Ohh right, right on.
Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.
- Thread starter sallymorganmoore
- Start date
- Status
Not very convincing and inconsistent in regard to the class 5 module. Probably there are some balancing arguments on the dev side why they don't want to have that possibility in the future...
Even if the double engineered FSDs are still better than the standard version with experimentals, it feels like something was taken from the community as no one expected this outcome. We'll get over it, not the end of the world, but definitely not very happy about it.
If it happens to have a class 7 double engineered FSD then yes I will because it will offer better range than my current class 7 G5 engineered FSD. The fact that it won't offer quite as much additional range as it would with an experimental as well is no reason to not take what's on offer.
I think we can all agree that FDev dropped the ball on this but really, it's no reason to start cutting your nose off to spite your face.
I find this whole situation amusing.
FDev clearly screws up.
FDev tries to say it was "intentional." (lol best joke ever!)
They say it's the cover up that gets you...
The only way for FDev to salvage this situation is to just admit the truth, and fix the game so experimentals can be applied like always.
We get that mistakes/bugs happen... but trying to cover it up... that won't be forgotten so easily.
FDev clearly screws up.
FDev tries to say it was "intentional." (lol best joke ever!)
They say it's the cover up that gets you...
The only way for FDev to salvage this situation is to just admit the truth, and fix the game so experimentals can be applied like always.
We get that mistakes/bugs happen... but trying to cover it up... that won't be forgotten so easily.
I feel very sorry for Sally and other Community Managers/Mods/Whatever they're called (the ones who actually work for FDev, I mean) - I fully appreciate that it's not her/their fault, they're just the mouthpiece for a policy they didn't create and probably don't agree with.
So, it is with that in mind, that I say - this answer is utter madness.
There can be no way that it makes any sense that the way the previous 5A FSD V1 worked was not the way it was supposed to work - or at least that FDev didn't know it was working that way and decide not to "fix it". I simply can't believe that the company could design and implement a feature without having the slightest clue how it worked and was being used by the player base over such a long period of time. There were articles on the Wiki, numerous posts on the company's own forum, videos on YouTube, page after page on Reddit, and more.
To then claim that a game-breaking "server error" is the intended result of attempting something on the new module that could be done on all previous CG modules and double-down on not fixing that error is beyond insane. If it had been intended that these items couldn't be further modified with an experimental effect, then the option to do so simply wouldn't be there in the first place - as with Guardian modules.
I've seen other people make a comparison with Powerplay modules - but those can be fully engineered AND have experimentals added For example, I have Prismatic Shields with G5 Enhanced Low Power and Fast Charge Experimental. Or did FDev not know that was possible, either?
There cannot be any rational explanation why the class 3, 4 & 6 FSD can't have experimentals added and the class 5 can. It's beyond stupid. Just admit that it was a mistake and make them all the same as the previous class 5 was and is. Don't change it. What possible reason is there to do so? The pride of some nameless employee who simply can't or won't admit they dropped a clanger?
Again, to Sally et al - you have my sympathy for having to be the one(s) to take this "feedback" to the "higher ups" who clearly aren't interested in the game, don't play it, and don't care about the players who do.
How many times can FDev shoot themselves in the foot with Elite Dangerous? There must be no feet left, just holes from bullet after bullet....
So, it is with that in mind, that I say - this answer is utter madness.
There can be no way that it makes any sense that the way the previous 5A FSD V1 worked was not the way it was supposed to work - or at least that FDev didn't know it was working that way and decide not to "fix it". I simply can't believe that the company could design and implement a feature without having the slightest clue how it worked and was being used by the player base over such a long period of time. There were articles on the Wiki, numerous posts on the company's own forum, videos on YouTube, page after page on Reddit, and more.
To then claim that a game-breaking "server error" is the intended result of attempting something on the new module that could be done on all previous CG modules and double-down on not fixing that error is beyond insane. If it had been intended that these items couldn't be further modified with an experimental effect, then the option to do so simply wouldn't be there in the first place - as with Guardian modules.
I've seen other people make a comparison with Powerplay modules - but those can be fully engineered AND have experimentals added For example, I have Prismatic Shields with G5 Enhanced Low Power and Fast Charge Experimental. Or did FDev not know that was possible, either?
There cannot be any rational explanation why the class 3, 4 & 6 FSD can't have experimentals added and the class 5 can. It's beyond stupid. Just admit that it was a mistake and make them all the same as the previous class 5 was and is. Don't change it. What possible reason is there to do so? The pride of some nameless employee who simply can't or won't admit they dropped a clanger?
Again, to Sally et al - you have my sympathy for having to be the one(s) to take this "feedback" to the "higher ups" who clearly aren't interested in the game, don't play it, and don't care about the players who do.
How many times can FDev shoot themselves in the foot with Elite Dangerous? There must be no feet left, just holes from bullet after bullet....
Bugs: "It is I! My machinations lay undetected for years, for I am a master of Deception!"
This is very disappointing, frustrating and frankly so angering.
No need to apologize, Sally. You've been great handling this snafu.
It's the dev team who should be apologizing to the player base. This is THEIR frak up. Not yours.
Things are going well I see.
It was kind of inconsistent so I can understand people's confusion.
We didn't know at first if the 5A CG FSDs could have experimental effects applied but people experimented and it worked. Experimentals are separate from the blueprints and none of the staff chimed in to say "wait no that's illegal" so I think everybody just figured that was normal.
Also experimentals tend to make or break missiles and torpedoes so I imagine the community would have well appreciated knowing that ahead of time for the racks given out for the other CG.
So like I said before, I need to raise my voice slightly and request clarification if there was an intentional gameplay reason to make these FSDs unmodable. If so, what was it? Separate questions. Others have already gone through the utility of adding those modifications.
I'm trying to determine root intentionality: was there a technical [issue] with these modules that you can't get a DBA to fix or should I take the action item to put in a UI change to recognize this unmodable state as a sign there will be more engineered module variants that cannot be modded for some reason that fails to be foreseen.
Last edited:
Hi Sally,
First of all, I'd like to sincerely thank you for not only the effort you have put forth, but the effort by all Frontier teams in getting this figured out. As you stated in the original post, you are a "cog" in the wheel of quite possibly the most beautiful machine that results in the Galaxy we all find massive pleasure and joy in today.
Second, and I apologize if this has been previously answered, but is it possible to obtain the rationale behind the decision to not allow the experimental modifications on the recently issues rewards? While I totally accept the decision as it stands, I'd be lying if I said I didn't think "But, Why now?". I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that with the module characteristics changing organically with the increase/decrease in module size; the extra, experimental effect would inherently result in effects that would provide an unintentional increase and/or benefit that the devs feel would be unbalanced or game-breaking? (inb4 the Raxxla theories come out of the woodworks looks around frantically) ;-)
Lastly for Sally and team,
Again thanks for the work on this, and I remain excited to see Update 9 and future updates. o7
This next part is addressed to the community, and not at all FDEV.
I hold a higher expectation for the behavior of my fellow Commanders; especially considering the average age band of the player base. A suggestion moving forward would be to partner with our Frontier friends and help nurture the Galaxy into the best that it can possibly be. (TRANSLATION: Provide valuable feedback, reviews, and data about the issue(s) at hand. Let's perhaps stop jumping on the "cancel culture bandwagon" of "OMG THE DEVS DID WHAT IM OFFENDED". Relax...take a deep breathe...be part of the solution, and stop latching on to repetitive criticisms that are not productive.)
o7 Commanders, see you in the black!
There is a precedent you've set with adding experimentals to other dual engineered modules.
5A V1 was always able to accept experimentals in all 3 iterations of it (original CG reward, adding it to tech brokers CG reward, and unlocks you buy for mats from tech brokers).
Same thing with the dual engineered shields and power plant from that other CG.
Same thing with the dual engineered rails, I just cleaned the first one that arrived without feedback cascade, and put superpenetrator on it.
I feel like I'm missing one but I really don't feel like searching for what it was.
This isn't some secret the community found and was hush hush about. There's posts here, there's posts on reddit, there's messages on public discords (EDC, FCOC, etc), there's videos on youtube. This was common knowledge by anyone who plays this game.
Whether you like it or not, whatever was the goal of some anonymous game designer, this is a mistake that's rolled for over a year at this point over a bunch of CG modules. "Fixing it" by saying it's a feature not a bug makes the whole studio just look crass and incompetent. Just embrace the resourcefulness of the community, the original V1 FSD wasn't even out before we figured out that we can shove an experimental into the open slot for a bit more jump range.
5A V1 was always able to accept experimentals in all 3 iterations of it (original CG reward, adding it to tech brokers CG reward, and unlocks you buy for mats from tech brokers).
Same thing with the dual engineered shields and power plant from that other CG.
Same thing with the dual engineered rails, I just cleaned the first one that arrived without feedback cascade, and put superpenetrator on it.
I feel like I'm missing one but I really don't feel like searching for what it was.
This isn't some secret the community found and was hush hush about. There's posts here, there's posts on reddit, there's messages on public discords (EDC, FCOC, etc), there's videos on youtube. This was common knowledge by anyone who plays this game.
Whether you like it or not, whatever was the goal of some anonymous game designer, this is a mistake that's rolled for over a year at this point over a bunch of CG modules. "Fixing it" by saying it's a feature not a bug makes the whole studio just look crass and incompetent. Just embrace the resourcefulness of the community, the original V1 FSD wasn't even out before we figured out that we can shove an experimental into the open slot for a bit more jump range.
So... FDEV acknowledges it drew a lot of attention (as it was obviously designed to do). Surely they can't have been so daft as to think people would go off of the prescident set by other similar CG rewards. Surely FDEV is not so blind as to have missed the posting of several YouTube videos and "the spreadsheet" where a user did a great job calculating the possibilities based on the first double-engineered 5A. Instead of admitting ON THE SPOT that this was inaccurate and not designed to be further modified, NOTHING was said until well after the CG ended and players figured it out on their own. Bravo, community management. Water under the bridge at this point but it obviously should've been made clear well before people got their hopes up. This proves once again that FDEV's communication skills and connection with their playerbase still has much left to be desired. Perhaps a show of good faith would be to walk this back this hardline no-go approach "just this once" and be a bit more forthright continuing forward.
Last edited:
- Status