1.10.0 Changes Discussion

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

The message "maintenance problem" displays how far the maintenance clock of the ship is; a nice addon would be if it displayed also the maximum clock of that ship like "5.1 of 8.6 years".

The maintenance life isn't fixed. It is just an estimate of how long the MSP will last given average failures. The message does include how many MSP remain.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

The message "maintenance problem" displays how far the maintenance clock of the ship is; a nice addon would be if it displayed also the maximum clock of that ship like "5.1 of 8.6 years".

The maintenance life isn't fixed. It is just an estimate of how long the MSP will last given average failures. The message does include how many MSP remain.

Rated life is fixed and knowing what fraction of that has expired matters when you are responding to failures.  A failure on a 4 year old ship that is rated for 20 years maintenance life might not even be worth resupplying yet, but one only rated for 5 years needs to be brought in for overhaul.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

The message "maintenance problem" displays how far the maintenance clock of the ship is; a nice addon would be if it displayed also the maximum clock of that ship like "5.1 of 8.6 years".

The maintenance life isn't fixed. It is just an estimate of how long the MSP will last given average failures. The message does include how many MSP remain.

Rated life is fixed and knowing what fraction of that has expired matters when you are responding to failures.  A failure on a 4 year old ship that is rated for 20 years maintenance life might not even be worth resupplying yet, but one only rated for 5 years needs to be brought in for overhaul.

It depends on the MSP situation. If the 4 year old ship is low on MSP then it needs to be resupplied / overhauled, regardless of theoretical maintenance life and if is still has most of the MSP it is fine for a while regardless of theoretical maintenance life. Adding a maint life number could be potentially misleading, especially for new players ("my ship exploded but the event said it had 2 years left").

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

The message "maintenance problem" displays how far the maintenance clock of the ship is; a nice addon would be if it displayed also the maximum clock of that ship like "5.1 of 8.6 years".

The maintenance life isn't fixed. It is just an estimate of how long the MSP will last given average failures. The message does include how many MSP remain.

Rated life is fixed and knowing what fraction of that has expired matters when you are responding to failures.  A failure on a 4 year old ship that is rated for 20 years maintenance life might not even be worth resupplying yet, but one only rated for 5 years needs to be brought in for overhaul.

It depends on the MSP situation. If the 4 year old ship is low on MSP then it needs to be resupplied / overhauled, regardless of theoretical maintenance life and if is still has most of the MSP it is fine for a while regardless of theoretical maintenance life. Adding a maint life number could be potentially misleading, especially for new players ("my ship exploded but the event said it had 2 years left").

For a long range ship it can mean the difference between meeting with a supply tender vs aborting the mission and returning all the way to the docks.  Currently we need to look up the class design sheet to decide.  I do concede the newbie problem.  I've been playing for years and still get caught sometimes. 

[TMaekler]

The message "maintenance problem" displays how far the maintenance clock of the ship is; a nice addon would be if it displayed also the maximum clock of that ship like "5.1 of 8.6 years".

The maintenance life isn't fixed. It is just an estimate of how long the MSP will last given average failures. The message does include how many MSP remain.

No, it isn't - but I thought that the time displayed here isn't the maintainence life but rather the deployment time. Did I misread? And max deployment time is fixed - so it woudl be a great help in deciding if after a breakdown I would rather send the ship home or decide that it can go on for a while (because I usually don't decide that depending on the amount of MSP left but the deployment time - sure, if the MSP is low, it has to go home...).

[davidb86]

Deployment time is a crew morale issue independent of maintenance life.  Both are easy to look up in the Naval window on either the fleet tab or the maintenance report tab.

[TMaekler]

Deployment time is a crew morale issue independent of maintenance life.  Both are easy to look up in the Naval window on either the fleet tab or the maintenance report tab.

Opening that screen every time, searching the right ship... way more QoL if it is simply shown in the log.

[Froggiest1982]

Hi Steve,

Medals condition for CSV file. There are currently 52 IDs of the actual 60 IDs entries in the medal conditions tab.

Missing IDs:

• 3 Aliens Ruin Discovered
• 25 Recovered Abandoned installations
• 250 Recovered Abandoned installations
• Discover 25 New Star Systems
• Discover 100 New Star Systems
• Destroy 100,000 tons of Hostile Ground Forces
• Generate 25,000 research points
• Generate 250,000 research points

Can you please advise?

[skoormit]

I get a lot of non-useful "Low Fuel" events--that is, when a ship's fleet currently has a refuel order in the order list, and the ship has more than enough fuel to reach the refueling location.

I would LOVE it if some logic could be added to only create the "Low Fuel" event when this situation does not apply.

[QuakeIV]

Hey Steve, I'm thinking of starting a new game this weekend.  Would you say 1.10.0 is looking more like a end of this week or end of next week thing at this point?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Hey Steve, I'm thinking of starting a new game this weekend.  Would you say 1.10.0 is looking more like a end of this week or end of next week thing at this point?

Not this weekend, possibly next. I am running a test campaign at the moment so I want do that for a few days before release.

[Malorn]

The new invader systems looks superb. I would also join my voice to making it possible to do some sort of local containment of some sort, at least a way to prevent a rift from growing. Perhaps a special ship component of rather large size? If a ship or station with said component is inside the area of the rift, it can no longer grow larger, but is still able to spawn enemies? This would allow active containment in important systems, at the price of maintaining a garrison there to prevent enemies from destroying the ship which is 'holding reality together'. Could even have it function as an 'antagonizer' where the if the rift cannot grow, it sends out larger raids in an attempt to remove the blockage.

[Destragon]

If you think that it might currently be too easy to get enough ancient constructions to stop aether rift growth, have you considered adding some separate, more powerful kind of anomaly feature that, when worked by a colony, actually INCREASES the rate at which aether rifts expand?
Would act in some sort of risk vs reward way and make invaders stay relevant in the later game.  It would require the player to strike some sort of balance between (weaker, but saver) ancient constructs and these (more powerful, but more dangerous) other anomalies, unless the player doesn't care about throwing the galaxy into chaos (literally).

[the obelisk]

The new invader systems looks superb. I would also join my voice to making it possible to do some sort of local containment of some sort, at least a way to prevent a rift from growing. Perhaps a special ship component of rather large size? If a ship or station with said component is inside the area of the rift, it can no longer grow larger, but is still able to spawn enemies? This would allow active containment in important systems, at the price of maintaining a garrison there to prevent enemies from destroying the ship which is 'holding reality together'. Could even have it function as an 'antagonizer' where the if the rift cannot grow, it sends out larger raids in an attempt to remove the blockage.

This sounds really cool.  Cadia stands and all that.

If you think that it might currently be too easy to get enough ancient constructions to stop aether rift growth, have you considered adding some separate, more powerful kind of anomaly feature that, when worked by a colony, actually INCREASES the rate at which aether rifts expand?
Would act in some sort of risk vs reward way and make invaders stay relevant in the later game.  It would require the player to strike some sort of balance between (weaker, but saver) ancient constructs and these (more powerful, but more dangerous) other anomalies, unless the player doesn't care about throwing the galaxy into chaos (literally).

Maybe an scaling option could be added in the options menu, like for research, terraforming, and survey speed?

[kenlon]

The new invader systems looks superb. I would also join my voice to making it possible to do some sort of local containment of some sort, at least a way to prevent a rift from growing. Perhaps a special ship component of rather large size? If a ship or station with said component is inside the area of the rift, it can no longer grow larger, but is still able to spawn enemies?

I'd vote for it being a component with a range, that locks down any rift within range. Could set it up to scale like sensors do, with a very large HS range so you can have everything from 1kT components that need to be almost in the rift to 200kT components that reach out several hundred million miles.