Elite Dangerous - Community Goal FSD Reward and Modification/Application of Experimentals

[sallymorganmoore]

Greetings Commanders, hope you're doing well this fine Wednesday.

So first up, apologies that this may be coming in a little on the late side following your reports from the end of last week, but after catching up today and with further discussion held, I'm here with some clarity on the issue you've been facing with attempts to modify the newly rewarded FSD module as part of a recent Community Goal.

To recap the discussion:
Lots of discussion and confusion around since the release of the CG FSD last week, with many of you attempting to modify/apply experimentals once aquired, only to find you were hitting a 'server error'.

Some clarification:
I can confirm that it is by design that pre-engineered modules cannot be further modified.
As this FSD is a pre-engineered, this falls into the 'cannot further modify/add experimentals category of module.

The Issue ("Server Error"):
There's really no other way for me to word this, other than with raw honesty right now but - we absolutely see that by simply displaying 'Server Error' is not a clear indication that you are unable to further modify pre-engineered modules.
Displaying 'Server Error' only makes things look as though you can further modify the module because the option is available for you to do so, but you can't because to you it looks as though 'something is broken regarding the server'.

Action:
While I know this will come as highly frustrating news for many of you, the team have this morning established a priority action plan to address the messaging of this to be clear, as we move toward Update 9. These action points include (but are not limited to, where other options may become available from here on through development toward U9):

• Players will be prevented from selecting pre-engineered modules for further modification (button greyed out + message in the module selection popup).
• The proposal of specific indicatation through new iconography, to show which modules are pre-engineered and cannot be further modified or take experimental effect, so that Commanders know in advance of putting all their efforts and hard work into achieving a pre-engineered module which cannot be further modified/tinkered with.

Again, our sincere apologies for the confusion on this - the team have had a really good discussion as I say, this morning, so we can further futureproof against the current scenario you've been experiencing.

Very best as always.
See you in the Black o7

 

[Factabulous]

Excellent

 

[artemwaynes]

the worst solution.

 

[Martind Forlon]

Better late as never (official stance about CGs modules). Thanks for info and have a nice rest of day too Sally!

 

[Northpin]

Weird.
The Size 5A FSD V1, which was also pre-engineered, could have experimental effects applied to them
Every other double engineered module after them (with the exception of the last batch of dbl-engineered seekers) also took experimental effects

To clarify, i'm not talking about re-engineering those modules, but about applying experimental effects

 

[LeoBartlet]

 

[sallymorganmoore]

Weird.
The Size 5A FSD V1, which was also pre-engineered, could have experimental effects applied to them
Every other double engineered module after them (with the exception of the last batch of dbl-engineered seekers) also took experimental effects

To clarify, i'm not talking about re-engineering those modules, but about applying experimental effects

I'm just trying to cover all bases here.
Basically there is going to be a bunch of re-design off the back of all of the issues being seen with this kind of thing and you'll all have a much clearer indication of what goes where and what can be done with what moving forward (from update 9).

 

[sallymorganmoore]

the worst solution.

Ok how would you say we should better indicate that you can't further tinker with pre-engineered modules? It's always nice to get thoughts!

 

[Alec Turner]

I'm just trying to cover all bases here.
Basically there is going to be a bunch of re-design off the back of all of the issues being seen with this kind of thing and you'll all have a much clearer indication of what goes where and what can be done with what moving forward (from update 9).

Is there a suggestion here that experimental effects we've previously applied to the double engineered 5A drive might be retrospectively removed?

 

[NotMeMr]

For me the issue is that a game design decision has been made which has not been communicated to the playerbase and has taken nearly a week before clarification has been issued.

 

[LeoBartlet]

For me the issue is that a game design decision has been made which has not been communicated to the playerbase and has taken nearly a week before clarification has been issued.

You get used to it after a time in all honesty.

Nice for the clarification before I waste my time in a few months trying to add another experimental to the modules.

 

[Northpin]

Is there a suggestion here that experimental effects we've previously applied to the double engineered 5A drive might be retrospectively removed?

Good question...
I was planning today to apply experimental effects to all previous modules that i own that, for various reasons, dont have yet experimentals applied
For what is worth, some of those experimentals are quite expensive in terms of materials

 

[sallymorganmoore]

Is there a suggestion here that experimental effects we've previously applied to the double engineered 5A drive might be retrospectively removed?

Not going to lie, this is a bit of an eyebrow raiser. Taken it to have a chat about.

 

[sallymorganmoore]

For me the issue is that a game design decision has been made which has not been communicated to the playerbase

This isn't a new design decision. It's been this way for...ages right? We're addressing the issue now

and has taken nearly a week before clarification has been issued.

Apologies that things have been so heavy on this side since Friday and, as I say, that it's only being addressed openly today.
If I had a time machine, I'd be sat in it for you right now.

 

[Alec Turner]

Is there a suggestion here that experimental effects we've previously applied to the double engineered 5A drive might be retrospectively removed?

Not going to lie, this is a bit of an eyebrow raiser. Taken it to have a chat about.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Not going to lie, this is a bit of an eyebrow raiser. Taken it to have a chat about.

I also have 5A FSDs with double engineering that have the Mass Manager experimental applied following purchase (I was busy during the CG) which, along with others, I thought we would be able to apply to the latest ones, so this is a bit of a surprise!

Look forward to the result of your chat!

 

[Grimscrub]

This isn't a new design decision. It's been this way for...ages right? We're addressing the issue now

Uh... to clarify, All prior double-engineered modules bar the missile rack Did allow both re-engineering (Though that overwrote/erased the double-gineering, it was still possible) and experimental effect application, hence the issue reports and confusion at this one.

If this was never intended... oh dear.

 

[Northpin]

Ok how would you say we should better indicate that you can't further tinker with pre-engineered modules? It's always nice to get thoughts!

Part of the joy of getting those dbl-engineered modules was to further tinker with them by the means of applying experimentals
For example, the original 5A FSD V1 :

• with Mass Manager, it gets an extra 2 LY jump range above the "normal" 3 LY increase
• with Double Braced, it gets extra integrity which will sort of compensate the losses due to double-engineering, makeing it a bit more suitable to PVP (along with fast boot)
• with Thermal Spread it will compensate for the increased thermals due to double engineering, thus making them suited to be used on ships that natively run hotter.

Frankly, the decision to remove the possibility to apply experimentals is really baffling since it removes gaming/outfitting options instead of adding them. Not to mention that they do cost a lot of materials.

Maybe this decision can be reassessed?

 

[sallymorganmoore]

Right...It's like, you flip over a stone and then there's a stone under the stone.

Commanders, I've grabbed all your comments on experiences with double engineering on 5As and all sorts of things like that and I'm discussing with the team.
If anyone pings or comments with more experiences of having done this please, can you direct them to this comment of mine?

Going to get my head down with the team on more info.

Thanks o7

 

[marx]

Allow me to echo the sentiment that this is thoroughly disappointing. It also seems like Frontier didn't know how their game worked, because...

This isn't a new design decision. It's been this way for...ages right? We're addressing the issue now

No, as others have already said here, all double-engineered FSDs and other equipment could have experimental effects applied on them. It has never been this way before, not being able to do so is a new thing. As evidenced by so many bug reports coming in when these new modules failed to work the same way as the other double-engineered ones already do.

I'd urge Frontier's designers to reconsider their stance and allow experimental effects to apply to double-engineered modules intentionally. Nerfing stuff already earned and materials spent on(!) is opening a can of worms - and it's not like these are too powerful.
And as a cherry on top, if existing experimental effects are removed from FSDs, some Commanders who are out exploring sparse areas can even get stranded there. This is probably an edge case, but if it happens to someone, you can bet they aren't going to be happy about it.