MasterTrader
I've been conducting some maintenance today, for one of the first times since the change to the maintenance rules. Aside from going "ouch" at the number of patches used, I've also spotted an error with different patch uses being reported by the ship and the starbase.

One of my Free Traders (50 Normal hulls) conducted maintenance, having started the day at 91.5% integrity:
Date 29.5: Weekly stress reduced integrity to 91.5%.

The ship got the following result from the maintenance:
>TU 210: Maintenance Complex Visit
2 basic hull patches were used.
Ship integrity restored to 100%
Total TU cost for this action is 13

But the starbase got the following result:
Date 30.1: AFT SHIP St George (xxxx) docked.
Maintenance: AFT St George (xxxx) used 3 Patches (45)

i.e. two patches used per the ship, three used per the starbase (and having checked the numbers, three patches were actually removed from my stockpile).

By my calculations, this maintenance should have used:
8.5 (integrity points) x 0.5 (normal hull modifier) x 0.5 (50 hulls) = 2.125 patches

With the new "heavy" patches, if maintenance is actually always rounding up in numbers of patches, this would be very costly.

Either way, there is a bug in that the reporting by the ship and the starbase differs!

Richard
AFT
MasterTrader
In fact, there are more issues with regards to rounding of patch use...

First off, while only round numbers of patches are shown on the starbase report, does the system actually record fractions in the stockpile? From looking at other things I am assuming not, but thought I'd better check.

At another starbase, I had three ships belonging to another player conduct maintenance. They paid 493, 487 and 493 stellars each, but each ship used 3 patches, and the patch price at the starbase in question is 180 stellars per patch. 3 x 180 = 540 stellars, not 490-odd.

It appears that the stellars are calculated using fractions of patches, but the actual patch use is in whole patches. With the low numbers of patches used in the new system, this can lead to wide discrepancies between the cost of patches and the actual amounts charged...
Frabby
Just an observation: Patch use *has* to round up the number of patches. Otherwise, players could use the fractions to keep their mothballed ships in pristine condition by maintaining them twice a week, at the cost of zero patches (rounded down)...
Steve-Law
It would appear that the ship report rounds down the patches, but the actual patches used are rounded up (so the starbase reports correctly).
MasterTrader
QUOTE (Frabby @ Jul 29 2004, 01:15 PM)
Just an observation: Patch use *has* to round up the number of patches. Otherwise, players could use the fractions to keep their mothballed ships in pristine condition by maintaining them twice a week, at the cost of zero patches (rounded down)...

Even better, given the cost of patches and the numbers required for maintaining an individual ship, the program could store the actual number of patches to two decimal places, while still displaying round numbers.

More to the point, if people are going to _use_ three whole patches, why on earth are they only paying me for two and a half?

Richard
AFT
Dan Reed
There seems to be a few ways this could be sorted to minimise hassle for the poor underpaid starbase owner biggrin.gif

1. split the current patches down by a factor of five - I would have said ten, but some of the higher mark patches would then have fractional output

2. record fractional patches

3. make the ship owner pay for the whole patch

while the last one is probably the simplest, it does increase the cost of maintenance by a percentage.. it would probalbly lead to people attempting to maintain just before they get down to 50% integrity every time

Dan
Steve-Law
Although the Patch description in the game kind of gets around this as a totally accurate analogy (being a liquid solution of nanobots of whatever it is), I think paying for whole patches works best. If you wanted a 1 foot length of wood and the wood only comes in 4 foot lengths, you pay for 4 feet of wood.

You could say that 1 "patch" is the minimum effective quantity for the nano-mites to actually work?



David Bethel
QUOTE
2 basic hull patches were used.


Thats a reporting error on the ship turn - as is the cost.
Its should round up for cost / reporting as well as for removed from SB
David Bethel
This should be fixed now - to cost more and report correctly.