Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 466

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

  1. #16
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Because is FD clearly wants it to be progression system not one off shop. I think it is valid reason but also I understand why very loud opposition is there.
    I can accept that. But then i need to go through all grades for all modules, instead of ranking up to G5 with some dump-module, and just crafting the G5 modules i want. Knowing which materials i need for which module and grade and getting these materials is tedious, extremely tedious with ingame tools (blueprint pinning). If the game would allow me to pin all blueprints and provide detailed information where each material can be found would make the whole process of 'progressing' from G1 to G5 much less tedious.

  2. #17
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    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.
    Thanks for the reply Sandro.
    Though as others have mentioned, it's not an even comparison.
    In the current system, you only have to progress through the levels once (aside from cashing in rep for special mods).
    The new system essentially removes rep, and requires you to go through the levels every single time. While this may be an improvement for the "god-rollers", for the casual "that's good enough" crowd, this is a significant increase in effort.
    While I understand the sentiment of wanting to convey a feeling of progression, this doesn't feel like the right way to do it.
    Climbing the same progression ladder over and over stops feeling like progression, and quickly becomes... dare I say it, a grind.

    I would much prefer having the progression be something more involved with unlocking and improving rep/rank with an engineer, and the reward in the end is access to high level upgrades.

    To use another example, this is like a typical MMO requiring the player to re-level their crafting skill over and over, every time they want to craft a high level item. Ok, maybe not that extreme, but you get my point.

  3. #18
    Building guaranteed waste into the game is poor design even if it ends up being a similar effort to the current system with more predictable results.
    Anyone who wants a higher grade module (the most frequent use case) will not only have to spend additional time getting lower grade materials, they will have to do X number of pointless clicks in the upgrade UI.

    The broker might mitigate that, the 100 per material might mitigate it, but it is still a waste of my valuable and limited game time.

    If the intention is to make the higher grades more expensive, then do that - add materials to the blueprints.
    If the intention is to have players spend longer using lower level upgrades before the higher ones, then revisit the engineer ranking progression.
    If the intention is to make the lower level upgrades more widely used in general, then revisit their stats.

    Spinning the wheels X number times and hoping to get lucky was bad enough - sometimes you get lucky quickly and don't throw that many away.
    Spinning the wheels X number of times knowing that you are throwing them away is just utterly tedious.

    There are too many leveling systems and progress bars in the game already. Forcing players to revisit the same grind mechanism over and over again is a terrible choice.

    First and foremost, this is a game about the ships.
    Flying a variety of ships and trying to outfit and customize them for your needs should be a joy, not a torment.

    Engineers are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

  4. #19
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    It's a valid reason - however the time to do it was when Engineers was designed - not over 18 months after it has been released.
    Exactly, especially when the proposed implementation is more demanding on a casual player's tone.

  5. #20
    Originally Posted by Andovar View Post (Source)
    Climbing the same progression ladder over and over stops feeling like progression, and quickly becomes... dare I say it, a grind.
    /signed

  6. #21
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    .... especially if we are being offered the opportunity to pin a single blueprint per Engineer for the "Halfords Fitters" in general Outfitting to undertake - as that only works for one grade of modification at a time (as each grade of each modification type is a discrete blueprint).
    I hadn't thought about that

  7. #22
    I have a small suggestion to make: Don't get rid of the rng and the secondary effects, they make each ship unique in a way that each of us is unique as individuals. Instead, it'd be better if the ingredients won't get consumed after one roll, but after 5 or even 10 efforts (or when the player chooses to apply the modification). This way the grinding to gather the materials is lessened and even those players that complain about the rng get more chances to try.

    Just a thought.

  8. #23
    Originally Posted by Alec Turner View Post (Source)

    Originally Posted by Andovar View Post (Source)
    Climbing the same progression ladder over and over stops feeling like progression, and quickly becomes... dare I say it, a grind.
    /signed
    /seconded!

  9. #24
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    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.
    I assume this is referring to experimental builds of the new system, yes?

    I have to say, I'm still not overly fond of the idea even when given the average. The simple fact of the matter is, even with generous enhancements with each roll, it's still a far greater time and resource investment than the current system unless you're completely mental and insist on doing a hundred rolls at a time.

    Might I suggest an alternative? Let us start from the highest unlocked rank, but change the stat delta so instead of being from, say, X+30 to X+50 at grade 5 it's just X to X+50 (as a random example, talking out of my- er, off the top of my head). More rolls are required per rank to max stuff out, but fewer rolls and fewer different materials are needed in total (hell, you needn't even carry over stats from lower-ranked upgrades and just roll from the baseline).

    My main worry with the new system is that it would simply punish players who didn't upgrade their modules before the change by requiring them to make a far larger time investment for not having done so for whatever reason. And I think you really underestimate how often people would upgrade their modules - hell, I'm hardly a dedicated grinder, yet I've still got well over half a dozen ships plus dozens of stored modules, all fully or almost fully engineered. Achieving that with the new system would have taken me fully an order of magnitude more time than it actually did. And it doesn't need to feel like progression because we've already got that, indeed we've got too much of it by most measures, adding yet more on top would almost feel spiteful, really. "Yeah, yeah, we'll get rid of most of the RNG, whatever, long as you don't mind having to do ten times as much work," Frontier would seem to say.

  10. #25
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    First, an apology: I haven't found quite as much time this last week for looking at feedback as I hoped, hence the delay. I'm aiming to get some responses out next week.

    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.

    Hope this information helps, more to come next week.
    One thing to bear in mind Sandro, this change won't hurt end game players who do everything in their Cutter or Corvette, they will probably like it. This change will hurt casual players who have to own 5/6/7 small ships to cover all play types.

    I don't think this change is going to do what you hope it will (make Engineers more used by casuals).

  11. #26
    Originally Posted by Knightshark View Post (Source)
    I can accept that. But then i need to go through all grades for all modules, instead of ranking up to G5 with some dump-module, and just crafting the G5 modules i want. Knowing which materials i need for which module and grade and getting these materials is tedious, extremely tedious with ingame tools (blueprint pinning). If the game would allow me to pin all blueprints and provide detailed information where each material can be found would make the whole process of 'progressing' from G1 to G5 much less tedious.
    Then maybe lets solve those issues not just make it one off venture everybody does because meta.

  12. #27
    If you stick with this at least do two things: Don't make us max out a grade, make it a fixed amout like 3 rolls as it is now. And by all that is holy, let us have a look at all blueprints.

    For one when I under the new system need to know the material requierments of 5 mods just do one mod trying to keep track of what I need gets way to messy when I can only pin one blueprint. And if the number of rolls necessary is not a fixed quantity I also need to guess how many mats of those I need, which makes it even more messy. That all needs to become way more simpler to use.

    Best of all of course let us skip ranks. Make those mods worse or whatever, or lock them so I cant re-roll, dunno, just something so i can get about the same with one roll I can get now with one roll. I don't see the progression in the whole process, if I do 12 mods just to throw them away I don't care how good any of those is. If the next thing for the trashcan is better then the last one or not, its still just trash I only do to throw it away.

  13. #28
    I still don't understand what is being "fixed"

    The only complaint I hear commonly regarding engineers is the lack of storage and the need to throw away materials and the excessive time wasted on inventory management.

    That can all be fixed quite easily by raising the storage caps.

    Why does FD insist on "penalizing" us with an "upgrade" in order to give us the one thing we consistently ask for? Why does every improvement feel like it has to have a backhanded slap attached to it?

    Just raise the storage caps and leave the rest of the system alone and I'm confident you'd get cheers rather than jeers all around.

  14. #29
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Then maybe lets solve those issues not just make it one off venture everybody does because meta.
    I agree, that would be great. I want progression. It shouldn't be tedious and promote Alt-tabbing. If it feels "natural", the immersion-seeking player in me will be happy!

  15. #30
    Originally Posted by bliss View Post (Source)
    One thing to bear in mind Sandro, this change won't hurt end game players who do everything in their Cutter or Corvette, they will probably like it. This change will hurt casual players who have to own 5/6/7 small ships to cover all play types.

    I don't think this change is going to do what you hope it will (make Engineers more used by casuals).
    Yup - I very much get the impression that the thought process here is based on one ship.

Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast