Author |
Message |
Bonecrusher
Member
Team:
Main: Bonecrusher
Level: 2144 Class:
Shield Monkey
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 5:18 pm
|
Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain.
The idea that an addition to a base in the form of more room needs a worker to maintain needs to be rethought.
with workers walking off the job over the least little thing ... it makes it a pain in the arse to restock bases that are using ancient extensions.
Any teamie should be able to dock and sell the base rats at any time.
-OR- dock with rats on board and the striking workers feed from the trough of the ship and then re-equip everything that was unequipped.
Items unequipped by striking workers should be re-equipped by the same workers once there is puppy chow back on the base.
|
Sat May 12, 2012 7:18 pm |
|
|
mitchell888
Team:
Main: mitchell is cool
Level: 1619 Class:
Gunner
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:34 pm Location: Leeds, UK
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
Maybe 1 worker for all equipped extensions?
_________________
Aurora Ex Machina wrote: #don'tbebitter
Fallen- wrote: MONEY MONEY MONEY BANNANA ?
|
Sat May 12, 2012 7:21 pm |
|
|
Lord Runningclam
Team:
Main: Lord Runningclam
Level: 3813 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:55 am
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
I say no. This problem is easy to avoid by properly setting up your proddy.
I see no reason why a well set-up base should ever run out of rations. I always limit my max workers to a) the number that can be supported by hydros or b) I dump in large amounts of workers and rats for massive builds. If I risk feeding by slaves or other means, that is just that - a risk. If food supply gets interrupted for ANY reason, it is my fault for relying on an unreliable food supply rather than one that cannot be interupted (hydros). If you ran out of rations because your base hit capacity, than you failed to set your extract limits.
The problem of re-equipping the ancient transdims is the penalty for them being so damn awesome. This would take the actual management aspect out of bases almost entirely.
|
Sat May 12, 2012 7:43 pm |
|
|
Visorak
Team:
Main: Radia
Level: 1101 Class:
Speed Demon
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:04 pm Location: q3dm17
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
On one hand, it is kind of stupid that you need a guy to check on the extensor. On the other, it would be kind of OP for your 2tril hull base to have only the 12 workers it takes to run energy and shields and basic items.
So look at it this way; you would need the guys anyway as engineers and janitors. In reality, you would have a staff of 200+ in a base that we currently have maybe 50 in.
_________________
Jey123456 wrote: That will happen in a future closer than most futures. No Context. Ever. Idaten.
|
Sat May 12, 2012 9:55 pm |
|
|
Bonecrusher
Member
Team:
Main: Bonecrusher
Level: 2144 Class:
Shield Monkey
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 5:18 pm
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
That's what BOTs are for and they don't need to eat
|
Sat May 12, 2012 10:05 pm |
|
|
Visorak
Team:
Main: Radia
Level: 1101 Class:
Speed Demon
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:04 pm Location: q3dm17
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
We aren't paid to innovate. We aren't paid to do things the easy way. We aren't paid to do things the smart way.
We are SS. We do things Jeff's way.
_________________
Jey123456 wrote: That will happen in a future closer than most futures. No Context. Ever. Idaten.
|
Sat May 12, 2012 10:22 pm |
|
|
Arkainon
Team:
Main: Cpt Lunarion
Level: 1801 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:48 pm
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
Firstly, I thought bases already have (if workers are starving) a function that makes them eat rations off a ships hull. Secondly, its good the way it is, it may not make sence but if everything in the game was worked out to be making sense half the ships wouldn't make it off the ground Yes its odd to thing that a extra room needs a worker. But at the same time if this happened, they'd also have to add commoditys called plumbers, electricans, general matience, space garbage collectors, meal preperation personelle, managers and co-managers, etc etc.
_________________
Jeff_L wrote: Julian came in drunk and shot the server hamster. We need to get a new one so expect a 1-2 week wait.
The Voomy One wrote: Quote: the players are not just bitching about nothing yes they are.
|
Sun May 13, 2012 5:13 am |
|
|
kingwayne30
Team:
Main: Cpt Mawson
Level: 1011 Class:
Shield Monkey
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:46 am Location: NW UK.
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
/signed
and make my trade slaves get hungry and spend credits on snacks at stations.
_________________ - Cpt Mawson - Sgt Mawson - Fraternal Agent - Ned Flanders - MawsonFleetCommander - Pretender Ares - Pretender Poseidon - Pretender Hermes - Pretender Zeus - Global Marketplace Rep
|
Sun May 13, 2012 10:58 am |
|
|
The Salty One
Team:
Main: Eurus
Level: 2330 Class:
Shield Monkey
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:27 pm
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
Right now a prod base can expect to expend a few thousand workers maintaining extensors. Without this more expensive extensors and what not become less meaningful.
Why build and store loads of ancient dims when it's easier to build 50k station expansion units every uni?
In any case think of all the cleaning, general maintenance and supervision they require. It makes sense that more expensive, higher tech expansion units have a greater degree of automation (and more reliable robotics systems in place)- thus requiring fewer workers per unit of space gained.
_________________ Space for rent!
|
Sun May 13, 2012 11:55 am |
|
|
Precursor
Dev Team
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:00 pm
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
I kind of think of it more in the sense that imagine a room that can fit say 50 or 100 people. Your worker has to clean, maintain that room and not only that inspect and repair any internal engineering issues with the module. And as mentioned above, perhaps more automation with higher tech / rare extensions. I don't see any real need to change it. If you want to run bases and not have to worry about supply lines with rations then put the effort into massing up hydroponic systems.
|
Sun May 13, 2012 12:00 pm |
|
|
biggee531
Team:
Main: Biggee
Level: 2163 Class:
Engineer
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:29 am Location: Around
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
I think from a realistic standpoint, bonecrusher has a valid point. As for that being applicable to SS.... I think it would be more trouble than it's worth to change the current system to accommodate for such a change.
_________________
Sodomy wrote: I will kill what I created.
anilv wrote: Try again when you have a doctorate in mathematics, grasshopper. I'll be pulling rank until then.
Bonecrusher wrote: I'm a professional whiner.
|
Sun May 13, 2012 9:40 pm |
|
|
skyfyre
Team:
Main: Skyfyre
Level: 2483 Class:
Speed Demon
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:22 pm
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
Lord Runningclam wrote: The problem of re-equipping the ancient transdims is the penalty for them being so damn awesome. This would take the actual management aspect out of bases almost entirely. I don't really understand the problem. If you're using them you should get at least 1 char with the lore skill to re-equip them. If you have to beg a teammate to do it for you every time, well, that's on the base owner to deal with. People should either do the missions and get the lore skill or face the consequences when something like that happens.
|
Mon May 21, 2012 7:48 am |
|
|
skyfyre
Team:
Main: Skyfyre
Level: 2483 Class:
Speed Demon
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:22 pm
|
Re: Base extensions should not require a worker to maintain
biggee531 wrote: I think from a realistic standpoint, bonecrusher has a valid point. As for that being applicable to SS.... I think it would be more trouble than it's worth to change the current system to accommodate for such a change. I don't think it's more realistic. Typically bases are set up on a non-terran environment or in the pure vacuum of space. If you don't have at least one guy around to check each extension for structural damage from meteorites, solar radiation, corrosive atmosphere, extreme heat or cold, and/or or the constant stress of having a contained atmosphere breathable and useable by human beings surrounded by said vacuum, it would only be a matter of time before something goes wrong and goes un-noticed and at the very least that extension, if not the whole base, becomes inhospitable for humans. Think about everything that would realistically have to be provided for an extension to work. You would at the very least need power (as in power hooked up and flowing through the extension from the main generator), air, temperature control, and extremely solid seal capable of withstanding immense pressure, yet modular enough that they can be quickly attached and detached on demand. All of that is handled by one guy. It's pretty amazing imo that one guy could take care of all that by himself considering a single extension might be capable of housing thousands of ships, tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people (with the right base skills and augs) in just a handful of extensions! Know what's even more amazing? Even though you might have several MILLION workers on a base, ONLY Bob the deathstriker builder knows how to make a deathstriker. Unless you build a second one on the same base, then his cousin Rob picks up the skills to make it. But they're the only two guys on the base, and Rob has a drinking problem and is only ever used when you're building two. Otherwise Bob builds the deathstriker, a few thousand of the guys check the extensions, energy, weapons, and various extractors and factories, and the other 3 million party with the crackwhores and fembots and drink your space whiskey and eat your rations.
|
Mon May 21, 2012 8:00 am |
|
|
|