Oolite Bulletins

Sendraks wrote:

I think starting with the core ships and trying to apply a consistent design formula to these, taking into account their size and attributes is a good place to start. Then from this coming up with a set of guidelines for ship design so people have a feel for what constitutes "cutting edge" for any given attribute.

This is a good and sensible aim, and I think the only one we can expect. One person's "uber" is another person's "just enough", and we're never going to be able to (or, I hope, want to) stop someone making a tiny, lightning-fast ship covered in shields and energy banks with a cargo hold the size of a small planet and armed with three (count 'em) of Commander McLane's Killit™ OMGWTFBBQ weapons ... But for the more small-c conservative ship designer, a few rules of thumb and generally agreed-upon concepts might be welcome.

Disembodied wrote:

... and armed with three (count 'em) of Commander McLane's Killit™ OMGWTFBBQ weapons ...

The missile icons of these would overlap nastily, though.

Another way of looking at uber ships, using an F1 analogy.

F1 cars go fast, but they are expensive - not only to buy but also to maintain.

In Oolite, is there control over maintenance fees? Could an uber ship actually be too expensive to maintain? Or maybe an uber ship could be thought of as a holiday?

e.g. on a standard trading run (say computers from RI to PA) it can generate 40CR per tonne, but that profit eventually gets eaten up by maintenance.

If I remember correctly, the maintenance fee is a percentage (10%?) of the ship's value, so yes, an expensive ship is expensive to service.

There was a discussion a while back about varying fuel consumption and/or and running costs depending on the ship. There are some good ideas here.

While it's true that maintenance costs increase with the value of a ship, you don't have to do a service very often and I don't think you really get a sense that you're running an expensive ship. If general equipment repairs were more expensive that could make things a little more challenging.

To follow from the F1 analogy, one of my favourite games is Need for Speed: High Stakes (still good fun after 11 years!). When you start buying top end cars like the McLaren F1, everything's great when you're winning but quickly you realise that even simple repairs can cost a fortune. Unless you have a lot of cash in reserve, you'll often find yourself having to enter races with a partially-damaged car. This can cause a bit of a vicious spiral as you try doing four laps of a rough track course with no suspension, or attempting a night race when you're unable to afford a working set of headlights. Eventually you can end up having to downsize and do a part exchange for a lower-value car.

So both maintenance overhauls and repairs of damaged equipment should actually be variable (the former already seems to be if it is a percentage of the ship price).

In fact, equipment prices (which include labour costs) should change based on ship as well. It is probably much more difficult to exchange the laser of a technologically very advanced ship than of e.g. an Adder. Also, the the maintenance shop guys will have Cr signs in their eyes when someone with a 800k ship comes along and probably charge premium prices.

Not really.
Considering the cars analogy.

Those types of cars that are still around from the 60's and beyond are generally those that were easy to maintain in the fist place, had a long production run and gained a 'fanbase'.
like renault 2cv's and VW beetles.
High end vehicles mean non-standard parts that get superceded quickly.
...old vehicles that were popular and reliable have piles of cheap spareparts, even if they were custom made for just that model. While that fresh from design boyracer model with the latest quirium injector technology will struggle with availablility of that part should it turn out to wear out quickly.

Varying upkeep according to mass (as opposed to hullprice) would be fine, even an additional reliability or 'specialist dealer' surcharge in individual ship-data could work.

p.s. This topic crosses over with variable equipment pricing suggestions.
(Which could be added in an OXP with duplicate copies of eq allowed only to those ships, IMHO.)

That is what I meant: Repairs and enhancements of the Cobra Mk3 (the VW Beetle) should be significantly less expensive then repairs and enhancement for e.g. an Imperial Courier (the Jaguar) or Vortex (the Ferrari Truck).

The point of this would be to help balance the game, not to reflect reality (although in this case it can be argued that this would do both). Perhaps it could be possible to introduce a ship variable that affected the cost of equipment (including maintenance)? If it's undefined it would remain unchanged, i.e. the same as for a Cobra III, but it could allow ship designers to balance out their creations (a bit) by making high-performance ships expensive to equip and maintain, and low-end ships cheaper.

It would help personalise ships, too: people could feel justified in sticking to e.g. a Python, instead of upgrading to a Boa. "The Python's a reliable old boat, cheap and easy to run. Sure, the Boa has its points, but it's a money-pit," etc.

Disembodied wrote:

The point of this would be to help balance the game, not to reflect reality (although in this case it can be argued that this would do both). Perhaps it could be possible to introduce a ship variable that affected the cost of equipment (including maintenance)? If it's undefined it would remain unchanged, i.e. the same as for a Cobra III, but it could allow ship designers to balance out their creations (a bit) by making high-performance ships expensive to equip and maintain, and low-end ships cheaper.

It would help personalise ships, too: people could feel justified in sticking to e.g. a Python, instead of upgrading to a Boa. "The Python's a reliable old boat, cheap and easy to run. Sure, the Boa has its points, but it's a money-pit," etc.

+1

indeed.

Though I'd not compare the C3 to a beetle... that would be the Adder... outdated but loved, ubiquitous and easy to maintain.

The C3 is more like a reliable fourdoor sedan... with optional stationwagon extension. :p


(I haven't got enough car interest to be able to name any more recent superbly average cars)

A Volvo stationwagon?
I guess a python should really be a small truck, like the ones package delivery services run.
And a Boa one of those landtrains, like they haul downunder.

could we also have a "specialist/high performance" station type where the cost would be slightly cheaper for uber ships, but slightly more for run-of-the-mill ones? like taking your mini metro to a Ferrari garage for a service?

Killer Wolf wrote:

could we also have a "specialist/high performance" station type where the cost would be slightly cheaper for uber ships, but slightly more for run-of-the-mill ones? like taking your mini metro to a Ferrari garage for a service?

I think anything like that would be expensive for everyone. Does Ferrari do cheap anything? See this, for example: €68 for a bathrobe? A bathrobe that's supposedly on sale? I shudder to think how much you'd have to pay for a Zorgon Petterson Group towel ...

The problem isn't that cost of the maintenance is too low. The problems are two:
1) Credits are EASY to come by in Oolite.
2) Uber-ships in Oolite are the equivalent of a Mclaren F1 that seats 35 people.

I've said it before, trading in Oolite fiction is a barely-scrape-by existence. But Oolite-Gameplay, trading is the road to riches. You want a new Uber-ship? Just go do some milk-runs, or a few cargo contracts. Look - It's raining money! Think about it- with as easy as it is to get credits via milk-runs, why would ANYONE turn to piracy?

The other end of the problem is everyone wants/builds ships with the cargo capacity of a C-130, the maneuverability of an F-22, and the armaments of an A-10 Warthog. If you get low on credits, you take your F1 out and do milk runs. Tell me, is someone going to use their F1 in RL to deliver pizzas for some extra cash?

Yes, there are all sorts of handwavium explanations / justifications. And I'm not even saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that bumping the cost of maintenance isn't going to make any appreciable difference until other underlying issues are addressed.

maik wrote:

Vortex (the Ferrari Truck).

The ship is now defined