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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Cmdr Nimineza

Cmdr Nimineza
Why do people ask to leave it this way and just remove the error message? Why? This game does not need more inconsistencies. The class 3, 4 and 6 FSDs should behave exactly the same way as the class 5 one does. There is no reason to introduce even more inconsistencies. How should any new player understand?! "Oh.... the class 5 one is special.... and the other's not..."
"Because why?" "Because....that's why... magic fairy dust... the otheres are in a welded box, the class 5 one not."
One module should generally behave identical in between it's daughter classes only devided by capabilities.

Please, FD, do not introduce more inconsistencies. Make the new FSDs accept experimentals.
 

tremor3258

T
Cmdr Nimineza said:
Why do people ask to leave it this way and just remove the error message? Why? This game does not need more inconsistencies. The class 3, 4 and 6 FSDs should behave exactly the same way as the class 5 one does. There is no reason to introduce even more inconsistencies. How should any new player understand?! "Oh.... the class 5 one is special.... and the other's not..."
"Because why?" "Because....that's why... magic fairy dust... the otheres are in a welded box, the class 5 one not."
One module should generally behave identical in between it's daughter classes only devided by capabilities.

Please, FD, do not introduce more inconsistencies. Make the new FSDs accept experimentals.
Click to expand...

You know, I was wondering how the other Class FSDs were behaving weirdly since they had the template for the Class 5. The first one being introduced being the outlier makes it even weirder.
 

St Julian

S
Terrible decision. These FSDs let you go through the menu like if you could pick an experimental instead of the usual no experimental effect available. So what is it? Very disappointing to suddenly change how these reward modules work.
 
Last edited:

aRJay

aRJay
As I have currently broken my addiction to CGs I don't have and am unaware of the details of the latest FSDs, but as the owner of several of the earlier double engineered rewards both won and purchased I can confirm that they could be tweaked in engineering.
Whatever decision is reached regarding this issue I and doubtless all other owners of those earlier modules will be very upset if removing the experimental effect from those existing modules is part of that decision.
Especially as there were so many discussions with CMs and other Frontier people as to what we could and couldn't do in engineering to those modules without losing the double engineered character.
 

Stephen_WS

Stephen_WS
sallymorganmoore said:
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
Click to expand...
Sorry but due to the fact that other pre-engineered modules from CG's have followed a process where we can add experimentals too, then this feels like a mis-step.

Not to sound rude but this displays a lack of consistency on CG rewards, and it is disappointing. I would very much call for the CG rewards to follow the previous process - this is not just for extending jump range further - this is more about things being the same, consistent and living by the same rules in the game. There is no reasons why the goalposts for these things keep moving, especially given the silence on this and the expectation of what would be received for the effort of the CG.

If you go ahead with this, you have actively mislead people, and people will be rightfully angry.

o7, and once again I do not want to come across as hostile, just honest.
 
Last edited:

Danieros

D
This is the first one that I see having this issue - all previous ones I had (I don't have every one of them though) could have experimentals switched around, including the size 5 FSD.

The community reaction also indicates that this expectation of CG modules having experimentals added/swapped is deeply ingrained. So the community perceives it as a sudden switch in direction.

I understand some future CG module combinations might require the experimentals to be locked or disabled as a trade-off so they do not become too powerful. But you might want to display that on the CG text. Folks will still question it regardless, but we'll be able to link the CG text anytime it comes up. A prefix on the engineering-locked modules might also help.

Keep in mind that being consistent by retro-changing all existing CG modules to have their experimentals removed or reverted back to their originally advertised ones will get a lot of angry people. It's already been over an year with those modules in the free-to-change-experimentals state... if that wasn't the intention then it should've been done like on the next day the first CG module ever was handed out and it was noticed that we could add experimentals to them...
 
Last edited:

Sbirch123

Sbirch123
Danieros said:
This is the first one that I see having this issue - all previous ones I had (I don't have every one of them though) could have experimentals switched around, including the size 5 FSD.

The community reaction also indicates that this expectation of CG modules having experimentals added/swapped is deeply ingrained. So the community perceives it as a sudden switch in direction.

I understand some future CG module combinations might require the experimentals to be locked or disabled as a trade-off so they do not become too powerful. But you might want to display that on the CG text. Folks will still question it regardless, but we'll be able to link the CG text anytime it comes up. A prefix on the engineering-locked modules might also help.

Keep in mind that being consistent by retro-changing all existing CG modules to have their experimentals removed or reverted back to their originally advertised ones will get a lot of... angry people.
Click to expand...
I know the high capacity rapid fire (most recent) has the same issue but they came with experimentals added
 

Darth Ender

D
Drelthar said:
No, what happened, seemingly is:

1. Someone made a design document saying double engineered modules should not be able to be modified by engineers.
2. Someone coded the game so that they could have special effects added
3(?) Someone (do not have a source) confirmed to the players they COULD add experimental affects to modules the designers didn't want to be moddable.
4. Someone implemented a new module using the original design document correctly. (a year after the first modules were implemented incorrectly without the designers knowing...supposedly).
5. The original code didn't support the original design so an error message appeared.
6. Players were confused.
7. Designers were shocked the thing they designed one way, and then didn't test or look at how was being used by their players, was being used in a way different to their design.
8. A CM get's screwed over and has to scramble to try and fix all of the above.
Click to expand...
easily fixed if engineers weren't abused for something it shouldn't have been used for in the first place.

get rid of "double engineered" modules and get rid of providing engineered rewards in general for CG's and events, that's not what engineers do or how they are supposed to work.

Instead, create new module Id's and call these things "variants" ..similar to what was done with powerplay modules with all of the same attributes the "pre-engineered" one was to have.

Now, you instantly have no way to engineer them, all of the problems are solved. No need for any additional changes.

You can even display the stupid unnecessary magical effects the same places in the UI as "engineered" modules ..but because these modules have different id's and names and such than their base counterparts, the engineers wont be able to do anything to them.
 

Northpin

Northpin
Aegis 1 Razor said:
Why not add mass manager to the pre-engineered FSDs? I don't personally mind pre-engineered modules not being able to be modified, but in this case a lot of people put together builds with the expectation they could have mass manager like the 5A FSD.
Click to expand...

Why should they do that? Keeping the experimental slot open (or at least allowing the experimental to be changed) will give extra outfitting options

For example, I have some of those 5A FSD V1 with Double Braced not with Mass Manager
And if i would put one on a T-7, i would probably go for Thermal Spread
 

szymciu07

S
You disappoint Frontier. If you had drop the ball and allowed the players to apply experimentals then take it as it is and don't snatch the cookie from our hands.
You should then apply Mass Manager on top of them and keep it consistent for future releases.
 

Sbirch123

Sbirch123
Northpin said:
Why should they do that? Keeping the experimental slot open (or at least allowing the experimental to be changed) will give extra outfitting options

For example, I have some of those 5A FSD V1 with Double Braced not with Mass Manager
And if i would put one on a T-7, i would probably go for Thermal Spread
Click to expand...
Personally I would remove all double engineered fsds from trade ships due to low integrity and run shielded double brace
 

szymciu07

S
What about Missile Launchers? Are we not allowed to apply experimentals on them from now on? This decision is as detached from the game as it gets.
 

Sbirch123

Sbirch123
Cmdr Nimineza said:
I'd take 3 of them.
Click to expand...
My Dbx would no longer do 70ly as with a guardian fsd booster double engineered it would sit at 80ly full loaded. Gonna suck though if they opt for removal of all experimentals on CG rewards new and old as the Dbx only gets an extra 5ly and that's with Mass Manager
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom