Like insurance premiums and space bog roll, it's ignored because it would add nothing to the gameplay.
Ship systems should wear out on normal use
- Thread starter S. Belmont
- Start date
This is why Frontier are often better to manage mechanics, and simply consider CMDR input, as viewpoints. Because the same people who scream for realism, are the same people to scream when something changes. I want my realism, but only if you don't actually change anything to give me that realism.
Never mind when all the graphs and spreadsheets come out. Oh, something changed? Here's a spreadsheet to explain why this new (highly requested) feature is wrong and should be 1.034556782% different to ensure balance.
tl;dr - people (as a group) have NFI and aren't to be trusted; sheep/ lemming mentality - singular individuals can however, be intelligent, provide input, and be rather good value. Such as your response.
Oh I wasn't suggesting copying the Yearly service.
I think if anything number of jumps or time in SC would be the metric to use.
A slowly downward creeping Max % on modules that could be restored to 100% via crafting and synthesis maybe.
The more exotic the module the more exotic the material.
Maybe even just have it for the crafted modules so the stock FSD is fine but the ++FSD++ you put together with the help of Drive Performance Specialist of the Cockaigne system will burn out slowly as it is over spec and every so often will need some crafting/synthesis TLC as one of the costs to having a ++FSD++
Last edited:
It's this way because there is a "right" way to do everything, and you can be sure Frontier will never actually get it "right", because the community is sure to make this clear (you are wrong, here's a spreadsheet to explain) every time something changes.
Frontier can't win. They can however develop a game that doesn't make everyone happy, but is however mostly playable. And I'm happy to have a few grumbles, and yet be able to play the game, than have no grumbles to speak of around mechanics - but a game that's just unplayable.
Well, the thing is it doesnt need to be unplayable, it needs to be done right.
But I understand why you feel FD cant do things right because I feel it too, they are afraid because they opened the game so much to captivate a broad audience loosing focus, thats a big mistake (not for the money of course). This is why the game will always be weak.
Last edited:
CMDR_UberDude
Banned
Yea, okay. Sure. I had no idea all the players in the game were like this. Capitalism strikes again! When will players learn that it's more fun to enjoy the journey than to try and rush to the end!
As the game stands now I agree but think of the future when ship crews are in the game. That would be a good time to introduce wear and tear that is reduced or even nullified depending on the engineer you have (for example). Until that point though wear and tear is simply going to be a credit tax.
I think you are woefully mistaken on what your place in the food chain is as a member of the Pilot's Federation, and you also have no idea what maintenance schedules for industrial equipment entail or why they are important.
Basically, do yourself a favor and redact that entire post.
What would be the upside to such a thing ? What additional benefit is there ?
the original post, talks about various detrimental things. Modules malfunctioning. Things requiring frequent ship rebooots. That kind of thing.
So, you fly with your modules at 100% repair all the time. Any time a module can't be repaired to 100% you sell it at 99% condition and buy a new one.
Ends up, you have effectively an ongoing bill to operate the ship, and operating out of anything other than the best stocked starports is inconvenient.
So, why would you let your systems run down to the point where their performance is degraded ? What advantage is there in doing that ? Pressing J to engage frame shift drive, only for it to malfunction time and time again, well, that's frustrating and annoying. Why would you willingly subject yourself to that ?
Operating from starports where new modules are not available, becomes less viable. Why penalise players wanting to set up in the less-well travelled areas ?
In other games, where player equipment degrades, there were various skills and such that the player could use to maintain their equipment, in some cases making it better than original. E.g. perks in the Fallout games to reduce or eliminate weapon wear. Skills in the Elder Scrolls games, to repair armour and weapons to 125% condition, making the peak performance last longer.
the original post, talks about various detrimental things. Modules malfunctioning. Things requiring frequent ship rebooots. That kind of thing.
So, you fly with your modules at 100% repair all the time. Any time a module can't be repaired to 100% you sell it at 99% condition and buy a new one.
Ends up, you have effectively an ongoing bill to operate the ship, and operating out of anything other than the best stocked starports is inconvenient.
So, why would you let your systems run down to the point where their performance is degraded ? What advantage is there in doing that ? Pressing J to engage frame shift drive, only for it to malfunction time and time again, well, that's frustrating and annoying. Why would you willingly subject yourself to that ?
Operating from starports where new modules are not available, becomes less viable. Why penalise players wanting to set up in the less-well travelled areas ?
In other games, where player equipment degrades, there were various skills and such that the player could use to maintain their equipment, in some cases making it better than original. E.g. perks in the Fallout games to reduce or eliminate weapon wear. Skills in the Elder Scrolls games, to repair armour and weapons to 125% condition, making the peak performance last longer.
It adds gameplay opportunities. It doesnt need to be bad if its well implemented.
It could add that famous word used and reused in these forums and feared by the Withe Knights, "depth" to the game.
Such as... ?
Something like this was originally intended to be a feature, but unfortunately it was nerfed prior to the gamma build. I suspect this was because it would have been part of a larger game system and the whole package would have taken too long to implement. Unfortunately it's one of those things that can't easily be added later without substantially changing the game, but perhaps we might see it enabled in part as a function of the loot and crafting system.
Intensive wear and tear would have had a profound impact on the game by making life much more challenging for explorers and limiting the practical distance for exploration. By implementing a system that was time and distance based the costs of maintenance could have been kept inconsequential for players who stay in civilization, whilst making the risks of long-distance exploration a serious factor and expense for those who chose to follow that activity.
There is "depth" then there are adding mechanics because it sounds cool, but doesn't actually work.
Because this would be handled like aircraft or engineering maintenance cycles, which means people would be required to stop whatever they are doing to have the maintenance done. This is problematic for explorers, who are automatically limited to n LY before they are required to return in time (part life) for maintenance; or face their ship slowly disintegrating/ randomly exploding because the thrusters have missed their x hours service window and are now likely to fail, stranding the player, or they may simply explode, destroying the ship.
Yes, this is all very nice and real-world and exciting. Adds some challenges. It is also, without some serious consideration and work, going to become a god-awful mechanic. Because it's now forcing people into yet another 'cycle' for no real actual gain or value.
This so called "depth" argument is trotted out every single time someone makes a real-world suggestion, as somehow being it's own justification. Module maintenance is simplified at present because there's a lot of work to make that a living breathing workable part of the game. Depth alone, isn't a valid reason.
Depth isn't just faking a mechanics to invent 'depth', either - it's translating real world type mechanics to a game in a way that reflects the source, and also just doesn't plain suck from an experience perspective as well. Getting that actual (as apposed to invented) balance correct is difficult as all hell.
Last edited:
i've seen too many of these type of threads "hey let's have our ships randomly crap themselves just for the fun of it" to become a little concerned that FD might actually take note of these suggestions and build them into the game - e.g. whoever the wombat was at FD that decided that fixing smuggling missions in one part of the galaxy was best served by nerfing ALL missions EVERYWHERE - he's the one that would implement it and think it was a great idea
maybe FD could incorporate a Difficulty setting in the Options screen, e.g.
Normal setting - things work as they currently do.
Hard setting - random module failures. canopy suddenly blows out for no reason. FSD explodes after 2 jumps. suddenly you lose the ability to pitch downwards or yaw left. your weapons frequently refuse to deploy. random murder charges appear just for the hell of it. landing gear fails, life support fails... wow, think of the fun you'll have!
that way you can slog through a pointlessly difficult game without making the rest of us suffer too.
maybe FD could incorporate a Difficulty setting in the Options screen, e.g.
Normal setting - things work as they currently do.
Hard setting - random module failures. canopy suddenly blows out for no reason. FSD explodes after 2 jumps. suddenly you lose the ability to pitch downwards or yaw left. your weapons frequently refuse to deploy. random murder charges appear just for the hell of it. landing gear fails, life support fails... wow, think of the fun you'll have!
that way you can slog through a pointlessly difficult game without making the rest of us suffer too.
Degradation over time that increases that chances if the Malfunctions that are already in the game are not the Hard mode you describe, but thanks for the exaggerated straw man.
Sadly the effects of module malfunction are rarely seen outside combat and even then only if you stick around after you lose you're shields.
1) Having a choice for repairs: fly a run-down ship at a discount, or a brand-new ship at a premium. Currently there is no reason not to repair fully.
2) Have module malfunction be a more important part of gameplay. It forces you to be more creative and think on your feed.
3) Enable 2nd hand ship stores. Now you can fly a run-down ship you couldnt afford at normal retail prices.
4) Risk & reward: fly a run-down ship at higher risks but higher net rewardsm, or play it safe and keep your ship in top condition.
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 - - - - -
How about no. Leave that to to the movies. Wear and tear is enough.
can you explain how seeing "frame shift drive charging", "frame shift drive malfunction", and then repeating FSD activation several times until it functions properly, involves the use of creativity and thinking on your feet ?