Does anyone actually enjoy engineering?

dxm55

Banned
I'm not sure the stated expectation was to have the battle pause while you collected scrap. Rather the issue is the expectation to be picking up scrap in a pitched battle to begin with. This isn't picking up weapons and ammo from fallen opponents, it's individual soldiers in dereliction of duty picking up scrap those while the fight is still going so they can personally reverse engineer the bits into their own guns.

It's terribly unrealistic and it's the nature of the system we have. It's gamey to the core and as such needs to be thought of as a game because otherwise I'm asking why I'm not being questioned for my warship being full of collectors and cargo racks rather than HRPs/MRPs/GSBs/etc.



I just don't see it. Everything in this so called realistic sim seems created for the sole intent of driving the intended experience rather than following realism. Why do we have dog-fighting rather than long-ranged combat? Gameplay design. Why is a spaceship pilot needed to carry an email when encryption and FTL comms exist? Gameplay design. Why did the concept of price and availability advertising die in regard to goods? Gameplay design.

And dear lord are engineers the digital incarnation of gameplay design over realism. How the gently caress did Palin know the exact moment I went 5k ly. Who's reporting those markets to Lei Cheung? I'm not the only one delivering 10's of tons of cigars and brandy. what is actually going on with that? As addressed above we have battlefield looting that in no way resembles restocking usable weapons and ammo. We have a market that doesn't believe in selling commodities relevant to engineering either. What's up with that? No one wants that dank commander cash? The remote workshop thing has me full of questions. So does engineered module rebuy.

No, it's far from a digital space life. It's a space game that runs like a space game with rules and mechanics like a space game. I've not "done it all" in real life. I don't have to because no one is refusing to sell me a car sound system until I sacrifice goats at 50 different guitar shops. I can just go and exchange money for a service or tinker with products I bought at my leisure.

But this is a game. It's a simulation game. Even if it supposedly simulates a living breathing galaxy, it is still a game. Hence the gamey-ness.

I've always treated it as such.
That's why I'm under no illusion of exploring the galaxy and grinning like a brony just because I saw a sunset on some distant world.
Also unimpressed by doing repetitious inane material gathering for miniscule stat increases.
 
It not being a requirement doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be criticized. It being a choice doesn't excuse it being a potentially bad choice in terms of enjoyment.
Never said it shouldn't be criticized. I never said getting materials is great and perfect. Of course there could and should be more variations. But rares should still be rare.

No, it's fullest isn't subjective. There are clear peaks for every upgrade, some might be subjectively better, but each has an objective end point.
Doesn't matter if there are clear peaks for every module. The player decides whether it's done or not, not the system. It's purely subjective where you want to end your engineering. Saying that just because there are a few extra bits you can get makes it not using it to the fullest is absurd.

I'm not even sure what you think I'm describing because designing mechanics with gameplay enjoyment in mind for engaging them directly is wholly independent of choice.
Gameplay enjoyment is subjective. As I have said on numerous occasions, I enjoy most aspects of getting materials, if I don't do them too often and I am there for another reason. Others may feel differently. Nothing I can do except describe my own experience.

I just showed an example and explained how it was.
Except that wasn't what was meant or said. You are seeing something that isn't there.

I can't keep you from having an opinion. I haven't said a word to the people coming in and saying they find it fun who aren't responding to people who said it isn't for them and suggesting the reason has to do with needing to go all G1 to G5 in one go. If someone likes HGE hunting more power to them.
That's is not what I have said. You seem to be struggling to understand what I have been saying.

They are exactly what I said they were in plain English.
No they were not.

Now I feel like I am having to defend myself from your silly accusations.

Please can we get back on topic.
 
We're often not talking 1-2% for G3-G5.
G3 to G5 thermal on a shield gen gives ~40% more thermal shield EHP.

Handy if you are into the PVP butt sniffing scene.

G3 to G5 charge enhanced PPs are ~14% faster

My Guardians never run out of juice, no matter what I throw at them.

G3 to G5 Heavy Duty plating provides an additional ~10% EHP

See shields above.

G3 to G5 Dirty Drives provide ~9% more speed

I have never had the need to go faster than 450. In fact, even that
is a hindrance because you have to slow down from there too.
 
I'm not sure the stated expectation was to have the battle pause while you collected scrap. Rather the issue is the expectation to be picking up scrap in a pitched battle to begin with. This isn't picking up weapons and ammo from fallen opponents, it's individual soldiers in dereliction of duty picking up scrap those while the fight is still going so they can personally reverse engineer the bits into their own guns.

It's terribly unrealistic and it's the nature of the system we have. It's gamey to the core and as such needs to be thought of as a game because otherwise I'm asking why I'm not being questioned for my warship being full of collectors and cargo racks rather than HRPs/MRPs/GSBs/etc.



I just don't see it. Everything in this so called realistic sim seems created for the sole intent of driving the intended experience rather than following realism. Why do we have dog-fighting rather than long-ranged combat? Gameplay design. Why is a spaceship pilot needed to carry an email when encryption and FTL comms exist? Gameplay design. Why did the concept of price and availability advertising die in regard to goods? Gameplay design.

And dear lord are engineers the digital incarnation of gameplay design over realism. How the gently caress did Palin know the exact moment I went 5k ly. Who's reporting those markets to Lei Cheung? I'm not the only one delivering 10's of tons of cigars and brandy. what is actually going on with that? As addressed above we have battlefield looting that in no way resembles restocking usable weapons and ammo. We have a market that doesn't believe in selling commodities relevant to engineering either. What's up with that? No one wants that dank commander cash? The remote workshop thing has me full of questions. So does engineered module rebuy.

No, it's far from a digital space life. It's a space game that runs like a space game with rules and mechanics like a space game. I've not "done it all" in real life. I don't have to because no one is refusing to sell me a car sound system until I sacrifice goats at 50 different guitar shops. I can just go and exchange money for a service or tinker with products I bought at my leisure.

Actually, collecting materials in a CZ is an interesting aspect of gameplay. If you manage to keep the heat off yourself, your limpets will just follow you around and bring you good stuff now and then. You can either position yourself so that you can lay down fire without moving much and fight with the cargo hatch open, or open it now and then to let them in. But if you get into heavy fire, your limpets can get hit and "expire" easily, needing to be replaced when things ease up. Positional play, near enough to keep fighting and with targets for the limpets "below" you is required for most efficient results. It's another aspect of combat to "git gud" at, and seems to me quite realistic.
 
Actually, collecting materials in a CZ is an interesting aspect of gameplay. If you manage to keep the heat off yourself, your limpets will just follow you around and bring you good stuff now and then. You can either position yourself so that you can lay down fire without moving much and fight with the cargo hatch open, or open it now and then to let them in. But if you get into heavy fire, your limpets can get hit and "expire" easily, needing to be replaced when things ease up. Positional play, near enough to keep fighting and with targets for the limpets "below" you is required for most efficient results. It's another aspect of combat to "git gud" at, and seems to me quite realistic.

I prefer keeping the heat on my targets. Not sure how you fly but I find limpets painfully easy to outrun past their operating range and they tend to attract point defense fire when they are. And that's on the ships that they might be worth carrying. Mambas, Eagles and Vipers need not even be thought about. All of those should typically be using their mobility. As far as realism, no, I don't think a real opponent would simply allow a salvage op right in front of them without resistance. Your limpets are made of wet tissue paper and you're driving with the brake on. You're easy to both disrupt and disengage from. But that's just how I'd expect a realistic response to go.

Handy if you are into the PVP butt sniffing scene.
My Guardians never run out of juice, no matter what I throw at them.
See shields above.
I have never had the need to go faster than 450. In fact, even that
is a hindrance because you have to slow down from there too.

Your flying style sounds pretty limited. I've used an 800ms IEagle for scanning wakes and had no trouble stopping, you just have to be creative. And while I don't PvP, I've seen reinforced shields do some neat things in Elite wing assassination missions. That extra hull also came in handy! I would guess you don't do those or do them without weapons that strain the PD. Meanwhile I've seen what 2 huge beams do to a class 8 even efficient modded. And those aren't choice guns for PvP either. All that aside, it's more than what you stated as a difference and innumerable ways to put those differences to use.
 
Last edited:
Never said it shouldn't be criticized. I never said getting materials is great and perfect. Of course there could and should be more variations. But rares should still be rare.

Then maybe I'm missing the point in bringing up that it's optional. If being optional doesn't change the criticisms and isn't intended to minimize them, why bring it up?

Doesn't matter if there are clear peaks for every module. The player decides whether it's done or not, not the system. It's purely subjective where you want to end your engineering. Saying that just because there are a few extra bits you can get makes it not using it to the fullest is absurd.

Yes, it does matter, because you're making an offer of information that doesn't apply because it's engaging tiers of the system that are there as factual things to interface with based on experiences that avoid interfacing with them. The player can certainly decide when they personally are done, but if we're just invoking personal agency and ignoring the system itself, your method doesn't apply to anyone you'd offer it to because they're clearly not trying to interface with the system with peak passivity.

Gameplay enjoyment is subjective. As I have said on numerous occasions, I enjoy most aspects of getting materials, if I don't do them too often and I am there for another reason. Others may feel differently. Nothing I can do except describe my own experience.

Your description suggests that you do things you enjoy and get the related mats from that. As such I'm not sure how you can say you enjoy directly seeking mats when you don't actually directly seek mats. That or you may be understating if, how and how often you do seek mats.
 
Last edited:
Then maybe I'm missing the point in bringing up that it's optional. If being optional doesn't change the criticisms and isn't intended to minimize them, why bring it up?
You have been missing the point all along. All I have been doing is describing my way of playing that makes me not feel any grind. I never mentioned that it couldn't get better or shouldn't be any other variations. The more variations the better.

Yes, it does matter, because you're making an offer of information that doesn't apply because it's engaging tiers of the system that are there as factual things to interface with based on experiences that avoid interfacing with them. The player can certainly decide when they personally are done, but if we're just invoking personal agency and ignoring the system itself, your method doesn't apply to anyone you'd offer it to because they're clearly not trying to interface with the system with peak passivity.
I think this is a matter of opinion and we just going to have to agree to disagree. I see using them to their fullest as using them the way you want to. You see using them to their fullest by putting grade 5s and experimentals (if you can) on everything. It's just a different philosophy.

Your description suggests that you do things you enjoy and get the related mats from that. As such I'm not sure how you can say you enjoy directly seeking mats when you don't actually directly seek mats. That or you may be understating if, how and how often you do seek mats.
I do indirect seeking. If I see a good looking mission with the material I required then I will get that mission. What I won't do is log on, log off, log in, log off to get a missions for that material.

If I want surface materials I may be more inclined to do some surface missions and hope I stumble across what I need.

I also use the material brokers at times if I look at a blueprint and only need one other material, I may swap it out.

I am on my way back from Beagle Point at the moment, last night while exploring volcanics I picked up a load of materials. It was fun and productive. But I probably won't do that until next week, so it doesn't feel like a grind.

Saying that, more variation would be nice. I suppose you can also get the surface materials when mining. There is one other variation.

I think what's really missing are compelling reasons to do the activities (not including mat gathering) in the first place.

For exploration it would be great if we could get these bio samples, go to a tech broker and unlock some kind of bio engineered modules and things like that. Give us more reasons to do those missions and so forth. For me I think that will alleviate some of the issues with mat gathering, as I am sure it just feel like you are doing this just to get mats.

That is why I am open to optional mini PG quest/Story lines by using something like the follow on mission system, that may take you to various different parts of the game where you can also get mats.
 

Yaffle

Volunteer Moderator
Saying that, more variation would be nice. I suppose you can also get the surface materials when mining. There is one other variation.

You can indeed, or at least a fair few of them. BUT most 'new' miners won't because they don't do the surface mining, just the deep core mining which liberates only minerals. I still do the old style mining when I'm out there to easily fill materials as a by-product of the activity. A little like collecting manufactured components after a fight, or idly scanning other ships/wakes when at a station.
 
You have been missing the point all along. All I have been doing is describing my way of playing that makes me not feel any grind. I never mentioned that it couldn't get better or shouldn't be any other variations. The more variations the better.

Let me rephrase: Why would you offer something wholly irrelevant then not expect people to think it related in some way to the statement you brought it up in response to? And why would you fault THEM for you doing so? Or if it is relevant please explain how.

I think this is a matter of opinion and we just going to have to agree to disagree. I see using them to their fullest as using them the way you want to. You see using them to their fullest by putting grade 5s and experimentals (if you can) on everything. It's just a different philosophy.

I mean, they have objectively higher levels of effects. That's not really an opinion, and when I specifically state using the system to it's fullest effect and not "to one's fullest preference" I'm referring to the actual, factual full effect of the system, not how the individual might not want to pursue that full effect or be satisfied at lower levels for whatever personal reasons.

I do indirect seeking. If I see a good looking mission with the material I required then I will get that mission. What I won't do is log on, log off, log in, log off to get a missions for that material.

If I want surface materials I may be more inclined to do some surface missions and hope I stumble across what I need.

I also use the material brokers at times if I look at a blueprint and only need one other material, I may swap it out.

I am on my way back from Beagle Point at the moment, last night while exploring volcanics I picked up a load of materials. It was fun and productive. But I probably won't do that until next week, so it doesn't feel like a grind.

Saying that, more variation would be nice. I suppose you can also get the surface materials when mining. There is one other variation.

I think what's really missing are compelling reasons to do the activities (not including mat gathering) in the first place.

For exploration it would be great if we could get these bio samples, go to a tech broker and unlock some kind of bio engineered modules and things like that. Give us more reasons to do those missions and so forth. For me I think that will alleviate some of the issues with mat gathering, as I am sure it just feel like you are doing this just to get mats.

That is why I am open to optional mini PG quest/Story lines by using something like the follow on mission system, that may take you to various different parts of the game where you can also get mats.

I've avoided missions for a while, but as stated prior there are parts of the game I somewhat actively like to avoid or minimize. As such I WILL log to reset crash sites as a min/max strategy. That's because surface missions are a less effective and less enjoyable manner. Mining sucks for it though. To an extreme degree.
 

dxm55

Banned
You can indeed, or at least a fair few of them. BUT most 'new' miners won't because they don't do the surface mining, just the deep core mining which liberates only minerals. I still do the old style mining when I'm out there to easily fill materials as a by-product of the activity. A little like collecting manufactured components after a fight, or idly scanning other ships/wakes when at a station.

Surface mining is too slow.

Better to pull up a system map, go to the second tab, and find metal rich worlds with volcanic activity, and the list of materials in percentage down the page..

Mapping the planet with the DSS and then landing at a geological site reaps the most benefit in the best time possible.
 

Yaffle

Volunteer Moderator
Surface mining is too slow.

Better to pull up a system map, go to the second tab, and find metal rich worlds with volcanic activity, and the list of materials in percentage down the page..

Mapping the planet with the DSS and then landing at a geological site reaps the most benefit in the best time possible.
I think you've missed the point.While yes, that is faster, it's where 'grind' begins. 'I have to do X even if I don't want to, and I have to do it a lot' is 'grind'. However 'while I am doing X which I enjoy I also get progress towards Y' isn't grind.

It's like missions too, if you are doing missions to manipulate the BGS because you enjoy the BGS and collect materials as you go it is not grindy.
 
I think you've missed the point.While yes, that is faster, it's where 'grind' begins. 'I have to do X even if I don't want to, and I have to do it a lot' is 'grind'. However 'while I am doing X which I enjoy I also get progress towards Y' isn't grind.

It's like missions too, if you are doing missions to manipulate the BGS because you enjoy the BGS and collect materials as you go it is not grindy.

The problem with the surface mining for elements example is that I don't personally know a single player who wants to spend enough time surface mining to get enough mats to be meaningful. I do some surface mining from time to time in my all in one mining ship, but the element gains are minimal compared to the needs for a given mod after the often needed conversion at material traders.
 
Actually, collecting materials in a CZ is an interesting aspect of gameplay. If you manage to keep the heat off yourself, your limpets will just follow you around and bring you good stuff now and then. You can either position yourself so that you can lay down fire without moving much and fight with the cargo hatch open, or open it now and then to let them in. But if you get into heavy fire, your limpets can get hit and "expire" easily, needing to be replaced when things ease up. Positional play, near enough to keep fighting and with targets for the limpets "below" you is required for most efficient results. It's another aspect of combat to "git gud" at, and seems to me quite realistic.
For that I'd have to engineer my weapons first so they aren't peashooters anymore vs hardened AI. Of course it's all easy if you did your grind already. Just as helpful like the guides to getting to Anaconda here you'd need Anacondq first to make the money.
 
Let me rephrase: Why would you offer something wholly irrelevant then not expect people to think it related in some way to the statement you brought it up in response to? And why would you fault THEM for you doing so? Or if it is relevant please explain how.
I didn't fault them. Whether it's irrelevant or not is down to the individual r adding it. Some may do, some won't.

I mean, they have objectively higher levels of effects. That's not really an opinion, and when I specifically state using the system to it's fullest effect and not "to one's fullest preference" I'm referring to the actual, factual full effect of the system, not how the individual might not want to pursue that full effect or be satisfied at lower levels for whatever personal reasons.
That's what is great about ED. It is a personal game in that way. Objectively yes you can get higher results. But if those higher results make the game worse for you personally, what do you do. Do you just do it anyway because they are there. As stated the game is all about personal choice. You decide what you want to do. That is something I like in this game. The fact that I am not forced to go from G1 to G5. It givew you choices. That to me is good. Maybe not to you or others.

I've avoided missions for a while, but as stated prior there are parts of the game I somewhat actively like to avoid or minimize. As such I WILL log to reset crash sites as a min/max strategy. That's because surface missions are a less effective and less enjoyable manner. Mining sucks for it though. To an extreme degree.
Each to their own. I will actively try to avoid the the need to log off, log in. I actively avoid min/maxing. I find it boring and unenjoyable, so I play in a way I do. It won't work for everyone though. We each have our own personal preferences.
 
For that I'd have to engineer my weapons first so they aren't peashooters anymore vs hardened AI. Of course it's all easy if you did your grind already. Just as helpful like the guides to getting to Anaconda here you'd need Anacondq first to make the money.
I just played the game for 6 months, mostly running missions, trading and occasionally bounty hunting. Just had the core game then so didn't even know what engineering was, just knew I loved ED! Then I finally had enough to buy the anaconda. Man that was exciting when I bought Porkchop!

Did some core mining to make enough to A rate Porkchop. By then I had loads of materials just from doing some bounty hunting in a FDL (again A rated thru mining profits), and the mining (the secret is to take some lasers when you're core mining, when you've got all the really valuable stuff, laser the broken asteroid chunks, then pick up the mats. Clean your plate!). So now I got plenty of materials for engineering. Bought Horizons a few weeks ago, done some engineering, finding more mats on planets and thru USS's too.

Dunno why there's so much whinging about mats gathering, the stuff's just everywhere. Sure you can't get to G5 straightaway but if you just keep playing you'll have enough engineering to significantly improve your ships within a few months.

Only been playing for 7 months now, but I already have an engineered FDL, an engineered Porkchop and an engineered AspX. Some modules at G5, some @ G4 and G3, but all a f@#$ of a lot better than the vanilla versions. Loving this game!
 
I just played the game for 6 months, mostly running missions, trading and occasionally bounty hunting. Just had the core game then so didn't even know what engineering was, just knew I loved ED! Then I finally had enough to buy the anaconda. Man that was exciting when I bought Porkchop!

Did some core mining to make enough to A rate Porkchop. By then I had loads of materials just from doing some bounty hunting in a FDL (again A rated thru mining profits), and the mining (the secret is to take some lasers when you're core mining, when you've got all the really valuable stuff, laser the broken asteroid chunks, then pick up the mats. Clean your plate!). So now I got plenty of materials for engineering. Bought Horizons a few weeks ago, done some engineering, finding more mats on planets and thru USS's too.

Dunno why there's so much whinging about mats gathering, the stuff's just everywhere. Sure you can't get to G5 straightaway but if you just keep playing you'll have enough engineering to significantly improve your ships within a few months.

Only been playing for 7 months now, but I already have an engineered FDL, an engineered Porkchop and an engineered AspX. Some modules at G5, some @ G4 and G3, but all a f@#$ of a lot better than the vanilla versions. Loving this game!
Stop being so positive :)

There are those who will argue that it is impossible to pick up mats in everyday play...

... but there are those of us who play and pick up stuff, scan every ship they see and enjoy a little USS exploring as well as SRV'ing.

Glad you are having fun!
 
I just played the game for 6 months, mostly running missions, trading and occasionally bounty hunting. Just had the core game then so didn't even know what engineering was, just knew I loved ED! Then I finally had enough to buy the anaconda. Man that was exciting when I bought Porkchop!

Did some core mining to make enough to A rate Porkchop. By then I had loads of materials just from doing some bounty hunting in a FDL (again A rated thru mining profits), and the mining (the secret is to take some lasers when you're core mining, when you've got all the really valuable stuff, laser the broken asteroid chunks, then pick up the mats. Clean your plate!). So now I got plenty of materials for engineering. Bought Horizons a few weeks ago, done some engineering, finding more mats on planets and thru USS's too.

Dunno why there's so much whinging about mats gathering, the stuff's just everywhere. Sure you can't get to G5 straightaway but if you just keep playing you'll have enough engineering to significantly improve your ships within a few months.

Only been playing for 7 months now, but I already have an engineered FDL, an engineered Porkchop and an engineered AspX. Some modules at G5, some @ G4 and G3, but all a f@#$ of a lot better than the vanilla versions. Loving this game!
Way to enjoy the game!

Soon, someone will be along to tell you that what you've done is impossible. ;-)
 
Stop being so positive :)

There are those who will argue that it is impossible to pick up mats in everyday play...

... but there are those of us who play and pick up stuff, scan every ship they see and enjoy a little USS exploring as well as SRV'ing.

Glad you are having fun!
Yeah, I forgot that when you're scanning ships to see if they are wanted, you often get readings which are used for engineering. Crikey, it's actually difficult to do anything in the game without picking up something that can be used for engineering!
 
I didn't fault them. Whether it's irrelevant or not is down to the individual r adding it. Some may do, some won't.

So you're not faulting me, you're just questioning my grasp of English because I assume the responses you give are intended to address what you're responding to and I'm interpreting them as such, making them look dismissive because all they offer is the advice to engage less with engineering in response to criticism on the engineering process?

That's what is great about ED. It is a personal game in that way. Objectively yes you can get higher results. But if those higher results make the game worse for you personally, what do you do. Do you just do it anyway because they are there. As stated the game is all about personal choice. You decide what you want to do. That is something I like in this game. The fact that I am not forced to go from G1 to G5. It givew you choices. That to me is good. Maybe not to you or others.

Right personal agency is a thing. And a subset of choices within a system that's designed to be used beyond where you chose to engage it are not great to engage with. The reasons are varied and multiple why someone might do so, the question of them being done "because they are there" comes across as reductive in a conversation where their benefit has been discussed already. You don't need or want it, I get that. I've been in situations where ship loss was likely without it or tasks were more accomplishable with it. Either way the criticism brought was about achieving those levels for whatever reason and the, granted, assumption that they were put there to be used rather than be ignored until literally fallen into. The point is there probably shouldn't be decisions within the system that come across as bad to such a large population trying to engage in earnest with them, where your advice advocates a "right" decision not to engage with the deeper levels.

I know for you, your engineering may be "done," but it's clearly not to someone who's having the complaints engaging further tends to bring. And that may just come off as dismissive or arguing against a strawman when you keep tying your method to a contrast with the whole "G1-G5 in one go" notion that you introduced. Whether you indeded that or not.

No ones saying you need to or suggesting the system should be altered to force you to G5 via traditional RPG level up mechanics or the like. No one is asking for your agency to be taken away, and as such the feedback isn't diminishing that aspect of the game as you claimed earlier.

Each to their own. I will actively try to avoid the the need to log off, log in. I actively avoid min/maxing. I find it boring and unenjoyable, so I play in a way I do. It won't work for everyone though. We each have our own personal preferences.

I used to avoid min/maxing. Problematically some of the resulting time frames for functional "achievements" in the game felt not worth it. I'm not sure that should be prevalent, and it apparently is given the amount of discussion going on about the most effective way to do "x". When I can take several months to in excess of a year for certain unlocks as I was playing pre 2.1 to literally minutes using shortcuts them we have an issue somewhere, probably in both the shortcut and the lack of valid workarounds to the activity being avoided. But for now I feel the same way about surface missions and prospecting that you do about logging. And logging lets me bypass that to the point that it's not a "grind" despite not being as fun as it could be for the time it cuts out and as such enriches other aspects of my gameplay time.

But that shouldn't be an ideal for even a workaround.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom