Page 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 691011121316 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 466

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Delay update

  1. #151
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Yes, but he will have to do it for each module and each ship.
    .... as he does at the moment.

    An extra 11.2 (on average) rolls when a player is prepared to roll that many times remains a small proportion.

  2. #152
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    The guaranteed improvement for every roll and, expected, hard maxima that will be able to be achieved points to min/max being facilitated by the redesign.
    By definition the guaranteed result will encourage grinding - and having to roll trough the grades will make it worse.
    An average player probably settled with a fair roll knowing that doing x afterward does not guarantee a better result, this will now change.

    I'm usually keeping my opinion to myself in this matter as I'm apparently in the minority who not only prefers the current system, but wishes that this precious development effort is targeted to other aspects of the game. It is just I have a nagging feeling, that when this will be delivered, the complaining will continue.

  3. #153
    Originally Posted by MadDogMurdock View Post (Source)
    What? You've gone off on a different tangent now.

    The min/maxers are the ones who stand to gain from new system. Instead of rolling several hundreds or maybe thousands of G5s to get lucky on all their modules, they now have a fairly fixed number of rolls that is likely lower than they do now, also using easier to source materials.

    Everyone else, who is content to hunt down a few G5 materials, make a few rolls, and see what they get, is now forced to do the same fixed number of rolls as the min/maxers.

    So yes, thanks for making that point - in the new system, everyone going to G5 is effectively now forced to play like a min/maxer.
    This is the point! I don't care of "God's roll", I have never got + 55.5% on my FSD. My best after 2-3 rolls was +50%, but if I have only +45%, I take it.
    So I don't want to be obliged in order to have a G5 mod to make all the way for every module to all grades and subgrades!
    I have never tried as some players here to make hundreds of rolls for this best possible roll in game. I just don't care, but I care of that the new system doesn't become a nightmare for everyone except these "God's roll" seekers.

  4. #154
    Originally Posted by YinYin View Post (Source)
    We got the details. Nobody is against those positive changes.
    No we haven’t had the details, we’ve been taunted with one of the details and people are against having to run each module through g1-5.

    But because FD aren’t being transparent we’re visualising having to roll g1-5 using the current state of the game without a material broker and without material storage.

  5. #155
    Originally Posted by CMDR Maymo View Post (Source)
    But because FD aren’t being transparent we’re visualising having to roll g1-5 using the current state of the game without a material broker and without material storage.
    You are right, some people are.

    Others are not. The broker (limited and at loss trades only as described) and updated inventory don't impact the collection process much, which isn't changed by this proposal.

    Other than that the proposal and live stream were rather detailed.

  6. #156
    Power creep is the most unlikely result of these changes. Expecting something like that would even come close to an insult as they simply can't be that stupid.

    But the only alternative to that will be fixed top results that never can actually be reached, only approximated with diminishing returns. And, while an uncontrolled power creep would lead to horrible chaos and breaking the game, this alternative will be a hit to the mental health of many of us. On top of that it would also choke off any diversity after some time. I'm not saying it because I'm such an enthusiastic pessimist, it's just because I know and have played such a system. I'm so praying to be wrong here...

    The only thing that would come as a surprise to me would have to be something close to a miracle. Nothing that even was vaguely insinuated by the proposals so far.

  7. #157
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    Perhaps I'm just an idiot, but whats the point of rep ranks if you have to go G1 > G5 with everything?
    The rep rank was the gate for module scope (G1 / G5) while the materials themselves limited what you could roll.
    This new system sounds confused as its adding a superfluous new barrier.
    Agreed, they may as well get rid of the rep ranks all together if they go down this path.

  8. #158
    Originally Posted by MadDogMurdock View Post (Source)
    ...
    So yes, thanks for making that point - in the new system, everyone going to G5 is effectively now forced to play like a min/maxer.
    That's the point. No matter how heavy the grind will be to reach this state, in the end all modules would be the same with miniscule, totally irrelevant differences. Good bye diversity...

  9. #159
    Originally Posted by picommander View Post (Source)
    Power creep is the most unlikely result of these changes. Expecting something like that would even come close to an insult as they simply can't be that stupid.

    But the only alternative to that will be fixed top results that never can actually be reached, only approximated with diminishing returns. And, while an uncontrolled power creep would lead to horrible chaos and breaking the game, this alternative will be a hit to the mental health of many of us. On top of that it would also choke off any diversity after some time. I'm not saying it because I'm such an enthusiastic pessimist, it's just because I know and have played such a system. I'm so praying to be wrong here...

    The only thing that would come as a surprise to me would have to be something close to a miracle. Nothing that even was vaguely insinuated by the proposals so far.
    How that would hit mental health for players? It would make higher tiers harder to max, but it is still issue of balance no? That can be solved.

    On top of that it would also choke off any diversity after some time
    How it would do that? As far as I know there's no much diversity of everybody going around in G5 modules.

  10. #160
    Originally Posted by Sphinx2k View Post (Source)
    Agreed, they may as well get rid of the rep ranks all together if they go down this path.
    They've already said they are proposing removing rep completely and replacing it with the new G1-G5 roll path.

  11. #161
    Originally Posted by Max Factor View Post (Source)
    I think that's the best way to look at it. Basically you are not trashing the previous rolls, they are a requirement for the next upgrade.
    While that makes some sense, surely the expert who does this all the time (the Engineer) knows that all those steps are ultimately required, so why can't they just give a list of all the parts that are going to be affected so we can just upgrade the whole shebang in one swoop? It seems to me that we shouldn't even have to go through an initial progression in the first place if that's the case.

    I appreciate the interpretation, though.

  12. #162
    Originally Posted by Steed View Post (Source)
    They've already said they are proposing removing rep completely and replacing it with the new G1-G5 roll path.
    Then I propose that anytime you leave a station you are allied with you automatically drop back to less then cordial when you leave. When you come back you need to do all the low missions to get those nice allied missions again. Fairs Fair right?

  13. #163
    Originally Posted by Gun Star View Post (Source)
    Then I propose that anytime you leave a station you are allied with you automatically drop back to less then cordial when you leave. When you come back you need to do all the low missions to get those nice allied missions again. Fairs Fair right?
    Brilliant, let's do it! Make Home system Home again, each time you return. Yay!

  14. #164
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    How that would hit mental health for players? It would make higher tiers harder to max, but it is still issue of balance no? That can be solved.
    Because not many players have the self-discipline to know when to stop, but only few would admit this to themselves, which is one reason why many people are so excited about this system. In the current system we've got at least this certain difficulty for gaining the high tier materials that acts as some sort of an airbag against futile and senseless activities. There's also this certain possibility of gaining an extremely rare, super godly roll.

    [edit] I don't think you've got it, it's actually quite the opposite. Gaining higher tiers will be much easier now but there will be always this tiny little, more and more insignificant but still possible (and even guaranteed!) improvement. And that is where the madness slowly creeps in. I can understand why this isn't quite easy to imagine in abstract, if you've never played such a system which I guess is true for most of us.


    This also answers your next question:

    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    How it would do that [choking off diversity]? As far as I know there's no much diversity of everybody going around in G5 modules.
    If you are right, where are all the complains about unbalanced modules are coming from. Never heard of?

    Diversity comes to a price and the name of this price is 'broken balance'. You can't have both, perfect balance and rich diversity. The trick is to widely 'mystify' this unbalance by negative random attributes to mollify its impact. I'm a passionate advocate of the latter and that's coming from someone who never had the luck or the patience to get a single 'god-rolled' module...

    [edit]
    With the new system all high end results *will* homogenize between all players, that's just a matter of time. Will lead to almost perfect balance but also raise the question why do we need Engineers at all? Why not just selling these equalized modules at starports then?

    I had high hopes for an introduction of more creativity in the whole process while what I see now seems to go into the total opposite direction.

  15. #165
    Secondly, I see a lot of interest in the concept of enforcing that Commanders progress through all ranks of a module sequentially when upgrading, with the worry that the time requirement to upgrade will be significantly increased. I'd like to add a comment on this now, as I think it will help the debate.

    We don't believe that this should be the case in general. The average number of crafts to complete a module's rank is currently running at around three (2.8 or so to be more precise), increasing a little when you get to the end of rank five.

    We don't think that's particularly excessive, and we like the potential for the module upgrading experience to feel more like progression. Importantly, every time you visit an Engineer, you will leave with improved modules, even if they are not maxed out.
    EDIT:

    Nope its late.
    I misread the quote.

    It is excessive - 12 rolls to reach grade 5 compared to 0 when its already unlocked(old system)

Page 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 691011121316 ... LastLast