Apropos of another's suggestion and another still's rightful objection to it (hat-tip: Lestat), I liked and ran with the idea of irreparable wear and tear accumulating over time.
Each module would have:
- a maximum integrity that repair will return actualintegrity to, which maximum starts at the current standard integrity of that module but is subject to decay
- a half-life that (where applicable) is dependent on module rating, and
- an end-point percentage of maximum integrity that (again, where applicable) is also dependent on rating. A non-zero end-point HAS to be present, so that no ship ever becomes space-unworthy, just a rickety bucket of bolts limping into port at worst.
Over the course of IN-GAME-TIME (emphatically NOT real-time as with missions), a module would follow an exponential-decay pattern that finally bottoms out at the end-point integrity. Perhaps other factors could influence the half-life, such as being in storage powered down rather than installed and either fully or standby powered.
A repair job, be that by AFMU or in station repair, would only take the module actual integrity up to the maximum integrity for that module. The cost would go down, both in credits and in AFMU repair units, since there is less repairing that can be done.
The half-lives ought be such that the life-span of a module is still respectable. For instance, a half-life of perhaps 20 hours for D-rated sensors, ending at 10% of original, and 150 hours for A-rated, ending at 20% of original. The end-point would be reached by these at around 90 hours and 500 hours, respectively. YMMV, play with numbers as is appropriate.
The module menu on the system panel still shows % of module integrity, but this % is now actual/maximum rather than actual/full. Similarly, malfunctions would now start happening when actual integrity falls to 75% of the current maximum integrity and not 75% of the new-module full integrity. Maybe, further this percentage can creep higher for the lower that maximum integrity falls? And side note: reduce it for better-rated modules, where applicable.
As compensation for something like this, and indeed as something that would have to be done because of a constant need to go back repeatedly to engineers, the quantity of materials required for engineering should come down by a fair bit.
Another thought is that as the maximum integrity falls away, so does the mass? Perhaps.
Pros:
- it is believable, and adds to immersion
- it would slowly take care of the problem of legacy engineered modules in a believable and at least somewhat equitable fashion that gives plenty of notice
- it might make an inter-player auction system viable, as the lack of a W&T mechanism is one of the things that rules out an auctioning system
- it would create more reason to consider integrity-centric engineering blueprints
- it would create more reason to consider A-rated modules when D-rated would be the normal choice
- it would create worthy trade-off for considerably lowering the material cost of engineering, especially at the higher tiers
- half-lives and end-points could be additional characteristics subject to engineering alongside integrity
Cons:
- likely difficult to program and debug
- it would create another thing to consider for playstyle trade-offs, and engineering blueprint trade-offs
- it would necessitate a constant (though low-level) need to hunt for materials to re-engineer new modules
- it is a credit and time sink to buy and engineer replacement modules, even if low-level, particularly for players with large fleets
- it would make fleet and module-inventory management harder (side note: all ships and modules need to have unique serial codes that we can track them with!)
- long-time explorers would have ever-increasing incentive to get back to civilisation sooner than is desired, though could still stay out in the deep indefinitely
Thoughts?
Each module would have:
- a maximum integrity that repair will return actualintegrity to, which maximum starts at the current standard integrity of that module but is subject to decay
- a half-life that (where applicable) is dependent on module rating, and
- an end-point percentage of maximum integrity that (again, where applicable) is also dependent on rating. A non-zero end-point HAS to be present, so that no ship ever becomes space-unworthy, just a rickety bucket of bolts limping into port at worst.
Over the course of IN-GAME-TIME (emphatically NOT real-time as with missions), a module would follow an exponential-decay pattern that finally bottoms out at the end-point integrity. Perhaps other factors could influence the half-life, such as being in storage powered down rather than installed and either fully or standby powered.
A repair job, be that by AFMU or in station repair, would only take the module actual integrity up to the maximum integrity for that module. The cost would go down, both in credits and in AFMU repair units, since there is less repairing that can be done.
The half-lives ought be such that the life-span of a module is still respectable. For instance, a half-life of perhaps 20 hours for D-rated sensors, ending at 10% of original, and 150 hours for A-rated, ending at 20% of original. The end-point would be reached by these at around 90 hours and 500 hours, respectively. YMMV, play with numbers as is appropriate.
The module menu on the system panel still shows % of module integrity, but this % is now actual/maximum rather than actual/full. Similarly, malfunctions would now start happening when actual integrity falls to 75% of the current maximum integrity and not 75% of the new-module full integrity. Maybe, further this percentage can creep higher for the lower that maximum integrity falls? And side note: reduce it for better-rated modules, where applicable.
As compensation for something like this, and indeed as something that would have to be done because of a constant need to go back repeatedly to engineers, the quantity of materials required for engineering should come down by a fair bit.
Another thought is that as the maximum integrity falls away, so does the mass? Perhaps.
Pros:
- it is believable, and adds to immersion
- it would slowly take care of the problem of legacy engineered modules in a believable and at least somewhat equitable fashion that gives plenty of notice
- it might make an inter-player auction system viable, as the lack of a W&T mechanism is one of the things that rules out an auctioning system
- it would create more reason to consider integrity-centric engineering blueprints
- it would create more reason to consider A-rated modules when D-rated would be the normal choice
- it would create worthy trade-off for considerably lowering the material cost of engineering, especially at the higher tiers
- half-lives and end-points could be additional characteristics subject to engineering alongside integrity
Cons:
- likely difficult to program and debug
- it would create another thing to consider for playstyle trade-offs, and engineering blueprint trade-offs
- it would necessitate a constant (though low-level) need to hunt for materials to re-engineer new modules
- it is a credit and time sink to buy and engineer replacement modules, even if low-level, particularly for players with large fleets
- it would make fleet and module-inventory management harder (side note: all ships and modules need to have unique serial codes that we can track them with!)
- long-time explorers would have ever-increasing incentive to get back to civilisation sooner than is desired, though could still stay out in the deep indefinitely
Thoughts?
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
