Change Log for v7.2 Discussion

[bean]

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.

The work is actually pretty simple.  If you either run overhauls or keep the ship at base, maintenance is equal to the ship's cost after 16 years.  This is actually quite generous compared to real life.  In other words, if your ships last an average of 16 years each, you'll spend about as much on maintenance as you do on military shipbuilding.
(This isn't quite true, as you're presumably spending more on military shipbuilding each year.  If the military shipbuilding expenditure grows by 10% per year, maintenance turns out to be about 50% of the military shipbuilding budget.  If it's 5% growth, it's about 75%.)

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.

That's a good point.

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...

I'd want two levels, Cap and Reserve.  Cap would work the way you describe, with production stopping if they reach it.  Reserve would work like mineral reserves, and make it easier to move supplies between bases without worrying about taking all of the supplies/fuel from a base.  It would probably only apply to supply ships/tankers.  And I'd support extending both to fuel as well.

[83athom]

I'd want two levels, Cap and Reserve.  Cap would work the way you describe, with production stopping if they reach it.  Reserve would work like mineral reserves, and make it easier to move supplies between bases without worrying about taking all of the supplies/fuel from a base.  It would probably only apply to supply ships/tankers.  And I'd support extending both to fuel as well.

And if levels are under the reserve amount, a civilian shipping line would ship whats required out there (because maintenance storage is now a commercial component) whether it be fuel, minerals, or MSP (if they have the required ship type {tanker, freighter, supply ship}). Maybe it could work with missile stockpiles as well since another addition was a commercial missile mag.

[bean]

And if levels are under the reserve amount, a civilian shipping line would ship whats required out there (because maintenance storage is now a commercial component) whether it be fuel, minerals, or MSP (if they have the required ship type {tanker, freighter, supply ship}). Maybe it could work with missile stockpiles as well since another addition was a commercial missile mag.

I'm not sure how well that would work.  The thing is that all current civilian ships have uses that do not depend on government contracts.  Realistically, no shipping line is going to buy a ship that is only profitable if you decide to give them contracts without being certain that you will give them those contracts, and all I certainly don't see any possible civilian use for missile transports.  (IRL, the companies that do this are able to get a reasonable idea of demand before they invest.  Aurora doesn't support that level of detail.)  Setting it up so you automatically buy civilian fuel if you're below the reserve level is good, and I like the idea of being able to contract civilian freighters to carry minerals.
I would like to see the cap/reserve system extended to missiles, but I have a feeling that won't be possible.  Fuel and MSP are generic goods, and missiles aren't, which makes the programming challenge much harder.

[Mor]

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.

Its little bit more than 5% -> 6.25%, but you misunderstood. I was not referring to the quantity but the makeup of MSP, previously it was 5% of the mineral cost of the ship design, now its 6.25% of a fixed number. So if before, you built a ship which was a huge engine block, it would cost you a lot of Gallicite to maintain, but now it doesn't meter what the make up of the ship 1 MSP is constructed the same.

Regardless, I don't think its problem, the new system is superior by FAR, IMO.

[83athom]

If a cylinder in your engine breaks, do you replace the cylinder or the entire engine? If your windshield cracks, do you replace the windshield (or repair it depending on the severity of the crack) or replace the frame the window was sitting in? Same thing for future space engines, if a small part breaks (or need regular replacement) it shouldn't cost the amount of the entire component to fix a small part of it. Hence why for larger components it gets more efficient to maintain.

[bean]

If a cylinder in your engine breaks, do you replace the cylinder or the entire engine? If your windshield cracks, do you replace the windshield (or repair it depending on the severity of the crack) or replace the frame the window was sitting in? Same thing for future space engines, if a small part breaks (or need regular replacement) it shouldn't cost the amount of the entire component to fix a small part of it. Hence why for larger components it gets more efficient to maintain.

They don't.  His point (which I got at the time, and ignored as irrelevant to what I was trying to point out) is that the distribution of minerals required for maintenance has shifted somewhat.  Previously, if you had a very fast fleet, maintenance required lots of Gallicite.  Now, a fleet costing 50,000 BP requires the same amount of Gallicite if it's really fast or made of orbital defense platforms with no engines.
Under the new system, maintenance cost is only based on build cost, regardless of the size or other attributes of the ship.  Part of me doesn't like that, as I tend to run expensive ships, but it's reasonably realistic.

Its little bit more than 5% -> 6.25%, but you misunderstood. I was not referring to the quantity but the makeup of MSP, previously it was 5% of the mineral cost of the ship design, now its 6.25% of a fixed number. So if before, you built a ship which was a huge engine block, it would cost you a lot of Gallicite to maintain, but now it doesn't meter what the make up of the ship 1 MSP is constructed the same.

Regardless, I don't think its problem, the new system is superior by FAR, IMO.

I did get that, but it was not relevant to what I was trying to say.  In my defense, I was on my phone at the time, so typing was much more difficult.

[Steve Walmsley]

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."
John

Ships with more time on their clock are already more likely to break down (in deep space). However, ships in orbit of maintenance facilities use MSP at a constant rate regardless of clock time. This isn't a change. This is how maintenance has always worked. There are no changes to the actual maintenance mechanics, just the replacement of minerals with MSP (and a small increase in the overall rate of use regardless of the time on the clock).

[Steve Walmsley]

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.

Yes, I haven't been exploiting that loophole (beyond normal ship production) and only realised it was a major problem when I produced a supply ship that started with a lot of MSP

[bean]

Continuing the current theme of maintenance issues, could we get a tech that reduces maintenance costs?  Something along the lines of the shipyard cost/time tech, with similar benefits and costs.

[Steve Walmsley]

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.

Actually, that's a good point. Probably not a good idea for Sorium to be necessary for both fuel and MSP. I've removed the Sorium. New minerals for 1 MSP.

Duranium: 0.05
Neutronium: 0.025
Tritanium: 0.025
Boronide: 0.025
Mercassium: 0.025
Uridium: 0.025
Corundium: 0.025
Gallicite: 0.05

[Iranon]

Yes, I haven't been exploiting that loophole (beyond normal ship production) and only realised it was a major problem when I produced a supply ship that started with a lot of MSP

For clarification, I haven't consciously exploited a loophole (e.g. building supply pods, unloading, scrapping). But I've made plenty of design studies comparing storage bays to additional engineering spaces.

The former were useful only on very low-tech ships (commercial engines, base-tech weapons) that already had a decent number of engineering bays. The ability to put them on dedicated supply vessels, which can make repeated supply runs and now qualify for commercial ships, counts for something... which is why they are useful in the old system when you use "respectable" designs rather than dirt-cheap ones. But that is dwarfed by the planned cost increase.

[Steve Walmsley]

I have updated the post about MSP. Below is the new version.

Maintenance Supply Points

In addition to being constructed normally by construction factories, maintenance supply points (MSP) can also be produced by system body based maintenance facilities. This production can be turned on and off in the same way as fuel refineries

A new tech line has been added (Maintenance Production Rate) for the rate at which a single maintenance facility can produce MSP. The default is 30 MSP per year, which is three times faster than a construction factory with base technology of 10 BP. Each MSP has the same cost in terms of minerals and wealth regardless whether it is produced by construction factories or maintenance facilities.

The bottom half of the mining / maintenance tab has been replaced as minerals are no longer directly involved in maintenance (they are used to build MSP instead).

[Nyvis]

I suppose the higher rate of production is to entice people to use more maintenance facilities, and not just have the amount corresponding to their larger ship, right? On the other hand, the mineral cost makes it more interesting to produce MSP where you have all the minerals, and ship it to fleet bases, which can be placed anywhere. Should offer more interesting decisions, I like it.

[DIT_grue]

That screenshot doesn't show the Tritanium cost (and thus the displayed financial expense is greater than the total mineral cost). In trying to chase that down, I notice that the Change Log thread still shows the new version of MSP costs as including Sorium.

[Steve Walmsley]

That screenshot doesn't show the Tritanium cost (and thus the displayed financial expense is greater than the total mineral cost). In trying to chase that down, I notice that the Change Log thread still shows the new version of MSP costs as including Sorium.

Both fixed now - thanks.