You don't half come out with some crackers sometimes, mate. It;s exactly those who read reddit and think they know something, that I hope to face, cos their ships are dog biowaste compared to mine, of that you can be sure.
Casual POV about how grindy Engineers 2.0 might be
- Thread starter Cmdr Eagleboy
- Start date
You don't half come out with some crackers sometimes, mate. It;s exactly those who read reddit and think they know something, that I hope to face, cos their ships are dog biowaste compared to mine, of that you can be sure.
Thanks! +1 rep.
It looks good. Well thought out and reasonable. The good and bad look balanced to me.
Last edited:
That simply isn't true. Another blanket statement based assumptions made from a very blinkered view point.
Not at all. I don't pvp. But it IS one of the reasons for the changes. Too much grind to get a good roll.
What do you mean by 'another', I am not known for poorly considered statements.
Last edited:
Not at all. I don't pvp. But it IS one of the reasons for the changes. Too much grind to get a good roll.
What do you mean by 'another', I am not known for poorly considered statements.
I can confirm this. Every time you've agreed with me, you had a well considered statement.
There's a certain premium with getting players to play in open as it is. Unfortunately if you squeeze that any more, you're reducing the numbers even further. You need to do the opposite, folks need to be encouraged. It's hard enough as it is and an engineer change was an ideal medium to do it. Unfortunately it is looking like engineers remains as a barrier, not a boon.
I agree that min / maxing is a meta in itself, but as others have suggested min / maxing should be about squeezing the very last % point out. The suggestion that the first upgrade is the base upgrade and any more upgrades are about hard coercing that last % out of hiding. Min / maxing will still exist, but you'll not see those ridiculous differences between rank 1 and 5 etc.
I can confirm this. Every time you've agreed with me, you had a well considered statement.
Why thank you sir. lol
(you must spread some rep around, etc etc.)
That is true, but you said originally it was the "only" reason.
There are many PvE players like me who find the current system frustrating. If you just do a few rolls at each grade it is fine. More than that I find the lack of respect for my time gathering materials for no gauratee of reward frustrating. Simply increasing material spawn isn't going to help that unless you increase it to silly levels.
As I've said before variety should be achieved by different viable modification combinations not RNG.
Here's a whacked out, out there idea.......
What if you engineer the ship not the module? Upgrade the FSD interface so YOUR SHIP squeezes out a few % more range (or whatever)... you upgrade YOUR SHIP so that when firing weapons, your ship is able to conduit heat disbursement 6% more effectively......
That means that your ship is able to utilize modules more effectively, giving you MORE choice about how to load it out, and give you a bigger selection of min maxing combinations....
blah blah..
Told you it's way out there!
What if you engineer the ship not the module? Upgrade the FSD interface so YOUR SHIP squeezes out a few % more range (or whatever)... you upgrade YOUR SHIP so that when firing weapons, your ship is able to conduit heat disbursement 6% more effectively......
That means that your ship is able to utilize modules more effectively, giving you MORE choice about how to load it out, and give you a bigger selection of min maxing combinations....
blah blah..
Told you it's way out there!
Ive recently been engineering a vulture for CZ's and I admit to enjoying it. BUT, Ive not concerned myself too much with getting a DD5 Halleluah roll. 10 or so rolls at a time seems reasonable and IO just accept what I thinks the best(ish). As long as you have a generally pragmatic approach to it, then its not too bad. BUT, finding mats on planets, like Arsenic, Tellerium etc drives me nuts as I always seem to spend more time bouncing around upside down in the srv chasing ghosts and getting nothing but nickel and goddamned sulphur. Then when you eventually fill up with the mat you were hunting for hours on a planet eddb says is full of the damned stuff, you head out to the next one looking for something else and mopre often than not you find umpteen lots of the stuff you were looking for previously. I can deal with data and other mats like chem manupilators, but the goddamned prospecting gives me the hump. So I end up doing jumps etc and killing my srv.
Modifications that change the base values of different aspects of a ship is what engineering should have been from the start (with soft caps).
It would have prevented that some ships with really good base values became even better while widening the gap to all other ships.
Not if they got their core game play mechanics right from the beginning, no.
Also, 3 years (almost to the day), not 4.
Last edited:
In answer to the post you quoted as well... Few games seem to be willing to implement the ideas of the unwashed masses like FD do. I still haven't decided if this is a good thing or not. Democracy has shown its weakness in every facet of life recently, the fact that the stupid must be heard.
When it comes to min maxing it isn't really about the differences between 1 and five as it's a rock solid given that anything that isn't a g5 is automatically trash in most cases, There are a couple exceptions of course, but not too many. I don't think that's going to change, no matter what Fdev does to the engineering process. No, the biggest difference to the min maxers is all about the crucial "magical" secondaries that can elevate a given module to godlike heights of performance and can take anywhere fro 10 to 10,000 rolls to accomplish. When facing another PvPer who's taken the time to min max his/her equipment across the board it almost doesn't matter what the primary values of the modules are. They are just pure cancer, and that stands out as a part of the equation that needs to be scrubbed out. Further, these secondaries simply cannot be grandfathered into existing modules.
I'm certainly not advocating for "design by feedback".
Ultimately, FD is in charge, it's their project, and only they get to make decisions, for which only they then also are accountable.
And after that the choice is mine.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
Imo what we see with "Beyond" is a developer reviewing some of those previous decisions and making corrections.
I consider that a good thing.
Whether that's based on feedback, self reflection or a combination of both isn't important in the end.
What's important is, can those corrections improve the game to such a degree that players find it appealing enough to continue playing it, and (ideally) perhaps even return to play it ?
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
As someone who has ignored engineers since their introduction, I find the proposed changes might tempt me to give them a go even though I wouldnt say I was a casual player...next time Im in the bubble, be like a long weekend to Las Vegas sorta deal.
Far as I was aware, its players like me they are trying to encourage to try engineers as the uptake isnt great apparently...I would like to see an engineer at colonia so I dont have to go to the bubble, that would guarantee me giving them a try. Otherwise...next time Im in the area no ETA, no guarantee.
Im happy enough to wait. few more months to see what they come up with...Ive done without them up until now with no major setbacks so I got a few months to kill ^
Far as I was aware, its players like me they are trying to encourage to try engineers as the uptake isnt great apparently...I would like to see an engineer at colonia so I dont have to go to the bubble, that would guarantee me giving them a try. Otherwise...next time Im in the area no ETA, no guarantee.
Im happy enough to wait. few more months to see what they come up with...Ive done without them up until now with no major setbacks so I got a few months to kill ^
The best DD5 engine module I currently own is that of my Vulture. It has 137% optimal multiplier with a minimal mass value I can stay under almost in every possible combat configurations (thanks to engineering other modules). This modification took about 80 rolls to get (actually it took ~50, as the rest of the rolls did not improve the drive any further). If we count rolls I spent to engineer my other 6 ships (none of which has a better drive), the grand total of DD5 rolls I made throughout my 14 months in ED amounts to maybe 300.
With said DD5 engines my Vulture boosts 540 m/s, 4-pips speed is 333 m/s, pitch rate is 67°/s.
I may have rolled 1000 to get a 140% optimal multiplier god roll and, had I been extremely lucky not to ruin the optimal mass figure, I could have ended up with a ship that can boost 550 m/s, fly 350 m/s with 4 pips on ENG and pitch 68°/s.
This is 1 or 2% difference.
How many players are there in E
whom I cannot defeat right now, but would be able to kill if I had the god-rolled drive?Just off the top of my head, all of the following factors are likely to have much more than 1% effect on the outcome of such battles:
- the ship models flown,
- the combatants' current loadout,
- combat experience,
- genetics,
- age,
- number of empty beer cans on the table,
- angry wife and brawling kids in the background, bad day of your boss, and suchlike.
Level playing field is an illusion. There is no such thing.
Last edited:
The best DD5 engine module I currently own is that of my Vulture. It has 137% optimal multiplier with a minimal mass value I can stay under almost in every possible combat configurations (thanks to engineering other modules). This modification took about 80 rolls to get (actually it took ~50, as the rest of the rolls did not improve the drive any further). If we count rolls I spent to engineer my other 6 ships (none of which has a better drive), the grand total of DD5 rolls I made throughout my 14 months in ED amounts to maybe 300.
With said DD5 engines my Vulture boosts 540 m/s, 4-pips speed is 333 m/s, pitch rate is 67°/s.
I may have rolled 1000 to get a 140% optimal multiplier god roll and, had I been extremely lucky not to ruin the optimal mass figure, I could have ended up with a ship that can boost 550 m/s, fly 350 m/s with 4 pips on ENG and pitch 68°/s.
This is 1 or 2% difference.
How many players are there in E
Just off the top of my head, all of the following factors are likely to have much more than 1% effect on the outcome of such battles:
- the ship models flown,
- the combatants' current loadout,
- combat experience,
- genetics,
- age,
- number of empty beer cans on the table,
- angry wife and brawling kids in the background, bad day of your boss, and suchlike.
Level playing field is an illusion. There is no such thing.
For me even the efforts you went to on your drives is too much. The 30 rolls post your best one a perfect example of what is wrong with engineers for me.
Then do the same on every other combat important module and you're into hundreds of rolls to make a bottom end of god rolled ship.
I hope FD reconsider the start at g1 with each module idea but even if they don't I expect rolling g1-g4 will be trivial from mats that are easily obtainable.
Last edited: