Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Personnally I would like to see the 50% limit removed, but have repair bays and space yards repair components based upon their resource content just like constructing them does.

To have it one way for construction and another for repair doesn't make sense to me. Having them work the same way would eliminate the problem.

If the idea is to not have repairing a component "cost" anything additional, then simply don't remove the resources from the treasury while repairing, but use the same principle when deciding how long the repair takes.

It's kind of ludicrous that it takes the same amount of time to repair a Gravitational Quantum Resonator V as it does an Armor I component, even though it is 10 times as large, and 2400 times http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/shock.gif as expensive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how I could have stated it any better. This is something I really, really dislike about the game as it stands now.

By its very language: 'Component is destroyed upon use', you would think that once a 50KT,50KT,50KT component is used, you are going to have to expend exactly that many resources to get the benefit from the component again. But that isn't the case. All it takes is one turn in the same sector with a spaceyard/repairyard ship/planet, and the component is back again ready to be used the next turn.

If at all possible, I think it would be great if repairs consumed resources. But I'm afraid that this is incompatible with the fundamental operation of the game. *sigh*

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raynor:

By its very language: 'Component is destroyed upon use', you would think that once a 50KT,50KT,50KT component is used, you are going to have to expend exactly that many resources to get the benefit from the component again. But that isn't the case. All it takes is one turn in the same sector with a spaceyard/repairyard ship/planet, and the component is back again ready to be used the next turn.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I REALLY wish MM would fix this because while maybe not a programming bug, it is a 'design bug'.

Several better alternatives have already been mentioned here. Even better solutions are possible: perhaps a line in the components design, " Can be repaired := ", True or False, with false meaning you must rebuild that component at a space yard.

An even better solution would be a more rigorous review of the total Build and Repair design layout.

It doesn't make sense to me that a space yard should be fully occupied for a full turn on any ONE project even if that project uses only a small portion of its capacity anymore then entirely seperating repair capability from building capacity.

While it makes some sense to recognise that the ability to repair something does not mean you can build something, the current design sorta makes Repair like apples and Build like oranges, ... never the twain shall meet ..., whereas, Repair is probably best viewed as "small oranges" rather than apples.

I probably make no sense to you all.

Oh well, enough said.
I agree, raynor ... "sigh..."

[This message has been edited by Tenryu (edited 20 February 2001).]

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

Well, maybe those stellar manipulation components are "destroyed" simply because they blow a bunch of fuses when used. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif


Seriously, maybe the repair capacity of space yards and repair bays should be rated by structural kT/turn instead of components per turn. Say, 50kT for space yards and 80kT for repair bay IIIs, etc.



------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

"Well, maybe those stellar manipulation components are "destroyed" simply because they blow a bunch of fuses when used"

Perhaps, like the modern military, these components are replaced with "war ready" replacements.
I work on military fighters, and when we have a 'destroyed component' we simply replace it so the aircraft can return to service and then repair the damaged components when we have the time and materials.

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

Besides, you're still paying maintenance on the component when it's destroyed. So maybe the maintenance cost is supposed to include things like spares. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif When my company buys an expensive widget, and pays hideous amounts of money every year on maintenance agreements, we expect fast service, not "Well, we have to build a new one from scratch".

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

That's an interesting point.

I started to say that right now, the game assumes you built an infinite supply of spare parts for the Stellar Manipulation component when you built the first one but that you never had to pay for it. But that isn't really true, is it? If you are paying maintenance on the component, then I suppose we could assume those resources are dedicated to manufacturing spare parts.

Of course, the problem there lies in your ability to use the component every turn. It wouldn't bother me so much that repairs happen in one turn without costing any resources to complete the repair IF you could only use the component every 4 turns--since that is how long it would take for you to spend the same resources maintaining the component that you spent constructing it.

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raynor:
It wouldn't bother me so much ... IF you could only use the component every 4 turns--since that is how long it would take for you to spend the same resources maintaining the component that you spent constructing it.[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point behind maintaining reserves is to decrease downtime. Why would you bother maitaining reserves (which cost you money and manpower) if it didn't help you in any way?
A real world example is changing the engine on an F-16. If we have damage, it takes us a maximum of 6 hours to change the engine. An engine shop then repairs our damaged engine (taking weeks if necessary) and holding that repaired engine as a spare.

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

That is not a valid comparision to the game though. In real life the components are all located on the same planet.
I am not sure how it works in the Navy but in the merchant marine fleet we did not carry a spare main turbine. Smaller items ,yes, but for main items you waited until you hit port.

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

Maybe a suggestion would be then to keep the cuurent repair system, but certain types of components would have to be repaied at a planetary space yard.

You could have classes of components repairable by any of the 3, some that have to be at at least a ship space yard, and others that have to be at a planetary space yard.

Re: Uprading ship design (hull relatad)
 

I think that would be a good compromise. I wouldn't require a complete change to how the repair system works. But it would add at least a minimal amount of restrictions on the "Every turn" usage of all the componets which are "Destroyed after use".