Engineers Stick or Twist with Upgrades

[jgm]

If the upgrade screen started with all of the sliders in the middle of their possible ranges, and you could choose to either take the upgrade with these values or roll as happens at current, with a possibly better and possibly worse result, what would you do?

And would you be happier with this as a system?

 

[viper666]

The RNG element is absolutely out of place in the same sentence that uses the word "Engineer." I don't know what the hell Frontier were thinking about. If I want random loot, I'll play Borderlands 2. Engineers should be just that, a genius who can make standard modules better with XYZ materials to give better performance with an absolute known set of numbers.

 

[GG7]

If the road to getting to that last step wasn't so wrought with tedium, I think most could hang with the randomness of the current mechanic. But considering how much of a time-suck the whole materials Easter Egg hunt is proving to be, the upgrade waiting at the end of the proverbial rainbow NEEDS to be GUARANTEED!

I think this is one of the biggest issues most players have with all of this. I could personally do with a lot less grindy time-suck to find the ingredients, but the lack of any guarantee of a viable/useable upgrade has pushed me out, and I have totally stopped participating in the Engineers grind fest.

 

[Flavourless]

With stick or twist you have to gamble without knowing what's coming, and if you are unlucky with the flop you bust.
With the Engineers mods you can see exactly what you are going to get and can choose whether to apply or not. No gamble.

 

[GG7]

With stick or twist you have to gamble without knowing what's coming, and if you are unlucky with the flop you bust.
With the Engineers mods you can see exactly what you are going to get and can choose whether to apply or not. No gamble.

You loose your materials regardless of whether or not you like the upgrade. You only get a TRY AGAIN if you have additional materials to pay for another pull of the slot machine lever. How you can say that this does not represent a gamble is absurd!

Most players are balancing whether they want to risk loosing another previous 5 hours of Easter Egg Hunt work for a second, third or fourth try. I'd look up the definition of GAMBLE in the dictionary, since you obviously need a refresher course on what the term means.

 

[Sashenka]

The RNG element is absolutely out of place in the same sentence that uses the word "Engineer." I don't know what the hell Frontier were thinking about. If I want random loot, I'll play Borderlands 2. Engineers should be just that, a genius who can make standard modules better with XYZ materials to give better performance with an absolute known set of numbers.

I think FD could have saved themselves some pain by naming the patch 2.1: Tinkerers.

 

[Belthize]

Makes no difference to me either way but ...

When developing content there's always a calculation of how many hours of game play (fun or not is a different question) does the content imply.

I suspect they did a similar calculation here and, for example, let's assume they calculated that a particular T5 mod would take X hours to achieve and that on average most players would try it 4 times before saying good enough.

That implies that to have the same time sink a given mod would need to require 4 times the materials if a player can dial in what they want on the first go. Again that's just an example. The point though is that your time to achieve the goal is going to be the same either way.

One upside to the 'random' bit is that it provides a variable time sink. The easily satisfied will take what they first get, possibly even at a lower tier, the people driven to perfection have an infinite sink. The downside is some will see that as an impossible to achieve goal and grow frustrated.

I'm indifferent either way. For me personally the engineers are just free upgrades as a side effect of what I'd be doing anyway so however they're presented is fine.

 

[Derath]

I think FD could have saved themselves some pain by naming the patch 2.1: Tinkerers.

I prefer Technomancer!

On the original point i'd take RNG loot with better maximums over fixed loot with lower ones, I like the current system it means ships will be slightly different.

 

[Marcusfalden]

I can't rep fast enough all the comments on how distasteful this whole process by rng is. I do hope FRONTIER takes notice of this in the meantime I am voting with my wallet and wont be purchasing anything else until the RNGineer is fixed

 

[thorn-]

The design could have been done quite simply.

1. Player is given X number of stat points. Let's say 40, for Level 1 upgrade.
2. Player can assign points however they like, to each of the 4 stats.
3. Assigning a + point to a stat , requires giving another stat a -.
4. Therefore, player determines what will gain, and what they are willing to give up. You could, for example, add 30 points to DMG, but you'll lose 10 points each on the other 3 stats. Or -15 on 1 stat, 0 on next, -15 on third. Player's choice, as the player moves the sliders.
4B. The higher levels could offer a 2-for-1 point system, or 3-for-1.

5. There is no "roll". Player is told to pay the materials required for the build.
6. Unit is built as designed.

Additional:

7. Level 1-4 is simply buffs.
8. Level 5 is the "special weapon".
9. Player picks the special weapon they desire, Eng builds it using blueprint. There is no roll for success/fail.

I'm not "inventing" this sort of system. It will be familiar to anyone who's ever done a lot of gaming, and is generally successful as the player is determining their own result... THEY are making the gamble of "Do i want speed? Or strength?"

Instead - no, we got a slot machine that only takes currency from a foreign country that you can only reach by a blimp on Tuesdays of every month that ends with the letter "R".

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

I'm not "inventing" this sort of system. It will be familiar to anyone who's ever done a lot of gaming, and is generally successful as the player is determining their own result... THEY are making the gamble of "Do i want speed? Or strength?"

The usual problem with the system you describe is it almost always leads to a meta. Players find that if the don't have "the right" stats they can't win. Everyone will choose the same type of stats on each mod and FD will have to start nerfing and buffing. I think that was even mentioned in one livestream as the reason they did the RNG, that and they wanted some variety in mods and some imbalance.

 

[thorn-]

The usual problem with the system you describe is it almost always leads to a meta. Players find that if the don't have "the right" stats they can't win. Everyone will choose the same type of stats on each mod and FD will have to start nerfing and buffing.

Respectfully: No, and Completely Wrong.

CMDR Jesse30 came hunting in Eravate at one point, and found me with a bounty. He was in a DBS, me in a FAS (both ships far above stock levels). He cleaned my fraking clock - it's even on Youtube if you want to watch him owning me. It had nothing to do with meta. Ship stats say I should have easily won. But he's a better combat pilot, hands down. I lost because I made poor decisions against someone that is very skilled. Meta wasn't the reason.

GluttonyFang is a far better pirate than I am. Again, nothing to do with Meta. It's because he's spent countless hours refining his career path.

Does meta matter? Absolutely. But that's not the only factor in winning an engagement. Even if every ship was identical, you'd have the element of pilot skill. And skill is something the player can develop on their own. Practice. Learn. Improve. Look at something like... oh, I don't know - TeamFortress? Who wins in a battle of snipers? The guy that puts in a lot of play time, or the guy with the best hat? It's certainly not the rifle Meta, as both players have the same weapon.

GTR2 Racing? Of course meta (car setup) gives an advantage - but every driver has access to the same setup, provided they know what to use. From that point, it's up to driver skill - not some random assignment of who gets great tires, and who gets crap brakes.

DEV is already "nerfing and buffing" - they're just making it randomly occur, and hiding it behind a wall of 50 hours of "go find this thing, and play with a slot machine."

 

[Brian of Ardagh]

Respectfully: No, and Completely Wrong.

CMDR Jesse30 came hunting in Eravate at one point, and found me with a bounty. He was in a DBS, me in a FAS (both ships far above stock levels). He cleaned my fraking clock - it's even on Youtube if you want to watch him owning me. It had nothing to do with meta. Ship stats say I should have easily won. But he's a better combat pilot, hands down. I lost because I made poor decisions against someone that is very skilled. Meta wasn't the reason.

GluttonyFang is a far better pirate than I am. Again, nothing to do with Meta. It's because he's spent countless hours refining his career path.

Does meta matter? Absolutely. But that's not the only factor in winning an engagement. Even if every ship was identical, you'd have the element of pilot skill. And skill is something the player can develop on their own. Practice. Learn. Improve. Look at something like... oh, I don't know - TeamFortress? Who wins in a battle of snipers? The guy that puts in a lot of play time, or the guy with the best hat? It's certainly not the rifle Meta, as both players have the same weapon.

GTR2 Racing? Of course meta (car setup) gives an advantage - but every driver has access to the same setup, provided they know what to use. From that point, it's up to driver skill - not some random assignment of who gets great tires, and who gets crap brakes.

DEV is already "nerfing and buffing" - they're just making it randomly occur, and hiding it behind a wall of 50 hours of "go find this thing, and play with a slot machine."

I never said meta was the only factor but it does lead to people having the same ship mods. If you watch F1 you know that a great driver wants the best car. A bad driver would also like the best car, if they can get it, they aren't going to handicap themselves by not having the best engine they can get.

Same thing goes for games. Most people aren't going to be happy with having sub-par weapons as well as being less skilled than other commanders, most people are going to try and get the best mods for their ship as they can. Once it becomes obvious, through forum posts, reddit or youtube, people will know just what tuning makes the best mods. Not everyone may wish to use these mods but the majority will, why tune a weapon, thruster or shields at a level that isn't as good as the majority?

Even by making it random, there will be plenty of players that grind and re-roll over and over to get whatever the meta dictates, or at least as close as they can get. If you are a top-notch pilot why would you want to play against players that may not be as skilled but have an advantage in ship mods? I suppose you could enjoy the challenge of playing with one arm tied behind your back.

I'm not defending the RNG either but I think I understand why FD used it, it was meant to provide variety. In F1 each team generally engineers different solutions to building their cars. Sadly, money has a lot to do with getting the best tech. There is a variety though. In GP2 all of the vehicles are built under the same basic spec. That shows off the driver skill but there is less variety unless you include the driver's inexperience.

 

[Captain Willard]

The rng factor is crap. If I want the best, make me hunt and seek 10 times as much, not hunt and seek for 10 times as much for a random chance and end up with nothing. Like other games with the rng chance for better weapons or mods, Means it could never happen even after yrs of playing.

 

[LameoveR]

I don't mind engi RNG rolls, but we need more consistent resource gathering without looking for 1 resource for days.

 

[Straker]

RNG at any level is not the way to reward players for their hardwork!

Blueprints should work like this:

1. Define a set of attributes that can be changed
2. Limit each attribute to a min-max setting
3. Allow the player to modify an attribute between this min-max setting
4. Each attribute modified should affect other attributes in a possibly negative manner, so you can't just max positive attributes and min negative ones

This will allow a player to work towards being eligible to use a blueprint and execute it in context with their ship role and playing style.

The total sum of capabilities for a role should be:

1. Manual choice of ship
2. Manual choice of loadout
3. Manual choice of modifications (specific to a chosen blueprint)

There will be no 'perfect choice' as each player's choice could be countered, if that was the need. Imagine the fun of being able to have full control over your setup to maximise the role of your ship! This is true reward!

 

[Kizbot]

This 70% of people preferring a guaranteed result over the RNG just doesn't surprise me at all. The only good thing I got from the engineers was the enhanced thrusters at 5mil creds each. They were a great idea and I can't understand why the rest of there upgrades weren't like this. It was an expensive upgrade but pleasing to purchase and results were guaranteed win = fun. Even if materials had been needed for the purchase, still would have been a better mechanism in my opinion.

I personally feel I would have had a much higher opinion of the engineers if a lot more modules and weapons were available in this way, instead of being locked away behind the grindy RNGamble.

 

[hookandsling]

RNG at any level is not the way to reward players for their hardwork!

Blueprints should work like this:

1. Define a set of attributes that can be changed
2. Limit each attribute to a min-max setting
3. Allow the player to modify an attribute between this min-max setting
4. Each attribute modified should affect other attributes in a possibly negative manner, so you can't just max positive attributes and min negative ones

This will allow a player to work towards being eligible to use a blueprint and execute it in context with their ship role and playing style.

The total sum of capabilities for a role should be:

1. Manual choice of ship
2. Manual choice of loadout
3. Manual choice of modifications (specific to a chosen blueprint)

There will be no 'perfect choice' as each player's choice could be countered, if that was the need. Imagine the fun of being able to have full control over your setup to maximise the role of your ship! This is true reward!

Yes this is pretty much spot on.
There are enough variables with ships and individual capabilities that it's going to take a looong time for universal meta builds to emerge.
Avoiding those builds is surely the reason the RNG roll exists, and honestly it's proved too painful to be worth it.

Nobody loves the RNG roll. The majority dislike it a lot. Needs revisiting.

 

[Farmboy]

I think my main gripe is that there are two levels of RNG. Finding the right materials (especially the rarer ones) requires quite a lot of time investment rolling the RNG to see whether they spawn. (There is some cost in working out where they might spawn, but once the wikiverse has some time, that's a one-off research cost).

We then have a RNG roll on whether all that time investment gives us what we want or not. This can be frustrating in two ways - you can have enough materials for 5 rolls of the dice and not get what you wanted, or you can get a really good roll first time and have 4 sets of material which may or may not be of use in the future.

To me this could be better in one of two ways - the materials for RNG rolls could be easier (less time consuming) to find, or they can be unicorn horns, but the RNG roll is only to see whether I get 90-100% of the best result. i.e. I've paid most of the RNG price getting the unicorn horns in the first place.

You could even combine metrics - if lower level mods were all using relatively easy to obtain materials but had high variance, and the higher level mods required unicorn horns and were lower variance.

Another way to soften the pain would be to allow substitution. Ok so I don't have a rarity 5 material, but I have a few rarity 4s. I can use those instead (possibly at some small penalty to efficacy).

Even finding a way to trade up lower rarity items for higher rarity (many games have this mechanism, though it tends to be a bit magical with very commons trading up for commons at some ratio- some sort of material trading market available at engineering bases would be better here I think) would have the same effect - so I can hunt rarity 5 mats seriously if I'm in a hurry, or I can play more normally and gradually trade for them. That can even take weeks of time, if at the end of it I'm going to get 90%+ of the best result from the actual upgrade.

 

[Eera]

The RNG element is absolutely out of place in the same sentence that uses the word "Engineer." I don't know what the hell Frontier were thinking about. If I want random loot, I'll play Borderlands 2. Engineers should be just that, a genius who can make standard modules better with XYZ materials to give better performance with an absolute known set of numbers.

Can't better resume. Wonder which motivation had FRONTIER to work on a wheel of fortune !