Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 98

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

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by Navigare Necesse Est View Post (Source)
    Basic statistics. Quoted for truth.
    Well, the chances to roll one 6 on a d6 are much higher if you roll 10 times than only 2 times. I think this is what he meant. He didn't mean that your chances increase with each roll. You just get 'another chance'. And another. And another...

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by Knightshark View Post (Source)
    Well, the chances to roll one 6 on a d6 are much higher if you roll 10 times than only 2 times. I think this is what he meant. He didn't mean that your chances increase with each roll. You just get 'another chance'. And another. And another...
    The chances to win the lottery with two tickets (given you used different permutations each time) is also twice as high. But in the end it's still negligibly low.

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by Navigare Necesse Est View Post (Source)
    Basic statistics. Quoted for truth.
    The quote is true but it's not statistics.

    If the desired result of a coin toss is to get a Head.
    - 1 coin toss = 50% chance
    - 2 coin tosses = 75% chance

    Even if the failure rate is high, say 1% of rolls are god rolls, 11 rolls improves your chances to nearly 10%.

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by Kee View Post (Source)
    The chances to win the lottery with two tickets (given you used different permutations each time) is also twice as high. But in the end it's still negligibly low.
    Yes, but i converges towards 1. Here, you apparently can get a god roll if you invest enough time, so it's not negligible, it's doable (not for me, but for others that have the ridiculous amount of time).

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by MadDogMurdock View Post (Source)
    The quote is true but it's not statistics.

    If the desired result of a coin toss is to get a Head.
    - 1 coin toss = 50% chance
    - 2 coin tosses = 75% chance

    Even if the failure rate is high, say 1% of rolls are god rolls, 11 rolls improves your chances to nearly 10%.
    Well, it's really more like Yahtzee, where you want all of your d20 dice to all roll the same number. -> p = (1/20)^5 ~ 0.000034%. If you repeat that 100 times and want at least one godroll your odds are p = 1-(1-(1/20)^5)^100 = 0.003125%
    Sure, your odds increased about 100 times to get that desired godroll, but the odds are still pretty low.

    Originally Posted by Knightshark View Post (Source)
    Yes, but i converges towards 1. Here, you apparently can get a god roll if you invest enough time, so it's not negligible, it's doable (not for me, but for others that have the ridiculous amount of time).
    The main difference I see here in this game is that you get the chance to keep the result of every try stored in one module. For example when I head out to an engineer, I buy something like 5 modules and then engineer them separately, always taking the worst module out of those 5 for an attempt to improve it.
    Still, I'd rather have a different system with fewer chances and a lot more control over the outcomes.

    But at this point I don't even know any more over what we're arguing here.

  6. #66
    Well done Sandro. The OP has managed to do a better job of design analysis in one post that you've done in your whole time at Frontier.

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by Red Anders View Post (Source)
    One day people will finally learn to be careful what they ask for.
    One day game designers play their own game from start to end.

    On a more constructive note: If the process of acquiring materials was not so RNG based and the storage not so limited, it could be manageable to do those required roles. But on the other hand bloating the whole engineering process with large quantities of a rather large number of different mats just overcomplicates things. There is just too much stuff to remeber, even if you play regularly. And on top of that blueprints can only be viewed at engineer bases.

  8. #68
    The more i'm looking at the OP, the more i'm thinking that maybe we shouldn't be so afraid of these numbers. Remember that each material / data you collect come in a pack of 3.

    If we divide all these number by 3, it looks much more bearable. Also, remember that we're going to get a material broker, which will even more attenuate the material collection grind: i suppose that we will be able to trade material of similar type / rarity (manufactured etc).

    The only painful things that actually remain is the high grade emission farming for very rare mats, and figuring how many mats of each kind we need for different builds.

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by AnotherVoice View Post (Source)
    The more i'm looking at the OP, the more i'm thinking that maybe we shouldn't be so afraid of these numbers. Remember that each material / data you collect come in a pack of 3.

    If we divide all these number by 3, it looks much more bearable. Also, remember that we're going to get a material broker, which will even more attenuate the material collection grind: i suppose that we will be able to trade material of similar type / rarity (manufactured etc).

    The only painful things that actually remain is the high grade emission farming for very rare mats, and figuring how many mats of each kind we need for different builds.
    Well, yes and no. Regardless of how you look at it, time required increase by five times on average (assuming players do three rolls on average, which I personally kinda do? - usually five though). It’s still more time spent on engineers. Though, it actually is a bit worse than 3x for me in the new system... Right now, I can focus on 3 different material locations at once, often more or less in the same space. However, with the new system, for quite a lot of modules the amount of locations I’d have to go to becomes kinda ridiculous. I don’t really mind grinding for a lot of the combat materials etc since they drop frequently, in high quantities, and are fairly easy to focus on (haz rez, compromised beacon, interdictor if need be, perhaps some anarchy ‘looking for weapons’ etc. murdering), but that’s only about half sadly some. Basically all data, along with the uss materials are not at all within people’s normal gameplay, not possible to properly focus on for farming outside a few, let’s face it, exploits (which I won’t fault people for using, but I will fault FD for for forcing people to use them in order to have some semblance of progress). That’s kinda what’s been forgotten in this proposal sadly. Yes, it makes the eventual grind less if you want the absolute best modules, but lots of people were happy having lower versions of modules in lots of scenarios because the grind just often wasn’t worth it.

    Tl;dr: since the minimum time spent has increased, regardless of what happened to the maximum time, this system is still really bad.

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by Morbad View Post (Source)
    Assuming one can dial-in future benefits of higher grades with the G1 roll, this will still be much faster, combined with the new material limits (which I don't particularly like), for anyone who is inclined to average more than a few G5 rolls to get what they want in the current system.

    It will be slower for those who would just take whatever fate handed them on the first roll, but as the odd of getting something good are pretty mediocre, I still have difficulty buying the argument that more effort will be required for similar final effect under the new system, even for casual players.
    Except that's exactly how I play. I don't do dozens of G5 rolls on a single module just to gain another 1/2 a %. That's an absurd waste of time and materials. Usually I don't even bother with G5; I just settle for the first G4 or G3 roll I can craft with the materials I have on-hand, and move on to the next module.

    For me, it's all about time investment vs. reward. Collecting materials simply isn't fun for me, so how on earth would increasing the material requirements tenfold make it better? These are supposed to be quality-of-life improvements, not things that further reduce my interest in engineers and Elite as a whole.

  11. #71
    I find it hard to believe anyone can look at the table in the 1st post and say the new system is in ANY WAY better than what we have. To fully upgrade the anaconda it required 1226 materials of 80 different types. 900 more in total than it currently does and 50 material types that you wouldn't even need to find with the current system.

    HOW IS THIS BETTER ????????????

  12. #72
    I've done a U-Turn in thinking on this - I used to think it was a problem until I saw in the Hazres just how many materials I wasn't collecting...

    The main #1 problem with this is that the process of scooping up material collecting at the moment is a chore and immersion breaking.

    if we have to manually scoop up everything (that includes limpet collection); then it's going to be a big problem for a lot of people


    Give us automatic hoovering style material collecting and it wont be a problem - especially with the limit changes.

  13. #73
    Originally Posted by Nazgutek View Post (Source)
    Well done Sandro. The OP has managed to do a better job of design analysis in one post that you've done in your whole time at Frontier.
    This is harsh...but absolutely true.That Sandro still believes RNG and upgrade "levels" should even exist, are a sign this entire enterprise - by which I mean the game, not the joke that is RNGineers - is eventually doomed. Without new leadership at the helm, this is going nowhere.

  14. #74
    I posted this in reply to the reddit post, and I thought to post further comments here, so more people can see the rationalization.




    First off, the issue with this extensive example of a combat-fit Anaconda with maximized engineering. I know you won't believe me, but I don't believe either Power Play or PvP are more than a couple of small niches of the game's wider player base, so you can't expect an entire game mechanic to be catered to your playstyle.

    Every Hull Re-enforcement Package is going to be 15 rolls each, right? So for a CMDR who doesn't stack five HRPs ontop of the military slot, that's 75 fewer rolls and 225 fewer materials. Presumably, you're also taking Life Support, AFM, and Sensor engineering to grade 5, which, frankly, rarely has a purpose as far as I can tell. Grade 1 rolls suffice most needs. This is an example of what one goes through to maximize their engineer potential, not the steps one goes through to personalize their ship based on their needs of the moment. Someone who may engineer a module to try out a new career and then sell it as they change careers.

    Think of engineering as personalizing your spaceship, not maximizing its potential. The time you spend with your spaceship is what invests you in its survival and encourages you to learn the specific eccentricities of your specific build. Hell, FDev probably thought the RNG nature of engineering rolls would provide every single commander with a personalized and idiosyncratic spaceship, rather than all ships having similarly maximized statistics.

    That doesn't mean I don't think the proposal is perfect, and as it is, there is presented, there is less encouragement of testing, and more encouragement of failed branches of attempts, every change require a grind from Grade 1. That doesn't sound like what anyone should want.

    My primary thought here, is that Grade 1 modifications of every engineer you have unlocked should behave as if they're all 'pinned'. That way that any CMDR anywhere in the galaxy (at a starport with tuning?) with the right materials can try out Grade 1 modifications. No experimental effects, just a basic modify and test, using materials that you can find by accident.

    Going forward from there, you've got the ability to pin a single blueprint per engineer, potentially 2 (I hope so). If you can test and maximize the Grade 1 modification before arriving at the engineer, you'll be able to knock out Grade 2 at the base, maybe Grade 3. I don't know about you, but I find myself running very low on materials after a dozen g3 and g4 rolls to 'earn' back engineer reputation. With no more reputation loss, and the ability to roll modifications of pinned blueprints off the engineer's base, you no longer have to go there and back again half a dozen times for the same module. Twice at best should have you modifying Grade 5 and applying the experimental affect on your return to the Engineer.

    And you wouldn't have to worry about stockpiling g4 and g5 materials before you even visit the engineer. You can save that for later.

    I'd wager that the vast majority of my engineer rolls are g3 and g4 trying to get back g5 permissions. Removing that alone will be a massive improvement upon what we have currently.

    Personally, I think stepping through every grade for every module will make each engineered ship an investment of time, which usually means a better emotional connection. That's what FDev is after, and I don't think they're wrong to want that.

    I do think that Grade 1 blueprints should operate as if all available modifications are 'pinned', and you can use them anywhere you can use a pinned blueprint. That will go a long way to opening up some engineering to casuals, and speeding up the grind that this proposal offers for the dedicated min/maxers.

  15. #75
    For most people, the only emotional attachment people will get if the new process gets put in place is "god why in hell am I doing this again..."

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast