Engineers The Random results mechanic in engineers: must be changed or not ?
- Thread starter Sterlino
- Start date
There was an official response, in beta, repeatedly in various threads and in the patches during beta where they tweaked it and finally in the release since it's hard to get more definitive than the actual code .
Most people are so bored with the topic that you're only going to get votes from motivated individuals so I strongly predict a 'yes' majority but it's not terribly meaningful.
You're pretty much beating the ground where the horse died, it's long since been hauled off.
Most people are so bored with the topic that you're only going to get votes from motivated individuals so I strongly predict a 'yes' majority but it's not terribly meaningful.
You're pretty much beating the ground where the horse died, it's long since been hauled off.
Last edited:
I remember once that, somewhere, someone of the devs said that they listen to the requests and the feelings of the forum.
This poll is just to make it clear, once for all, this matter.
Then... is a choice for them, we will accept what it will be
but i hope there will be an official word, because the players (the majority of ), like me, weren't in beta and i didn't saw the official response you're saying.
To continue the dead animal theme of the thread I would say that now that it is release, your dog is dead. They won't backpedal and undo months of work because the Engineers themselves are poorly received. I think the RNG is there to stay but it might be tweeked. Also, you might have more chance to see changes to the materials/commodities scavenger hunt for blueprints by changing them or making them less RNG based.
I think the official response he is referring to is in the Reddit AMA or the Beta Live stream.
I think the official response he is referring to is in the Reddit AMA or the Beta Live stream.
nobody here says ''remove the random thingy and do something totally new''
i was thinking about, at least, to modify the actual system into something of more acceptable.
if Devs don't want to change the random sequence, well... at least remove the zero results and put some basic low (or very low) results for anyone who spent hours and hours to collect materials.
Not sure what people are always on about, I made quite a few modification in 2.1 and tons of them in the Beta and every single one was an improvment over what I had. What about that is not acceptable enough?
i tell you my experience with engineers so far:
i collected dozen of materials and wandered around the galaxy for some rare ingredients.
then i went to felicity and i tried once:
result = fail
loss of some rare materials and hours of play.
then i go, again, to search those materials ... 2 days later i went again to felicity.. and same result = zero.
maybe i was unlucky, maybe if i try another time i will have success.
but,to me, it looks like a huuuuge waste of time.
that's why i think is unacceptable
Fail? Care to show a screenshot or something, never heard of a fail state in the modding.
Been there, done that. There has been loads of polls, debates and FD feedback. Both on the forums, in livestreams and so on. Apparantly you dont like it. Thats fine. But making another poll, 'this one final', is just silly. What will be changed:
1) You can sacrifice some rep with engineers and in return you can select the special effect you want
2) Alternative ways of ranking up
The 'RNG' of the primary effect will stay.
I honestly don't mind it...
I had a similar experience to you OP.... Hunting for stuff for a few nights only to be given a bag of dog poop.
I felt cheated and played the following night grimacing, but thinking that the actual mechanic is alright, I'm learning new stuff about the galaxy, going to new places, doing new things because of these potential benefits.
Went back to doing my regular ED stuff only for the next level mod to fall at my feet.
And this one is great.
As always, I'm having a good time. Even with that feeling of injustice.
Maybe I'm just too 'Karma' about the whole thing.
(Stuff the wheel of Fortune though....)
I had a similar experience to you OP.... Hunting for stuff for a few nights only to be given a bag of dog poop.
I felt cheated and played the following night grimacing, but thinking that the actual mechanic is alright, I'm learning new stuff about the galaxy, going to new places, doing new things because of these potential benefits.
Went back to doing my regular ED stuff only for the next level mod to fall at my feet.
And this one is great.
As always, I'm having a good time. Even with that feeling of injustice.
Maybe I'm just too 'Karma' about the whole thing.
(Stuff the wheel of Fortune though....)
Last edited:
Seen a lot of uses of real life analogies to defend the use of RNG as a the sole means of crafting. But to me that logic(while correct about nothing being certain) just does not hold water in elite. I.e
"Well engineers are supposed to be these cutting edge, on the fringes of tech tinkerers that cannot replicate or predict the results.."
"Umm.. But if my ship is destroyed the insurance company can supply these impossible to predict or replicate modules exactly how I had them. Why?"
"Gameplay reasons"
"So if are using gameplay as a reason to dispense with realism. Why can't we use gameplay as a reason to give players more options.."
so now only gameplay is the reason why we have RNG Here are gameplay reasons it should be changed.
1. it involves no player skill at all
2. it disconnects the player's choice from what actually they get. I.e the game takes over and wrenches control from the player
3. It's a blatant skinner box which is now widely regarded as lazy and bad design
4. The player who wishes to use engineers has no other way to obtain the modules than play the RNG game or just stop. While we have multiple ways to gather the mats we have just route to use them, and if you don't like you are out of luck
5. The engineers affect every area of the game, so they are not really optional in the same way as PP is.
"Well engineers are supposed to be these cutting edge, on the fringes of tech tinkerers that cannot replicate or predict the results.."
"Umm.. But if my ship is destroyed the insurance company can supply these impossible to predict or replicate modules exactly how I had them. Why?"
"Gameplay reasons"
"So if are using gameplay as a reason to dispense with realism. Why can't we use gameplay as a reason to give players more options.."
so now only gameplay is the reason why we have RNG Here are gameplay reasons it should be changed.
1. it involves no player skill at all
2. it disconnects the player's choice from what actually they get. I.e the game takes over and wrenches control from the player
3. It's a blatant skinner box which is now widely regarded as lazy and bad design
4. The player who wishes to use engineers has no other way to obtain the modules than play the RNG game or just stop. While we have multiple ways to gather the mats we have just route to use them, and if you don't like you are out of luck
5. The engineers affect every area of the game, so they are not really optional in the same way as PP is.
The goal is to NOT have mass produced maximum badasp modules, randomness provides that. If FD were to give the players control they would simply max everything out and have no balance.
Can't have the be all end all multicannon without having some sort of counter effect etc...
You want more FSD range? Great but it is going to cost you more power do accomplish this, if players had control they would max FSD range, no extra power consumption, no integrity reduction..etc.. just their perfect cake so they can eat it to...
Can't have the be all end all multicannon without having some sort of counter effect etc...
You want more FSD range? Great but it is going to cost you more power do accomplish this, if players had control they would max FSD range, no extra power consumption, no integrity reduction..etc.. just their perfect cake so they can eat it to...
Last edited:
What exactly do you mean by a "failed" mod? There seem to be a couple definitions in use in these RNG discussions:
1: The mod caused the equipment to be objectively worse, i.e.: the red (negative) stat changes massively outweighed the blue (positive) stat changes. Note that a mod can be useful if you're trading one type of stat for another, e.g.: greater FSD range for higher power draw, as long as the relative trade is balanced (although a trade in your favour is even better, obviously). So I wouldn't classify that as a "fail" of this type.
2: You had certain expectations, and the mod isn't meeting those expectations. e.g.: FSD range increase of at least 2LY with no greater than 0.5 power draw increase.
So the "type 1" fails I can sympathise with, but it's also my understanding that FD have taken steps to dramatically reduce the probability of getting these types of fail. You certainly shouldn't be getting them several times in a row. If that's really the case, then yes, I think FD should tweak it some more.
The "type 2" fails… These just seem to be an indirect way for people to say that they want to be able to min/max their builds to reach (or very nearly reach) some pre-determined "optimum" module spec (i.e.: achieve the current meta-of-the-day), and that the Engineer "failures" prevent them from doing that. Personally I don't have much sympathy with this line of thinking. It seems that the whole point of Engineers is to make your ship better in a quirky, individual way, rather than allow for a particular target spec to be achieved. And personally, I love that idea. YMMV obviously, but for that reason I'm a "No" voter.
1: The mod caused the equipment to be objectively worse, i.e.: the red (negative) stat changes massively outweighed the blue (positive) stat changes. Note that a mod can be useful if you're trading one type of stat for another, e.g.: greater FSD range for higher power draw, as long as the relative trade is balanced (although a trade in your favour is even better, obviously). So I wouldn't classify that as a "fail" of this type.
2: You had certain expectations, and the mod isn't meeting those expectations. e.g.: FSD range increase of at least 2LY with no greater than 0.5 power draw increase.
So the "type 1" fails I can sympathise with, but it's also my understanding that FD have taken steps to dramatically reduce the probability of getting these types of fail. You certainly shouldn't be getting them several times in a row. If that's really the case, then yes, I think FD should tweak it some more.
The "type 2" fails… These just seem to be an indirect way for people to say that they want to be able to min/max their builds to reach (or very nearly reach) some pre-determined "optimum" module spec (i.e.: achieve the current meta-of-the-day), and that the Engineer "failures" prevent them from doing that. Personally I don't have much sympathy with this line of thinking. It seems that the whole point of Engineers is to make your ship better in a quirky, individual way, rather than allow for a particular target spec to be achieved. And personally, I love that idea. YMMV obviously, but for that reason I'm a "No" voter.
One small, easy - but potentially helpful - fix would be to increase the "spacing" between module Grades.
As it stands, the upgrade ranges seem to over lap - particularly when you add in the Secondary effects. You could get (say) a very good Grade 4 module, then level up, and your first Grade 5 upgrade might actually be inferior (even if still a huge upgrade on a "vanilla" module). But by tweaking the ranges, FD could ensure the very worst-case "Grade n" upgrade will at the very least be equal if not superior to even the very best "Grade n-1" module.
Maybe if Cmdrs never got downgrades when crafting their first upgrade after 'levelling up', a lot of the frustration might abate.
As it stands, the upgrade ranges seem to over lap - particularly when you add in the Secondary effects. You could get (say) a very good Grade 4 module, then level up, and your first Grade 5 upgrade might actually be inferior (even if still a huge upgrade on a "vanilla" module). But by tweaking the ranges, FD could ensure the very worst-case "Grade n" upgrade will at the very least be equal if not superior to even the very best "Grade n-1" module.
Maybe if Cmdrs never got downgrades when crafting their first upgrade after 'levelling up', a lot of the frustration might abate.
