Engineers This is the equivalent of Engineer RNG if FD implements it the other way

[capt_sparks]

Question: if you see right now an engineer recipe that gives a chance between 0% and 20% improvement for module M by giving the engineer 1pc of X and 2pcs of Y, and you hate it because it's "lottery", what could have FD given you instead as a recipe that does not involve RNG?

Answer: FD will provide a recipe that gives 20% improvement for module M, but the ingredients will consist of 20pcs of X and 40pcs of Y.

Which do you think is better now: this one or the RNG?

 

[Starender]

I will take the sure one anytime, even if i need 20* more materials. I'm ok with some grind, but "RNG grind + RNG result" will always be = to bad gameplay.

 

[capt_sparks]

I will take the sure one anytime, even if i need 20* more materials. I'm ok with some grind, but "RNG grind + RNG result" will always be = to bad gameplay.

Ok, but how about if instead of between 0-20% improvement, the RNG version of the recipe now says between 0-25% improvement for the same quantity of ingredients (1pc X and 2pcs Y)? Will you still prefer the sure recipe, or this one?

 

[Crimson Kaim]

Both are bad as both relate to numbers and therefore a boring grind.

How about this:

Sells module M with 5% improvement for doing mission X (easy) or providing x1 of material B.
Sells module M2 with 10% improvement for oding mission Y (average) or providing x3 of material B and x1 of material A.
Sells module M3 with 20% improvement for doing mission Z (hard) plus providing x1 of material A (mission related, commonly seen) and x5 of material B (somewhat rare, found in asteorid bells and on planets).

Depth, DEPTH! No boring provide X get Y. How about do X and get Y while you must not do Z to recieve A.

 

[Starender]

Ok, but how about if instead of between 0-20% improvement, the RNG version of the recipe now says between 0-25% improvement for the same quantity of ingredients (1pc X and 2pcs Y)? Will you still prefer the sure recipe, or this one?

You already have my answer dude, i will always choose safety.

 

[Ddraig]

Sure you can make all of us grind for the materials, I don't like it but it is acceptable if the reward is tangible enough.

 

[capt_sparks]

You already have my answer dude, i will always choose safety.

What if I tell you that mathematically, the RNG version of the recipe gives you a better module for a smaller price? It will only cost you an average of 5pcs of X and 10pcs of Y to get an improvement much better than 20%.

Well then, I wish FD provide an RNG version and sure version of each recipe in order to cater every player's preferences.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Both are bad as both relate to numbers and therefore a boring grind.

How about this:

Sells module M with 5% improvement for doing mission X (easy) or providing x1 of material B.
Sells module M2 with 10% improvement for oding mission Y (average) or providing x3 of material B and x1 of material A.
Sells module M3 with 20% improvement for doing mission Z (hard) plus providing x1 of material A (mission related, commonly seen) and x5 of material B (somewhat rare, found in asteorid bells and on planets).

Depth, DEPTH! No boring provide X get Y. How about do X and get Y while you must not do Z to recieve A.

In my opinion I'll prefer your suggestion. Unfortunately that will require a lot of changes on the source code, I don't think FD has enough time and man-hours to implement that.

 

[Dragonzord]

I would second Starender and vote for the assured result, since I feel it's more in line with what the game has done up to this point. I work for awhile towards a specific goal--sure, it may take a while, but at the end of the journey the destination is what I expect it to be.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...irl_spacecraft_engineers_thoughts_on_the_rng/

This links to a reddit thread where the OP suggest what would be my ideal Engi system, though. Rather than have the Engis provide straight up improvements, I'd like every module to have a cost/benefit bite to them, like they do now, only I have some control over it.

Crimson Kaim has a fantastic idea, too.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

the OP is faulty. i dont rmember seeing any engineer recipe that has 20% inprovement to module x in such and such category.

all i remember seeing is it will give x-y range of postive to one or two categories (at best) for a x-y negative effect on 2 others. the level of the recipe dictating the postive side gains have more random chance to be bigger than the negative changes.

so the real question is, do the gains you get minus the losses make modding worth doing? this is more complicated at the moment for other reasons for me also. there are more negatives for me in the fact that if i have ANY cargo at all including engineer mats i become a magnet for npcs at least 1 to 3 levels above my own combat rank, in combat ships. my ship isnt a combat focused ship. lets ignore the two factors of HAVING FUN and NEEDING MODS TO COMPETE WHEN NPCS GET THEM BACK for now.

so right now, for me it is small random improvement vs small random negatives AND being subjected to overpowered npc attention from the second i get any of the commodities for the blueprint right up until im either destroyed (and lose the commodities and rebuy) or get annoyed and sell them/hand them in.

its 1 versus 3 and 3 is a bigger number than 1 right now so mods arent worth the grind, or the added risks of carrying the commodities. now add in the fun factor for me (none) and the compulsion factor (npcs will eventually get mods back so you have no choice but to mod to compete). those for me are another 2 in the negative.

making it a sum it become in full for me +2 + -5 = -4

its 4 times less fun to try engineers. for others the sum works out differently for example they may love the grind to get the mats, or the constant interdictions by ships which will 100% destroy them without a chance even to flee every 5th time they are interdicted. those would become pluses. but i only speak for me and im annoyed that i have to do this, annoyed that they made it so boring, annoyed they are going to force me to have EVEN LESS chance to survive npc encounters by swapping a weapon for a worthless in combat mining laser and drop something else i NEED to maximise my chances of surviving to fit an SRV hangar for planet surface mining - while leaving my ship a sitting target at the same time!

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Neither

 

[xXR34P3RXx]

Question: if you see right now an engineer recipe that gives a chance between 0% and 20% improvement for module M by giving the engineer 1pc of X and 2pcs of Y, and you hate it because it's "lottery", what could have FD given you instead as a recipe that does not involve RNG?

Answer: FD will provide a recipe that gives 20% improvement for module M, but the ingredients will consist of 20pcs of X and 40pcs of Y.

Which do you think is better now: this one or the RNG?

False Dichotomy: the post

 

[Thetele]

They could have make it point based. We could remove "points" from other stats and then add them to other stats. Then ask for resources based on that. Current material requirements with that would still be okey. For 45% increase of fsd range could still require same materials as now and it would still take days even weeks to get fully modded ship. Then make material spawning more skill based, logical and consistent. Like Security ships will drop these, impact crater on high metal contend planet with 1G+ gravity spawn arsenic etc... And add all that info into game play. Like faction in extraction economy system will tell you how or where to find arsenic when you get high rep with them.

 

[Jukelo]

What if I tell you that mathematically, the RNG version of the recipe gives you a better module for a smaller price? It will only cost you an average of 5pcs of X and 10pcs of Y to get an improvement much better than 20%.

What if I tell you that statistically speaking you lose money subscribing to any insurance?

Probability isn't the only thing driving people. And that's particularly true in games. Some people do enjoy gambling, but you'll also find that a lot of players, regardless of the game, despise randomness when it's not warranted and are more interested in deterministic results. We tend to remember negative experiences much more vividly and take the positive ones for granted (the sole reason Mobius exists), so a lot of people would rather have smaller but consistent rewards than having to deal with the cumulative frustration associated with RNG.

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

What if I tell you that statistically speaking you lose money subscribing to any insurance?

Probability isn't the only thing driving people. And that's particularly true in games. Some people do enjoy gambling, but you'll also find that a lot of players, regardless of the game, despise randomness when it's not warranted and are more interested in deterministic results. We tend to remember negative experiences much more vividly and take the positive ones for granted (the sole reason Mobius exists), so a lot of people would rather have smaller but consistent rewards than having to deal with the cumulative frustration associated with RNG.

Hmm needs a comment:
I own a 1 million € house. half is mine the other half is the banks. Even if the bank did not want insurance, I would still have it. The loss is to heavy. Even if I know the probability for total house loss is very low.
Mobius excists becuse we generally know human beings, and try to avoid them.
Trump is nominee in USA. I will stay in mobius. thank you.

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Balkore]

I'd take the sure thing over a random chance to get something potentially worse than what I already have any day.

I don't like the argument that having the recipe result be guaranteed rather than RNG would result in everyone having the same build. People are all already going for the same set of mods, the only difference is you wouldn't have to grind enough mats to roll at least 3 times in order to get what you want.

FSD range could be something like:

Rank 1 - 5%
Rank 2 - 11%
Rank 3 - 18%
Rank 4 - 26%
Rank 5 - 35%

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

I thinks this is a sill(tm ) question as it imposes a silly answer to the responder.
Now a good game mechanic is a mechanic that URGES the player through loops and narrow espapes to achieve his goal, they do not all have to be death defying, but they will take SOME effort to accomplish. When the the player reaches his goal he/she is gratified by obtaining said "thingie" . Player chuffed, Company chuffed. And this can be done incremental. Noone and nobody wants an "I win button".
I like playing, I like when I haul in 1,5 mill in bouty hunting , having killed enemies an mass, I like trading and knowing I did it despite odds, and still made 2.5 mill. I knew what I was facing and took the gambit.
"Engineers" is just Mob style gambling from Las Vegas. Lol
All games have a certain portion of "Grind" , we know that , we must "git Gud" !
How do you "git Gud" at gambling?

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Straker]

The big faulty assumption with RNG Blueprints is that: everyone plays in exactly the same way, uses exactly the same ship, uses exactly the same loadout, so therefore they will always be happy with each outcome of the RNG. This is a faulty assumption because if players were able to have full control over balancing a blueprints advantages and disadvantages then they would balance them according to their playing style and ship roll - differently.

We need to stop thinking that the whole playing community is only going to customise a blueprint in one particular way if blueprint RNG was removed.

And what about all the other modules that are installed? The choice of other modules and their own applied manually selected blueprints will all play on each blueprint's attribute selection. Remember that a blueprint is a balance between advantages and disadvantages - each player will manage these attributes differently due to all the other factors.

 

[capt_sparks]

I understand your point. That's why I would like to suggest to FD to provide two ways of upgrading modules: (1) a deterministic method that provides a good improvement (with much higher ingredient requirements) and (2) the current RNG approach that provides a chance across average to excellent improvement. This still addresses what the RNG approach is aiming for and at the same time cater for the risk-averse with extra cost.

 

[metatheurgist]

I understand your point. That's why I would like to suggest to FD to provide two ways of upgrading modules: (1) a deterministic method that provides a good improvement (with much higher ingredient requirements) and (2) the current RNG approach that provides a chance across average to excellent improvement. This still addresses what the RNG approach is aiming for and at the same time cater for the risk-averse with extra cost.

Or they could just put a normal distribution on their RNG for module stats. That way 68% of rolls will be within 1 standard deviation and if you arrange the stat range smartly the vast majority of rolls will result in a usable product. You can still roll really well or really bad and you will still have variance. But it won't be the shaft fest that it is now.

 

[capt_sparks]

Or they could just put a normal distribution on their RNG for module stats. That way 68% of rolls will be within 1 standard deviation and if you arrange the stat range smartly the vast majority of rolls will result in a usable product. You can still roll really well or really bad and you will still have variance. But it won't be the shaft fest that it is now.

This provides a compromise for both sides, is more realistic and is easier to implement. FD must use your idea.