Below the discussion on PR#1853 so far, please continue here.
Vezzra wrote:The 50/75 % max structure caps for the Damage Control techs don't make much sense to me. After all, these are supposed to be a ships capabilities to repair itself, without outer help. You'd expect minor damages to be repaired most easily... why would a ship be able to repair almost critical damage, but not be able to repair some minor scratches? Not going for realism here, it's just very counter-intuitive.
If anything, I'd do it just the other way round: no repair if damage *exceeds* 50/75 %. That makes much more sense to me...
Have some strong reservations about that. Having to be in supply is what sets the Fleet Repair techs apart from the Damage Control techs. It's their unique characteristic.dbenage-cx wrote:Advanced Field Repair [...] allows repair outside of supply
Dropping that requirement makes Advanced Fleet Repair more like another level of Advanced Damage Control, and IMO much too powerful, even more so considering that Advanced Fleet Repair and Advanced Damage Control stack.
MatGB wrote:I have zero problem with the idea of advanced field repair being used out of supply, I completely reworked that tech and absorbed it into the main damage control tree ages ago and it was fairly useless before.
But Vezzra's put his finger on my problem with the %age thing, from a pure balance perspective it sort of makes sense but from any sort of actually playing/realistic expectation sense it's confusing. I can justify it: you can't fully repair a ship unless you go to a dock but you can bolt on extra plates and cover holes, but I'm not sure I get the why. If we're fairly strongly limiting repair of badly damaged ships then it's encouraging a return to drydock anyway.
Dilvish-fo wrote:Hmm, I have mixed thoughts on that-- you could think of it as dropping in a new engine or welding on new hull plates, but the welds won't be as strong as the original, and any non-replaced structures will still have microfractures accumulating, etc. Have you ever crashed a car and then had it repaired back to 100%? I think not In at least some ways I like the idea of having a cap on how much a ship can be repaired, but I could also imagine it might just wind up seeming more like a complicated nuisance.Vezzra wrote:why would a ship be able to repair almost critical damage, but not be able to repair some minor scratches
Vezzra wrote:Well, I do, particularly from a fluff explanation POV - if you want an even more effective repair tech that works out of supply, just add another Damage Control tech refinement (or even replace Advanced Fleet Repair with that, of you don't want to have both). But don't make a tech that in essence is an even more advanced Damage Control tech and label it as Fleet Repair. That's very counter-intuitive IMO.MatGB wrote:I have zero problem with the idea of advanced field repair being used out of supply
That said, from a balance perspective I'd still prefer an Advanced Fleet Repair tech that requires to be in supply. It just makes sense that you can provide better repair within supply than out of it, like it makes sense that you can provide better repair at drydocks than out in the field.
The more severe the restrictions/requirements are to gain a certain level of repair, the better that level of repair should be:
* out of supply -> no requirements, works everywhere -> least amount of repair
* within supply -> moderate requirement, doesn't work everywhere, but still way better than have to return to a special location -> medium amount of repair
* drydock -> strict requirement, only works at special locations -> highest amount of repair
IMO we could make refinement techs for all these "levels of requirements", so you can improve the repair rate for strictly self repair (out of supply), supply aided repair (within supply) and repairs at drydocks (as even drydocks don't necessarily repair all damage immediately now).
I'm well aware that finding a proper fluff explanation isn't the problem here, although, if you want to go down that specific road to justify it, I could probably think of a couple of things why that still doesn't make sense (I mean, come on, we can, however slowly and painstakingly, do repairs on a ship that is at 1% structure, meaning, at the point of falling apart, and, given enough time, get back to 50 or even 75% structure, but if just a single armor plate gets blown off in the last combat, we can't replace it???).Dilvish-fo wrote:you could think of it as dropping in a new engine or welding on new hull plates, but the welds won't be as strong as the original, and any non-replaced structures will still have microfractures accumulating, etc.
My main issue is it's counter-intuitive. As a player I expect a basic damage control tech to be able to deal with minor damage best/fastest, and becoming increasingly ineffective/useless with more serious damage.
Or, to phrase it the other way round, having to resort to repair methods that are more difficult to provide (be it by having to return to a drydock, or researching more advanced repair techs) when having to deal with more serious damage.
That's simple, straightforward and intuitive. Probably not realistic, I certainly give you that - in reality, for a really complete repair, especially after suffering severe damage, you'd have to go to a drydock.
But from a gameplay perspective, I don't see the fun in this. As a player I'd find that mostly annoying, having to send my ships around to get minor damage repaired. Ugh...
The only way how that could be interesting in my eyes would be if making that cap dependent on how much damage a ship has suffered since the last visit to a drydock. E.g. you could say Damage Control techs can only repair up to double the amount of the lowest structure the ship has had since it has last been at a drydock.In at least some ways I like the idea of having a cap on how much a ship can be repaired
Of course, that would make the whole repair mechanics more complicated. You'd have to keep track of that "structural low point", which would only get reset to max structure at a drydock.
I have to admit I actually like that idea, but I really wonder if that wouldn't make repair too detailed and complicated. Not really KISS anymore.
Yeah, pretty much this.but I could also imagine it might just wind up seeming more like a complicated nuisance.
Geoff the Medio wrote:To me, whether a ship has a limit to how much it can be repaired in various situations seems like it would be a hull-line-dependent feature.
Vezzra wrote:That's certainly an interesting idea, I like it. Would add another thing by which we can distinguish the hull lines. Maybe even have hull line specific repair techs (I mean, it would make sense that there are certain repair techniques that work particularly well on asteroid hulls, but not at all on organic hulls, and vice versa).Geoff the Medio wrote:To me, whether a ship has a limit to how much it can be repaired in various situations seems like it would be a hull-line-dependent feature.
dbenage-cx wrote:I pushed some changes I had been testing along with consistent naming. I am open to any proposed changes (still parsing the discussion), but the improved descriptions may help clarify the division.
My intention towards the normal damage control techs were for those temporary repairs done to keep a ship still functional, with the objective of those repairs to return for full repair. e.g. the ship crew does not include dedicated maintenance staff. Such definition might couple better if there were side-effects for ships with low structure (reduced movement / erratic behavior).
I will remove the cap on these techs, they were intended to satisfy 'do not fully repair'.
The self repair techs were for more proper repairs when a drydock is not available, and requiring the ship be stationary. I added supply requirement to advanced field repair. Out of supply repairs seem like a good candidate for a part effect.