Hull repair drones poll

[StiTch]

When do explorers die from hull damage anyway, when heat damage is to modules nowadays… The only case I can think of is botched landing, and if you don't die from it straight away you can just stop trying to land on that trip, still get all the scanning credits. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable that a ship could be patched up after such an event.

If explorers have no need for it, then what does this bring? (though I did primarily point out it's half way to immortality - true immortality would be two AFMUs, repairable hull AND repairable PP).

If proposing a change, ask...what does this bring to the game? It's just players afraid of the idea of being on low health...I can't see a single facet of such a change that would improve gameplay or add more.

 

[NeilF]

When do explorers die from hull damage anyway, when heat damage is to modules nowadays… The only case I can think of is botched landing, and if you don't die from it straight away you can just stop trying to land on that trip, still get all the scanning credits. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable that a ship could be patched up after such an event.

And I sort of agree as regards hull. I put a caveat in my post to say as much...

Maybe make it so only other CMDRs (& NPCs) can repair hulls then? eg: Dock ship to ship and AMFU the other ships hull.

I think it would be funny if the repaired canopy was opaque, i.e., you couldn't see out the window anymore. You'd have to use the HUD and the external cameras to land. =)

Agreed... Or at least a very comprimised HUD...

 

[Bobbydylan]

You're certainly making the huge development effort to create "first person aim and hull and click" sound worth while, in place of what else that development time could offer in the existing mechanics.

Its world building. Finding the micro-fracture, but looking for escaping atmosphere. Going to that point, Ensuring you have the correct materials to repair the hull, welding it shut, move on to the next leak.
Sorry, I see this as a lot more engaging than clicking "launch drone" from a menu.

 

[Edith_The_Hutt]

Check the new Tutorial missions. The Tutor character carries a set of repair limpets already.

 

[Maitolee]

If explorers have no need for it, then what does this bring? (though I did primarily point out it's half way to immortality - true immortality would be two AFMUs, repairable hull AND repairable PP).

If proposing a change, ask...what does this bring to the game? It's just players afraid of the idea of being on low health...I can't see a single facet of such a change that would improve gameplay or add more.

Already said: new gameplay, missions, role. To me it's about an obvious missing feature (seeing that it would make sense and that we already have module repair) rather than easing the experience. The same as cargo store/warehouse: it's not about making actual gameplay easier but about giving new possibilities.

- - - Updated - - -

Check the new Tutorial missions. The Tutor character carries a set of repair limpets already.

Didn't see this! (Can't check now) Is it a separate module or specialized drones?

 

[StiTch]

Already said: new gameplay, missions, role. To me it's about an obvious missing feature (seeing that it would make sense and that we already have module repair) rather than easing the experience. The same as cargo store/warehouse: it's not about making actual gameplay easier but about giving new possibilities.

Okay, mind explaining what these new possibilities and missions are?

I mean might just be my stupidity here but failing to see what content we're hitting a wall in implementing because we have health.

Also, note: cargo storage was 100% about easing the experience and had nothing to do with new gameplay. You can do nothing more now you have cargo storage compared to before; the only difference is you aren't paying out, which you'd have to do using a ship to store them.

 

[Arkku]

If explorers have no need for it, then what does this bring? (though I did primarily point out it's half way to immortality - true immortality would be two AFMUs, repairable hull AND repairable PP).

If proposing a change, ask...what does this bring to the game? It's just players afraid of the idea of being on low health...I can't see a single facet of such a change that would improve gameplay or add more.

For me personally it's not at all about making it safer or being afraid of low health, or even about "gameplay" as such, but rather that it makes sense from an in-character perspective: if we can synthesize SRV hull and repair modules, why couldn't we patch up the hull.

So, I would first answer the question "does this make the universe feel more 'real'?" – for me, personally, I think the answer here is yes. Second I would consider how it could be implemented in a way that it does not negatively impact meta. In this particular case my suggestions are: make it unusable in combat (e.g., require landing and/or not taking damage during repair), and make the result worse than "real" repairs (e.g., hull hardness reduced and/or it may degrade again over time).

In fact I think it would potentially make for some really interesting gameplay if the repairs started slowly failing at 50% heat, then you would have to make your way back to a station for real repairs by jumping as many times as you dare before you have to find a landable planet to repair again. (Unfortunately exploration is already so safe regards to hull that this scenario would probably never come to pass, but… I still think it would add an interesting dimension of what can happen.)


That being said, I don't strongly feel about this feature personally and would not consider it a priority since there are so many things that should be fixed first, but I think there is unfair opposition to the concept of hull repairs based on metagame arguments that often seem to presuppose some imagined implementation of the concept. I think the concept is valid and would add to the game, and surely the implementation can be made such that it does not break any particular aspect of gameplay.

 

[StiTch]

For me personally it's not at all about making it safer or being afraid of low health, or even about "gameplay" as such, but rather that it makes sense from an in-character perspective: if we can synthesize SRV hull and repair modules, why couldn't we patch up the hull.

So, I would first answer the question "does this make the universe feel more 'real'?" – for me, personally, I think the answer here is yes. Second I would consider how it could be implemented in a way that it does not negatively impact meta. In this particular case my suggestions are: make it unusable in combat (e.g., require landing and/or not taking damage during repair), and make the result worse than "real" repairs (e.g., hull hardness reduced and/or it may degrade again over time).

In fact I think it would potentially make for some really interesting gameplay if the repairs started slowly failing at 50% heat, then you would have to make your way back to a station for real repairs by jumping as many times as you dare before you have to find a landable planet to repair again. (Unfortunately exploration is already so safe regards to hull that this scenario would probably never come to pass, but… I still think it would add an interesting dimension of what can happen.)

That being said, I don't strongly feel about this feature personally and would not consider it a priority since there are so many things that should be fixed first, but I think there is unfair opposition to the concept of hull repairs based on metagame arguments that often seem to presuppose some imagined implementation of the concept. I think the concept is valid and would add to the game, and surely the implementation can be made such that it does not break any particular aspect of gameplay.

Thing is, let's boil this down.

Your pro-hull repair points are as follows:
- "Realism", as we can repair modules
- Mechanic won't be for flawless repair of ship

I have zero "metagame" arguments with the proposal. Combat repairs are a relatively easy obstacle to overcome to a developer. I'm still searching for why this should even make it to the game, and neither "realism" is a valid factor in game where 1100T ships are firing cannonballs at each other from 500M away in deep space, and neither is the mechanic you want to implement being imperfect.

Neither are reasons, neither are an expansion of content or possibilities. All we're doing is giving a mechanic for players at low health to be further away from death for a bit.

 

[Arkku]

Okay, mind explaining what these new possibilities and missions are?

A couple of more examples of (IMO) interesting gameplay scenarious based on earlier discussions about hypothetical repair possibilities:

• Canopy repair leads to opaque cockpit window, you have to try and land with HUD and external cameras only

• Power plant repair causes it to generate crazy heat when maneuvering, try to make it in for repairs using minimal thrust, turn off everything else to reduce heat

• Extensive hull repair suddenly/randomly fails and vents air to space, repair again within X minutes


Anyway, the point is, I think "can you make it home with this malfunctioning ship" is a lot more interesting gameplay opportunity than "you die, rebuy". In fact, getting into these kinds of scenarios would make me want to take risks and damage because it could lead to interesting and more varied challenges beyond the original encounter itself.

And to offset the increased survivability, the game could introduce more downsides with hull damage. Currently if you get down to 10% hull chances are you can just fly in for repairs no problem, situation over, but if the damaged hull started randomly acting up it would increase difficulty after the encounter and bring in a need to repair the ship. In other words, damage would be more complicated than just hitpoints.

 

[Maitolee]

Also, note: cargo storage was 100% about easing the experience and had nothing to do with new gameplay. You can do nothing more now you have cargo storage compared to before; the only difference is you aren't paying out, which you'd have to do using a ship to store them.

Do we have now cargo storage? Source?

Okay, mind explaining what these new possibilities and missions are?

Was about to quote but I'll let you go and read previous pages.
Summary:
-repair gameplay itself, your ship or others ship
-repair missions from station or signals
-coop-repair CGs
-related missions: repair unit's protection/escort
-cmdr groups support like role
-...

 

[Arkku]

I'm still searching for why this should even make it to the game, and neither "realism" is a valid factor in game where 1100T ships are firing cannonballs at each other from 500M away in deep space, and neither is the mechanic you want to implement being imperfect.

Neither are reasons, neither are an expansion of content or possibilities. All we're doing is giving a mechanic for players at low health to be further away from death for a bit.

The sheer lack of realism in other parts of the game isn't an argument against having realism in other parts. It's not a that you either must have everything "realistic" or else nothing should be. I use the word "realism" loosely here, meaning more about how the game world feels rather than how close to the real world it is. (And I fully agree that there are many very unrealistic things in this game, and I think some of those are bad for both gameplay and roleplay.)

As for "all we're doing" – it doesn't have to be all "we" are doing! If you look at the hull as only a health counter and the repairs as only a mechanism to increase its value, then I fully agree that it's a completely pointless change that doesn't add anything to the game. But for example making damage more complex than just a health bar, with various downsides and malfunctions before hitting zero, would make the game harder, and increased possibility for repairs would offset that by potentially adding new types of gameplay around them.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we have now cargo storage? Source?

I think he meant that if you switch ships, nowadays you don't have to empty your cargo hold as long as the cargo fits in the new ship.

 

[StiTch]

Do we have now cargo storage? Source?

Sorry, got ahead of myself, I meant to type "module storage", because it's effectively the same thing.

Was about to quote but I'll let you go and read previous pages.
Summary:
-repair gameplay itself, your ship or others ship
-repair missions from station or signals
-coop-repair CGs
-related missions: repair unit's protection/escort
-cmdr groups support like role
-...

None of this is really new gameplay. It's a rehash of existing content. You can already drop in to a USS and transfer fuel, you can already transfer fuel to another ship or indeed heal a wingmate's shields, there are already CGs for delivering x amount of something...

The new thing brought to the game in this is hull healing. The ability to increase the amount of hull hp you have without going to a station. Any frills around it would be instantly ignored by the community, who'd rightfully see this as "well we can heal hulls now".

Also note: fuel transfers require the loss of fuel from the donating ship. This gets a bit messier when the donating ship loses 10% hp every time it wants to be kind.

The sheer lack of realism in other parts of the game isn't an argument against having realism in other parts.

Well actually, the thing to take away here is that realism shouldn't be a part of game design full stop.

Immersion...yes. Give me a universe I can get stuck in to. But realism exists in very, very few corners of ED and rightfully so.

 

[NeilF]

Its world building. Finding the micro-fracture, but looking for escaping atmosphere. Going to that point, Ensuring you have the correct materials to repair the hull, welding it shut, move on to the next leak.
Sorry, I see this as a lot more engaging than clicking "launch drone" from a menu.

The broad questions about hull and cockpit repair are surely:-

• Does it help improve the game experience, where/when/how it's available?
• Does its implementation add new interesting gameplay experiences?
• Does it cause any new issues?

Note: First, let's be frank that we're not going to get some uber involved mechanics, let alone a first person (WASD) mechanic to do it... At least not any time soon. So let's at least stick to mechanics that we could at least envisage FD employing?


As Stitch is questioning (I believe), does being able to repair your hull/cockpit improve the game experience? For example if you can simply AMFU or limpet your own ship what are the implications?

First and foremost, I'd say this sort of mechanic risks sterilising exploration even more. There's little danger as it is, and being able to easily repair hull and cockpit damage might make it even more so. Next, what's the risk to combat? ie: If you can repair hulls during combat what's the effect?


So...

I think hull and cockpit repairs should NOT be viable during combat.

At other times... I think hull repair should either not be possible, or if it is, either only be possible by another CMDR (or NPC) helping, or only done by the CMDR themselves very slowly and by collecting materials etc. ie: Doing it yourself should be a slow/drawn out matter!

I think cockpit repair should be possible by the CMDR, but again be drawn out and tricky. Possibly allow a temporary cockpit to be created/generated to buy the CMDR minutes to try and scamper to a station or planet (for more materials?), but nothing more.

And ideally, I think the most efficient repairs (other than getting to a station) should always be by another CMDR (or NPC) helping you.

My fear is we'll simply get repair limpets you can fire at each other, or worse still, even yourself, and bingo bango hulls and cockpits are being repaired, even during combat. So there's little/no attempt to keep hull and cockpit damage "worrying", no attempt to make co-op play more useful by only allowing hull/cockpit repairs to be done to one ship from another, and no attempt to leverage more angles of gameplay by instead introducing whole new mechanics such as ship to ship docking to allow not only AMFU repairs of one ship by another (including hull and cockpit) but then also the transfer of material, fuel and cargo etc etc.

 

[Maitolee]

In fact I think it would potentially make for some really interesting gameplay if the repairs started slowly failing at 50% heat, then you would have to make your way back to a station for real repairs by jumping as many times as you dare before you have to find a landable planet to repair again.
[...]
Anyway, the point is, I think "can you make it home with this malfunctioning ship" is a lot more interesting gameplay opportunity than "you die, rebuy". In fact, getting into these kinds of scenarios would make me want to take risks and damage because it could lead to interesting and more varied challenges beyond the original encounter itself.

And to offset the increased survivability, the game could introduce more downsides with hull damage. Currently if you get down to 10% hull chances are you can just fly in for repairs no problem, situation over, but if the damaged hull started randomly acting up it would increase difficulty after the encounter and bring in a need to repair the ship. In other words, damage would be more complicated than just hitpoints.

I agree with that.

That being said, I don't strongly feel about this feature personally and would not consider it a priority since there are so many things that should be fixed first.

Can't deny that.

 

[Arkku]

My fear is we'll simply get repair limpets you can fire at each other, or worse still, even yourself, and bingo bango hulls and cockpits are being repaired, even during combat.

FWIW I agree that it's possible FDEV would implement something like this and I agree it would not be good for the game. But as I said before, I believe the concept of repairs combined with downsides (and preferably more complex damage model than currently, with increased rather than reduced risks) would add to the game, and I think such ideas should be encouraged.

(Note that I don't necessarily believe that such a thing will be in the game any time soon, but one can always dream.)

 

[Maitolee]

I meant to type "module storage", because it's effectively the same thing.

I think it has nothing to do with that unless you could store a cargo hatch module full of actual cargo.

bingo bango hulls and cockpits are being repaired, even during combat. So there's little/no attempt to keep hull and cockpit damage "worrying", no attempt to make co-op play more useful by only allowing hull/cockpit repairs to be done to one ship from another, and no attempt to leverage more angles of gameplay by instead introducing whole new mechanics such as ship to ship docking to allow not only AMFU repairs of one ship by another (including hull and cockpit) but then also the transfer of material, fuel and cargo etc etc.

New model of damage could be interesting, as now having 10% "health" or 100% gives no differences in gameplay. One could think that it's dangerous to fly with only 10% of your ship's structure intact. There could be a penalty on flying with hull damaged, that should be at least temporarily repaired. It could be somehow needed or more dangerous than now to fly without that module.

For the rest I clearly see an improvement in coop play with this, as it would be with cargo transfer (via limpet or other way).

 

[Arkku]

Well actually, the thing to take away here is that realism shouldn't be a part of game design full stop.

Immersion...yes. Give me a universe I can get stuck in to. But realism exists in very, very few corners of ED and rightfully so.

Ok, I think we agree here, but were using different words for it.

 

[NeilF]

FWIW I agree that it's possible FDEV would implement something like this and I agree it would not be good for the game. But as I said before, I believe the concept of repairs combined with downsides (and preferably more complex damage model than currently, with increased rather than reduced risks) would add to the game, and I think such ideas should be encouraged.

(Note that I don't necessarily believe that such a thing will be in the game any time soon, but one can always dream.)

Yes it would be nice if health and integrity was more meaningful. If could view a list of your modules/hull/canopy etc, and see a review showing for example, so and so stood an X% chance of malfunction within the next Y hours... And these would give you - as you suggest - various issues/concerns/hassles to put up with/overcome.

 

[Bobbydylan]

The broad questions about hull and cockpit repair are surely:-

• Does it help improve the game experience, where/when/how it's available?
• Does its implementation add new interesting gameplay experiences?
• Does it cause any new issues?

Note: First, let's be frank that we're not going to get some uber involved mechanics, let alone a first person (WASD) mechanic to do it... At least not any time soon. So let's at least stick to mechanics that we could at least envisage FD employing?.

See, I'd rather the Dev's not bother with some new filler content, but rather them add something worth while.

 

[TERMINATRIXXX]

I'd consider ED nigh on dead if hull repairs made it to game.

May as well just prevent all death ever.

I would spam the drones to my wingmates while they in combat within the no-fire zones. Would be really cool.