That not a joke? Can anyone confirm?
Ship integrity in 1.3
- Thread starter geoffrey.hdt
- Start date
That not a joke? Can anyone confirm?
No offence, but this is nonsense. The truth is you can make anything work in sci-fi, because you can just invent a reason for it, but this is far from logical. The problem is, FD aren't thinking like engineers when it comes to ships. Let's compare with a real world example: cars. A car exists in a relatively hostile environment. Exposed to constant erosion, friction, chemical reaction within the environment. These effects take their toll on a car over time - namely, corrosion. None of them weaken the "integrity" of the vehicle in any appreciable way, not in reasonable time-frames of ownership (decades), rendering it more vulnerable to physical damage - i.e. crashes. Indeed, you NEVER repair this damage on most vehicles, because it involves stripping the car right back and repairing the structure by welding new bits on, making new panels, etc. I'm ignoring wear and tear on things like pads or clutches, because that's not analogous to what we're talking about here - those are part of "module" wear and tear. So, the truth is, other than going through consumables, like those mentioned in the previous sentence, new cars require almost no money spent on them to maintain their structural integrity as a consequence of wear and tear. Now, you might say "but, SPACE, man!" Yeah, space. Big, 'ol, empty space. There is no corrosion, because there is no atmosphere. There is no physical abrasion (we'll come to micro meteorites and debris separately), no water. What there is, is radiation. So, one might expect some tiny amount of your hull turning into some other material due to nuclear reactions over a long period of time. This would be negligible at the best of times, but shields surely render it completely inert. So, what about bits of crap lying around in space smashing into you as you fly about? Well, this is what I mean when I say FD aren't thinking like engineers. This problem HAS to have been solved in order for space travel to be practicable. Maybe it's solved through shields, or maybe there is some other field a ship generates to push small objects out of its path as it travels, but either way, if this debris is out there, it's hitting you, and it's making holes, your ship isn't going to last a single trip anywhere.
Conversely, a few weeks ago, I was.... "interdicted" by a badger on a country road on the way home. This cost me almost £1000 to fix. Yeah. Battle damage from the badger cost me more in one sitting than I have ever spent on maintaining my car's structural integrity.
I also think there are some question marks over what exactly hull integrity IS. What are these molecular repairs that the hull requires, which are somehow more costly than giant holes carved out of it by weapons fire?
The truth is, no one would design and try to sell a car which cost us £/$/€200 for an hour long trip. No would design a space ship which requires such a large portion of your income just to repair damage in flying from one place to the next.
Now, planetary landings are another matter. Managing damage during those could be interesting mechanic, and expensive repairs a necessary evil. That makes perfect sense, and it doesn't punish people for NECESSARY travel.
Maybe Frontier wants a heavy repair tag on the big ships because they are expensive and also special, and maybe when all start getting 100 millions of cash nobody is flying the small ships. So if you have to high repair bills you can park your "dreadnought" and take your Cobra or Diamondback for a spin. Or your T7 
Maybe Frontier wants a heavy repair tag on the big ships because they are expensive and also special, and maybe when all start getting 100 millions of cash nobody is flying the small ships. So if you have to high repair bills you can park your "dreadnought" and take your Cobra or Diamondback for a spin. Or your T7
That would be a slimy way to FORCE people to fly tiny tinfoil ships.Not cool.
The cost appears to be about 1/2 of the ship cost at 100% integrity damage, so you're looking at 0.5% of the ship cost per 1% integrity damage (just a guesstimate from the ~730k 99% Anaconda integrity repair bill I just logged in to).
.
I would guess this is intended, because simply jumping apparently does not cause a loss of integrity anymore. I've jumped a good 5 or 6 times since repairing, and my integrity cost is still at 0. My guess is that you'd now have to take hull damage to take integrity damage, meaning the higher cost is justified.
.
The costs are fine where they're at now, assuming I'm right.
.
I would guess this is intended, because simply jumping apparently does not cause a loss of integrity anymore. I've jumped a good 5 or 6 times since repairing, and my integrity cost is still at 0. My guess is that you'd now have to take hull damage to take integrity damage, meaning the higher cost is justified.
.
The costs are fine where they're at now, assuming I'm right.
Last edited:
I've parked up my Conda and my Python and put the game away until this is sorted out. Pity, as I would have liked to have tried the new features in 1.3.
No, I'm not "whining". The costs right now outweigh the benefits in the more expensive ships.
No, I'm not "whining". The costs right now outweigh the benefits in the more expensive ships.
I'm not so sure about that. Given, lets say, a Volvo sedan has a damaged bumper. It costs $1000 for the replacement and painting of that bumper. A bumper is a very small amount of the total integrity of the car.
Another case of Frontier "adding another zero by mistake".
Looks like FD got it wrong on costs again
Damage repair is way too cheap and running costs way too high.
Can't wait to get back with my exploration anaconda probably at 70% integrity. How to bankrupt an Elite trader in one easy lesson
Damage repair is way too cheap and running costs way too high.
Can't wait to get back with my exploration anaconda probably at 70% integrity. How to bankrupt an Elite trader in one easy lesson
Looks like FD got it wrong on costs again
Damage repair is way too cheap and running costs way too high.
Can't wait to get back with my exploration anaconda probably at 70% integrity. How to bankrupt an Elite trader in one easy lesson
... was just about to come back to the game, and then realised the idiocy of doing that straight after a major patch. Every one of them has needed 2 - 3 patches after to get into a workable state....
G
How's that ok? If your estimate of 0.5% is correct, and yet the rebuy is 5%, it'd be cheaper to self destruct at 90% or lower integrity. Therefore, nobody should repair integrity and should just try to run it until it blows up, and pay only 5% of rebuy.
Last edited:
Ah, noticed this thread after I created a thread (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=152598 ) I suspect I am running into the same issue as the folks here. I hope the repair bill is a mistake and will be corrected. The fuel costs, I can live with. It just adds a trade off decision in that for most ships, you just don't undock without fitting a fuel scoop. But this integrity drop is not avoidable through player action (well actions other than by not undocking altogether )
)
1. a 2,450,000 bill for repairing a 95% ship integrity on my T9 - I just pressed repair without looking and then my brain got the actual number.
2. Fuel costs increased? I remember I was paying less than 2,000 CR for my trade route and now I pay 5,800 CR.
OK I dont care about the fuel, I have a scoop - but the first thing is another of the kind of stuff FD does, it ain't broken but they want to fix it, and they break it. Bad.
2. Fuel costs increased? I remember I was paying less than 2,000 CR for my trade route and now I pay 5,800 CR.
OK I dont care about the fuel, I have a scoop - but the first thing is another of the kind of stuff FD does, it ain't broken but they want to fix it, and they break it. Bad.
How is that ok? Because I'm not considering insurance in this equation. Your reasoning makes a better argument for getting rid of insurance than it does for lowering repair costs. If they're going to have this "integrity" cost at all, it should be something significant. If the parts that make up the structure of your ship need repairing/replacing, and your ship costs 100m, it's reasonable to assume that repairing/replacing every single structural part in the ship would cost at least 50m - and that's apparently how it works right now.
.
So, yeah. Not to be rude, but you should all just be quiet before they decide that there's a problem with the insurance costs. Paying 7m+ to replace my Anaconda when some bleepity-bleep ganks me is quite enough, thank you.
Last edited:
I dont get it why they simple have a system which depends on the flying itself? If you fly smooth and good, the amount of time for the first 1% should definetely take longer rather than bumping at a station for landing/starting, fights, collisions, heat and emergency stops if to near a star/planet