Change Log for v7.2 Discussion

[iceball3]

I think the problem is that you're arguing that this change encourages players to utilize loopholes and exploits - which is a pointless endeavour because

A) it's a single player game and who someone plays it is entirely up to them,
B) you can already toggle maintenance completely off and,
C) any- and everyone can use Space Master mode to "cheat" as much as they want for whatever reason they want.

I'm sorry if I come across harsh but you're not the first one to misunderstand the nature of Aurora and try to treat it as a competitive multiplayer game that lives or dies on being perfectly balanced. There is no balance in Aurora and there shouldn't be. If you find yourself constantly min-maxing everything in your game and using a bunch of exploits and tricks to gain advantage, you should step back and evaluate the entertainment value that you're getting. The AI is not capable of defeating a human player in the first place.

Well, to match their playstyle, they could very well jack up the occurrence ratios and difficulty ratings of AIs.

[Steve Walmsley]

Is there a reason why in 7.2 when a ship is built it will come with zero MSP? This seems to add an extra micro layer by having to load them before setting off. If we have enough MSP on the planet where a ship is built can they not simply pull out of the yard fully loaded the same way fuel already works?

Because if you add a maintenance module, you are currently getting a large amount of MSP that costs far less than if you produced them. Free MSP in ships is the equivalent of building a really large fuel tanker and getting a free load of fuel. Why bother building fuel refineries and fuel harvesters when it would be cheaper to build tankers with free fuel?

And yes, if there are available MSP on the colony where the ship is built, those MSP will be added automatically in the same way as fuel.

[Iranon]

I like to prod at and test the limits of game mechanics, competitive game or sandbox. This kind of thing probably troubles me more than most because my preference even in sandbox games is either "experiment and learn" or "play hard, set high challenges"... Aurora so far is able to satisfy both. Incidentally, the first may include exploring cohesive themes, not unlike a roleplaying approach.

One thing I found very cool so far is that making use of quirks (call them loopholes or exploits if you want) is situationally useful and absolutely not required to play an efficient game.
If using hangars to cut down on running costs is an exploit, the game is broken because exploiting is the norm. If we are strongly encouraged to systematically circumvent a core mechanic (maintenance) by using something that's fair in itself (hangars), the game is also broken.

I don't think the argument of "it's a sandbox, you can cheat anyway, who cares if players have to consciously hold back to make the game work as designed" holds water. Of course these games can be great fun when not playing your hardest, perhaps more so than approaching them with a challenge mindset. But if we need to wilfully ignore how things actually work for the mechanics to hold, the glorious depth becomes fake depth imo.

[bean]

I like to prod at and test the limits of game mechanics, competitive game or sandbox. This kind of thing probably troubles me more than most because my preference even in sandbox games is either "experiment and learn" or "play hard, set high challenges"... Aurora so far is able to satisfy both. Incidentally, the first may include exploring cohesive themes, not unlike a roleplaying approach.

One thing I found very cool so far is that making use of quirks (call them loopholes or exploits if you want) is situationally useful and absolutely not required to play an efficient game.
If using hangars to cut down on running costs is an exploit, the game is broken because exploiting is the norm. If we are strongly encouraged to systematically circumvent a core mechanic (maintenance) by using something that's fair in itself (hangars), the game is also broken.

I don't think the argument of "it's a sandbox, you can cheat anyway, who cares if players have to consciously hold back to make the game work as designed" holds water. Of course these games can be great fun when not playing your hardest, perhaps more so than approaching them with a challenge mindset. But if we need to wilfully ignore how things actually work for the mechanics to hold, the glorious depth becomes fake depth imo.

I'm very confused by this.  You're suggesting that this is going to significantly move the balance away from the regular maintainence cycle and more towards 'life of the ship' designs?  Maintenance is going to become very slightly more expensive, and this is going to break the game somehow?  'Life of the ship' has its place, certainly, but it's going to become at best maybe 10% more cost-effective than it is now.  Pretty much the same numbers apply to hangars.  Why is that 10% going to turn the current 'glorious depth' into 'fake depth'?
Let's put some numbers on this.  A ship parked in orbit requires cost/minerals equal to those required to build it every 16 years.  Counting only MSP used during the overhaul itself, the same numbers apply to a ship that is deployed and overhauled regularly.  (Thsi is counterintuitive, but correct.  Say that the vessel is deployed for 3 years, then overhauled for one year.  During this time, it will spend three years using no MSP from the base, and then one year during which it spends 25% of the cost in MSP cost.  Averaged, that's the same as remaining in orbit.)  Obviously, it will use MSP to repair any failures it may experience during its service life, but that number varies a lot depending on how it is used.  How much extra would it cost to build a life-of-ship design, over one designed to be regularly serviced?  How much does a PDC hangar cost to build?  Yes, it lasts forever, but you can't assume that you won't need to build bigger ones regularly.  Unless the ship is absurdly expensive, payoff will be on the order of 10 years.  And crew training means you need to send your ships out fairly frequently anyway.  I don't see this being an obvious hole in the game that players have to deliberately ignore.

[MarcAFK]

I'm astounded that the current debate about the change is mostly complaints about or defence of Steve finally closing the free maintenence exploit rather than the actual mechanics change, it was inevitable really but amongst all the things needing work I can see why it wasn't fixed untill steve actually noticed the problem.
I'm sure testing will find out if maybe MSP is too expencive now, and changes will be made, steve was willing to do such with fuel refineries quite a long time after the engine changes which made it required.
As far as the mechanics change, I had in my last game in 7.1 finally gotten around to making my first ever minor maintenence bases, each was set up in systems that had the required minerals available to be mass driven to the base. A few times I discovered that a new class of ship sent there required a new resource, often that needed to be shipped in, from my perspective the new system is less micromanagement because those bases always had small MSP stockpiles too. However similar setups in 7.2 will be inefficient if I don't take advantage of the MSP production abilities of the maintenence facilities, meaning I'll probably still put such bases in systems with all require minerals anyway.

[Veneke]

If we are strongly encouraged to systematically circumvent a core mechanic (maintenance) by using something that's fair in itself (hangars), the game is also broken.

I think that this is the real issue here.
 
In 7.1 there's a very limited amount of player overhead in maintenance (you park your ships where you have abundant minerals and ensure you have enough maintenance facilities). In 7.2 that's changing, and the player is going to be actively concerning himself with maintenance much like he does fuel. That's fine, except that people will now be naturally encouraged to look for more efficient uses of their MSP, just like how people concern themselves with fuel efficiency. That's when the hangar becomes problematic.
 
The difficulty isn't really with the changes to maintenance it's the lack of change for hangars.

[Mor]

@Iranon, you might be right that aggressive scrapping will be more efficient. If so, this is a balance issue that needs to be addressed. If you can show the math, then it would be easier to see how it can be addressed.

@Veneke , no its not.

In 7.1 you park your ship in orbit of planet with sufficient maintenance facilities. These ships do not suffer maintenance failures nor run their maintenance clocks, instead they consume minerals from the planets stockpile as percentage of their Build Cost.

In 7.2 you park your ship in orbit of planet with sufficient maintenance facilities. These ships do not suffer maintenance failures nor run their maintenance clocks, instead they consume  supplies from the planets stockpile as percentage of their Build Cost.

Supplies are produced by maintenance facilities from minerals. So in your example, where you an have abundance of minerals on that planet, those things will be handled under the hood without you noticing any changes. Except having some additional option that offer more flexibility in how to deal with MSP.

EDIT: Also there is no change as to how ship maintenance failure\clock work, from previous versions.

[sloanjh]

I think that this is the real issue here.
 
In 7.1 there's a very limited amount of player overhead in maintenance (you park your ships where you have abundant minerals and ensure you have enough maintenance facilities). In 7.2 that's changing, and the player is going to be actively concerning himself with maintenance much like he does fuel. That's fine, except that people will now be naturally encouraged to look for more efficient uses of their MSP, just like how people concern themselves with fuel efficiency. That's when the hangar becomes problematic.
 
The difficulty isn't really with the changes to maintenance it's the lack of change for hangars.

My understanding of Iranon's core concern (based on a post 20-30 up-thread) is the following statement (which may or may not be true):  "A ship that is 10 years old will consume MSP when parked more rapidly than a ship that is 1 year old.  This is a change from the previous behavior."

If true, then I can see a cause for concern about unintended consequences/balance issues - it will change the calculation of when ships should be overhauled by making ships with a long time on the clock significantly more expensive to operate.  Arguably this is more realistic - maintenance costs go up with age.  If not true, then as someone said - it sounds like it's more a simplification and closing of a loophole.

John

[83athom]

I'm astounded that the current debate about the change is mostly complaints about or defence of Steve finally closing the free maintenence exploit rather than the actual mechanics change, it was inevitable really but amongst all the things needing work I can see why it wasn't fixed untill steve actually noticed the problem.

I saw it coming miles away. Its change, a lot of people don't like change. When change happens, they will argue the change no matter how it would affect whats changing.

Now I'm all for the current changes because they do look mostly balanced to me. The only thing I am 50/50 on is the Particle lance, to me, it just looks like a fill in for a spinal particle beam with a small twist (and multiple per ship).

[bean]

My understanding of Iranon's core concern (based on a post 20-30 up-thread) is the following statement (which may or may not be true):  "A ship that is 10 years old will consume MSP when parked more rapidly than a ship that is 1 year old.  This is a change from the previous behavior."

If true, then I can see a cause for concern about unintended consequences/balance issues - it will change the calculation of when ships should be overhauled by making ships with a long time on the clock significantly more expensive to operate.  Arguably this is more realistic - maintenance costs go up with age.  If not true, then as someone said - it sounds like it's more a simplification and closing of a loophole.

John

It's not true. It will require the same number of MSP as it does now. When parked, consumption is only based on build cost.

[Mor]

When parked, consumption is only based on build cost.

Although, to be fair, that part has changed. For example, ships with huge engines will consume less Gallicite in the current system.

[bean]

Although, to be fair, that part has changed. For example, ships with huge engines will consume less Gallicite in the current system.

True, but pretty much a rounding error.  The point is that older ships are no more expensive to maintain at dock than new ships, regardless of how much time is on their clocks. 

Edit: I did some looking at payoff on hangaring ships vs keeping them in maintenance facilities.  For my current game, which has expensive ships per size, the payoff looks to be about 3 years.  But you have to spend about 20% more in terms of PDCs, which is going to be a reasonably significant dent in your economy.  A check of a few early ships from the ship design board puts payoff at a typical starting tech at about 10 years.  That's pretty clearly not worth it, given the growth you'd have to forgo to build the PDCs.  More tech means shorter payoffs.
It might make some sense to cut the cost of MSPs slightly, but it's not a huge gamebreaker.

[Iranon]

My understanding of Iranon's core concern (based on a post 20-30 up-thread) is the following statement (which may or may not be true):  "A ship that is 10 years old will consume MSP when parked more rapidly than a ship that is 1 year old.  This is a change from the previous behavior.

That's not how I understand it. Cost should be constant in orbit and gets progressively higher in deep space, same as before.

I saw it coming miles away. Its change, a lot of people don't like change. When change happens, they will argue the change no matter how it would affect whats changing

As perhaps the most vocal sceptic atm: I welcome changes. Both to refine things, and introduce interesting new options.
However: If a core mechanic is changed signicantly and it breaks something/causes significant balance issues/heavily rewards fiddly unintuitive things, the likely net result is a version that's inferior to the predecessor no matter how many cool new toys we get. Quite normal to happen a few times in sufficiently complex games that see major revisions.
The bad: I currently believe this to be the case. The good: fixing this after the fact should not be hard.

the formerly odd situation that needed to be addressed: Built maintenance points were very expensive compared to the complimentary load you received with ships (especially when maintenance storage bays are involved). Steve decided that the complimentary load was the sole problem and got rid of it. My experience points to pricing of regular MSP being part of the problem.
I experimented quite extensively with various ways to cut down on maintenance requirements, and many are viable even when cheap supply ships made them less beneficial.
For consistency's sake,  I welcome the change of "no free MSP" (the alternative would be overly complicated - e.g. engineering bays would not have a fixed cost to account for how many MSP one adds). But I think balance requires this to come with a significant cost decrease rather than the slight increase we got.

[bean]

I thought about this more, and there are more reasons why hangar maintenance isn't gamebreaking even at the level of my game.  Quite simply, it's lack of flexibility.  Maintenance facilities can be built in a central location, and shipped out to any planet with enough people to man them.  A maintenance fleet can do the same, without needing the people.  MSPs can be delivered.  There's no limit on how many ships a given base can support except the MSP supply.  But if I want to set up a forward maintenance base using hangars, I have to prefab and ship out a hangar for each ship, then assemble them.  And, when I've finished with that base, I have a bunch of hangars that I can't move elsewhere.  It's akin to the forward drydock problem, but much, much worse.  Nobody is going to use this anywhere except at home base, so any deployments will still require normal maintenance.  And if your fleet is deployed a lot, then there's not much change from the current situation.  This is particularly true if you use fleet training. 
I could see using this as a way to simulate a mothball fleet, where some of your older ships that you aren't currently using sit in hangars.  But I don't see a compelling case for doing this in all cases.

For consistency's sake,  I welcome the change of "no free MSP" (the alternative would be overly complicated - e.g. engineering bays would not have a fixed cost to account for how many MSP one adds). But I think balance requires this to come with a significant cost decrease rather than the slight increase we got.

Why?  The fact that you've been exploiting a loophole (which not everyone does) doesn't mean that we should change the game to keep the numbers where they were with it.  I play without it, and while I do wish maintenance was less expensive, it's ultimately of the same order as wishing that my ships were faster and more durable.  Steve seems to do the same.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

urrr, i dont think these changes are to 'fix' maintenance. MSP-based maintenance make deep space maintenance bases workable without being a bastardized hybrid mechanic.

if you think that MSP are too expensive, that should be a pretty straightforward math argument: the new prices are posted in the change log thread.   I think everyone is open to being convinced if you can show your work.


EDIT:
Although I have doubts about Sorium being used for MSP.  It's relatively easy to go into a sorium crunch early game, and if you accidentally drain all your reserves with refineries then now your MSP production is boned as well.  Little fuel is one thing but god help you with no MSP.

Also, i'm a little worried bout having to fiddle the MSP production on and off regularly owing to overproduction.  Perhaps there should be a semi-auto setting where you can enter in a desired reserve level for MSP. This could be extended to Fuel/refineries as well...