Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 466

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

  1. #31
    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).
    There's good question to be had - do every ship needs to be Engineered?

    I don't think so.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    With the utmost respect, Sandro, we already progress - by unlocking each grade of modification with each Engineer - and that takes 12 rolls.

    What is proposed is to require the player to do 93% as much crafting as unlocking the grades in the first place (11.2 rolls on average) over and above the (potentially) single desired Grade 5 modification every single time a stock module is the desired recipient of that modification.

    At the moment we can arrive at the Engineer with a stock module and ingredients for a single Grade 5 roll that will also be a pretty much guaranteed improvement.
    Quoted for emphasis.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    There's good question to be had - do every ship needs to be Engineered?

    I don't think so.
    Once one is accustomed to travelling in a ship fitted with an Increased Range FSD modified Frame Shift Drive there is an amount of frustration as to how low the jump ranges generally are in unEngineered ships.

    Need? No. Desired? Certainly.

    .... and at present that desire can be largely satisfied with a single roll on a stock FSD at Farseer.

  4. #34
    I guess I’m in the minority that believe this new system will work perfectly fine.

    For example, by the time I’ve ransacked enough material sources for 10 Chemical Manipulators I’ve usually got about 30 Chemical Distillery and 50 Chemical Processors. Same for Datamined Wake Exceptions and Arsenic...

    There’s a couple of the more select materials that could be a pain with the new system, I can usually skip things like thermic alloys and proceed straight to a G5 recipe but the proposed material broker/market could help with that maybe.

    Good stuff! Looking forward to more information!

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    There's good question to be had - do every ship needs to be Engineered?

    I don't think so.
    Very true. I have tons of unengineered ships, because I can afford to buy more ships than I can afford to engineer ships.

    That is with the current system.

    I will be able to afford less engineered ships with the proposed system.

    But the change intends to make more commanders engage with engineers.

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    There's good question to be had - do every ship needs to be Engineered?

    I don't think so.
    From what I understand FD wants people to use engineers more, making people fly around in stockships seems counterproductive to that.

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Once one is accustomed to travelling in a ship fitted with an Increased Range FSD modified Frame Shift Drive there is an amount of frustration as to how low the jump ranges generally are in unEngineered ships.

    Need? No. Desired? Certainly.

    .... and at present that desire can be largely satisfied with a single roll on a stock FSD at Farseer.
    Well it is all about desire and people wanting max ships.

    I am trying to provide POV of progression. For that to work however more pinned blueprints should be allowed and more in game info about resources gathering should be provided.

    Anyway, no surprises about split here, let's hope we get more replies and info from Sandro to chew on.

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by YinYin View Post (Source)
    Very true. I have tons of unengineered ships, because I can afford to buy more ships than I can afford to engineer ships.

    That is with the current system.

    I will be able to afford less engineered ships with the proposed system.

    But the change intends to make more commanders engage with engineers.
    More commanders doesn't mean all ships for all commanders. Goal is to raise medium level and level play field that way.

  9. #39
    With all due respect Sandro, it does massively increase the time to craft modules. Let's say I have 5 ships I want to apply a single G5 roll on (not caring how good it is - a good roll could take much longer).

    In the current game, I would need to unlock the engineer, then roll 3x upgrades each of G1-G4 to rank the engineer up to G5. Then, I would need to do the 5 G5 rolls. In total I would need the materials for 3 G1, 3 G2, 3 G3, 3 G4, and 5 G5. Any time in the future I wanted to roll a new G5 module for a new ship, I would only need 1 G5 rolls worth of materials.

    As proposed, I would need 3 G1, 3 G2, 3 G3, 3 G4, and 1 G5 roll and the materials required for each ( 27 total materials) to apply a single G5 roll to any module. Subsequent G5 rolls on other ships would require the same initial 27 total materials to apply.

    The new system massively increases the amount of time we have to spend gathering materials for no reason. Our time investment per module is ignoring the fact we already ranked the engineer up to 5. The new system makes us spend time doing that again any time we want to start work on a new module for a new ship, unless we engineer a bunch of modules right now with throwaway stuff to circumvent the system in the future.

    That is poor design. I am having to gather 900% more materials in the new system (27 to go from G1-G5 and apply a single G5 roll without maxing out) than I have to now (3 to roll a G5 on an engineer I have ranked up to G5). The time spent in-game currently to fully engineer a new ship is already unreasonable. This proposed change makes it worse.

    I have posted a suggestion a few days ago that I think still allows upgrades to feel like a progression of sorts here (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...d-ideas-inside), and it says largely what I think would be a better approach than what is currently being done. Your engineering change as proposed is not drastic enough and things like engineer ranks and upgrade "ranks" no longer have much meaning in a world where there are no longer secondary effects. Get rid of engineer ranks, make there three "types" of upgrades (Minor, Moderate, Major) for each "type" of recipe, and let you progress towards maxing out your module by spending materials as you get them. Do not require an arbitrary new timesink simply to give the illusion of progression, especially when that timesink did not exist prior to the "improvements" to the system.

  10. #40
    I proposed this before:
    1) keep the mandatory unlocking as you've just described it.
    2) cut down the grades, from 5 to 3, making the progression between the 3 more marked than the few percentage points there are now between a G2 and a G3 (for ex.), and making a "new G3" the equivalent of an old G5.
    3) Everyone is happy.

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by YinYin View Post (Source)
    Thank you.

    I hope you can consider adding an incentive/reward for going through that upgrading experience we didn't have to do so far and potentially leave direct grade access open with a penalty.

    For example additional customisation that is only available through the step by step process.

    Or locking the purchasable experimental effects to incrementally upgraded modules (as they are already locked to crafts at an engineer base).
    Ummm the reward is an upgraded module...

  12. #42
    Originally Posted by Starlear View Post (Source)
    With all due respect Sandro, it does massively increase the time to craft modules. Let's say I have 5 ships I want to apply a single G5 roll on (not caring how good it is - a good roll could take much longer).

    In the current game, I would need to unlock the engineer, then roll 3x upgrades each of G1-G4 to rank the engineer up to G5. Then, I would need to do the 5 G5 rolls. In total I would need the materials for 3 G1, 3 G2, 3 G3, 3 G4, and 5 G5. Any time in the future I wanted to roll a new G5 module for a new ship, I would only need 1 G5 rolls worth of materials.

    As proposed, I would need 3 G1, 3 G2, 3 G3, 3 G4, and 1 G5 roll and the materials required for each ( 27 total materials) to apply a single G5 roll to any module. Subsequent G5 rolls on other ships would require the same initial 27 total materials to apply.

    The new system massively increases the amount of time we have to spend gathering materials for no reason. Our time investment per module is ignoring the fact we already ranked the engineer up to 5. The new system makes us spend time doing that again any time we want to start work on a new module for a new ship, unless we engineer a bunch of modules right now with throwaway stuff to circumvent the system in the future.

    That is poor design.
    Is it about crafting them in general or getting max crafting level for them?

  13. #43
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Well it is all about desire and people wanting max ships.

    I am trying to provide POV of progression. For that to work however more pinned blueprints should be allowed and more in game info about resources gathering should be provided.

    Anyway, no surprises about split here, let's hope we get more replies and info from Sandro to chew on.
    You're misunderstanding again. It's NOT about max ships. The single grade 5 roll that's currently available is a long way from max ships and that going to be removed which will disproportionately affect casual players with an increased time sink.

    I'm for progression if there an incentive, and I'm looking forward to doing it for my favorite ship.

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by MahdDogg View Post (Source)
    Ummm the reward is an upgraded module...
    Yes. That's why I said adding a reward we don't currently have on top of what we already have. The purchasable experimentals are one such thing.

    The optimal thing to do right now if this proposal goes through as outlined, is rolling a single grade 5 on everything you may need - just to skip those 1-4 grades in the future.

    The entire point is how it compares to the only guaranteed upgrade we have now (a single roll).
    And the time increase on that is excessive. It cannot really be viewed as a reward, if things get harder.

    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    More commanders doesn't mean all ships for all commanders. Goal is to raise medium level and level play field that way.
    Sure, I still cannot afford as much engineering in the future. In other words my engineering efficiency decreases (this proposal is by Sandros own writing supposed to improve efficiency).
    I will engage with it less and just use my grandfathered and unengineered ships. They work well enough.

  15. #45
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    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.
    Hi Sandro, thanks for the update.

    I still see a disconnect between the system design and what progression actually should mean to a player (read, could you please explain it to me).

    As a player the logic behind progressing a module breaks down because there is no need to actually use the interim levels of upgrade to acquire the next level of materials. eg, We aren't required to collect atypical wake echoes before we can collect datamined wake exceptions. We aren't required to have chemical processors before chemical manipulators.

    In every other game, each interim level of upgrade has a purpose, it helps and is used to do the activities to reach the next tier of capability. Because of this disconnect (please dont try it), the progression system is completely pointless... every time we're going to fly off from the engineer base with a tier 2 upgrade we're going to feel a little stupid..


    If you've already thought that through (forgive its 1am) then the compulsory progress will end up as is a cheap material sink... That's a really poor end user value for an equally poor design function. Like a lose/lose when we score the impact of this new system.

Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast