Engineering Experimental Effect: Increased Hull Mass for Shield Generators

A legacy class 5 prismatic with 9.7% increased hull mass is sitting in my Cutter and will never go away. For the sake of fairness the current engineering system should introduce an increased hull mass for shield generators as a new experimental effect. An additional 20% would make the following ships profit:

Dolphin, Asp Scout and Type 6 could use a class 2 shield generator.
Challenger and FAS could use a class 3 shield generator.
Type 9 could use a class 4 shield generator.
Cutter and Type 10 could use a class 5 shield generator.

Smaller ships could increase cargo and some otherwise combat focused ships could increase their multi-role capabilities. And the PP community could be happy to haul around 750 tons of forts and fit a decently sized Guardian FSD booster at the same time.
 
I'm not sure this would help. If I want to put in more cargo I just run shieldless (My Cutter is still capable of evading/killing pirates). On some ships the drop in MJ would be so much, you might as well anyway.

Personally my view is that legacy mods should either be removed from the game or left alone as they are now. Changes like this will probably just lead to people wanting engineering changes to every other module to match what legacy mods are capable of. Where would you stop?
 
Last edited:
TBH high cap should also give +10% optimal hull mass because most of the times I got +optimal hull mass I also got +optimal strength. Its a simple fix and should have been done in the first iteration.

I'm not sure this would help. If I want to put in more cargo I just run shieldless (My Cutter is still capable of evading/killing pirates). On some ships the drop in MJ would be so much, you might as well anyway.

Personally my view is that legacy mods should either be removed from the game or left alone as they are now. Changes like this will probably just lead to people wanting engineering changes to every other module to match what legacy mods are capable of. Where would you stop?
Ideally when all legacy stuff is worthless because you can get a better version with the current system. Also if you fly in open you need shields on your cutter and could still get around 4-5k shields which is more than enough to avoid a gank.
 
TBH high cap should also give +10% optimal hull mass because most of the times I got +optimal hull mass I also got +optimal strength. Its a simple fix and should have been done in the first iteration.


Ideally when all legacy stuff is worthless because you can get a better version with the current system. Also if you fly in open you need shields on your cutter and could still get around 4-5k shields which is more than enough to avoid a gank.
Yes, I imagine that had a g5 mod with experimental been equal to or better than any god roll under the previous system, a lot of this would be solved already. We are where we are though and I don't think there would be enough desire for change. The forum might get interesting if there was a change to engineering though.
 
Or they could grow some and remove all legacy stuff from the game.
So how long have you played? It looks like you joined the forum this year, so you could be a reasonably new player with no experience into legacy modules or the old engineering system.

If that is the case, it is easy to throw out this kind of comments without any regards to what issues that could cause... So lest say, FDev did what you suggested....
How would we then address all the potential issues that could arise from this...
Take an explorer, that only have legacy modules on their ship, they are exploring on the edge of the galaxy, and FDev removed all legacy modules, causing a significant negative change to a ships jump range, and this could definitely make a ship stranded, unable to go back... What would your solution to this be?

And this is the most obvious issue with just removing stuff without any thoughts about the consequences. As most engineered ships legacy or not, would in most cases, experience a drop in jump range if the engineered modules would be replaced with stock modules.
 
A legacy class 5 prismatic with 9.7% increased hull mass is sitting in my Cutter and will never go away. For the sake of fairness the current engineering system should introduce an increased hull mass for shield generators as a new experimental effect. An additional 20% would make the following ships profit:

Dolphin, Asp Scout and Type 6 could use a class 2 shield generator.
Challenger and FAS could use a class 3 shield generator.
Type 9 could use a class 4 shield generator.
Cutter and Type 10 could use a class 5 shield generator.

Smaller ships could increase cargo and some otherwise combat focused ships could increase their multi-role capabilities. And the PP community could be happy to haul around 750 tons of forts and fit a decently sized Guardian FSD booster at the same time.
I think we should atleast be able to create the class 5 shields for the Cutter. as there are quite a few players out there having these, and this is one of the optios that I really misses from the old the old engineering. I have my Cutter Cass 5 shield, but none of my friends spent the time to get one, and now they cannot, along with everyone else who missed the opportunity.

If we want to make it a bit more usable on more ships, then perhaps treat it like that regardless of ship, we would be able to put a one class lower shield than what we normally can do, so it would allow us to use this on most ships, and the exception is all ships that can already use class 1 shield. Even if this would be of limited use, there are several engineering options that do not make much sense, and yet they are present...
 
A legacy class 5 prismatic with 9.7% increased hull mass is sitting in my Cutter and will never go away.
Alternatively, make legacy undersized shields more vulnerable to damage to balance out things appropriately.

Similarly, ALL grand fathered weapons/FSDs/Thrusters that go beyond current limits should be suitably nerfed so they are brought into line with current game balance and to encourage conversion to the new system.
 
So how long have you played? It looks like you joined the forum this year, so you could be a reasonably new player with no experience into legacy modules or the old engineering system.

If that is the case, it is easy to throw out this kind of comments without any regards to what issues that could cause... So lest say, FDev did what you suggested....
How would we then address all the potential issues that could arise from this...
Take an explorer, that only have legacy modules on their ship, they are exploring on the edge of the galaxy, and FDev removed all legacy modules, causing a significant negative change to a ships jump range, and this could definitely make a ship stranded, unable to go back... What would your solution to this be?

And this is the most obvious issue with just removing stuff without any thoughts about the consequences. As most engineered ships legacy or not, would in most cases, experience a drop in jump range if the engineered modules would be replaced with stock modules.
Pretty sure the solutions exists.
But as it is now, some of the legacy modules feels like cheating since they provide advantages that are not available to the rest of the player base - which is exactly what cheating does.
 
Pretty sure the solutions exists.
But as it is now, some of the legacy modules feels like cheating since they provide advantages that are not available to the rest of the player base - which is exactly what cheating does.
So that is the issue, you are just Cobra Mk 14 out of stuff you cannot attain... and instead of having any constructive input, on a suggestion to actually remedy one of these issues, just make non helpful comments that does not add to the discussion... you did not even bother to consider what you simply blurted out in envy of I do not have that, so noone else should too.
 
So that is the issue, you are just Cobra Mk 14 out of stuff you cannot attain... and instead of having any constructive input, on a suggestion to actually remedy one of these issues, just make non helpful comments that does not add to the discussion... you did not even bother to consider what you simply blurted out in envy of I do not have that, so noone else should too.
Cobra Mk4 is not an issue - as an exclusive item, it should remain as is.
On the other side, RNGeneering was considered a mistake and was taken care of in the revamp of engineering.
But they did left behind a lot of leftovers instead of doing a proper clean up.

It's not envy - i'm not envious on cheats - because that's exactly what those modules are.
They're providing an unfair advantage that is not obtainable otherwise within the current rule set of the game.
 
This was an issue brought up in a live stream(engineering update) with Sandro Sammarco. He said he was going to adjust things so people could continue to engineer class 5A shield for the Imperial Cutter with the new engineering. Sadly he has left before getting it done, and nobody seemed to care about it any more.
 
Cobra Mk4 is not an issue - as an exclusive item, it should remain as is.
On the other side, RNGeneering was considered a mistake and was taken care of in the revamp of engineering.
But they did left behind a lot of leftovers instead of doing a proper clean up.

It's not envy - i'm not envious on cheats - because that's exactly what those modules are.
They're providing an unfair advantage that is not obtainable otherwise within the current rule set of the game.
But they are not cheats.they where done with the ingame mechanics... that you cannot get one of these now, does not make this into a cheat.
 
And how would one get back all the time and effort put in to putting Class 5 shields on a Cutter?

Bust a deal - face the wheel
 
But they are not cheats.they where done with the ingame mechanics... that you cannot get one of these now, does not make this into a cheat.
It is arguably an exploit therefore arguably a cheat - if it were truly intended then the revamp would have kept such anomalies in the revised balance scale.

It is long overdue for the grand fathered engineering issues to be addressed, but personally I would prefer FD address the mess they made of the exploration mechanics first. In all likely hood, neither will happen based on the current Osterich Manouvres the FD team are pulling.
 
It is arguably an exploit therefore arguably a cheat - if it were truly intended then the revamp would have kept such anomalies in the revised balance scale.
Complete non-sense. Both were FD oversights that they failed to address. Players who earned those engineered modules through legitimate means do not now deserve punishment for the time and effort they spent earning what they obtained.

The question on the table should be whether or not it should be added in as an experimental effect under the current engineering system. It was previously hinted by Sandro that it would be looked at/addressed, but like so much in ED, it has just fallen by the wayside.
 
Top Bottom