Engineers: Reality and Human Nature vs. Design Intent - Why the design Creates Tedium

Chances of hunting through all the drawers to find batteries, nails and other bits of loot as an inevitable part of the process of shooting down some mutants are pretty slim too.

Loot often involves hunting around a bit and there's rarely anything rewarding or skill based about that process in itself.

Meteorites are not normally in craters. Ones big enough to form craters are probably obliterated or buried underground - the smaller ones that fall all over and remain on the surface are what we're finding.

Except in other games, the place you go to get loot, is the same place you go to play the game.

Elite violates this principle. In Elite, you either go play the game...OR you go SHOOT ROCKS INSTEAD. ONE of the TWO. NOT both.

That is the issue. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
Except in other games, the place you go to get loot, is the same place you go to play the game.

Elite violates this principle. In Elite, you either go play the game...OR you go SHOOT ROCKS INSTEAD. ONE of the TWO. NOT both.

That is the issue. Why is this so hard to understand?

Funny, I thought "shooting rocks" was still playing the game... you can't loot rocks for ore and sell or turn it in for missions then?
 
Except in other games, the place you go to get loot, is the same place you go to play the game.

Elite violates this principle. In Elite, you either go play the game...OR you go SHOOT ROCKS INSTEAD. ONE of the TWO. NOT both.

That is the issue. Why is this so hard to understand?

Strange, when I shoot rocks I think I am playing the game. Why do you think otherwise?
 
Strange, when I shoot rocks I think I am playing the game. Why do you think otherwise?

Apparently some have the idea that you can only shoot at other ships to "play the game". :)

Personally, I think there's a metric crap-ton of other activities that can be performed "playing the game"... must be doing it "wrong".
 
Funny, I thought "shooting rocks" was still playing the game... you can't loot rocks for ore and sell or turn it in for missions then?

So you're okay with driving around empty brown dust balls, shooting at rocks, being passed off as actual game play?

No wonder we can't get real content. Thanks for being part of the problem.
 
I keep seeing the sentiment that "engineering should be gradual" being thrown around, and while I completely agree with it -- I'd love to have engineering be a journey both you and your ship embark on together during the course of normal play -- the way it's currently implemented doesn't lend itself to gradual upgrades at all. I'm a relatively casual player. I have a good deal of time to play, but I'm not too bothered about trying to min/max (2-3 rolls per module is fine) or waiting a few weeks or months to get something I want. From that perspective, I see four main reasons why engineering wasn't a gradual process for me, and why the first ship I bothered to engineer at all (outside of FSD range increases) was my "end-game" ship, the Anaconda:

The engineer unlock requirements.
By demanding a large investment of time upfront before you can even start to engineer your ships, you encourage players to similarly front-load their materials gathering process. For example: if I'm already going to be spending 3-4 hours doing something I don't really enjoy (mining) to unlock Ms. Selene Jean, even if done piecemeal (50T here and there between missions) as I did, what does an extra hour or so spent gathering materials matter? Just G5 and be done with it. For me, grades 1-4 only ever seemed like filler. They saw use on my ship, sure, but only temporarily, and only as "accidents" of the process of unlocking grade 5 access for something else. The new beta approach won't magically make grades 1-4 useful in this sense; it'll just make the filler even fill-ier. Why not grant immediate access to grade 1 once you learn of an engineer and let number of tons mined or light-years traveled or Kamitra cigars delivered or what-not progressively unlock the higher ranks instead of simply the number of rolls made per grade? At least then I can go grab an armor or HRP upgrade for my new Eagle or Viper right-away without mining a single ton, even if it's only G1 for now. Once I get a bigger ship that's capable of mining more than one or two tons at a time, I can come back and grab a G2 or G3. Then, when I get my really big ship that can fit all those collector limpets and prospector limpets and mining lasers, then I can go back for the G5. See: gradual. (At the very least, for the love of god, make the rare cargo requirements multiples of the max you can carry. Nothing's worse that having to make that last trip for a measly 2 tons of cigars, especially if you have a cargo hold that could fit 128!).

Engineers are too few and are spread too far out around the galaxy.
As it stands, engineering isn't a "well, if I'm going to be in the area anyway" kind of event. It's a conscious decision: "I'm going to do some engineering today." It's something you dedicate a chunk of time to. Again, since they're going out of their way to engineer, deviating from what they would otherwise be doing, you encourage players to front-load the materials gathering process. Think of it this way: if the nearest grocery store is an hour's drive away, are you going to drive all the way out there everyday to pick up supplies for just the next day? No! You'll go maybe once a week, and you'll pick up enough for the entire week. That's engineering as implemented. Being able to remote engineer may help, but if it's only ever a single grade at a time that can be pinned, and especially if remote engineering doesn't count towards unlocking the next grade (haven't played the beta, so this is all hearsay on my part), then what's the point? You'll either quickly find yourself having to head back to pin the next grade, or worse, you'll be wasting materials. I suppose one solution would be to "remote engineer all the things!" but why bother having engineers or engineer bases at all? Instead, create more engineers! You can't tell me that in a galaxy with trillions of people, that only one or two are capable of performing these upgrades. Put them in hubs: a couple Alliance hubs, a couple Imperial hubs, a couple Federal hubs, an independent hub, a Colonia hub, a Pleiades hub, you name it! Give each hub a focus, but make sure there's enough blueprint variety in each to cover all the roles. Perhaps for any particular module, every hub has someone who can do grades 1-3, half of the hubs have someone who can do grade 4, and only one or two has someone capable of top-of-the-line grade 5 mods. Back to the grocery store analogy, now you have several grocery stores to choose from. The one with the absolute best produce may be several kilometers away, but the one down the street's is good enough, and they've got the best bread. That's what I'd like to see engineering become: a bunch of nearby engineers you can visit whenever the mood strikes you and where you can get anything you want upgraded, but not always to its highest potential; for that, you'll have to travel.

You throw away progress when moving up the ship tiers.
This is why I never really bothered to engineer anything other than FSD range increases until I had my Anaconda. Each time I moved up to another ship tier, I was able to recover most of the credits I'd spent on the previous ship's hull in order to help fund the next. I was also able to sell off my lower class modules to pay for the new, higher class ones. If I had engineered a bunch of them, I'd be effectively throwing away materials and the time spent gathering those materials by selling them. This gets worse in the new system: not only am I throwing away the 2-3 rolls I made at the grade I wanted, I'm also throwing away all the previous rolls needed to get the module to that grade in the first place. In many cases you can re-use the lower class modules such as power plants and distributors, but that's not always possible or desirable or effective. I suppose it depends on your play style how much this effects you. If you like to collect ships and don't sell the old ones, then it's probably not a big deal. I tend to stick to a single ship at a time, though. Now that I'm flush with credits, I've been buying up some of my old ones, but I don't really fly them much. I think I'd have been much more willing to engineer earlier on if I could transfer over my progress somehow to the higher class, even if at a cost (grade X turns into grade X-1 for example).
 
Last edited:
So you're okay with driving around empty brown dust balls, shooting at rocks, being passed off as actual game play?

No wonder we can't get real content. Thanks for being part of the problem.

It's not "being passed off as actual game play" it IS part of the overall game play. You're part of the problem- thinking only YOUR style of game play is exclusive.

Perhaps maybe when you "wake up" one of these days you'll realize that shooting ships isn't all there is to do in Elite: Dangerous. Some people explore, others mine, some pew-pew and others even do all of the above and more.
 
It's not "being passed off as actual game play" it IS part of the overall game play. You're part of the problem- thinking only YOUR style of game play is exclusive.

Perhaps maybe when you "wake up" one of these days you'll realize that shooting ships isn't all there is to do in Elite: Dangerous. Some people explore, others mine, some pew-pew and others even do all of the above and more.

Very much this. It is part of the overall gameplay, but I do think that we need more reasons to go to planets and shoot the rocks instead of just for engineering. People keep saying that there isn't enough content in the game. That is fundamentally not true. There is a loads, but the biggest issue I see is that some of the tools to interact with the content is somewhat simplistic (trade is fixed in my view for the Q1 update). The reasons why we do the content is not that great. Not enough consequences to the actions we do (some are getting fixed with the C&P system) and the only place where there are loads of tools (combat) the actual mechanics are a bit meh (combat zones and res sites).

I still love playing the game and on the whole is is good, but I am not blind to the issues it has. If some of these can be fixed (we know that mining and exploration is coming in 7-8 months) then that will be good. But we do need the other areas to be looked at.

The megaship interactions are a good step in the right direction, they need added to other areas of the game, especially for things like the planetary assaults and other installations.
 

Stealthie

Banned
...fact of the matter is, if G5 mats are outside people’s loops, even the lesser materials are outside most people’s gameplay loops. So your argument makes very little sense.

That would seem to be the main fallacy in your argument.

G5 mat's and data definitely are within most people's "gameplay loop".

The only data I've ever specifically searched for is CIF, MEF and DWEs.
I currently have roughly a dozen of those in total.

However, in the last couple of weeks - in preparation for the arrival of the mat' broker - I've stockpiled a total of 270 G5 data simply by scanning ships and wakes whenever I remember to.

Equally, I've been making the effort to stop off at HGE and EE USSs, as well as hoovering up G5 mat's while mining and scavenging and I've now got around 600 G5 mat's.

You can't throw a rock, in ED, without hitting a source of G5 data or mat's.

*EDIT*

I gotta say, stockpiling G5 mat's/data is seriously cramping my style when it comes to gathering mat's for specific upgrades but I'm hoping it'll pay off in the end. :p
 
Last edited:
The new beta approach won't magically make grades 1-4 useful in this sense; it'll just make the filler even fill-ier. Why not grant immediate access to grade 1 once you learn of an engineer and let number of tons mined or light-years traveled or Kamitra cigars delivered or what-not progressively unlock the higher ranks instead of simply the number of rolls made per grade?

+1, great post overall.
 
Very much this. It is part of the overall gameplay, but I do think that we need more reasons to go to planets and shoot the rocks instead of just for engineering. People keep saying that there isn't enough content in the game. That is fundamentally not true. There is a loads, but the biggest issue I see is that some of the tools to interact with the content is somewhat simplistic (trade is fixed in my view for the Q1 update). The reasons why we do the content is not that great. Not enough consequences to the actions we do (some are getting fixed with the C&P system) and the only place where there are loads of tools (combat) the actual mechanics are a bit meh (combat zones and res sites).

I still love playing the game and on the whole is is good, but I am not blind to the issues it has. If some of these can be fixed (we know that mining and exploration is coming in 7-8 months) then that will be good. But we do need the other areas to be looked at.

The megaship interactions are a good step in the right direction, they need added to other areas of the game, especially for things like the planetary assaults and other installations.

Agree completely. Activities overall have plenty of room to be thoroughly expanded- especially in the case of shooting rocks and so forth. There's no reason as to why they can't be.

I'd love to see more Exploration-based activities get some love (geological/biological surveying, etc.) and at some point I'm sure they will. I'm so fed up with the attitudes that this game always has to be about shooting other ships being the ONLY focus of this game- some need to broaden their Horizons (pun intended) a bit and see the bigger picture.
 
It's not "being passed off as actual game play" it IS part of the overall game play. You're part of the problem- thinking only YOUR style of game play is exclusive.

Perhaps maybe when you "wake up" one of these days you'll realize that shooting ships isn't all there is to do in Elite: Dangerous. Some people explore, others mine, some pew-pew and others even do all of the above and more.

And NONE of those people who only do SOME things, get to use Engineering reliably. But go ahead, keep Defending bad game design.
 
Please use analogies you actually know about. As a PC enthusiest and overclocker, I found this post very painful to read. It's obvious you don't know what your talking about.

As someone who has both done basic enthusiast level overclocking in the past (that was back with AMD Athlons 10ish years ago though) and has a close friend who is fairly into it competitively (he does LN2 and cherry-picking components, but doesn't often delve beyond that), I do generally know about overclocking. The basic tweaking of BIOS settings only get you so far and even with decent cooling and some modest voltage increases you can't do that much; to get further you need to look into replacing components and manually shorting out safety features (you would be surprised at how many motherboards have the highest voltage settings hidden behind a soldering iron). If the overclockers had access to more resources, they would probably be using all sorts of other fancy kit to cherry pick components and make modifications, but they don't generally have access to the millions of pounds that it would all cost.

The point I was making with the analogy is that G5 engineering an entire ship isn't just some basement dweller tweaking a few settings, it's not even making a few workshop tweaks to the hardware and cooling - it's literally getting together a dozen the best and greatest experts in the entire galaxy (with their entire teams and all their specialist hardware to help) to tweak each and every part of your ship to perfection. Sure, 99% of overclockers might be happy enough with sticking a larger cooler on a setup and tweaking BIOS settings, another 0.9999% would be happy enough to settle for LN2/CO2 cooling and whatever other potentially invasive modifications they and their small team of like-minded friends can come up with; but if there were to be someone who had effectively limitless resources and the contacts to make use of said resources, they would achieve even more. Even a team of regular professional overclockers with their LN2 setups and Intel sponsorships would only be G2-3 by comparison.

Or are you telling me that someone with a budget of £94 million would neither get better results nor implement more invasive modifications than the regular team of competition-goers with their £10,000 budget?
 
And NONE of those people who only do SOME things, get to use Engineering reliably. But go ahead, keep Defending bad game design.

And where's your game that rivals the level of what ED has achieved so far, hmm? Would love to see your comparison as to "good" game design.

Criticize all you like- you've no significant accomplishment to compare to it. Easy to criticize someone else's work when you've nothing to show in comparison.
 
I took another Re-Set and grabbed up an aChief. I know what I want, so it's a breeze to get set up. I ran over to The Dweller to get this thing souped up. I re-set because on the previous save I made the mistake of starting with a Module and ranking it to g5 and moving on to the next. Nope. Not enough Iron to even get close. I don't think that points to anything other than how 100 irons compares to maxing out a dozen or more Modules. There is no useful information coming from that data. The experience did lead me to what I thought was an interesting experiment.

I decided to start from scratch with a new save. Get outfitted and spread the 100 Irons, out evenly, over the modules I intended to upgrade. In the end I choose the 15 modules, including weapons, that were what I see as combat focused. That meant I could spend 6 Iron per module. Saving one each for a Special Effect, that left me 5 rolls per module. I have 9 to spare. I see no benefit in throwing them on anywhere right now. Once I find a place to trade for some more, I'll use the left overs on Scoops, Sens, and landing gear I guess.

What I got to was each Module at r3, and all well into or capped in r3, and each with my favored special effect. While at first I kind of scoffed at not having enough mats to go all g5, but I found the ship to be quite capable. Forgiving for the sake of comparison the aChief's generally recognized faults, the improvement I found in the ship was considerable. With just 5 rolls at each Mod I was able to gain more than half the Engineers maximum increases. Average range for any module is in the 75% of completing r3. I also saw the numbers needed to get just one module to r5. That was rough, especially towards the end of r5, where I would often miss a wheel spin looking in the wrong place.

But maybe that's the point. The average player putting in the average amount of effort will find real success and improvement in 5 or 6 rolls per module. That sounds good. While those striving for the top numbers have a true task on their hands. That sounds good too. There should be some heights that many players will turn away from. Leaving room for the dedicated to hone their builds. I have to say that the changes in the Beta 2 have done nothing but improve the Engineers as a feature. Even with just the fact that each roll is a guaranteed improvement this is a win, but now we get to choose special effects, and that they have expanded to cover all mods is just gravy.

Hmmm Gravy.

Note: This was cut an pasted from a Beta thread, but I think it is relevant here, and I have already Spell-Checked it.
 
So you're okay with driving around empty brown dust balls, shooting at rocks, being passed off as actual game play?

Isn't "Shooting at rocks" the end point of a long chain of processes that brings you to that points...exploring systems to identify the right kind of planet...scanning planets to find one with the right material content...identifying surface areas likely to be productive...then using the wave scanner to locate target points...
Its a "treasure hunt" yes...but not as simplistic as you imply (unless you short cut the process and merely google system/planet/location to go to...in which case you've only yourself to blame if its "boring" - you've taken the HUNT out of Treasure Hunt)
 
And where's your game that rivals the level of what ED has achieved so far, hmm? Would love to see your comparison as to "good" game design.

Criticize all you like- you've no significant accomplishment to compare to it. Easy to criticize someone else's work when you've nothing to show in comparison.

Oh, now it's the "you have to make games to criticize them" fallacy.

You people really DO have a script.

My problem with ED is that it tries to pass off soulless grind as content. Fdev has not even TRIED for an Engaging sim beyond the flight model. And why should they? People are willing enough to defend and excuse the poor excuses for content received so far. So why bother.

We get CLOSER to Star Citizen fake game territory with every update, when the opposite should be true.

Hopefully things change this year. Hopefully, the game sees new things to do. New ways to engage. That's my hope. I don't have much faith, but I hope.
 
So you're okay with driving around empty brown dust balls, shooting at rocks, being passed off as actual game play?

No wonder we can't get real content. Thanks for being part of the problem.

Let's try that again from a less incessantly sour angle

"So you're okay with exploring planets as actual game play?"

Yes. Yes I am.
 
Oh, now it's the "you have to make games to criticize them" fallacy.

You people really DO have a script.

My problem with ED is that it tries to pass off soulless grind as content. Fdev has not even TRIED for an Engaging sim beyond the flight model. And why should they? People are willing enough to defend and excuse the poor excuses for content received so far. So why bother.

We get CLOSER to Star Citizen fake game territory with every update, when the opposite should be true.

Hopefully things change this year. Hopefully, the game sees new things to do. New ways to engage. That's my hope. I don't have much faith, but I hope.

Always easier to quarterback someone else's decisions from the sidelines. You make overarching conclusions ("bad game design") based on a small subset of things that could be improved. Yes, I do call you out. Start a KS and accomplish anything remotely close to what FD has over the course of time, and I'll totally value what you have to say about "game design". Until then, your criticism is the equivalent of pure noise and nothing else. (soulless)

I don't "defend" soulless content. I just don't view the content the same way you do- you have the idea that certain content is soulless, and I do not.

It's really quite simple- I see value where you do not. I can't change your perception- nor do I want to. If you want to go on believing that the game has no value then that's your right.

Meanwhile there are plenty others who do not view it the same way, will continue to engage in this game, and look forward to future content and what it holds.
 
Last edited:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Blackcompany again.

Oh, now it's the "you have to make games to criticize them" fallacy.

You people really DO have a script.

My problem with ED is that it tries to pass off soulless grind as content. Fdev has not even TRIED for an Engaging sim beyond the flight model. And why should they? People are willing enough to defend and excuse the poor excuses for content received so far. So why bother.

We get CLOSER to Star Citizen fake game territory with every update, when the opposite should be true.

Hopefully things change this year. Hopefully, the game sees new things to do. New ways to engage. That's my hope. I don't have much faith, but I hope.

I also hope.

Through editorial. It's humanity's last refuge apparently.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom