Subsystem repairing

posted on May 15th, 2011, 10:41 pm

how will trustees help? i dont think a board meeting is a good way to repair engines.

i presume that engines destroyed means thrusters too. short of wasting their air by repeatedly opening airlocks, thats all the engines gone.

by a ship having a disabled subsystem in game, its a lot worse than most disablings in trek. most times anything gets disabled its the main ship (enterprise/defiant etc) and they have plot armour around all the important systems. and can repair faster. if u look at all the other disablings, its a different story. like that klingon ktinga that got disabled in ds9 and martok's bop went and rescued the crew. they were disabled pretty badly.

posted on May 16th, 2011, 12:17 am

Oops. I thought i had auto correction turned off. Corrected.

posted on May 16th, 2011, 12:51 am

I see Uncle Thunder is making his mark.

All I can say in regards to the topic is to quote Adm Zaxxon, a quote that I find brilliant:

"Since when are Star trek games ever completely accurate to canon? Since when is canon always accurate to canon?!"

And to say that a more manageable subsystem would be interesting where you could perhaps divert all power to one system to repair. But then the concept of balance comes into the play a little.

posted on May 16th, 2011, 5:11 am

I think the repair time of subsystems is ok. But they should be reenabled at about the half of their durability. Because the subsystem havn't to be repairt fully and particular the armour to re enable them. And if they get them repairt the chance to disable them again is much higher bacause of the low repair state.

posted on May 16th, 2011, 7:21 am

Actually I like the idea of concentrating repair power on a destroyed subsystem. In my eyes there are only few ships where subsystem failure is really annyoing though, these are the SSEC units. Their subsystems are destroyed easily and they need ages to repair them, actually taking them out of the game(at least if their engines are hit).

posted on May 18th, 2011, 1:36 pm

I think we should be able to divert all power to a subsystem too! Imagine a cube with 150% wepon performance! 

posted on May 18th, 2011, 2:13 pm

I think we should be able to divert all power to a subsystem too! Imagine a cube with 150% wepon performance! 

use a diamond and you'll get large weapons boosts.

posted on May 18th, 2011, 4:49 pm

hahaha my buddy TF making his mark on the FO forums...AND i noticed that the guy hasn't posted since then hahahaha

I do agree that repair times can often be annoying..but an easy fix is adjust the values and voila! problem solved.. but oh wells...another troll gets masacrered! LOL

posted on May 18th, 2011, 7:38 pm

AND i noticed that the guy hasn't posted since then hahahaha

but oh wells...another troll gets masacrered! LOL

do you really have to provoke him? its just gonna start an argument.

if u think he's a troll then it's probably best to not feed him and leave alone.

posted on May 18th, 2011, 8:43 pm

posted on May 20th, 2011, 2:54 am

Regardless of how kestrel expresses himself, he may still have a valid suggestion as regards some ship classes. Does it not make sense some ship classes may have subsystem repair times shorter than the norm because of good design, redundant backups and bypasses, or simply having fewer components to repair/replace in the first place? The problem with adjusting something like this is the possibility of abuse online by players and possible breakage of online play ability in one's FO install?

posted on May 20th, 2011, 12:34 pm

possible breakage of online play ability in one's FO install?

LOL wut...

The problem with adjusting something like this is the possibility of abuse online by players

This would just add more micro management how can player abuse micro management, by that definition then moving your ships off to repair instead of dieing would be abuse no?

posted on May 20th, 2011, 1:01 pm

you did, but:

ST canon never even told us how long a freaking tricorder needs to be assembled, and you talk about reality of building in the ST-universe... so you have absolutely nothing to base your comparison on except for Scotty's statement from "The motion picture" where he told Kirk that the refit took 18 months...

Actually there is the enterprise when captain archer said the NX02 has been in contruction for over a year but wont be ready to assist them with the xindi mission for another few months.

posted on May 21st, 2011, 8:24 pm

Hi,

as a good compromiss i would like this way :

If an subsystem disabled who you realy like quick back online - then you can use components from running systems to repair it faster as allowed.
Like you disable sensor subsystems to repair engines faster.
The amount of trade ratio musst be discussed.
(how much percent of which subsystem can repair one percent of another subsystem)

Regards
R-TEAM

[dragonmalice]

posted on May 21st, 2011, 8:51 pm

Last edited by dragonmalice on May 21st, 2011, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just to throw a wrench in the works:

Damged systems should work less efficiently (less weapon damage, lower engine speeds, weaker or less efficient shields).

There should be a threshold of damage that can be repaired in the field.  Once a system is under 50%, the ship can operate that system at that level of efficiency, but cannot fully repair it alone.  Bring in the repair ship.  The Borg would be immune from this part, I suppose.  Since system performance degrades with damage, make it considerably harder to destroy a system.  Set a range at which the system will go offline, but still be repairable (1-10%).

A destroyed system should not be repairable without a yard.

Why?  Now there's a reason to give tractor beams to all ships and fully implement functioning ships expanding their shields around damaged ones 

Or, we could just leave it the way it is...