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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
"the module cannot be modified" usually it's a lookup table match, verifying the item to be submitted is in the non-mod-able list or not.
I doubt that checker is based on item type not actual item id. Some CG items like FSD, missiles which share the same item type with normal versions are likely to escape "the module cannot be modified" verification. So when we submit mod request to server, server recieved these CG item ID but cannot find the correct entry to apply special effect. That is the error we are seeing now. The easier way to fix is to simply hardcode the special effect slot defined in CG FSDs with a most popular one, but unfortunately not everyone prefer mass manager haha. Then the harder way is to fix the special effect codes in CG FSD declearation, turn them into the same style of normal modules. Then everyone can install whatever they want there.
Yes, but the person I was replying to said:
I think you're a bit confused here. The server error is not true; it's a false error being thrown because there's no flavor text or UI in place to communicate that you can't apply experimentals to this new module.
Quite literally accusing them of intentionally creating an error message, rather than the simplest explanation, that this was entirely unintended.

There are plenty of reasons to believe this module was intended to be just like the previous double-engineered FSD modules, and zero reasons to believe they intended to change it. Occam's Razor and all that - they messed up, and are trying to play it off as intentional. It was a hasty and misguided response to a mistake that never needed to be blown up to these massive proportions.
 
Yes, but the person I was replying to said:

Quite literally accusing them of intentionally creating an error message, rather than the simplest explanation, that this was entirely unintended.

There are plenty of reasons to believe this module was intended to be just like the previous double-engineered FSD modules, and zero reasons to believe they intended to change it. Occam's Razor and all that - they messed up, and are trying to play it off as intentional. It was a hasty and misguided response to a mistake that never needed to be blown up to these massive proportions.
You raise good points but you overlook the main problem.

What is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem? Is the underlying code at fault and all previous modules recently introduced need to be edited manually to allow application of experimentals? Did someone unilaterally make a decision to remove that functionality for this particular module?

Is "unintended" merely a catch phrase for poorly managed or poorly executed.

The problem remains that these mistakes are so frequent you can't help but wonder how they are allowed to continue to happen.

These errors don't just happen in a vacuum. Someone either makes a bad decision, does sloppy coding, or doesn't understand the code they are writing. Does anyone do "code review" before something is pushed out?

Thank goodness FD doesn't code autonomous vehicle software.
 
What would probably be better would be to put these in a specialty mod category that is not reliant on existing modifications for their stat boosts and maluses, instead allowing the devs to manually change the statistics of mods with the speciality designation. Would also clear up the whole shows only the name of one of the two modifications issue as well, seeing as it would say specialized instead of anything else.
 
When I first saw the CG my reaction was:
"Oh, that's nice, looks like FDEV is trying to build the number of players up before Christmas as an improved FSD is always super popular with everyone. I whipped up my Cutter and took part as well. 4 round-trips and I was in top 50%"
Then I tried to upgrade it at Deciat and got the Server Error
"I am sure they will fix it within one or two days tops, as this is a super popular feature and the issue log has been upvoted at a record pace"
Then I read this thread and lost any positive feelings I had for the future of this game.. and then some.

It is still not too late to own it up and give people what they want. Yes, not all things people want improve the game but in this case this is hardly a game-breaking mechanic. I see no downsides whatsoever..
 
So bizarre, just seems really simple to make a statement with exactly what happened.
That never happens

That would mean actually identifying the ROOT CAUSE for all the typical mistakes we continually see with almost every upgrade/patch.

What they really need is a development manager that knows how to take names and hold people accountable.
 
Tinfoil Hat mode on:

1) Update 7, hitting the shelves September 22nd, introduced some really weird bugs to engineering modules, mostly weapons.
So some changes were performed that were affecting the engineering.
The bugs were fixed eventually - which may imply some other changes instead of a simple fix, since it took some time

2) The CG regarding the attempt to capture Yuri Grom, scheduled to end on October 9th, gave us double engineering seekers (high capacity and increased fire rate)
The interesting thing is those double engineering seekers threw an error when trying to add experimental

3) Here comes the new double engineered FSD, that also threw an error when trying to add experimentals

Before Update 7, all double engineered modules that could take experimentals, did it with no issues
After Update 7, both double engineered modules throw an UI error when trying to add experimentals

Could the events leading to the bugged engineered modules in U7 (or the way the bugs were solved) be the root cause we cannot apply experimentals to the last 2 sets of double engineered CG rewards?

/Tinfoil Hat mode off
Yeah this seems like the most plausible explanation.
 
Tell you what, I've already voiced my displeasure over this decision/mistake/whatver's causing it. And I'm as @#$@#ed off as the next Cmdr.

I dunno if any of you are parents, but from experience - when my little girl asks for something nicely, I tend to respond to her nicely. And if its something in my power to give her, I'll likely say yes, but she'll have to wait a bit and be patient. Meanwhile, if she demands something, or throws a massive tantrum, I tend to tune her out completely. I'll let a little bit of snark go, but there are most certainly limits.

Constantly tagging Sally to have a go at her colleagues and friends, tossing insults about like confetti at a wedding, and the incessant all-round slagging people working on this off isn't a great look on some of you. Understand the frustration, but my six year old has better social skills than some on here.
 
You raise good points but you overlook the main problem.

What is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem? Is the underlying code at fault and all previous modules recently introduced need to be edited manually to allow application of experimentals? Did someone unilaterally make a decision to remove that functionality for this particular module?

Is "unintended" merely a catch phrase for poorly managed or poorly executed.

The problem remains that these mistakes are so frequent you can't help but wonder how they are allowed to continue to happen.

These errors don't just happen in a vacuum. Someone either makes a bad decision, does sloppy coding, or doesn't understand the code they are writing. Does anyone do "code review" before something is pushed out?

Thank goodness FD doesn't code autonomous vehicle software.
This problem first showed up with the CG reward seeker missiles from the Yuri Grom CG - the first module reward to be released post-Odyssey, if I'm not mistaken.

In other words, the root cause appears to be somewhere in the changes made for Odyssey, a batch of code that has already been demonstrated to be unfinished and full of bugs.

Mistakes were made, but FDev has mostly been handling things much better than in the past - if we, the playerbase, can calm down and be more patient with them, I fully believe that they will get it sorted out. Or we can keep jumping down their throats for every little thing, and they can keep making more mistakes as a result of the undue added pressure, further fueling our outrage, rinse and repeat...

I'm in favor of more civil discourse
 
This problem first showed up with the CG reward seeker missiles from the Yuri Grom CG - the first module reward to be released post-Odyssey, if I'm not mistaken.

In other words, the root cause appears to be somewhere in the changes made for Odyssey, a batch of code that has already been demonstrated to be unfinished and full of bugs.

Mistakes were made, but FDev has mostly been handling things much better than in the past - if we, the playerbase, can calm down and be more patient with them, I fully believe that they will get it sorted out. Or we can keep jumping down their throats for every little thing, and they can keep making more mistakes as a result of the undue added pressure, further fueling our outrage, rinse and repeat...

I'm in favor of more civil discourse
I consider my comments to be civil discourse.

Clearly communicating what I believe to be reasonable expectations for using a product that I have paid for hardly seems to be inappropriate in any way.
 
I consider my comments to be civil discourse.

Clearly communicating what I believe to be reasonable expectations for using a product that I have paid for hardly seems to be inappropriate in any way.
I was speaking more generally, not accusing you of being uncivil - my mistake, I can see how I wasn't clear at all. Sorry about that.

That's what I get for writing a hasty reply between neutrons, lol
 
Now installed the class 6 drive on my battle corvette. Nice jump range (finally over 30 LY), but i'm kinda sad, that I can't install the double braced update for more robustness in battle, as I had planned.

So i wonder, when the CMs will tell us FDevs final decision on that. Seems to take many many internal talks... :unsure:
 
Last edited:
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.
With all due respect to yourself and the dev team I don't think this is a simple matter of caring or not caring. When people say that the developers "don't care", what they're really saying is "their decisions make me feel like they don't care about me". You may care about someone or something a great deal but if your actions don't back it up then it shouldn't be a surprise when they feel not cared for.

I hope that FD takes a good hard look at the following two issues.

1) Why was the team not aware that everyone was expecting to apply experimental effects to the new FSDs?
This was the top discussion in every single community hub. Here on the forums, over there on reddit, and all the bigger discord communities. Everyone was telling their buddies "Hey don't miss out on the CG the rewards; best FSD possible!". The CG thread on this very forum had the discussion on the very first page. And even if you missed all of that, the rate at which we completed the CG should have been some indicator that something was up.​
This lack of awareness has been a major source of frustration for the community. The numerous expired bug reports on the issue tracker are just another face of this problem. Healing beams and atmospheric fog has gone un-acknowledged as far as I can see (just as an example).​
2) The official response was not thoroughly researched, despite being 2 weeks after the CG ended.
Over the years, FD has shown itself to be very secretive and slow moving when it comes to outward communication. When issues arise we often hear nothing at all for longer than we expect. Eventually FD does end up responding but, more often than not, there is a lot of vague high level talk; not a lot of detail. That's actually okay. A lot of companies do this because releasing too much information too soon can be seen as a liability. I don't think it's a good strategy personally but I understand it.​
We run into problems when communication finally does come. In this case it was obvious from reading the first announcement that FD's understanding of the problem was very different from the community's. The announcement that this one follows up on is straight up wrong about pre-engineered modules not being further modified. We're all on the same page now but getting to this point was very messy. All of that could have been avoided if the issue was more thoroughly researched before communicating with us.​
I don't think the FSDs are that big of an issue. It's the lack of community involvement and lackluster response that got people so upset.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom