Well they do say that an ideal compromise is the one that annoys everybody equally.
Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.
- Thread starter sallymorganmoore
- Start date
- Status
I'd urge Frontier to reconsider their stance here. It is not merely that it could have been made clearer that experimentals were planned not to be available. It is that the language used to describe them is identical to that used for other CG reward modules where that was an option. It was plain that community as a whole expected it to be available, and there was no mention, during the CG or after, that these would represent a new paradigm for how double-engineered modules interacted with experimental effects. Going forwards, having that information would be fine, but saying that the results need be inconsistent here is a travesty.
Why are these Frame Shift Drives all different than the earlier one, and if you are making thay change to be consistent with a new vision, why is that only being announced in response to a discussion on other modules? Why are we only learning of the difference now, substanially after the rewards were distributed? If this was an intended behaviour, why was it handled by a server exception instead of the already available "There are no experimental effects available for this module" text found on other modules intended not to be modified in such a manner?
It looks, from the outside, as though the company is wildly floundering at solutions to save face. If we can have more insight into the process that led to these decisions, and why they still stand, perhaps that would help alleviate that concern, at the least.
Finally - thank you, Sally, for at least be willing to communicate what was self-evidently going to be an unpopular message. Please try to help us get what we, as players, had been led to expect to whatever extent you can; if you cannot, at least we know that you have tried to calm the community and quell its anger, and that none of this problem is of your doing.
Why are these Frame Shift Drives all different than the earlier one, and if you are making thay change to be consistent with a new vision, why is that only being announced in response to a discussion on other modules? Why are we only learning of the difference now, substanially after the rewards were distributed? If this was an intended behaviour, why was it handled by a server exception instead of the already available "There are no experimental effects available for this module" text found on other modules intended not to be modified in such a manner?
It looks, from the outside, as though the company is wildly floundering at solutions to save face. If we can have more insight into the process that led to these decisions, and why they still stand, perhaps that would help alleviate that concern, at the least.
Finally - thank you, Sally, for at least be willing to communicate what was self-evidently going to be an unpopular message. Please try to help us get what we, as players, had been led to expect to whatever extent you can; if you cannot, at least we know that you have tried to calm the community and quell its anger, and that none of this problem is of your doing.
Im speculating on whats gonna happen in Act III
The class 7A is actually a Class 4A and a Class 3A as a combined reward
Reputedly, the 5A double-engineered FSD still can be given a special effect. I wouldn't wait too long with applying such a one.
Players have never been able to neutron boost.
Just make the stuff the right way, the same way all the modules work: being able to apply any experimental effect and stop being inconsistent in every single update you make on Elite. You are creating a monster, a Frankenstein of what was a solid MMORPG space simulation. Seriously, what is going on with you with all this decisions? More and more you guys are showing to have zero knowledge of how the game was working, changing solid and very well established mechanics, changing how the science works to something pretty worse than it was before. I am REALLY trying to stay in the game, I am REALLY trying to create content about Elite but, man, you are making my day everyday harder than ever.
I'm losing credibility to keep the spectators and players calm by saying that things will get better soon...since May 19th!
I'm losing credibility to keep the spectators and players calm by saying that things will get better soon...since May 19th!
@sallymorganmoore
I think the biggest frustration is with the abrupt change in approach. Players using ships with a 5A FSD get the experimental; players using ships with 3, 4, or 6 do not, for seemingly no reason. I understand the rationale behind not wanting these special modules to be modifiable, but with these FSDs, the box has already been opened. From a PR perspective, it would have been a much better approach to acknowledge that it was unintentional, allow it for this particular instance, but make it known that it won't work for future modules.
That gives devs the appearance of being magnanimous, and making players more willing to accept the future changes.
With that said, prohibiting experimental effects on these modules is probably a bad idea in general, because Experimentals are so often the most important feature of a module. Take the LW+HC missile rack, for example; the ability to apply an experimental effect is far more important than the light weight effect, because for pure damage potential, a seeker missile rack is essentially useless, and the main use is applying experimental effects like Drag Munitions.
Given the choice between lightweight and an experimental effect I actually want, I'll choose the experimental every time.
And at that point, what's the point in having these double-engineered modules at all?
I think the biggest frustration is with the abrupt change in approach. Players using ships with a 5A FSD get the experimental; players using ships with 3, 4, or 6 do not, for seemingly no reason. I understand the rationale behind not wanting these special modules to be modifiable, but with these FSDs, the box has already been opened. From a PR perspective, it would have been a much better approach to acknowledge that it was unintentional, allow it for this particular instance, but make it known that it won't work for future modules.
That gives devs the appearance of being magnanimous, and making players more willing to accept the future changes.
With that said, prohibiting experimental effects on these modules is probably a bad idea in general, because Experimentals are so often the most important feature of a module. Take the LW+HC missile rack, for example; the ability to apply an experimental effect is far more important than the light weight effect, because for pure damage potential, a seeker missile rack is essentially useless, and the main use is applying experimental effects like Drag Munitions.
Given the choice between lightweight and an experimental effect I actually want, I'll choose the experimental every time.
And at that point, what's the point in having these double-engineered modules at all?
I guess I just fail to see the logic behind the sudden change of attitude on these modules. Precedent was set when we could modify the other CG reward FSDs with an experimental, everyone expected to be able to do the same here. Why the change on this set of rewards?
I cannot accept this lack of diversity for fine tuning and inconsistency amongst a certain module type.
I played mostly for the customization of ships.
You should've never put double-engineered modules in the game if you do not want the power creeping.
Now many builds lose much more than just the Mass Manager's jump range when their FSD's use some other experimental effect for the sake of customization.
I've planned a lot of builds, and put up content like this, in good faith of consistency.
This feels like FDev simply wants to disappoint for no reason whatsoever, and it is a stupid lose-lose decision. It shows again how FDev's staff do not understand their own game.
I am done with this corporation, bye bye Elite Dangerous. Drew's o7 Tour shall also be my parting.
I played mostly for the customization of ships.
You should've never put double-engineered modules in the game if you do not want the power creeping.
Now many builds lose much more than just the Mass Manager's jump range when their FSD's use some other experimental effect for the sake of customization.
I've planned a lot of builds, and put up content like this, in good faith of consistency.
This feels like FDev simply wants to disappoint for no reason whatsoever, and it is a stupid lose-lose decision. It shows again how FDev's staff do not understand their own game.
I am done with this corporation, bye bye Elite Dangerous. Drew's o7 Tour shall also be my parting.
A fuel scoop with 25% increased flow rate but it only words on Wednesdays and in months with an 'R' in.
They also won't explain whether that means all Wednesdays and months with an R in, or only on Wednesdays during months with an 'R' in, then send Sally out six months later to tell us it actually only works on Sundays in May and this was an intentional design decision.
The change was the unintentional part, not the long-standing behavior - that's why attempting to add an experimental to the new module results in an error. They need to allow the experimental for this instance, and all that follow, as they have already been doing for past modules.
You can't see the logic because it doesn't exist - it was a mistake. Somebody messed up, then set Sally up to take the fall by lying to her about it.
Well this is disappointing.
What surprises me is that no one seemed aware of the limitation. The UI team obviously didn't know because it's not handled by the UI at all. The community had no idea; we completed the CG in record time for a reason. Sally (bless her heart) wasn't informed by the team that previous CG reward modules have been engineered (per other thread).
The only reasonable way forward is to give every CMDR 15 billion credits. And by every CMDR I mean me. Can I have 15 billion credits?
What surprises me is that no one seemed aware of the limitation. The UI team obviously didn't know because it's not handled by the UI at all. The community had no idea; we completed the CG in record time for a reason. Sally (bless her heart) wasn't informed by the team that previous CG reward modules have been engineered (per other thread).
The only reasonable way forward is to give every CMDR 15 billion credits. And by every CMDR I mean me. Can I have 15 billion credits?
This is my head canon:
- Game designer creates game design document specifying that these modules cannot be engineered.
- Everyone on the team seems to have missed that. UI and backend teams didn't enforce this limit anywhere.
- Game designer never actually tests any of these features so didn't notice either.
- Past CGs finish and everyone engineers their module rewards. No one notices.
- New developer writes code for the recent CG, notices the constraint in the game design document, and implements the restrictions on the backend only.
- Players start seeing backend errors when trying to engineer the new CG reward.
- Game designer: "You've never been able to engineer CG rewards"
- Sally: "They're saying they have, all of them"
- Game designer: looks at dev team
- Dev team:
Do you think this is fair to new players?
fair - clearly isn't the term they use. it's quite the opposite.
why ever not? you can still add the experimental to the 5FSD now
Well, nothing to see here, move on...
(yea, i still want to put a 5A Prismatic on my Cutter - i cant, but some old timers with legacy engineering still can - outrageous)
A valid point - it's not new players getting screwed; it's the rest of us. They're now setting a precedent for nerfing future reward modules as the result of the mistake with the most recent module, effectively opening the door to breaking all future modules instead of fixing the current one
It's a relatively small thing by itself, but it's a huge betrayal that, if left unchecked, can have long-term consequences. Better to fix it now than to let it ride.
So there is no other way to get these special FSDs anymore? OK, that would be the last nail in the coffin then.
- Status