Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#47
I'm sorry if this seems to be a novice idea, but couldn't you just have repair the same as construction? You can use drones to repair damage, the more drones you have/the more advanced drones change the speed of the repairs completion (I suggest you need quite a few/a lot of drones to have fast enough repairs which could introduce the idea of repair ships (which could again introduce a type of occupation for the player as a wandering repair service) and similar to construction you would need some required resources to actually repair the damage done on the ship.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#48
That is actually not a bad idea... Repair drones are just construction drones not currently building anything.

Thinking out some consequences,

ships carry construction drones with them, this allows them to self repair on the fly, but the ability is limited to their on board resources and quality of the drones. Because smaller ships have smaller cargo holds, they have a harder time repairing themselves. It would be a judgment call for how much to allocate for self repair / construction ability.

rather than returning to a ship yard, a fleet can drag along a ship filled with construction drones and materials, and it becomes a sort of medic/ on the fly engineering heart... A valuable target indeed.

Station hearts could carry a small army of these, and when construction is over, they simply become the maintenance crew for the station and those who dock there without changing anything.

Breaking the repair shop / construction barrier means that even a tiny fighter with a single repair drone could conceivably build a defense perimeter or a jump gate or a capital ship... If it had the time, resources, and a capable enough drone...
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#49
vanyxfate wrote:I'm sorry if this seems to be a novice idea, but couldn't you just have repair the same as construction? You can use drones to repair damage, the more drones you have/the more advanced drones change the speed of the repairs completion (I suggest you need quite a few/a lot of drones to have fast enough repairs which could introduce the idea of repair ships (which could again introduce a type of occupation for the player as a wandering repair service) and similar to construction you would need some required resources to actually repair the damage done on the ship.
What you and Hyperion said makes complete sense to me. If drones are used for construction, it's only logical that they should be used for repair as well.

That being said, I think that drones should only be able to fix "temporary" damage as a kind of field repair measure, whereas you would need to still dock at a station and utilise its more sophisticated repair tools to repair "permanent" damage.

However, this idea has already been raised before.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#50
I don't see why a temporary damage is inherently different from permanent damage. Nor do I see an inherent reason to tie repairs to a stationary object.

a turret needs 5 steel to fix a scratch, req lvl 1 repair drones, 5 steel.
a turret requires a new target computer, req lvl 2 drone, 1 target computer.
an weapons module needs a new turret, req lvl 3 repair drone, 1 turret.
a fighter needs a new weapons module... And up the line

if you make the drones cost more energy to use, the fewer ships can handle them. a fighter can hold a level 3 drone if it wants to , but to use it would take all of its energy.

could you not just make the energy requirements of higher level repair drones grow in an exponential fashion? it is the whole fuzzy cutoff idea...
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#51
Hyperion wrote:I don't see why a temporary damage is inherently different from permanent damage.
Categorise damage into "temporary" and "permanent" varieties so that ships can't always repair all damage on the fly, so they will eventually need to dock at stations to get repairs. This introduces new tactical considerations combat-wise, and opens up new market opportunities.

Make it so that they need to dock at stations to get repaired for pretty much the same reasons as above.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#52
Victor Tombs wrote:
Katawa wrote:Well you can lift a sandbag with an arm or you can lift it with two arms but one of those is hardmode.
Fascinating one liner Katawa. Any chance you can put down your sandbag and be a little less enigmatic with your statement? :)
Choosing to play with one ship in a game designed with fleets and empires in mind would be reasonable to be at a handicap.
woops, my bad, everything & anything actually means specific and conformed
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#53
Katawa wrote:
Victor Tombs wrote:
Katawa wrote:Well you can lift a sandbag with an arm or you can lift it with two arms but one of those is hardmode.
Fascinating one liner Katawa. Any chance you can put down your sandbag and be a little less enigmatic with your statement? :)
Choosing to play with one ship in a game designed with fleets and empires in mind would be reasonable to be at a handicap.
Its designed to work at both levels.
If it wouldnt work when playing as a lone wolf, it would be missing the base premisse of "freelancer 2+"
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#55
ThymineC wrote:
Hyperion wrote:I don't see why a temporary damage is inherently different from permanent damage.
Categorise damage into "temporary" and "permanent" varieties so that ships can't always repair all damage on the fly, so they will eventually need to dock at stations to get repairs. This introduces new tactical considerations combat-wise, and opens up new market opportunities.

Make it so that they need to dock at stations to get repaired for pretty much the same reasons as above.
Why? That doesn't even happen in reality except for when the machinery or resources to do the repairs is too fragile, large, or expensive to bring to the field. Why have an arbitrary category of "station only" repairs... expensive and energy intensive equipment should flow naturally to being primarily in stations, but if you want to drag around a power hog for field repairs, why not? if you really can't though, you should just send your broken modules back to the nearest station that can fix them and simply have a rotation of excess parts, in trains between the field and station...
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#56
Hyperion wrote:
ThymineC wrote:
Hyperion wrote:I don't see why a temporary damage is inherently different from permanent damage.
Categorise damage into "temporary" and "permanent" varieties so that ships can't always repair all damage on the fly, so they will eventually need to dock at stations to get repairs. This introduces new tactical considerations combat-wise, and opens up new market opportunities.

Make it so that they need to dock at stations to get repaired for pretty much the same reasons as above.
Why? That doesn't even happen in reality except for when the machinery or resources to do the repairs is too fragile, large, or expensive to bring to the field. Why have an arbitrary category of "station only" repairs... expensive and energy intensive equipment should flow naturally to being primarily in stations, but if you want to drag around a power hog for field repairs, why not? if you really can't though, you should just send your broken modules back to the nearest station that can fix them and simply have a rotation of excess parts, in trains between the field and station...
Well you said yourself: "That doesn't even happen in reality except for when the machinery or resources to do the repairs is too fragile, large, or expensive to bring to the field."

I'm presuming that stations will be significantly larger than ships, and that the modules required to fully repair ships can't fit on ships but can on stations. I mean, maybe you can say that capitals or something can equip repair modules, but at that point it would significantly change the game dynamics; whereas before it would be impossible for any combat-oriented fleet to operate indefinitely away from stations, now it becomes possible for powerful factions to maintain fleets that never have to return to stations to repair, and I'm not entirely sure if I want that. Not dead opposed to it either, though.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#57
ThymineC wrote:I'm presuming that stations will be significantly larger than ships, and that the modules required to fully repair ships can't fit on ships but can on stations. I mean, maybe you can say that capitals or something can equip repair modules, but at that point it would significantly change the game dynamics; whereas before it would be impossible for any combat-oriented fleet to operate indefinitely away from stations, now it becomes possible for powerful factions to maintain fleets that never have to return to stations to repair, and I'm not entirely sure if I want that. Not dead opposed to it either, though.
Adding a lot of heavy machinery and raw material storage to every capital ship would make them ginormous - because you'd need a repair module to repair the repair module when it gets damaged...
Designing less self-reliant warships would mean you can pack more combat power into a smaller and better protected frame.

If cost and material become truly immaterial to you, it doesn't bloody matter what you do with it because you already rule the universe. =P

And balancing-wise it would be easy to make full self-repair undesirable for every ship.
Just make the modules eat up a lot of mass... which is largely irrelevant on a station but severely degrades the performance of the ship.
On a slowpoke yard/factory ship it's not such a big deal.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#58
Gazz wrote:
ThymineC wrote:I'm presuming that stations will be significantly larger than ships, and that the modules required to fully repair ships can't fit on ships but can on stations. I mean, maybe you can say that capitals or something can equip repair modules, but at that point it would significantly change the game dynamics; whereas before it would be impossible for any combat-oriented fleet to operate indefinitely away from stations, now it becomes possible for powerful factions to maintain fleets that never have to return to stations to repair, and I'm not entirely sure if I want that. Not dead opposed to it either, though.
Adding a lot of heavy machinery and raw material storage to every capital ship would make them ginormous - because you'd need a repair module to repair the repair module when it gets damaged...
Designing less self-reliant warships would mean you can pack more combat power into a smaller and better protected frame.
Would a repair module need to be bigger than the thing it's repairing, by the way?
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#59
ThymineC wrote:Would a repair module need to be bigger than the thing it's repairing, by the way?
Don't think so.
A RL shipyard is not much more than lots of empty space with a few very heavy cranes.
A medium capital ship could have all the bits and pieces and extend a framework of girders to define the "yard space". It's mass would be allocated entirely for machinery and fabbers but physical size is meaningless IMO.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#60
Gazz wrote:
ThymineC wrote:Would a repair module need to be bigger than the thing it's repairing, by the way?
Don't think so.
A RL shipyard is not much more than lots of empty space with a few very heavy cranes.
A medium capital ship could have all the bits and pieces and extend a framework of girders to define the "yard space". It's mass would be allocated entirely for machinery and fabbers but physical size is meaningless IMO.
So couldn't you just have two repair module-equipped capitals in each fleet? Then if either one's repair module gets damaged, the other can repair it. Kinda like playing TF2 with two guys medic'ing you and each other.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron