Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I think, that people which ignored this CG are true winners :)

(dear lord, good that I thought, that exploration is more interesting, than trade for additional 3 range)
Well, it doesn't apply for everyone ... I was part of this CG and have not even real plans to use these (or previous CG) FSDs. What I liked the most was the race to succesfully deliver in time and trying to properly estimate how much of my effort will be enough to my goal (to be in Top50% for last one) in moment when CG will be finished. For me personally was this the biggest reward on such CGs, but truth is, that without good reward (many forms) such CGs simply will not happen, and that's the main thing, they are rare stuff.
 
The important thing to think about when doing an event is do you enjoy doing the activity if the answer is yes do the event, if the answer is no then consider if the reward is worth doing something you don’t enjoy.

Well, the assumed possibility (based on the similar 5A FSD V1) that we would be able to apply experimentals to the new 3A, 4A and 6A FSD was enough for me to want a second set of FSD for my epic alt. So i jumped him to Colonia to take part into their CG too.
There is a very strong possibility that I would have refrain myself of doing that it if i knew the new FSDs were not able to take experimental effects 🤷‍♂️

Also based on the fact that the old 5A FSD V1 came to tech brokers, we also assume the new FSDs will come to tech brokers.
But given the current development, i'm not that sure anymore.
 
Not true.
Said I wasn't going to reply to these but right now I actually need to on this.
Not true.

Hi Sally,
Can help relay below thinking to dev ?
Hope it's as simple as I thought. 😅


The server error showed some interesting coding features of 3 CG reward FSDs:

1. They have their own item ID and declearation codes in server data base.
2. In their declearation codes there is no user customize exp effect attributive(var), instead it's hardcoded value(int), not subjected to change.
3. In client side. Exp effect mod availability check could be just tied to item type not item ID. So for all these items having their normal versions that can be applied effects, these CG items are not able to be intercepted by "no exp effect available to this module". This made us able to press adding effect icon in game.
4. Then when we apply exp effect on a CG reward item, client throws this item ID to server asking to put exp effect, server checked request but did not find a var to change effect. Instead it just find a hardcoded int value (this time there is no effect added on FSD, assume that value field could be a hardcoded 0). It cannot be changed and server returned an error.

I think the best way for both us and dev could be simply adding hard coded mass manager attributive to these CG items.
Some player want deep charge on size3 and 4 may feel unhappy but at least we still got fully moded module and dev minimized their bandwidth solving this.

🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️
 
Not true.
Said I wasn't going to reply to these but right now I actually need to on this.
Not true.
Thank you very much for your reply :) I'm sorry to say that, but you have just confirmed (most probably unintentionally) my suspicion, because you've left the second part aside :) (that's where real opinion was)
Please don't get me wrong. Personally I think you are doing a good job, there's no doubt about it.
It's just I'm almost sure that this little "problem" (which isn't a problem really, because it can be easily fixed) won't be fixed because of FDEV's decision making process and that disappoints me.
 
Can't even implement DX12 support which would take a week or so to get it partially integrated
DX12 is a Microsoft exclusive - FDev would either have to say "Screw you" to their Playstation playerbase, or embrace having to do double the work from here on out in order to maintain two different rendering pipelines. Neither option would improve the current state of things

And a week? What programming experience do you base that estimate on?
 
To those saying 'entitlement' 'boo' 'they are better than vanilla' etc etc.. You are missing the point.

I don't want anything for 'free' from a game I am playing. I like to work at my gains. I play in open 99% of the time because I like the risk. Went all the way to beagle point a month ago with the 5 FSD double engineered + mass manager drive I got a while back at the other CG.

I like to immerse myself in the world of Elite .. I've loved Elite since the days of Commodore 64. Finished Elite 3 - First Encounters about 4 times over the years. If you think Elite Dangerous is tough, you should try Elite 3.

This is about the universe continuity. If there is a sudden change from the established baseline (see the 5 FSD double engineered) I would expect a bit better lore than 'Server Error'.
I think you are missing the point. Sure the way it all played out isn't perfect - obviously there isn't anyone at Frontier who would be able to actually oversee and control what is happening in the game. The are clearly out of touch.
But it doesn't mean people should "feel slapped in the face", because they thought they would be able to add experimental. I was actually surprised we were able to do it in the first place and always felt that it was some kind of oversight on Fdev part, although I thought they just went along with it once they realised how it is. I never thought there's such a mess out there that noone actually noticed, or cared about it until now.
It's a mess, sure, but noone is loosing anything, so I just think reactions should be proportional to the problem.
 
For all the whiners.

images (2).jpeg
 

sallymorganmoore

Community Manager : Elite Dangerous
Frontier
Thank you very much for your reply :) I'm sorry to say that, but you have just confirmed (most probably unintentionally) my suspicion, because you've left the second part aside :) (that's where real opinion was)
Please don't get me wrong. Personally I think you are doing a good job, there's no doubt about it.
It's just I'm almost sure that this little "problem" (which isn't a problem really, because it can be easily fixed) won't be fixed because of FDEV's decision making process and that disappoints me.
You wanted me to address the second bit.
You assumed stuff that also isn't true unless you're in our team's position (assuming easy fixes is something that happens a lot - I don't blame people but I want to make it clear that not everyone knows how easy something is to fix). You also go on to imply our decision making is final on this when I said previously that I'm continuing to have discussions based on all of your feedback.
 
Hi Sally, just want to say thanks to you and the rest of the CM team. You guys really seem to get the short end of the stick too often and I appreciate how tough it must be to come into work and be faced with an explosion of salt and complaints. I am amazed on a daily basis how your friendly professionalism calms this place down. I'm pretty sure we all appreciate the increased dialogue over the last few months and the extensive work that has gone into the game since launch. I worry that the goodwill these actions have created is in danger of being lost by decisions being made by FDEV without any communication, clarity or consistency.

I understand your reluctance to answer questions as to why this decision was made but because of it we now have 3 classes of FSD drives. Standard (Can apply experimentals) 5A LR+FB (Can apply experimentals) and 3, 4, 6 LR+FB (Cannot apply experimentals) we don't understand why this has to be the way. It is not as though the addition of experimentals to these drives is in any way game breaking, the addition will not give anyone an impossible to match advantage over anyone else they just allow a little additional tweeking and specialisation to drives for specific purposes

As there were no error messages appearing for the D/E 5A FSD we can only assume that either it was working as intended and this change to the new modules is a recent design decision to stop the addition of experimentals or that the D/E 5A FSD was not working as intended and nobody in FDEV knew about it until these new modules were being set up for inclusion.

Without clarity it really feels like we are asking a genuine question and being given an answer of "Because that's the way we want it" and frankly after all these months of patience and frustration that is simply not good enough.
 
Last edited:

sallymorganmoore

Community Manager : Elite Dangerous
Frontier
Sally's last answer gives the impression that this stays that way, the programmer who made a mistake gets away with it, very god!!!
Continuing discussions.
 
I was actually surprised we were able to do it in the first place and always felt that it was some kind of oversight on Fdev part, although I thought they just went along with it once they realised how it is

Well, i was not surprised at all.
Ship module engineering has 2 components, engineering improvements (which is a gradual process) and experimental effect (which does not depend to the grade of engineering)

The double engineering modules were special only because they had 2 engineering blue prints added to them.
There is absolutely no reason to assume they will not take experimental effects.
 

sallymorganmoore

Community Manager : Elite Dangerous
Frontier
Hi Sally, just want to say thanks to you and the rest of the CM team. You guys really seem to get the short end of the stick too often and I appreciate how tough it must be to come into work and be faced with an explosion of salt and complaints. I am amazed on a daily basis how your friendly professionalism calms this place down. I'm pretty sure we all appreciate the increased dialogue over the last few months and the extensive work that has gone into the game since launch. I worry that the goodwill these actions have created is in danger of being lost by decisions being made by FDEV without any communication, clarity or consistency.

I understand your reluctance to answer questions as to why this decision was made but because of it we now have 3 classes of FSD drives. Standard (Can apply experimentals) 5A LR+FB (Can apply experimentals) and 3, 4, 6 LR+FB (Cannot apply experimentals) we don't understand why this has to be the way. It is not as though the addition of experimentals to these drives is in any way game breaking, the addition will not give anyone an impossible to match advantage of anyone else they just allow a little additional tweeking and specialisation to drives for specific purposes

As there were no error messages appearing for the D/E 5A FSD we can only assume that either it was working as intended and this change to the new modules is a recent design decision to stop the addition of experimentals or that the D/E 5A FSD was not working as intended and nobody in FDEV knew about it until these new modules were being set up for inclusion.

Without clarity it really feels like we are asking a genuine question and being given an answer of "Because that's the way we want it" and frankly after all these months of patience and frustration that is simply not good enough.
Continuing discussions to get you the answers. Sorry for the quick replies, I really really need the time.
 
I think you are missing the point. Sure the way it all played out isn't perfect - obviously there isn't anyone at Frontier who would be able to actually oversee and control what is happening in the game. The are clearly out of touch.
But it doesn't mean people should "feel slapped in the face", because they thought they would be able to add experimental. I was actually surprised we were able to do it in the first place and always felt that it was some kind of oversight on Fdev part, although I thought they just went along with it once they realised how it is. I never thought there's such a mess out there that noone actually noticed, or cared about it until now.
It's a mess, sure, but noone is loosing anything, so I just think reactions should be proportional to the problem.
Imagine this:
On a table there are pizzas and dips.
For a long time you can get a slice and dip it in a dip of your choice.

And that continues for some long time, enough to get everyone used.

Then they add new pizza types, and the new pizza slices flies out of your hand back to the box when you try to dip it.

Then the kitchen chef says: you were never supposed to dip pizza in the dips.

This is just poor handling of the situation.
 

sallymorganmoore

Community Manager : Elite Dangerous
Frontier
YOU obviously care. Which is great. No one is saying otherwise. No one is attacking you.

However, I do not believe for a moment that the "higher ups" who are making these decisions care in the slightest. They make that clear by their actions.
I also used to work within the dev team in production, I come from the team everyone talks about, I'm not a separate entity to them or Frontier so when you all address any of those sectors - you are addressing me, so I will step up on some comments sometimes, just to help with clarity.

The developers are some of my closest friends and I respect them massively as colleagues. They care too. We've got a lot to work on with some things, absolutely, you're all very right in many ways, but I will say that a lot of people behind this curtain care - we'll just continue to push through for you all on hard hitting issues that arise.
 
Guess that makes me a double loser then 🙃

Saw the CG, travelled over 40K LY to get back to the bubble, signed up for CG - but then real life got in the way for a couple of days and by the time I could get back on the CG was over. sigh C'est la vie.
Well, probably makes me an even bigger one!

Did the Alcor CG, got into the top 75%....




in a sidewinder mostly (some, say about a third of the total 2400 or so tons, hauls were also done in a temporary buy n dump Keelback)



So i got the modules.....knowing i cant even fit them on my ship! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Imagine this:
On a table there are pizzas and dips.
For a long time you can get a slice and dip it in a dip of your choice.

And that continues for some long time, enough to get everyone used.

Then they add new pizza types, and the new pizza slices flies out of your hand back to the box when you try to dip it.

Then the kitchen chef says: you were never supposed to dip pizza in the dips.

This is just poor handling of the situation.
Mhhhhmmm! Pizza!
 
Well, i was not surprised at all.
Ship module engineering has 2 components, engineering improvements (which is a gradual process) and experimental effect (which does not depend to the grade of engineering)

The double engineering modules were special only because they had 2 engineering blue prints added to them.
There is absolutely no reason to assume they will not take experimental effects.
You're talking about mechanics, while I'm talking what I felt was intention of adding those special, magical modules.
You are not able to add second modification to regular module, so they've bended rules there, therefore I've always felt regular mechanics never should actually apply to those reward modules, so I was surprised adding experimentals was allowed. I'm sure I wasn't the only one, as many people were reluctant to try at first, thinking that it would remove double engineering f.ex

I've said before, that I think they should go with adding special, unique experimental effect instead of "double engineering" them. It would solve many problems we have now.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom