Engineers The Engineers is turning into a deja vu for me

[InlineSix]

Taking "Main Sequence"'s post, I can add the following:

I've been having the same Deja Vu feeling that the Engineers is like Powerplay all over again, something that the community has a love and hate relationship with and another part of the game I probably won't take part in. Looking back at the headline features* of all the updates, of the seven so far, I'm only using two:

1.1 - CG - use - Nice thing that can only be used in solo or mobius if you're not a) "playing the game" or b) in a fighting wing. Too many "PvP"ers.

1.2 - Wings - use - Not a single day without bugs en masse. Nav lock fails, wing signals instead of ships, dropouts, wrong status shown. A pain.

1.3 - PP - don't use - It was a nuisance in 2.0. - It is unbearable in 2.1. - Constant useless fighting for... nothing.

1.4 - CQC - don't use - It's repetitive at best.

1.5 - Ships - use - All ships lack 1-2 module slots - Still large gaps between ship types.

2.0 - Planetary Landings - use - Not for fun. Only for grinding. It's just plain boring. At least there should be more revenue when trading to compensate for the lost time.

2.1 - Engineers - don't use - I gave them meth heads a chance but I'm burnt out before even getting my first tune up. RNG? In 2016? Seriously?

[/QUOTE]

Although I'm not holding back critique when talking about the game I am an avid fan who's doing his best to keep players in game. Mind you, FDev - your dropout rate on newbies was extreme from the beginning. Now it's the medium-progress and elite cmdrs who are leaving. My friends list has never been so desserted as now. There's an urgent NEED FOR ACTION!

 

[XenonBuster]

I think that they should go back to the original concept of the game

 

[Bzek]

I do think there is a lack of imagination at times.

...

Fair point. I agree. I just saw it more as a symptom of poor implementation of an otherwise innovative idea. For instance, I can't really remember a flight-sim game that allowed me to tweak the craft like this. You are right that it is unimaginatively implemented, though. I see what you mean.

I just get the feeling they sit down and brainstorm these cool ideas (Powerplay also sounds cool in paper) and they get really fired up about it and then begin the chats about how to go about implementing it and just draw blanks so they just throw dice at it.

It is what I mean about feeling a little bit like amateur hour. I think they got great creative talent that come up with great ideas, but have no idea of how to implement them in a way that is actually fun and rewarding. Like having an architect come up with this great building idea, really creative and looks amazing, and try to build it without consulting a civil engineer. The workers do it, but unsurprisingly the whole thing falls apart shortly after.

 

[JughedJones]

It's so sad that the prevailing gaming wisdom is going to ruin this game. (for me.)

I might be in the minority, but the only reason I play this game is for the emerging game play and the fact that there's no arrow telling me what to do.

I've tried to get into 1000's of dollars worth of games since E : D came out, and they don't last long. I'm always pulled back. I don't want to, in any way, be told what to do.

I've played for nearly 1000 hours and I have 200 million credits and an a-specced python. That's it. The best thing I have is a never ending urge to log in to Elite.

It sucks people try to 'win' this game.

 

[Cmdr Thrudd]

+reps all round. I love the core of this game and often defend it but wont deny any of whats been posted here. Almost all the updates haven't lived up to their potential and FDev really have missed the mark with many of their gameplay decisions.

One I usually cite is Exploring: We've got a game with 400 billion star systems generated in exquisite complexity and exploring as one of the CORE selling points and what does it consist of... Honk and jump with the occasional point-ship-at-target to scan. Really?
When they first put that in during Alpha/Beta (I can't remember when) I recall telling everyone 'this is just a place holder'. Turns out, no this is how we explore. It's honestly a bit pathetic.

My take on the list posted by Main Sequence:
1.1 - CG - Not engaging & grindy but it was a quick solution and has it's place so I can let it pass. I personally never do them
1.2 - Wings - Great addition, improved over time should have come with group content/mission sharing.
1.3 - PP - As said above I too looked forward to this. Implementation was terrible. I avoid it like the plague
1.4 - CQC - Waste of time
1.5 - Ships - More ships are great
2.0 - Planetary Landings - 2.0 was technically awesome, there just wasn't much point to landing on planets. I was disappointed and took a break from the game
2.1 - Engineers - Great additions throughout the game, engineers needs some serious tweaking though as it's missed the mark. I still think overall it's good and 'grind' hasn't bothered me personally but I agree it really needs a few core changes.

I suspect with the next big patch Engineers will be reevaluated but whats more important for the game going forward is how the team reevaluates their design philosophy. They can't keep going forward with wasted effort and patches that miss the mark to various extents.

 

[Bzek]

I might be in the minority, but the only reason I play this game is for the emerging game play and the fact that there's no arrow telling me what to do.

I don't think anyone here has said anything about any arrows telling people what to do. I think you are projecting your fear onto a completely unrelated topic since it is discussing changing something you are enjoying as is.

The critique here is principally to the heavy handed reliance on RNG for absolutely everything. It is not about having a linear progression, as much as a model that sustains effort/skill -> reward rather than google/luck -> reward.

 

[JughedJones]

+reps all round. I love the core of this game and often defend it but wont deny any of whats been posted here. Almost all the updates haven't lived up to their potential and FDev really have missed the mark with many of their gameplay decisions.

One I usually cite is Exploring: We've got a game with 400 billion star systems generated in exquisite complexity and exploring as one of the CORE selling points and what does it consist of... Honk and jump with the occasional point-ship-at-target to scan. Really?
When they first put that in during Alpha/Beta (I can't remember when) I recall telling everyone 'this is just a place holder'. Turns out, no this is how we explore. It's honestly a bit pathetic.

My take on the list posted by Main Sequence:
1.1 - CG - Not engaging & grindy but it was a quick solution and has it's place so I can let it pass. I personally never do them
1.2 - Wings - Great addition, improved over time should have come with group content/mission sharing.
1.3 - PP - As said above I too looked forward to this. Implementation was terrible. I avoid it like the plague
1.4 - CQC - Waste of time
1.5 - Ships - More ships are great
2.0 - Planetary Landings - 2.0 was technically awesome, there just wasn't much point to landing on planets. I was disappointed and took a break from the game
2.1 - Engineers - Great additions throughout the game, engineers needs some serious tweaking though as it's missed the mark. I still think overall it's good and 'grind' hasn't bothered me personally but I agree it really needs a few core changes.

I suspect with the next big patch Engineers will be reevaluated but whats more important for the game going forward is how the team reevaluates their design philosophy. They can't keep going forward with wasted effort and patches that miss the mark to various extents.

All the base game needs now is storage. (I think.) If we get a locker in each station, (we pay for and it could get bigger maybe) I think the game would be perfect.

The "RNG" is what it has to be. (I think.) Having people's ships be unique is critically important to the developer's vision (I think.)

"Meta" is one of the most annoying concepts in gaming, (I think.)

 

[Cmdr Black]

I personally like the engineers update. The upgraded OpFor isn't that difficult, though the glitched weapons are not pleasant at all. Hope those get fixed soon. As for engineers in general, the RNG aspect is annoying but I can accept it. What I can't accept is the random and pathetically low chance for experimental upgrades. I'm pretty sure that most Cmdrs out there saw incendiary multicannons and corrosive multicannons and all the lovely things you could do to your bullets and lasers and that this was the principal motivation for upgrading. Grinding for materials and bringing them to the engineer and seeing a garbage roll and no experimental effect is basically a slap to the face of the player who invested time and money into playing this game. I love Elite, but the grind is too much like a fantasy RPG and not at all in line with the tactical hard sci fi feel of this game. Also, (sorry for the all caps in advance) EVERY MATERIAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE PURCHASED OR TAKEN FROM THE SLAUGHTERED CARCASS OF A DEAD SHIP YOU MURDER IN THE DARK OF SPACE WHERE NO ONE CAN SEE!!!!! They should not be mission rewards. One should not have to search for a system in a certain state and pray to a [?higher power] for a mission that one qualifies for and happens to have the thing you need as a reward. There is an acceptable limit to grinding in this game. If I wanted to spend my time grinding in absurd and masochistic levels I would go play something like World of Warcraft. We grind for credits. We grind for merits. Now we have to grind for materials? Ok fine. But not like this. Dear God, not like this....


Addendum: We need slighter bigger storage space for materials. 600 materials and 200 data seems like a lot but it is not. 800 and 300 would be a bit more [?reasonable].

 

[JughedJones]

I personally like the engineers update. The upgraded OpFor isn't that difficult, though the glitched weapons are not pleasant at all. Hope those get fixed soon. As for engineers in general, the RNG aspect is annoying but I can accept it. What I can't accept is the random and pathetically low chance for experimental upgrades. I'm pretty sure that most Cmdrs out there saw incendiary multicannons and corrosive multicannons and all the lovely things you could do to your bullets and lasers and that this was the principal motivation for upgrading. Grinding for materials and bringing them to the engineer and seeing a garbage roll and no experimental effect is basically a slap to the face of the player who invested time and money into playing this game. I love Elite, but the grind is too much like a fantasy RPG and not at all in line with the tactical hard sci fi feel of this game. Also, (sorry for the all caps in advance) EVERY MATERIAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE PURCHASED OR TAKEN FROM THE SLAUGHTERED CARCASS OF A DEAD SHIP YOU MURDER IN THE DARK OF SPACE WHERE NO ONE CAN SEE!!!!! They should not be mission rewards. One should not have to search for a system in a certain state and pray to a [?higher power] for a mission that one qualifies for and happens to have the thing you need as a reward. There is an acceptable limit to grinding in this game. If I wanted to spend my time grinding in absurd and masochistic levels I would go play something like World of Warcraft. We grind for credits. We grind for merits. Now we have to grind for materials? Ok fine. But not like this. Dear God, not like this....

please don't type like that.

 

[Cmdr Black]

Apologies. It is frustration. Just got a mission where the reward was materials I needed. Went to deliver data and the station has no mission board to turn in the data. Appears to have been UA bombed.

 

[JughedJones]

Apologies. It is frustration. Just got a mission where the reward was materials I needed. Went to deliver data and the station has no mission board to turn in the data. Appears to have been UA bombed.

Yeah... I'll totally help you with your frustrations about not completing a mission, but you have to turn the flippin' green text off, homie.

 

[Kyokushin]

I like The Engineers and 2.1 at overall. Now i like PvE. I have something to do.

However, as always there are things to balance.

- RNG is to balance/redesign, this is really annoying
- SRV prospecting is just dull
- wake scans too randoms
- mission materials too random

The loot from SRV, wakes and missions should depend of specific location. For example: To get polonium you need to go to planet X and search it near craters. If you want yttrium then go to planet Y and search near canyons. If you want strange wake then you need to scan specific ships or in specific location.

In one sentece - too much of random. I am not saying a randomization is bad, it just not good well balanced at now. The probability of drop should be higher, but a player should get more specific conditions for farming (example of polonioum - near craters should it drop very often and on plain none or very rarely)

 

[Obidit]

I agree with all the pain points in this thread, and i am pleasantly surprised that it's constructive and didn't end up in a 'git gud' flame war. Kudos to all, even to JughedJones for disagreeing in a polite and reasonable manner.

I, for one decided yesterday to take a break from the game, hoping that FD takes an honest look at fixing their implementations. I honestly love this game's potential and i wish FD wants to reach it.
As someone already pointed out above, i really hope FD's radio silence mans they are hard at work getting things right, and it's not a case of them freezing in the face of failure/desperation, or worse, throwing in the towel

 

[Cmdr Thrudd]

The loot from SRV, wakes and missions should depend of specific location. For example: To get polonium you need to go to planet X and search it near craters. If you want yttrium then go to planet Y and search near canyons. If you want strange wake then you need to scan specific ships or in specific location.

It would have to be more diverse than specific planets so something like. 'Pollonium is often found in craters on High Metal worlds orbiting Type K and A stars'. Enough info to narrow it down but allow for more locations.

Basically, the system should be something that a player can learn over time and apply their game knowledge to rather than purely random. I had hoped this was the case already but from what I can tell from the data gathered so far this isn't the case.

 

[Rimsplitter]

I think FDev needs to realize that they cant sustain the game taking that amateur-hour approach and get some people that know their game design theory to advise them and guide them in realizing their vision.

Very clever job application. I hope it goes well.

Having done a case study of a dysfunctional work environment for my own undergraduate psychology course back in the eighties I think you'd never get into FD to study how they work in the first place. You'd think that they write secret HFT software for Goldman Sachs the way they carry on, not that it's a happy game factory making fun and laughter for everyone.

 

[Kyokushin]

It would have to be more diverse than specific planets so something like. 'Pollonium is often found in craters on High Metal worlds orbiting Type K and A stars'. Enough info to narrow it down but allow for more locations.

Yepp, the player should improve his knowledge about game mechanics and rely on that knowledge, forums, informations, instead of the well of fortune. And then game become interesting.

Driving 3 hours straight to get 6 pollonium is dull, but using accquired knowledge - (you need K star, metal planet and near crater then you will find pollonium in 10-20 minutes) could be interesting.

 

[lysan]

0

They said 2.1 is the biggest update with a huge load of changes.... that scares me when I am thinking of the next updates.

A lot goes on under the hood, that is probably it.

 

[Bzek]

Very clever job application. I hope it goes well.

HA! Not at all, I would contribute to the amateur round-up something fierce. My study on the topic is more due to personal interest in gaming and psychology and the areas where they overlap. I think they need someone senior in game design theory, really.

Not a senior programmer, not someone that has been making games for a number of years, but someone that can coach them in implementing their vision in a way that is rewarding and meaningful to the players.

 

[Parmo]

Disclosure, I am no a "game design expert" but I am psychology student (presenting my final project, so hopefully a psychology graduate in the next few months!) and I have put a fair bit of time into studying gamification of learning and the research on reward/motivation in games.

Having put a lot of time studying those subjects, I get the feeling that is precisely what FDev lacks. I think they're playing it by ear, and it is really not working out. I don't mean it in a negative manner, and I am not trying to insult the developers, but I really think they need to take a little bit more of a scientific approach and see what is out there regarding research and theory when designing motivation/effort/reward models.

E: D is far too complex a beast to approach with half-baked ideas. And I do think that both Powerplay and Engineers were horribly half-baked ideas. Lots of comments out there in the forums detailing extensively how and why. The design rationale that seems to have gone into both patches goes completely against good design practices. Honestly, I sort of wish I would have chosen this situation as my final paper's research subject.

I think FDev needs to realize that they cant sustain the game taking that amateur-hour approach and get some people that know their game design theory to advise them and guide them in realizing their vision.

Its a shame the Design Discussion Forum was scrapped. It had a wealth of experienced gamers to pitch ideas to and get feedback from. Yes it wasn't perfect, but nothing ever is. But with it gone we now seem to have a game being designed by people who grew up playing sonic the hedgehog, people who think repetitiveness is 'good gameplay'. Where did the imagination and innovation go? It frustrating as the actual foundation of ED, it's visuals, sounds, and scope, are superb, but the actual content and gameplay seem like tacked on afterthoughts.

Sadly, I must agree with you both.
Bzek: Research. Does or has FD done any real scientific research on what its ED player base would like ED to have as content etc? On the evidence of the existing PP and Engineers content I doubt it: relying on support feedback and the posts in these forums does constitute research.
It is somewhat surprising to me, given that FD has in its possession all the email addresses of ED players that they do not at least send every ED registered purchaser (or a statistically significant sample size of ) an email with some sort of survey with the intention of finding from the horses mouth what the players actually think of ED and why and what they would like to see in ED and why.
This costs money but so does getting ED content wrong. ED supposedly has a 5 year or greater development life, research is vital to for this plan to be carried through successfully.
The other thing is that David Braben has said in the past that he wanted to produce an Elite game that he himself would like and enjoy to play. I cannot conceive that he likes to play PP or the Engineers. For one thing he does not have the time to play it thoroughly nor long enough to see the issues of PP and Engineers that other players have pointed out. The RNG in Engineers I would have thought to be an anathema to his scientific leaning mind. And the scientific mind relies on well founded research.
I might add that most, if not all of the software and asset developers of ED will be constricted in the time that they have to play the game. As a software developer I know that this is true for most software projects; the meeting between a software developer and a user of their software is a rare event.
Perhaps Bzek you could offer FD your services when you have graduated. Perhaps a thesis for a Ph.d?
...
Erimus:
Yes, the foundations of ED as you so describe are superb. I have never played 'sonic the hedgehog'. My first computer game I played was Elite in 1984. So maybe I am at a disadvantage from the start.
As for imagination and innovation: I feel FD are disrespecting ED players as, on the evidence of PP and the Engineers, they seem to think we ED players lack imaginative, innovative, intelligent and reasoning minds; such minds that short-cycle repetition based activity is a poison to them. And where is the recognition that these minds possess emotions? Powerplay? Engineers? I hazard a guess the Far Distant Worlds expedition provided more emotional attachment than PP ever has. How many YT videos on the FDW? How many videos on PP? What are the viewing figures? Bzek, you start your thesis with this.
When a player is emotionally attached to a game then that game will always be played.
I will always play ED but not CQC, PP. The Engineers, maybe just to get the upgrades I may need so I am not totally out classed by NPC and other Commanders' ships, but I won't enjoy it.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

No need to be surprised. FD has released grind-feature after grind-feature even though the community said "We do not want any more grind."

Just a minute ago I tried to launch ED and had to update. 0% success. Update failed (stuck). So I had to do it myself and eventually managed to get that update installed and posted a bug report about that.
What then? Engineers ... ugh. Let's check what kind of Engineers I have access to. Wow, bravo, x2 G5 FSD. x1 G5 MCs and x1 G5 PD. Apart from the PD nothing useful. Plus anything that is below G4 is useless anyways.
Okay let's see what kind of materials I have in my hold and what else do I need? Ugh, farming. No, thanks.
Anyone that has G4 PAs? Oh, PAs only go up to G2. Armor? Need to unlock. But why shall I mod my ship if I can't store the modules? And finally, for what do I need modded stuff? PvP? Why shall I do PvP?

2.1 is a disaster.