Hull Repair

[Psycho Romeo]

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.

A game is defined by its constraints. Limitations. These factors give the game shape and form. As I said already, limitations stave off stagnancy, and prevent plateaus from forming.

A hauler is inferior to an AE for a number of reasons, but really the most important one is the excursion length possible between the two ships. An AE will probably be able to operate long after the the same situation would convince a hauler to return home.

We don't want the hauler being a cheaper equivalent to the AE. We want the AE to be the superior ship. This is only possible because of the hard limits present in the game.

 

[Chrystoph]

A game is defined by its constraints. Limitations. These factors give the game shape and form. As I said already, limitations stave off stagnancy, and prevent plateaus from forming.

A hauler is inferior to an AE for a number of reasons, but really the most important one is the excursion length possible between the two ships. An AE will probably be able to operate long after the the same situation would convince a hauler to return home.

We don't want the hauler being a cheaper equivalent to the AE. We want the AE to be the superior ship. This is only possible because of the hard limits present in the game.

The limits you are referring to already exist in the ship designs. The Hauler has fewer Internal Compartments, less range, etc.

While this thread's proposal would address the fact that the Hauler is more fragile than an AspX, your logic ignores the fact that the game mechanics inflict proportional damage on the ship, taking a consistent percentage of hull "hit points", not an absolute value. Unless that function is modified to inflict an absolute, and potentially immediately fatal, amount of damage, loss of hull in any scenario other than combat is already not affected by your argument.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

The limits you are referring to already exist in the ship designs. The Hauler has fewer Internal Compartments, less range, etc.

Like exploration data, these aren't hard limits.

your logic ignores the fact that the game mechanics inflict proportional damage on the ship

Bring an anaconda to 240% heat then a hauler to 240% heat and tell me there's proportional ship damage.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

What?

Well the limits you talk so much about are meaningless, really. The game exists for the enjoyment of players. In ED the game is more focused toward PvE, and is geared toward the single player experience. If the lone player wants for some reason to travel the galaxy forever and enjoys doing that, what exactly is the point of this limit that you love so much?

I truly think it has no purpose.

The only real accomplishment of forcing players to go back to the bubble again and again is to bottleneck them into interacting with space stations, the economy, and missions, but you don't need to do that. Those things are required for gameplay by all at some point. It doesn't matter whether that is a "hard" limit or not. This whole made up nomenclature about hard and soft limits doesn't exist.

Many people headache at length over forcing the players in this game specifically to play in certain ways. That does not seem consistent with the philosophy Frontier has gone for so far in this game. My idea is to liberalize things a bit and allow an extra facet of gameplay as regards maintaining one's ship. You seem to think that is gamebreaking in some way, but from everything I've seen in the design of this game so far I'd say you're probably clashing with the philosophy of the developers.

That's my opinion.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Well the limits you talk so much about are meaningless, really. The game exists for the enjoyment of players. In ED the game is more focused toward PvE, and is geared toward the single player experience. If the lone player wants for some reason to travel the galaxy forever and enjoys doing that, what exactly is the point of this limit that you love so much?

I truly think it has no purpose.

The only real accomplishment of forcing players to go back to the bubble again and again is to bottleneck them into interacting with space stations, the economy, and missions, but you don't need to do that. Those things are required for gameplay by all at some point. It doesn't matter whether that is a "hard" limit or not. This whole made up nomenclature about hard and soft limits doesn't exist.

Many people headache at length over forcing the players in this game specifically to play in certain ways. That does not seem consistent with the philosophy Frontier has gone for so far in this game. My idea is to liberalize things a bit and allow an extra facet of gameplay as regards maintaining one's ship. You seem to think that is gamebreaking in some way, but from everything I've seen in the design of this game so far I'd say you're probably clashing with the philosophy of the developers.

That's my opinion.

You're completely misguided. I never once mentioned other players, or the PvE versus PvP argument. Nothing about bottlenecking or anything of the sort.

You know what I'd enjoy? A free immortal anaconda. Does this mean I should get one? Or do I have to work within the game's limits?

This is what you fail to understand. Like many misguided players, they want want want things they shouldn't have. Instead, we have what we want put behind limitations. The result is a good play experience. Fun is a product of boredom and frustration, and you (clearly) have no idea how to manage that for yourself. Luckily, the developers will do that for you.

 

[Lestat]

You know when we talk about Risk and reward on Design Decision Forums. We talk about Wear and Tear and Hall damage and mechanical damage and the Dangers of exploration. That right Dangers of exploring. Not being repairing the whole ship while exploring. Not having other ship repair you while exploring.

The people on DDF wanted that fear. They wanted that fear if their ship start falling apart and have to make THAT choice. Do I keep going or die trying? Or fly home and get repaired? Not a option to fly forever and never worry about dying never worried about repairs. We should not have a option to call AAA. To tow you or repair you. That sounds like other sandbox games like Minecraft with creative mode. when there no risk or reward.

Thing is you can go out for months with out real damage. It just take user common sense.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

You're completely misguided. I never once mentioned other players, or the PvE versus PvP argument. Nothing about bottlenecking or anything of the sort.

You know what I'd enjoy? A free immortal anaconda. Does this mean I should get one? Or do I have to work within the game's limits?

This is what you fail to understand. Like many misguided players, they want want want things they shouldn't have. Instead, we have what we want put behind limitations. The result is a good play experience. Fun is a product of boredom and frustration, and you (clearly) have no idea how to manage that for yourself. Luckily, the developers will do that for you.

Some of the problem in this particular thread is that you're rude to people. I've seen you be rude to others as well as myself.

I think you should have that checked.

 

[Velixar]

Some of the problem in this particular thread is that you're rude to people. I've seen you be rude to others as well as myself.

I think you should have that checked.

The other problem is you are not listing why people don't want mechanic of the game too easy. Like exploration. They like the fear of exploration when the ship's are damaged and user error or luck could get them killed.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

The other problem is you are not listing why people don't want mechanic of the game too easy. Like exploration. They like the fear of exploration when the ship's are damaged and user error or luck could get them killed.

Hey, that's not up to me. Take the idea or don't. I don't really care that much. It's just an idea.

But there's all this emotion and vitriol involved in hating it.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Some of the problem in this particular thread is that you're rude to people. I've seen you be rude to others as well as myself.

I think you should have that checked.

Some of the problem is that whenever you find yourself incapable of responding with a reasonable argument, you dodge the subject.

I'm sure you're capable of better.

 

[Chrystoph]

The other problem is you are not listing why people don't want mechanic of the game too easy. Like exploration. They like the fear of exploration when the ship's are damaged and user error or luck could get them killed.

This is a misrepresentation since the danger still exists, it just ceases to be as attritional. It is still entirely possible to die by bad landing, jumping into a too hot to survive star configuration, etc.

Your statement also fails to address the fact that not everyone is going to carry a module that can only be used to repair SOMEONE ELSE. In any ship in the mid range explorers (cobra, viper, courier, etc) or higher, the accepted configuration for exploration needs 6 compartments. Those include: ADS, DSS, Fuel Scoop, Shields, AFMU, Planetary Vehicle Hangar. Most people, unless they are specifically flying in a group, are not going to have a unit that cannot repair their own ship.

Add those factors together and you still have risk factors because the utility is limited, it is not universally available and you may not get to it in time, either through spontaneous or attritional destruction.

You know when we talk about Risk and reward on Design Decision Forums. We talk about Wear and Tear and Hall damage and mechanical damage and the Dangers of exploration. That right Dangers of exploring. Not being repairing the whole ship while exploring. Not having other ship repair you while exploring.

This is another appeal to authority, in this case, a limited group of people whose only qualifier is that they paid a lot of money to Frontier during fundraising. Ignoring the forum community, as this appeal does, is nothing but an attempt to impose an Oligarchy on the community. Add to that the fact that you contradict your own argument in one paragraph. As to dangers, refer to my earlier elements.

 

[Lestat]

This is another appeal to authority, in this case, a limited group of people whose only qualifier is that they paid a lot of money to Frontier during fundraising. Ignoring the forum community, as this appeal does, is nothing but an attempt to impose an Oligarchy on the community. Add to that the fact that you contradict your own argument in one paragraph. As to dangers, refer to my earlier elements.

It nothing to do with authority. It was a group of a few hundred people who talk about ideas and pro and cons of a idea with Devs. Maybe you should study the archives and get a understanding what people wanted.

 

[JABUKI]

Hello, Cmdr Steel.

Hulls in ED make absolutely no sense whatsoever, at present.

We can take an unshielded ship, fly it in a battle until there's only 1% hull left, jump into hyperspace, reappear in a complex solar system (where our ship may briefly pass through the convection zone of a star before slowing to supercruise speed), fly through the star's atmosphere scooping fuel, before finally flying off home for tea. Later on, assuming nothing else changes in this area, we'll also be able to fly through the atmospheres of gas giants and into the depths of oceans.

All without experiencing any ill-effects whatsoever, despite our ship being riddled with potentially thousands of bullet-holes.

I'm not even clear about what the hull is supposed to be at present: is it the exterior fuselage, the armour (which might or might not be the same thing in ED), the internal bulkheads, the spaceframe? Some or all or none of these?

In my view, ED should have a slightly more articulate system than the simple RPG-esque health percentage currently in use. What we have works, but it's not very convincing.

• All ships should have a high-density spaceframe¹, which would be exceedingly difficult to fix outside of a station or port. It's integrity would be our most-important measure of ship's health - and the thing we must come home to repair.
• On the outside, we should have the hull. All ship's hulls should be automatically self-healing, as a matter of course. Self-healing armour² is one of the first applications any remotely-competent space-going culture would develop - and especially a highly-militant culture, like the people of ED. It's something under development in the present day and some self-healing internal components have allegedly been in military use since the 1970s³.
  
  The resources for repairing current hulls might be replenishable, like the internals, or might contain exotic materials that necessitate a return to base. FD's choice, obviously.
• On the inside, we should have the internal bulkheads (which would include the floors and partitioning walls, power conduits, etc), with damage repairable at our discretion, or ignored at the risk of life-support failure (and probably other malfunctions, due to the reduced environmental control).

FD might have something planned for the future - a Ship Internals update is certainly expected at some point, although not soon, I think.

I've no idea how much detail FD would find practical to go into, but any steps forward would be most welcome.



¹ A spaceframe is what ED currently calls an airframe, when it mentions it. Airframe's not incorrect, as such, but I think it's wrong for the ships in ED, given both their extraordinary capabilities and the possibility that some ships will be designed never to enter an atmosphere. Plus, it sounds cooler, IMO.
² See http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...armor-patches-itself-within-minutes-16773095/ .
³ See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3#Countermeasures .

I personally love the idea of adding a core frame damage that can't be repaired outside of docking. Larger ships should have a larger frame health. Hull reinforcement should become armor reinforcement so that core frame health can never be added only external armor can be increased. i also like the idea of repairing armor by landing with an srv, but I think it should require materials, so if you don't have the materials you would have to find them. This would go hand in hand with the engineering update of additional loot and item crafting (the more exotic your armor type the more exotic the materials needed). having shield health, armor health, and frame health absolutely makes sense. I also think that when your frame health is below 50% it should become degenerative where it continues weakening over time. As it gets lower it degrades faster. It could also cause module degradation as frame health decreases under 50% meaning that as the frame goes so do modules, making repair modules even more necessary for getting back to dock for repairs. it seems silly that you can continue traveling infinitely on 1% hull.

If there was real module diversity you could have the largest ships be able to equip a repair module in a huge weapons slot for repairing OTHER ships as a mobile repair dry dock force field (again requiring different materials for different repairs). I have player driven communities in mind like fuel rats, or having the ability of wings with huge ships having that much longer staying power out in space. I think any armor or possible frame repairs added should tie into the new crafting system. Which also means that having cargo space is needed for these materials.

 

[Chrystoph]

It nothing to do with authority. It was a group of a few hundred people who talk about problem pro and cons of a idea with Devs. Maybe you should study the archives and get a understanding what people wanted.

That is exactly to do with authority. You are waiving your DDF membership around as if that membership should outweigh the ongoing evolution of the game including input from the public forums. A statistical sample of "a few hundred people", who's main qualification was being in the right place at the right time and a willingness to spend money, doesn't even qualify as a thousandth of a percent of the 1.4 million players currently comprising the player base. In spite of this, you have repeatedly used your membership in the DDF as "proof" that your position is correct without supplying evidence either of your membership or that the position you put forth is that of the DDF.

This would be no different from me pointing out my various experiences in the physical world to undermine your gaming mindset, which I have been purposefully avoiding.

 

[JABUKI]

I would highly recommend that anyone having a discussion with other people accept the idea that they are not always "right" and that they don't have to always be "right". The point of suggestions thread it to make the game more FUN to play. I get that some people think that endless grinding is "fun" but many don't. I fully understand the point of limitations, but let's also not lose sight of rewarding people for the time and effort it takes to get larger more expensive and hopefully more capable ships. I think the entire outfitting of ships in ED is so generic and redundant that there is very little reward for getting into those larger ships as they are not significantly more versatile or customizable. Being locked into this unbudging view that forcing people to return to the bubble is absolutely required is simply closed minded.

Rather then shooting down ideas i suggest exploring the options of working within the built in limitations of ship outfitting to accommodate player requests. They are requesting it for a reason, and telling them they are wrong for something that could easily make the game more enjoyable doesn't really help. I think a common mistake in game development is racing to mediocrity rather then exploring balancing by providing more extremes. We absolutely can give more powerful outfitting with more extreme requirements to use them. We have plenty of limitations built into the ship outfitting, between module size, type, weight, power usage. The incredibly repetitive and unimaginative ship outfitting in ED is one of my biggest complaints about the game. Get creative and know that values and limits can always be adjusted as needed in play testing. Everything can be improved, offer suggestions rather then shooting them down.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

there is very little reward for getting into those larger ships as they are not significantly more versatile or customizable

...seriously?

 

[JABUKI]

...seriously?

Absolutely, what can you do in the largest "end game" ships that you can't do in a smaller ships? Nothing. it only allows you to do more of the same thing. It's completely unimaginative, uninspired, lazy, mediocre outfitting development. I can only hope that the loot and crafting update will add huge diversity to outfitting, but we will see. Elite dangerous released as a great base platform for what could be an amazing game that continues to keep players wanting to come back for more. My expectations for development to make it the game it should be is going up, not down.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Absolutely, what can you do in the largest "end game" ships that you can't do in a smaller ships? Nothing. it only allows you to do more of the same thing. It's completely unimaginative, uninspired, lazy, mediocre outfitting development. I can only hope that the loot and crafting update will add huge diversity to outfitting, but we will see. Elite dangerous released as a great base platform for what could be an amazing game that continues to keep players wanting to come back for more. My expectations for development to make it the game it should be is going up, not down.

Okay, so one of the following is true about the content of your post:
You represent no understanding of the game in anything beyond an adder.
This is an attempt at trolling with completely untrue and downright absurd claims.
You've accidentally made this post while thinking of some other game.

With a larger ship, I can enable:
Mine and defend myself
Pirate more than 8t at a time
Explore distant planets in SRVs
Multipurpose anything
Make a meaningful dent in a CG
Not to mention multicrew and guardian. There's probably a ton of stuff I'm not thinking of at the moment.

You do realize that combat against an adder and combat against a wing of 8 in an SSS is not 'more of the same thing', right?

 

[Velixar]

This is a misrepresentation since the danger still exists, it just ceases to be as attritional. It is still entirely possible to die by bad landing, jumping into a too hot to survive star configuration, etc.

Your statement also fails to address the fact that not everyone is going to carry a module that can only be used to repair SOMEONE ELSE. In any ship in the mid range explorers (cobra, viper, courier, etc) or higher, the accepted configuration for exploration needs 6 compartments. Those include: ADS, DSS, Fuel Scoop, Shields, AFMU, Planetary Vehicle Hangar. Most people, unless they are specifically flying in a group, are not going to have a unit that cannot repair their own ship.

Add those factors together and you still have risk factors because the utility is limited, it is not universally available and you may not get to it in time, either through spontaneous or attritional destruction

It more like lack of danger. Ok if you die by being close to a star. Or user error on landing on a planet. Errors that could be fix with heat sinks and the user watching what they're doing while landing. Those are not a risk. But players errors. But the OP's or your idea make exploration lack of risk.

Players have fun taking their ship to the extreme and back with out dying. Not by damage by user error and calling it dangerous.

 

[Chrystoph]

It more like lack of danger. Ok if you die by being close to a star. Or user error on landing on a planet. Errors that could be fix with heat sinks and the user watching what they're doing while landing. Those are not a risk. But players errors. But the OP's or your idea make exploration lack of risk.

Players have fun taking their ship to the extreme and back with out dying. Not by damage by user error and calling it dangerous.

You do realize that I am a player, and I disagree with you? That makes your universal statements false in their own right.

You also are insisting on arguing this from a point of universal availability, which has been shown repeatedly to not be the case. It is meant as a choice, just like carrying refueling limpets, AFMU, additional fuel tanks, weapons, the list goes on ad nauseum.

Finally, if the environment (stars and their potential configurations) and user error are not considered dangers, what exactly do you consider a danger to explorers? The only thing left is PvP, which explorers generally try rigorously to avoid.