I wouldn't mind repairing damage, nor using ammunition, but I'm not sure I like the idea of being indefinitely stranded in space.

I definitely feel as though there should be some degree of customisation on this, since you'll never be able to please everyone and I bet some (or more) of us will like to play through with different settings enabled/disabled to see what's what. As for the sweet spot, I'm really not sure. I would have to think it over closer to release.

Draglide12 wrote:I wouldn't mind repairing damage, nor using ammunition, but I'm not sure I like the idea of being indefinitely stranded in space.

I agree. I like the idea of needing to repair damage and requiring ammunition, but my proposals also try to avoid the possibility of deadlocked gameplay states.

ThymineC wrote:

Draglide12 wrote:I wouldn't mind repairing damage, nor using ammunition, but I'm not sure I like the idea of being indefinitely stranded in space.

I agree. I like the idea of needing to repair damage and requiring ammunition, but my proposals also try to avoid the possibility of deadlocked gameplay states.

Very much this. Stranded in space isn't fun. You might as well be stuck in the geometry, because it's going to end the same way: you'll reload an older save.

I chose constant upkeep, but only because the aging ship option doesn't include the possibility of swapping out components. If ship quality was a percentage comprising individual system percentages, I'd select the aging option. Otherwise I don't particularly like the idea of a ship faltering constantly just because I've owned it for an equivalency of 10 years without being able to maintain it.

I don't see any particular reason that upkeep/repair couldn't be calculated on a per-component basis, with lasers and reactors running out quicker than ship hulls etc.

5anitybane wrote:Otherwise I don't particularly like the idea of a ship faltering constantly just because I've owned it for an equivalency of 10 years without being able to maintain it.

This is what I find interesting about this whole topic. There seems to be a considerable assumption whenever 'upkeep' comes up in any sort of game that you will often for some reason not be able to keep up maintenance. Or that the maintenance will somehow greatly cut into your profits. If it were done reasonably, it would never be that bad because it would naturally scale with your means. If you had little to no money making capability, you wouldn't have much maintenance to worry about because you'd likely be using low quality components and a small low quality ship. So proportionally it wouldn't impact you that great. As opposed to when you have a bustling empire with multiple fleets of large ships. Your ability to make money will be much higher.

Basically you'd have to play the game very very badly to build up a lot of assets yet not be able to afford their maintenance. Or something really drastic would have to happen to you to basically break your empire. In which case there is a simple solution. Allow mothballing. Then mothball the majority of your fleet(s) and start rebuilding your wealth.

TGS wrote:This is what I find interesting about this whole topic. There seems to be a considerable assumption whenever 'upkeep' comes up in any sort of game that you will often for some reason not be able to keep up maintenance. Or that the maintenance will somehow greatly cut into your profits. If it were done reasonably, it would never be that bad because it would naturally scale with your means. If you had little to no money making capability, you wouldn't have much maintenance to worry about because you'd likely be using low quality components and a small low quality ship. So proportionally it wouldn't impact you that great. As opposed to when you have a bustling empire with multiple fleets of large ships. Your ability to make money will be much higher.

Basically you'd have to play the game very very badly to build up a lot of assets yet not be able to afford their maintenance. Or something really drastic would have to happen to you to basically break your empire. In which case there is a simple solution. Allow mothballing. Then mothball the majority of your fleet(s) and start rebuilding your wealth.

I was thinking of damage breaking components required for functions such as targetting, thruster control and life support, essentially leaving you dead in the water without any hope of repair. And much like cars, when one things breaks and is repaired, something else quite aged breaks and the overall vehicle seems to have no end to the troubles. That's where my concern arose, I imagined a chain of events unfolding to constantly screw the player over in the middle of something potentially important. I think that yes, for realism that should be viable, but for the sake of game-play mechanics players should instead be heavily impaired, not hung out to dry. I do happen to think in extremes, so this might just be such a case again, haha.

Well I think it should have a cost, obviously, but that cost can easily be balanced. And if you are worried about stuff breaking, then the idea is to replace it on a regular basis.

As for mothballing, it's an interesting idea, but I'd prefer in the regular (non easy mode) game if losing the ability to sustain a fleet actually meant you had to start liquidating stock. One, it provides that element of risk and ensures that players don't simply accumulate to accumulate. Two, it creates variance in which players are on top and enables you to take players out. If you cripple someone's income stream that seems like the sort of thing that should matter.

There wasn't an option that I wanted. The 'sleeper' option.. Which is to buy some old junk cheap and then sink obscene amounts of credits (usually much more than purchasing a new ship) into it to make it perform well beyond it's original design/capabilities.
IMO routine maintenance (on it's own) would get boring after a while, it pretty much becomes a similar game mechanic to some type of insurance fee (but to ensure running instead of loss)

Example: New players are limited to *only* buy their first ships from a salvage yard. Doing so requires you to budget and fix only those things that can get you up and running, make some cash, then fix/upgrade some more, and then when life is good, maybe buy a shiny new ship or continue fixing the old donkey until it's the fastest piece of junk in the whole galaxy. (...or maybe even do both?)

Deej wrote:There wasn't an option that I wanted. The 'sleeper' option.. Which is to buy some old junk cheap and then sink obscene amounts of credits (usually much more than purchasing a new ship) into it to make it perform well beyond it's original design/capabilities.

Why would anyone choose to do this?

Deej wrote:Example: New players are limited to *only* buy their first ships from a salvage yard.

Why?

ThymineC wrote:

Deej wrote:There wasn't an option that I wanted. The 'sleeper' option.. Which is to buy some old junk cheap and then sink obscene amounts of credits (usually much more than purchasing a new ship) into it to make it perform well beyond it's original design/capabilities.

Why would anyone choose to do this?

People do this in real life with their cars as a sort of surprise factor. They'll get a beater Corolla or something from the '90s and drop a new engine and transmission in, tune it up, turbocharge it, and hoon down interstates and motorways in what looks like a total piece of crap, and it turns heads.

It also gets traffic tickets for those who aren't careful about it.

Grumblesaur wrote:

ThymineC wrote:

Deej wrote:There wasn't an option that I wanted. The 'sleeper' option.. Which is to buy some old junk cheap and then sink obscene amounts of credits (usually much more than purchasing a new ship) into it to make it perform well beyond it's original design/capabilities.

Why would anyone choose to do this?

People do this in real life with their cars as a sort of surprise factor. They'll get a beater Corolla or something from the '90s and drop a new engine and transmission in, tune it up, turbocharge it, and hoon down interstates and motorways in what looks like a total piece of crap, and it turns heads.

It also gets traffic tickets for those who aren't careful about it.

That's true. I should have more accurately asked: Why would any agent in Limit Theory choose to do this? I mean what are the motivations for people doing this in real life and are those motivations applicable to agents in LT?

ThymineC wrote: That's true. I should have more accurately asked: Why would any agent in Limit Theory choose to do this? I mean what are the motivations for people doing this in real life and are those motivations applicable to agents in LT?

It might be less expensive to save a cheap, old ship from the scrapyard and just build it up to something that works than to buy a fully-fleshed out new or recently-used ship.

Sort of like how Malcolm Reynolds bought the Serenity in Firefly. Buy a turd for cheap and build it up to something powerful yourself.

Grumblesaur wrote:

ThymineC wrote: That's true. I should have more accurately asked: Why would any agent in Limit Theory choose to do this? I mean what are the motivations for people doing this in real life and are those motivations applicable to agents in LT?

It might be less expensive to save a cheap, old ship from the scrapyard and just build it up to something that works than to buy a fully-fleshed out new or recently-used ship.

Sort of like how Malcolm Reynolds bought the Serenity in Firefly. Buy a turd for cheap and build it up to something powerful yourself.

If that were the case it would be logical, but Deej explicitly says that agents should "sink obscene amounts of credits" into the restoration process, implying it would be more expensive than buying a new ship that works just as well.

Edit: My bad, he doesn't imply it, he explicitly states it: "usually much more than purchasing a new ship"