Oolite Bulletins

Smivs wrote:

<nods> 0.5LY only?

Yep! That is the only way I've been able to justify using it (I butchered the OXP) - 0.5ly, only available when the main tank is at 0.5ly or less.

Fuel tanks OXP discussion aside, I think we all agree that the proposal is excellent.

Zireael wrote:

Fuel tanks OXP discussion aside, I think we all agree that the proposal is excellent.

A message I had posted didn't seem to take, but when I saw this I figured I could just say, "ditto"

mossfoot wrote:

Zireael wrote:

Fuel tanks OXP discussion aside, I think we all agree that the proposal is excellent.

A message I had posted didn't seem to take, but when I saw this I figured I could just say, "ditto"

Yes I'd like to see this tested at least, I think the idea has a lot of potential.

I really like the idea of maintenance life for equipment - once a piece has been damaged more than three or four times introduce the probability of random permanent failure. This maybe could affect/set equipment resale price too.

I LOVE the idea of being able to improve your ship's speed/maneuverability as a trade-off for equipment space as well. The whole equipment space thing has such potential for really feeling like you're "building" your ship, while not necessarily interfering with cargo.

Earlier it was mentioned that showing equipment externally would be a ship designer's nightmare (fair enough) but I could float the idea again of a 2-D version of a ship's layout that would be seen on the equipment screen, that could show equipment space being used?

mossfoot wrote:

Earlier it was mentioned that showing equipment externally would be a ship designer's nightmare (fair enough) but I could float the idea again of a 2-D version of a ship's layout that would be seen on the equipment screen, that could show equipment space being used?

You mean like a graph? When we're at it, same graph thingy could be made for cargo, too.

mossfoot wrote:

Earlier it was mentioned that showing equipment externally would be a ship designer's nightmare (fair enough) but I could float the idea again of a 2-D version of a ship's layout that would be seen on the equipment screen, that could show equipment space being used?

I got the impression that a 2D representation was what was being suggested.. and even that would be a headache, I suspect.

I honestly can't see how this would work. To achieve this you would need what amounts to an internal schematic of every single player-buyable ship.

Zireael wrote:

mossfoot wrote:

Earlier it was mentioned that showing equipment externally would be a ship designer's nightmare (fair enough) but I could float the idea again of a 2-D version of a ship's layout that would be seen on the equipment screen, that could show equipment space being used?

You mean like a graph? When we're at it, same graph thingy could be made for cargo, too.

Yeah, that would work. Perhaps start with a generic ship graphic that does not apply to any specific ship. Eventually build to specific layouts for each ship type as time allows.

Or, a possible in-between, have a generic "fighter" layout (based on a mamba like triangle), a generic "fighter-trader" layout (based on a Cobra MKIII natch) and generic "trader" layout (based on a Boa or Python).

Stormrider wrote:

I really like the idea of maintenance life for equipment - once a piece has been damaged more than three or four times introduce the probability of random permanent failure. This maybe could affect/set equipment resale price too.

Too much randomness can be a bad thing ... I wouldn't want things to just fail out of the blue. But there could be a point beyond which something can't be repaired again, i.e. next time this piece of kit gets hit, it's not damaged but destroyed.

Disembodied wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

I really like the idea of maintenance life for equipment - once a piece has been damaged more than three or four times introduce the probability of random permanent failure. This maybe could affect/set equipment resale price too.

Too much randomness can be a bad thing ... I wouldn't want things to just fail out of the blue. But there could be a point beyond which something can't be repaired again, i.e. next time this piece of kit gets hit, it's not damaged but destroyed.

That would probably make more sense and be simpler.

I was thinking of a pie chart or a linear graph, but a generic "Mamba-type", "Cobra-type" and "Boa-type" pic would work too.

mossfoot wrote:

but I could float the idea again of a 2-D version of a ship's layout that would be seen on the equipment screen, that could show equipment space being used?

The current GUI code really isn't suited to this sort of thing. A better GUI has been on the list for years, but really needs someone with both time and some experience of GUI framework programming.

In the meantime, why not OXP it? (Everything you need to do so is in Oolite already and has already been demonstrated - though not all at once - in other OXPs)

cim wrote:

It's perhaps better to think of "equipment space" in terms of not just physical space, but also all the power couplings, circuit fuses, coolant pipes, cabling, ventilation, access panels, voids or ballast needed to avoid messing up the handling, internal armour so if your injectors get shot out while you're using them the explosion doesn't take out half your ship, etc. ... which we abstract to a single number for gameplay purposes because it's the job of the mechanics in the shipyard to worry about that, not the pilot. So if you want for game balance to make something take up more or less space than it might plausibly physically need, there's plenty of room to handwave it.

I did have an idea a couple of years ago about doing this by assigning each ship a hull-type as a non destructable piece of equipment.

Each piece of conventional equipment could then list a hull type as a dependency in order for it to be purchasable. e.g. ore processor on an adder? Sorry, the adder has a small, low-tech hull, the OP requires a larger one.

That also opens up the posibility of different version for different hull types. e.g the extra energy unit doesn't function as an extra energy bank, so it could be handwaved that for larger vessels a more expensive unit is required in order to achieve the same results.

I ditched the idea about the time 'requires cargo space' property began working properly because tweaking with that seemed like less work...

Pleb wrote:

So changing the distances that the player can jump does affect the game considerably...

Well yes, a 3LY limit looks highly restictive but I'm not sure the same could be said of the 6LY one. The point of reducing it would be not be to hamstring them but to enable the galaxy to open up just a little more when they get a more capable ship/witchdrive (and to increase variability among ship performance). The Diso/Leesti trade route for example isn't very far from Lave... and then there's always wormhole jumping

As a general point here (or at least an opinion), I think it's easy to forget that complexity isn't a virtue when it comes to playing a game but flavour is.
Making the ships feel very different from one other adds flavour but if the cost is too great in terms of complexity then the benefit can get buried under mental bookeeping. Choice can be a both a wonderful and (sometimes) a terrible thing.

One man's complexity is another man's trife of course (er, or something like that...) but in the best games (IMO) flavour stands right out in front.

cim wrote:

... which we abstract to a single number for gameplay purposes because it's the job of the mechanics in the shipyard to worry about that, not the pilot.

That sounds about right to me.
If it's a consideration for the pilot then that can be fun, that adds flavour; but once you have to get the calculator out it can get very old, very quick.

Stormrider wrote:

I really like the idea of maintenance life for equipment - once a piece has been damaged more than three or four times introduce the probability of random permanent failure. This maybe could affect/set equipment resale price too.

I think it would add a bit of realism, and also make it more 'interesting ' if it's a high end unit and you're out in the boonies away from any high tec planets.

It would need to be after 9 times for the ship's cat