I never suggested it was the fault of the CG.
About that double-engineered FSD reward for the CG...
- Thread starter marx
- Start date
I never suggested it was the fault of the CG.
I'm not sure if this is still true, but some people carried over overpowered weapons from the alpha into live.
We're just seeing a rehash of all of the CG complaints from Colonia players since... forever, right?
They removed all the old variant weapons (overcharged, high-impact, focused, low heat) shortly before they introduced Engineers...or was it Horizons.
Ah, well, at least those aren't still floating around.
After the top 75% rewards, there's been a trend with top 25% rewards - the ranks for the last Empire vs Federation CG, and now the reward for this CG. Do keep in mind the Liz Ryder missile rack required their side to win. On this one you have two CGs which are very expected not to fail, each one rewarding the top 25%.
I mean, it's a nice item, and I'd probably go for it if I was in the area, but it's only another ~3 LY range on a standard build, or maybe ~6 LY on an exploration build. I'm not sure you could use it to get a DBX/Phantom/AspX to exceed the ranges already possible for an Anaconda, for example.
It won't let anyone exceed (or even get near) the 125 LY range needed to outjump a carrier in a single move, so it won't make any new systems accessible.
It'll take maybe one unboosted jump per 1000 LY off a fast exploration build.
Maybe it'll let someone set a new buckyball record by making a DBX/Phantom which is close enough to Anaconda jump range that the higher agility makes the difference? Maybe.
(Also worth saying that while it seems likely, we don't actually know that it will stack this way - it might, since both blueprints give +optimal mass, just give the higher of the two effects, rather than the combination of them)
Though it's not as if an exploration CG would be exciting either - honk, jump, don't stop to scan being the optimal strategy.
I like exploring. The closest I've come to ever quitting the game entirely was after burning myself out on an early exploration CG - I'd far rather do a trade one!
Everyone uses an FSD and everyone benefits from longer range, so it's hardly an exploration-specific reward, I'd say. It's probably more useful for fairly heavy in-bubble ships to cut one jump off a trade/mission route.
Now, sure, explorers don't use any engineerable modules with more than one blueprint other than FSDs, pretty much. But that's not the same thing.
I suspect the whole point of that is to make it something which you actually have to work for. The missiles were a first-of-kind highly experimental CG reward ... we shouldn't expect Frontier to keep doing exactly the same thing the next time, since they'll be experimenting with what works and what doesn't. The last CG had special individual rewards at 75%, 25% and top 10.
75% is basically a participation award - sure, by definition a quarter of participants don't get it, but one Interceptor kill or a few trade runs is likely to get someone into that bracket.
25% you actually have to go for quite a bit, especially to make sure you stay in it ... which will potentially drive participation and contributions for the CG as a whole.
With 30 megatonnes trade needed - comparable amount to that delivered in the last two trade CGs, but with a massive round-trip requirement - and 80 billion AX bonds (same as the last one, which only just made it) - and both CGs running at once - that sort of internal competition incentive is probably needed to get both of them over the line.
It does make the grandfathered modules harder to argue against, even the ones which - unlike these rewards - are substantially better than anything possible now.
Yes, this ^^^^
That part is really baffling. The payout for mapping planets doesn't come even close to the time spent from FSS versus all the SC distances involved to get in range to DSS.
And much more suited to a CG in just under 5 months time.That would be hilarious
Thats the rules accept it deal with it.
My little daughter also always wants something she cant have
You don't really need that Module anyway.
My little daughter also always wants something she cant have
You don't really need that Module anyway.
@Ian Doncaster : the core of the problem is that you have a module that's better than what's obtainable through regular gameplay, obtainable in a time-limited, competitive setting. The double-engineered missiles were "better" in the sense that they weren't as useful, and if you wanted them, all you had to do was participate a bit in the Liz Ryder side of the CG: it was all but guaranteed to win, and as you say, the top 75% is pretty much a participation award.
However, this time around, we have an unobtainable and overpowered module, and the top 25% for AX pretty much ensures that it'll go to AX squadrons only. Unless you were lucky enough to be in the bubble right at this time and have an AX combat ship immediately ready. Sure, I was, but I still mind this unfair head-start.
There's also what @Morbad mentioned, that these seem to be setting a negative trend. Not just because the rewards are getting more overpowered, but also because they are getting more exclusive.
What you mention that we don't know how the two recipes are going to stack is also true, and that's a problem as well. Either they'll stack the way we think and the resulting FSD will be overpowered, or they won't, in which case quite many people might be disappointed. I'd still pick the latter though - those people will at least have an FSD with 0 cr rebuy. (And it's not like explorers care about rebuy value.) It would be best if Frontier stepped in and clarified what the resulting module is going to be like exactly - so, @Arthur Tolmie , could we have some clarification on this? How will the Optimal Mass increases from the two blueprints stack?
However, this time around, we have an unobtainable and overpowered module, and the top 25% for AX pretty much ensures that it'll go to AX squadrons only. Unless you were lucky enough to be in the bubble right at this time and have an AX combat ship immediately ready. Sure, I was, but I still mind this unfair head-start.
There's also what @Morbad mentioned, that these seem to be setting a negative trend. Not just because the rewards are getting more overpowered, but also because they are getting more exclusive.
What you mention that we don't know how the two recipes are going to stack is also true, and that's a problem as well. Either they'll stack the way we think and the resulting FSD will be overpowered, or they won't, in which case quite many people might be disappointed. I'd still pick the latter though - those people will at least have an FSD with 0 cr rebuy. (And it's not like explorers care about rebuy value.) It would be best if Frontier stepped in and clarified what the resulting module is going to be like exactly - so, @Arthur Tolmie , could we have some clarification on this? How will the Optimal Mass increases from the two blueprints stack?
The Diamondback Explorer would jump 84.52 ly...
Holy God!!!
Holy God!!!
For an exploration CG you don't even need to honk or open the FSS - the passive scan of the star as you jump past counts as "one system" exactly the same as fully mapping a hundred-body system. They've been terrible for years, which is why they very rarely happen.
Well, or it'll get a lot more people into AX combat, plus there's the option to trade instead which is even easier to get a ship for, plus after the last CG which some of the big AX squadrons suggested not doing there are a lot more people with AX ships around, too.
As I said above, a lot of the new CG set up is experimental, so maybe it'll work and maybe it won't. I'm interested - from a distance - to see what affect it does have on CG participation.
Also worth mentioning - don't both CGs have this as a reward?
You could get 2 if so.
You could get 2 if so.
Oooohhhhh
I'm sure it will increase participation, for all the wrong reasons.
Nice! Cut it off beforehandI'm an explorer and I don't feel kicked at all.
(a TRUE Explorer, mind you)