Hull Repair

[Chrystoph]

First, let me say that I see nothing constructive about the post that I am responding to. It does not engage in debate, it makes emotional attacks, mockery and presumably intentional misrepresentation. It also does not offer alternatives or attempt to resolve perceived problems.

That great A wing of 5 stay out for a long time. While 3 combat ships are attacking. While one ship doing the repairs. While a damage ship being repaired. Also Great for users with Dual account and 2 computers. When they get a spot of tea. Your other account could be repairing your combat ship outside the combat zone. (Note Combat zone are not infinite. )

I am not certain what you are trying to allude to, but, even if we take your rather extreme examples as a case, nothing you have said is an exploit or other abuse. Of course, you leave out the fact that the system includes a supply limitation expressed later in my post, in spite of the fact that you replied to that same limitation, in effect, countering your own argument.

Wow a Anaconda or even better cutter. Full of limpets Just repairing ships. Even if it slow. It cheaper then Ship repairs at a station. Oh look they don't have to fly to the station.

Certainly, you could make a Heal Bot if you wanted to, but I have known very few people that want to play one. Again, however, you leave out the supply limitation.

All that required is Limpets Don't need to say more lol.

This is just nonsense, and I am bluntly offended that you would inject this blatant a misrepresentation with the counter argument directly above it. In any case, having limpets that do not have materials with which to conduct repairs is as useless as having refueling limpets with an empty fuel tank. It was EXPLICITLY stated that the system was ammunition based, using either the Restock ability of facilities or a synthesis function.

If the power plant has the power it could run 2 or 3 at a time so no issue there.

Certainly, but, again, very few people are interested in being exclusively a Heal Bot for other players. This is nothing more than another attempt to pass off an extreme example as the norm.

All the pilot has to do is fly outside the combat zone. Which not very hard. So dropping shields is not really a disadvantage Besides you are flying to your wing man because your Shield are down and your wing man can take out the Danger.

I was referring to both players. I will admit that my statement was less than precise in that regard, but, with both players shieldless, the risk increases substantially. As to the rest of the statement, the argument amounts to being able to run away to get repairs. The only difference is the ability to do it inside the instance. For NPCs, this is not relevant, and for PvP, I would expect that the other players may have a response to the tactic.

Note most Exploration ships they disable their Shield. So please tell me where the Disadvantage again? Because I don't see any.

I am currently part of the FGE Distant Worlds wing, and I can say from experience that this is simply not true.

Let point out the exploration. There has to be a reason to go home. If the hall and power plant can be repaired. That means infinite Exploration. Before you talk about Wear and Tear. There are players who have 0% wear and tear and still flying they just have to be careful. It take something like Hall Damage or Power Plant damage to force the player home. Why? Because they can't be repaired.

We also don't want Whining people saying I stayed out for 5 to 6 years and then gone home. Then been attacked and I lost all my Data.

So, again, why does "There has to be a reason to go home"? I have seen the statement multiple times, but I have yet to see any actual reasoning to support it.

The outcome of being attacked when someone enters the bubble is not going to be affected by this proposal one way or the other. Every explorer knows that this is a risk, and length of the trip is not going to change the chances of what is effectively a random encounter occurring.

Regarding the "whining", being offensive does not help your case.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

So, again, why does "There has to be a reason to go home"? I have seen the statement multiple times, but I have yet to see any actual reasoning to support it.

Everything should be limited. This is just a basic game design principle. Limitations are what give things purpose.

 

[Lestat]

You know Chrystoph Making exploits dose not help your cause. They can be use. And will be abused. It a known fact. I done those same type of exploits in other games. One game I was running 3 accounts I had a Healer class, Tank class and DPS class. It was not hard to control all 3. It really not that hard.

Now Elite dose not have classes So it would be a lot easier Have one ship explore while the repair ship Following. Let say the Repair account had a lot of credits. Full of supplies When your ship take on damage well your repair ship can repair it. Until that ship run out of ammo. Then set your Exploration ship to destroy your repair ship or set it to self destruct. Use insurance buy back your repair ship. Then buy supplies and meet your exploration ship again. Start repairs. (Please note Repair ship dose not have to scan stars. All it has to do is set a course and refuel and jump. So the meet up is pretty fast. Also when the repair ship needs Credit. For insurance and repair ammo. It dose not take long if you know what your doing. At the same time your Exploration ship can explore.

I understand Chrystoph you think your idea will not be exploited or will not be abused. I am here to tell you it will be Exploited and abused. This is why your idea will not work. I pointing out the flaws of your idea.

Also Psycho Romeo has a Valid point

Everything should be limited. This is just a basic game design principle. Limitations are what give things purpose.

We Talk about that in the Design Decision Forum in 2013 2014 before the game was released. Something to force the players home in exploration and in combat So that type of idea already been decided.

 

[Chrystoph]

So, again, why does "There has to be a reason to go home"? I have seen the statement multiple times, but I have yet to see any actual reasoning to support it.

Everything should be limited. This is just a basic game design principle. Limitations are what give things purpose.

OK, I'll play along; you express that there should be a purpose. What is it? What purpose is served by forcing people back to the bubble?

 

[Velixar]

You know Chystoph the problem is you are not listing to anyone. Then when someone point out a weakness or problem of your idea. You seem to get upset.

 

[Chrystoph]

You know Chystoph the problem is you are not listing to anyone. Then when someone point out a weakness or problem of your idea. You seem to get upset.

Examples of people pointing out problems, please? Telling me I am wrong "because" is not arguing a Position, it is enforcing your Opinion. I have made my case using data and comparisons.

You, Lestat and Psycho Romeo have collectively: edited my contribution, misrepresented my statements, made appeals to authority, substituted ambiguity for logic and been blatantly insulting. When I summarized the proposal as I understood it, the immediate response was more of the same.

I have modified the proposal on a couple of occasions to conform to suggestions that it provides too much benefit, causing it to conform to the systems existent in the game, and all my compromises resulted in were more offensive behavior.

The fact is that I am actually trying to accomplish something that I believe in. As an adult, I expect the same adult treatment I started out with. I could enact a flame war that would get the thread shut down, but it wouldn't accomplish anything. Instead, I have been trying to debunk emotional rhetoric in an attempt to actually improve the game. If that sounds like I am upset, then perhaps you can actually provide some arguments that will improve my mood as opposed to baiting me.

 

[avow555]

OK, I'll play along; you express that there should be a purpose. What is it? What purpose is served by forcing people back to the bubble?

Oh dear /sigh

 

[Psycho Romeo]

OK, I'll play along; you express that there should be a purpose. What is it? What purpose is served by forcing people back to the bubble?

I could recite lectures on the subject. To summarize though, it's the same purpose ammo limitations address.

Let's talk about what is a combat ship and what makes a better combat ship? Combat ships are all about combat, so fitting things that enhance your combat capacity is better.
In a simple world, more guns, more armor, anything that lets you kill more per amount of dying is going to be an improvement. Things like SCBs, hull, and ammo are hard limits to your combat excursion.

What are some of the most overpowered ships in the game? The vulture? Why? Because you can twin pulse pulse pulse your way to victory. Assuming you're not taking any damage (not unreasonable for a vulture), combat is an infinitely sustainable practice.

This kind of stagnancy is a terrible blight on the game. These kinds of things move the bar towards boredom without adding any frustration for the player.

Now let's consider exploration ships. What makes an exploration ship a better exploration ship? The longevity of excursion it can take, both in distance and in duration. Hull repair (as the OP describes) greatly magnifies this (as well as affecting other parts of the game) in the same way a twin pulse vulture build does.

 

[Chrystoph]

I could recite lectures on the subject. To summarize though, it's the same purpose ammo limitations address.

Let's talk about what is a combat ship and what makes a better combat ship? Combat ships are all about combat, so fitting things that enhance your combat capacity is better.
In a simple world, more guns, more armor, anything that lets you kill more per amount of dying is going to be an improvement. Things like SCBs, hull, and ammo are hard limits to your combat excursion.

What are some of the most overpowered ships in the game? The vulture? Why? Because you can twin pulse pulse pulse your way to victory. Assuming you're not taking any damage (not unreasonable for a vulture), combat is an infinitely sustainable practice.

This kind of stagnancy is a terrible blight on the game. These kinds of things move the bar towards boredom without adding any frustration for the player.

Now let's consider exploration ships. What makes an exploration ship a better exploration ship? The longevity of excursion it can take, both in distance and in duration. Hull repair (as the OP describes) greatly magnifies this (as well as affecting other parts of the game) in the same way a twin pulse vulture build does.

Thank you for replying, and for putting effort into it.

The problem that I see in your comparison is that the artificial limit you are describing is not inherent in exploration. I am currently between the Distant Worlds WP 17 and 18 with 99% hull, and it would be 100% if not for a minor glitch in a planetary approach where the game did not indicate a too rapid approach to a planetary body.

Additionally, while MY interest is in exploration, that is not the only use for module of this sort. While I do not care for piracy per say, it is applicable there, system raiding against opposing factions, etc.

I honestly don't understand how the stagnation you describe as applicable to explorers. They are already on a self inflicted exile that changes only by the course they plot through the galaxy. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, that plot is theoretically endless if they are careful. My own anecdotal evidence is a 1% hull loss in over 25 kLY.

Lastly, I would ask another question. Do you object to refueling limpets? In my mind, they serve a very similar purpose in that they allow one player to assist another when, for whatever reason, they have rendered themselves incapable on their own.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

I honestly don't understand how the stagnation you describe as applicable to explorers. They are already on a self inflicted exile that changes only by the course they plot through the galaxy. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, that plot is theoretically endless if they are careful. My own anecdotal evidence is a 1% hull loss in over 25 kLY.

I believe integrity is what attempts to (and fails to) address this specifically. If something equally significant were taken away, then hull repair (as the OP describes) would be much more tolerable. For example, if lack of integrity began chunking our hull in a more threatening way.

Lastly, I would ask another question. Do you object to refueling limpets? In my mind, they serve a very similar purpose in that they allow one player to assist another when, for whatever reason, they have rendered themselves incapable on their own.

No. Fuel limpets allow one player to give their fuel to another. Similarly I think that repair limpets that let one player give their armor to another, there's no net loss of consequence.

 

[Chrystoph]

No. Fuel limpets allow one player to give their fuel to another. Similarly I think that repair limpets that let one player give their armor to another, there's no net loss of consequence.

They are, however, orders of magnitude apart in terms of ease of replenishment. A ship with a fuel scoop has a trivial task in replenishing its supply of fuel, thereby creating a potentially endless service, whereas your suggestion for repairs currently requires facility level, money sink, activity.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

They are, however, orders of magnitude apart in terms of ease of replenishment. A ship with a fuel scoop has a trivial task in replenishing its supply of fuel, thereby creating a potentially endless service, whereas your suggestion for repairs currently requires facility level, money sink, activity.

Yes, but the point is any changes need to zero out. Lasers are infinite and kinetics are not. Lasers being infinite does not justify kinetics becoming infinite.

Fuel is very different than hull regarding replenishment. Fuel is also very different to hull in terms of risk and consequence. Flying with low fuel is not anywhere near as risky as flying with low hull. Fuel is measurable and reliable. You'll know with reasonable certainty whether you will have enough or not. Hull not so much. So fuel being recoverable and infinite is not as big of a deal as hull being recoverable and infinite, because the impact it will have game are orders of magnitude lesser.

Also, in the DDF there's talk about how scooped fuel will be very different than bought fuel. Scooped fuel will be impure, damaging the FSD and engines as time goes on. Limits, etc.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

Yes, but the point is any changes need to zero out. Lasers are infinite and kinetics are not. Lasers being infinite does not justify kinetics becoming infinite.

Fuel is very different than hull regarding replenishment. Fuel is also very different to hull in terms of risk and consequence. Flying with low fuel is not anywhere near as risky as flying with low hull. Fuel is measurable and reliable. You'll know with reasonable certainty whether you will have enough or not. Hull not so much. So fuel being recoverable and infinite is not as big of a deal as hull being recoverable and infinite, because the impact it will have game are orders of magnitude lesser.

Also, in the DDF there's talk about how scooped fuel will be very different than bought fuel. Scooped fuel will be impure, damaging the FSD and engines as time goes on. Limits, etc.

Your example with kinetics is a bad one. You can reload your kinetics indefinitely with the right materials recovered on planetary surfaces.

I don't think your assertion about there being some need to force pilots back to the bubble holds any water, really. We all have to go there to sell our data eventually, and that will never change.

 

[Velixar]

Thing is data in it self is not a real risk so it dose not force a player home. While kinetic weapons even in collecting materials to resupply it which take real time and energy. There still a limited use in combat.

Please let us know how long it takes you to collect materials for ammo refills.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Your example with kinetics is a bad one. You can reload your kinetics indefinitely with the right materials recovered on planetary surfaces.

You're right, it wasn't the best example, the point remains and you have yet to give a counter argument. Did you mention something about water? As previously mentioned, there's nothing about data that is a limit.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

You're right, it wasn't the best example, the point remains and you have yet to give a counter argument. Did you mention something about water? As previously mentioned, there's nothing about data that is a limit.

Well this isn't a debate. It's just a suggestion forum. You gave your opinion, and I think your opinion doesn't work. It's not a big deal. And I don't believe that the player's enjoyment of the game rests upon them dealing with space stations.

If your point is that players are necessary for the gameplay quality of other players, then I refer you to the ongoing and endless debate about Solo vs Open that happens in a new thread every couple of days.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

If your point is that players are necessary for the gameplay quality of other players, then I refer you to the ongoing and endless debate about Solo vs Open that happens in a new thread every couple of days.

What?

 

[Velixar]

See there has to be a underline weakness to exploration. It could be the hull and power plant. Or they could have made limited data space on a ship using ships jumps. Let's say 1,000 jumps. So the user forced to fly home. Because they're running out of data space.. So the user can have God mode ship. But data space/jumps has the same effect as hall damage.

 

[Chrystoph]

Well this isn't a debate. It's just a suggestion forum. You gave your opinion, and I think your opinion doesn't work. It's not a big deal. And I don't believe that the player's enjoyment of the game rests upon them dealing with space stations.

If your point is that players are necessary for the gameplay quality of other players, then I refer you to the ongoing and endless debate about Solo vs Open that happens in a new thread every couple of days.

What?

I believe the point that is being made is that you folks have yet to address the "why" of your position that players need to be forced back to the bubble. CMDR Steel seems to be pointing out that the usual reason for people being in the bubble is player interaction, although I would add that the Distant World expedition, the FGE Sagittarius-Carina mission, and various other exploratory efforts being prepared must be considered player interaction.

In any case, the limits argument seems to be based on forcing the player into a model that is formatted on space shooter instead of sandbox gameplay. What I mean by that is that a system where NPCs have resources that the the PCs never will makes the PCs dependent on the NPCs special capabilities.

The foundation for that logic is a money sink so that the players value their earnings and achievements. It is also what drives people to get the next upgrade.

Unfortunately, that mindset is not valid for players whose achievements are the in-game intangible of seeing something in the first person. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing someone else's discovery in screenshots or video, but I want to find unique things for myself. If I cannot do that in person, then a virtual environment is the next best thing. That mindset is what drives most explorers, and, after having enough money to properly fit themselves out, most of them are not playing by the money sink model.

 

[Chrystoph]

See there has to be a underline weakness to exploration. It could be the hull and power plant. Or they could have made limited data space on a ship using ships jumps. Let's say 1,000 jumps. So the user forced to fly home. Because they're running out of data space.. So the user can have God mode ship. But data space/jumps has the same effect as hall damage.

See this is where I don't get your argument. Why does there have to be a weakness in exploration? I'll grant PR's statement that you don't want an unfair advantage in the game (play), but I still don't see what purpose is served by "the user forced to fly home", especially when "home" is a concept embodied by nothing more specific than "the first facility I come to".

I can understand when you don't want the players to have infinite repair instantaneous repair capability. I addressed that with Restock and the need to farm synthesis materials, trading capability either for time or money. I also specified that it would take a while, without being precise about how long that was. In my mind, I was thinking 5 seconds per hull point, making larger ships or reinforced ones take longer. Higher quality limpets would add an additional point per level to the process, meaning that you get (1 point at IC 3, 2 at IC 5 and 3 at IC 7) per 5 seconds.

I can understand when you don't want a player to be able to repair themselves indefinitely. I addressed that with limiting the function to repairing other players.

What I have yet to comprehend is the demand that explorers be forced into a return to the bubble. There has yet to be a justification for that demand in gameplay.