Brilliant/Horrible idea for Large/Small ship balance. OMG

[_ArkAngel_]

Larger systems need more maintenance. That's it.

Two of my inspirations for ship building are 90's episodes of Star Trek featuring Geordi La Forge crawling through access tunnels to fix stuff. Or sneak around. Or move around when turbolifts were down.
Jefferies tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because I have a tendency to RP a bit when I'm playing Minecraft or Starmade to lend some authenticity to what I'm building, I instinctively add these areas in. My power systems are laid out so that I can walk along them and see if there are any breakages and fix them.

My thrusters and shield systems are in stacks two blocks thick with a corridor between groups so I can see each thruster block. For repairs that are not necessary. I still prefer to put them in, especially in capital ships, even though the open space takes up some of the volume of the ship.


I just realized that having maintenance could be an annoying but useful mechanic for balancing gameplay with large and small ships.

Take power systems. If every 100,000 energy produced carried a 1% chance of damaging a reactor block, this would affect small ships much less than larger ships. Then if each damaged block in a reactor group reduced the efficiency of the reactor group by 1%, it adds the concept that larger systems actually require more maintenance to be effective.

A smaller ship with a 30 block reactor, if left unmaintained for weeks of game play would at most suffer a 30% degradation in output. A large ship with a 200 block reactor could have a third of it's blocks damaged but suffer a 66% degradation in output.

Once crews and duty stations are a thing, a crew member could be assigned to the engines and would go to and repair those blocks if there is an access tunnel that can reach it. But now that crew member needs crew quarters.

All of that offsets the fact that as ships double in size in two dimensions, they may be increasing volume x8 - one of the facts that makes larger ships much more effective than smaller ships. And it makes the larger ships actually more costly to maintain.

A large ship that does not have maintenance crew will have to either dock at a station where there are crew that can do repairs, or go to a shipyard and have the ship deconstructed and rebuilt, suffering having everything annoyingly renamed.


These same concepts can be applied to weapon systems, shield systems, thrusters, etc. The actual percentage chance of wear affecting a block per unit of usage could be server configurable to allow admins to apply this to the extent they like. I think certain activities should incur more wear. Taking damage in battle should have a chance of applying wear to basically any system (consider it like a surprise power surge), even if the system is buried in the ship. Running your engines with overdrive should have an increased chance of wear. Running faster than say 100m/s or 150m/s should have a slightly higher chance of wear.

A giant ship with a T/W ratio of 2.5 and overdrive should take some resources to keep in perfect order.
[DOUBLEPOST=1465399439,1465398365][/DOUBLEPOST]LOL
"Two of my inspirations" - then I list one of them. Haha. ADD FTW!

The second inspiration is touring WWII and cold war era naval vessels at naval museums. Space is at a premium on a warship and so sometimes quarters and corridors can be quite cramped, but you can still get to any system that might ever need to get repaired. Where necessary, access tunnels are in place.

 

[ToasterBorst]

I have actually personally suggested maintenance for large system arrays. I think its kinda one of those topics where the team has a plan for systems, appreciates & considers our input and we've just gotta kinda hold our breath and wait to see where we're headed. Good suggestion though! Next time slap it in the suggestions section and it will likely get a bit more attention and/or faster response from a councilor! -> Suggestions

 

[KiloZulu]

I use Jeffrey Tubes in ship builds that have multiple decks. This is something that came about after the introduction of rails and wireless logic. Specifically, I've never yet found a server that doesn't lose its wireless connections whenever there is a server reset. Suddenly my elevators stop working and I need a way to get between levels until the elevators can be fixed. I also realized that if an elevator gets damaged during combat, I need a non-logic way to get between decks (and even rooms if I use logic-controlled doors.)

As for creating a system of wear-and-tear where stuff just breaks down overtime, I'm not sure I can buy into the idea. Not everyone role plays, and even among those that do, this simply creates a time consuming headache that they would have to deal with. Role players don't need a forced mechanic in order to make engineering rooms and mechanic corridors in their ships. I already include these on my own ships, for example, either because they server a purpose or they simply add ambiance. For those who like to fill in every block of space in their ships, however, this could be a nightmare.

 

[Jerry_Brinefield]

I use Jeffrey Tubes in ship builds that have multiple decks. This is something that came about after the introduction of rails and wireless logic. Specifically, I've never yet found a server that doesn't lose its wireless connections whenever there is a server reset. Suddenly my elevators stop working and I need a way to get between levels until the elevators can be fixed. I also realized that if an elevator gets damaged during combat, I need a non-logic way to get between decks (and even rooms if I use logic-controlled doors.)

As for creating a system of wear-and-tear where stuff just breaks down overtime, I'm not sure I can buy into the idea. Not everyone role plays, and even among those that do, this simply creates a time consuming headache that they would have to deal with. Role players don't need a forced mechanic in order to make engineering rooms and mechanic corridors in their ships. I already include these on my own ships, for example, either because they server a purpose or they simply add ambiance. For those who like to fill in every block of space in their ships, however, this could be a nightmare.

I totally agree! But as for role playing and a system where stuff breaks down, think about it this way; when the enterprise has a hull rupture in deck 5, Picard doesn't go off the bridge to repair it, a nameless ensign goes down and repairs the leak with a tachyon beam or whatever. This sort of "Decay/damage" system would be a perfect way to add a use for NPC crew. You would need a sizable crew to maintain a large ship in space, it makes sense that you would, and also should, need a crew in starmade to do the dirty work.

 

[Raisinbat]

I totally agree! But as for role playing and a system where stuff breaks down, think about it this way; when the enterprise has a hull rupture in deck 5, Picard doesn't go off the bridge to repair it, a nameless ensign goes down and repairs the leak with a tachyon beam or whatever. This sort of "Decay/damage" system would be a perfect way to add a use for NPC crew. You would need a sizable crew to maintain a large ship in space, it makes sense that you would, and also should, need a crew in starmade to do the dirty work.

So basically you can never make anyhting thicker than 2 blocks because the blocks inside cant be reached? Great suggestion!

 

[Jerry_Brinefield]

So basically you can never make anyhting thicker than 2 blocks because the blocks inside cant be reached? Great suggestion!

What? All I said was that it would make sense for large ships to require a large crew complement. You're connecting dots you drew yourself.

 

[_ArkAngel_]

Clarification: This suggestion doesn't have anything to do with role play. I do this on my ships now because it "seems legit". This is a gameplay mechanic to add a reasonable, manageable, and game relevant cost to larger ships, creating balance, advantages, and reasons for different sized ships.

So basically you can never make anyhting thicker than 2 blocks because the blocks inside cant be reached? Great suggestion!

Implemented as suggested, you could go ahead and make an assassin ship that was optimized for systems with zero open space. It wouldn't be as durable fight to fight without the ability to make quick repairs and would have to be disassembled to be maintained. That really seems reasonable?

And this shouldn't add much pain or grind for players - other than people with large ships will have to hire crews to maintain them. Seems legit.

People who don't like to build should buy ships that have good crew areas and maintenance access. Players that want to learn to build big ships we already know will need to learn to build crew quarters and duty stations. Just add maintenance access to that.

I think it would be cool.

 

[Amadeus]

Maybe if it didn't degrade blocks themselves it would be more effective. Perhaps if the efficiency of very large systems was decreased without input of a certain type it would be better. This wouldn't have to be a bunch of different systems, but just one per ship.

 

[Groovrider]

Are there any gameplay advantages to this system?

 

[Lukwan]

Would this be a good time to ask if our ladders are still on back-order? :D

(cough, scaffold slab, cough)

 

[_ArkAngel_]

Are there any gameplay advantages to this system?

Well, it adds in gameplay. As in, something to do which affects other areas of the game. Something to consider if you plan on bringing your Titan with you everywhere you go.

I think it would make sense to havea feature like this configurable in terms of how fast wear happens and how much it affects performance for server operators who want to make it easy for players to inexpensively operate and fight in their Titans and have large-ship focused battles.

The gameplay "advantage" is adding a cost to operating a large vessel. A Titan would need the support of a fleet gathering resources to keep in top shape, as well as an appropriate crew compliment.

It would add some balance between players with smaller ships who may be just getting started and players with loads of resources.

I personally think it's a weakness of the game that the effectiveness and capability of a ship does not have an appropriate amount of diminishing returns. Doubling the materials put into a ship more than doubles it's usefulness, when it should instead be more of a factor of 1.? for doubling materials. Probably 1.5.

Would this be a good time to ask if our ladders are still on back-order? :D

(cough, scaffold slab, cough)

Yes. Ladders please!

 

[Groovrider]

Well, it adds in gameplay. As in, something to do which affects other areas of the game. Something to consider if you plan on bringing your Titan with you everywhere you go.

I think it would make sense to havea feature like this configurable in terms of how fast wear happens and how much it affects performance for server operators who want to make it easy for players to inexpensively operate and fight in their Titans and have large-ship focused battles.

The gameplay "advantage" is adding a cost to operating a large vessel. A Titan would need the support of a fleet gathering resources to keep in top shape, as well as an appropriate crew compliment.

It would add some balance between players with smaller ships who may be just getting started and players with loads of resources.

I personally think it's a weakness of the game that the effectiveness and capability of a ship does not have an appropriate amount of diminishing returns. Doubling the materials put into a ship more than doubles it's usefulness, when it should instead be more of a factor of 1.? for doubling materials. Probably 1.5.



Yes. Ladders please!

In minecraft, hunger is a pain. You have to eat to live in survival mode. The upside is that certain foods will give you a wanted buff, heal damage and cure disease. The hunger system has benefits that make up for the disadvantages. The system you're outlining seems to only serve as a limiter on gameplay you find bad rather than providing any gameplay "up-side".

 

[KiloZulu]

I see some merit in a maintenance system. One thing that I think we've all wanted is viable roles for other players on a single ship, to make crewing a ship fun and worthwhile. Schine has outlined their plans to add roles for players or AI on a ship, and I'm anxious to see it implemented. Having an engineer that can boost ship performance as he gains experience is cool. I'm not sure what he'll do beside sitting in a seat, otherwise. So, creating a reason for him to get out of the ship and walk around is great. I recognize that the AI (or player) may not have to actually see a block to repair it. Schine could add game mechanics that allows the repair of degraded blocks anywhere on a ship when a certain block or function is used.

Doing it right - that's the trick. If ships just degrade, it's a headache. If I have multiple ships (and I always do,) it means that every time I get into a ship that's been parked for a while, the first thing I end up doing is repairing it. If there is a cost associated with repairs (materials or money,) then I'm being further inconvenienced. Perhaps the degradation only happens when the ship core is manned? I also agree with Groovrider that there needs to be an up-side to this system, or you're just creating a nuisance.
[DOUBLEPOST=1465488062,1465487455][/DOUBLEPOST]

I totally agree! But as for role playing and a system where stuff breaks down, think about it this way; when the enterprise has a hull rupture in deck 5, Picard doesn't go off the bridge to repair it, a nameless ensign goes down and repairs the leak with a tachyon beam or whatever. This sort of "Decay/damage" system would be a perfect way to add a use for NPC crew. You would need a sizable crew to maintain a large ship in space, it makes sense that you would, and also should, need a crew in starmade to do the dirty work.

Of course Picard leaves the bridge to repair it. This is Star Trek, where the captain does everything himself despite having a crew of 1000's.

 

[_ArkAngel_]

Of course Picard leaves the bridge to repair it. This is Star Trek, where the captain does everything himself despite having a crew of 1000's.

That is because Picard is an understated badass.

Doing it right - that's the trick. If ships just degrade, it's a headache. If I have multiple ships (and I always do,) it means that every time I get into a ship that's been parked for a while, the first thing I end up doing is repairing it. If there is a cost associated with repairs (materials or money,) then I'm being further inconvenienced.

You don't need the restriction of only applying wear when you're in the core. A system could only wear when it is in use. A ship not taking damage will not experience wear from that. Engines not running ( or not running over speed ) will not experience wear. Weapons not firing will not experience wear. No activity doesn't draw power, so power systems won't wear.

If you're talking about your fleet flagship that you order around and don't spend much time on, if it's a big ship with big systems, you'd want crew on board to maintain it and it's not a burden to you. You just have to pay/feed your crew and make sure they have space.

Upside, I left something out. First of all, balance *is* an upside. Otherwise big ships just = god mode. But I realized I left something out in my rush out the door yesterday before I posted the idea.

Again, pulling from Star Trek, Scotty at one point talks about the advantages of older ships - the bugs (rattles?) have been worked out. I'll get to that in a sec.

If I could have the system I described in the game, my preferences are that it does affect specific blocks - pretty much in the same way damage does. Repairing the wear doesn't take materials, just a repair beam. You can do it with the handheld beam, or a crew member by hand, potentially a repair vessel (if it can target that block), by removing and replacing the block, or by having the ship deconstructed and reassembled in a shipyard.

On that note, it would be nice if shipyard repairs would actually not remove anything that was already in the right spot when performing repairs.

So, as a benefit to older ships, system blocks that have experienced wear can be repaired in the ways suggested above. When they are repaired by hand or by a crew member, the block would be "optimized" and would instead give a % bonus to the system. Getting the maximum bonus from a system takes a long time because it takes time for blocks to experience wear and if the block is chosen at random, it will take asymptotically long to reach every block in a large system.

 

[sayerulz]

This sounds like the biggest pain in that ass in the history of gaming. Do you have any idea how much of a pain it would be to have to walk through your ship and make sure EVERY SINGE BLOCK is all ok?

Do you have any idea how much less efficient this would make ships?

No thank, you, I DO NOT want to have to crawl through the like 20 kilometers of corridors that this system would need me to build in my ship every time I drive it around and kill a few pirates. And that's just a 400 meter long cruiser. Imagine what this would do to an actual titan?

I usually try to be polite and not just say this idea is stupid, but THIS IDEA IS STUPID.

And besides that, small ship vs. large ship is already balanced. Did you know that around 1/10th or something of a titans mass in fighters will usually take it out?

 

[KiloZulu]

I am concerned about game resources. I already see my PC laboring to keep track of all the docked entities on a ship, and all of the other ships around me. What is going to happen when we have AI roaming the halls of these ships, as well? Do we really want to add in constant checking for system degradation?

 

[_ArkAngel_]

No thank, you, I DO NOT want to have to crawl through the like 20 kilometers of corridors that this system would need me to build in my ship every time I drive it around and kill a few pirates. And that's just a 400 meter long cruiser. Imagine what this would do to an actual titan?

I usually try to be polite and not just say this idea is stupid, but THIS IDEA IS STUPID.

U MAD BRO? :P

You wouldn't have to crawl around. You hire crew to do it. Or if you're cheap, then go ahead and crawl around. Furthermore, this would have to be the sort of thing where the speed of wear and the degree to which it affects efficiency were configurable on the server.

One of the things I like about Kerbal Space Program is how open to mods it is with a well defined mod API. If you want to play with more realistic aerodynamics or realistically dangerous reentry or futuristic fantasy sci-fi engines, it's easy to find one of those mods and play with it.

If Starmade had a modding API, I would %100 be making this mod. Weapon computers would display an operating efficiency number on them, so it would be easy to see if there is a system that is getting neglected or pat your crew on the back for getting engines running at 125% efficiency. Assuming there are engine computers in the future so you can assign it as a duty station.

And besides that, small ship vs. large ship is already balanced. Did you know that around 1/10th or something of a titans mass in fighters will usually take it out?

I did not. I look forward to seeing that in the future.

I am concerned about game resources. I already see my PC laboring to keep track of all the docked entities on a ship, and all of the other ships around me. What is going to happen when we have AI roaming the halls of these ships, as well? Do we really want to add in constant checking for system degradation?

Yeah, my PC struggles at some of my stations with a lot of stuff docked. And pathfinding will take resources. But we are getting crew members. You don't have to do path finding every tick, and you don't have to do checking for degradation very often at all. The checking for degradation would add almost zero overhead to what happens every time you add a block to a system now.

 

[Markus_McCloud]

Larger systems need more maintenance. That's it.

Two of my inspirations for ship building are 90's episodes of Star Trek featuring Geordi La Forge crawling through access tunnels to fix stuff. Or sneak around. Or move around when turbolifts were down.
Jefferies tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because I have a tendency to RP a bit when I'm playing Minecraft or Starmade to lend some authenticity to what I'm building, I instinctively add these areas in. My power systems are laid out so that I can walk along them and see if there are any breakages and fix them.

My thrusters and shield systems are in stacks two blocks thick with a corridor between groups so I can see each thruster block. For repairs that are not necessary. I still prefer to put them in, especially in capital ships, even though the open space takes up some of the volume of the ship.


I just realized that having maintenance could be an annoying but useful mechanic for balancing gameplay with large and small ships.

Take power systems. If every 100,000 energy produced carried a 1% chance of damaging a reactor block, this would affect small ships much less than larger ships. Then if each damaged block in a reactor group reduced the efficiency of the reactor group by 1%, it adds the concept that larger systems actually require more maintenance to be effective.

A smaller ship with a 30 block reactor, if left unmaintained for weeks of game play would at most suffer a 30% degradation in output. A large ship with a 200 block reactor could have a third of it's blocks damaged but suffer a 66% degradation in output.

Once crews and duty stations are a thing, a crew member could be assigned to the engines and would go to and repair those blocks if there is an access tunnel that can reach it. But now that crew member needs crew quarters.

All of that offsets the fact that as ships double in size in two dimensions, they may be increasing volume x8 - one of the facts that makes larger ships much more effective than smaller ships. And it makes the larger ships actually more costly to maintain.

A large ship that does not have maintenance crew will have to either dock at a station where there are crew that can do repairs, or go to a shipyard and have the ship deconstructed and rebuilt, suffering having everything annoyingly renamed.


These same concepts can be applied to weapon systems, shield systems, thrusters, etc. The actual percentage chance of wear affecting a block per unit of usage could be server configurable to allow admins to apply this to the extent they like. I think certain activities should incur more wear. Taking damage in battle should have a chance of applying wear to basically any system (consider it like a surprise power surge), even if the system is buried in the ship. Running your engines with overdrive should have an increased chance of wear. Running faster than say 100m/s or 150m/s should have a slightly higher chance of wear.

A giant ship with a T/W ratio of 2.5 and overdrive should take some resources to keep in perfect order.
[DOUBLEPOST=1465399439,1465398365][/DOUBLEPOST]LOL
"Two of my inspirations" - then I list one of them. Haha. ADD FTW!

The second inspiration is touring WWII and cold war era naval vessels at naval museums. Space is at a premium on a warship and so sometimes quarters and corridors can be quite cramped, but you can still get to any system that might ever need to get repaired. Where necessary, access tunnels are in place.

I hope it's configurable. The thought of having to maintain my ships both in and out of combat make me feel a bit queasy...

 

[Lecic]

If you think 200 reactors makes a "large ship" then I have some bad news for you.
That is TINY.
I'm an opponent of rampant gigantism, but this suggestion is just ridiculous. Not to mention to increased lag from rendering all the exposed block faces of these extra tunnels that wouldn't be included even with the most liberal estimates of how much space our crew are going to take up once that's implemented.

 

[Heillos]

As an abstraction, this could work, and could possibly also come alongside an "overcharge" system or such that temporarily increases system efficiency, only to cause a hit to it afterwards.

As Lecic has said, though, this is not viable on a block-by-block scale. It would be simplest to just have an overall "efficiency" level for each systems group (thrust, power, each weapons computer, etc.), which gradually degrades, perhaps more so when relevant blocks are damaged, and can be repaired at a shipyard or shop for some cost.