C# Suggestions

[QuakeIV]

I'm not personally against the possibility of failures that cant be fixed without depo maintenance.

They should be a minority of all failures IMO, and probably should be rarer for bigger modules, but I generally like that aspect at least.  I say they should be a minority because it seems to me that it should be much easier to break something in a way that only requires replacing one or two parts than it should be to more or less totally destroy the thing.

I dunno if I like the general premise of enforcing redundancy per se though.  For instance, if I was allowed to have a small backup thruster on a ship, then that is not nearly as big of a deal, but I am forced to have all engines be the same size, which would effectively be cutting max engine size in half.  I am less a fan of that personally.

[Droll]

I dunno if I like the general premise of enforcing redundancy per se though.  For instance, if I was allowed to have a small backup thruster on a ship, then that is not nearly as big of a deal, but I am forced to have all engines be the same size, which would effectively be cutting max engine size in half.  I am less a fan of that personally.

There used to be a bug in the previous version in the game that allowed engines of different sizes to be added to the same design (can't remember if it also allowed mixed types, that obviously shouldn't happen). I was quite sad that Steve decided to fix that bug as I thought having multiple sizes of engine was quite a cool thing. My suggestion would be to reintroduce that bug with the engine sizes.

[Droll]

I will also add that random arbitrary unrepairable failures is going to be more frustrating than engaging, especially since the people who play aurora to make AARs are a minority and that seems to be the primary intention of that suggestion.
It would be less frustrating to have temporary failures that don't cost anything to resolve other than time. Can still be catastrophic if the FC farts out at the wrong time or the engines suffer a 30 sec flameout and IMO would still be arbitrary and annoying as opposed to providing a good story to tell.

I will however add that damage that cannot be repaired isn't a bad idea as a whole if there is some reason behind the damage other than random. For example, overkilling a component could result in that component being damaged in a way that requires drydock. Alternatively, components might have a minimum damage control rating, if a ship doesn't meet that need, then damage control cannot even make attempts at repairing the damaged component. Effectively making the player choosing between more space to damage control facilities vs mission tonnage.

[QuakeIV]

I will add that movies and shows tend to time 'random' mechanical failures to the beat of the plot and tend to make it into this whole carefully presented dramatic extravaganza that really adds to the narrative.  Usually this failure was necessary in order to make something that was otherwise unlikely happen.  (i personally usually dont like it very much as a plot device personally but admittedly it can work)

This tends to skew perception of such things, as when they are actually random they are usually just annoying.

[nuclearslurpee]

It would be less frustrating to have temporary failures that don't cost anything to resolve other than time. Can still be catastrophic if the FC farts out at the wrong time or the engines suffer a 30 sec flameout and IMO would still be arbitrary and annoying as opposed to providing a good story to tell.

Honestly I wish the maintenance system overall worked this way, though I understand why it doesn't, but it is more flavorful for a repair to take time and other than the occasional slowdown of a traveling fleet due to a ship blowing an engine out isn't terribly inconvenient. I will admit it also doesn't add anything to the game, though.

I will add that movies and shows tend to time 'random' mechanical failures to the beat of the plot and tend to make it into this whole carefully presented dramatic extravaganza that really adds to the narrative.  Usually this failure was necessary in order to make something that was otherwise unlikely happen.  (i personally usually dont like it very much as a plot device personally but admittedly it can work)

This tends to skew perception of such things, as when they are actually random they are usually just annoying.

Yes, this.

[serger]

If the "counterplay" is "more micromanagement", I cannot say I am in favor of it.

Some small scope of it, as a tradeoff.

As it is now - most of our bases are just skeletons of the bases, because we really need no harbor tugs and tenders, nor tankers aside of major fleet operations and (not always) deep survey.
With my suggestion implemented - we'll need some stable harbor ship composition, but we'll not need to use it frequently - we'll need just to have it in place or to humble about some losses for the god of Void. And it will be meaningfull choice in most cases: you'll need to choose better places for your bases, balance your support infrastructure, but it will be one-time decision for nearly every base, no boring every year routine as with combat ships overhauls and cargo flows; you'll need constant flow (building) of tugs, tankers and tenders, but it will be a flow of nearly the same classes (maybe with some modernizations from time to time), so no need to retool your shipyards serially (or look at an idle one and make yourself believe forcefully that it's ok to have lazy governors in this scope), when you have done a series of tankers and now you need no such ships for the age, but now you need several tugs, and several years later your yards are idle again, because now you need no tugs any more for ages... That's the micro! That is a dilemma between boring and disbelievable!

So the game will benefit from being more deep and steady.

Look at it in the same light as at commanders'' accidental deaths. There are some small chances that any commander can be killed in accident. Is it adding a micro? Yes, in some small scope. But it's adding a deepness both in your personnel policy and in your story.

Ships are the same.

If my ship runs out of MSP or suffers a critical failure due to something I did - poor design, pushing it beyond its operating limits, and so on - then it is my failure, and knowing this is a possibility makes the decisions that lead to those cases interesting. There is a tangible story which has led to this, or which could have led to this. It's not "my failure" if my engine blows up due to a random dice roll.

You have nearly no chance to such random dice roll now, if your design is not skimpy and your orders are just not feckless (aside of combat conditions). You have ZERO chances to this random dice roll with all commercial designs - they are now ideally trouble-free and everlasting, and there is no option to have some balanced variant: your choices are just "have failures and MSP" (and so micro) or "trouble-free and everlasting" (and so disbelieve).

So, I think it will be good to have an option to set more balanced rule.
If you have no such desire - don't turn it on.
The same as for new spoilers (those are very much in the same deepness-in-the-sky flavour).
 

A good narrative IMO has a meaningful cause and effect which feeds back to the gameplay.

It is so for the short story or the play (theatrical). It is obviously not so for novel-scope story. And Aurora is making novel-scope stories undoubtedly; there is a univerce-scope scenery, not a chamber-scope. Universe is a place, where accidents are inevitable everywhere and they are forming the structure of civilization. My strong preference is to play with more scope, though, again, it have to be optional feature, because, yes, there are players that will prefer lean stories.

I think usually when we talk about such ships we are talking about sizes >100 HS

I'm talking also about sizes from FACs (that are often somehow decennary-autonomous) to frigate-size deep surveyors (nearly everlasting because why not, isn't it?), missile and PD ships.

But it's not a main point. More important that now we are not paying much for overspecialization (because nearly no chance, that some accident will take down, say, PD half of your squadron and so you're a toast), and therefore we are getting sucked in more-and-more-combat-ships-because-it-is-the-only-efficient-way micromanagement maelstrom, where you'll have nearly the same dilemma: to pretend that it's an accident probability where game-wise there is no (and to make accidents to youself manually, just to have a story coherent), or to play with rules you have and be more and more sucked in late game micro.

I do agree that things are generally balanced as it is.

The problem, I think, that it's balanced with seemings, not with decision-making dynamics.
With new spoilers it can become more apparent.

[Blogaugis]

Some small scope of it, as a tradeoff.

As it is now - most of our bases are just skeletons of the bases, because we really need no harbor tugs and tenders, nor tankers aside of major fleet operations and (not always) deep survey.
With my suggestion implemented - we'll need some stable harbor ship composition, but we'll not need to use it frequently - we'll need just to have it in place or to humble about some losses for the god of Void. And it will be meaningfull choice in most cases: you'll need to choose better places for your bases, balance your support infrastructure, but it will be one-time decision for nearly every base, no boring every year routine as with combat ships overhauls and cargo flows; you'll need constant flow (building) of tugs, tankers and tenders, but it will be a flow of nearly the same classes (maybe with some modernizations from time to time), so no need to retool your shipyards serially (or look at an idle one and make yourself believe forcefully that it's ok to have lazy governors in this scope), when you have done a series of tankers and now you need no such ships for the age, but now you need several tugs, and several years later your yards are idle again, because now you need no tugs any more for ages... That's the micro! That is a dilemma between boring and disbelievable!

So the game will benefit from being more deep and steady.

Look at it in the same light as at commanders'' accidental deaths. There are some small chances that any commander can be killed in accident. Is it adding a micro? Yes, in some small scope. But it's adding a deepness both in your personnel policy and in your story.

Ships are the same.

I'm not really in favor of this, but okay. Let's try to guess how this would work.
So, what you're essentially asking for, is that commercial ships also suffer maintenance failures? Stations included?
Do the maintenance failures occur when in deep space?
Are they safe when above a 50,000+ colonist-having body? Or do they have to have a maintenance facility? A shipyard?

With the possible locations on where it could happen set, what actually happens? The ship becomes immobilized? Station gets destroyed? Tugs and salvagers are basically what we'll need, to clean up the mess? Or do we need to move just some extra maintenance supplies?

I might be more willing to accept that entities with engines suffer maintenance failures... But stations? I mean sure, they could suffer problems too, but... I don't think they should be that severe - if anything, abandoning a ship/station should be the last resort.

And about how to fight it... You're basically asking to double if not triple (and +1) our current Tug, Maintenance Carrier and Salvager fleets?


Commander accidental deaths can be disabled with 'story character' setting.

You have nearly no chance to such random dice roll now, if your design is not skimpy and your orders are just not feckless (aside of combat conditions). You have ZERO chances to this random dice roll with all commercial designs - they are now ideally trouble-free and everlasting, and there is no option to have some balanced variant: your choices are just "have failures and MSP" (and so micro) or "trouble-free and everlasting" (and so disbelieve).

So, I think it will be good to have an option to set more balanced rule.
If you have no such desire - don't turn it on.
The same as for new spoilers (those are very much in the same deepness-in-the-sky flavour).

But there is a chance, even if a very small one. And that automatically warrants spending yet another batch of minerals to T/MC/S fleets...

The alternative, of course, would be to not build ships at all.
Hey also - would civilian ships also suffer from this?

It is so for the short story or the play (theatrical). It is obviously not so for novel-scope story. And Aurora is making novel-scope stories undoubtedly; there is a univerce-scope scenery, not a chamber-scope. Universe is a place, where accidents are inevitable everywhere and they are forming the structure of civilization. My strong preference is to play with more scope, though, again, it have to be optional feature, because, yes, there are players that will prefer lean stories.

Ehhh... I dunno. I prefer to see the consequences of my actions, rather than... random encounters..?

But then again, there are accidents with ships in real world. I suppose it would be realistic, from a certain point of view.
But, if this would ever be a thing, can we at least get salvager, maintenance and tractor beam modules technologies as a free starting technology, upon developing trans-newtonian technology?

I'm talking also about sizes from FACs (that are often somehow decennary-autonomous) to frigate-size deep surveyors (nearly everlasting because why not, isn't it?), missile and PD ships.

But it's not a main point. More important that now we are not paying much for overspecialization (because nearly no chance, that some accident will take down, say, PD half of your squadron and so you're a toast), and therefore we are getting sucked in more-and-more-combat-ships-because-it-is-the-only-efficient-way micromanagement maelstrom, where you'll have nearly the same dilemma: to pretend that it's an accident probability where game-wise there is no (and to make accidents to youself manually, just to have a story coherent), or to play with rules you have and be more and more sucked in late game micro.

With how maintenance-inefficient large all-in-1 ships are, it is tempting to turn off maintenance requirements - to satisfy your megalomaniac-ish desires...

The problem, I think, that it's balanced with seemings, not with decision-making dynamics.
With new spoilers it can become more apparent.

What?
There are basically 2 choices with numerous compromises in between:
Create 1 huge commercial shipyard for a 1 design of huge multi-purpose mothership to support your entire fleet.
Create several commercial shipyards for several designs, (1 collier, 1 tanker, 1 maintenance ship)... each with it's own specialization.

With your idea of making civilian ships suffer maintenance failures, mechanically game shifts towards numerous designs and numerous different ships.
Or is it that failures are disabled when a ship has a maintenance module?

[nuclearslurpee]

As it is now - most of our bases are just skeletons of the bases, because we really need no harbor tugs and tenders, nor tankers aside of major fleet operations and (not always) deep survey.

It is clear that we play the game very differently. I usually work to maintain a substantial auxiliary fleet both in ports and to support my large military fleets, and to build up large bases at suitable distances away from Sol or other core worlds. Never have I felt like Aurora somehow discouraged me from doing so, made managing logistics in any way a subpar decision, and certainly have not felt that if only I suffered more random failures my logistics arm would be able to justify its existence.

But even so, if experience is that one can build a fleet in such a way that the needed logistics arm is minimal, I think it is better than Aurora has this flexibility and the players can choose. I do not think adding mechanics expressly to encourage a specific playstyle is a good addition to the game and there are many other things I would personally rather see Steve focusing on, not that my opinion on Steve's time management matters one bit of course.

Look at it in the same light as at commanders'' accidental deaths. There are some small chances that any commander can be killed in accident. Is it adding a micro? Yes, in some small scope. But it's adding a deepness both in your personnel policy and in your story.

There is very rarely micro due to auto-assignments in my experience, and frankly an important commander's accidental death does not really add any deepness to the story, just another event that happened. "Depth" and "more things" are not synonymous.

If you have no such desire - don't turn it on.

This is always true but is not relevant for the discussion of whether a proposal is worth the time and work to be added to the game.
 

It is so for the short story or the play (theatrical). It is obviously not so for novel-scope story. And Aurora is making novel-scope stories undoubtedly;

If you think I play Aurora for short stories I have an AAR for you to read.

and therefore we are getting sucked in more-and-more-combat-ships-because-it-is-the-only-efficient-way micromanagement maelstrom,
[...]
The problem, I think, that it's balanced with seemings, not with decision-making dynamics.

Not sure what this is about. Aurora is in terms of genre a 4X game, and one of those Xs is "expand". The point of the game is to get bigger, you may of course choose to play it otherwise but that is how the game is designed. If the need to build more ships is taken as a fundamental flaw of the game the issues run much deeper than an RNG accident mechanic can fix. Frankly I think there is an excellent balance of decision-making in most areas of the game including ship design, many different paradigms are viable (although not all may be optimal - this is not a problem) for all areas of a fleet. If I want to build FACs, this is viable. If I want to build 50,000-ton capital ships, this is viable. If I want 20 specialized auxiliaries, this is viable. If I want a handful of mega-auxiliaries with all capabilities on one hull, this is viable. The key is to allow decisions to be driven by flavor, roleplay, and a sense of what is fun in a campaign, not only what is optimal. If we seek the optimal, there will inevitably always be one and only one optimal path by definition; it is useless to try to circumvent this immutable fact with new (and annoying) mechanics.

Ehhh... I dunno. I prefer to see the consequences of my actions, rather than... random encounters..?

This is the crux of it. RNG is good when it leads to the game interacting with the player to pose an interesting challenge or situation, then the player's choices and actions in response have meaning and emergent storytelling. If RNG is just Zeus throwing a lightning bolt at random to screw the player over, that isn't fun gameplay nor a terribly interesting story after the first few times. Maybe it is realistic, but real life does not make for the best game otherwise we would not play games in the first place.

[serger]

So, what you're essentially asking for, is that commercial ships also suffer maintenance failures? Stations included?
Do the maintenance failures occur when in deep space?
Are they safe when above a 50,000+ colonist-having body? Or do they have to have a maintenance facility? A shipyard?

They have to be fully safe at sufficient maintenance location - it can be maintenance facilities (colonial base) or modules (orbital or deep space base) or hangar - reflecting that a vessel, that is sitting maintained at her base, just probably isn't doing anything and so it's much, much lesser chance that there can be some critical accident).

To lessen a bothersome easy-to-fix problems - it can be additional rule, that free sheepyards are making their locations safe too (RP - there can be accidents, still without report to the highest level, because they were momentary repaired). Though I'd prefer to just fix these manually, because it isn't going to be nearly as much bother as patrolling routine or fixing broken training fighters (that's a bother really!), and I'd feel it as some sort of the pulse of empire, instead of rolling my eyes when there are only training fighters that are breaking restlessly despite being at maint return every month, while all other ships seems to be immune to breaks for decades.

With the possible locations on where it could happen set, what actually happens?

The same as if a component was damaged by enemy fire.
(It can be fatal - big power plant blown up, for example, but it's very unlucky. In most cases it will be "possibly mission kill" and so a need to change course to base or send a help. Or just add an order to do smth after the current mission, if there is no vital need to fix it. Or just ignore, if it's an old ship, that is trudging for her scrap location.)

And about how to fight it... You're basically asking to double if not triple (and +1) our current Tug, Maintenance Carrier and Salvager fleets?

Yep.
More auxiliary commercial ships sitting calmly at their bases most of their time - and bigger, more balanced (in the sense of non-specialized) and less numerous military ships instead - like the Bismark and the Tirpitz with several raiding and patrolling cruisers + escorts, instead of a bunch of beam ships, a bunch of missile ships and a bunch of PD ships of different sizes.
Or just turn this off and play as it is now if you like it more.

Commander accidental deaths can be disabled with 'story character' setting.

You can set several characters as story characters, but it will not save you from constant flow of accidental deaths of commanders.
(And when you make so - you have to watch manually for the age of your characters, if you are not playing with some sort of immortal mutants.)

Hey also - would civilian ships also suffer from this?

They have their own management and their own abstracted repair facilities, so I see no point.

Ehhh... I dunno. I prefer to see the consequences of my actions, rather than... random encounters..?

Ok, so you will not turn it on.
I think that if this suggestion will face no enthusiasm - it will not be implemented, and if will suddenly face some (positive) enthusiasm and be implemented - you just will not turn it on, so you will not suffer in any case.

I really don't understand a point of expressing dislike to optional feature.
Just don't turn it on if it will be implemented!

But, if this would ever be a thing, can we at least get salvager, maintenance and tractor beam modules technologies as a free starting technology, upon developing trans-newtonian technology?

You can get any tech with several clicks in Space Master mode.
It's a simple once-only action (no micro at all) and it's a way you are expected to play Aurora.

With your idea of making civilian ships suffer maintenance failures, mechanically game shifts towards numerous designs and numerous different ships.

?

Or is it that failures are disabled when a ship has a maintenance module?

If a ship is able to fully maintain herself... well, it's not very often design, but I think it's tolerably to consider them failure-free just to make no exception of general micro-lessening rule.

[serger]

I do not think adding mechanics expressly to encourage a specific playstyle is a good addition to the game and there are many other things I would personally rather see Steve focusing on, not that my opinion on Steve's time management matters one bit of course.

Well, I don't see how it's only to encourage a specific playstyle (I have made some other explanations about what is this for), but even if it's so - what are you doing by repeatedly expressing a dislike to suggested optional feature?

Again: if this suggestion will face no enthusiasm - it just will not be implemented, and if it will suddenly face some (positive) enthusiasm and will be implemented - those who dislike it just will not turn it on, so you will not suffer in any case.

What is the point of arguing about personal preferences in this case?

[Blogaugis]

With your idea of making civilian ships suffer maintenance failures, mechanically game shifts towards numerous designs and numerous different ships.

?

Or is it that failures are disabled when a ship has a maintenance module?

If a ship is able to fully maintain herself... well, it's not very often design, but I think it's tolerably to consider them failure-free just to make no exception of general micro-lessening rule.

Or, actually...
Is failure rate % per ship? or a %, divided across all the ships?
Since, if it is Per Ship then it may be better to go for fewer amount of ships actually...
If % across all the ships, then more ships are better, with different roles and backups.

I do not think adding mechanics expressly to encourage a specific playstyle is a good addition to the game and there are many other things I would personally rather see Steve focusing on, not that my opinion on Steve's time management matters one bit of course.

Well, I don't see how it's only to encourage a specific playstyle (I have made some other explanations about what is this for), but even if it's so - what are you doing by repeatedly expressing a dislike to suggested optional feature?

Again: if this suggestion will face no enthusiasm - it just will not be implemented, and if it will suddenly face some (positive) enthusiasm and will be implemented - those who dislike it just will not turn it on, so you will not suffer in any case.

What is the point of arguing about personal preferences in this case?

I personally prefer to see genetic modification tree working, Terraforming installations buffed and ground combat HQs having an option to give bonuses to units on different worlds and ships. 
Commercial failure additions... are kind of... secondary thing.

[serger]

Is failure rate % per ship? or a %, divided across all the ships?

Per component - the same as with other failures.

[SerBeardian]

1. Measure wall clock time on the turn and if it takes less than, say 0.1 seconds IRL, have the game just delay for a bit if auto turns is enabled

Pfff, just open up different game windows until the game is slowed to your liking. No need for forcible slowdown code since some people (like me) can handle letting it rip flat out.

Edit: WOW I'm late/was not paying attention.

Anyway, an actual suggestion:
With 1.14 adding the ability to transfer ships, I would very much like the ability to transfer other things too specifically:
- Inter-colony cross-species stuff transfer, like being able to hand over installations, minerals, population, wealth, etc. to colonies on the same body.
- tech/design transfer to other species

Letting player empires interact with other player empires without needing to hack a solution together out of SM mode and DB editing would be very, very good.

[TMaekler]

And I'm not sure if I understand what do you mean on "to manage". smeg happens.

Sorry, I am from Germany and I think I used our understanding of "Managen" for that word... . So I meant basically what you described. I dislike the idea of it being completely random. You as the player should be able to "manage" the chance of how often the failures can happen by choosing how much you want to invest in such failsafe systems. As you are now able to. The amount of maintenance use can vary greatly depending on your designs. And due to increase in size of the ship these things affect the rest of its function as well... . Wouldn't like to loose that feature.

[serger]

I dislike the idea of it being completely random. You as the player should be able to "manage" the chance of how often the failures can happen by choosing how much you want to invest in such failsafe systems. As you are now able to. The amount of maintenance use can vary greatly depending on your designs. And due to increase in size of the ship these things affect the rest of its function as well... . Wouldn't like to loose that feature.

Well, absolutely the same as I am!
That's why my suggestion is not to remove MSP and normal failures as they are now, but to add some small (and optional) probability of "smeg happens", that cannot be removed.
Again: even with this option on you'll be able to manage failure rates with nearly all of it's present range of values - just will not be able to lower critical failure probability downto zero and nearly-zero levels, as you easily can do now (aside of combat environment) with commercial designs and MSP for military designs.

And, again, it's not to compel for some specific gameplay: primarily it have to be optional setting anyway, and even if it's on - you'll have an option to ignore a risk of critical failures, and smth about 3 of 4 games it might be that you'll suffer no really-critical-criticals and will be able to nearly ignore those criticals you'll get (an engine blown at some freighter? well, at 80% speed she'll do her job nonetheless). It have to be more an RP-reminder, than smth compelling (though not RP only - it's better to have RP and minimax aspects deeply intersecting, not strictly separate).