What I would like to propose is a relatively (heh) minor change to the rules, whereby a vessel will not lose integrity for installing an item within it's original schematic.
For example, one of my vessels is currently running with a skeleton crew and bare basic equipment. It is a baseship, and has over 5000 MU of equipment left to reinstall. I will be equipping the vessel with almost exactly it's standard blueprint equipment, having to use bunks instead of AI Combat Navigators as the only change. I do not have a blueprint for the vessel at the starbase which is doing the refitting.
So, instead of the ~50% integrity loss I am expecting from the re-equip (all items), instead I would merely suffer integrity loss from the bunks installed over and above the vessel's usual blueprint complement.
| QUOTE (Ro'a-lith @ Jul 21 2003, 01:42 PM) |
| What I would like to propose is a relatively (heh) minor change to the rules, whereby a vessel will not lose integrity for installing an item within it's original schematic. |
There is already a way to achieve this - assuming you have assigned a specific blueprint with equipment specified...
Use the "Refit internal items" order, and patches are used to counteract any integrity loss
Dan
| QUOTE (Ro'a-lith @ Jul 21 2003, 02:42 PM) |
| I do not have a blueprint for the vessel at the starbase which is doing the refitting. |
Hence, cannot do a refit order.
| QUOTE (Ro'a-lith @ Jul 22 2003, 03:18 AM) | ||
Hence, cannot do a refit order. |
But surely, by the same token:
| QUOTE (Ro'a-lith @ Jul 21 2003, 02:42 PM) |
| a vessel will not lose integrity for installing an item within it's original schematic. |
Without a blueprint you wouldn't know the "original schematic". As Dan said, your proposal is already implemented, what you really seem to be proposing is a "refit" without the need for a blueprint.
| QUOTE (Ro'a-lith @ Jul 22 2003, 02:18 AM) | ||
Hence, cannot do a refit order. |
but my point is that your proposal is already catered for - merely with conditions set around it - in the terms of the refit order. I doubt that any further relaxation of the integrity loss rules (which are already watered down from the original design concept where you had current and maximum integrity...) will be forthcoming.
You therefore need to beg, borrow or research the use of the relevant blueprint
Dan
| QUOTE |
| I doubt that any further relaxation of the integrity loss rules (which are already watered down from the original design concept where you had current and maximum integrity...) will be forthcoming. |
Personally, I really wouldn't want to see such relaxation anyway. It's quite relaxed enough as it is.
As Kerry said in another thread, most affs will never be 'ready'. Warships at least will want reconfiguring all the time, as your enemies change their tactics.
Bring on the loss, I say.
rob
| QUOTE (Ro'a-lith @ Jul 22 2003, 03:18 AM) | ||
Hence, cannot do a refit order. |
Yes you can do a Refit order. If you have informed Mica of which design the ship is supposed to conform to then the ship itself will be carrying a "hidden" copy of the blueprint specific to that instance of the ship. It is this internal blueprint which is used for the Refit visit. Otherwise every starbase would need blueprints for every design of ship that it wants to be able to do Refits for.
| QUOTE (Ro'a-lith @ Jul 21 2003, 02:42 PM) |
| As I mentioned in David's latest Fix post, I am not entirely happy about the integrity loss implementation. Fair enough, we are 6 months in to the game, but I am fairly certain that a lot of the affiliations still have considerable numbers of their vessels still to outfit. What I would like to propose is a relatively (heh) minor change to the rules, whereby a vessel will not lose integrity for installing an item within it's original schematic. For example, one of my vessels is currently running with a skeleton crew and bare basic equipment. It is a baseship, and has over 5000 MU of equipment left to reinstall. I will be equipping the vessel with almost exactly it's standard blueprint equipment, having to use bunks instead of AI Combat Navigators as the only change. I do not have a blueprint for the vessel at the starbase which is doing the refitting. So, instead of the ~50% integrity loss I am expecting from the re-equip (all items), instead I would merely suffer integrity loss from the bunks installed over and above the vessel's usual blueprint complement. |
I do like this idea. The point of the integrity loss (from what I remember) on removing (and preserving rather than destroying) items is to show the damage caused to the ship to remove the item and keep the item intact. This coupled with the integrity loss from installing items onto the ship was to stop people from gutting a ship and reconfiguring it for a different role/weapon loadout to that specified in the blueprint the ship was built to.
Refit visits were to restore the ship to what its blueprint states (or as close as possible depending on available space) and patches are used to restore the ship integrity during the process.
If you are putting back into the ship something that has been destroyed or otherwise removed then damage will have been done to the ship either by the combat or the act of removing the item. Refiting the ship to it's blueprint configuration should incurr little/no integrity loss IMHO.
If people empty a ship and destroy the items in the process then add items not in the blueprint they will suffer integrity loss which will need a maintenance visit to sort out.
If a ship refits to its blueprint then people get the bonus that better mk items will be used if available. Could be that the items were not available when the ship was built. This doesn't mean the ship wasn't built to take the items in its blueprint. Customisation is possible at a price but people shouldn't be penalised (in patches) for building/restoring to established designs parameters.
| QUOTE (Kragnost @ Jul 22 2003, 09:26 AM) |
| Yes you can do a Refit order. If you have informed Mica of which design the ship is supposed to conform to then the ship itself will be carrying a "hidden" copy of the blueprint specific to that instance of the ship. It is this internal blueprint which is used for the Refit visit. Otherwise every starbase would need blueprints for every design of ship that it wants to be able to do Refits for. |
Have you tried this? It certainly does not conform to the notes with the refit internal items order, which explicitly states the need for the blueprint.
In my opinion, the need for a blueprint is entirely correct - if you want a "proper job" it takes planning and care, represented by the blueprint. Otherwise you get the "Local Garage Bodge Job", which costs you integrity
I was one of those at the pubmeet who stated we should have the integrity loss activated. The initial plan was for three months, and we've now had seven. Time enough to start doing things as we should have been....
Dan
Call me pedantic, but it beggars belief that a vessel designed for interstellar flight would not have design schematics for it's own construction? If only for day-to-day maintenance, let alone removal, repair and refitting of internal components.
If the refit order does not require a blueprint at the starbase, as Lee suggests, I will be very happy at any rate. I am very much against the idea of being penalised for taking pressure off my affiliations' HQ colony by refitting a vessel almost exactly to it's template, albiet without a blueprint - which are by no means easy to get hold of.
Look on it this way as well - it's potentially all very well for you to claim á la Star Trek that every ship has a Scotty figure that can work miracles (and even Star Trek has refits and major overhauls...), but you would be mightily miffed if somebody boarded your ship after a battle and were then able to refit it and use it against you because they wouldn't need a blueprint to refi it either
Dan
Refit visits still cannot be done anywhere, you need a starbase/outpost with 1 shipyard per 10 hulls of ship to do the refit. To date I've not done a refit anywhere other than where I have ship blueprints but I see nothing in the refit order description to say you need a blueprint at the starbase/outpost:
| QUOTE |
| This order must be performed while docked with a starbase with 1 active shipyard per 10 ship hulls. You also need to own the starbase or have the security code to be allowed to do a refit. The starbase will attempt to place items that were originally in the ships design back into the ship if they have been destroyed. This allows quick refits for warships after they are damaged, there is no integrity loss for the installation but patches are used to add the items safely. |
I'm sure Mica/David can tell us what actually happens with this.
It's reasonable to say that a starship would have schematics on board, but a blueprint is much more than that. It includes equipment, technical manuals, possibly even personnel (or an abstraction of personnel being trained). In game terms, remember, it's a 100 MU item that costs thousands of stellars to make. If you want every ship to carry one, that's what it would cost.
As before, I think that the integrity loss should be turned on. If we're not ready by now (and I'm not, I'll admit) then we deserve to have trouble. Like Dan said, it's been seven months, it's getting farcical now.
It would be good if Mica or David could clarify exactly what is needed for a refit to take place. I'm in favour of:
1 shipyard per 10 hulls
Blueprint present
Own the starbase OR use security code OR have unrestricted pickup allocation
rob (who just got given a load of empty ships. damn.)
| QUOTE |
| It's reasonable to say that a starship would have schematics on board, but a blueprint is much more than that. It includes equipment, technical manuals, possibly even personnel (or an abstraction of personnel being trained). In game terms, remember, it's a 100 MU item that costs thousands of stellars to make. If you want every ship to carry one, that's what it would cost. |
From the order description it doesnt sound like a blueprint is needed to do a refit and I dont really see the need for one either. The blueprint is for building the ship, fitting all those hulls plates into something that resembles a ship. Doing a refit is simply a way of replacing parts - something any shipyard could do. The garage analogy someone used, for me, is more accurate if you compare taking your car to a garage to be serviced/repaired, or having to take it back to the Ford factory.
mandible
| QUOTE (Rob Alexander @ Jul 23 2003, 10:52 AM) |
| It's reasonable to say that a starship would have schematics on board, but a blueprint is much more than that. It includes equipment, technical manuals, possibly even personnel (or an abstraction of personnel being trained). In game terms, remember, it's a 100 MU item that costs thousands of stellars to make. If you want every ship to carry one, that's what it would cost. |
The ship doesn't have a REAL blueprint on it - it's a behind the scences game system thing in order for Mica/David/the game to know what the ship was built with in terms of structure and internal items.
How do you think the game knows how much to restore your armour by when your heavy hulled warship with a battle damaged armour rating of 60.2 does a repair visit? It knows because it has a record of the number and type of armour plates that were fitted at the time the ship was built.
I have no problems with integrity loss being switched on (sorted out all the DEN ships months ago) but I still wonder about haing to pay in patches for refitting a ship to its original design.
| QUOTE (Rob Alexander @ Jul 23 2003, 10:52 AM) |
| It would be good if Mica or David could clarify exactly what is needed for a refit to take place. I'm in favour of: 1 shipyard per 10 hulls Blueprint present Own the starbase OR use security code OR have unrestricted pickup allocation |
If the order works as the description states leave it as it is. It's not broken so don't fix it in this instance.
| CODE |
1 shipyard per 10 hulls Own the starbase OR use security code |
| QUOTE |
| The ship doesn't have a REAL blueprint on it - it's a behind the scences game system thing in order for Mica/David/the game to know what the ship was built with in terms of structure and internal items. |
I am aware of this, that wasn't my point. I meant that each ship does not carry the necessary information and resources to build itself from scratch. Presumably the ship carries schematics etc, which support repairs and modification, but not an actual Blueprint object or equivalent.
Of course, the 'internal blueprint' is used by the program when the ship is refitted. It would be rather odd, I admit, to need an external blueprint which could be a completely different design.
| QUOTE |
| I have no problems with integrity loss being switched on (sorted out all the DEN ships months ago) but I still wonder about haing to pay in patches for refitting a ship to its original design. |
I thought that a refit used patches, but less than doing it by hand? I would like this to be the case; I'm basically opposed to anything that would allow a 'free' change of ship configuration.
| QUOTE |
| If the order works as the description states leave it as it is. It's not broken so don't fix it in this instance. |
Confirmation of this would be useful, however.
rob
| QUOTE (Rob Alexander @ Jul 23 2003, 10:52 AM) |
| As before, I think that the integrity loss should be turned on. If we're not ready by now (and I'm not, I'll admit) then we deserve to have trouble. Like Dan said, it's been seven months, it's getting farcical now. |
The integrity loss for installing items was turned on last week. I can confirm that it's active :-).
Richard
AFT
| QUOTE (Mandible @ Jul 23 2003, 11:34 AM) |
| Doing a refit is simply a way of replacing parts - something any shipyard could do. The garage analogy someone used, for me, is more accurate if you compare taking your car to a garage to be serviced/repaired, or having to take it back to the Ford factory. mandible |
Having worked in the aircraft industry for a long time now (getting frighteningly close to eight years now!) - both maintenance and now program management for design work - I have some appreciation of the complexity of the average passanger aircraft. The game mechanics for Phoenix are vastly simplified compared to the reality for current plane technology, let alone future starship technology. Replacing parts sounds simple, but there's a lot more to it than taking a box out and plonking another one in half the time, and the length of time the engineers spend sat down at a computer screen studying the manual can be a huge proportion of their average working day. Every aircraft - even ones nominally the same type - have got a multitude of modifications to specific parts to cater for specific needs of the operator, and each one is different to some degree even in the same fleet....
Cars are fairly simple in comparison - even I used to do bits and pieces when I drove a banger. But imagine the response you'd get if you asked a pilot of a large passenger plane to fix something
Dan
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ Jul 25 2003, 12:33 AM) | ||
Having worked in the aircraft industry for a long time now (getting frighteningly close to eight years now!) - both maintenance and now program management for design work - I have some appreciation of the complexity of the average passanger aircraft. The game mechanics for Phoenix are vastly simplified compared to the reality for current plane technology, let alone future starship technology. Replacing parts sounds simple, but there's a lot more to it than taking a box out and plonking another one in half the time, and the length of time the engineers spend sat down at a computer screen studying the manual can be a huge proportion of their average working day. Every aircraft - even ones nominally the same type - have got a multitude of modifications to specific parts to cater for specific needs of the operator, and each one is different to some degree even in the same fleet.... Cars are fairly simple in comparison - even I used to do bits and pieces when I drove a banger. But imagine the response you'd get if you asked a pilot of a large passenger plane to fix something Dan |
| QUOTE |
| Replacing parts sounds simple, but there's a lot more to it than taking a box out and plonking another one in half the time |
Luckily, in the future universe of Phoenix, ships are a lot simpler - you can install and remove items via a hiport (or with just your own ships crew) and no shipyards are needed. True they damage your ship (integrity loss), but you pay peanuts, you get monkeys! So a refit order, which needs a shipyards professionals should be enough to do a bigger job.
Anyway, until we know whether blueprints are needed in a refit order then its a mute point.
Mandible
| QUOTE (Mandible @ Jul 25 2003, 07:19 AM) |
| Luckily, in the future universe of Phoenix, ships are a lot simpler - you can install and remove items via a hiport (or with just your own ships crew) and no shipyards are needed. True they damage your ship (integrity loss), but you pay peanuts, you get monkeys! So a refit order, which needs a shipyards professionals should be enough to do a bigger job. |
not quite - the GAME MECHANICS of removing and installing items in ships are simpler - just the same as just about every other game mechanic is simpler than the equivalent "doing it"
Phoenix is a game, not a simulator... while "reality" is something to aspire to, there needs to be a balance with playability. Arguing that IC the Phoenix universe is "really like that" because of the orders you use to do something is probably best described as naive...
If the refit order does not require a blueprint, then I for one will be asking for that to be changed so that it does!
Dan
| QUOTE |
| Phoenix is a game, not a simulator... while "reality" is something to aspire to, there needs to be a balance with playability |
Not sure what you mean as this was exactly my point too - Phoenix is a game and comparing it to the complexities of real world aircraft doesnt work.
Believing that reality is something the game should aspire to is just personal preference. Personally, I have no interest in playing a game that completely mimics reality, but i can appreciate others might.
| QUOTE |
| Arguing that IC the Phoenix universe is "really like that" because of the orders you use to do something is probably best described as naive... |
Naive to try to roleplay a character in a game universe, by having that character think its real? I dont think so. How does your Political see the world of Phoenix In Game? They must be going mad from it being too simplistic!
Mark
| QUOTE (Mandible @ Jul 27 2003, 04:45 PM) |
| Not sure what you mean as this was exactly my point too - Phoenix is a game and comparing it to the complexities of real world aircraft doesnt work. |
My comment was with regards to your statement that Phoenix ships "are simpler". At least in my mind, the ships are vastly more complicated - it is only the player interface making it simple for us all.
| QUOTE |
| Naive to try to roleplay a character in a game universe, by having that character think its real? I dont think so. |
no. The characters - from the lowliest mercenary to the ruler of the largest affiliation - are immersed in the game world, with all the details that we as players don't have to deal with. Would you know how to swap a Mk 1 sensor for a Mk 2 within the game? I definately wouldn't - but the crew of the ship does, with a bit of knocking the edges off the nearest bulkhead (and their thumbs/claws/paws/knobbly appendages - delete as per the race doing the job). So assuming that the ships are simple because the order editor lets you do things simply is the bit that I would call naive. When I mean that a game should aspire to reality, I don't mean that we should have to deal with the reality, just that the effects of what we say to do should (in the main) make logical and consistent sense....
Dan
| QUOTE |
| My comment was with regards to your statement that Phoenix ships "are simpler". At least in my mind, the ships are vastly more complicated - it is only the player interface making it simple for us all. |
By "simpler" I meant they are simpler to use and maintain(eg the computer systems used are so advanced that they do a lot of the work for you, the components are more modular - sometihng the Real World has been aspiring to for a long time (at least in the military anyway)).
| QUOTE |
| So assuming that the ships are simple because the order editor lets you do things simply is the bit that I would call naive |
Sorry, but i never mentioned the Order Editor! Crew can install and remove items and so can a Docking port or a Hiport. this isnt a feature of the order editor, but of the game. A blueprint isnt needed for this, so a large refit shouldnt either. A refit order repairs armour too (I think?), but surely that is why it needs a shipyard present (presumably using the more specifically trained workers than the ones operating a hiport)? For me, this is a logical and consistent approach and needing a blueprint would be pretty harsh.
Whether we are talking about cars, civilian or military planes, a vehicle does not need to be returned to its manufacturer (in-game, those who have the blueprint) to be repaired and refitted. The engineers/mechanics can do that (which to me in-game are represented by the need for ship yards).
i didnt know reality was supposed to make logical and consistent sense - someone better my boss that!
| QUOTE (Mandible @ Jul 28 2003, 08:18 AM) |
| Whether we are talking about cars, civilian or military planes, a vehicle does not need to be returned to its manufacturer (in-game, those who have the blueprint) to be repaired and refitted. |
With cars anyone can go and buy the Haynes manual (blueprint). I wouldn't want a mechanic working on my car who doesn't know how all the bits work and fit together.
;)
Things to be addressed:
1) How does a refit visit current work (in terms of blueprint requirements)
2) Can (should) it be made so that refiting to the original build of the ship (if the ship blueprint stated photon cannon mk1's but the ship was built with photon cannon mk3's then the ship expects photon cannon mk3's) then the integrity loss is less than putting something not in the ships original build (e.g. using photon cannon mk1, 2, or 4's or Rail Cannons).
To restate my position on the subject:
1) I don't think shipyards should need to have a blueprint for the ship design to refit a ship.
2) I do think that refitting to the specification the ship was build to should incur less of a integrity loss (aka patches used in refit visit) than doing it manually.