Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: engineer "fast tracking"

  1. #1

    engineer "fast tracking"

    With all the hoopla around the 1-5 leveling stuff (and FD seemingly stuck with going this route), it got me thinking.
    What about a fast tracking option that returned lower quality upgrades in exchange for time?

    something like this:
    • Straight roll to G5: best results achievable are only 50% of max possible return
    • Build a G5 mod off a maxed out G1 upgrade, and you can get to 60% of max
    • G2->G5: 70%
    • G3->G5: 80%
    • and of course G4->G5 would essentially be running the full upgrade track, so you'd have access to the 100% G5 upgrades.


    This would allow the casuals that are fine with a modest G5 roll an easy way to get there. And if you're looking to hit a specific result, you'll know how much engineering investment you'd need to make to get to your desired result.
    While the min-maxers still have the ability to achieve the max output they're looking for.

    (thanks to CMDR Mengy for spawning this idea... and if everyone hates it, then it's all his fault. )

  2. #2
    But the question remains, why make it worse gameplay than it is right now?
    Why do we need any type of punishment that doesn't exist today?

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by EUS View Post (Source)
    But the question remains, why make it worse gameplay than it is right now?
    Why do we need any type of punishment that doesn't exist today?
    Well, if you've seen Sandro's "delay update" post, then you'll see it seems they're pretty much stuck on this track.
    So I'm trying to work within those confines to make those proposed systems a little better.

  4. #4
    Seems a bit over complicated if you're trying to get changes within the proposed system. Seems a lot of options to implement that could be confusing without proper explanation.

    I like the idea of having to progress through the levels with it idea of improving the module along the way rather than just slapping on the biggest upgrade. I think just cut down the amount of rolls needed.

    G1 > G2 - 1 roll
    G2 > G3 - 1 roll
    G3 > G4 - 2 rolls
    G4 > G5 - 2 rolls

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Ozric View Post (Source)
    Seems a lot of options to implement that could be confusing without proper explanation.
    Sounds like that would be in the spirit of Elite! Isn't it supposed to be complicated and confusing at times?

    Seriously though. I'm all for less rolls to get a G5 mod. I was proposing a player choice to how many rolls you can do, and having some benefit to taking the long route.

    I mean we can keep asking for less rolls, but it doesn't seem like Sandro and team are too keen on that idea.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by EUS View Post (Source)
    But the question remains, why make it worse gameplay than it is right now?
    Why do we need any type of punishment that doesn't exist today?
    That's not punishment, that's making Engineers a progression, not one off G5 shop.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Andovar View Post (Source)
    I mean we can keep asking for less rolls, but it doesn't seem like Sandro and team are too keen on that idea.
    Well they haven't said that specifically, it's clear they want to keep the progression. I think a gradient is better than a flat amount for each level.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    That's not punishment, that's making Engineers a progression, not one off G5 shop.
    Perhaps you should re-read the post I was responding to.
    Capping roll values for no reason is a punishment.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by EUS View Post (Source)
    Capping roll values for no reason is a punishment.
    There was no reason?
    I thought my reasoning was pretty clear.

    It's only a "punishment" if you choose the shortcut. You'd still be free to go the long way that Sandro is currently proposing.

  10. #10
    I can't rember where it is, but there was a thread a while ago looking at the option of going straight to G5 with the new system. However, instead of reducing the maximum attainable value, it was suggested to limit the possibilities available for secondaries.

    Edit: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...-rolling-to-G5 thoughts?

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Andovar View Post (Source)
    It's only a "punishment" if you choose the shortcut. You'd still be free to go the long way that Sandro is currently proposing.
    It is interesting (I guess that is the right word) that the player base considers the game play needed to gather engineering materials a punishment.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Andovar View Post (Source)
    With all the hoopla around the 1-5 leveling stuff (and FD seemingly stuck with going this route), it got me thinking.
    What about a fast tracking option that returned lower quality upgrades in exchange for time?

    something like this:
    • Straight roll to G5: best results achievable are only 50% of max possible return
    • Build a G5 mod off a maxed out G1 upgrade, and you can get to 60% of max
    • G2->G5: 70%
    • G3->G5: 80%
    • and of course G4->G5 would essentially be running the full upgrade track, so you'd have access to the 100% G5 upgrades.


    This would allow the casuals that are fine with a modest G5 roll an easy way to get there. And if you're looking to hit a specific result, you'll know how much engineering investment you'd need to make to get to your desired result.
    While the min-maxers still have the ability to achieve the max output they're looking for.

    (thanks to CMDR Mengy for spawning this idea... and if everyone hates it, then it's all his fault. )
    Possible problem is the game would need to remember/store the fact that it was fast-tracked or players would do another G5 on top of that because each roll will be better than the last. To be clear of my point, more storage would be needed for each module in existence. Even at a single bit of storage (0=not fast-tracked, 1=fast-tracked), I think that would be a decent increase with incrementally larger storage needed as more modules are purchased by Commanders.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by sovapid View Post (Source)
    It is interesting (I guess that is the right word) that the player base considers the game play needed to gather engineering materials a punishment.
    It is punishment because we are limited to where, how, when, how much and how often.....now they are adding a required grind onto of that

  14. #14
    They should just remove rng and increase the cost by 2-3 times instead. Then, allow us to go straight to grade 5 in one pass of the upgrade screen instead of 5. No seriously, by the hell must we press that many buttons that many times per module?! I can probably spend upwards of 5 hours simply clicking buttons at the engineers with the, especially with the proposed system with its 15 instead of my proposed 5 rolls, for only half of my fleet. That's a bit over the top, especially since I don't actually want to be clicking those button sequences in the first place for all but the last upgrade applied.

    Anyway, just remove rng and make the broker a nice way to get less rare mats using rare mats and it should be fine. It will be a crutch, yes, but still better than the proposed system. Maybe then they can work on creating a proper engineering system in which the player can choose exactly which module they want, up to the second decimal place -.-

    Originally Posted by sovapid View Post (Source)
    It is interesting (I guess that is the right word) that the player base considers the game play needed to gather engineering materials a punishment.
    Oh, oh you think so? Well, maybe it's because it is
    I mean, just look at the stupid, stupid, stupid wake materials. Try defending that for goodness sake. It is the very opposite of engaging and fun, and very much feels like a punishment. "I want to fly this ship out into the void!" Go sit outside a station for a few hours doing literally nothing. "But wh-" Just do it!

  15. #15

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast