I have a Cutter like that, yes. Broken promise right there. Sandro said they were looking at bringing back those 10% increased optimal mass as an experimental effect. It never happened, and Sandro left ED.
Last edited:
Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.
- Thread starter sallymorganmoore
- Start date
- Status
For the moment, no.
Edit, scratch that - we also assumed the new FSD will take experimental effects, and then it turns out they don't. So there is no point to compare the 5A FSD V1 with the new FSD drives since apparently they're completely different
I feel like this is a parallel to some other issue where something was taken away that a part of the community expected, but it slips my mind exactly what that was. Either way, they say they're going to review the situation and get back to us when they have more information...wow this feels like deja vu.
You know... I've got a 5A FSD V1 with Mass Manager, so I don't really care about the new ones (3,4 +6). What upsets me is the fact that now you have to play whenever they tell you to if you want to stay up-to-date with everything the game has to offer??
Last edited by a moderator:
To me it sounds like they are going to remove that option from the UI but keep any experimentals that were applied before the change. In other words, they are about to create yet another legacy class of extra powerful modules that can never be acquired again by players who happened to join the game too late.
What they should do instead is block the option to overwrite the double modification (to prevent accidental removal) but keep the experimental option open to everyone.
We should be given the freedom to finetune the preengineered ones. Someone might want it more robust, someone like to have even more range, someone likes it to be a bit cooler.
Please, no more inconsistencies! Please enable experimental effects on the new FSDs. It's not about the few lightyears more range - it's about diversity of fine tuning and consistency amongst a module family. Just copy paste the code from the class 5 FSD and tune its values to class 3, 4 and 6 ones.
This game does not need more inconsistencies. It already has more than enough of them. @sallymorganmoore
Please, no more inconsistencies! Please enable experimental effects on the new FSDs. It's not about the few lightyears more range - it's about diversity of fine tuning and consistency amongst a module family. Just copy paste the code from the class 5 FSD and tune its values to class 3, 4 and 6 ones.
This game does not need more inconsistencies. It already has more than enough of them. @sallymorganmoore
Last edited:
Outrage because of people getting only an 5% improvement, instead of the hoped 8%, over what used to be the best possible...
They're trying to offer something enticing while limiting the power creep.
And, reading between the lines, they wished they'd done that restriction to the 5A ones but cannot do that retroactively because it'll create more salt then there is in Death Valley.
They're trying to offer something enticing while limiting the power creep.
And, reading between the lines, they wished they'd done that restriction to the 5A ones but cannot do that retroactively because it'll create more salt then there is in Death Valley.
Mine isn't a prismatic (I've never bothered unlocking them) but mwahahahaahahahhaaa dat class 5 shield
Look on the bright side, we did have to endure rolling it up under the old RNGineers system to get the lucky roll. And you can also chalk off a year's worth of decals and stuff from CGs that I never got the chance to acquire because I was off on the other side of the galaxy when they happened. Them's the breaks kid lol.
That's nothing to do with today's developments though, they were a CG reward and were only ever available from the CG. They will probably get added to the tech broker in a few months, just like most of the other double engineered gear has been.
That - precisely that.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:
It's honestly just another brick in the wall of evidence indicating massive communication issues in development. It's felt for years that when it comes to the maintenance and updating of Elite Dangerous, the right hand has absolutely no idea what the left hand is doing. And it ends up with the poor community team taking the brunt of the fallout each and every time.
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:
You're not cynical enough, I'm afraid. I've worked in the industry myself, on Ultima Online as an EM, which is a combination of content provider and public communications... Design document? A-hah-hah-ha, bless you. If one existed, it was long ago lost, or taken home by who ever was working on the code back in the day. And the current programmers certainly didn't tell you what they were up too; you built what you could with the tools that you were given, and didn't ask because often the overworked programmers (who often don't have many human facing skills in the first place) were furious with you for crossing what they saw as territorial boundaries. I once got a dressing down for just asking what the timing on the delay for NPC broadcasts was, because we couldn't use NPC to NPC responses as they had bricked the server once... but I wondered if staggered NPCs could simulate a conversation...? But how dare I ask about programming secrets?!
And if something later exploded in your face, either because you found something unrecorded in the tools, or the management or programmers hadn't thought through the consequences of what they'd engineered, you then got stuck waiting for Official Response to be handed down to give to your players as they retroactively tried to clear up the mess they weren't even aware would be there.
In this case, the fact one class of drives cannot be Experimentaled, whilst all the others can and the UI is failing to warn you indicates to me that there's a software cludge gone in that is treating these drives as something slightly different in the code itself. The Server Error is because the game itself isn't structured to respond to what is now in game, it doesn't know what the drive is when it tries to apply the actual data change. And FDev as a whole probably didn't even know the cludge was there, let alone why it was done that way this time; Working on the art, working community like Sally is here? Not their business I expect, and they'd be told to keep it that way.
But that doesn't mean that Management or Programming didn't think these drives should be different; they may simply have forgotten they ever said all the other rewards could be Experimentaled. We had that all the time at UO, management thinks one way this week, a different next; I once got bollocked for doing player roleplay supported events, when it was in my written contract that I was expected to do them. My guess then is someone high up said "Here's an idea for a reward, and it can't be Experimentalled", someone cludged in code to allow this new type of object, and no one knew any more that the code to correctly address it elsewhere had never been implimented. Hence the meetings Sally is referring too, now the whole company has to get behind a single position in order to ride out the obvious display of internal dysfunction. I suspect again from experience that the reason we're hearing now that the drives will still not be allowed to be modified is that it's someone very high up or essential who wanted it that way, and so you can't possibly say "This idea was stupid".
At least, not right now; if the public disquiet continues, look for when the feathers are not so ruffled behind the scenes for these drives to be brought in line with all the others, and it repositioned as "Listening to YOU, our beloved customers! We're a listening, loving set of people!"
The gaming industry, especially in dysfunctional companies, is a load of old bobbins.
Well, you can look at it either way.
On the other hand, the devs are arbitrarily keeping players from getting a 3% bonus, which seems petty.
Meanwhile, players aren't so much annoyed at the loss of the 3% bonus as the fact other players did get the bonus. If it had never been possible, it wouldn't have been nearly as much of an issue, but it was, so it is.
The assumption is that they'll appear in tech brokers, the same way the 5s did after a few months.
But if you can't apply the experimental effect to them, then (especially on the 3A and 4A) they're certainly far less worth the hassle.
That doesn't really answer the question, it wasn't -do- they know now, it's -did- they know before, the tense is important.
I asked because it seems like a very strange decision to make (to have two of essentially the same thing operate differently) and the initial reaction to the players asking about it did seem like they were unaware of the way it worked previously.
The difference in the two situations does matter quite a lot, as-
in one scenario, it means that near anything could suddenly change in significant ways altering gameplay, and there would be no explanation beyond "oops" - and that this can happen after multiple months (or perhaps years) of it working one way, without any warning.
In the other scenario, it just means the designers made what seems like a really weird decision, and it was communicated poorly.
This is still "bad" but not nearly as bad as the first scenario.
This is literally exactly how notoriety played out with ground combat as well, so there are now potentially two precedents set for this kind of (from a player perspective) inexplicable rule changes with near zero warning.
It's not about 5% or 8%. It is about inconsistencies that are not needed. Neither for balancing nor for lore reasons. They are simply chosen to avoid fixing of class 3,4 and 6. This is the issue.
You can't finetune (even more range, cooler, more robust) the thing to your liking but the golden class 5 one can? So unlogical.
I wouldn't mind if they removed the experimental effects from my double-engineered 5A FSDs to keep things consistent.
Time-limited benefits and legacy class modules will create a FOMO effect, where people neglect daily life in favor of community goals in a video game. Any player who e.g. gets into the game next Christmas should have access to the same goodies that I once had access to. The Cobra Mk IV should remain a rare exception, not become a rule.
Yeah, as if FDev care about balance or 'power creep'. Not buying it. The experimental adds maybe 3 LY tops to the jumprange. How is that even power creep to begin with? "A trip to Colonia from the bubble now takes 80 minutes instead of 85" UnStOpPaBlE!!!111!
This is all about preventing Customer Service dept. from getting swamped with "I accidentally deleted my 2x ENG effect/module" help requests .
They could just lock out engineering changes (but allow application of an experimental effect - so OP though I dunno), or name the 2x experimental effect ANYTHING BUT AN ORIGINAL ENGINEERING name (put a [+] is all you needed to do), or even just have a warning box popup that announces the irreversible damage you'd be doing. Instead, they decided, in their infinite wisdom, that they would be TOTALLY INCONSISTENT with set precedent, and NOT BOTHER TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN THE CG MESSAGE OR ANYWHERE ELSE before people spent time on the CG without having all the facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
They are probably tied into the UI of the cockpit, but only for the Cobra, if you have a certain paint job, and it would make all Fleet Carriers make a random jump on login.
Yarp. I somewhat expect it to be akin to the "Here's a good idea, let's make players hold the E key down for two seconds for each item they want to loot so they know they're stealing!" walkback they did in one of the Odyssey patches.
Honestly, at this point I'd just bin off this sort of stuff. Creates a pseudo gold rush, the people that missed out get humpy about it, the people that do get it get humpy when it doesn't do what they want, and in order to try to appease people, they end up getting lobbed into tech brokers anyways rendering the "normal" modules useless. (Does anyone buy a standard 5A FSD and then engineer it anymore, when you can just snag one from the tech broker which is far superior once mass manager is added?)
I think it'd be better off to just have the CG rewards be CG rewards, and if you missed out on them tough luck (and I say that as someone who's missed out on a LOT of CG rewards, and use the bejaysus out of the 5A v1.)
- Status