Random failures

[oscarmr]

I would only like to suggest to the Frontier team that they consider possible random failures for the ships according to circumstances, since a ship is a complex machine and every machine has failures over time, especially the more complex it is.
Then, when there are missions of long trips, or even moving through the bubble or in the direction of the area of ​​the guardians, the ship could present certain errors for example in the landing gear, propellers (some other) or main engines, interface of the pilot, computer on board, depressurizations by holes in the cabin or the hull made by collisions of particles or small stones, deactivation of modules, etc. .. that is, as the structural integrity goes down, or when approaching certain objects such as stars , planets, rocks (within the concept of space mining or exploration within rings).

Because the ships are almost indestructible, they are only affected by the excessive heat, by the radiation of a neutron star or white dwarf, or by the shots of your opponents in a combat, and I think that adding random errors would give you a plus realism and danger, especially on long trips, it would make more sense to move to a station to make repairs or assume certain risks for the exploration or transport of passengers over long distances.

Then, it would also be necessary to rethink the cost of long-distance trips, of exploration, the efficiency of repair drones (which would repair the integrity of the ship), the cost of assuming the jump loss to add a launcher repair drones and a tray to store them, etc .. and would give more realism to the game.

I understand that with the Distant World 2, it is intended to add 2 more stations, one in Sagittarius A and one in Beagle Point, and if we add the ones near the bubble, the colony and the nebulae, it would be nice to have them more in mind

Sorry for my poor English level, thank you for reading this suggestion.

 

[Braandlin]

I agree with the general approach. Sadly however the amount of screaming there would be at FDev because a Commander's ship didn't behave exactly as was predicted every single time would be astronomical. :-(

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

I like the idea and would add to it that I think planetary landings and such are a bit too cosy as in you get a small slap on the wrist for messing up an approach at the wrong angle etc , serious damage and or death should be in the equation for messing up.

The way I imagine it is this:
You're on approach to a planet but oh look at that over there , oh dear you over shot and are over the top of the station leaving you too steep an angle. So you try to get as close to that red line so as not to get too far off the station but oops you dip into the red and the ship is out of control spinning and Rolling tumbling with alarms smoke and sparks. You will be lucky to survive but you will pay attention in the future.

Space is a bit too comfortable we need risk.

 

[MK Regular]

I like the idea and would add to it that I think planetary landings and such are a bit too cosy as in you get a small slap on the wrist for messing up an approach at the wrong angle etc , serious damage and or death should be in the equation for messing up.

The way I imagine it is this:
You're on approach to a planet but oh look at that over there , oh dear you over shot and are over the top of the station leaving you too steep an angle. So you try to get as close to that red line so as not to get too far off the station but oops you dip into the red and the ship is out of control spinning and Rolling tumbling with alarms smoke and sparks. You will be lucky to survive but you will pay attention in the future.

Space is a bit too comfortable we need risk.

I can agree with this sentiment. We don't need to have random malfunctions when flying our ships within the safety limits, but exceeding the safety limits should have bigger consequences. It doesn't really make sense how bumping into an asteroid at a few hundred m/s can cripple your ship while running face first into a star while traveling at several times the speed of light barely leaves a few scratches on the hull. Making a big (avoidable) mistake should HURT.

It doesn't need to be instant death, but it should probably be something a bit more significant than <1% damage to your hull and modules.

 

[Guest 161958]

FINALLY! finally someone asks for more challenge! Please come help me in this thread they are always flaming me! https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ent-beta-4-is-not-final?p=7217688#post7217688

With engineering you can stay at the corona, go through solar flares, keep your fsd on and you COOL DOWN! There is no risk whatsoever.

I totally agree random malfunctions are already ingame with the engineer effect and could be expanded upon.

 

[m0rl0ck]

No. This is not fun.
I have played flight sims that modeled statistical levels of in flight mechanical and operational failures and while it sounds like fun because it adds to the realism, it just isnt.
There are much better ways of adding challenge to games.

 

[Guest 161958]

No. This is not fun.
I have played flight sims that modeled statistical levels of in flight mechanical and operational failures and while it sounds like fun because it adds to the realism, it just isnt.
There are much better ways of adding challenge to games.

Why not, if it is too often I agree it becomes annoying, but impredictable is fun! First time hyperdicted by goids was cool wasn't it? But every now and then keeps it interesting.

 

[comdr0303]

the ship could present certain errors for example in the landing gear, propellers (some other) or main engines, interface of the pilot, computer on board...

First of all, we are +1000y from now...not 10, not 100 but 1000y. That means +1000y of anything related to planes and space and complicated mechanics. Then we are in space where there are no mechanics around, so these ships HAVE to be 100% reliable at all times because there no surviving outside. Then again, some ships have been around for several 100+ years and survived wars and millions of ly's of travel.
You would think that the manufacturers would know by now how to do it.
About the ships computer, i can only advice you to take the linux version and not the "bill spacegates" version. lol.
So a no for me.

 

[oscarmr]

Well, the idea is that it is not an aggressive failure, rather progressive. That is to say that as the percentage of integrity decreases, the ship will have failures.
For example, lowering the legs has a minimum number of attempts if they are damaged. Or that the lights stay on or intermittent. They can be serious failures over time and if maintenance is not done, or minor failures.

It is a matter of putting a balance that satisfies everyone.

 

[Chrystoph]

Well, the idea is that it is not an aggressive failure, rather progressive. That is to say that as the percentage of integrity decreases, the ship will have failures.
For example, lowering the legs has a minimum number of attempts if they are damaged. Or that the lights stay on or intermittent. They can be serious failures over time and if maintenance is not done, or minor failures.

It is a matter of putting a balance that satisfies everyone.

First, you are presuming that there is no maintenance being performed just because you don't have the tedium of doing it in game. As someone that used to be a Damage Control Petty Officer (fancy title for a maintenance man), I can tell you that, while needed in reality, it would be really dull game play.

Second, you are forgetting or ignoring that robotics and automation will have 1300+ years of development. You are correct that ships are incredibly complex, but that very complexity, combined with a single person crew, would suggest, at least to me, that the ship would have automated maintenance functions to address routine maintenance and non-catastrophic equipment failures.

 

[Guest 161958]

First, you are presuming that there is no maintenance being performed just because you don't have the tedium of doing it in game. As someone that used to be a Damage Control Petty Officer (fancy title for a maintenance man), I can tell you that, while needed in reality, it would be really dull game play.

Second, you are forgetting or ignoring that robotics and automation will have 1300+ years of development. You are correct that ships are incredibly complex, but that very complexity, combined with a single person crew, would suggest, at least to me, that the ship would have automated maintenance functions to address routine maintenance and non-catastrophic equipment failures.

Still, humankind in 3304 has not mapped the whole galaxy. This means that not everything is known. And while going in the black, phenomena not known to mankind might (and imo should) produce effects which are not recognized and fixable by the technology known to humankind.

Exploring would then become a thrilling experience instead of cataloguing and tourism.

 

[Chrystoph]

Still, humankind in 3304 has not mapped the whole galaxy. This means that not everything is known. And while going in the black, phenomena not known to mankind might (and imo should) produce effects which are not recognized and fixable by the technology known to humankind.

Exploring would then become a thrilling experience instead of cataloguing and tourism.

Certainly, things like the Thargoids being able to disrupt your power plant, and pulling you out of hyperspace, but the idea that the RNG just suddenly causes damage is absurd, which is what was Originally suggested.

As to the idea that your "effect" would not be repairable after you get clear it, that smacks entirely of what insurance companies call "acts of God" just to rationalize random damage.

Stress damage from getting too close to an extreme gravity well I can agree with, overheating causing damage makes sense, but the gameplay doesn't allow you to exceed the built in limits, so damage because you exceeded specifications doesn't make sense because you are asking for the damage without being able to take the actions in the first place.

 

[Havvk]

It'll also give more reason to carry an AFMU or 2

 

[Faded Glory]

The problem with suggestions such as this is that in order for them to be worth it, they have to result in good and fun game-play.

In FE2, one of the previous games, a player needed to service their ship once a year (game time year, which would be much less than a year of real time) or random failures might occur. The challenge therefore was to remember in game time when you needed to press an extra button or two to fully service your ship. Not a huge challenge, and almost zero game-play. In this game, since we are in a real-time environment, just how often would we expect our ships to start to malfunction for no real reason? Probably not that often.

Realistically, the game-play resulting from suggestions like this would be making sure you do a repair at a station, having to equip and use an AFMU, or having to equip and use repair limpets just for the sake of it. I regularly repair my ship when I dock, it's about 5 seconds and a few clicks, I use an AFMU when I'm out exploring, and I use decontamination / repair limpets when I fight Thargoids, and essentially they are both a few button presses and a short wait, nothing more. Personally I don't see any of those as compelling or interesting game-play activities. Certainly not exciting game-play.

I understand that these suggestions often come out of a desire for greater 'challenge' in the game. I have no problem with challenge, and agree that after a player scales the learning cliff that is the beginning of the game things tend to become predictable and as a result easy. But I personally think that development time could be better spent making the things we actively do in the game more varied, not just insert random events that distract and effectively punish a player just because they happen to be playing.

 

[Guest 161958]

The problem with suggestions such as this is that in order for them to be worth it, they have to result in good and fun game-play.

In FE2, one of the previous games, a player needed to service their ship once a year (game time year, which would be much less than a year of real time) or random failures might occur. The challenge therefore was to remember in game time when you needed to press an extra button or two to fully service your ship. Not a huge challenge, and almost zero game-play. In this game, since we are in a real-time environment, just how often would we expect our ships to start to malfunction for no real reason? Probably not that often.

Realistically, the game-play resulting from suggestions like this would be making sure you do a repair at a station, having to equip and use an AFMU, or having to equip and use repair limpets just for the sake of it. I regularly repair my ship when I dock, it's about 5 seconds and a few clicks, I use an AFMU when I'm out exploring, and I use decontamination / repair limpets when I fight Thargoids, and essentially they are both a few button presses and a short wait, nothing more. Personally I don't see any of those as compelling or interesting game-play activities. Certainly not exciting game-play.

I understand that these suggestions often come out of a desire for greater 'challenge' in the game. I have no problem with challenge, and agree that after a player scales the learning cliff that is the beginning of the game things tend to become predictable and as a result easy. But I personally think that development time could be better spent making the things we actively do in the game more varied, not just insert random events that distract and effectively punish a player just because they happen to be playing.

Good points, even though to be honest I think the insterstellar jump is too much free of malfunctions. Such an incredible thing it can achieve and always without mistakes. Feels too godlike to me. Maybe a percentage going down every n jumps? much like after turbocharging it. Gameplay there is to be careful about it and using the afmu.

I am after an exploring experience that makes me say I have survived and brought back data after all.

 

[Guest 161958]

Certainly, things like the Thargoids being able to disrupt your power plant, and pulling you out of hyperspace, but the idea that the RNG just suddenly causes damage is absurd, which is what was Originally suggested.

As to the idea that your "effect" would not be repairable after you get clear it, that smacks entirely of what insurance companies call "acts of God" just to rationalize random damage.

Stress damage from getting too close to an extreme gravity well I can agree with, overheating causing damage makes sense, but the gameplay doesn't allow you to exceed the built in limits, so damage because you exceeded specifications doesn't make sense because you are asking for the damage without being able to take the actions in the first place.

Encountering RNG phenomena is the salt of exploration. That would trigger malfunctions. If I know what will happen where is the fun? You never know when or where the goids hyperdict you.

You can already repair modules with the afmu, the afmu might tell you it needs a particular material to fix it after computer analysis. And that would spawn gameplay.

 

[Chrystoph]

Encountering RNG phenomena is the salt of exploration. That would trigger malfunctions. If I know what will happen where is the fun? You never know when or where the goids hyperdict you.

You can already repair modules with the afmu, the afmu might tell you it needs a particular material to fix it after computer analysis. And that would spawn gameplay.

I presume you haven't got a lot of experience with the ground based "mining". The materials wallet allows you to keep a supply of every material you have encountered, at least in quantity of 100.

As a result, anyone that has grinded for Jumponium, since your bait was exploration, will already have the materials.

As to salt, you in a distinct minority, and I am beginning to think, a malicious poster, in the idea that anyone wants the game to randomly punish them for playing.

 

[Guest 161958]

I presume you haven't got a lot of experience with the ground based "mining". The materials wallet allows you to keep a supply of every material you have encountered, at least in quantity of 100.

As a result, anyone that has grinded for Jumponium, since your bait was exploration, will already have the materials.

As to salt, you in a distinct minority, and I am beginning to think, a malicious poster, in the idea that anyone wants the game to randomly punish them for playing.

It grieves me you are so malicious to think I am malicious while I am solely explaining my tastes in gaming.

I simply remain surprised by the fact that people who post in this forum are ok with mechanics which feel boring to me.

I have no numbers and do not know if I am in a minority, one thing I am sure about is that many cmdrs with my same ideas prefer to not be dragged in conversations full of personal attacks because one has unpopular views. Happens a lot in this forum.

That said, I have engineered all of the ships available in game, I also have found volcanic areas not charted to get needle crystals, clusters etc. so I have my fair share of experience in the matter. This deflects your belittling attempt and shows your presumption is wrong to the point of being presumptuous.


What you consider "punishment for playing" I consider "punishment for lack of knowledge/experience", which helps me feeling like a space pilot pioneer and explorer and not like a superficial tourist.

Lately I have the impression of a rising trend in the gaming industry with players wanting it all, easily. "Look how cool I am, I killed an ant with only one finger!" and then upload it on youtube. It is an impression, I might be wrong, but I think I am not.

Once you deplete the materials you have to get them again especially on a long trip, providing a good material sink (reason there is a limit on how many materials you can store) to spawn gameplay.
Synthesis is too cheap as it is now, a lot of modifications are making the game cheap to me and are deemed as QoL (strange concept indeed, like if playing this game is your life and you need to make it easier).

 

[777Driver]

I would only like to suggest to the Frontier team that they consider possible random failures for the ships according to circumstances, since a ship is a complex machine and every machine has failures over time, especially the more complex it is.
Then, when there are missions of long trips, or even moving through the bubble or in the direction of the area of ​​the guardians, the ship could present certain errors for example in the landing gear, propellers (some other) or main engines, interface of the pilot, computer on board, depressurizations by holes in the cabin or the hull made by collisions of particles or small stones, deactivation of modules, etc. .. that is, as the structural integrity goes down, or when approaching certain objects such as stars , planets, rocks (within the concept of space mining or exploration within rings).

Because the ships are almost indestructible, they are only affected by the excessive heat, by the radiation of a neutron star or white dwarf, or by the shots of your opponents in a combat, and I think that adding random errors would give you a plus realism and danger, especially on long trips, it would make more sense to move to a station to make repairs or assume certain risks for the exploration or transport of passengers over long distances.

Then, it would also be necessary to rethink the cost of long-distance trips, of exploration, the efficiency of repair drones (which would repair the integrity of the ship), the cost of assuming the jump loss to add a launcher repair drones and a tray to store them, etc .. and would give more realism to the game.

I understand that with the Distant World 2, it is intended to add 2 more stations, one in Sagittarius A and one in Beagle Point, and if we add the ones near the bubble, the colony and the nebulae, it would be nice to have them more in mind

Sorry for my poor English level, thank you for reading this suggestion.

Whilst not completely random (which I would like to see in game) We do already have quite a nice failure system in place. Most of the main modules will start to malfunction when below 85% integrity, this can be caused by a number of factors (not just combat)

One of the worse situations an explorer can be in is a ship with a damaged FSD and no AFMU, emergency drops will cause other modules to take damage, those modules will start developing faults (Thrusters for example lose all stabilization, or start misfiring even when FA-OFF)

Anyway, completely agree with your suggestions. These are supposed to be machines that we are operating, they should not be 100% reliable. A decent failure system (combined with fault analysis and a way to resolve the issue) would add a lot of depth to the ED (if implemented correctly)

 

[Chrystoph]

It grieves me you are so malicious to think I am malicious while I am solely explaining my tastes in gaming.

I simply remain surprised by the fact that people who post in this forum are ok with mechanics which feel boring to me.

I have no numbers and do not know if I am in a minority, one thing I am sure about is that many cmdrs with my same ideas prefer to not be dragged in conversations full of personal attacks because one has unpopular views. Happens a lot in this forum.

That said, I have engineered all of the ships available in game, I also have found volcanic areas not charted to get needle crystals, clusters etc. so I have my fair share of experience in the matter. This deflects your belittling attempt and shows your presumption is wrong to the point of being presumptuous.


What you consider "punishment for playing" I consider "punishment for lack of knowledge/experience", which helps me feeling like a space pilot pioneer and explorer and not like a superficial tourist.

Lately I have the impression of a rising trend in the gaming industry with players wanting it all, easily. "Look how cool I am, I killed an ant with only one finger!" and then upload it on youtube. It is an impression, I might be wrong, but I think I am not.

Once you deplete the materials you have to get them again especially on a long trip, providing a good material sink (reason there is a limit on how many materials you can store) to spawn gameplay.
Synthesis is too cheap as it is now, a lot of modifications are making the game cheap to me and are deemed as QoL (strange concept indeed, like if playing this game is your life and you need to make it easier).

Thank you for proving my point.

As to your comment on lack of knowledge, you aren't asking for something that can be corrected through education, meaning that you are confusing the unknowable with the unknown (see my early comment about Acts of God).