What about Modified Ships for CG rewards?

[Rubbernuke]

Maybe use the seeds of this idea- https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...sing-ship-kit-bits-and-minor-upgrades.591490/

So in essence the unique parts are low level engineering but also limited ship kit parts.

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

Adding double engineered modules was already a terrible idea. This would be even worse. People would go nuts and the fomo levels would be absolutely horrific.

 

[DemiserofD]

SIZE is a universal word for Ship's modules.

No, size is a universal term that means a wide variety of things. And when the only terms used to define said size is tonnes, not volume, the only logical conclusion should be obvious.

That just mean Ferrary have A-class engine in comparison with Z-class.

What difference does it make? I'm essentially saying the ship is modified so that whatever power plant it has is Class-S, but undersized, leaving extra space for the Power Distributor to be more powerful. At this point you're just being pedantic.

Only if rivets made of adamantium.

Because space ship definitely not a aircraft.
Modern (our, real) spacecrafts used welding.

Nonsense, lol. If used properly, rivets can be quite a bit stronger than welds, which is why they're still used, even in modern aircraft. The only reason they don't use rivets OR welds in modern spacecraft is because they're typically shaped out of a single block of material, which is stronger than either one. But if a material suitably stronger than modern materials became available, it wouldn't matter what method is used to seal it together, as long as the material itself is strong enough.

Which Meta Alloys definitely are, or they wouldn't care so much. Enough to go to war over.

 

[DemiserofD]

Adding double engineered modules was already a terrible idea. This would be even worse. People would go nuts and the fomo levels would be absolutely horrific.

I dunno, would you personally go wild for an Asp Scout with +2 Distributor Size?

 

[GoldenSilver484]

Of course. Do you really think large engines are made out of the same materials as smaller engines? That a sports car uses the same parts as a SUV?

You'd be surprised how many parts are interchangeable.

The engine on a Ferrari has 10x the power of the engine on a hatchback; by your logic, the sportscar would need to be something like 128x the volume, but that's obviously not true.

Yet that Ferrari engine is easily twice as large as a hatchback's. By your logic they're the same size, the Ferrari engine is just heavier.

Here's the FACT: Core modules use MASS, not VOLUME. That's it.

Not a fact.
Why can't my Krait or Python equip a 64 ton 8D but can equip the 64 ton 7B? They're the same mass and, according to you, the same size. Or with distributors, FSDs and thrusters too.

 

[Northpin]

I dunno, would you personally go wild for an Asp Scout with +2 Distributor Size?

Asp Scout lacks internals and speed... PD is of little to no concern for an Asp Scout

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

I dunno, would you personally go wild for an Asp Scout with +2 Distributor Size?

That’s not the point. Once you start introducing these you start down the slippery road and all of a sudden you are standing there with something that is effectively the new meta and no longer obtainable.

Ships are different. Some are better and some are worse. Introducing power creep with fomo on top is not going to solve that so better stay away from such ideas.

 

[DemiserofD]

Why can't my Krait or Python equip a 64 ton 8D but can equip the 64 ton 7B? They're the same mass and, according to you, the same size. Or with distributors, FSDs and thrusters too.

Hookups, is just one potential justification among many. One takes more fuel, or need better conduits to output the energy, or something of that sort.

My point is that you can justify anything. Just throw a little technobabble at it and poof, you've got a perfectly valid justification. Why is it valid? Because it clearly works ingame, so it must be.

All justifications are, by nature, retroactive. Like, why is it that you never come across crashed ships with 500 tons of biowaste lying across the surface? You could say it's because when they crash, most of the cargo is always destroyed, but the more accurate answer is that our game engine can't render that many units of cargo at once. And that's the real limitation. Get rid of that engine limit and poof! The crash justification can promptly go away! So you say something about reinforcing cargo bays with meta alloys or whatever if you really want to justify it canonically and everything is good.

 

[DemiserofD]

Asp Scout lacks internals and speed... PD is of little to no concern for an Asp Scout

Well, that's sorta my point. If you only apply these buffs in limited ways or on ships that already underperform, you'll never have a problem!

 

[DemiserofD]

That’s not the point. Once you start introducing these you start down the slippery road and all of a sudden you are standing there with something that is effectively the new meta and no longer obtainable.

Ships are different. Some are better and some are worse. Introducing power creep with fomo on top is not going to solve that so better stay away from such ideas.

Only if you jump down said slippery slope. If you introduce an asp scout with +2 PD size, you haven't suddenly made all other ships useless. You've added one new ship variant. That's it.

You could make the exact same claim about modules, but I don't think that's happened yet, either. If anything, the opposite; the latest module they've introduced that's modified is completely useless!

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

Only if you jump down said slippery slope. If you introduce an asp scout with +2 PD size, you haven't suddenly made all other ships useless. You've added one new ship variant. That's it.

Wrong. You just jumped on the slippery slope by introducing an AspS that is objectively better than any other AspS. If you want more ship variants, focus on getting more actual ship variants. Not rebrands of existing ones that are only available in a short time window. To be honest, the idea is quite repulsive to me.

You could make the exact same claim about modules, but I don't think that's happened yet, either. If anything, the opposite; the latest module they've introduced that's modified is completely useless!

Oh it definitely already happened for the FSDs.

Furthermore, if a module/ship is useless there is no point in introducing it at all. If it introduces choice and customisation, fine, but the idea to lock it behind CGs is still repugnant.

 

[Fake Newts]

with something that is effectively the new meta and no longer obtainable.

Worth pointing out again that the Cobra IV is by no means anyone's meta, and yet still makes a lot of fans of the game unhappy when they realise they can't have it.

FOMO and artificially splitting the playerbase into haves and have-nots is genuinely unethical. I would much rather they start selling new ships as microtransactions than tying them to arbitrary dates on the calendar.

Imagine someone deeply loves this game (it still happens) and uses it as their primary source of escapism. Imagine that the Clipper the OP mentioned is their favourite ship. Imagine someone in their family dies, they're devastated and have to attend a funeral. They come back from this to find out their favourite ship in their favourite game was given a significant buff and made available for the weekend they were away. They're now unsure as to whether they'll ever get one themselves, moreover the friends they were playing with now have it and they don't. Imagine these people enjoyed competition and now find themselves with a hard numerical line dividing them that cannot be narrowed with any amount of in-game effort.

Clearly you'd think I'm being somewhat emotionally manipulative with this scenario, but this is literally what happened to one of my squadmates with the most recent FSDs - they actually uninstalled as a result and are extremely grumpy about it still. It's unfair and would be considerably worse if it were whole ships rather than modules.

 

[Fake Newts]

If some posters view a person letting their performance and assets in a videogame bring down their mood IRL as silly, that's up to you. It doesn't change the fact that it happens, people do take it seriously, and Fdev could avoid a lot of pointless angst by cutting this bullshazz out and coming up with a better, less manipulative reward scheme.

 

[DemiserofD]

You just jumped on the slippery slope by introducing an AspS that is objectively better than any other AspS. If you want more ship variants, focus on getting more actual ship variants. Not rebrands of existing ones that are only available in a short time window. To be honest, the idea is quite repulsive to me.

Broadly speaking, that's objectively a bad business decision. Introducing a new, slightly less mediocre Asp Scout isn't going to draw anyone back to the game.

A FOMO one, by contrast, absolutely will.

Oh it definitely already happened for the FSDs.

No it didn't; they're all going to be publically available.

Furthermore, if a module/ship is useless there is no point in introducing it at all. If it introduces choice and customisation, fine, but the idea to lock it behind CGs is still repugnant.

By that measure, we could remove every mediocre thing from the game entirely, which would obviously be a bad move.

You can claim to dislike it, but the stats speak for themselves; from a playtime perspective, players LOVE fomo items.

 

[DemiserofD]

Worth pointing out again that the Cobra IV is by no means anyone's meta, and yet still makes a lot of fans of the game unhappy when they realise they can't have it.

Yeah, and then they get over it. Can you think of anyone who quit the game because they couldn't have a Cobra mk IV?

Imagine someone deeply loves this game (it still happens) and uses it as their primary source of escapism. Imagine that the Clipper the OP mentioned is their favourite ship. Imagine someone in their family dies, they're devastated and have to attend a funeral. They come back from this to find out their favourite ship in their favourite game was given a significant buff and made available for the weekend they were away. They're now unsure as to whether they'll ever get one themselves, moreover the friends they were playing with now have it and they don't. Imagine these people enjoyed competition and now find themselves with a hard numerical line dividing them that cannot be narrowed with any amount of in-game effort.

You've created a great sob story here, but it all goes away when you remember; It's just a game. They'll get over it, and be all the more excited to play the next time something similar comes around.

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

No it didn't; they're all going to be publically available.

Irrelevant. Therevwas still fomo at the time of the original FSD CG.

A FOMO one, by contrast, absolutely will.

Unironocally arguing that fomo is a good thing ... it is not. Not in the long run. You may get a brief boost but those players will soon leave again when they realize nothing has really changed.

You can claim to dislike it, but the stats speak for themselves; from a playtime perspective, players LOVE fomo items.

They certainly do not. I donMt know what players you have been speaking with. Generally, it gives a boost at the time of fomo. When fomo becomes a regular occurence, people get fed up and leave.

You just seem unable to accept that a majority of the repliers here seem to be unanimously opposed to your proposal snd consider it a really bad one.

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

and be all the more excited to play the next time something similar comes around.

Total fabrication. In my experience, people get fed up with repeated fomo tactics and in the long run this increases fatigue with the game and make players likely to leave. I have seen it happen time and time again.

 

[Fake Newts]

They'll get over it, and be all the more excited to play the next time something similar comes around.

Precisely what Orodruin says above. You have no basis on which to suppose that people will be 'all the more excited next time'. A game can only disappoint its audience so many times before they move on. I have participated in several of the FOMO CGs begrudgingly because I have mild OCD, not 'excitedly'. We have already mentioned that this kind of model is widely despised in the industry at large. Elite doesn't exist in a vacuum.

If Fdev put the time into making more ship variants it would be seriously stupid of them not to make them available to every player who enjoys this game through fair and accessible means so as to make a far greater number of their players happy.

 

[DemiserofD]

Irrelevant. Therevwas still fomo at the time of the original FSD CG.

...and? It made players excited at the time, and quelled any backlash after the fact. It's a great solution to a module that's unintentionally too powerful, but totally unnecessary if the opposite is true, and the module is underpowered. All the benefits of FOMO with none of the downsides.

Unironocally arguing that fomo is a good thing ... it is not. Not in the long run. You may get a brief boost but those players will soon leave again when they realize nothing has really changed.

I mean, that's the case for ALL content. People come back briefly to check it out, play for a bit, then leave again. Nothing keeps people around forever. Anything can be bad in excess, of course, but I hardly think they've crossed that line.

They certainly do not. I donMt know what players you have been speaking with. Generally, it gives a boost at the time of fomo. When fomo becomes a regular occurence, people get fed up and leave.

Says who? As far as I can tell, people have left because of a split community, because of Odyssey's flaws, because of a LACK of Odyssey, but certainly not because of FOMO. What players have YOU been speaking with? Because again, I've never met someone who claims to have quit because they couldn't get some specific item.

You just seem unable to accept that a majority of the repliers here seem to be unanimously opposed to your proposal snd consider it a really bad one.

I mean, I've demonstrated in several ways why it's actively a good thing. If you continue to dislike it in the face of all logic, just because you, personally, can't get certain items, that's certainly your right, but it doesn't mean it's an opinion we should care about.

Total fabrication. In my experience, people get fed up with repeated fomo tactics and in the long run this increases fatigue with the game and make players likely to leave. I have seen it happen time and time again.

Really? Because the exact opposite has happened with me. I got both modified Enzyme missile racks, just on the off chance that the second one would be different from the first.

The only time FOMO fails to attract me is when I'm confident that they'll add the module for common purchase later on, but all that proves is that FOMO doesn't work when it's not actually FOMO.

 

[DemiserofD]

Total fabrication. In my experience, people get fed up with repeated fomo tactics and in the long run this increases fatigue with the game and make players likely to leave. I have seen it happen time and time again.

Really? Because the exact opposite has happened with me. I got both modified Enzyme missile racks, just on the off chance that the second one would be different from the first.

The only time FOMO fails to attract me is when I'm confident that they'll add the module for common purchase later on, but all that proves is that FOMO doesn't work when it's not actually FOMO.