Author Topic: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work  (Read 4014 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10151
  • Thanked: 11189 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« on: April 23, 2020, 05:43:48 PM »
Give the number of 'bug' reports concerning the interaction of engineering and maintenance storage, I thought it would be worth explaining the mechanics in detail.

Ships have the following parameters
  • Failure Modifier = (Hull Spaces * 0.04) / Number of Engineering Spaces
  • Base Failure Chance = (Hull Spaces / 2) * Failure Modifier
  • Maintenance Supplies = Round Down((1 / Failure Modifier) * (Cost / 2)) + MSP from Maintenance Storage

As can be seen above, the Failure modifier is based on a combination of size and engineering spaces. Two hulls of different sizes with the same percentage of space dedicated to engineering will have the same failure modifier. The base failure rate is based on hull size and failure modifier. If two ships have the same failure modifier, then the base failure rate will be linear with size. A ship of 10,000 tons will have double the failure rate of a ship of 5000 tons. The amount of maintenance supplies is based on cost, because a more expensive ship relative to its size will require additional MSP to fix failures. Two ships with the same failure modifier and the same ratio of size to cost will have the same amount of MSP per engineering space

Below is a table showing failure rates and MSP for different ship sizes, with the same ratios of cost, size and engineering percentages.



Here is the same table with only 1 ENG per ship. This creates a double problem, as the fail rate increases and the number of MSP decreases. Maintenance life falls exponetially.



So when you add maintenance storage and don't see the exact number of MSP added you expect, that is because you are changing the size, cost and engineering percentage of the hull, which affects base MSP and in turn the total MSP.
 
The following users thanked this post: thashepherd, SpikeTheHobbitMage, Alsadius, Landris, knife644, Ancalagon, Pedroig, dlathro1

Offline kyonkundenwa

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • k
  • Posts: 19
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2020, 06:55:03 PM »
Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.

Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.
 
The following users thanked this post: Demakustus

Offline Inglonias

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • I
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2020, 07:11:40 PM »
Yeah, the problem isn't that MSP doesn't add up cleanly. As you say, it's not supposed to. The problem is that you can't mix more than one kind of storage bay without causing weird things to happen  like losing a bunch of MSP for no reason.
 

Offline Droll

  • Captain
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 520
  • Thanked: 107 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2020, 07:37:58 PM »
Yeah, the problem isn't that MSP doesn't add up cleanly. As you say, it's not supposed to. The problem is that you can't mix more than one kind of storage bay without causing weird things to happen  like losing a bunch of MSP for no reason.

Can confirm - adding multiple different sizes of maintenance storage bays messes up the calculation.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2000
  • Thanked: 126 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2020, 07:46:18 PM »
Ive seen it too.  It seems unintended.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5433
  • Thanked: 242 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2020, 11:28:39 PM »
Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.

Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.

Bugs should be posted in the bugs thread.

Offline King-Salomon

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 141
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2020, 03:21:07 AM »
Bugs should be posted in the bugs thread.

They are/were, but Steve opened this topic to explain taht it is not a bug.. but it is..

at least that's how I understand him opening this topic and linking to it in the bug thread
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2023
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2020, 03:43:00 AM »
The bug is that the game only calculate the smallest Maintenance Storage bay you put on the ship. So only one type of Storage Bay is calculated and it always seem to choose the smallest one.

If you construct a ship with maintenance bays and only use one type it works nicely but not if you match different sizes.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10151
  • Thanked: 11189 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2020, 04:28:35 AM »
Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.

Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.

Thanks. I'd read the bug reports on maintenance storage not adding the correct amount, and skimmed over the 'multiple storage type' bug without realising it was different. Fixed. now.

Offline Energyz

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • E
  • Posts: 106
  • Thanked: 25 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2020, 10:12:03 AM »
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components
 

Offline Inglonias

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • I
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2020, 10:23:45 AM »
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components

I agree. That feels kind of strange. That said, this isn't really an exploitable situation due to the enormous loss in range that ship suffers.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10151
  • Thanked: 11189 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2020, 11:24:31 AM »
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components

The second ship costs 4x as much, is slower and has 96% less range. All design decisions are trade-offs.
 
The following users thanked this post: Marski, thashepherd

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2023
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2020, 01:20:14 PM »
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.

Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :

Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       70 Crew       675.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 1 200    EM 0
16967 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 12      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years     MSP 119    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 523    5YR 7 845    Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 test (1)    Power 1200.0    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 1200.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine

Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P)      3 537 tons       489 Crew       2 591.7 BP       TCS 71    TH 958    EM 0
13545 km/s      Armour 1-20       Shields 0-0       HTK 496      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years     MSP 458    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP2.00 (479)    Power 958.0    Fuel Use 600.0%    Signature 2.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?

IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components

You can't compare with a 0.1 engine as that still require 1 crew to operate and will therefore require ten times the amount of crew of any larger engine than 1HS... you should have made the comparison at 1HS engine. But even then you still would have winded up with having to chose between a different important factors. In general the larger engine is better on your economy. In this case you would only get two different values which are maintenance life and fuel usage (range).

Now... the game is not looking at number of items that can brake on the ship... it only calculate the odds of "something" breaking in the ship. While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.
 

Offline Energyz

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • E
  • Posts: 106
  • Thanked: 25 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2020, 03:13:26 PM »
While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.

Which is exaclty my point, thats just not realistic and a little couter-intuitive. That's all
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 518 times
Re: How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2020, 05:39:50 PM »
While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.

Which is exaclty my point, thats just not realistic and a little couter-intuitive. That's all

It also completely overlooks that fact that the second ship is going to blow up almost instantly.

If a component with less than one HTK takes damage, it takes full effect and that point of damage continues on to hit something else. . . again and again if necessary until it hits something that has 1 or more HTK to actually absorb it.

So the second ships, with a huge mass of tiny engines, will have fifty to a hundred of them chain fail until the damage finally hits the fuel storage or magazine -- and since it only has enough MSP to cover 22 tiny engines, each one after that has a 10% chance of exploding and destroying the ship.  That's an estimated 12% chance to survive it's first maintenance failure, which on average will happen after six months.

Until then, the ship will gulp down fuel while in operation.

 
The following users thanked this post: SpikeTheHobbitMage, skoormit

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72