Engineers Possibly too much over lap between modification ranks.(To Devs)

[Sashenka]

This has my vote.

I also can't see how it wasn't designed like this from the start. Oh well, I really hope they revisit the RNG, as of now, it is way too random.

 

[thorn-]

You've just buffed the maximum jump range from 45% increase to 70% increase, though.

Yep, sure did. All the more compelling upgrade, in exchange for the time required.

 

[myrr mac]

oh hey.

you might like this example of an average 4, being "upgraded" to a lvl 5.

Burned me out. Might be back, but this is it for me for now. 20 hours down the proverbial drain. (The polonium...)

http://imgur.com/7xLRiux


@brian of ardagh

I d put the higher variance at the high end, or keep them same sized. I dont think it makes sense to put such a low variance at the very top. Should still be worth it to keep rolling the level 5 recipe, as something to do. Just should always be better than a 4.

 

[who?]

Looking at Inara for the FSD upgrade and optimised mass the ranges are currently:

Grade 1 - 00% to 04% <-- I think this should start at 1%
Grade 2 - 03% to 14% <-- This is too large of a gap and overlaps grade 1 so you could see a downgrade.
Grade 3 - 08% to 25% <-- This is much too large of a range and has a large overlap.
Grade 4 - 11% to 35% <-- This has a very large overlap and it's range is even worse than the last grade.
Grade 5 - 15% to 44% <-- The overlap between grade 4 and 5 here is enormous meaning there's a very large chance you'll roll a downgrade.

To me as grade goes up the range should decrease, you are supposed to be getting a better, higher quality, precision upgrade. The ranges here are just the opposite.

I would do this:
Grade 1 - 01% to 14% <-- 13% range
Grade 2 - 15% to 25% <-- 10% range
Grade 3 - 26% to 33% <-- 7% range
Grade 4 - 34% to 39% <-- 5% range
Grade 5 - 40% to 44% <-- 4% range

Are those Inara figures just for the primary effects, or do they also take into consideration the secondary effects?

I'm surprised the overlap is so large; but I'd guess it makes slightly more sense if the secondary effects are already included. If not, then YIKES! Imagine going from a 35% Grade 4 upgrade - possibly with a further secondary increase - all the way down to a 15% Grade 5 - possibly with a further secondary decrease.

I would not be a happy bunny if I got that sequence of rolls. (4 rabbit's feet and still no luck?)

 

[Eminor]

Agree in principle to the OP. Bottom line, most people don't want to invest time and effort and get no reward for something - or even end up with a worse component - that's just painful.
Some of the suggestions above avoid (or reduce) that happening, but also leave the RNG element in there. Sounds good to me...

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

Are those Inara figures just for the primary effects, or do they also take into consideration the secondary effects?

I'm surprised the overlap is so large; but I'd guess it makes slightly more sense if the secondary effects are already included. If not, then YIKES! Imagine going from a 35% Grade 4 upgrade - possibly with a further secondary increase - all the way down to a 15% Grade 5 - possibly with a further secondary decrease.

I would not be a happy bunny if I got that sequence of rolls. (4 rabbit's feet and still no luck?)

The Inara figures are just the primary effects, just like you'll see in the initial blueprint I think.

 

[Flavourless]

I think the system is fine.
The average improvement for any level is always higher than that of a lower one and lower than a higher one.
When you push the limits of an upgrade (and they are all higher than the original manufacturers can provide), you should expect a bigger variation of possible results (including bad ones) due to the difficulty involved with the mod.

If you get a great upgrade at a lower level you should be very happy rather than thinking that your chances of improving again at a higher level are reduced.

Imagine going from a 35% Grade 4 upgrade - possibly with a further secondary increase - all the way down to a 15% Grade 5

This is a prime example.
You might be happy with 35% on L5 (where the max is 45%) - but you should be even happier if you achieve that on a L4.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

I d put the higher variance at the high end, or keep them same sized. I dont think it makes sense to put such a low variance at the very top. Should still be worth it to keep rolling the level 5 recipe, as something to do. Just should always be better than a 4.

I can see those as valid suggestions. I just see the variance as if it were tolerance, if I'm working on getting a grade 5 with all the requirements that entails, I'd want a better guarantee at a good roll. I can see the greater variance as providing variety amongst builds.

I can imagine Engineer shopping as an alternative, a greater variance but a lower cost, different blueprints. Multiple engineers do FSD range upgrades but with different variances, slightly different requirements and experience demands. Right now we have multiple Engineers that do FSD range upgrades but they all have the same blueprints which to me is a bit baffling.

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

I think the system is fine.
The average improvement for any level is always higher than that of a lower one and lower than a higher one.
When you push the limits of an upgrade (and they are all higher than the original manufacturers can provide), you should expect a bigger variation of possible results (including bad ones) due to the difficulty involved with the mod.

If you get a great upgrade at a lower level you should be very happy rather than thinking that your chances of improving again at a higher level are reduced.


This is a prime example.
You might be happy with 35% on L5 (where the max is 45%) - but you should be even happier if you achieve that on a L4.

But if you get a 35% on a L4 why would you stop and not try for a L5 at 45%? With the amount of overlap you are statistically likely to get lower levels at L5 than the 35% L4. The lower bounds on L4 and L5 is only 4% (11% vs. 15%).