Page 30 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2026272829303132 LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 466

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

  1. #436
    This is ridiculous. You ignored ALL feedback! Wow.

  2. #437
    I vote for 'Delay Update'.

  3. #438
    I vote for "delay update and this time get it right".

  4. #439
    This focused feedback was a farce.

  5. #440
    Do any of the people at FD even play the game? Raise the material storage that's all you needed to do.

    Poon

    Sandro pissing customers off is a bad thing.

  6. #441
    Originally Posted by Poonjabby View Post (Source)
    Do any of the people at FD even play the game? Raise the material storage that's all you needed to do.

    Poon

    Sandro pissing customers off is a bad thing.
    Too late. They have spent too much on the new system development to turn back now.

    This thread that was going to be updated "next week" was ignored for over a month while they just went ahead with what they wanted to do.

    I doubt it was even read.

  7. #442
    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.
    Hello Sandro, could you please give this thread some thought: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...eam-(Pre-Beta)

    - RNG - it needs to go. Just get rid of it (we still have to put up with RNG looking for the materials in the first place). As it currently stands, it would take (on the extreme scale) either 10 attempts to max an upgrade from 1 to 5, or 50 attempts - for just one module. Please just max-out the rolls per grade to just 3, or players will just run out of materials before they have even finished with their modules at the engineer's base. Removing the Casino isn't enough, just please remove the gambling altogether.

    - Material Broker - At a ratio of 6:1, the materials broker will be a massively under-used feature.

    Here is how it looks from the Livestream dated 23.01.18:

    96x Grade 1 Materials into Grade 2 Materials (6 per 1): 16
    16x Grade 2 Materials into Grade 3 Materials (6 per 1): 2
    2x Grade 3 Materials into Grade 4 Materials (6 per 1): 0

    You can't even acquire just 1x Grade 4 material from 96x Grade 1 materials.

    Here are two more examples:

    Example 1:

    99x Grade 1 Materials into Grade 2 Materials (3 per 1): 33
    33x Grade 2 Materials into Grade 3 Materials (3 per 1): 11
    11x Grade 3 Materials into Grade 4 Materials (3 per 1): 3
    3x Grade 4 Materials into Grade 5 Materials (3 per 1): 1

    Example 2:

    100x Grade 1 Materials into Grade 2 Materials (2 per 1): 50
    50x Grade 2 Materials into Grade 3 Materials (2 per 1): 25
    25x Grade 3 Materials into Grade 4 Materials (2 per 1): 12
    12x Grade 4 Materials into Grade 5 Materials (2 per 1): 6

    As I stated in my linked thread, I believe Example 2 represents the best value for a player's time. 100x Grade 1 materials will only net you 6x Grade 5 materials in a single Broker Tree (thermal, etc) - players can find this or more Grade 5 materials in much less time.

    Please give this a serious think, more details in my thread. Thanks!

  8. #443
    Originally Posted by CMDR Dreamstate View Post (Source)
    Hello Sandro, could you please give this thread some thought: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...eam-(Pre-Beta)

    - RNG - it needs to go. Just get rid of it (we still have to put up with RNG looking for the materials in the first place). As it currently stands, it would take (on the extreme scale) either 10 attempts to max an upgrade from 1 to 5, or 50 attempts - for just one module. Please just max-out the rolls per grade to just 3, or players will just run out of materials before they have even finished with their modules at the engineer's base. Removing the Casino isn't enough, just please remove the gambling altogether.

    - Material Broker - At a ratio of 6:1, the materials broker will be a massively under-used feature.

    Here is how it looks from the Livestream dated 23.01.18:

    96x Grade 1 Materials into Grade 2 Materials (6 per 1): 16
    16x Grade 2 Materials into Grade 3 Materials (6 per 1): 2
    2x Grade 3 Materials into Grade 4 Materials (6 per 1): 0

    You can't even acquire just 1x Grade 4 material from 96x Grade 1 materials.

    Here are two more examples:

    Example 1:

    99x Grade 1 Materials into Grade 2 Materials (3 per 1): 33
    33x Grade 2 Materials into Grade 3 Materials (3 per 1): 11
    11x Grade 3 Materials into Grade 4 Materials (3 per 1): 3
    3x Grade 4 Materials into Grade 5 Materials (3 per 1): 1

    Example 2:

    100x Grade 1 Materials into Grade 2 Materials (2 per 1): 50
    50x Grade 2 Materials into Grade 3 Materials (2 per 1): 25
    25x Grade 3 Materials into Grade 4 Materials (2 per 1): 12
    12x Grade 4 Materials into Grade 5 Materials (2 per 1): 6

    As I stated in my linked thread, I believe Example 2 represents the best value for a player's time. 100x Grade 1 materials will only net you 6x Grade 5 materials in a single Broker Tree (thermal, etc) - players can find this or more Grade 5 materials in much less time.

    Please give this a serious think, more details in my thread. Thanks!
    You didn't get the memo did you?
    Never mind, neither did anyone else.

  9. #444
    Sadly, I expected this, though I was foolishly optimistic that this feedback thread wasn't a waste of network space.

    Instead of catering to the individuals that find any roll (usually less than 5) is enough for a satisfactory upgrade, Frontier pandered to the min-max crowd who insisted on rolling hundreds or thousands of times for a single module to get the 'perfect' upgrade.

    Thanks.

    In 'reducing the grind' for the min-max group, they've exponentially increased the grind for the 'good-enough' crowd.

    My 'sense of accomplishment' at being able to go to an engineer and quickly upgrade a good-enough module and get on with my game will be no more. Instead, I may as well complete the grind and max it out. Very little sense of accomplishment if everyone has the same module.

    Congratulations. Objective to convert 'good-enough' to 'min-max' accomplished.

  10. #445
    Originally Posted by Xae View Post (Source)
    Looks like the plan is just to ignore player feedback and push a head with more bad changes.

    Called it.

    Frontier doesn't listen to players one damn bit.

    Save yourself the bandwidth and shut down the forums.

  11. #446
    I just cannot fathom the reason why you have to "progress" every single module individually.

    I love Class 4 Multi-Cannons, and (at this second) have 1 on my Anaconda and 2 on my Corvette. If for example I want to engineer them, say to grade 5, under the new system I have to do that individually for each of the 3 MCs. WHY? Are you trying to tell me the engineer figured out how to do this beautiful modification to a module, and then FORGOT when you gave them another OF THE EXACT SAME MODULE???

    It just doesn't make sense at all. Sure, have progression not shared between different module types. My G5 progression for Power Plants shouldn't affect Power Distributor progression, that makes sense. It's a completely different type of module after all. But if I'm upgrading multiple of the exact same module there is no reason why I should have to repeat the entire process on every single individual module.

  12. #447
    Way to go Sandro, thanks for letting us know how much you "care" for community and the game itself.

  13. #448
    Scavenger hunt time sink multiplied by repetitive iterations of the same upgrade of the grades to the desired grade.
    To slow comrade.
    To slow, the game is about flying ships, discovering stellar bodies and Space Truckin (c’mon lets go Space Truckin!)
    not driving SRV’s for tens and tens of hours nor wave scanning deep space ad nauseum.
    The SRV scanner is not my new home.
    The material trader is not my new home.
    And it seems the Technology Broke will also not be my new home.

    Scavenger hunting/Trading Mats is a quick fix, but there’s got to be more on the plate.

  14. #449
    Yeppers, the requirement to gradually increase EACH module lacks any sembelence to logic.

    For comparison, let's take the example of hot rodding a classic car. Let's say you have two of them, driven by yourself and your wife. You work with a mechanic to gradually improve the performance of your car. Different cam shafts, carbs, drive train, etc. Let's say most of it involves modified existing parts, or completely custom parts. At the end you have a "Grade 5" hotrod. Drive it home, let your wife try it out. She loves it and wants hers to be just like it.

    So you go back to the same mechanic with her car, and do what? Start the whole process again? Noooo. You tell him to make the same mods as your car.

    The current proposed method makes absolutely no sense.

  15. #450
    Originally Posted by GJ51 View Post (Source)
    Too late. They have spent too much on the new system development to turn back now.

    This thread that was going to be updated "next week" was ignored for over a month while they just went ahead with what they wanted to do.

    I doubt it was even read.
    was there a "development"??, i missed that!!
    Taking in account what is been delivered, i do not think thee is a "development" team working for this game.

    Find a new GAME DESIGNER!!!!