Ship systems should wear out on normal use

S. Belmont

S. Belmont
I thank all the responses and discussion this topic rised! Lots of good points and things to consider if something like this will ever be implemented. On the other hand, I knew that lots of players may dislike this kind of idea, but I still was surprised how completelly hostile some responses were!
 
Last edited:

DNA-Decay

DNA-Decay
Actually failures is one of the things that first drew me into Comvat Flight Sims.

I'd started flight training and up to the A P T bit (PAT usually but the chief of the school- whatev's don't sidetrack me)
Where they still you with the notion that your performance is your attitude x your power. Set attitude, set power, get performance.

Anyways I was playing IL-2 1946 and got shot up over Stalingrad.
Elevators completely uncontrolled. Rudder too.
I still had ailerons and I was roughly in trim when the tail controls went so I got level and happened to be facing east. Now the Eastern side of the Volga was home territory so I thought since I was not in a death spiral, I would keep going before bailing out.

The plane started to descend, but I thought I would try ADDING more power. This brought me speed up, which brought my nose up to level.
With careful slow patient turns and power adjustments I flew back to base and landed.

No Elevator. No Rudder. 6 hours in a real plane. Maybe 60 in a sim.


And to me THAT is compelling gameplay.
To have it all go pear shaped, but to understand what is happening enough to give it a red hot go.
 

S. Belmont

S. Belmont
DNA-Decay said:
Actually failures is one of the things that first drew me into Comvat Flight Sims.

I'd started flight training and up to the A P T bit (PAT usually but the chief of the school- whatev's don't sidetrack me)
Where they still you with the notion that your performance is your attitude x your power. Set attitude, set power, get performance.

Anyways I was playing IL-2 1946 and got shot up over Stalingrad.
Elevators completely uncontrolled. Rudder too.
I still had ailerons and I was roughly in trim when the tail controls went so I got level and happened to be facing east. Now the Eastern side of the Volga was home territory so I thought since I was not in a death spiral, I would keep going before bailing out.

The plane started to descend, but I thought I would try ADDING more power. This brought me speed up, which brought my nose up to level.
With careful slow patient turns and power adjustments I flew back to base and landed.

No Elevator. No Rudder. 6 hours in a real plane. Maybe 60 in a sim.


And to me THAT is compelling gameplay.
To have it all go pear shaped, but to understand what is happening enough to give it a red hot go.
Click to expand...
Great post!
 

Arindor

Arindor
<SARCASM>Please penalize exploration!</SARCASM> <WHISPER>Yes, I know about AFMs and farming materials with SRV ... but, really, penalize exploration?</WHISPER>
 

OfftheRails

OfftheRails
clivewil said:
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.
Click to expand...

My X52 does all that already. It's actually even less fun than you made it sound.
 

DNA-Decay

DNA-Decay
Arindor said:
<SARCASM>Please penalize exploration!</SARCASM> <WHISPER>... but, really, penalize exploration?</WHISPER>
Click to expand...

Fair point.

One way around is to have robustness, or reliability as one of the points of differentiation between an A5,B5. . . H5 components.

At the moment the A rated components are just "The best"
B are the heaviest, D the lightest, maybe C could be be "explorer grade" reliable.
Or C rated could be more modular. Sharing more common components with other systems allowing you to redistribute damage.
 

Kolato

Kolato
I say make it so that only weapon damage and weapon usage can create this and i MIGHT approve of it, but if you are to make exploration any worse then you're just being silly and disrespectfull for a profession that already pays nothing.
 

CMDR_UberDude

Banned
CMDR_UberDude
S. Belmont said:
I thank all the responses and discussion this topic rised! Lots of good points and things to consider if something like this will ever be implemented. On the other hand, I knew that lots of players may dislike this kind of idea, but I still was surprised how completelly hostile some responses were!
Click to expand...


You should have seen how hostile things got when FDev tried to implement a 10% resell penalty for modules. ;)
 

Sentenza

Sentenza
Regular servicing was in FE/FFE and I'm absolutely glad they got rid of it. It only accomplished one thing - preventing you from exploring anything, since you would end up with a destroyed engine in the middle of nowhere.
 
Last edited:

Trekari

T
DNA-Decay said:
I'm already there.

The Hall Effect Sensor on my vertical thrust controller (Saitek Throttle Quad) has some metallic dust around the halfway mark.

So getting a zero calibration on the vertical speed is quite fussy. I was involved in a photo shoot a couple of weeks ago. Couldn't stay still in the formation. Bouncing up and down like a puppy.

But YES this is an excellent idea that players will hate, but actually enrich their experience.

In MS Flght Simulator you could program failures, but I always wanted a mode where if you didn't do regular and thorough preflight checks your chance of failure would go up with you laziness.

So YES.
But players will hate it.

Also so in this vein: second hand ships.
Cheaper ships with "A rated" parts that turn out to be rubbish once you rely on them.
LeRoy Rui's discount parts shop selling you duds.

Years ago I was repairing a PA sub amplifier and I bought parts from a big reputable supplier (Aus) but the power transistors were Chinese fakes. The amp kept blowing up whenever I ran it up to full power.

Eventually this ripper little service tech out the back of a production company warehouse showed me. Correct brand and spec label, but when you bust it open in a vice, the tranny was no way going to handle the printed power. To find that tech I had to rely on word of mouth from a buddy who told me "this bloke is slow but straight" took him a month to get around to my amp, but when he fixed it it stayed fixed.

So yeah - you can have it: GOOD, FAST and CHEAP pick any TWO.
You want it fixed good and fast - pay a premium.
You want it fixed good and cheap - come back next week.
You want it fixed cheap and fast - don't rely on it for very long.
Click to expand...

Only a fool would say "Players will HATE it, but it will enrich their experience."
 

S. Belmont

S. Belmont
Kola2 said:
I say make it so that only weapon damage and weapon usage can create this and i MIGHT approve of it, but if you are to make exploration any worse then you're just being silly and disrespectfull for a profession that already pays nothing.
Click to expand...

Disrespectful? Needing to keep your exploration vessel in good working order would also add some variation and depth to exploration.

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

CMDR Dumbfries said:
No. No. No and heck no.
Really, if your ship isn't degrading fast enough for you, ram it into the station wall or nearest m class red dwarf.
Click to expand...

That really isn't the point. :) When one feels it is too easy on combat zones, just turn off your shields? When trading, use only half of your gargo space?
 

samuelb

samuelb
I think this thread was created to promote another contentious argument. Before we have realistic wear on modules (and in 3300 when manufacturing processes are orders of magnitude better than current ones it should take years not weeks, by which time life in a hostile space will have caused damage, doh) can we please have ways to improve our gameplay with computers, you know the things that in 3300 can do so much, apparently not in a ship though (route planner > 1000 ly, travel history, trade computer, auto create functions, planetary auto pilot, SRV auto pilot, planetary navigation computers, etc., etc., etc.) as well as ironing out all the bugs (large and small). Can we also have more ships, more missions, habitable planet landings, more station designs, more planetary base designs, better BGS (and methods to track and record actions, see above), Thargoids, other life forms, ice ring mining (water is a real commodity in outer space, Hydrogen and Oxgygen don't grow on trees...., er.... well you know what I mean). Can we also have bigger player groups, dedicated comms for groups (yes, yes, I know), monetary transfer systems that are not based on chucking stuff out of your cargo hatch. The list is endless and you want a realistic module damage system which, as I have already mentioned (see the first bracketed comment) would be all but pointless, please, please, please stop this nonsense. We all have our ideas of how things should be but, really? That is your suggestion? Really... well nevermind. I do not mean to be rude, I am just flabbergasted at this suggestion given everything else you could have suggested.
 
Last edited:

Caldric

Caldric
But when you land and your ship is shot up and the canopy is gone and sparks flying and holes all over you repair it all. Wouldn't work very well for wear and tear after replacing half the ship when landing with 3% hull. Oh and you never lose a ship? If not I think you are doing it wrong :)
 
Last edited:

Mephane

Mephane
This was actually an early idea for how wear&tear would work. Apparently it got abandoned, and while I can see how some players would really like it, count myself among the lot who would deeply loathe such a game mechanic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom