Poll

Should the next generation of Aurora have some form of mothballing for ships?

No.  Things are fine as they are.
2 (7.7%)
Yes.  It should cost a tiny amount of MSP per month, and be relatively quick to unmothball (Say, 1/20th build time)
13 (50%)
Yes.  It should be free per month to maintain, but take a relatively long time to unmothball  (Say, 1/4 build time)
11 (42.3%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Author Topic: Bringing Back Mothballing  (Read 696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2017, 11:48:27 AM »
Folks, if the argument is "game balance" I understand if I don't agree, but the Voyager probes are still working after forty years. They recently test-fired some thrusters that haven't been used since 1980 on one of them.

TN material evaporation takes place at the rate of tons per year for ships made of SF materials that allow them to stay intact when nuked or lased ... and this happens when they are simply parked in a vacuum. I think I lose more TN minerals having them parked than I do by their using maintenance supplies when deployed.
Is there any reason for us to think TN materials are stable? Maybe TN-space is actually highly corrosive to TN materials, and ship maintenance is more about fighting an endless battle against the TN winds wearing down the hull, and against the TN corrosium particles that accumulate in the fuel tanks? Maybe TN materials are mildly radioactive and all decay to Duranium over time.
 

Offline MagusXIX

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 172
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2017, 03:44:15 PM »
One way to mothball currently is to retrofit a lot of engineering spaces onto a design and then just sit it in orbit somewhere without maintenance facilities. It will decay only slowly.

sensibleChuckle.gif

In most cases, this method would mean that a 'mothballed' ship requires *more* personnel than an active-duty one.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 133
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2017, 09:12:16 PM »
You could just as easily argue that maintenance costs should be eliminated completely with that example.

I think TN mineral evaporation should be eliminated if my ships are parked over a world with sufficient maintenance facilities, but I want maintenance clocks for operating ships. As it now stands, I use huge hangars to prevent TN evaporation (which is fun, don't mind the capital investment at all) with the added side benefit of automatic overhauls (that still use TN minerals, which I want---really just saves a lot of clicking on the shipyard tab that I might otherwise forget). Role-play-wise, we can assume maintenance facilities allow for the recycling of TN minerals that can't take place on a deployed warship (since none of this matters for commercial vessels).

MSP and maintenance costs are not the same thing.  Maintenance only applies to your maintenance clock.  You lose all the minerals you 'saved' by being deployed if and when you rewind your maintenance clock.  MSP only serves to stave off breakdowns and conduct repairs.  You could never pay maintenance at all if you build ships with sufficiently long lifetimes and retire them rather then overhaul them.

I still use minerals to build maintenance supplies, but you're almost certainly right that I'm not getting the "savings" I thought I was. That's not what I want, however; I just want parked ships (ships in orbit of worlds with sufficient maintenance facilities simulates this) to stop eating thousands of tons of minerals. Really, I'm fine with how it currently works because I can build PDC hangars (hopefully space docks in the PDC-free future) to get the effect I'm looking for, while others can skip it.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2640
  • Thanked: 26 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2017, 07:22:29 AM »
I think TN mineral evaporation should be eliminated if [SNIP]

It sounds like there's an idea going around that the TN minerals are mysteriously vanishing.  My recollection is that this mechanism was put in to abstract away having to cycle active ships in and out of overhaul if they were in orbit around a location that could do overhauls.  So the TN minerals aren't "actually" evaporating - they're simply feeding an abstract process that uses them to produce parts that are used to counteract the general wear and tear that's represented by advancing the maintenance clock (by freezing the clock).

So there's no need here to infer weird TN physics/properties.

John
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 133
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2017, 01:31:03 AM »
So the TN minerals aren't "actually" evaporating - they're simply feeding an abstract process that uses them to produce parts that are used to counteract the general wear and tear that's represented by advancing the maintenance clock (by freezing the clock).

And my point is that a ship parked in orbit with a standby crew isn't/shouldn't be wearing out parts when the ship isn't doing anything except sitting in a vacuum. Really, what "wear and tear" are we talking about? The Voyager probes are still in great shape, but a super fancy SF space ship that stays intact when hit by nuclear warheads needs hundreds of tons to maintain itself while it does nothing? Thermal expansion, micrometeorite impacts, and cosmic rays just don't seem like they should be as corrosive as the game implies. As it now stands, the double-cost of repairing a component knocked out in combat seems less than the cost of a ship simply orbiting the friendly environs of its own port.

I want the maintenance clock running when the ship is actually doing something or when it's on station (I count that as doing something and it's why I make a distinction between worlds with maintenance facilities and those without). I don't see the logic of why the clock would be running when the ship is simply parked---I'd be paying the crew and provisioning them of course, but its super-spatial minerals that are being devoured, not food or money. "Evaporation" is just my derisive way of putting it.  :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Surprisekitty

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1210
  • Thanked: 48 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2017, 12:34:23 PM »
high energy systems, tanks of chemicals, thousands of nuclear warheads....   just turn maintenance off if it bothers you...  the entire system is designed to be a mineral guzzler
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2017, 05:33:22 AM »
high energy systems, tanks of chemicals, thousands of nuclear warheads....   just turn maintenance off if it bothers you...  the entire system is designed to be a mineral guzzler
I see a nuance here. I like the part of maintenance as in allocating engineering spaces to ships, and having to keep track of their deployment times. What I don't like is the amount of minerals this evaporates.You should be able to recycle your defective equipment for raw resources, and while this can be expensive, it would absolutely be worthwhile if you run out of a mineral.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2640
  • Thanked: 26 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2017, 08:53:36 AM »
And my point is that a ship parked in orbit with a standby crew isn't/shouldn't be wearing out parts when the ship isn't doing anything except sitting in a vacuum.  [SNIP] "Evaporation" is just my derisive way of putting it.  :)

Thanks for the clarification.  I was trying to make sure that everyone was aware that "evaporation" was being used as a derisive term for an abstraction of the overhaul process on ships that are not mothballed, rather than a "physical" effect that is part of current game mechanics for mothballed ships.  My point was that the latter (a physical effect) cannot be the case because mothballing was removed from Aurora years ago (hence the "bring back" in the title of the thread).  I had seen at least one post where people were trying to ascribe weird evaporative properties to TN materials because of what I perceived as a misunderstanding of the usage of evaporation.

I'm not advocating one way or another as to whether Steve should or should not bring back mothballing; from my point of view the logic rationale (that you're espousing) makes sense, so it's a question of the feature's effect on gameplay (including micromanagement issues), coding effort on the part of Steve, and how much Steve cares about doing it.  What I was trying to head off is a spurious argument about TN properties based on a misunderstanding of the current maintenance mechanisms.

Thanks,
John

PS - Because of the potential for confusion and misunderstanding on the part of people not familiar with the nuances of this discussion (which I think has already happened), I would also be happier if people stopped using this term to describe the current mechanics, or at least say something like "the evaporation abstraction" when describing the current mechanism.  Maybe "consumption" instead of "evaporation"?




« Last Edit: December 09, 2017, 08:55:09 AM by sloanjh »
 
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX, obsidian_green

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1210
  • Thanked: 48 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2017, 02:09:55 PM »
I see a nuance here. I like the part of maintenance as in allocating engineering spaces to ships, and having to keep track of their deployment times. What I don't like is the amount of minerals this evaporates.You should be able to recycle your defective equipment for raw resources, and while this can be expensive, it would absolutely be worthwhile if you run out of a mineral.
Right. Just turn maintenance off but still include lots of engineering spaces.  Plus side: no more component repair events to stop your turns.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 133
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2017, 11:43:52 PM »
PS - Because of the potential for confusion and misunderstanding on the part of people not familiar with the nuances of this discussion (which I think has already happened), I would also be happier if people stopped using this term to describe the current mechanics, or at least say something like "the evaporation abstraction" when describing the current mechanism.  Maybe "consumption" instead of "evaporation"?

Very fair and very considerate, so I'll give up my witty (well, I thought so anyway, lol) term if I continue with the discussion, but I've probably already said my piece and you've cleared up any misunderstanding for which I might be responsible.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51