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: GeaXle
« on: August 02, 2012, 03:13:21 AM »

I personaly fully agree with Theokrat. As I am sure many of you know, "Loosing is Fun", and personnaly, the worst thing that can happen in my games is when all my plans actually works.

If when I go to battle, I loose no-one and kill them all, then where was the fun? But if I get surprised by there technologies or unknown ships, if I have to sacrifice ships so the rest can survive, if I have to organise stealth missions to save survivors, or if I need to redesign many components quickly to change the whole fleet... and if in the process I realise I don't have the ressources needed and I have to start mining that system with star swarms in... then things starts to get fun!

I think Accidents who had a great deal of "rethink part of the plans". Accident does NOT mean the ship will blow up. Just that one components will be broken and stop working. It can still be repair with the Damage Control component for a higher cost. But it could also just remain broken until you get to some shipyards. It does not necessarily affect the rest of the ship. If one missile launcher fails, or if one EM sensor fail, it won't stop the ship working. But the ship won't work as perfectly as planned. It would had depth and realise to the game.

This has a big RP side, but RP is a main feature in the game. There are accidents and unexpected health conditions for you officer after all, and why would we bother saving survivor?

I also agree that rescuing survivor should be rewarded and have a positiv effect (or avoid a negativ effect) on moral or population or ship crews for examples.
Posted by: crys
« on: August 01, 2012, 09:31:35 PM »

i just dont see much reason to "punish" military ships more then they are now.
if they are not at a maintainence facility, they have lots of failtures, and when they are at a maintainence facility you pay alot of resources to keep them in good condition.

maintainence is a problem just for military ships, i just dont see a reason why youre accidents shouldnt hit civilian ships(which have lesser crews, greedy civilians, saving cash on maintainence/miss use of systems).


maybe the maintainence should be activated for civilian ships, then you would get lots and lots of maintainence msgs. maybe you dont even want accidents then.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 01, 2012, 08:24:50 PM »

Quote from: symon on July 31, 2012, 12:12:29 PM
Oh there is no doubt that your suggestion is realistic Theokrat. I agree completely. The real question is 'is it fun'? My feeling is not really, unless part of a suit of optional random events, both good and bad.

Random events could be interesting. As long as there are an equal weight of good vs. bad.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: August 01, 2012, 07:37:10 PM »

Well you can RP it as is. Roll a dice or something manually for your ships and cause manual damage to simulate it.

I agree that in general some sort of less... deterministic maintenance system would be interesting.  The perfection and predictability of the current system makes it a little too easy once you figure out how it works. 

Perhaps if there was some sort of unreliability involved with prototyping designs....?
Posted by: symon
« on: July 31, 2012, 12:12:29 PM »

Oh there is no doubt that your suggestion is realistic Theokrat. I agree completely. The real question is 'is it fun'? My feeling is not really, unless part of a suit of optional random events, both good and bad.
Posted by: Theokrat
« on: July 31, 2012, 10:32:07 AM »

Quote from: crys on July 31, 2012, 09:25:22 AM
my problem here is that maintainence problems can only occur in military ships.
if its not a grav survey, youre intented maintainence problems would hurt alot, remember maintainence failtures can only happen when youre ship is not at an maintainence base -> youre military ship should be in training or in a military mission.


about the intendet system for thouse failtures

catastropic reactor failtures are not common on earth, and new, much saver designes are not deployed yet.

in relation to engines, yes there are problems, but keep in mind, thouse are usualy fuel problems - in aurora - fuel tanks cant explode, so we have to assume its save fuel - so the main reason for engine exidents today is gone.

magazin failtures (idk if they can even explode in a maintainence failture) this would be very odd explosion again. Bombs are usualy build with a "cooking" time - i dont remember how long this time is, but it means that thouse bombs can be in fire for a "long" time without exploding.

a magazin at a spaceship shouldnt even have an oxygen supplay - so no fires. or is youre idear here more about missiles exploding by themselfes? i havent heared about "old" nuclear weapons on earth exploding on themselfes yet.

Well I would like to point out that the secondary explosion caused by damage to these components is in the game as it is. All these explosions can happen when damage is applied right now. I am only proposing to change the set of events that can lead to damage being applied, not the consequences thereof. So whether or not these things should explode upon damage is a separate discussion.

Notably all these explosions can occur through maintenance failures already, but only when you are very grossly negligent. From a realism point of view, I am arguing that if the explosions can happen through maintenance failures, then they are bound to occur as realistically no institution achieves perfect maintenance. Not NASA, not the Royal Navy, the US Air force or Japanese nuclear operators (which I take to be comparables). Certainly not when using a set of very immature, novel technology (which TN in aurora is).
Posted by: crys
« on: July 31, 2012, 09:25:22 AM »

my problem here is that maintainence problems can only occur in military ships.
if its not a grav survey, youre intented maintainence problems would hurt alot, remember maintainence failtures can only happen when youre ship is not at an maintainence base -> youre military ship should be in training or in a military mission.


about the intendet system for thouse failtures

catastropic reactor failtures are not common on earth, and new, much saver designes are not deployed yet.

in relation to engines, yes there are problems, but keep in mind, thouse are usualy fuel problems - in aurora - fuel tanks cant explode, so we have to assume its save fuel - so the main reason for engine exidents today is gone.

magazin failtures (idk if they can even explode in a maintainence failture) this would be very odd explosion again. Bombs are usualy build with a "cooking" time - i dont remember how long this time is, but it means that thouse bombs can be in fire for a "long" time without exploding.

a magazin at a spaceship shouldnt even have an oxygen supplay - so no fires. or is youre idear here more about missiles exploding by themselfes? i havent heared about "old" nuclear weapons on earth exploding on themselfes yet.

Posted by: Theokrat
« on: July 31, 2012, 08:35:57 AM »

Quote from: Redshirt on July 30, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
I did have a Gravsurvey ship that ran out of maintenance supplies when its jump engine broke down. I was unable to get another ship there in time, and eventually it suffered catastrophic system failure and exploded.
I sadly realized only later that I had a maximum of 99 maintenance supplies in the design, but it took 100 to fix the grav sensors. That led to a bit of redesign and retrofitting later on. (The grav sensors had an unfortunate tendancy to fail, rendering the ship useless for its designed purpose.)

See, you remembered it as one notable aspect of the game, and if you would be writing an AAR I am sure that you would retell the episode quite nicely. However I bet you won’t have that trouble again now that you know to put a sufficient number of maintenance supplies on board.

Quote from: Redshirt on July 30, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
I'm guessing that ships that "accidentally" end up inside the event horizon of a class seven black hole while exploring a jump point don't really count, do they?

Well I would say it counts in one way: It demonstrates that a feature that unexpectedly causes some damage and forces you to re-think your plans can be a worthwhile and enjoyable addition to the game. It adds an aspect to the game without spelling “rocks fall, everyone dies”.

Quote from: Nathan_ on July 30, 2012, 10:22:36 PM
Just having random "bloops you lost a ship" doesn't add much, but perhaps there should be a morale/wealth bonus to rescuing said survivors within time. No random event, if they are going to be added, should be entirely negative(or necessarily positive for that matter).

Well currently the positive reward for rescuing the crew is that the crew, and its captain remain at your services. Additionally this avoids capture (or rescuing and “friendly” interviews) by another race. Conversely, rescuing foreigners might provide you with some intel points. I suspect Steve will add some aspects to captured/rescued crews in 5.7, as he already expressed willingness to look into that topic. So whatever it is, there are some benefits but I could agree that those could be more pronounced.

Quote from: xeryon on July 30, 2012, 10:37:54 PM
The concept has merit but I agree that it does need to mean something in the context of the big picture of your empire.  If it is just a renamed maintenance failure it ends up just being RP fun and likely not worth the time to implement.

Agreed. But even as it is, it would slightly increase the incentive for forward maintenance facilities in order to decrease failure probabilities. Along the lines of Nathan_, one could increase the benefits of rescuing stranded crews (moral, wealth?), which would encourage establishing a SAR service at areas of major traffic. The costs would be rather small: A “fighter” of a fighter engine plus fuel and maybe a jump-engine should get quite far in the 14-day lifepod endurance.

Quote from: Gyrfalcon on July 31, 2012, 01:35:50 AM
I'd be heavily against this. My question is this: Does randomly damaging sometimes mission-critical ships regardless of their state of repair actually add any fun or enjoyment to Aurora?

Well, since it is primarily a negative event it could be sensible to make it an optional feature.

But yes, I do think there is fun and enjoyment. If you really loose a critical ship in the worst possible moment you would need to scramble, figure out the best possible response to the new situation, get a replacement ASAP, decide whether you want to proceed or aboard… Compared to just moving along with a plan that sounds way more exciting.

Personally, I think that a small element of uncertainty adds to a game, as long as the uncertainty is not so large that you cannot sensibly formulate any plan.

Quote from: Elouda on July 31, 2012, 05:57:20 AM
If this was really, really rare I wouldnt mind. However, the 10% of each maintenance failure proposed in the first post is way too high.

I would agree that it has to be rare, and I am completely open to other percentages, the 10% was just for illustration purposes. Note that I did not suggest that you lose a ship in 10% of the maintenance failures. I suggested that (maybe) 10% of maintenance failures should result in damage to the affected component. I suspect that in the majority of cases this would affect a rather unimportant component like a fuel tank or a missile launcher, with the only consequence that the damage must be repaired. Even if an engine is affected it normally has a 95% chance of avoiding catastrophic failure (current rules). Let’s say critical components are affected 30% of the time a maintenance failure occurs, then the total chance of a secondary explosion is 10%*30%*5%; I.e. you could expect roundabout one internal explosion per 700 maintenance failures. And even a minority of secondary explosions would likely lead to the loss an otherwise undamaged ship. But again, I am entirely open for other percentages than the 10% initially suggested, just wanting to make sure the principal suggestion was understood correctly.
Posted by: symon
« on: July 31, 2012, 06:32:00 AM »

Can't say I am a fan of this either. Perhaps with a suite of other 'random misfortune' options enabled at the game menu. Can't see me ever using it mind.
Posted by: Elouda
« on: July 31, 2012, 05:57:20 AM »

If this was really, really rare I wouldnt mind. However, the 10% of each maintenance failure proposed in the first post is way too high.
Posted by: Gyrfalcon
« on: July 31, 2012, 01:35:50 AM »

I'd be heavily against this. My question is this: Does randomly damaging sometimes mission-critical ships regardless of their state of repair actually add any fun or enjoyment to Aurora?
Posted by: xeryon
« on: July 30, 2012, 10:37:54 PM »

The concept has merit but I agree that it does need to mean something in the context of the big picture of your empire.  If it is just a renamed maintenance failure it ends up just being RP fun and likely not worth the time to implement.
Posted by: Nathan_
« on: July 30, 2012, 10:22:36 PM »

Just having random "bloops you lost a ship" doesn't add much, but perhaps there should be a morale/wealth bonus to rescuing said survivors within time. No random event, if they are going to be added, should be entirely negative(or necessarily positive for that matter).
Posted by: Redshirt
« on: July 30, 2012, 05:15:28 PM »

I did have a Gravsurvey ship that ran out of maintenance supplies when its jump engine broke down. I was unable to get another ship there in time, and eventually it suffered catastrophic system failure and exploded.

I sadly realized only later that I had a maximum of 99 maintenance supplies in the design, but it took 100 to fix the grav sensors. That led to a bit of redesign and retrofitting later on. (The grav sensors had an unfortunate tendancy to fail, rendering the ship useless for its designed purpose.)

I'm guessing that ships that "accidentally" end up inside the event horizon of a class seven black hole while exploring a jump point don't really count, do they?
Posted by: Theokrat
« on: July 30, 2012, 02:18:23 PM »

Just to elaborate a bit further: I have been eagerly reading some AARs, and it simply stroke me as odd that during man's first serious steps in the Universe, no major accident occurred. No equivalent of the Challenger, K-27 or HMS Vanugard or USS Maine.

I also remember reading a thread by a new player who's ships kept on blowing up on him. At first he actually viewed that as a game feature (and enjoyed it!), but decided to post when it kept on happening. Of course it quickly turned out he had blundered by placing large powerplants on ships without the need or capacity to maintain them. That was rectified and I think he never lost a ship to accidents again. And has any of you lost a ship to anything other than enemy force? Should that not happen once in a while? Would it not be cool to start rescue operations and all that?

Quote from: Person012345 on July 30, 2012, 01:05:51 PM
How often do you envision this happening? What are the chances of a reasonably well maintained ship suffering a catastrophic maintenance failure?
I do not have any hard number in mind, and of course it depends on the number of ships, the maintenance level and the fragility of the critical components (magazine ejection chance, or "overpowered" engines).

Basically the chance would be relatively low: 1) A maintenance failure would have to occur 2) It would have to be rolled as "unexpected" 3) It would need to occur on a component that can cause secondary explosions 4) The component would have to fail the role deciding on secondary explosions 5) the resulting damage would need to be large enough to either destroy the ship or cause enough follow-up secondary explosions for the ship to fail. A loss of ship would only when all five conditions are met, which should be quite seldom.

From an it-adds-an-interesting-element-to-the-game-but-does-not-happen-too-frequently-to-be-unenjoyable point of view I would suggest that, for an average game, a ship-loss could occur once or twice a decade, but I am quite open on that.

Quote from: TheDeadlyShoe on July 30, 2012, 01:13:24 PM
I can kind of see it in theory. But in practice it doesn't seem like it would have any significant effect in the current damage control paradigm, since virtually any damage is repairable. Only isolated ships would be affected. (Or ship groups with low overall supplies.)
Agreed, and I dont think it should. After all damage control may be relevant in battle when damage is accumulating quickly, while normally it would not really matter if it takes one or two hours to repair that sensor that just broke.