Page 1 of 31 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 451

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

  1. This is the last staff post in this thread. #1
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee

    Delay update

    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.

  2. #2
    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).

  3. #3
    You mean you were busy setting the galaxy on fire. That's ok!

  4. #4
    Looking forward to more in-depth stuff on this.

  5. #5
    Thanks for clarification and waiting for your comments next week. Thanks!

  6. #6
    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.
    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.

  7. #7
    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.
    I think you treat it as one off venture, when obviously Sandro most likely mean it as game's life long process.

    That's a biggest issue right there and source of conflict. FD doesn't see Engineers as just way to maximize your ship performance, but improve that performance gradually.

    I see both sides of argument, but I think feature should serve game, not particular play style.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    I think you treat it as one off venture, when obviously Sandro most likely mean it as game's life long process.

    That's a biggest issue right there and source of conflict. FD doesn't see Engineers as just way to maximize your ship performance, but improve that performance gradually.

    I see both sides of argument, but I think feature should serve game, not particular play style.
    I certainly don't spend ages gathering dozens of rolls of ingredients to perform lots of rolls on a single module, no.

  9. #9
    From what I have read, there are no reason to go down this route other than "because". I would have thought that if you have unlocked an Engineer to Rank X, you should have him or her be able to carry out any work to that Rank, it just does not make any sense to do what you are suggesting. I would have thought an Engineer would offer to do it 'piecemeal' in the way you suggest or for a cost do it in one go. Because they are a business, and thats what business to, they see to their customers needs and don't do things that put them off?

  10. #10
    Hi Sandro,
    Thanks for commenting but I actually don't think it's helpful because you don't seem to be acknowledging what this will mean for players time.
    I'm going to echo YinYin and Robert.

    Why is doing 12.2 rolls an improvment over doing 1 roll? (That's 4x2.8 + 1 for bare minimum grade 5)
    Times however many modules we want to do.
    How you can say that doing that, and gathering the materials to do that, is not particularly excessive? It's going to mean a huge increase in time to upgrade even a single ship.

    As I've said before, and YinYin says above, if you want people to go through 1-5 process incentivise it, but don't remove the current option to do a single roll as it currently stands. Even if it results in a sub-standard roll minus packages don't remove the option. I, and many others, think that would be a terrible mistake.

    Thanks for listening

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Steed View Post (Source)
    As I've said before, and YinYin says above, if you want people to go through 1-5 process incentivise it, but don't remove the current option to do a single roll as it currently stands. Even if it results in a sub-standard roll minus packages don't remove the option. I, and many others, think that would be a terrible mistake.
    Why then just not go with Sandro idea if you are ok with substandard roll and just reroll for each level you need?

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Steed View Post (Source)
    As I've said before, and YinYin says above, if you want people to go through 1-5 process incentivise it, but don't remove the current option to do a single roll as it currently stands. Even if it results in a sub-standard roll minus packages don't remove the option. I, and many others, think that would be a terrible mistake.
    .... 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).

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Nagual View Post (Source)
    From what I have read, there are no reason to go down this route other than "because"
    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.

  14. #14
    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.
    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.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Why then just not go with Sandro idea if you are ok with substandard roll and just reroll for each level you need?
    You're missing the point.
    I mean substandard for a grade 5 roll, eg.without additional packages.

    To restate, we can currently do a single roll for grade 5, imo that option needs to stay for any new system.

Page 1 of 31 1234511 ... LastLast