Ship systems should wear out on normal use

[nexxo]

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.

You mean like collecting materials to fuel my SRV, make ammo with a slight edge, or magically increase my FSD jumps range? Those sorts of tacked-on features?

Really they make no sense at all. The SRV is stored in a ship with massive fuel tanks and energy cells, but somehow has been designed to not be able to be recharged or refuelled from that but need its own esoteric power source to... drive. Not jump between stars, or move at many times the speed of light or something special like that, but just to do what my diesel car does. What an electric scooter does. Drive from A to B. And of course the best scientists in FSD technology with all their research labs cannot manage what an intrepid pilot does in his own machine room, with a few materials: magically double jump range. I mean, come on.

It would make more sense, in a consistent Elite universe, for materials to provide resources for the AFMU to maintain the ship, its modules and its SRV. Over time there would be natural wear and tear (and for the careless flyer, damage) that would require the on going automatic maintenance and repair by the AFMU. Nobody is arguing that module degradation should be irreversible; the AFMU just would require regular resupply with materials to keep the ship and SRV at 100%. For pilots in the bubble, they just click "repair and replenish" in station services; nothing would really change for them. For deep space explorers and prospectors it would add some meaning to their activity of searching for new sources of materials.

Moreover it would allow for more game play possibilities. Different parts of the SRV and ship could require different materials for AFMU repair and maintenance --your search might have to prioritise certain materials depending on what part of your ship/SRV needs fixing most at the time. I would imagine the AFMU as containing a multiple stores for a range of materials that need topping up regularly as the AFMU keeps fixing and maintaining things. Of course SRV ands ship damage incurred as you go along would deplete these materials at an accelerated rate (and the SRV can only be repaired aboard the ship, so drive carefully).

On the right panel would be a screen with the AFMU material stores status overview. On the module screen you could for each module call up a screen showing what materials it needs for repair/maintenance and what the corresponding AFMU store supply is like (this would neatly tie in with the fact that the module screen shows module integrity status in % anyway). Does the shield generator look a bit poorly? What materials does it need for the AFMU to fix it, and does the AFMU have enough? Eek! Looks like it's running low on gallium. Better find some... Gallium is hard to find but I can also use the more common bauxite in a pinch, although it will affect shield recharge speed a bit...

The difference with the existing mechanic is that it is more world congruent and allows for more game play possibilities. For instance the AFMU could make the ship hull a bit tougher, more heat resistant or more reflective of radiation depending on what materials you feed it. Favouring one variable is at the expense of another and all add mass to the ship. A miner may favour impact toughness and balance that against light hull mass as he nimbly moves through dense asteroid fields. A smuggler may favour low radiation reflection and high impact toughness for stealth and combat protection. The player could dynamically change the hull properties as he flies along by changing the materials used by the AFMU. As the explorer travels closer to the galaxy core, he may decide to start favouring heat shielding and radiation protection over toughness as heat and radiation is a bigger issue now than the much reduced likelihood of running into pirates, but he still needs to balance mass against jump range of course...

And that is just hull repair. Imagine the dynamics that could be introduced for ship canopy, thrusters, power supply, life support, FSD... Of course everything has a knock on effect. Thrusters uprated for high-G planetary landings produce more heat so require better heat resistant hull, for instance.

All this would add depth and possibilities to the game, and moreover a meaningful context to the collection and management of materials. But also, players who are not interested in that aspect of the game can simply ignore it altogether by using station repair and maintenance services as per usual.

 

[Lobstris]

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.

Erm. You did read the part where I agreed that high end ships and modules cost too much - and I'm perfectly fine with a massive reduction in their prices? Adding depth (through additional costs and considerations) to the game does not necessarily entail 'more grind' when the reason why everyone is grinding is the extortionate ship and module prices. Reduce those and... [*Edit* I quoted values not to say 'look how many credits I've got', but to point out that fuel and munitions costs combined were less than 0.3% of the total money made, yet they are still in the game. Additional charges for other things wouldn't have to be too onerous either.]
.
That aside - again, your argument can be flipped round. If you are a 'casual' gamer you'll probably/possible want to move on to a new title fairly regularly? I'd rather sink 100s, if not 1000s, of hours into a single title - especially one that was the culmination of 30 years (well 20ish afer FFE) of waiting. I could view YOU as forcing your playstyle on ME, and Frontier as 'selling out' to you, and it's not MY fault you (for whatever reason) can only spend less time in the game. NB: I'm not actually arguing that as both are equally valid play styles and it would be better (as nexxo says) to find a way of satisfying both. If this was a single player game, obviously I'd be off modding and tweaking things to get the game I want to play, but this is all made (infinitely) more difficult by the multiplayer nature of the game requiring a 'level playing field' for all.

You mean like collecting materials to fuel my SRV, make ammo with a slight edge, or magically increase my FSD jumps range? Those sorts of tacked-on features? <snip>

nexxo, I applaud your suggestions and hope your vision comes to pass.
.
I'm happy playing the game as it stands. Currently, I want to explore. I like exploration. I wish it contained more considerations (e.g. ship and systems maintenance to avoid mishaps, crew management, interesting things to find, temporary base camps to build, scans to interpret correctly, minerals for repairs to collect etc.) than just 'scan->jump->scan->jump'. However I can also appreciate that such features would be viewed as unwanted and unnecessary by others who do just want to wallow through the neutron fields, racking up as many credits per hour as possible.

 

[Gimmename]

Well... I actually want more realistic elements in the game. I want this game be more like actual SIMULATOR, but... I must agree with other commanders. Module prices for big ships is just insane. Power plant for Corvete cost about 160 mils. I really don't want to rebuy that thing. There is already to much grind in the game and we don't need even more.

 

[MickyG1982]

I think a more realistic option would be introducing a servicing schedule for the ships. Rather than have modules simply decay over time and having to repair them structurally they could have a guaranteed lifetime after being serviced. After that time minor things could start happening that while inconvenient wouldn't break the game. Your scanner could flicker, the frameshift drive could take longer to charge, or even fail to fire on the first attempt, turreted weapons could lock in the forward position or fail to fire for a few seconds.

This could be negated by servicing at a relevant base, having a crew fix it for you or even allow you to fix it yourself and patch the system until you reach a repair dock. But the further you get from the servicing schedule the more prominent the problems will become.

Different modules could decay at different rates depending on the ship type and usage. Newer ships could last longer than older marks between servicing schedules. A fully crewed discovery class may not require anything at all for several thousand light years. Fighters may have the shortest gap as they are continually thrown about. Trading vessels could be somewhere in the middle.

Reliability could be an excellent mechanic in this game. Servicing prices could be capped on a per ship basis (for a full service). Or broken down to individual modules at a much cheaper price than repairing or replacing worn out items.

 

[ExRex]

I would love to have this balanced in a tiny way so the ship gets better (due to many repairs or modifications) certain areas and worse other areas (eg. ramming a lot without hull reinforcement packages would decrease armour slightly, while ramming with hull reinforcements would over time maybe boost armour a little, damage would increase on the pulse lasers over time but would degrade faster while shooting, FSD would tear more often but provide longer jump range or less fuel consumption).

Then it could be up to the player to do the proper modifications and get a little more finely tuned ship with a personality. It would have to only slightly in order to keep it balanced of course.

 

[Weps]

YES to lower ship and equipment prices, YES to higher maintenance costs, for the same reasons explained some posts above.

 

[MickyG1982]

While we are at it, how about separating out the shipyard into a brand new/second hand/junker tier system. Brand new is exactly as it says on the tin, you may get the odd unicorn ship but they will be prohibitively expensive. Second hand, decent if older ships perhaps in need of a service and / or minor repairs but still capable of doing their jobs. Junkers, essentially scrap that you may be able to break down into parts for your ship (to sell or reduce servicing / repair costs or even find some parts you won't find anywhere else). You may also find one of those "Unicorn" rare ships for dirt cheap, but they will need a lot of work to get them functional - but less cost than buying new.

That would also be cool, and give us something to spend our credits on...

 

[Googol]

While we are at it, how about separating out the shipyard into a brand new/second hand/junker tier system ....

I could go for this - it would be a nice option after a reset if you could opt for something slightly bigger in shabby or a mint Sidey. I don't know how far FD intend to go with crafting, but starting in a junker in a tramp freighter role and keeping it flying/cleaning it up over time as credits/materials permit would be a new challenge. I seem to remember that getting a loan for a ship, and having to pay it back in instalments, was mooted in the DDF but that seems to have disappeared over the horizon (no pun intended ).
-
In my opinion repair costs could do with a bit of thought - keep them at the current (cheap) level for repairs up to about 15% and call it a service, but above that level costs should not be linear because you are into genuine repair and replacement parts territory.
-
I'm of two minds about reliability issues leading to complete failure of modules unless afm/crafting can be guaranteed to address any failure that could kill a conservatively flown ship (drive, power plant, life support, power distributor, etc). I will freely admit that this is special pleading because I am primarily an explorer - any changes would need to be finely tuned otherwise we could find ourselves in a situation where long distance explorers have a statistically negligible chance of returning alive due to critical failures. Yes, there should be risks arising from damage and wear and tear when you explore, but if it boiled down to "travel more than 40,000 lys and you will not return" that's not good for the game, particularly if sections of the galaxy become closed off as a result.

 

[Wasiu]

Wear and tear is a great idea. Imagine an old and rusty type-6 docking and then getting thrusters failure and crashing into station. That would be something spectacular All parts should have durability points and it should decrease with each repair, and condition would change from brand new, to old and rusty, which you can only replace with new one, because it would break much more faster.
I guess it will come with crafting system, where you should be able to extend functionality of your existing modules and durability should be one of points

Right now ship equipment is so small and unrevelant. Couple classes of each type and that's it. Class 2 of something is same as class 2 of 1000 other similar items... it's so boring. When you buy a car, then each car is individual even if it's same type.

 

[Ignition]

They had wear and tear in the game.
It stopped people exploring.

It was removed.
People explore now.

This is a very short thinking. The design was bad like MANY other parts of the game (if not all).

 

[Soothsayer]

Wear and tear is a great idea. Imagine an old and rusty type-6 docking and then getting thrusters failure and crashing into station. That would be something spectacular All parts should have durability points and it should decrease with each repair, and condition would change from brand new, to old and rusty, which you can only replace with new one, because it would break much more faster.
I guess it will come with crafting system, where you should be able to extend functionality of your existing modules and durability should be one of points

Right now ship equipment is so small and unrevelant. Couple classes of each type and that's it. Class 2 of something is same as class 2 of 1000 other similar items... it's so boring. When you buy a car, then each car is individual even if it's same type.

Because having to purchase hundreds of millions worth of modules all over again due to some gimmicky wear and tear mechanic sounds like so much fun!

No, seriously. Do you have ANY conception as to how expensive modules are for larger ships? Do you have the mental architecture to fathom how much it costs to outfit an Anaconda?

 

[Philip Foster]

After a long journey or a RES session, if you don't see any repair requirements on the home screen due to battle damage or some such, check out the 'Repars' tab instead. You will often see that repairs are actually required. I think this is wear and tear.

 

[Ignition]

After a long journey or a RES session, if you don't see any repair requirements on the home screen due to battle damage or some such, check out the 'Repars' tab instead. You will often see that repairs are actually required. I think this is wear and tear.

Thats damage taken to the modules during fights, its not damage from systems getting older or because it has been used a lot.

 

[nexxo]

Wouldn't it be nice if your ship performance could deteriorate over time if you do not regularly repair or maintain it? To actually experience module malfunction based on the damage and wear to your ship, rather than having the combat scenario of: 100%: Ship's OK, 50%: ship's OK, 10%: ship's OK, 1%: ship-- oh wait, ship destroyed now.

Your ship should feel and behave different as it is subject to wear, tear and damage. That (again) doesn't mean this should be irreversible; just that it needs maintenance and repair, either by AFMU or by station services.

 

[Philip Foster]

Thats damage taken to the modules during fights, its not damage from systems getting older or because it has been used a lot.

Interesting. I thought that the repairs from the Home screen were due to combat damage and emergency drops from SC etc. I noticed that when I did a long run in super cruise for example, getting to Hutton Orbital or some such, the home screen repair option was unavailable but there would be a cost in the repair tab. The longer I spent in SC the higher the amount. It seemed like wear and tear to me.

 

[Felonious Monk]

Right but what would be the time period for this to occur? Think of how often things break down on your car. Fairly rare right (unless you got a lemon). It would be stupid for things to constantly be breaking down on your ship. That would be insinuating they are all shoddily built. Not a good idea dude.

 

[Phantasma]

You want realism? Fine.
But then modules should last for weeks if not months before showing any signs of deprecation.
Just crossing the street and getting 5% damage? Don't make me laugh.

As someone above just said more succinctly: Inconvenience just for the sake of inconvenience doesn't add much.

Don't know why people are so fond of money sinks in games without dynamic, player driven economies. You are the dream of tax offices world-wide.

 

[Valethar]

Before adding more artificial cash sinks to the game, it would be helpful if they added something resembling an economy to balance it. As it stands now, adding more cash sinks adds nothing of value to the game, especially when all it does is increase the amount of grind needed to accomplish anything.

Those with decent ships and a fair amount of cash already won't be as inconvenienced as new players just coming to the game, and those who play 'casually'. The best way to run them all off is to artificially increase the size of the hamster wheel without giving them anything meaningful in return.

Design a viable, working economy first. Then find ways to siphon off some of the gains. Doing it the other way around brings nothing but trouble.

 

[Fendalton]

RIP exploration.

 

[Lobstris]

Because having to purchase hundreds of millions worth of modules all over again due to some gimmicky wear and tear mechanic sounds like so much fun!

No, seriously. Do you have ANY conception as to how expensive modules are for larger ships? Do you have the mental architecture to fathom how much it costs to outfit an Anaconda?

1. Yes. I've a concept of how much it costs. I can use one of the various online tools to see that cost.
2. Rather than being an argument against wear and tear, I see it as an argument that the high end stuff costs too much at present.
3. We probably all should wait to see what the crafting system ends up looking like.
4. I agree that Wasiu's idea is a bit of an extreme - things like outright module destruction or thrusters failing were present in the previous games, and generally led to 'interesting' landing manoeuvres (usually followed by swift death and a save reload - which we don't have the luxury of in E: D ).
5. Would love to see ships with more 'character' and a second-hand ship market - especially if players could sell ships on to each other, with wear and tear playing as a major factor in costs.