Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 92

Thread: Analysis of Fully Upgrading an Anaconda with the New Engineer Design

  1. #46
    Really? Getting an average of one drop per material for each grade is too much work? Remember that each drop is 3 mats. Sound awful now?

    Sure as hell doesn't to me. Seriously, it seems that it should take some effort to engineer a ship.

    I can see it now, spending maybe an hour to get mats for my FSD (AND knowing my result will be spectacular) and perhaps another hour for my Powerplant and distributor. Oh, thrusters will be so much easier to feel satisfied with...I'm ecstatic for these changes.

    Disclaimer: I'm not saying I'm for or against changing the 1-5 proposal. I do not care either way. I do not agree that it is a "huge" grind.

  2. #47
    Originally Posted by TGC Brony TO View Post (Source)
    Really? Getting an average of one drop per material for each grade is too much work? Remember that each drop is 3 mats. Sound awful now?

    Sure as hell doesn't to me. Seriously, it seems that it should take some effort to engineer a ship.

    I can see it now, spending maybe an hour to get mats for my FSD (AND knowing my result will be spectacular) and perhaps another hour for my Powerplant and distributor. Oh, thrusters will be so much easier to feel satisfied with...I'm ecstatic for these changes.

    Disclaimer: I'm not saying I'm for or against changing the 1-5 proposal. I do not care either way. I do not agree that it is a "huge" grind.
    It depends on how well balanced the material rarities become and or how well we can exchange them. Because at the moment the displayed rarity does not represent the 'drop' rates.
    For example when I look at my current Data tab, I've got over MEF piling up and CIF hardly increasing. A similar thing goes for Exquisite Focus Crystals. They were super rare at some point. But now they're so frequent through mission rewards that they keep piling up, all while they're used by only 4 G5 upgrades, 3 of which are pretty much useless.

  3. #48
    Originally Posted by Kee View Post (Source)
    It depends on how well balanced the material rarities become and or how well we can exchange them. Because at the moment the displayed rarity does not represent the 'drop' rates.
    For example when I look at my current Data tab, I've got over MEF piling up and CIF hardly increasing. A similar thing goes for Exquisite Focus Crystals. They were super rare at some point. But now they're so frequent through mission rewards that they keep piling up, all while they're used by only 4 G5 upgrades, 3 of which are pretty much useless.
    Those outliers sure do need tuning. The system would work even better after that. I don't see overhauling the drop rates across the board being a good idea though unless they communicate it clearly to us. I'm sure things will mostly stay the same on that front, otherwise the changes would be pointless to try and measure up now.

    It would be like planning on making all ships, modules, and commodities cost twice as much, but secretly doubling the reward of missions and salvage. Or some other crazy example. No point, and gives us an incomplete picture.

  4. #49
    900 additional material quantities would be collecting 300 items.

    I think the question should be how may rolls should it take to get the best level 5 module, 15 or 3 or something in between?

  5. #50
    Originally Posted by Muetdhiver View Post (Source)
    Any luck taking down a pimped up FDL ? because without engineering its my way or the highwake. XD
    If you're wanting to be competitive in PvP then you currently need more than just "G5" but something approaching god-rolls on every module. (i.e. G7/G8 levels of performance)

    On the new proposal, this can be done in ~33*15 = 495 rolls for that Anaconda [1]. On the current system, you'd perhaps get two or three modules engineered to god-roll standard with 495 rolls. If you were really lucky. Or you might get none.

    Being able to fight back in PvP is one of the cases where the new proposal most definitely reduces the time to engineer your ship. Being able to run away alive from PvP it doesn't make a lot of difference to, because far fewer modules are relevant to that approach and most of them even a maxed G2 or G3 would be more than sufficient for escape.

    Another time-saving with the new system: if you want experimental effects on weapons, you just max the weapon and then spend a defined set of extra materials on the experimental. In the current system, you:
    - roll G5 until you have what you think will be your best roll with whatever materials you have. Curse when it turns out you missed the actual best roll [2] and are now out of materials, because we don't have "guaranteed improvement" rules.
    - call in a favour to add the experimental effect
    - spend either 3xG3 rolls + 3xG4 rolls OR 15xG3 rolls (whichever is easier to get the materials for) to re-rank the engineer
    ...
    - maybe roll the rest of the G5 mods you have for that weapon to see if you get a better primary roll. If you do get an improvement, go back to the above and spend another 6/15 rolls re-ranking
    - maybe decide that's a terrible idea and just hope you were right about that roll being the best
    The reference build has no experimental effects on any of its 8 weapons, so gets to avoid a cost of at least 144 materials (and maybe several times that depending on how easy the G3/G4 ingredients are to gather, and if you apply the experimental and re-rank every time the current roll is better than your existing weapon).

    So we're looking at 900 extra materials but in exchange for that, you get:
    - experimental effects of your choice on all weapons
    - fully maxed modules rather than random G5 ones (which is similar to the difference between C- and A- rated stock modules in performance)
    It's not really a like-for-like comparison: you spend more materials and you get a much better result.

    [1] Which isn't a PvP build, of course, but the total number of modules to engineer would be similar regardless
    [2] This gets even worse if you're engineering two (or more) identical weapons and want experimentals on both, where you have to guess how many materials you'll need to save to get a decent roll on the second before finishing off the first.

  6. #51
    Originally Posted by Ian Doncaster View Post (Source)
    If you're wanting to be competitive in PvP then you currently need more than just "G5" but something approaching god-rolls on every module. (i.e. G7/G8 levels of performance)

    On the new proposal, this can be done in ~33*15 = 495 rolls for that Anaconda [1]. On the current system, you'd perhaps get two or three modules engineered to god-roll standard with 495 rolls. If you were really lucky. Or you might get none.

    Being able to fight back in PvP is one of the cases where the new proposal most definitely reduces the time to engineer your ship. Being able to run away alive from PvP it doesn't make a lot of difference to, because far fewer modules are relevant to that approach and most of them even a maxed G2 or G3 would be more than sufficient for escape.

    Another time-saving with the new system: if you want experimental effects on weapons, you just max the weapon and then spend a defined set of extra materials on the experimental. In the current system, you:
    - roll G5 until you have what you think will be your best roll with whatever materials you have. Curse when it turns out you missed the actual best roll [2] and are now out of materials, because we don't have "guaranteed improvement" rules.
    - call in a favour to add the experimental effect
    - spend either 3xG3 rolls + 3xG4 rolls OR 15xG3 rolls (whichever is easier to get the materials for) to re-rank the engineer
    ...
    - maybe roll the rest of the G5 mods you have for that weapon to see if you get a better primary roll. If you do get an improvement, go back to the above and spend another 6/15 rolls re-ranking
    - maybe decide that's a terrible idea and just hope you were right about that roll being the best
    The reference build has no experimental effects on any of its 8 weapons, so gets to avoid a cost of at least 144 materials (and maybe several times that depending on how easy the G3/G4 ingredients are to gather, and if you apply the experimental and re-rank every time the current roll is better than your existing weapon).

    So we're looking at 900 extra materials but in exchange for that, you get:
    - experimental effects of your choice on all weapons
    - fully maxed modules rather than random G5 ones (which is similar to the difference between C- and A- rated stock modules in performance)
    It's not really a like-for-like comparison: you spend more materials and you get a much better result.

    [1] Which isn't a PvP build, of course, but the total number of modules to engineer would be similar regardless
    [2] This gets even worse if you're engineering two (or more) identical weapons and want experimentals on both, where you have to guess how many materials you'll need to save to get a decent roll on the second before finishing off the first.
    I've not seen anyone say that this won't be better than currently for getting high end modules, the proposals look good on that front.

  7. #52
    Originally Posted by TGC Brony TO View Post (Source)
    Those outliers sure do need tuning. The system would work even better after that. I don't see overhauling the drop rates across the board being a good idea though unless they communicate it clearly to us. I'm sure things will mostly stay the same on that front, otherwise the changes would be pointless to try and measure up now.

    It would be like planning on making all ships, modules, and commodities cost twice as much, but secretly doubling the reward of missions and salvage. Or some other crazy example. No point, and gives us an incomplete picture.
    What kind of argumentation is that ? They should consider a rebalance of the frequency at which you get certain materials and then of course announce such a change. Because for the new system to truly make sense we also need a material progression that makes sense, with a frequency that ought to represent the crafting grade and also how many blueprints actually use those materials.

    But if the material exchange would allow me to exchange for example 1 MEF for 3 CIF, I'd be fine with that as well and they could keep it as it is for all I care.

  8. #53
    Originally Posted by shevek View Post (Source)
    900 additional material quantities would be collecting 300 items.

    I think the question should be how may rolls should it take to get the best level 5 module, 15 or 3 or something in between?
    After seeing the proposal and assessing what it means, I think I actually like the current RNGness more.
    Currently, the more rolls you make, the better your chances of getting the 'best' module.

    If you aren't prepared to do that and just make a few rolls, you might get lucky, or more likely you'll be within 10% of the max.
    Under the new proposals, a few rolls will get you to G3 at best.
    X number of rolls, maybe 20, but the same for everyone, will max a module.

    Seems to me like the new system is steering everyone towards a min/max grind more than the current one.

  9. #54
    Originally Posted by MadDogMurdock View Post (Source)
    After seeing the proposal and assessing what it means, I think I actually like the current RNGness more.
    Currently, the more rolls you make, the better your chances of getting the 'best' module.

    If you aren't prepared to do that and just make a few rolls, you might get lucky, or more likely you'll be within 10% of the max.
    Under the new proposals, a few rolls will get you to G3 at best.
    X number of rolls, maybe 20, but the same for everyone, will max a module.

    Seems to me like the new system is steering everyone towards a min/max grind more than the current one.
    No, the rng currently is still worse. If only because lootboxes are a thing, and every single craft I am reminded of them... it makes my feel unwell. They should just remove the grade 1-5 unlock sequence and allow us to get the different grades, with a number of rolls to get the max value on the grade 5 ones. That way if you want a simple quick upgrade you can still get it, but if you want to max out a module you can do so a lot easier than before. Or, you know, remove grades and have simple upgrades with fixed values. But FD seem to hate balancing, so I doubt we’ll see that

  10. #55
    Originally Posted by MadDogMurdock View Post (Source)
    After seeing the proposal and assessing what it means, I think I actually like the current RNGness more.
    Currently, the more rolls you make, the better your chances of getting the 'best' module.
    Absolutely not. Each rolls are independant from each other. Your chance to have a god roll is always the same. That's why some people get a god roll after 5 try, others after 5000 try and others never got one.

  11. #56
    Originally Posted by Kee View Post (Source)
    What kind of argumentation is that ? They should consider a rebalance of the frequency at which you get certain materials and then of course announce such a change. Because for the new system to truly make sense we also need a material progression that makes sense, with a frequency that ought to represent the crafting grade and also how many blueprints actually use those materials.

    But if the material exchange would allow me to exchange for example 1 MEF for 3 CIF, I'd be fine with that as well and they could keep it as it is for all I care.
    Uh...I may have overstated my thoughts. I'm of the same mind.

  12. #57
    Originally Posted by PeLucheuh View Post (Source)
    Absolutely not. Each rolls are independant from each other. Your chance to have a god roll is always the same. That's why some people get a god roll after 5 try, others after 5000 try and others never got one.
    Only on an individual roll basis.
    RNG will always produce anomalies but on a probabalistic basis, 5 rolls will produce a better result than 1.

    I'm absolutely not a fan of RNG as a mechanic, but I do understand how it works.

  13. #58
    Originally Posted by PeLucheuh View Post (Source)
    Absolutely not. Each rolls are independant from each other. Your chance to have a god roll is always the same. That's why some people get a god roll after 5 try, others after 5000 try and others never got one.
    I agree. In the current Engineers the RNG factor is just too strong. However, in the new proposed revamp the grind wall is just far too high.

    Frontier seems to be having difficulty designing a feature which respects the player's time, I wish they would make THAT a priority design goal for the Engineers.

  14. #59
    Originally Posted by Mengy View Post (Source)
    Frontier seems to be having difficulty designing a feature which respects the player's time, I wish they would make THAT a priority design goal for the Engineers.
    You're talking about the same game designers that thought the power play fortification interface would be fun and exciting to use...

    Enough said.

  15. #60
    Originally Posted by PeLucheuh View Post (Source)
    Absolutely not. Each rolls are independant from each other. Your chance to have a god roll is always the same. That's why some people get a god roll after 5 try, others after 5000 try and others never got one.
    Basic statistics. Quoted for truth.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast