Demolition job 2.0

[ZombieMouse]

A suggestion I heard recently was the ability to land ships/deposit wrecks at a pad on Origin for demolition. The ship/wreck would then become available for spawn in the demolition job site and would pay more credits than selling at the Sunny Ship Shop if the player demolishes it.

I liked this idea, as it doesn't seem too difficult to implement and adds an alternative method to salvaging as a job in Starbase. Plus it has some synergy with the new tow-beam.

 

[Foraven]

Yeah, salvaging isn't much of a thing since most players who do it only take the valuable parts and don't bother with the rest of the ship. Ship hulks are not worth player's time right now. But that would be neat if ships that show up there were actual player's ships that have been sold for scrap.

 

[DivineEvil]

Ship hulks are not worth salvaging simply because there's no refining yet. Once the ship parts and other products will require refined materials instead of raw ores, that would increase their value significantly. This would also increase the overall value of ships and their sell-to-station price, so I don't think there's a need for this mechanic. It still might end up being too much work for making a bandaid instead of just putting time into refining mechanics.

 

[Foraven]

Ship hulks are not worth salvaging simply because there's no refining yet. Once the ship parts and other products will require refined materials instead of raw ores, that would increase their value significantly. This would also increase the overall value of ships and their sell-to-station price, so I don't think there's a need for this mechanic. It still might end up being too much work for making a bandaid instead of just putting time into refining mechanics.

The mechanic is already implemented and in game, all we need is a larger version of it where we could send player ships to.

 

[DivineEvil]

The mechanic is already implemented and in game, all we need is a larger version of it where we could send player ships to.

What do you mean? The despawning of the ship on a landing pad is there. The despawning of the asteroids on collection module is there. The demolition job hall is there. There's no mechanics that would tie it all together to allow to send the ship somewhere where it can be salvaged with the reward being higher than what it costs to just sell the ship. That's also raises the questions of, who gets the money for the ship? If a player who brought the ship gets the money, then where the money would come from for the player who demolishes it? If a player demolishing the ship gets the money, then why would anyone bring the ship there instead of selling it? And if the player that brings the ship is the only one who can demolish it and gets all the money, is it actually worth it to develop that mechanic, and how long would that take?

This seem to be one of the cases where you might assume something is very easy to do without the internal knowledge of how it is actually done. Just look over the latest updates to various ship-player interactions that being developed and how long it does actually take. Because of that, I'm highly skeptical of the prospect for developing this mechanic, because it is a bandaid for the more simple principle of simply salvaging the ships as is, which I have already said depends solely on the value of salvage. Such a suggestion should consider how would that play out with the refining already being in place.

Since right now the Thruster of a ship is more or less a 1:1 value of the ores used to manufacture it, it is much easier and more profitable to just mine the ores compared to looking for the wrecks and taking off the most valuable parts, not even speaking about bringing everything together to the station. Once the refining mechanics will be in place and you would likely need 2-10 units of ore just to obtain 1 unit of refined material (depending on the method of refining and the use of catalysts), the value of ships will increase significantly, making this proposed mechanic redundant. Given how some of the interesting and viable principles were seemingly scrapped in favor of the new approaches, I seriously want FB to avoid putting effort into these ideas that might end up being useless.

Lets just start with the Demolition job actually paying well compared to a much simpler and yet much more profitable mining job and some of the discarded player ship designs being used there, instead of the derelicts that are built using Attachment Plates long gone from the game, which would also make Cutting Laser a viable tool for the job.

 

[Foraven]

What do you mean? The despawning of the ship on a landing pad is there. The despawning of the asteroids on collection module is there. The demolition job hall is there. There's no mechanics that would tie it all together to allow to send the ship somewhere where it can be salvaged with the reward being higher than what it costs to just sell the ship. That's also raises the questions of, who gets the money for the ship? If a player who brought the ship gets the money, then where the money would come from for the player who demolishes it? If a player demolishing the ship gets the money, then why would anyone bring the ship there instead of selling it? And if the player that brings the ship is the only one who can demolish it and gets all the money, is it actually worth it to develop that mechanic, and how long would that take?

No, all I meant is the game already has a demolition hall, but it is too small to process players ships that can be way larger than it is. The mechanics are there because instead of some long gone ship design we could disassemble our own ships, with the option of removing the parts we want to keep. To make it all worthwhile the payout must be higher than what we would get from just selling the ship to the station.

 

[pavvvel]

I will write partly off-topic.
A related topic. As soon as the new thermal mechanics come out on life, many of the ships will not be suitable for modification in the world (not in the editor). We need an option to disassemble the ship for parts. Disassemble by hand is very long. Perhaps such an option would help with the wreckage of ships as well.

 

[Foraven]

I will write partly off-topic.
A related topic. As soon as the new thermal mechanics come out on life, many of the ships will not be suitable for modification in the world (not in the editor). We need an option to disassemble the ship for parts. Disassemble by hand is very long. Perhaps such an option would help with the wreckage of ships as well.

I think I read in one of the dev comment that at some point we will be able to use existing ship parts to build a different ship; we bring the ship in ship design area and just switch to another blueprint. Build cost is then reduced by parts from the old ship and the rest is thrown into storage.

 

[DivineEvil]

No, all I meant is the game already has a demolition hall, but it is too small to process players ships that can be way larger than it is. The mechanics are there because instead of some long gone ship design we could disassemble our own ships, with the option of removing the parts we want to keep. To make it all worthwhile the payout must be higher than what we would get from just selling the ship to the station.

Yes, but you already can do that manually with the difference being that it takes a little more time and grants normal returns. Designing the entire new hall building and all the associated interactions just to give people a way to earn some more money, compared to just selling the ship instantly or doing so after they've stripped of all useful equipment spending about the same amount of time, seem largely meaningless.

I will write partly off-topic.
A related topic. As soon as the new thermal mechanics come out on life, many of the ships will not be suitable for modification in the world (not in the editor). We need an option to disassemble the ship for parts. Disassemble by hand is very long. Perhaps such an option would help with the wreckage of ships as well.

I see no point behind that claim. There's three different heatsink shapes to pick from, pretty much any ship have a place for one or another of those. The only thing that can make a ship unsuitable for live-edit is if the items in questions cannot be crafted.

 

[pavvvel]

I think I read in one of the dev comment that at some point we will be able to use existing ship parts to build a different ship; we bring the ship in ship design area and just switch to another blueprint. Build cost is then reduced by parts from the old ship and the rest is thrown into storage.

That would be convenient. I have a lot of ships that need to be disassembled, it's very time-consuming.

 

[pavvvel]

see no point behind that claim. There's three different heatsink shapes to pick from, pretty much any ship have a place for one or another of those. The only thing that can make a ship unsuitable for live-edit is if the items in questions cannot be crafted.

Tell that to small warships that are difficult to improve even in the editor

 

[DivineEvil]

Tell that to small warships that are difficult to improve even in the editor

I'm not crezy enough to talk with warships, but on a more serious note, that depends purely on the character of the improvements.

That reminds me of the time in CA when I've underestimated the number of T-thrusters needed for my ship, so I just rebuit the entire array to double the number. I think just adding sufficient number to a small ship with an excess of weapons would be more of an issue, than to find a way to add some of them at all. It's not like most of the other devices and components that have no variants.

 

[pavvvel]

I'm not crezy enough to talk with warships, but on a more serious note, that depends purely on the character of the improvements.

That reminds me of the time in CA when I've underestimated the number of T-thrusters needed for my ship, so I just rebuit the entire array to double the number. I think just adding sufficient number to a small ship with an excess of weapons would be more of an issue, than to find a way to add some of them at all. It's not like most of the other devices and components that have no variants.

Imagine the generator compartment (288x192x192) where the FC is located, three generators, batteries, control systems, yolol chips, backup systems, enhancer, additional beams, power circuits (and their duplicates), radiator, cooling rack and additional secret parts. Repair tools and ammunition are nailed to the walls. This compartment is surrounded by beams, armor and engines. Such a ship can no longer be fixed (to new mechanics) outside the editor


And another question is whether the radiators will work inside the ship. A lot depends on it. I have heard opinions that they will not work inside the ship. At the moment I have frozen my projects in the editor and am waitingwaiting

 

[ChaosRifle]

And another question is whether the radiators will work inside the ship. A lot depends on it. I have heard opinions that they will not work inside the ship.

This is a fact, FB have confirmed months ago that this will get changed, but its on the back-burner. At some point, you will be required to have line of sight to the outside of the ship. We don't know to what degree they need to not be covered, but it is coming. This was confirmed several times on discord, once here on the forums I think, and in the latest heat update it received another mention just this last week or two, as still the intent.

 

[pavvvel]

This is a fact, FB have confirmed months ago that this will get changed, but its on the back-burner. At some point, you will be required to have line of sight to the outside of the ship. We don't know to what degree they need to not be covered, but it is coming. This was confirmed several times on discord, once here on the forums I think, and in the latest heat update it received another mention just this last week or two, as still the intent.

A lot depends on it))
That's why I stopped designing ships, I'm waiting for clarity