giving your vehicle that mid-life-crisis tuning. It takes time. Since the rewards are so great, why is the time investment a bad thing?

  10. #40
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Whether we "need" G5 rolls, or not, is moot - we have access to them and can currently craft them as and when we choose to (subject to having the required ingredients).

    The proposed change ensures that all modifications, other than G1, will take longer to achieve - which is not an improvement, in my opinion.
    The grade will take longer, but will your desired end result take longer? That's the question.

    Edit: lovely, it split the post.

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by TGC Brony TO View Post (Source)
    The grade will take longer, but will your desired end result take longer? That's the question.
    For every grade other than G1 - yes - as there will be a requirement to craft unwanted modifications to get through the gate to be able to craft the desired modification, regardless of the number of rolls at the desired grade.

  12. #42
    A materials trader? I doubt that!
    If this new idea is to make the game longer for no real reason, then that is just stupid.
    Maybe everybody should boycot the Thargoid thingy and just explore/trade/combat.
    I think FD can't make up it's mind whether this is a sandbox game or a "Do What I Tell You" game.
    Everybody (maybe) hated the grind, but we did it. Because we could put up with grinding for 12-18 months. How long to grind now?

    The way I see it may not be the way it will pan out, but from what all you posters have said, it seems it may pan out this way.

    No, I didn't look at the video, but I take it that you lot are quite intelligent fellows, so I wrote my comments as you clued me to.

    PS: Yeah. Boycott the Thargoids, people. Explore the void and build platforms across it. (So Moi can travel in comfort) (read: explore)

  13. #43
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    The proposed change ensures that all modifications, other than G1, will take longer to achieve - which is not an improvement, in my opinion.
    You dont know that. What you know is that the progression becomes more linear. How fast the progress becomes depends on other things, as for example Morbad explained. There are simply two different issues: type of progression and speed of progression. Currently we have 'one long slog towards getting to G5, and from then on skip everything and keep pumping G5 for an average of x-number of rolls to get to quality y'. Right now we change that to 'move linearly through the levels, and make a fixed number of z-rolls to get to quality y.'

    Whether it will take longer to get to y depends on whether x is larger or smaller than z, and we have little info on it. Increasing the speed, if that is what you want, by changing the type is not ideal. If you want it faster, change the blueprint requirements, mat collection or increase-per-reroll.

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by Mike Reacher View Post (Source)
    A materials trader? I doubt that!
    Considering it is what FD suggest, I think I doubt your doubt.

  15. #45
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    For every grade other than G1 - yes - as there will be a requirement to craft unwanted modifications to get through the gate to be able to craft the desired modification, regardless of the number of rolls at the desired grade.
    I suppose my preference towards having top-tier rolls makes my opinion on this easy to see. For those who just want decent G5 rolls, sure it'll suck. But that's what engineers was supposed to be I think, a process that takes time and rewards you with dramatic boosts.

    I'm not against removing the requirement as it would just lessen my load, but I'm just indifferent I suppose. The proposal makes engineers make sense to me as a time/reward type of deal. But like I said, I wouldn't say it has to stay that way. Easier G5 for me if you all have your way. By all means, lobby on.

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 123458 ... LastLast