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

[Darkman Returns]

So basically FDev are still deciding what to do next, but at least existing double-engineered modules are not going to change.

I don't understand why they can't just add the same flag as the Size 5 FSD and just keep everything consistent. Hopefully they'll reach the same conclusion after more deliberation.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

If it helps with whatever validation you're looking for in this answer - It's known. We just need to work on how things are handled for ones which are not able to be modified in future - for example this one obviously drew a lot of attention and wasn't made clear enough to your all that it was unable to be modified.

So not being able to add experimentals to the new FSDs is final ? Even though the base is exactly the same as the size 5 one that worked ? Well, I'm very disappointed and angry right now, good job.

 

[Darth Ender]

It doesn't make sense to me that we now have the same double-engineering on 4 sizes of A-rated FSD and only one of those can have an experimental effect applied. It's unnecessarily confusing, and there seems no obvious reason for there to be a difference.

But either way, having clarity about the situation is something.

if you're looking for "sense" regarding engineering and magical effects ....you might not have a grasp on what sense is. making sense is not what engineers are for.

being internally consistent is obviously something one would expect even with nonsensical things, but being internally consistent would probably negate the entire engineering mechanic. Since we get insurance rebuys based on the idea that everything is mass produced and basically constructed on site from pre-fabbed parts and what not. Yet, engineering is supposed to be bespoke unique changes only select individuals in the galaxy can do. Yet we get them back with insurance rebuys. It's not internally consistent. If we accept that, then why would we expect and how could we demand consistency elsewhere?

 

[sallymorganmoore]

Updated the thread to be clearer on the latest FSD reward and whether it's modifiable (spoilers, it isn't ).

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Updated the thread to be clearer on the latest FSD reward and whether it's modifiable (spoilers, it isn't ).

Well, boo.

 

[sallymorganmoore]

Well, I'm very disappointed and angry right now, good job.

I really, really am sorry this has caused the anger it has. Like I say, we are working deeply now to see how to iron this all out for you all.

 

[Northpin]

 

[Cmdr Nimineza]

@sallymorganmoore may i dare to ask, why there such inconsistencies added? Everyone was ok with the ability to fine tune the class 5 one. But not providing this ability to class 3,4 and 6 is hard to explain to any player who is not in the forums. This inconsistency is here without any need.
Why is there this descision not to make it not fine tunable? It's an imbakance within a module family? I can't see any overpoweredness if the new fsds were given the ability to fine tune them with experimentals.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I really, really am sorry this has caused the anger it has. Like I say, we are working deeply now to see how to iron this all out for you all.

Easy: Change them to be in line with the size 5, meaning we can add special effects, and in the future clearly state in advance in the CG descriptions if it works or not.

 

[SCiARA]

I really, really am sorry this has caused the anger it has. Like I say, we are working deeply now to see how to iron this all out for you all.

out of curiosity, is there any chance of getting an understanding as to why this decision was made?

 

[marx]

@sallymorganmoore : This is still somewhat ambiguous, so just to be sure, I'd like to ask: will the ability to apply experimental effects to 5A FSD v1-s (the ones bought via tech brokers) be removed in the future? To elaborate: right now, a player can buy a double-engineered 5A FSD v1 and apply an experimental effect to it, thereby reaching a higher jump range. (Or getting other bonuses.) Will you remove this, and will future 5A FSD v1 purchases thus be inferior to current purchases? Or will things stay as they are now?

 

[Darth Ender]

Updated the thread to be clearer on the latest FSD reward and whether it's modifiable (spoilers, it isn't ).

It could be if it was called
"Advanced FSD" or "Experimental FSD" or some other term and given a different internal ID ...the same way powerplay modules are done. Differentiating what can be changed vs what can't be (leave the can be changed the same as current behavior ....as dumb as that current behavior is for the lore).

 

[Fake Newts]

The way to interpret this is "they didn't know, it's too late though as making changes now would involve reissuing the modules as they did with the railgun in April".

 

[szymciu07]

I really, really am sorry this has caused the anger it has. Like I say, we are working deeply now to see how to iron this all out for you all.

You (Frontier developments) could accept the fact that you have given something to the players that was not intended, and accept it as a state of being for the game. Just make all double engineered modules have an experimental added by the players.

 

[Factabulous]

I really, really am sorry this has caused the anger it has. Like I say, we are working deeply now to see how to iron this all out for you all.

We have (3!) better FSD than we had the week before - hopefully others will realise this at some point Thanks for all your work!

 

[Sbirch123]

Updated the thread to be clearer on the latest FSD reward and whether it's modifiable (spoilers, it isn't ).

Damn... That's a shame as it kinda makes them useless for trade ships and long range exploration ships as they have worse module integrity than standard G5 long range and standard G5 fast charge without added experimentals.

Thanks for the clarification and keeping us updated 07

 

[LeoBartlet]

So let me see if I have this right. There was a previous FSD module that you could add an experimental to and that was ok. Then these modules came but you can't add an experimental even though they are the same module but different sizes but in the future, you might have modules where you can add an experimental?

 

[marx]

I really, really am sorry this has caused the anger it has. Like I say, we are working deeply now to see how to iron this all out for you all.

Let me chime in with an idea as well then: add Guardian Enhanced FSDs as unlockable modules. Same stats as if they were double-engineered FSDs, and no engineering modifications possible, which would be consistent with all the other unlockable Guardian modules.
Could tie it in nicely with the Salvation storyline as well.

 

[Namix]

Greetings Commanders.

Regarding the latest post on addressing confusion around the inability to add further modification/experimentals to the latest CG FSD reward: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...fication-application-of-experimentals.593774/

I thought this information below would be better in a new post for you, just incase this statement got drowned out in the original post.​

I can absolutely confirm from all sides that:

Any future improvements made to in game UI clarification of the inability to not further modify/add experimentals to pre-modified module rewards, will not negate any previous modifications/added experimentals you have to currently owned reward modules already acquired.

To be double clear, you will not be able to add experimentals on the new CG FSD reward from the latest CG.

I'd also like to add that we are not stating that all future reward modules will not be able to accommodate applied experimentals.
We just need to be clear with which are able to and which aren't. This is all in heavy discussion and noted.

​

Moving forward on this issue:
It goes without saying that conversations had from today have left us with more to discuss internally as to how we handle your interactions and expectations with reward modules.
I know at first I mentioned that we would aim to fix the In-game UI indication of whether a reward module could be further "tweaked" or not as an aim for Update 9, but the experience as a whole needs deeper rework based off feedback gathered and discussed today, so I can no longer confidently say that timeframe is possible (of course, we'll keep you updated as we go).

We will do what we can to make it clear if a reward is able to be tweaked or not by other means still in discussion (watch our..spaces).

The positive I want us to take from this though is that we have this all flagged up with all of your feedback and we will keep you in the loop with developments as we move forward on plans and discussions ahead around the matter.

Again, my apologies for the confusion and any frustration caused.

As some others have said it might be an idea to add a naming scheme to modules which cant be further tweaked ...... Prototype/Sealed/Binned etc to allow players to instantly know which modules can be tweaked and which cannot (keeping the Vx naming scheme for those that can still be tweaked), i understand having the game display a more useful error message and greying out options is also required but a naming scheme such as above would instantly allow commanders to know that before getting to an engineer to see the UI information.

 

[Cometborne]

It doesn't make sense to me that we now have the same double-engineering on 4 sizes of A-rated FSD and only one of those can have an experimental effect applied. It's unnecessarily confusing, and there seems no obvious reason for there to be a difference.

But either way, having clarity about the situation is something.

Exactly. So far, if it was possible to add an experimental effect to the normal version of a module, it was also possible to do the same to the double engineered version or the unlocked variant. This worked just fine, met the expectation of the players, and did not cause any complaints or problems. So why change this now? It only causes confusion and complaints.