Ship systems should wear out on normal use

[S. Belmont]

I know there are more important stuff that needs attention , mission payouts being one major one in my books, but this is also something I would really like to see:

Ship modules should wear out and "get old". Even if you take no physical damage. And normal repairing would not make them as good as new again. When the module gets older and older it starts to behave more and more erratically, like for example fsd drive loading would reset from time to time, old sensors would start to show glitches... Maybe needing ship system boot to reset. At some point you should just replace module with new one. There could be also possibility to refurbish modules and that would restore its full functionality and some of the repairing capacity.

This alone would make ship management much more deep and varied, not mentioning richer gameplay and possible tight situations.

"You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought."

 

[Darian]

nope.
We have already a wear and tear tax, add to that rebuying an anacondas powerplant or FTL regulary ?
Theese things are bloody expensive so it would be running only high income trade all time to keep up with the costs (for big ships rule is hull is the cheapest part, modules can cost several times the hull all together.)

So well.. no

Or i play star citizen as soon out or so.

 

[_Fissure]

Inconvenience players for the sake of inconveniencing them and making them spend more money?

Got it.

 

[nexxo]

So much yes.

I think that the ship should be subject to normal gradual wear and tear in use. The AFMU would slow this process down a lot, but would need regular resupply with materials. At stations you can just hit 'repair and replenish all' to get back to 100%; outside the bubble deep space explorers would have to source materials to feed the AFMU. I do not think that the wear and tear should be irreversible however.

Same for the SRV: it can be repaired aboard the ship, but materials are required. Refuelling is from the ship's fuel tank. At stations repair and replenishment would happen along with that of the ship.

 

[S. Belmont]

I did not mean that modules would get old in a week, it should took a long while when module starts to show its age. And be logarithmic, the biger, more expensive module, the better it stands aging.

 

[Ian Skippy]

One of the devs stated that they want to have damaged modules be more common, and the effects more interesting. I personally believe it'd be fun if repair cost would not be linear. Repairing a broken down Hauler from 1% to 10% should be far cheaper than repairing uit from already good condition to perfect condition. That way you'd have a reason not to press 'repair all'. After all, why would a trader want to keep his trade ship in brand-new condition? Have some rusty garbage bins fly around with malfunctions possible at every moment. Firefly would be way less fun if they went from a 'Reynolds is a billionaire due to some inheritence, and he can keep his ship in perfect condition no matter what' idea.

 

[Mark Lock]

No please, this idea is bad , it would force people to constantly grind to cover modules wearing out with the time, I don't want to be forced to grind just to buy new modules all the time, bad post, bad idea , it would just add an annoying feature nobody probably wants, also we already have an insurance, if you add this feature, everybody will just crash the ship to get a new one when modules are old and unreliable LOL , worst idea ever !

 

[Bacalao]

nope.
We have already a wear and tear tax, add to that rebuying an anacondas powerplant or FTL regulary ?
Theese things are bloody expensive so it would be running only high income trade all time to keep up with the costs (for big ships rule is hull is the cheapest part, modules can cost several times the hull all together.)

So well.. no

Or i play star citizen as soon out or so.

Oh please, I got double rammed by FDSs in a RES last night and had my hull down to 49%, ouch right? Nope, a whopping 117k credits to repair half my annies hull. If you took half of the integrity off of all my modules it still wouldn't have been expensive relative to what I make in it and the safety it affords. Repair/refuel costs are a joke.

I know there are more important stuff that needs attention , mission payouts being one major one in my books, but this is also something I would really like to see:

Ship modules should wear out and "get old". Even if you take no physical damage. And normal repairing would not make them as good as new again. When the module gets older and older it starts to behave more and more erratically, like for example fsd drive loading would reset from time to time, old sensors would start to show glitches... Maybe needing ship system boot to reset. At some point you should just replace module with new one. There could be also possibility to refurbish modules and that would restore its full functionality and some of the repairing capacity.

This alone would make ship management much more deep and varied, not mentioning richer gameplay and possible tight situations.

"You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought."

I wouldn't mind having wear and tear on normal modules, but random penalization is a bad thing, it would be interesting to annoying the first time, and quickly annoying every subsequent time something malfunctioned. Fully repaired modules should act fully repaired. If I repair my car engine it runs as reliably as a new engine driven off the lot, that's the point of the repairs. It isn't going to malfunction until it breaks, which would necessarily make it broken and in need of repair. Now you might argue that they wear down faster after repeated repairs, which is what integrity is for.
-
So to sum, I agree, modules should experience wear and tear over time, maintaining a ship should cost you something (and AFMU ammo should be more expensive than the repairs themselves and when you buy an AFMU they should come empty or the resell price on an old one should go down for having less ammo), but a module in full repair, whether because it is new, or repaired in a station or with an AFMU, should function as though it is in full repair.

 

[_Fissure]

I did not mean that modules would get old in a week, it should took a long while when module starts to show its age. And be logarithmic, the biger, more expensive module, the better it stands aging.

But what is the point? What is the end goal? What dynamic and engaging element does it add to the gameplay? What positive experience or gamer behavior does it encourage?

The answer is none. It would just inconvenience players for the sake of it. It adds nothing of value to gameplay.

 

[Bacalao]

No please, this idea is bad , it would force people to constantly grind to cover modules wearing out with the time, I don't want to be forced to grind just to buy new modules all the time, bad post, bad idea , it would just add an annoying feature nobody probably wants, also we already have an insurance, if you add this feature, everybody will just crash the ship to get a new one when modules are old and unreliable LOL , worst idea ever !

Yeah, it's hard to shoot an Anaconda in a RES twice and make 300k credits from the bounty...such a grind!

 

[Don_Von_Hulio]

How about no.

 

[CMDR-AD]

Up and down sides to this, of course depending on each player's available play time and interests. Especially to be introduced mid-game, where many players are well set how they enjoy the game.

I had been working on an idea based on this concept, to post in the Suggestions Forum, but never did finish it. Ship and module wear, along with simple placeholder NPC hired crew costs (which I think are now confirmed never coming, anyway?) were to be further down the list. I'll post my notes below:

Elite Dangerous Economic Overlay

Draft 1
November 21, 2015



Overview
The Economic Overlay is an array of player determined options which impact the economic situations encountered by the player during play. Its use is optional. It does not impact any other player or the persistent galaxy.
Intent
Adding a variety of economic situations which, can with appropriate player settings, offer a simulation of a diverse array of economic situations within the various systems and factions of the Elite Dangerous galaxy.
These economic situations are designed to extend early to mid gameplay progression, determined by choices of trade commodities, systems, and factions.
These gameplay settings are completely at the discretion of the individual player. Each player alone experiences any impact based on their own use and settings of the system.
In essence, the Economic Overlay is a money drain to slow player financial progression toward a player's own desired pace.
GUI
The Economic Overlay is configured via the Options menu. A main toggle switches the entire system ON or OFF.
Dropdown menus provide choices in operating modes.
Text entry fields allow players to input values which will override the default base values.
Economic Overlay Elements
The following outline details the various options within the system.

• Docking Fees
  • Choice of FIXED or VARIABLE fee schedule.
    • FIXED applies a flat rate for all size pads and factions.
    • VARIABLE allows player entry of fees for small, medium, and large pad sizes, as well as percentage discount for FRIENDLY and ALLIED status with the controlling MINOR FACTION.
  • Player variables for station state influence of docking fees.
• Local Taxes
  • Intention is to simulate a form of COMMODITY MARKET taxation which supports the local station upkeep and security.
    • Player variables for commodity market tax rates for each government type.
    • Player variables for SYSTEM SECURITY modifiers: High, Medium, Low, and Anarchy. Value is percentage of increase or decrease of base government type variable.
    • Player variable for influence of station population on local taxation rates.
    • Player variable for influence of station state on local taxes.
• Station Sur-charges
  • Player variables for percent increase above default rates for ammunition, fuel, and limpets, based on station economy type, station state, and population size.

Unfinished beyond here....

 

[CMDR_UberDude]

Only if major module crafting is introduced.

I.E. I can go out, collect the raw materials or purchase said mats myself from a station and then craft my own parts/modules so long as I have the required skills at the required level.

Then maybe I can see a "wear, tear and eventually damaged beyond repair." mechanic introduced to the game.

 

[S. Belmont]

Malcolm Reynolds or Han Solo does not have the luxury of 100% good as new and functional ship, why ED commanders should?

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

But what is the point? What is the end goal? What dynamic and engaging element does it add to the gameplay? What positive experience or gamer behavior does it encourage?

The answer is none. It would just inconvenience players for the sake of it. It adds nothing of value to gameplay.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

Totally agree but as the prices are so high for A rated gear the wear should take several years to become evident, weeks or months would just be ridiculous. Also needs a viable second hand market and crafting should allow you to cannibalise parts etc.

 

[S. Belmont]

Totally agree but as the prices are so high for A rated gear the wear should take several years to become evident, weeks or months would just be ridiculous. Also needs a viable second hand market and crafting should allow you to cannibalise parts etc.

Exactly.

 

[Vasious]

No please, this idea is bad , it would force people to constantly grind to cover modules wearing out with the time, I don't want to be forced to grind just to buy new modules all the time, bad post, bad idea , it would just add an annoying feature nobody probably wants, also we already have an insurance, if you add this feature, everybody will just crash the ship to get a new one when modules are old and unreliable LOL , worst idea ever !

I love the over reaction here.
Apparently this is the worst idea ever.
So even replacing all the ships with my little pony would be preferable to wear and tear.
Reverting gameplay to Alpha 3 style would be better than wear and tear.

And No body wants this idea which is why it would get suggested and even have people agree with the idea.
Don't worry though you've just decided they're nobodies for having a differing opinion to you.

Heaven forbid our ships devolop and character as they age, especially with crafting coming whch might make and interesting trade off to having special drive units and what not needing more TLC to keep running at 100%
Nope it's the Hyperbolic panic over any running cost not be a trade off but immediately labelled a grind.

This mentality was why we ended up with retail fuel costs that were often less than the wholesale market rate, people crowing on how they were making 10 or 20 million credits an hour upset paying 500 cr an hour for fuel.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Personally I'm of the opinion that if a module hits 0% it should be permanently destroyed, and that damaged modules should take progressively worse damage from being used while in less than stellar condition. The mechanic of having modules fail on an RNG roll depending on their condition is just annoying as all get-out and doesn't add anything to the game. I'd rather if my FSD was at 20% and I couldn't repair it, that meant that I had about 15 minutes in supercruise to make it back to the station before I got stranded.

Oh, been overheating your car and haven't bothered to refill the antifreeze? Don't be surprised if you burn out the engine tomorrow. Finding metallic shavings in the transmission fluid and don't take it to a mechanic? You only have yourself to blame.

Less gamey bullcrap that doesn't add anything to the content, and more logic please.

 

[CMDR_UberDude]

This mentality was why we ended up with retail fuel costs that were often less than the wholesale market rate, people crowing on how they were making 10 or 20 million credits an hour upset paying 500 cr an hour for fuel.

Actually it was around 40k or so for a refill in my conda for a typical A>B>C>B>A run. And around 125k to fill up all 32 tons. So yea, it would eat into profits.

It also didn't make any sense whatsoever since it's just hydrogen.

but that's over and done with. Just wanted to set that straight so people don't get confused by the hyperbole.

As far as the topic is concerned. I don't disagree but I also don't need more grind tacked on without it actually adding substance to the game. Or at least coming with substance (Crafting).

Then there's the simple fact that it means more work for FDev. Why would they spend time on something like this for the sake of a few players that want this space game to be even more like a simulator.

If players made such a hissy fit about fuel costs and made an even bigger hissy fit about the 10% resell penalty for modules. I just don't see this ever getting past the forums.

 

[nexxo]

But what is the point? What is the end goal? What dynamic and engaging element does it add to the gameplay? What positive experience or gamer behavior does it encourage?

The answer is none. It would just inconvenience players for the sake of it. It adds nothing of value to gameplay.

The point is that explorers and miners would have a reason to source materials (others just hit the "repair all" button at station and nothing changes for them). Of course it can be combined with crafting as UberDude suggest, to improve and enhance modules.