>TU 290: Refit Internal Items {}
Refiting internal items:
1 Bridge (100)
1 Sensor (103)
16 Quarters (131)
8 ISR Type 3 Engines (150)
40 Cargo Holds (180)
1 Jump Drive (175)
29 Thrust Engines (160)
Total TU cost for this action is 200
Integrity loss Zero due to the use of 38 Patches.
Alternatively, using individual installs and maintenance visits:
>TU 7000: Pickup {44851} {100} {1} {} {Install - Yes}
You installed 1 Bridge (100) from EEM Ganymeded Station (44851).
Installation reduced Integrity to 99.5%.
Total TU cost for this action is 20
>TU 6980: Pickup {44851} {103} {1} {} {Install - Yes}
You installed 1 Sensor (103) from EEM Ganymeded Station (44851).
Installation reduced Integrity to 99.4%.
Total TU cost for this action is 20
>TU 6960: Pickup {44851} {131} {16} {} {Install - Yes}
You installed 16 Quarters (131) from EEM Ganymeded Station (44851).
Installation reduced Integrity to 95.6%.
Total TU cost for this action is 20
>TU 6940: Pickup {44851} {150} {8} {} {Install - Yes}
You installed 8 ISR Type 3 Engines (150) from EEM Ganymeded Station (44851).
Installation reduced Integrity to 94.1%.
Total TU cost for this action is 20
>TU 6920: Pickup {44851} {180} {40} {} {Install - Yes}
You installed 40 Cargo Holds (180) from EEM Ganymeded Station (44851).
Installation reduced Integrity to 56%.
Total TU cost for this action is 20
>TU 6900: Pickup {44851} {175} {1} {} {Install - Yes}
You installed 1 Jump Drive (175) from EEM Ganymeded Station (44851).
Installation reduced Integrity to 55.5%.
Total TU cost for this action is 20
>TU 6880: Pickup {44851} {160} {29} {} {Install - Yes}
You installed 29 Thrust Engines (160) from EEM Ganymeded Station (44851).
Installation reduced Integrity to 50%.
Total TU cost for this action is 20
>TU 6860: Maintenance Complex Visit
37 basic hull patches were used.
Ship integrity restored to 100%
Total TU cost for this action is 200
Total TU cost 340TU's
Used 37 patches - i.e. the same as refit when rounding is taken into account.
The real saving are TU's and major arse factor
Thanks for the comparison Mica, but is this how it should work?
If a ship has been in combat and taken hull damage and had internal items destroyed, it goes to a starbase and does a repair visit to repair the hull damage (using patches) and then does a refit visit to put exactly the items back onto the ship that it was originally built with and have been destroyed during the combat, for which the holes in the ship were made ready as a result of the repair visit, but it is charged the same, in patches, as it would be for manually installing items not supposed to fit into the holes in the bulkheads, etc.
I would like to see a reduced integrity loss (may 50% of the normal) when refiting items that are supposed to be on the ship. So in your example, the refit would have only required 19 rather than 38 patches.
This could be complicated if refit visits install the better/worse mks of items depending on availability. If a better/worse item is put on as a result of the refit then the integrity loss for those items should be calculated at the current level (i.e. 100% of "normal").
Perhaps there is a way to compromise over whether a refit should require a blueprint or not:
If the starbase does not have the correct blueprint, then the ship only saves TU's from having the work done at a dedicated facility rather than by the crew - but if the blueprint is present it makes it easier for the engineers working on the refit to avoid damage, so giving the additional patches benefit suggested here?
Dan
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ Jul 29 2003, 09:58 PM) |
| This is along similar lines to the discussion at the pubmeet - refits saving patches compared to manual installation. Perhaps there is a way to compromise over whether a refit should require a blueprint or not: If the starbase does not have the correct blueprint, then the ship only saves TU's from having the work done at a dedicated facility rather than by the crew - but if the blueprint is present it makes it easier for the engineers working on the refit to avoid damage, so giving the additional patches benefit suggested here? Dan |
I like the idea of refits saving tus without a blueprint, but saving tus and patches with a blueprint
Mark
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ Jul 29 2003, 09:58 PM) |
| Perhaps there is a way to compromise over whether a refit should require a blueprint or not: If the starbase does not have the correct blueprint, then the ship only saves TU's from having the work done at a dedicated facility rather than by the crew - but if the blueprint is present it makes it easier for the engineers working on the refit to avoid damage, so giving the additional patches benefit suggested here? |
The idea the the number of patches should be reduced during a refit was because the correct items were being used as part of the refit rather than the internal configuration of the ship being changed to other than it was designed/built to be. The starbase having a blueprint should not be the reason the integrity loss (therefore patches need) is reduced.
I like the idea that if a starbase did have a blueprint for the ship then the workforce would be better able to do the refit (or repairs and maintenance for that matter too) but....
If I have a ship design blueprint that specifies normal hulls, normal sensors, exploration module, tractor beams, etc etc etc. Then I build a ship to that design using the best equipment available (Normal Hulls mk4, Sensors mk2, Exploration Module mk3, tractor beams mk4) then will having the original design blueprint prove to be of any use when refitting that ship at a later date??
| QUOTE (Kragnost @ Jul 30 2003, 08:08 AM) |
| If I have a ship design blueprint that specifies normal hulls, normal sensors, exploration module, tractor beams, etc etc etc. Then I build a ship to that design using the best equipment available (Normal Hulls mk4, Sensors mk2, Exploration Module mk3, tractor beams mk4) then will having the original design blueprint prove to be of any use when refitting that ship at a later date?? |
Since the blueprint can be used without penalty to build them in the first place, my first thought is that it should be possible - but there are implications due to refits being instigated by the ship, not the starbase...which might change that initial thought when I think about it a bit
Dan
I build a ship using a bp that calls for normal. I want to refit it, including the armour. The only armour available is armour mk II. Would the refit use the 'updated' armour or fail since the original armour was not present.
To the same degree, if I have regular armoun and want to change the 'type' of armour on the ship, I can understand refit not working, but what would short of a SA??
It would be nice that the refit order gave the option as the build ship order does of using the 'best'.
Llywelyn
| QUOTE (llywelyn @ Sep 17 2004, 07:03 AM) |
| I build a ship using a bp that calls for normal. I want to refit it, including the armour. The only armour available is armour mk II. Would the refit use the 'updated' armour or fail since the original armour was not present. To the same degree, if I have regular armoun and want to change the 'type' of armour on the ship, I can understand refit not working, but what would short of a SA?? |
Refit only refers to internal items. The fuselage of the ship, i.e. the hulls and armour, cannot ever be changed. If armour plates are lost then the armour has to be repaired using patches, not by replacing armour plates.
For this reason it is not possible to upgrade hulls or armour on existing ships to higher mk's, or to exchange one armour type for another on an existing ship.
Refit does, to the best of my knowledge, work like ship building with the "use best" option in that all missing items can be replaced by higher mk versions. However removing the old items will either damage the hulls (if using the Uninstall order) or destroy the items (if using the Scrap Installed Item order).