This is a re-launch of that poll because the poll options didn't include a "good" choice. =)

Also, consumables, upkeep, and maintenance are all crumbs of the same cake so I tossed them all into one poll.
As a result, you can pick multiple options.
I wasn't sure about including "crew wages" but included them anyway to get an overview of how many fiddly bits people want to see in the game. On a larger scale, crew wages are simply another type of ship upkeep...

I did try to avoid "option bundles" where you have to take the good with the bad to get close to what you would want to choose. So the options are more numerous but detailed.
And if what you want is between 2 options, just pick both so we can see the overall trend. That's why you have so many picks. =)

im personally a bit torn on the fuel issue....
i dont want to have to bother about it when im doing my daily business around stations
but i dont want every nutshell to be able to fly circles around the galaxy for free
long-range exploring should require you to at least fit a cruiser sized vessel with scoops, refineries, spare part factories (in case of damage, not general upkeep) etc.
but i dont want to have to refuel at every station i get to in the early game when i only have a small fighter

Hmm, right. Added an option for that - but the poll is still fresh so clearing the votes wasn't a big deal.


And nope, there is no "I don't care as long as it's optional" option. A poll is for asking people what they want. Not what they want but aren't willing to admit. =P

Could you change it so, that instead of a short description on every poll option, you give it a one-line description, and elaborate in the post itself? That poll makes me go crazy.

On topic,

Damage: repairable mid-space up to a point, which lowers as you get more damage. Full repair in stations or very large ships/ deployable shipyards

Ammo: manufacturable from raw materials pretty easily.

Fuel: Coolant, used to overclock your computer, that works both as afterburners and faster cruise mode.

Wages: on NPCs, yes. No skill progression though. You could use 'robots', which are just pretty dumb.

"Same as above but various ship systems take different kinds of "lasting" damage so once you make the decision to fix up the ship, it requires more effort to locate and travel to all the required facilities."

I voted for this but I'd like to point out that repairing individual systems shouldn't require any more effort to fix than repairing your hull i.e. any facility that can be used to fully repair your hull can also be used to fully repair your systems. An obvious objection is, "If any station can repair systems, what stops them from being able to produce them?". The answer is that every proprietary module can be assumed to contain a well-protected "repair sub-module" that manages the repair and maintenance of the module as a whole. When you're docked at a station, this sub-module will deliver instructions to the station such as "I need X units of Y material" and "I need soldering along this vector". When repairing a module, the station will simply follow the orders given to it by the module's repair sub-module, (and will bill the agent based on the cost of the materials used as normal).

The "only ships equipped to do so can generate their own fuel" and "finite fuel" options would seem to work hand-in-hand.

These two together imply that if you want to travel any significant distance from advanced worlds (where you can buy fuel), then you'd need to either trade off some hardpoints on your ship for a fuel generation system or bring a tender with you. That combination makes sense for strategic, resource-based play.

And yet several people voted for the "only some ships can self-generate fuel" option, while very few (2 so far) have voted for "finite fuel."

Interesting.

Well people are clearly against depreciation of any kind. Ho hum.

Flatfingers wrote:And yet several people voted for the "only some ships can self-generate fuel" option, while very few (2 so far) have voted for "finite fuel."

I voted for "only some ships can self-generate fuel" and "Being out of fuel reduces your ship's top speed to 1/4 but you're not completely stuck." I don't want deadlocked gameplay states. I think otherwise it would be pretty similar to the "finite fuel" + "some ships can self-generate fuel" combo.

ThymineC wrote:

Flatfingers wrote:And yet several people voted for the "only some ships can self-generate fuel" option, while very few (2 so far) have voted for "finite fuel."

I voted for "only some ships can self-generate fuel" and "Being out of fuel reduces your ship's top speed to 1/4 but you're not completely stuck." I don't want deadlocked gameplay states. I think otherwise it would be pretty similar to the "finite fuel" + "some ships can self-generate fuel" combo.

That's a good point. I didn't vote more than once in each category, but there's nothing stopping anyone from doing that.

FWIW, I also don't support "out of gas = completely dead in space forever." There's no way that's fun for the vast majority of people likely to play LT.

But if there some benefit like "you don't need to refuel as often," then that benefit needs a reason to matter (running out of gas impacts gameplay), and it needs some corresponding cost. Otherwise it's not an actual choice; it's just a gate.

Is there anything that prevents endless, costless accumulation that people are actually in favour of?

I'm just saying: Those shipbuilders need a market.

While accumulation of (lasting) damage isn't exactly fun, I see it as the minimum implementation of maintenance.

If you have to repair all your ships in your empire regularly (time-based), that's just scary. A huge time sink... just because.
There would have to be ways to automate it which then completely negates the cost to the player, aka effort.

The ships that the player manages "actively" are fair game for some maintenance because for them it's an actual decision that the player makes. Do you keep them at 95% readiness or 90%? What size of logistics train do you keep? Do you send the fleet tenders with the battle fleet? How do you protect them? Can you ambush the enemy's supply ships?
That's something you can interact with so I consider that gameplay.

Gazz wrote: If you have to repair all your ships in your empire regularly (time-based), that's just scary. A huge time sink... just because.
There would have to be ways to automate it which then completely negates the cost to the player, aka effort.

I just don't understand this at all.

The cost to the player is... the cost. Credits you no longer have. Getting NPCs to manage it for you doesn't alter this.

If it costs money to keep and run things, it incentivises agents to be lean. Old ships get recycled and upgraded. People don't build up huge fleets "just because." Optimising things becomes important.

Nothing has to be player micromanaged because NPCs can take control of the maintenance and even the upgrade process themselves if need be. After all, they could do it if you weren't there, there's no reason they'd get dumb around you.

But without some cost to accumulation, there's no limit to it. And then, rather than it being a game of strategically managing and deploying resources effectively, it just becomes a race to see who has the most and the biggest.

I think if you're going to have a big massive army, you need to have the income to sustain it.

The ships that the player manages "actively" are fair game for some maintenance because for them it's an actual decision that the player makes. Do you keep them at 95% readiness or 90%? What size of logistics train do you keep? Do you send the fleet tenders with the battle fleet? How do you protect them? Can you ambush the enemy's supply ships?
That's something you can interact with so I consider that gameplay.

But... you can interact with all of it. When you're not interacting with it, NPCs will run it for you. Including repairing stuff, swapping out components, even upgrading if their ship becomes too old and battered.

How would you model "only these ships need maintenance"? Are you going to make ships invincible if you're not looking? How does this apply to the NPCs?

Monetary cost for a gameplay mechanic like maintenance is just a fake argument.
You get to deal with it for the first hour or two of the game. Then you probably have an income or reserves where it's no longer a serious cost factor and can be delegated even if that is a little less efficient.
A feature that is intended / expected to be delegated completely should be canceled before it's even implemented because it's pointless.
Any game mechanic that the player doesn't interact with is pointless.

McDuff wrote:How would you model "only these ships need maintenance"?

They are the ones that get into serious fighting.
If your factory trader is down to 97% efficiency that's no reason for an emergency visit at the nearest shipyard.

McDuff wrote:How does this apply to the NPCs?

I expect that the AI will do a reasonable good show of pretending to do actual ship maintenance.
Whether they actually go through the moves or skip some intermediate steps probably depends on whether the player is watching or not.

My favorite thing about LT is that it is a space simulator. I know it still counts as a game, but the idea of 'simulator' in my minds seems to portray that as little compromise on the games part as possible will be made for the player's convenience.

In that, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of being stranded. No, I wouldn't like it to happen often, but I'm sure people would be more than willing to carry a few containers of extra fuel in order to prevent such an event.

I would say some ships should have solar based energy generators on them that allow them to keep up other functions, like shield, or rescue beacons active, along with the use of small escape pods, or the like. So the player wouldn't truly be stuck. They could send out a signal, get assistance, or use an escape pod, to navigate back to a station and then commission a towing vessel.

Do I think these should be the only mechanics? No. But I think they should be optional.

Also, speaking of which, when you die, if you lose your ship, and it's the only one you've got, and you don't have enough money for another, how will you get back out into space? Is there a way to earn money on surface? Or even more interesting, is there a way to take on a mission, that comes with a basic vessel that is appropriate for that mission, and pay off that vessel by doing that mission?

I just feel like the concept of 'stranded' can happen just as much on planet as off.

Monetary cost for a gameplay mechanic like maintenance is just a fake argument.

As Flat and me and others have pointed out before:

Underneath the game is an economics simulator. The factions, the stories, the missions, the equipment you put on your ships, the living, breathing, background action in the universe, comes out of an economics simulator.

Now, remind me again why "it costs money" is somehow "fake" in a game where that is true?

Any game mechanic that the player doesn't interact with is pointless.

Many game mechanics won't be interacted with by many players. Players who fly around in one or two ships will never use the formation designers or the project/pipeline-management. Some players will probably fire a couple of mining probes at an asteroid once then forget about it.

As with other things, the point of saying "you can automate it" doesn't mean "you won't interact with it at all." If you're in charge of a big ol' faction, it is of course very important that your hulking fleet of crusty transports is sucking money out of the corporate bank account because they cost too much to maintain, are fuel inefficient, and too big for the runs you do. It's a powerful incentive to junk those and get yourself some ships that are better suited for the job. That you can manage that at a macro level, or go and buy them yourself if you really want to, isn't saying "the player won't interact with this mechanic." It's saying that the player doesn't have to micromanage at every level during their interaction with that mechanic. There's a difference.

Usefully, that process also creates demand in the system for all those other factions that make ships and the materials that go into ships. Which is good because see prior point about the economics sim that fundamentally, even if you never go near it as a player, is what makes all the missions and stories and stuff fun, or not, depending on its level of complexity.

I presume you don't want to be doing ore-runs for the whole game?

If your factory trader is down to 97% efficiency that's no reason for an emergency visit at the nearest shipyard.

Er... Fighting is hardly the only thing people will do in this game. It's not Tie Fighter.