Change Log for 5.50 Discussion

[sloanjh (OP)]

Hi Steve,

  The new maintainence info looks good.  One suggestion:  Add another line and expand out the abbreviations (except maybe AFR).  Another suggestion:  Put the anual failure rate last, not first.

While I was looking at "1FC" I was thinking "we get so many questions about 'what does CF stand for' on the boards, these acronyms are going to drive new users nuts" (lots of people will ask).  Expanding out names might help cut down on this.

Right now, it seems like the biggest misunderstanding for new users is thinking the AFR needs to be below 100%, rather than the estimated time.  So anything you can do to de-emphasize that number is probably a good thing.

John

[Narmio]

This new info looks great!  I'm wondering if the abbreviations 1FC and 5FC are a little too obscure, though? "1yr cost" and "5yr cost" aren't much longer but are an awful lot easier to parse at a glance.  Even just "1yr: 90MSP  5yr: 1350MSP" would be a big improvement.  "FC" is already associated with "Fire Control" in my head, not "Failure Cost".

Also, maybe listing AFR as a number, rather than a percentage, would avoid some confusion?  It's easy to think "Failure above 100%? I must have done something wrong." But "Annual failures: 1.25" doesn't seem so bad.  If that's too much space, maybe "ACFR", for "Annual component failure rate" or something?  Just to point out to us newbie types that it doesn't mean your *ship* will fail, that's just the chances of one part.

[Canek]

I agree, it is more helpful to have full descriptions instead of abbrevs.

By the way, I have been playing Aurora for quite some time now -months-, and I just recently logged into the forums.  Thank you Steve for such an amazing gaming experience!

[Steve Walmsley]

Hi Steve,

  The new maintainence info looks good.  One suggestion:  Add another line and expand out the abbreviations (except maybe AFR).  Another suggestion:  Put the anual failure rate last, not first.

While I was looking at "1FC" I was thinking "we get so many questions about 'what does CF stand for' on the boards, these acronyms are going to drive new users nuts" (lots of people will ask).  Expanding out names might help cut down on this.

Right now, it seems like the biggest misunderstanding for new users is thinking the AFR needs to be below 100%, rather than the estimated time.  So anything you can do to de-emphasize that number is probably a good thing.

John

Yes, I had thought about that . I was considering adding a list of abbreviations to the summary view in the first tab of the class window, along with a brief explanation. A good point about changing the order. I'll look at that.

Steve

[voknaar]

I'm liking the new wreck event messages. Now all is needed is a dialogue box for storing the wreck info like there is for ruins. Or use the same box with a filter. 

[Thiosk]

seems like the biggest misunderstanding for new users is thinking the AFR needs to be below 100%, rather than the estimated time. 

What do you mean it isn't the most important thing?  Sub 100 AFR IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE GAME i thought

[sloanjh (OP)]

What do you mean it isn't the most important thing?  Sub 100 AFR IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE GAME i thought

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not.  Assuming you're not, this is the misconception I was talking about - the correct thing to look at is the number of years until maintenance supplies are consumed. 

The point is that the annual failure rate is proportional to the size of the ship (a lot more pumps are going to break in a 100Kton aircraft carrier than in a 5Kton destroyer every year).  The percent of maintenance supplies consumed however (assuming the same percentage of mass devoted to engineering in both ships) will be inversely proportional to the size of the ship (the carrier has a LOT more spare parts on board).  Even though there are lot more failures each year for the carrier, they have no effect on the ship until the maintenance supplies are exhausted.  So the AFR is a red herring - the real number to look at is the ratio of 1FC (or 5FC) to total supplies....

John

[Steve Walmsley]

As suggested I have updated the new maintenance information. It now appears as below:

Eridani class Missile Cruiser    15,000 tons     1016 Crew     2718 BP      TCS 300  TH 2100  EM 0
7000 km/s     Armour 7-54     Shields 0-0     Sensors 16/36/0/0     Damage Control Rating 8     PPV 114
Maint Life 4.82 Years     MSP 906    AFR 225%    IFR 3.1%    1YR 64    5YR 962    Max Repair 180 MSP
Magazine 600    

I have also added a seventh tab to the Class window, entitled Glossary of Terms. It contains a single text box with the information show below:

BP: Build Points. The cost of the class in both minerals and wealth
TCS: Target Cross Section. The size (resolution) of the class for purposes of detection by active sensors
TH: Thermal Signature. The thermal signature of the class at maximum speed. Used for detection by thermal sensors
EM: EM Signature. The thermal signature of the class with maximum shields. Used for detection by EM sensors
Armour: The depth and width of the armour belt
Shields: The strength and recharge time in seconds of any shields
Sensors: The thermal/EM/gravitational/geological sensor strengths
Damage Control Rating: A multiplier to the speed at which damage control is carried out
PPV: Planetary Protection Value. The value of this class in placating colonists concerned about military protection
Maint Life: An estimate of how long the available MSP will last during continual operations without an overhaul
MSP: The storage capacity for maintenance supplies
AFR: Annual Failure Rate. The chance the ship will suffer a component failure over the course of one year
IFR: Incremental Failure Rate. The chance the ship will suffer a component failure during a single 5-day increment
1YR: An estimate of how many MSP will be used to repair component failure during the first year after an overhaul
5YR: An estimate of how many MSP will be used to repair component failure during the first five years after an overhaul
Max Repair: The maximum repair cost of any individual component. It is a good idea to have more MSP than this.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

This new info looks great!  I'm wondering if the abbreviations 1FC and 5FC are a little too obscure, though? "1yr cost" and "5yr cost" aren't much longer but are an awful lot easier to parse at a glance.  Even just "1yr: 90MSP  5yr: 1350MSP" would be a big improvement.  "FC" is already associated with "Fire Control" in my head, not "Failure Cost".

Also, maybe listing AFR as a number, rather than a percentage, would avoid some confusion?  It's easy to think "Failure above 100%? I must have done something wrong." But "Annual failures: 1.25" doesn't seem so bad.  If that's too much space, maybe "ACFR", for "Annual component failure rate" or something?  Just to point out to us newbie types that it doesn't mean your *ship* will fail, that's just the chances of one part.

As suggested I have changed 1FC and 5FC to 1YR and 5YR. I wanted to keep all the maintenance-related info on one line which is why I went for the short version. I have added a glossary to the class window though to explain the abbreviations to players.

I am going to stick with the % though as it relates to a chance of failure but I have tried to emphasise in the glossary that it relates to a component failure, not a ship-wide failure.

Steve

[sloanjh (OP)]

As suggested I have updated the new maintenance information. It now appears as below:
*SNIP*

Looks great.  I like the glossary tab idea....

John

[Brian Neumann]

In the glossery you might want to add a little to the last line for max repair to let people know that this is how many msp it takes to fix a maintenance failure.  Damage control cost double this unless there is a change I am not aware of.

Brian

[sloanjh (OP)]

Turret Design

Turrets can now have fractional sizes. However, this means that with the current rules there is no longer any advantage to having twin, triple or quad turrets, as they are just exact multiples of the single turret in terms of size, crew, etc.. Therefore I have also made the following changes:

Large turrets receive a discount in terms of the size of the turret gear required. The discount is 5% for twin, 7.5% for triple and 10% for quad. So for a single turret that required 1.5 HS of gear, a twin turret would require 2.85 HS and a quad would require 5.4 HS. The total crew for the turret receives the same discount.

Additional armour for the turret is based on its total volume, using the current armour technology and exactly the same formula as for a ship the same size as the turret. As with ships, larger turrets will require less material per weapon to provide a given level of armour. Armour increases the HTK of the turret by (Armour Level * Number of Weapons). So adding 2 armour to a quad turret would increase the HTK by 8.

Love it. 

I like what you did with the large turret discount - I've found myself only making single-turrets in most of my games; I've been tuning the tracking speed to get as much as possible for 1HS of gear, which means there wasn't any benefit to multi-turrets for me any way.

I don't remember the state of internal armor - my recollection is that it wasn't really fully converted over when you went to armor columns.  Are you planning to modify internal armor to work the same way turret armor does?

John

[Steve Walmsley]

I don't remember the state of internal armor - my recollection is that it wasn't really fully converted over when you went to armor columns.  Are you planning to modify internal armor to work the same way turret armor does?

Yes, in principle. Everyone will get all internal armour techs as standard but they will just be a measure of armour thickness. I am going to change the internal design code to use the same principle as turrets. It will need some modification for different systems so I am just going to work my way through them.

EDIT: BTW, magazines already use the same principles as turrets.

Steve

[UnLimiTeD]

Pure HTK?
I always use Magazines as Meson sponge.^^

[sloanjh (OP)]

Pure HTK?
I always use Magazines as Meson sponge.^^

That reminds me - (assuming it's not already) shouldn't internal systems have 2 different HTK - one for regular and one for mesons (just the base value....).

John