Engineers are progessive series of upgrades vs. one time shop
- Thread starter Cmdr Eagleboy
- Start date
I think Frontier's goal with the new per-module level grind is pretty clear, actually - it provides more stable benefits (that are perhaps better as well) to someone who is just starting out with Engineering, and it also preserves whatever average time goal Frontier has pegged for achieving a higher-end G5 mod. Changing the system to always provide upgrades, without adding time somewhere else, shortens the time to higher-end G5's significantly. I don't agree with Frontier's apparent viewpoint, but I can see why they are doing it. A cheap solution would be a fairly significant credit (or material) cost premium to start at G5 on a new module. I wouldn't like that, but I could accept it, especially if the premium only applied to the first roll.
I have been against the idea of a Broker since people first started asking for one - there is only one way that the Broker actually works well, and you have alluded to it in the quoted text above.
I am hoping that we find ourselves with significantly higher material incomes from activities, because it would support both the new per-module level grind, and the use of the Broker.
If our material incomes don't increase, then there is only one outcome for the Broker, and it's found in the Valley of Tedium and Frustration.
Also - some of you should take the time to read the OP's posts more than once, before responding. It seems pretty clear to me that English is not his primary language (or he is very, very young), and some of you have completely misunderstood what he was trying to say.
Additionally, telling a non-native speaker that they need to frame their argument a certain way is fairly asinine, especially when you could use some work on that yourself.
Riôt
I have been against the idea of a Broker since people first started asking for one - there is only one way that the Broker actually works well, and you have alluded to it in the quoted text above.
I am hoping that we find ourselves with significantly higher material incomes from activities, because it would support both the new per-module level grind, and the use of the Broker.
If our material incomes don't increase, then there is only one outcome for the Broker, and it's found in the Valley of Tedium and Frustration.
Also - some of you should take the time to read the OP's posts more than once, before responding. It seems pretty clear to me that English is not his primary language (or he is very, very young), and some of you have completely misunderstood what he was trying to say.
Additionally, telling a non-native speaker that they need to frame their argument a certain way is fairly asinine, especially when you could use some work on that yourself.
Riôt
Yeah, I agree.
I was on board of the idea of a Mats Broker, back when an Engineers revamp was first officially suggested. But that was alongside the current Engineers process in the context of a quick fix that could be applied whilst the rest of it was sorted out properly, meaning the factors exploited by players in order to feed the process, not Engineers itself.
We are now where we are, and with the landscape moving toward a Mats Broker being included in a new system as it seems to becoming apparant, it now comes down to how that's implemented. If it's thought about holistically, with external factors being the focus of how they effect the Engineers processes, old or new, then it has the potential to be a useful addition. But if the Broker component is just another isolated system thrown at the wall to cover up the existing graffiti, it's going to be an interesting forum post update.
Realising Design Team behaviours to date, I plan to ignore the whole thing if it is to expectations.
The team introducing the new ships should be shouting very loudly about now. Or ensure they all fly very well with standard A-Class modules.
Last edited:
I like the "every roll better than the last" idea they said before. Assuming that mean stats can't get worse I would guess that a "perfect" module would be something around 100-200 rolls at that rate, which although still a lot, would be reasonable. Then with a few weeks of hard work a serious player could have a maxed out ship.
it isn't. its more grind. much more grind for someone like me who tends to roll 1 or 2 G5s per module when i turn up at an engineer.
all more grind just to end up with cookie cutter upgrades by the end of it apparently.
Actually, I would prefer that Frontier just steal (parts of) the Reverse Engineering system from Star Wars Galaxies: Jump to Lightspeed. It was RNG as far as getting the high-end stats for the parts, but the system overall worked really, really well, and I don't remember a lot of complaints about it on the forums.
For reference (Space portions, obviously): http://swg.wikia.com/wiki/Reverse_engineering
I am not advocating the loot drop portion, but rather the ability to save a good roll for each stat on the module that you could then combine into a module that has all of those stats. A tangible end goal, in other words, with a blueprint that you could then use for each successive module of the same type going forward.
That isn't the direction we are going, but I would have been quite happy if Frontier would have done something like this. Grind for the blueprints, yes, but once you have them, there is no more grind for stats (unless you want to try to go for a better blueprint), and you can then enjoy the fruits of your labor when every new ship only needs one roll, and one set of materials, per module.
Riôt
Last edited:
I quite like the way the engineers work right now tbh. The restructuring of the mat requirements was good. 3 for 1 mat drops is good. Even the casino like rolling, I think, is quite fun (now). <When i have spare time and mats I regularly try to improve certain rolls on my main focus ships. But the thing I like the most is the diversity of ships that we get. I love that out there in the galaxy there are crazy weird ships powerful in their own unique way. In fact i want more of this!! FDEV didn't go far enough in my opinion. I want to switch out 4 med hards for a huge, internals for utilities ect. ,for instance, with weird and wonderful, good and bad repercussions for my build. When I heard about the Engineers I genuinely thought i was going to be able strap a T6 fuselage to my FDL for the sh*ts & gigs.
My fear is that we will switch 1 "grind" for another just to end up with nothing because we all have the same. Why not just extend the module ratings to something fixed like A*, A**, A*** in that case.
I just wish they'd leave this 1 alone for a bit.. I think enough dev time has been sunk here and in reality engineers suffers because crucial work hasn't been done elsewhere in game. like all the inanimate text driven npc's.
My fear is that we will switch 1 "grind" for another just to end up with nothing because we all have the same. Why not just extend the module ratings to something fixed like A*, A**, A*** in that case.
I just wish they'd leave this 1 alone for a bit.. I think enough dev time has been sunk here and in reality engineers suffers because crucial work hasn't been done elsewhere in game. like all the inanimate text driven npc's.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not grandfathering no - as that relates to the old system.
Put simply, whether it takes 11.2 rolls on average to be able to craft the first Grade 5 roll or zero rolls the guaranteed improvement feature means that players who are so inclined will roll until the improvements stop - and that'll be at the hard maxima for the module.
I like the principal of Engineers and engineering your ship, back in the day I was a big car modder.
I support the idea of there being 5 grades, this makes sense.
But I just don't get having to roll/buy (whatever) 4 grades you are just going to throw away if it's a G5 you are after.
Maybe it's just semantics or window dressing but if I want a grade 5 mod I'll get a G5 mod thank's I don't want anything else.
I don't mind doing a bunch of stuff for that G5 roll that may add up to exactly the same effort as blowing rolls 1 thru 4 but just please FD don't make me do this meaningless guff because you are too lazy to think of anything else.
I support the idea of there being 5 grades, this makes sense.
But I just don't get having to roll/buy (whatever) 4 grades you are just going to throw away if it's a G5 you are after.
Maybe it's just semantics or window dressing but if I want a grade 5 mod I'll get a G5 mod thank's I don't want anything else.
I don't mind doing a bunch of stuff for that G5 roll that may add up to exactly the same effort as blowing rolls 1 thru 4 but just please FD don't make me do this meaningless guff because you are too lazy to think of anything else.
Last edited:
Certainly a risk, though I think possible mathematical ways around it? Exponential distribution curves for one example.
Each turn iis better than the last but each has a different progression rate and Sandro's statement - that each roll will be better that the last - I think doesn't rule out the possibility of it being just 0.0000000000000001% better. Sandro's statement is still true.
The real diffuculty for me, may be more that engineer mods are skewed in favour of the offense. Defensive mods I think should be easier to obtain. Though even that could be six of one and half dozen of the other unless EVERY mod has some effect on your power distributor.
Last edited:
I don't understand the question being asked in the OP.
There are two statements being made: that people complain that balance is lost in Open and that people want top engineered modules fast and easy. Both of these are true, and both are derived from the simple, clear fact that different tiers of modifications have a very high degree of power between them. Which means that the primary player-to-player interaction, combat, is going to be highly imbalanced when the two opponents have different tiers of modifications, and because the outcome is dictated by the modules and not skill, players will want to reach the top tier as fast as possible to close the gap and reduce that imbalance.
In other words, less players would be concerned about balance and about how fast they max out, if they knew that going against a ship which is more engineered means a 1%-2% handicap. When that handicap becomes 50%-100%, then naturally they're gonna ask for ways to remove it as fast as possible. I don't really see how this can be such a big revelation for someone.
It's FDEV's fault only that this has come to be. "Crafting", as they initially marketed Engineers, should have never been about power creep. It should have been about different ways to use your ship. They painted themselves into a corner by pulling numbers out of a hat, probably to mask the poor mechanics behind the whole acquisition process.
Edit: ok, now that I've read the OP more carefully, I guess the question is quite obvious: choosing between fast or slow progression. Slow progression is of course desired, but considering the impact Engineers has on the multiplayer environment, how it is probably the number 1. reason behind players being pushed to Mobius or Solo, considering how the progression itself is nothing more than a scavenger hunt in-between casino sessions, I can only agree to players asking to min-max their ships as fast as possible.
There are two statements being made: that people complain that balance is lost in Open and that people want top engineered modules fast and easy. Both of these are true, and both are derived from the simple, clear fact that different tiers of modifications have a very high degree of power between them. Which means that the primary player-to-player interaction, combat, is going to be highly imbalanced when the two opponents have different tiers of modifications, and because the outcome is dictated by the modules and not skill, players will want to reach the top tier as fast as possible to close the gap and reduce that imbalance.
In other words, less players would be concerned about balance and about how fast they max out, if they knew that going against a ship which is more engineered means a 1%-2% handicap. When that handicap becomes 50%-100%, then naturally they're gonna ask for ways to remove it as fast as possible. I don't really see how this can be such a big revelation for someone.
It's FDEV's fault only that this has come to be. "Crafting", as they initially marketed Engineers, should have never been about power creep. It should have been about different ways to use your ship. They painted themselves into a corner by pulling numbers out of a hat, probably to mask the poor mechanics behind the whole acquisition process.
Edit: ok, now that I've read the OP more carefully, I guess the question is quite obvious: choosing between fast or slow progression. Slow progression is of course desired, but considering the impact Engineers has on the multiplayer environment, how it is probably the number 1. reason behind players being pushed to Mobius or Solo, considering how the progression itself is nothing more than a scavenger hunt in-between casino sessions, I can only agree to players asking to min-max their ships as fast as possible.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - however when "every roll is better" turns into an imperceptible increase (that would be lost in the rounding when displaying the revised module / ship stats) it will probably turn into a frustrating exercise.
I too expect an asymptotic approach to the hard maximum - here's just one possibility (RNG range = one third of the difference between the current stat and the allowable maximum shifted one ninth "down", i.e. -1/9 to +2/9 from the current position - with a 0.5% minimum increase):
Oh, they could. They could zap every already-rolled mod, reset everyones status with all engineers and zero everyones mat stocks then roll out a completely redesigned engineering system. And pigs will not only fly, they'll hyperjump all the way to colonia.
By gum! Asymptotic .. has to be the word of the day!
Though don't think it should be possible with offensive weaponry, there's another approach, in that the return could level off and then, after some threshold starts to rise again. Then if you were really into it you could be getting into 'experimental engines' territory? There does though have to be some mechanism that makes this an explorer's layout though, I don't think OP weps + shields + 2000m/s top speeds would be a good idea!
Definitely hope FD don't get too hung up on this, they could be developing new game mechanics instead. (Careful what you wish for PvP peeps).
Though don't think it should be possible with offensive weaponry, there's another approach, in that the return could level off and then, after some threshold starts to rise again. Then if you were really into it you could be getting into 'experimental engines' territory? There does though have to be some mechanism that makes this an explorer's layout though, I don't think OP weps + shields + 2000m/s top speeds would be a good idea!
Casual players 'like you' might not care about G5 rolls.
Casual players 'like me' do.
I'm time limited but serious about wanting to see what my ships are capable of.
I completely accept that accessing that level of upgrade should be an acheivement and I've served my time doing what is required.
I've also served my time getting the materials required for the level of upgrades I want - that has been a massive diversion from actually doing what I want to do, and I'm nowhere near fully doing that on the few ships that I own.
I'm deliberately limiting the number of ships I own already because I don't want to play 'collect materials' all the time, I want to play ED.
Engineers is an addon to ED, not the end game.
I'm perfectly prepared to do what is required to experience what it has to offer, so that I can then carry on with the rest of the game with the ships modified the way I want them.
What I'm not prepare to do is sacrifice my entire gameplay experience to play grind the modules.
The new proposal is not 'a nice upgrade path' on the side, it's a tedious material and module grind time sink gating the ships I want.
If implemented as proposed, it'll mean no new ships for me.
In a game about flying ships and discovering their different capabilities, that makes me sad.
Old way was annoying. New way seems to be missing the point . Engineering should be a deeper and more complex layer of Outfitting; it shouldn't be "leveling up" your ship (i.e. Progression). I'm not a fan of these hackneyed attempts to shoehorn Fantasy RPG elements into this game, where Time Spent=Progress.
Biggest gripe with new system is it destroys the potential to experiment with loadouts; right now I can roll a G5 Dirty Drive, take it for a test, and then re-roll a G5 Clean Drive on that same module. I can experiment. With the new system, I can't really do that. Final loadout of mods has to be decided at the very beginning; you work it all out on Coriolis.io or you don't work it out at all.
Key problems:
• New System discourages experimentation, which will lead to even *more* "cookie cutter" builds.
• New System encourages module hoarding, which was already a problem.
• New System adds meaningless time sink to the game where you just have to put in the time but your actions and decisions don't matter.
Frontier: More simulation-inspired play mechanics, please!
Biggest gripe with new system is it destroys the potential to experiment with loadouts; right now I can roll a G5 Dirty Drive, take it for a test, and then re-roll a G5 Clean Drive on that same module. I can experiment. With the new system, I can't really do that. Final loadout of mods has to be decided at the very beginning; you work it all out on Coriolis.io or you don't work it out at all.
Key problems:
• New System discourages experimentation, which will lead to even *more* "cookie cutter" builds.
• New System encourages module hoarding, which was already a problem.
• New System adds meaningless time sink to the game where you just have to put in the time but your actions and decisions don't matter.
Frontier: More simulation-inspired play mechanics, please!
Last edited:
By the new system FD are going to increase the grind and also lock in god-roll advantages that will become unavailable to later upgrades. This cannot be considered good design by anyone or am I missing something?
I personally do not hate the current implementation of engineers in the least.
I actually do like that every single one of my engineered modules is unique in some way, and I do not think that a system that removes this variety element by ensuring that the exact same "god-rolled" module is given to everyone after the same crazy grind done for every single module would be an improvement over the existing system.
I my opinion the main problem with engineers is not the large number of rolls required to get a really good ("god") roll, but the ridiculous length of the time needed to gather enough materials to be able to do that many rolls, due to the scarcity of some unobtanium-like G5 materials (CIF, MEF, EFC, BC, TA, As, Zr, Cd, etc.).
As an example: I use DD5 thrusters on all of my ships. Since I do not have time to get 100s or 1000s of the rare materials needed for that mod (I honestly cannot imagine how some CMDRs can do that), for me the lowest acceptable optimal multiplier value is 135%. Until today the grand total number of DD5 rolls I managed to do was about 200, which was more than enough to reach that minimum for all my 7 ships. Although those 200 rolls were not enough to get a god-roll (>=140%), but at least a dozen were above 135%. The best DD5 mod was that of my Vulture (137% optimal multiplier with a good minimal mass figure I could somehow manage to stay below).
Now that the future of engineers is somewhat uncertain, I thought to myself that maybe it was worth visiting Palin again, so there I went with enough materials for 50 rolls.
The results:
- 26th roll on a 5A engine (Vulture): 137% optimal multiplier, but with an even better minimal mass value than before, and almost 1 MW less power consumption (I still have the previous module, so that one will be good for the FDL).
- 10th roll on a 6A engine (FAS): 140% optimal multiplier with a low minimal mass value, but still a huge improvement overall.
And I still have 14 rolls left.
The only downside of the process was that it took me well over a month to farm all those bloody CIFs from missions (I really hate surface base scanning since the last time, when 10 bases blessed me with a total of 3 CIFs).
So I think the current system would work with a few modifications like:
- easier material farming (+material broker),
- not losing unlock levels if you purchase an experimental effect,
- making possible to change experimental effects without rerolling the base stats.
I actually do like that every single one of my engineered modules is unique in some way, and I do not think that a system that removes this variety element by ensuring that the exact same "god-rolled" module is given to everyone after the same crazy grind done for every single module would be an improvement over the existing system.
I my opinion the main problem with engineers is not the large number of rolls required to get a really good ("god") roll, but the ridiculous length of the time needed to gather enough materials to be able to do that many rolls, due to the scarcity of some unobtanium-like G5 materials (CIF, MEF, EFC, BC, TA, As, Zr, Cd, etc.).
As an example: I use DD5 thrusters on all of my ships. Since I do not have time to get 100s or 1000s of the rare materials needed for that mod (I honestly cannot imagine how some CMDRs can do that), for me the lowest acceptable optimal multiplier value is 135%. Until today the grand total number of DD5 rolls I managed to do was about 200, which was more than enough to reach that minimum for all my 7 ships. Although those 200 rolls were not enough to get a god-roll (>=140%), but at least a dozen were above 135%. The best DD5 mod was that of my Vulture (137% optimal multiplier with a good minimal mass figure I could somehow manage to stay below).
Now that the future of engineers is somewhat uncertain, I thought to myself that maybe it was worth visiting Palin again, so there I went with enough materials for 50 rolls.
The results:
- 26th roll on a 5A engine (Vulture): 137% optimal multiplier, but with an even better minimal mass value than before, and almost 1 MW less power consumption (I still have the previous module, so that one will be good for the FDL).
- 10th roll on a 6A engine (FAS): 140% optimal multiplier with a low minimal mass value, but still a huge improvement overall.
And I still have 14 rolls left.
The only downside of the process was that it took me well over a month to farm all those bloody CIFs from missions (I really hate surface base scanning since the last time, when 10 bases blessed me with a total of 3 CIFs).
So I think the current system would work with a few modifications like:
- easier material farming (+material broker),
- not losing unlock levels if you purchase an experimental effect,
- making possible to change experimental effects without rerolling the base stats.
Last edited:
Sole Hunter
Banned
There's nothing progressive about RNG.
Real progression is when you are guaranteed to be rewarded. Gambling on a successful reward is the illusion of progression. It's a miracle they didn't attach a price tag to be more successful at rolling good stats.
Engineers are a poorly designed mindless grinding feature. A 10 year old could have designed something better.
Real progression is when you are guaranteed to be rewarded. Gambling on a successful reward is the illusion of progression. It's a miracle they didn't attach a price tag to be more successful at rolling good stats.
Engineers are a poorly designed mindless grinding feature. A 10 year old could have designed something better.