Scaled reduction of G1 to G5 engineering on weapons, shields and powerplants

[tolm]

Again I think I might be misunderstanding you. Are you saying currently nobody uses ships for roles, they just use 1 ship and swap modules? If this is what you are saying you are absolutely wrong. Or are you saying in your proposed idea everybody has 1 ship and they just swap modules around?

Prefabbed ship idea is awful. It places all the ship balancing on FDev, and then the tantrums begin. Ya, I have played enough PvE/PvP games to know how that turns out. And yes, people will figure out pretty quick the "best ship in class" for each major activity.

Also, a huge part of the fun is building your own custom ship. Pretty sure 80% of players don't want that taken away. Just a guess, but from all the positive discussions about ship building... its a huge element of the player experience.

Agreed - designing ships is huge fun and a massive part of the game for me. I tried having a “do everything“ ship but realistically having specific ships for specific roles works much better and it’s more fun to have variety!

So, I have a mining Corvette which - yeh - it’s also packing two C4 Beams but, y’know, it’s not really kitted out for combat. Freaking hilarious when a wing of NPC Vultures think they’re getting an easy payday, though.

I also have a Krait MkII for cargo mission running with some decent weapons but average speed and shields which can defend itself against some pirates and is okay in a HIRES for a bit of fun but nothing more.

My Krait Phantom is for combat with decent shields and weapons and engineered thrusters for high speed / agility. Good for HAZRES and maybe dangerous and below assassination missions. When I was running Elite assassinations I had my ‘vette configured for combat, though probably still pretty tame by some standards.

And then another Phantom for my much delayed exploration career...

If all of those had been “off the shelf” with no thinking on my part, no unlocking/choosing engineering effects to use, etc ... so much less fun, IMO.

 

[znôrt]

This would be a massive dumbing down of the game. Pretty sure this idea would lose about 80% of the current player base.

i don't think "collect insane quantities of items "a" through "z" to give a straight boost to your ship. oh, btw, items "x" and "y" are bugged and don't spawn, so we bring you a material trader. have fun collecting" can be dumbed down very much.

for the record, that was intended to be irony. i agree, modules aren't the problem. bat crazy modifiers are.

the module system is just fine, as is the ship model (heat/power/weight/etc). it's the ridiculous values that render that model moot to boot, and then actually induce less variation because there are obvious choices for most modules. the artificial fragmentation only tries to hide this fact without any success.

the proliferation of collectibles, though, is just as lame as it can be. and here is where i can see where gp comes from, namely making the mess at least more accessible. my approach would be selling those modifications at any station for a few credits. this would enable players to experiment and see the true picture. if then the game has still any merit (which i think it does) then no doubt they would go about performing all these "activities" they're expected to be performing just for fun.

engineers caters to hoarders, completionists and spreadsheet lovers, that's the whole mystery. which would be fine if it didn't spoil a central aspect of the game, namely ship balance and compromise (which is what op is trying to address).

i say get rid of them. and the modules. just reset them all overnight, without warning, send complaints to /dev/null (i think frontier has that part automated already) or hand out cobra 4s. end of story. once you get used to your old drives and jump ranges again you'll see the game was much more fun before. before engineers complicated everything to add actually nothing of substance, i mean.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Problem:

Engineering makes the game unbalanced and severely affects a lot of related parts of the game in a negative way. Examples:

Guardian modules:

Cannot be engineered, but advantages are eclipsed by G1 > G5 engineering. So they are next to useless except for real edge cases. Outcome: people don't use them bar the FSD booster.

Security:

I can tank security easily, meaning I can ignore security levels. I can kill anything with impunity even in High security systems and brush off ATR- which is wrong. Outcome: engineering allows ships that can break crime and punishment, with knock on effects for the BGS.

Tech broker modules:

Can't be engineered, but advantages again eclipsed by G1 > G5 on regular weapons. Outcome: no-one uses them.

Long range lasers allowing people to snipe from long ranges, making fights silly.

Game balance between Horizons and non-Horizons (Core) players- G5 engineering splits the playerbase with one half being impossibly powerful, while the other weak in comparison. From what is listed stat wise 50% of players have Horizons.

Engineering takes away hard choices- it removes considerations on power, heat and other subtle nuances ships had. Engineering does have a place but it should not make everything viable all of the time.

Suggestion:

What I suggest is that engineering is rebalanced for offensive, defensive and powerplant modules, while engine and range based engineering is kept. Lightweight modifications on everything are kept as they are (these would be balanced via powerplant output).

What I'd love to see is an almost reversal between the applied experimental effect and the G1 to G5 effects, in that the experimental provides the 'meat' of the engineering perk, and the G1 - G5 provides an additional boost.

Weapon G5 effects for increased power, range, efficiency are scaled back to between G1 to G2 levels maximum.

All shield, shield cell banks, shield booster effects are drastically reduced down to G1 levels.

Hull reinforcement packages and armour are reduced down to G2 max.

Powerplant overcharging is dialed back to G1 max. The Guardian powerplant + distributor should be seen as a better single upgrade while engineering + experimental provides a greater spectrum of tuning. Outcome: you can't have ships with everything running- meaning more design choices are required. It will also make low power shields more important, as well as making G1 to G4 engineering valuable (i.e. you are engineering for a role and not mindlessly going G5 on everything).

Make power saving, heat reduction more important: in a power starved engineering 'world' these effects will be enablers.

Legacy modules:

These are kept until destruction, where you then have to craft using the new rules. So people far away from anyone exploring won't be affected until a star or high G planet kills them.

Considerations:

Outside C + P NPCs and ATR, 'new style' combat zones might need to have NPCs dialled back slightly (since they are considered 'bullet sponges')

I'm still going through trying to unpick the power creep mess Elite Dangerous is in- how this would affect PvP, Thargoid combat etc so I've missed out loads of edge case problems and consequences (such as 'meta' builds).

All good apart from the legacy rule. Just remove the upgrades for any offensive or defensive equipment and give the player the materials to craft a new top tier module of the same type.

 

[amigacooke]

Its therapy. I've redesigned Powerplay about ten times now.

Well somebody has to, and engineering.

What's disappointing, is the difference between what Frontier say they're going to do and what they actually do.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well somebody has to, and engineering.

What's disappointing, is the difference between what Frontier say they're going to do and what they actually do.

I kind of get sometimes why they do something, but yes it rustles my jimmies when whats needed translates into something silly.

FD have forgotten that the game needs balance badly, when each patch they issue should be tweaking stuff. It also puzzles me why they don't tell us this either in the patch notes.

 

[amigacooke]

FD have forgotten that the game needs balance badly

Frontier have nailed balance badly, it's balance good they're having trouble with

 

[Drelthar]

I like it, except the legacy ruling. They have to go for such a huge power difference, seriously.

Agree.

Make it replace the engineering on next dock.

 

[Hank]

I agree with the majority of the OP. When engineering was included for weapons, I went on strike for months before I bought Horizons and it was months after that before I visited Ms. Farseer. Weapons engineering has driven a huge wedge into the player community. just my opinion of course

Now they've hammered another wedge into the community with these FCs. Why introduce content that was always intended for only a small percentage of the player base (?). I have lost a lot of my enthusiasm for ED the past month and nearly all my respect for FDev. I'm looking/ researching what will be my next space sim; and I'm still looking.

GL HF

 

[Frenotx]

When FDev decided the best way to rebalance overpowered engineering was to grandfather all old modules in, then make new engineering so powerful as to make them obsolete, they made it clear they either have no interest in, or capacity to create, a balanced system.

 

[Morbad]

While I agree that weapons, shields, and powerplants are an issue, focusing on them is too narrow, and could not in and of itself, restore balance.

The changes to engines and distributors was just as disruptive to combat balance, and pretty much everything else, including jump ranges, has been problematic in some way as well.

 

[AdmiralXanos]

While I agree that weapons, shields, and powerplants are an issue, focusing on them is too narrow, and could not in and of itself, restore balance.

But those are definitely the main offenders, so it would be a good start.

The changes to engines and distributors was just as disruptive to combat balance, and pretty much everything else, including jump ranges, has been problematic in some way as well.

distributers are also a good candidate, being that it allows ships to perma boost. (However I'd remove boosting altogether and replace it with an afterburner that builds heat and drains capacitor instead but that's a different thread) anyway back on topic, jump range is not out of balance, you have to usually give up a lot to max out a ships range, the same with speed on thrusters if anything id just add a little more power consumption to thrusters. But that's my experience with it, I cant heavyweight everything and still be max speed or have max jump range.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Has Frontier ever acted on ANY of your suggestions? This is not a commentary on the quality of your suggestions, but rather the futility of suggesting.

Let a cmdr dream!!!!!!

 

[Morbad]

jump range is not out of balance, you have to usually give up a lot to max out a ships range, the same with speed on thrusters if anything id just add a little more power consumption to thrusters. But that's my experience with it, I cant heavyweight everything and still be max speed or have max jump range.

A ~500 ton FDL in the current game can boost at ~560m/s. A 420 ton FDL before Engineering topped out at 406m/s. This is a huge difference, with significant implications to networking/latency compensation, combat ranges, and more.

Even jump distances have logistical, strategic, and tactical considerations, that have become less relevant as they've grown.

 

[RamirezKurita]

There wouldn't be a best in class for most activities, unless you make such a ship available. Every ship could be specifically loaded to be poor to mediocre at most activities and excel at one or two. Forcing players to shuffle ships. Each balanced positive to a ship's loadout can be carefully selected to have a desired negative.

What's eliminated, is the player being able to shift those negatives into non-existence or into something they dont care about while retaining all the positives.

This forces the player to be strategic in which ship they pick for a given mission ..since it wont be great at everything. And placing the availability of these variants behind specific barriers means players will have to invest in getting to know the BGS and factions in order to find the variant that they want ...which may be rare or even unknown given the number of factions out there. Players may have to compromise in what ships they can afford to get and how many they have in total ... further making such decisions matter to their overall game because they wont be able to have everything and do everything at once. which is good for gameplay.

If you end up having super specialised ships that excel at particular activities but suck at all others, that doesn't give player choice, it takes viable choices away from the player. Sure, players might end up using a greater variety of ships as they switch between activities, but that's not by choice but instead by mechanical necessity as each ship can only do a single thing.

To use one of my classic examples, let's say players have access to a specialised freighter, a specialised fighter and a specialised explorer. You might think that you have a choice between 3 ships, right? Wrong. You only have a single ship as a choice, as the other two will always be useless for whatever you are planning. If you trade, then the only option is the freighter. If you are fighting, then you use the fighter. If you want to travel outside the bubble, you take the explorer. You don't have a choice, the choice is made for you by your current activity.

However, consider if the three options were a combat freighter, a militarised scout and a long-range delivery ship. Same number of ships, yet we now have a choice for each of the three main activities. Combat pilots can choose between the nimble scout or the mighty combat freighter, traders can choose between the cavernous combat freighter and the fast delivery ship, explorers can choose between the military scout and the delivery ship.

Ideally, a player asking "I want to perform activity X, what's the best ship for the job?" should provoke in-depth discussion about different tradeoffs and edge cases for a variety of different options, rather than a simple "Y ship is the best at activity X" statement.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

All good apart from the legacy rule. Just remove the upgrades for any offensive or defensive equipment and give the player the materials to craft a new top tier module of the same type.

No, that's too generous. They can't give out free mats for the people they screw over.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

i don't think "collect insane quantities of items "a" through "z" to give a straight boost to your ship. oh, btw, items "x" and "y" are bugged and don't spawn, so we bring you a material trader. have fun collecting" can be dumbed down very much.

for the record, that was intended to be irony. i agree, modules aren't the problem. bat crazy modifiers are.

the module system is just fine, as is the ship model (heat/power/weight/etc). it's the ridiculous values that render that model moot to boot, and then actually induce less variation because there are obvious choices for most modules. the artificial fragmentation only tries to hide this fact without any success.

the proliferation of collectibles, though, is just as lame as it can be. and here is where i can see where gp comes from, namely making the mess at least more accessible. my approach would be selling those modifications at any station for a few credits. this would enable players to experiment and see the true picture. if then the game has still any merit (which i think it does) then no doubt they would go about performing all these "activities" they're expected to be performing just for fun.

engineers caters to hoarders, completionists and spreadsheet lovers, that's the whole mystery. which would be fine if it didn't spoil a central aspect of the game, namely ship balance and compromise (which is what op is trying to address).

i say get rid of them. and the modules. just reset them all overnight, without warning, send complaints to /dev/null (i think frontier has that part automated already) or hand out cobra 4s. end of story. once you get used to your old drives and jump ranges again you'll see the game was much more fun before. before engineers complicated everything to add actually nothing of substance, i mean.

Amen.

 

[AdmiralXanos]

A ~500 ton FDL in the current game can boost at ~560m/s. A 420 ton FDL before Engineering topped out at 406m/s. This is a huge difference, with significant implications to networking/latency compensation, combat ranges, and more.

Even jump distances have logistical, strategic, and tactical considerations, that have become less relevant as they've grown.

We also have Vipers that can do 900m/s, a connection error will rubber band a ship going 100 or 1000 that's not going to change. The logistics side i can see how it would disrupt tactics and such but the game's economy needs its own overhaul to sort out the basics of supply and demand before diving into the implications of ship ranges.

 

[AdmiralXanos]

We also have Vipers that can do 900m/s, a connection error will rubber band a ship going 100 or 1000 that's not going to change. The logistics side i can see how it would disrupt tactics and such but the game's economy needs its own overhaul to sort out the basics of supply and demand before diving into the implications of ship ranges.

also keeping a post/thread focused to one topic or bite size section of the game helps keep a suggestion clean, simple, and easier to fit into a patch. Not let's rebuild every aspect of the game from scratch with all the changes under the sun to make a perfect game. that's great but never going to happen in one go. Point being Rubbernuke has a billion suggestions for powerplay, slavetrade, econ, space ads, and Asling Duval's evening wear, but kept it to 1-Weapons, 2-Shields, 3-Powerplants to make it a little easier to grasp and implement.

 

[CMDR X]

..Guardian modules:
.. they are next to useless except for real edge cases. Outcome: people don't use them..

..Tech broker modules:
..Can't be engineered, but advantages again eclipsed by G1 > G5 on regular weapons. Outcome: no-one uses them..

I happen like my Guardian R Packs, my Shard Cannons, my Plasma Chargers, my G-PP, my G-PD aaand my Trident.
I am also very fond of my Shock Cannons and even them dang Flechette Launchers.

So there! I uses them. The rest of your fine points are agreeable though.

Do try out that I-Courier with the G-Plasma's at a REZ site. It's the most "small ship" fun I've had in a goats age.
X.

 

[Vasious]

This is why I came up with the kluge of after destruction you can't have the OP modules and have to use the legacy ones. For combat pilots this would be much sooner than an explorer (or that was the intention).

In an ideal world engineering, Guardian modules and tech broker stuff would sit as stablemates and complement each other- if thats achievable now I'm not sure but thats what I would like to happen.

And FD need to engage some grey matter with tweaks. The mine arming one was silly for example as it broke the weapon.

In a ideal world "Engineering" would have been tech broker unlocks, with the Engineers each having their modules of their specialty, with the guardian stuff being one branch

The lack of real trade offs always puzzled me with Engineering, so they weren't always just a net gain, but rather a conscious focus that cost outside that making it a sidegrade for a purpose/role/goal