v2.0.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[nuclearslurpee]

I would personally keep the hangar bays the way they are but limit their repair capabilities. If they could not repair vessels of a displacement larger than 1kt, there would be a niche for both.

I suspect this would run afoul of the "no arbitrary size restrictions" rule Steve usually enforces.

Another thing that could be looked at is the repair cost. Maybe shipyards should have an edge over hangars when it comes to economy. Does anyone know how expensive the repair of a 100 BP engine is in a shipyard compared to a hangar?

A 100 BP engine would cost 100 gallicite to repair in a shipyard (plus 100 wealth, usually not the important consideration) or 100 MSP in a hangar (200 if battle damaged, IIRC). 1 MSP costs 0.1 duranium, 0.05 uridium, and 0.1 gallicite (0.25 BP) to produce so usually the MSP repair is much more economical. The chief exception is if the component costs a plentiful resource like tritanium or corbomite, in which case it might make sense to conserve MSPs in order to conserve duranium/uridium/gallicite, but this is admittedly a very niche exception.

[Froggiest1982]

Another thing that could be looked at is the repair cost. Maybe shipyards should have an edge over hangars when it comes to economy. Does anyone know how expensive the repair of a 100 BP engine is in a shipyard compared to a hangar?

A 100 BP engine would cost 100 gallicite to repair in a shipyard (plus 100 wealth, usually not the important consideration) or 100 MSP in a hangar (200 if battle damaged, IIRC). 1 MSP costs 0.1 duranium, 0.05 uridium, and 0.1 gallicite (0.25 BP) to produce so usually the MSP repair is much more economical. The chief exception is if the component costs a plentiful resource like tritanium or corbomite, in which case it might make sense to conserve MSPs in order to conserve duranium/uridium/gallicite, but this is admittedly a very niche exception.

So, where would this ship take the Material or MSP from to repair such an Engine?

Phoenix class Repair Ship      58,446 tons       1,160 Crew       3,354.2 BP       TCS 1,169    TH 1,500    EM 0
1283 km/s      Armour 1-134       Shields 0-0       HTK 106      Sensors 6/8/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
MSP 35    Max Repair 120 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months   
Repair Capacity: 20000 tons

Commercial Ion Drive (5)    Power 1500    Fuel Use 2.48%    Signature 300    Explosion 4%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 31.1 billion km (280 days at full power)

Artemis-30NB Navigation Sensor (5)     GPS 1920     Range 31.5m km    Resolution 120
Themis TH-6 Passive Sensor (5)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
Themis EM-8B Passive Sensor (5)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

I guess we will have to drop the material on the planet.

[nuclearslurpee]

I guess we will have to drop the material on the planet.

That is correct. Per Steve's comments, the Repair Bays still only work at populations (colonies/bodies), you just don't need actual population (number) to work them - same as terraformers, orbital miners, etc.

[Droll]

Can a repair ship use minerals that are within the fleet it is in or must the minerals be unloaded planetside?

[Froggiest1982]

I guess we will have to drop the material on the planet.

That is correct. Per Steve's comments, the Repair Bays still only work at populations (colonies/bodies), you just don't need actual population (number) to work them - same as terraformers, orbital miners, etc.

That's what I thought. We are going to need a filter on the galactic map then, or the ship will still count as shipyard also on the shipyard filter?

Obviously the above is for Steve to answer.

[kilo]

I would personally keep the hangar bays the way they are but limit their repair capabilities. If they could not repair vessels of a displacement larger than 1kt, there would be a niche for both.

I suspect this would run afoul of the "no arbitrary size restrictions" rule Steve usually enforces.

Another thing that could be looked at is the repair cost. Maybe shipyards should have an edge over hangars when it comes to economy. Does anyone know how expensive the repair of a 100 BP engine is in a shipyard compared to a hangar?

A 100 BP engine would cost 100 gallicite to repair in a shipyard (plus 100 wealth, usually not the important consideration) or 100 MSP in a hangar (200 if battle damaged, IIRC). 1 MSP costs 0.1 duranium, 0.05 uridium, and 0.1 gallicite (0.25 BP) to produce so usually the MSP repair is much more economical. The chief exception is if the component costs a plentiful resource like tritanium or corbomite, in which case it might make sense to conserve MSPs in order to conserve duranium/uridium/gallicite, but this is admittedly a very niche exception.

Repairing damage on a carrier for 25 to 50% of the cost is something that kills repair yards right now except for role play reasons and I do not think looking into this has any priority right now, as has changing the repair cost of damage at shipyards. So maybe changing hangars in this regards is a fast and simple solution. Even though it might be arbitrary, it is still a thing that today's carriers cannot handle a single craft with a mass equal to that of a typical air group. Introducing such a limit might open up a niche for the repair yards, which does not exist otherwise. 

[xenoscepter]

 --- Or make MSP more costly or repairs more costly in MSP? Designable hangars would be a treat; Max Craft Tonnage, Max Number of Craft, Commercial or Military, Layers of Armor, Deck Crew (for improving re-fuel / re-arm / repair times)

 --- Those would be nifty. As it stands the best uses for repair modules is cutting down pop cost and a mobile repair bay (Since Repair Yards aren't quite as mobile as a ship). I'd love to see it take minerals from the ships own cargo as well as Maintenance Modules making MSP to re-fill the ships own stores from minerals in a cargo bay or on a colony. Hell I'd love to see ship-bourne Ordinance and Fighter "factories" with lowered build times versus their planet-side counterparts.

 --- Honestly, MSP should be 10x more expensive and Repair Yards should be faster than Modules. This would make a nice stop-gap until a "real" solution is devised.

[Platys51]

Repairing damage on a carrier for 25 to 50% of the cost is something that kills repair yards right now except for role play reasons and I do not think looking into this has any priority right now, as has changing the repair cost of damage at shipyards. So maybe changing hangars in this regards is a fast and simple solution. Even though it might be arbitrary, it is still a thing that today's carriers cannot handle a single craft with a mass equal to that of a typical air group. Introducing such a limit might open up a niche for the repair yards, which does not exist otherwise.

Im using 24kt parasite battleships for example >.>
The game has no way of seeing what sort of thing I put in my hangars, arbitrary limits are just that, arbitrary.

That's why I asked for change that would allow the shipyard to do something that's hangars just cant do.
They would find their niche in repairing ships too big for hangars.

[Black]

Maybe just change all repairs to MSP as first step, it seems more realistic that forward deployed mobile repair shipyards is not smelting duranium to make new bulkhead but instead is using some prefab MSPs and 3d printing new parts.

Next step would be to change how much MSP is used by repair in hangar/shipyard and possibly how long it takes. Steve could make repair yards faster and cheaper alternative, where hangars would have advantage of repairs on the move and the fact that they serve other purpose as well but would be more expensive/slow.

But it is also possible to just keep it as it is, not everything is balanced in Aurora, some things are simply less effective but we still do it for roleplay and such.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Repairs bays are double capacity because shipyards are double capacity when towed. Otherwise, Repair Bays become more useful than Repair Yards.

In terms of the commercial hangar vs repair yard, I agree the balance is probably in favour of commercial hangars vs both yards and bays. However, they were something of a stop-gap solution to allow functioning repair ships until I could find a better solution and are probably over-powered for repair anyway (they can use their capacity for multiple ships for example, which a repair yard or a shipyard cannot).

I will probably remove the repair capability from commercial hangars.  Military hangars will remain as they are now so you do have the hangar alternative, but with an added cost for that flexibility.

[Garfunkel]

I will probably remove the repair capability from commercial hangars.  Military hangars will remain as they are now so you do have the hangar alternative, but with an added cost for that flexibility.

That sounds like a good change to me. If we want to model civilian crews doing emergency repairs on warships, then the repair yard and repair bay in a ship combos work well enough, while military hangars still being able to repair stuff allows the flexibility of both carriers repairing small craft as well as gigantic motherships carrying BB-parasites like some players love to do.

[cdrtwohy]

hey steve how much crew does each repair bay add?

[Migi]

I will probably remove the repair capability from commercial hangars.

When you say remove repair capability, do you mean the ability to use the parent ship DCR and MSP, or just the ability to repair armour that was added in 1.13?

[nuclearslurpee]

--- Honestly, MSP should be 10x more expensive

Yes, officer, this man right here.

I will probably remove the repair capability from commercial hangars.  Military hangars will remain as they are now so you do have the hangar alternative, but with an added cost for that flexibility.

This was what I was thinking although I couldn't readily justify it, but I suppose sometimes an arbitrary limit is necessary for balance.

[Droll]

I will probably remove the repair capability from commercial hangars.  Military hangars will remain as they are now so you do have the hangar alternative, but with an added cost for that flexibility.

This was what I was thinking although I couldn't readily justify it, but I suppose sometimes an arbitrary limit is necessary for balance.

A less arbitrary method would be to limit the repair abilities of commercial hangars to commercial components only. That way you can justify that there is a difference in tooling between military and commercial hangars.