2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Details about updates to Shores of Hazeron

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby gnomical » Mon May 14, 2018 7:50 pm

Haxus wrote:Any suggestion for how much to reduce the material requirement by? 50%?

Using the current build time calculation...
Macross, one of the largest ships in the database right now, is estimated at 17 days 10 hours.
Atlantis is estimated at 2 days, 15 hours.
Ba-xtho'-ga MK0 is estimated at 11 hours, 15 minutes.
Dulcinée is estimated at 1 hours, 24 minutes.

Is a change required at all? Those ships that took 40 days to build are no longer a factor.


The main concern I had was, with the previously suggested low limits, a city can only produce so many materials. Getting the 10 million metal to even start the work on the ship would take time of it's own. With a 200 building limit however, coupled with up to 65k processes and a nice and generous population limit I am not convinced it will be as much of an issue. It was mainly as a compromise for really tight limits, but with these generous new proposed limits I think it will work. Would require some testing. As for actual ship production time, it seems to be pretty ok, although I have no experience as most of my ships are rather small and only take a few hours to actually produce after resources are gathered.

I was thinking though, perhaps requiring / allowing more workers for larger spacecraft might make sense. 1 person making a shuttle craft (such as the Warbler I recently published) sorta makes sense. But that same guy making a huge kilometer long battleship.. wow Frederick the dockworker is the single most productive citizen in my empire. Maybe something relating scale and workers required, allowing 1 worker to be used and increasing the time, allowing multiple workers to decrease the time? I don't know, just something I thought of. Since population limits will be more generous, having a ship take more people would be a good thing. After all, it's one of the largest and most important works a city can produce.

Haxus wrote:That does make sense, to require modules instead of individual parts.
  • The number of each kind of module needed to build a system would be based on the size of the system, similar to individual parts.
  • Spacecraft damage would be measured in whole modules and repaired using whole modules. A small amount of damage to a few systems might be very costly to repair.
  • Instead of replacing a burned out dilithium crystal...er...lumenite, you would need the appropriate FTL drive module. This eliminates the possibility of acquiring the parts from the environment or from a low tech civilization.
  • Players would manufacture modules early on, instead of only when they wanted to upgrade a system.
  • Modules would have more use than just upgrading systems.
  • Module patents would no longer be a requirement to build spacecraft, just the modules. You could get a load of modules from someone else, without them having to give up the technology to make them.
  • Manual remove and replace would work in whole modules, not individual parts.
I am in favor of the idea, pending an opportunity for others to comment.


This is very interesting. I like the idea of this, however I have a few thoughts on it. My ships often get a scratch from weather/the environment. Meteors, acid, etc. It all deals a pretty small amount of damage compared to my entire armour, and typically only costs dozens, perhaps hundreds of metal to repair. If we are switching to having hull modules be damaged, this would mean that damage would cost 10,000 metal to repair immediately, assuming that the worst of staying in a acid environment for 10 minutes (usually costs a few hundred metal to repair) only causes one damaged hull module. More damage would become even more expensive. You mentioned this, which is glad to see it's already been considered. Perhaps the easiest would be decreasing the material costs of each module, and just having the number of modules required be something deemed reasonable, such that losing one module to weather isn't a huge loss.

Would modules still be solely built at the airport repair shop? People would most likely plop down multiple repair shops if that is the case, to speed up production. Although they could also use multiple processes, assuming repair shops allow multiple processes in the new style, which is a change from old style. I have not used a new style repair shop yet so I am not certain on this.

Overall I am highly supportive of this idea. Another plus is I wouldn't need to have huge warehouses capable of storing millions and millions of materials, when smaller warehouses to store thousands of modules will be sufficient.
gnomical
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby AnrDaemon » Mon May 14, 2018 8:25 pm

Haxus wrote:That does make sense, to require modules instead of individual parts.
  • The number of each kind of module needed to build a system would be based on the size of the system, similar to individual parts.
  • Spacecraft damage would be measured in whole modules and repaired using whole modules. A small amount of damage to a few systems might be very costly to repair.
  • Instead of replacing a burned out dilithium crystal...er...lumenite, you would need the appropriate FTL drive module. This eliminates the possibility of acquiring the parts from the environment or from a low tech civilization.
  • Players would manufacture modules early on, instead of only when they wanted to upgrade a system.
  • Modules would have more use than just upgrading systems.
  • Module patents would no longer be a requirement to build spacecraft, just the modules. You could get a load of modules from someone else, without them having to give up the technology to make them.
  • Manual remove and replace would work in whole modules, not individual parts.
I am in favor of the idea, pending an opportunity for others to comment.

I've been suggesting exactly that for the last five years… >.>
A note for manual replacing of subsystem types: Player apply one subsystem module. If ship cargo contains enough of the same module type, the system is fully installed and go into repair mode.
If cargo is not sufficient, the system is installed, but in damaged and inoperable state, pending repairs.
Yak. Yak never changes.
AnrDaemon
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby pizzasgood » Mon May 14, 2018 9:33 pm

gnomical wrote:The main concern I had was, with the previously suggested low limits, a city can only produce so many materials. Getting the 10 million metal to even start the work on the ship would take time of it's own.

I don't understand why you expect a single city to do that. Do you not have an empire full of mines and factories to share the burden?
Adapt or die.
User avatar
pizzasgood
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:50 am
Location: Space

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby Deantwo » Tue May 15, 2018 12:42 am

AnrDaemon wrote:
Haxus wrote:That does make sense, to require modules instead of individual parts.
  • The number of each kind of module needed to build a system would be based on the size of the system, similar to individual parts.
  • Spacecraft damage would be measured in whole modules and repaired using whole modules. A small amount of damage to a few systems might be very costly to repair.
  • Instead of replacing a burned out dilithium crystal...er...lumenite, you would need the appropriate FTL drive module. This eliminates the possibility of acquiring the parts from the environment or from a low tech civilization.
  • Players would manufacture modules early on, instead of only when they wanted to upgrade a system.
  • Modules would have more use than just upgrading systems.
  • Module patents would no longer be a requirement to build spacecraft, just the modules. You could get a load of modules from someone else, without them having to give up the technology to make them.
  • Manual remove and replace would work in whole modules, not individual parts.
I am in favor of the idea, pending an opportunity for others to comment.

I've been suggesting exactly that for the last five years… >.>
A note for manual replacing of subsystem types: Player apply one subsystem module. If ship cargo contains enough of the same module type, the system is fully installed and go into repair mode.
If cargo is not sufficient, the system is installed, but in damaged and inoperable state, pending repairs.

If you want to simply use the current modules as spacecraft parts/components, then I would suggest the module manufacturing cost should be lowered. Maybe one module would match a 1m³ or 10m³ volume.
As Anr mentioned it would be simple to have a system just be damaged when swapping to a module type that you don't have enough module items for.
See: (Thread) Spacecraft Upgrade Module Change

can we rename the "modules items" to "parts" maybe?
See: (Thread) Modules Modules: Which kind?
And: (Thread) FTL Drive Module Name

pizzasgood wrote:
gnomical wrote:The main concern I had was, with the previously suggested low limits, a city can only produce so many materials. Getting the 10 million metal to even start the work on the ship would take time of it's own.

I don't understand why you expect a single city to do that. Do you not have an empire full of mines and factories to share the burden?

That is what the main argument in Discord was too. Wanting to make giant spacecraft without making many cities.
I still don't see the issue with giant spacecraft requiring some actual work to make. Sounds mostly like a lazy player issue.
Last edited by Deantwo on Tue May 15, 2018 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
AnrDaemon is the solution to the [s]Fermi Paradox[/s] Hazeron suggestion flood problem, the great suggestion filter.
User avatar
Deantwo
 
Posts: 5162
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:38 am
Location: Rævehale

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby Vectorus » Tue May 15, 2018 2:54 am

Is a change required at all? Those ships that took 40 days to build are no longer a factor.


This is not quite true, Haxus. A lot of the largest ships were deleted because they were too detailed or had overlapping parts, but they could easily exist again in pure volume. I've just put together a max size, Q255 cube in the designer, with reasonable internal systems. The design is valid: it takes 63 days, 2 hours, 23 minutes and 3 seconds to build. For reference, that is what many Q255 or near-Q255 ships will take in the future, since people will always maximize volume somehow.

I haven't thought much about concrete times yet. A reduction of 50% would more or less let someone build any ship they wanted within the time of one subscription, assuming they joined an established empire, did their design work beforehand and there were materials in the vault. In practice, that will almost never happen, but it does mean that every ship theoretically costs the same in real-world money, which is a kind of benchmark - how important a benchmark it is, I don't know. Maybe not at all.I anticipate that most of those 60 day ships, with a 50% reduction, would still take 40+ days overall for a less-than-obsessive empire. Considering the time it takes for an empire to set up shop in the first place, this is not super-fast progression compared to other MMOs.

For me, faster times are more important in the mid-range than in the giant-range. Waiting a week and waiting three days feels very different for most people; and even casual players are likely to have designs in that range. If the curve became slightly steeper after that, I wouldn't object. I'm also not against slow gathering of resources. That takes effort and can be mitigated by good planning. More generous population limits are already helping a lot, there - it was the tiny ones you first proposed that worried me. But pure wait times are just: nothing. If there were a way to decouple those two mechanics, I think that would be best: perhaps set a hard limit on production process time, as you did with recall time?

Deantwo wrote:Soundly mostly like a lazy player issue.

Dean, I'm sorry, but I really can't see why you keep using this insult. It seems a little uncalled for to me,when no one else here is criticizing another's playstyle. You've seen gnomical's pictures and mine many times; you know we're not lazy, either in designing or empire-building. But there is dedication and there is grinding. Just as you prefer not to spend too much time in the ship designer, we prefer not to spend too much time planet-hopping. If I forced you to design dozens of nearly-similar ships as your bread-and-butter of the game, you'd find Hazeron grindy - I wouldn't call you lazy for doing so. That is what building many small cities is for some other people. Let's have a game that's grindy for neither of us, then we can spend our time having fun together.

Moreover, it is the wait times for ships that I originally questioned. Waiting two months is not a matter of energy or laziness; it's a question of waiting two months and paying $20. You can't do anything to speed it up. Haxus is choosing to attack the problem through material cost, which will indeed result in a bit less effort for big ships, but that was not my choice. I think it's a fine start.
Last edited by Vectorus on Tue May 15, 2018 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vectorus
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:21 am

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby Vectorus » Tue May 15, 2018 3:03 am

The module idea makes sense in a lot of ways. Battle repairs might need to be reworked, though. If you didn't have the right module handy, or it was higher than you C&C Q, you might be unable to put out a fire or patch a hull-hole! Perhaps a generic repair module could bring certain "lower-tech" systems back up to x% health; e.g. hull, sublight engines and other "critical damage" components. Essentially a spacecraft medkit, but less effective.
User avatar
Vectorus
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:21 am

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby Deantwo » Tue May 15, 2018 4:06 am

Vectorus wrote:The module idea makes sense in a lot of ways. Battle repairs might need to be reworked, though. If you didn't have the right module handy, or it was higher than you C&C Q, you might be unable to put out a fire or patch a hull-hole! Perhaps a generic repair module could bring certain "lower-tech" systems back up to x% health; e.g. hull, sublight engines and other "critical damage" components. Essentially a spacecraft medkit, but less effective.

The quality of the components used in manual repairs don't currently affect the spacecraft at all. You can repair with quality 1 metal if you want. Maybe this should be changed while we are at it.

Rather than add a minimum required quality for components used in repairs, make using lower quality components lower the quality of the spacecraft system being repaired.
For example; if you repair the weapon system of your high-tech warship with low quality components, the quality of your weapon system will decrease. If you then fly back to your high-tech shipyard and repair/refit there, the quality of the weapon system with go up to the high-tech level again, at the cost of some high quality components of course.

This has some issues though, some spacecraft systems will make the design invalid if the quality is lowered. But that just again makes me voice my desire to have quality and technology separated. Let quality define the system's condition.
I am still rather against the SpacecraftQL, would much rather just have more advanced versions of modules. For example; Magumium hull module could add more volume to the design than metal hull module.
AnrDaemon is the solution to the [s]Fermi Paradox[/s] Hazeron suggestion flood problem, the great suggestion filter.
User avatar
Deantwo
 
Posts: 5162
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:38 am
Location: Rævehale

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby AnrDaemon » Tue May 15, 2018 5:12 am

Vectorus wrote:
Deantwo wrote:Soundly mostly like a lazy player issue.

Dean, I'm sorry, but I really can't see why you keep using this insult.

It's not an insult, it's a characteristic of the behavior.
If you want to be able to play exploration game sitting in a single system, you chose a wrong game.
Yak. Yak never changes.
AnrDaemon
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby Vectorus » Tue May 15, 2018 6:31 am

AnrDaemon wrote:If you want to be able to play exploration game sitting in a single system, you chose a wrong game.


-"Single system" is an unjustifiable exaggeration. The variety of resources and their scarcity at high qualities provides a strong impulse to expand. I don't think there need to be additional arbitrary limits on top of this. You already need a few dozen systems to build and equip good ships. Doing the same activity (building) on 40 planets or doing it on 200 is not the difference between laziness and dedication, I think.

- Exploration is one thing; colonizing is another. I explore hundreds of systems and enjoy it. Sometimes I stop and have fun with the wildlife, plop down interesting buildings, fight pirates etc. I always will, however many cities I need. On the other hand, I colonize only a handful of those for necessary resources, and it's not my favourite activity. No one is suggesting "sitting in a single system". They are only suggesting not banging your head against the same wall in every system. In an exploration game, the meat of the exploration should be fun, and its own reward. The "journey to the centre of the galaxy" mission several universes ago was a great example. It had no practical purpose, but it was a wonderful use of Hazeron's mechanics.

- "Laziness" is an insult, I'm afraid. Saying that someone plays the game in an unintended way, and should revise their approach to it - as you yourself are saying to me - is not.
User avatar
Vectorus
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:21 am

Re: 2018-05-11 Blueprint Validation Changes

Postby AnrDaemon » Tue May 15, 2018 8:43 am

They are not arbitrary. They are quite direct and obvious. You want to build a big ship you don't really need. You just WANT it. So, the game allows you to build it. Does not mean it should be easy to gather materials or fast to build it.
Having short building times on big ships naturally reduce building times on smaller ships, just out of overall consistency.
Yak. Yak never changes.
AnrDaemon
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Updates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron