Ship systems should wear out on normal use

[Lobstris]

RIP exploration.

1. No. Rip going off without planning properly for exploration, and packing some AFMs.
2. The original vision for exploration was that it was meant to be challenging (hyperspace routes requiring discovery and plotting, temporary bases being set up for repair and resupply etc.). I think it disappointed a few people (self included) that Sag A was reached so easily, without requiring any form of planning logistical support. Jumping around like a frog on cocaine without actually looking at what's out there too much doesn't strike me as exploration.
3. Exploration was still undertaken in Frontier/FFE with wear-and-tear/failures implemented and no financial incentive to do it in game - humans are weird that way.
.
Having said all that I've said in this thread, I can see wear and tear not being implemented simply because, like module price degradation on resale, people have gotten too used to it not being there, and would play heck on these forums if it was changed (though I'm pleasantly surprised Frontier got away without reverting the shield cell changes so far ).

 

[Lobstris]

You want realism? Fine.
But then modules should last for weeks if not months before showing any signs of deprecation.
Just crossing the street and getting 5% damage? Don't make me laugh.

Agreed - depreciation of modules should be of the order of <1% per week of use. And the game's UI should warn you periodically in some fashion that there might be an issue with key modules.

Don't know why people are so fond of money sinks in games without dynamic, player driven economies. You are the dream of tax offices world-wide.

How can a 'player-driven' economy be reconciled against 1 modelled galaxy where the number of supposedly economically-active systems probably is equal to, or an order of magnitude greater than, the number of concurrently active players and the NPC population is supposedly in the trillions? I'd rather an abstract economic system where a high population world has (say) 100,000s of tonnes of goods available, but little chance of ever being influenced by player actions. As the focus of the game is on the micro-scale simulation (i.e. a lone pilot in a space ship), then numerous and detailed 'money sinks' pertaining to the running of the ship make sense to me.

Before adding more artificial cash sinks to the game, it would be helpful if they added something resembling an economy to balance it. As it stands now, adding more cash sinks adds nothing of value to the game, especially when all it does is increase the amount of grind needed to accomplish anything.

Those with decent ships and a fair amount of cash already won't be as inconvenienced as new players just coming to the game, and those who play 'casually'. The best way to run them all off is to artificially increase the size of the hamster wheel without giving them anything meaningful in return.

Design a viable, working economy first. Then find ways to siphon off some of the gains. Doing it the other way around brings nothing but trouble.

I don't think it needs a dynamic player economy (if that is what you mean by working economy) adding - indeed I believe that's impossible, as it would be far too impractical to balance, for the reasons of scale I mentioned before. The galactic economy in Elite is just too big, the scale between the smallest and largest systems, and the reliance on NPCs is too great for that to work (the X games are smaller). Rather I suggest that the current system just needs ship and modules prices and fuel and repair costs going over to bring them more in line, and reasonable to, commodity costs and mission rewards.
.
I'd agree perhaps that we need more game systems overall to be complete, to see their effect on the current economy, rather than an 'actual' economy.

*Edit: Apologies for multiple posts - my multi-quote-fu failed this late at night.

 

[gazzareth]

Having said all that I've said in this thread, I can see wear and tear not being implemented simply because, like module price degradation on resale, people have gotten too used to it not being there, and would play heck on these forums if it was changed (though I'm pleasantly surprised Frontier got away without reverting the shield cell changes so far ).

Hopefully, not something that they will implement - adds little other than something else grind for.. As for the shield cell changes, they have been on holiday since they made them, so we only got emergency patches so there is still time yet....?

G

 

[Fendalton]

1. No. Rip going off without planning properly for exploration, and packing some AFMs.
2. The original vision for exploration was that it was meant to be challenging (hyperspace routes requiring discovery and plotting, temporary bases being set up for repair and resupply etc.). I think it disappointed a few people (self included) that Sag A was reached so easily, without requiring any form of planning logistical support. Jumping around like a frog on cocaine without actually looking at what's out there too much doesn't strike me as exploration.
3. Exploration was still undertaken in Frontier/FFE with wear-and-tear/failures implemented and no financial incentive to do it in game - humans are weird that way.
.
Having said all that I've said in this thread, I can see wear and tear not being implemented simply because, like module price degradation on resale, people have gotten too used to it not being there, and would play heck on these forums if it was changed (though I'm pleasantly surprised Frontier got away without reverting the shield cell changes so far ).

You do realise that you cannot repair your power plant, so what's the point?
Exploration is hard, have you tried plotting a course latley? It takes forever!
I pack AFM's, but they're only for FSD, Canopy and Thrusters, nothing else matters. Your Powerplant takes damage and can't be repaired, so yeah, RIP.

 

[kofeyh]

Thing is, complex vehicles aren't typically serviced based on some generic wear pattern.

Aircraft have (almost religious) maintenance cycles that are vital to maintain airworthiness. So n% over time isn't actually realistic. Regular n hours (often within a specific period, as described by the manufacturer - who had to jump through thousands of hoops to gain the certificates required) is.

Aircraft engines are serviced regularly, not because of wear, per-se, but to ensure such wear and tear doesn't compromise the safety of the vehicle. Never mind all the other flight surface checks and what not.

Failure to do this means the FAA (or relevant civil aviation body) can effectively ground your aircraft. Now, space ships aren't the same thing, but the aerospace industry doesn't fool around. I'm no expert on this, but there is a crap-ton of stuff pilots and aircraft owners have to do, to maintain flight-ready status.

For example, here is the checklist and required maintenance from CASA (Australian equivalent of the the FAA) as part of regulations. This, kids, is what you are actually asking for. If you want realistic simulation of module degradation and maintenance.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/sch5.html​

Can I just ask how many people wanting this, have also disabled the flight-check start-up routine for their ships? Because that's actually an important part of any flight readiness and overall airworthiness check. Because if you have, then you don't actually want realistic behaviours, rather - simply asking for what you believe should happen.

No pilot worth their salt, is going to skip this crap in actual real-world situations. That includes the pre-flight check something like 80-90% of all CMDRs happily skip, 'ery day.

 

[Slack]

I'll give you rep just for trying to improve the game.

Also I do think its a good idea. As in the real word all parts do eventually wear out. Maybe after a certain amount of hours the part starts being less efficient, or like you said, have small malfunction. If you see 3 enemy ships pop up on your radar just to turn around and see nothing there. It would make you think "damn I'll have get my sensors looked at, that scared the crap out of me" which just adds realism. How many times has something inconvenienced you in your real life, because you keep putting off fixing it?

Maybe there could be a new (rare) star base, that only sells used parts, a giant scrap yard. Sure the part is used, but maybe if you are with another faction, you dont mind getting a Prismatic shield thats 96% efficient, especially if it was 75% of its original price and you cant buy that part unless you defect from your faction. One of the posts here said that it would be more work/"grinding"credits, but if you could sell your old part when its being replaced for that 75%, its not that big of a cost and you might even question if its worth replacing (thats until your FSD almost gets you killed and you say thats it! Ive had it! XD)

I think if it was implemented properly, it would add realism to Elite.

 

[dxm55]

IIRC, Elite Frontiers used to require you to service your ship annually (game calendar), lest it blow up randomly in flight.

Could probably do the same here.... perhaps system failures here and there, and ultimately BOOM-time, should the player neglect it long enough.....??

 

[Commander Biscuit]

Wear and tear is a common videogame mechanic, but it's rarely meaningful or interesting. I wouldn't be against the idea since I'm fine with something that is simply inconvenient, but it could be a deal breaker for people that do long range exploring.

 

[Kezha]

I haven't read all 11 pages but, wear and tear could make the levels of ships people have a bit more distinct.

i often read 'i parked my conda there and fly my other X expensive ship instead' which is ok. But the nor is 'get a big ship or be useless' at least this is what a new player will see before they realize smaller ships can outskill bigger ones

but in a sense it could force people to not just aim high get a conda and fully fit it and easily never worry again.

it could create diversity, it might not but theres a possobility that a wear and tear idea would make people think twice about their purchases compared to what effort they want to put into the game, maybe.

 

[MickyG1982]

See I'm thinking the servicing cost should be a nominal cost based on the type of ship or module size. I.e. smaller ships cost less to service ( but require a more regular visit. Larger vessels and discovery craft cost more (though much less than a full repair/replace of individual modules) and will require a less frequent visit.

Now, for discovery vessels especially they could fit a module that allows for servicing on the fly. This would have a limited supply of resources and could slowly repair or service one or two systems at a time. It would not be able to completely repair the modules (minor glitches and system failures will still occur) but systems would still mostly function for as long as supplies hold out. The pilot should be able to prioritise which systems will be serviced first and by how much.

While the resources required would be limited they could be replaced by mining and refining asteroids while explorations continue.

On return to a populated system pilots can choose to perform a full service returning their ship to full functionality.

In short vessels would still be able to function as long as pilots are willing to obtain the resources necessary. I think that systems wearing out would add an extra bit of realism. It shouldn't ever come to a point where players are unable to get anywhere at all and definitely shouldn't stop people from exploring out as far as they want. But you can't expect a space craft to function correctly all the time without being looked after. Fail to service a car and the chances are it will keep going but run "rough" until it eventually breaks down. Bring some tools, basic parts and you may be able to keep it going to a garage. The same principal should apply here too.