Ship systems should wear out on normal use
- Thread starter S. Belmont
- Start date
While I'm not totally against the idea, it's a hard balancing act. If you make the maintenance requirement too frequent it will just annoy everyone and probably kill off exploration as we know it. Go too far the other way and it's pretty pointless. Someone mentioned 5000 hours in relation to some real world engine? I might make my 1000 hours by the end of the year and I've been playing from the start and gone through several ships in that time. I totally get the thing about bringing back a crippled plane in IL2, been there done that. What I'm not so keen on is failures entirely down to rng rolls of the dice. It's not good gameplay. One of the problems is that combat seems pretty binary. Either you survive or you don't and when modules start failing it's more than likely that you won't survive. The hull usually fails before modules do or it will be some system critical for jumping. which means your only chance would be to win the fight, which is unlikely if you're ship is that badly damaged.
To be fair, we don't get to poop, eat or shower in the game either. These are core parts of human life that aren't reflected.
Because although they are something that occurs in real life, it doesn't automatically translate well into the game. Much like regular maintenance cycles sound like a cool realistic thing that actually won't translate well because it's interruptive.
Oh, you are halfway to Sag A* - too bad your ship needed maintenance and now the engines are dead and you are stuck with no option but the rebuy screen because there's no Mechanics Rats.
Maybe before we build in automatic obsolescence, lets maybe also make sure there are surrounding mechanics so a fair chunk of the community isn't massively inconvenienced by one persons idea of realistic life (which only makes sense in the bubble).
I'm all for more realisim - just not for the sake of it alone. Such a mechanic needs quite a bit of functionality added first, I believe.
Because although they are something that occurs in real life, it doesn't automatically translate well into the game. Much like regular maintenance cycles sound like a cool realistic thing that actually won't translate well because it's interruptive.
Oh, you are halfway to Sag A* - too bad your ship needed maintenance and now the engines are dead and you are stuck with no option but the rebuy screen because there's no Mechanics Rats.
Maybe before we build in automatic obsolescence, lets maybe also make sure there are surrounding mechanics so a fair chunk of the community isn't massively inconvenienced by one persons idea of realistic life (which only makes sense in the bubble).
I'm all for more realisim - just not for the sake of it alone. Such a mechanic needs quite a bit of functionality added first, I believe.
Uh yeah actually it would have. Half damage to all your modules, assuming combat A rated, you're looking at millions in damage there.
How about making modules deteriorate..... ONLY WHEN YOU ARE LOGGED OUT ?!
Last edited:
I could see that. Look at any car on the road today (mine is a Buick Century, 2001). Things get old, they wear out, need to be replaced. This would be "realistic".
Ever play Morrowind or Oblivion (or earlier Elder Scrolls games)? Every wack of the blade, use of a shield, hit on your armor took it down a notch until you had to stop what you're doing and drag all that stuff to a smithy who would repair it (for a nominal fee, of course). This was fine, of course, we knew about it, expected it, and there were dozens of places to get the equipment repaired back to 100%. They took that need out of Skyrim, BTW.
Now, imagine heading to Antaries with that all important cargo of bauxite. Got to be there in 20 minutes because you took too long to find a source. FSD starts sputtering and drops you out of hyper in the middle of nowhere (wouldn't that be a kick???). Or your landing gear won't deploy properly meaning you can't land. There's ways to resolve that until you get to THIS:
Exploring The Milky Way. On the other side of the galaxy, your life support starts to show signs of age. The shield generator goes kaflooy on you. Your fuel scoop won't deploy.
That's not what explorers want to hear about. No one will go anywhere if their stuff MIGHT break down hundreds of light years out of the bubble. Yes, it'll be more realistic, and perhaps if there's a way to patch things up using your smarts, a well-stocked tool box (and duct tape), it'll be a real challenge to brag about. But not in space. No one's going to enjoy that at all.
Perhaps on planets, when you can get out of your SRV and possible fix that wheel or jump jet using your tool box (which I think could / should happen once you can walk around) that would make more sense. However, I can see where the "no's" are coming from here, and I agree.
I have some modules fail on 98%. 2% damage I'd say its too much the way its set. failure should happen at a more damaged state.
I already have problems with my subsystems randomly malfunctioning, not much need for even more stuff. In fact my systems malfunction so frequently (while shields online, no damage taken, no overheat since last repair) that I'm thinking this is already in the game...
Last edited:
Gee, because I really want to fork up hundreds of millions of credits to replace the modules I already have for my stupidly expensive Anaconda. Great idea. Because, you know, actually coming across that kind of money isn't nearly impossible within a reasonable span of time.
Just... no. That is all.
Just... no. That is all.
Absolutely YES to wear and tear - especially as a limit to long range exploration without the correct kit. As for MOTs and ship tax - YES AGAIN. Berthing costs/tax and annual servicing were in the previous 2 games, and I consider it a retrograde step that they aren't in now.
.
*Edit* And while we're at it, where are mis-jumps from poorly maintained drives? (Yes I know Mike Brookes said they definitely weren't on the list this time round, but again... retrograde step IMHO
).
Last edited:
Will you guys please stop trying to bring real life into this game. I do this with the wifes car and my truck. Now you are telling me you want me to do this for my make believe space ship too? So are we also going to get ship mechanics who will jack up the cost of repairs?
Conversely, please can people stop trying to dumb down any form of depth and additional considerations in gameplay and the simulation? Especially when such elements were familiar in the previous iterations of the Elite games, and would aid in the willing suspension of disbelief in the simulation.
.
As for your glib example, why not? It would be a chance for NPC interaction that the game is sorely lacking at the moment? Do you go for a cheap and cheerful service, or something more in depth but expensive? Do you try to negotiate down the cost? ... Hang On... BOTH of those features were in the previous games! [Well choice of service, and negotiating payments on the bulletin board were present
]
I will not endorse wear and tear malfunctions until we have a way to get out of our seat and fix them ourselves.
I understand, and like, the idea behind it, to have a module fail at a critical time to add dramatic tension, but that usually translates into death in combat, because you are not protected by plot armor.
I understand, and like, the idea behind it, to have a module fail at a critical time to add dramatic tension, but that usually translates into death in combat, because you are not protected by plot armor.
I guess that what it comes down to is what people want out of this game, which is always a tricky question because it tries to be a lot of things: a space flight sim, a trading game, a pew pew game, a space exploration game. Do we also want it to be a ship/resource management game? Some of us do, some of us don't.
Frontier has tried to balance it so that players can focus on the aspects of the game that they like playing, and can largely ignore the rest. A lot of friction on this forum happens when players feel that they can't ignore some aspect that they are not interested in (e.g. traders being shot by PvP-ers) or when they feel that their favoured aspect is somehow neglected compared to others (e.g. explorers feeling that the game has few rewarding mechanics for them). It's tricky to get the balance right, and we're all in the same universe so it's hard to just ignore the bits we don't like.
So: ship management? I like. Those who are not interested are mostly inside the bubble anyway, so just hit the "repair and maintenance" button on station services and that's all the impact it makes on them. Deep space miners and explorers, to who such a game aspect is more likely to appeal, can search and collect materials to feed the AFMU to keep their ship and SRV in good shape. Perhaps later they can even go EVA or land on a planet to do ship repairs, while SRV repairs and upgrades happen in the ship hangar. This would add a bit of challenge --and realism-- to deep space exploring and prospecting far from the bubble.
Basically we do not have the luxury to say: "I don't like this bit, so I don't want the game to include it". There are other players with a stake in this game, who are interested in aspects of the game that you may not be interested in. Everybody needs to have the opportunity to play it their way. So I want ship management, but this should also include a credible and easy 'opt out' for people who don't want to bother with it, by having it all taken care of quickly and easily at the nearest station.
Frontier has tried to balance it so that players can focus on the aspects of the game that they like playing, and can largely ignore the rest. A lot of friction on this forum happens when players feel that they can't ignore some aspect that they are not interested in (e.g. traders being shot by PvP-ers) or when they feel that their favoured aspect is somehow neglected compared to others (e.g. explorers feeling that the game has few rewarding mechanics for them). It's tricky to get the balance right, and we're all in the same universe so it's hard to just ignore the bits we don't like.
So: ship management? I like. Those who are not interested are mostly inside the bubble anyway, so just hit the "repair and maintenance" button on station services and that's all the impact it makes on them. Deep space miners and explorers, to who such a game aspect is more likely to appeal, can search and collect materials to feed the AFMU to keep their ship and SRV in good shape. Perhaps later they can even go EVA or land on a planet to do ship repairs, while SRV repairs and upgrades happen in the ship hangar. This would add a bit of challenge --and realism-- to deep space exploring and prospecting far from the bubble.
Basically we do not have the luxury to say: "I don't like this bit, so I don't want the game to include it". There are other players with a stake in this game, who are interested in aspects of the game that you may not be interested in. Everybody needs to have the opportunity to play it their way. So I want ship management, but this should also include a credible and easy 'opt out' for people who don't want to bother with it, by having it all taken care of quickly and easily at the nearest station.
Conversely, please can people stop trying to dumb down any form of depth and additional considerations in gameplay and the simulation? Especially when such elements were familiar in the previous iterations of the Elite games, and would aid in the willing suspension of disbelief in the simulation.
.
As for your glib example, why not? It would be a chance for NPC interaction that the game is sorely lacking at the moment? Do you go for a cheap and cheerful service, or something more in depth but expensive? Do you try to negotiate down the cost? ... Hang On... BOTH of those features were in the previous games! [Well choice of service, and negotiating payments on the bulletin board were present
Modules are too expensive on larger ships to justify any realistically meaningful degradation system. Significant degradation after weeks or a few months of casual play would obviously be unjustifiable and cause a serious uproar, whereas significant degradation after a year or more would be almost meaningless, since the overwhelming majority of players probably won't have the exact same ship with the exact same modules over such large timescales.
Really, just think about it. It'd be nothing more than a tacked-on, insignificant feature that would require considerable care and balancing to be even remotely meaningful while diverting resources and attention toward the implementation of far more important features.
The idea is dumb. Time to move on.
I agree with you that the game has made the mistake of having ludicrously highly-priced modules and ships, that are acting as pressure to force the general game economy (e.g. mission rewards) out of whack. I've argued that I'd like to see ship and module costs at the high end come down considerably quite a few times before, to prevent mission rewards (for all types of mission) creeping up to the multi-millions, when commodities are valued at a few hundred to a few thousand credits.
We'll agree to disagree there then, as you're not going to change my opinion that something has been lost in E: D that added to my willing suspension of disbelief (avoiding 'realism' or 'immersion' there - but it is a subjective thing
)in the previous games. [And FWIW: I've been using the same two ships, with the same modules for the vast majority of the previous year - so some degradation there could be expected - the capped system of relationship deterioration with factions feels about right to me at present - i.e. a slow deterioration over a period of a few weeks, capped to 75% is could work nicely]..
After a year's play, I've accrued 320m cr in assets, yet only spent 5m on repairs, and 0.5m on fuel and 0.5m on munitions - does that seem balanced? Is that an argument for not having fuel or munitions costs at all?
*Edit* Heh. Being slightly churlish I'd already say that Frontier have proven quite adept at tacking on insignificant features already, adding things like PowerPlay and CQC, with resources that could have on 'more important' items. Trouble is we all seem to disagree somewhat on what constitutes 'importance' in a feature. Damn humans.
Last edited:
Ok for this but not for the OP suggestion.
And after a year's play, I have a max rating/class equipped Vulture and about 1.6 million in credits. Yeah, it seems balanced to me. The suggestion YOU are supporting seems unbalanced and not fair at all. It forces casuals like me into the grind. I'd sooner just stop playing.....because I don't participate in Power Play and I did not purchase the "expansion" so I can land on barren, lifeless planets and do nothing at all. Please stop trying to make everyone play the game the way YOU want to play it and just play YOUR game. Don't worry about what someone else is doing, unless said someone is using an exploit or griefing. Then, report away.
...Han Solo does not have the luxury of 100% good as new and functional ship, why ED commanders should?
Because ED pilots don't drop their cargo at the first sign of an Imperial Cruiser.
When you guys bring them up one thing you seem to forget to mention/consider is that those ships are decades past the date they should have been decommissioned on. So I guess i can see this happening 40+ years after I buy that shine new Cobra Mk IV; of course the way I fly it will probably be blown up in about 4 days anyways so wear and tear won't be a factor.
If the economy was almost completely player driven (everything but the most basic items are mined and crafted by players only) I would be all for wear and tear. Implementing the wear and tear now would pretty much amount to a tax that needs to be payed every so often. Even it supporters would find it gets really old after a couple of times they are killed because their modules were only at 85% peak, and decides to crap out at the most inconvenient times.