Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 09, 2020, 03:33:28 AM »

I think the mechanic is sort of an abstraction mechanic and can be a combination of depleteable ammunition or power consumption as well as mechanical failure to the equipment itself. It is basically a mechanic to keep weapons from firing forever as MSP storage deplete to symbolise this fact.

There should not be too much focus on the pure maintenance and weapon failure aspect of why this mechanic is there or what it really represents.

It might seem strange that a brand new laser fails in its first shot... but it is an abstraction mechanic. We also know that new equipment actually fail quite often in reality as new equipment and installation often are untested under real stress and there can be child sicknesses that have all kinds of bad effects, so it is really not that uncommon in real life, even for well established designs but especially on brand new technology or designs.

If you compare the cost if using beam weapons in the field with missiles for example then missiles are extremely expensive as they always cost their entire cost every time you fire them, 100% of the time. Even an early missile often have a cost of roughly the same as their size in MSP. One size 8 ASM cost 8 BP that is what... 32 MSP you burn per missile at minimum. An Ultra Violet 15cm laser will on average cost you 0.3 MSP every-time it fires.

Would people instead be OK with weapons automatically draw 1% of their MSP cost of MSP stores as sometimes I think it is the random nature of things people are upset with not the actual cost. I thin that the random is better as that give a more realistic feel or simulation to the whole thing.

In the spirit of this I also want the Overhaul order to a new choice that do all of the following in one order for standing orders... refuel, resupply and then start Overhaul. Otherwise ships will overhauls and then after a while return home to fuel which make very little sense. These orders should be combined for standing order... there should also be a refuel & resupply order too. There are no reason for a ship not to do both whenever the are at port.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: May 09, 2020, 02:48:20 AM »

I personally like the idea of the potential for really severe failures due to use and the need for constant maintenance.  Heavy fighting should beat up your fleet quite badly even if you dont take direct hits, because fighting is hard work.  Bear in mind you are shooting beams and such with comparable yield to nuclear weapons...

However I do think that we are missing out on the possibility of having totally new and untested tech be a lot less reliable than well established designs.  I think putting time and research into making your current-gen weapons more reliable might be a fun tradeoff against always going for newer and shinier weapons.  Particularly if you then for instance had orbital bombardment ships intentionally using older technology for the reliability aspect.

I guess another note, beams should probably have a failure chance based partly on how much wear and tear is placed on them.  Its certainly odd that an unfired laser has the exact same chance of failing as one that has fired 100 shots.  Only mentioning that bit off-handedly rather than as something that would be in any way necessary for the game to work.  It does seem like usually you'd expect a battle to be going great at first, and for there to then be a lot more breakdowns as the fighting drags on for a while.
Posted by: Gabethebaldandbold
« on: May 09, 2020, 12:12:49 AM »

Large maintenance bays are the answer to your problem my friend, as many as it is viable. If you want to use your weapins for extended periods, you now need to be ready to burn 2 or 3 years worth maintenance life on your ship. With the quad laser turret cruisers im running, about 1000 msp at max range is enough to level most precursor STO guns from max range. Im used to making my ships quite sturdy maintenance wise, so I would have never noticed the quad turret issue had it not been mentioned.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 29, 2020, 02:28:32 AM »

Beam weapons becoming too powerful for bombardment was a result of removing atmospheric protections against them, which IIRC was done to allow ground-based beam weapons to attack ships.  I do agree that something needed to be done, but am not happy about how it hurts ship to ship combat, especially beam PD.  If it is meant to simulate wear, then the 1% rate is reasonable but the repair cost is still too high and multi-weapon turrets are outright crippled.

Ship to ship combat is not hurt at all... I have have done many beam engagement and none have so far had problem with running out of MSP before coming to conclusion... NONE...

The only real issue is how turrets with multiple weapons have to pay for the entire turrets in MSP when one of the weapons fail. I'm pretty sure Steve will fix this... that is an easy fix so we should exclude that extreme from the discussion as it is a separate issue.

It is also completely pointless to even try to quantify the maintenance failure rates of weapons from ancient and modern time... It is pretty obvious that modern weapons fail allot more often than ancient ones when you look at time they are being used as modern weapons are way more powerful and do way more damage. But you probably cold fire a bow (if you had enough arrows) for longer than you can fire a machine gun before you have to change the barrel of the machine gun or the string of the bow for example. The machine gun just fire way more bullets and do more damage but that is not the point...
In Aurora terms the bow would be a weapon that fire one shot every 15 seconds that do 1 damage and the machine gun would be a weapons the fire four shots that each do 3 damage every 5 seconds. If you both have the same MSP the machine gun will break down long before the bow but it will do allot more damage before it fails.

You are never going to win the argument by claiming that modern weapons require less maintenance as the more modern weapons get the more complex they also get. How many bullets actually hit their mark in WW2 and then you look at how many bullets hit their mark in a typical battle during the 17th and 18th century when armies were lined up in front of each other. You can't compare failure rate on a per bullet ratio, that is absurd. A bow are probably never even going to fire as many shots as a machine gun before it needs to change the barrel and even if it does it will have to replace the string from old age before it wears out from usage anyway.
Posted by: shanedday
« on: April 29, 2020, 12:28:49 AM »

I have some experience in reliability engineering and i was quite supprised at the performance of two ship fleets during a battle.  One fleet (4 ships) with 2 particle lances and one fleet (8 ships) with 12 lasers, after an extended battle with many 700approx ton ships, the laser boats (with circa 4000 MSP each) had no MSP with half the lasers out of use. 

I'm a fan of the breakdown function in the game, but it does seem punishing.  If i compare it to a toaster that i use every day, it would break after 100 days? (i like toast) typically in reliability engineering we discuss failures per million hours, a component with a designed failure of 1 in a 100 would not get off the drawing board. 

That said, for game play without complicating it, possible add some logistics techs to reduce FR or the FR reduces as the tech level gets higher?
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: April 28, 2020, 11:50:52 PM »

I think the vast majority of people agree that the current effect of weapon failures on turrets is a bug, and I fully expect it to be fixed soon.
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: April 28, 2020, 11:26:01 PM »

There are literally millions of spears which meet your criteria.  And if you are not going to count a jam as a failure, then a resharpening of an edge should not be counted as a failure either.  IF you prefer we can make it a steel sword, say a Gladius?

10,000 rounds per barrel for 100 barrels would be a failure every 20 minutes at the Vickers 500 rounds per minute fire rate.  Except 100 x 20 minutes is 2000 minutes, but that would take 33 hours.  So 100 barrels over 12 hours is a failure every 7 minutes 12 seconds, which is only 4000 rounds between failures.  A 1% failure rate on a per shot basis for 1,000,000 rounds would be 10,000 rounds per failure.

So it seems like you just gave a great example for supporting a 1% failure rate (for a weapon famous for its reliability, which infers a normal failure rate was higher), which results in a weapon failure, which can be fixed during the course of a battle, which is precisely the current model.
A stone spear is good for 1500 strikes before the point chips and needs to be replaced?  Pull the other one, it has bells on.  Granted, a steel Gladius was more reliable than stone, but it was also newer technology.  It was also inferior to modern blades which are even less likely to break.

I specifically objected to a simple jam or stoppage costing MSP to clear, even if it does mean the weapon fails to fire.  Random breakage should be expensive to repair, but a 1% failure rate is far too high.  This is especially egregious with multi-weapon turrets where a single weapon failing requires overhauling the entire turret.

That was the combined totals for 10 weapons, so your firing rate calculation is off.  1 million rounds without a single jam or misfire is exceptionally good, which is what the Vickers is famous for.

Barrel changes aren't random failures, but planned maintenance.  They also don't cost as much as a full replacement weapon system (including mount) to perform.  While 10k round barrel life was top of the line, equivalent to the Browning M2, it wasn't newsworthy for a full-auto weapon.  Modern cobalt lined barrels rated for 18k rounds are now available, if more expensive.

If the 1% failure rate is meant to simulate field maintenance rather than random breakage then it is still at least twice too expensive.  Not replacing barrels on schedule should result in degraded accuracy and eventually range and reliability before the weapon becomes inoperable due to mechanical failure.  Unless a major failure occurs it shouldn't cost any more than normal to get it working again when spare parts become available.  Multi-weapon turrets are still being over-penalized as they pay for combined wear without benefiting from combined longevity.  A quad turret should cost four times as much to overhaul, but it should also fire four times as many shots before needing it.

Weapon maintenance shouldn't be random but planned with increased chance of random failures as a consequence for putting it off, essentially like the overhaul system for ships but counting shots fired instead of running hours.  A way to increase weapon endurance for an increase in price would add strategic options as well:  Do you buy 5k round weapons to save money or shell out for 20k ratings to handle long engagements?  Or split the difference with 10k guns?

Edit:
I don feel that such a malfunction rate is in line with what you expect from future technology.
You feel that way because you made poorly designed ships and you would rather blame the game than yourself. I know the feeling - every time I screw up in a game, my first instinct is to gripe at the game, and only later, with some introspection, do I realize where the fault (usually) really lies. It's a completely standard human reaction. Which is why Steve shouldn't rush to make any changes until enough data is gathered and some statistics put up.

So it seems like you just gave a great example for supporting a 1% failure rate (for a weapon famous for its reliability, which infers a normal failure rate was higher), which results in a weapon failure, which can be fixed during the course of a battle, which is precisely the current model.
Yes, Maxim is a bit of a poor example because it is indeed legendary for its robust design and reliability. There are also terrible firearms that malfunction all the time but those are generally commercial failures and drift away from public consciousness quickly.

But the whole spear vs gun issue is completely moot as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A better comparison would be a ballista vs a modern computer-controlled self-propelled artillery-cannon, something like the Panzerhaubitze 2000 firing the M982 Excalibur shells.

But that is also a moot point because Jorgen_CAB and Doren pointed out the real reason: so that orbital bombardment isn't too powerful - and I'll add that it also hampers kiting as the slightly-faster, the slight-outranging ship might now run out of MSP before the other side gets sniped to death.

Steve already changed it from 2% to 1% due to the test campaign so it's unlikely to be reduced even further, at least not without lot more evidence to show it as too punishing.
Beam weapons becoming too powerful for bombardment was a result of removing atmospheric protections against them, which IIRC was done to allow ground-based beam weapons to attack ships.  I do agree that something needed to be done, but am not happy about how it hurts ship to ship combat, especially beam PD.  If it is meant to simulate wear, then the 1% rate is reasonable but the repair cost is still too high and multi-weapon turrets are outright crippled.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: April 28, 2020, 09:11:02 PM »

I don feel that such a malfunction rate is in line with what you expect from future technology.
You feel that way because you made poorly designed ships and you would rather blame the game than yourself. I know the feeling - every time I screw up in a game, my first instinct is to gripe at the game, and only later, with some introspection, do I realize where the fault (usually) really lies. It's a completely standard human reaction. Which is why Steve shouldn't rush to make any changes until enough data is gathered and some statistics put up.

So it seems like you just gave a great example for supporting a 1% failure rate (for a weapon famous for its reliability, which infers a normal failure rate was higher), which results in a weapon failure, which can be fixed during the course of a battle, which is precisely the current model.
Yes, Maxim is a bit of a poor example because it is indeed legendary for its robust design and reliability. There are also terrible firearms that malfunction all the time but those are generally commercial failures and drift away from public consciousness quickly.

But the whole spear vs gun issue is completely moot as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A better comparison would be a ballista vs a modern computer-controlled self-propelled artillery-cannon, something like the Panzerhaubitze 2000 firing the M982 Excalibur shells.

But that is also a moot point because Jorgen_CAB and Doren pointed out the real reason: so that orbital bombardment isn't too powerful - and I'll add that it also hampers kiting as the slightly-faster, the slight-outranging ship might now run out of MSP before the other side gets sniped to death.

Steve already changed it from 2% to 1% due to the test campaign so it's unlikely to be reduced even further, at least not without lot more evidence to show it as too punishing.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: April 28, 2020, 08:20:50 PM »

There are literally millions of spears which meet your criteria.  And if you are not going to count a jam as a failure, then a resharpening of an edge should not be counted as a failure either.  IF you prefer we can make it a steel sword, say a Gladius?

10,000 rounds per barrel for 100 barrels would be a failure every 20 minutes at the Vickers 500 rounds per minute fire rate.  Except 100 x 20 minutes is 2000 minutes, but that would take 33 hours.  So 100 barrels over 12 hours is a failure every 7 minutes 12 seconds, which is only 4000 rounds between failures.  A 1% failure rate on a per shot basis for 1,000,000 rounds would be 10,000 rounds per failure.

So it seems like you just gave a great example for supporting a 1% failure rate (for a weapon famous for its reliability, which infers a normal failure rate was higher), which results in a weapon failure, which can be fixed during the course of a battle, which is precisely the current model.
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: April 28, 2020, 08:03:33 PM »

How so?  Modern firearms fail a whole lot more often than stone age spears do...   ;)
This isn't actually true.  Show me a spear that can be used to stab a target 1500 times before the blade is dulled or the haft cracks.  Even cheap firearms today have that level of durability.  Good ones can be fired 5k times before losing accuracy, and a simple jam or stoppage doesn't cost the price of the weapon in supplies to repair.

To put it in perspective, the Vickers machine gun was famous for its reliability, and by that I mean in 1918 ten of them fired continuously for twelve hours without a single jam or misfire between them.  They wore out 100 barrels doing that, but those barrel replacements were both expected and planned.  The million rounds they fired in total works out to 10000 rounds per barrel.  Weapon wear should probably be reflected in MSP usage, but a 1% failure rate is absurd.
Posted by: JuergenSchT
« on: April 28, 2020, 07:38:35 PM »

I don't disagree with the weapon malfunction mechanic, but I find it to be too punishing on my quad turrets.  Maybe if the malfunction probability for turrets were to divided by the number of weapons in that turret (or otherwise reduced proportionally) the mechanic would become more bearable for more players.
Posted by: Doren
« on: April 28, 2020, 11:39:02 AM »

I think biggest reason this was introduced was actually orbital bombardment. It would be pretty easy and cheap way to kill most of enemy units since the dust from it dissipates quite fast
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 28, 2020, 11:33:42 AM »

OK I admit it has something to do with me recently designing a fleet with way too few maintenance supplies on board ;)

1 in 100 shots leading to a malfunction in the weapon is a bit too much though.
I don feel that such a malfunction rate is in line with what you expect from future technology.

Why would they be easier to maintain than anything else... the more complex a system is or the more sensitive it is the harder it can be to maintain... anyway I don't think you win an argument about how things could or could not be in the future from that standpoint as you can argue either way...  ;)

When it comes to ship combat in space the 1% failure rate should be a completely none issue... a fight should never take that long. The only thing this really "might" prevent is extreme kiting from maximum range, which "might" in some cases not be viable anymore and if that is the case it is doing its job in my opinion.

Steve have said that the rule is mainly there to prevent planetary bombardment from being too powerful, not to really hamstring regular beam combat which it really should not unless you somehow are extremely unlucky.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: April 28, 2020, 11:32:03 AM »

How so?  Modern firearms fail a whole lot more often than stone age spears do...   ;)
Posted by: DoctorDanny
« on: April 28, 2020, 11:26:01 AM »

OK I admit it has something to do with me recently designing a fleet with way too few maintenance supplies on board ;)

1 in 100 shots leading to a malfunction in the weapon is a bit too much though.
I don feel that such a malfunction rate is in line with what you expect from future technology.