To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

[lbmaian]

It would only take care of the problem if some means were provided for voters to address the issue. God knows various voters and thread participants have been talking about this for real time months now. The issue isn't motivation to do something. The issue is lack of tools.

We don't have the option to build auxiliary yards. We don't have the option to expand auxiliary yards (or if we do it hasn't been made clear in the Snakepit). We don't have the option to pay for member world berths to build auxiliary ships. We don't have option to order freighters and cargo ships built, period, and we have no idea what the budget is for doing so. The very best we can do right now is to arrange our build schedule so there is "empty space" in some general berths, and even then we can't actually order any ships built there. In that situation we're like a bird displaying its plumage and hoping that Auxiliary command will mate with us to produce cargo and freighter offspring. If the other bird don't show up, we ain't got shit.

That is the actual problem.

Click to shrink...

That's one of the problems, and Oneiros has indicated he's going to be adding snakepit options to help address. But I still get the sense that there a good deal of people that are treating logistics as simply an annoyance that has to be dealt with because the development faction is complaining.

edit: Also, we can just show initiative and put in specific aux ship builds on ship build plans. Chances are, Oneiros will allow that.

 

[Void Stalker]

No. I don't think we need a way to solve the problem. Much like exceeding the combat cap would automatically apply penalties, exceeding our logistics tail would automatically apply penalties. Having ways to expand logistics would be good, don't get me wrong, but applying a penalty for too fast expansion would not be bad even with no way to solve other than wait for logistics to catch up.

It's not entirely a practical issue to bring in now, but an escalating penalty with a goal year for maximum penalty would make sense in the current situation. Like, nothing year 1 & 2, 1pp and 2pp year 3, 1.5pp and 3pp year 4, 2pp and 4pp year 5 and thereafter.

Click to shrink...

Except that if we have to solve the problem using PP to get berths built for aux use, or make our own berths available or rent member berths then that means we are not using it for other things. So at that point it becomes a cost of expansion by using resource (PP) that we would have otherwise used to get other things we want. Freeing up our own berth space, and if they are short on the budget providing some of our own resources could be facets as well, as we then have to decide where resources go, more ships or do we need to aid logistics command in getting their department up and running. None of that needs to be something like the combat cap, just a competing use of resources.

And that would be how we solve the issue, by using our limited resources to expand the logistics side, while accepting that means less of the other stuff we want. Also I do like the idea of an escalating penalty, that way if we get in a pinch we can rely on the members for a year or two while our own cargo ships are going under construction.

 

[Hazard]

No. I don't think we need a way to solve the problem. Much like exceeding the combat cap would automatically apply penalties, exceeding our logistics tail would automatically apply penalties. Having ways to expand logistics would be good, don't get me wrong, but applying a penalty for too fast expansion would not be bad even with no way to solve other than wait for logistics to catch up.

Click to shrink...

In that case we need to be able to estimate how long it takes for logistics to catch up, and if logistics is building up a buffer. I think this is the first turn were we've had a detailed look at logistics beyond 'it's a thing and you are leaning on the member worlds to make up the difference.'

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

It would only take care of the problem if some means were provided for voters to address the issue. God knows various voters and thread participants have been talking about this for real time months now. The issue isn't motivation to do something. The issue is lack of tools.

We don't have the option to build auxiliary yards. We don't have the option to expand auxiliary yards (or if we do it hasn't been made clear in the Snakepit). We don't have the option to pay for member world berths to build auxiliary ships. We don't have option to order freighters and cargo ships built, period, and we have no idea what the budget is for doing so. The very best we can do right now is to arrange our build schedule so there is "empty space" in some general berths, and even then we can't actually order any ships built there. In that situation we're like a bird displaying its plumage and hoping that Auxiliary command will mate with us to produce cargo and freighter offspring. If the other bird don't show up, we ain't got shit.

That is the actual problem.

Click to shrink...

We can just vote to build the ships. Getting stuck thinking we can't is your problem. If we get told off at that point, only then would I accept bitching about lack of tools.

Except that if we have to solve the problem using PP to get berths built for aux use, or make our own berths available or rent member berths then that means we are not using it for other things. So at that point it becomes a cost of expansion by using resource (PP) that we would have otherwise used to get other things we want.

Click to shrink...

That's the point though. With a penalty, or a Logistics Cap that functions like the Combat Cap, when we expand beyond our natural means, there would be a natural mechanism to slow us down. We would have to give up things we otherwise want and that's a good thing. It fixes the issue of how to integrate logistics without needing to think about the actual mechanisms of logistics.

If you wanted to add buying things to that, have an option like buying Threat. That's all that's necessary.

 

[Hazard]

We can just vote to build the ships. Getting stuck thinking we can't is your problem. If we get told off at that point, only then would I accept bitching about lack of tools.

Click to shrink...

While true, Starfleet is currently undergoing such an expansion phase that there's no realistic way to add auxiliary ships to current berths. We need those to build the ships we need to fulfill our other duties, and these duties we can't outsource to member worlds. Unlike logistics.

 

[Vebyast]

Things like "Build aux to keep thread happy" on spreadsheets are an excellent way to poison debate. Just little nudges on the climate of the thread like that can do a lot to dissuade the presentation of rational arguments.

 

[Nix]

Really, we just need a more tangible and predictable way of feeling the pain of our logistics shortfall.

We feel some of it during snakepits, although that's more of an engineering command issue and the snakepit option to get that could provide the necessary visibility to demystify it.

But our lack of cargo ships and freighters just feels ... abstract, more of a chore or annoyance you have to deal with, something the development faction is unfairly forcing down our throats (which by the way, is an unfair characterization itself).

Click to shrink...

I disagree. Given a) feedback on the current situation and b) the means to actually do something about it I'm pretty sure we'd do a reasonably good job of it without any explicit mechanical penalties.

We do things that make obvious good sense in universe without any explicit mechanical consequences all the time, if anything we have a tendency to decide to do things just because they sound good even when the actual mechanics that represent it are disadvantageous, and often spend mechanical resources for merely narratively represented outcomes. Sometimes mechanical effects merely serve as clue for narrative consequences that are considered much more important. For example for me "this option gives militarization" is a strong warning sign that this isn't something the Starfleet should do, that it would upset the Council, and therefore that we better had some really important reasons if we take it. The direct mechanical effects of militarization don't really matter that much to me, and I would much rather pick an option that costs 100pp than one that gives +1 militarization, even though 100pp can buy off a point of militarization and sometimes we get reductions for free. Other people had negative reactions to the apointments of some people giving pp rewards, until they got used to the idea that this doesn't automatically make the character a slimeball.

Now if extra mechanics actually help make the game make more sense and don't complicate things they might still be a good idea, but I don't think we need them just to make us pay attention.

 

[SuperSonicSound]

I'm quite tired of obstructionism on the logistics issue. We should be confronting it now, immediately, and frankly, I don't find further protest welcome.

Click to shrink...

Frankly I'm agreed.

 

[Briefvoice]

We can just vote to build the ships. Getting stuck thinking we can't is your problem. If we get told off at that point, only then would I accept bitching about lack of tools.

Click to shrink...

Here is how the Shipyard Ops vote request reads. Look at the bolded part.

[ ][BUILD] Submit a Build Plan
You may select up to ONE ship of 3m ton and ONE ship of 2.5mt, and FOUR ships of 1mt that will commence in Q1. You may select up to TWO ships of 3m ton and THREE ships of 1m ton mass displacement that will commence in Q2. You may select up to TWO ships of 3m ton mass displacement that will commence in Q3.

To make a plan, pick a ship you would like to build and put it in one of the available berths that can handle the mass. All ships have a price in materials and time that are noted in the square brackets after the word "Cost". You can now build Excelsiors in any of the large berths at San Francisco, 40 Eridani A, Ana Font, Utopia Planitia, or Lor'Vela shipyards, while the small berths can make all of the others.

The amount of resources you have right now are listed below, as are the classes you can make, and the shipyards you have available.

Click to shrink...

Here are the available non-obsolete ship classes per the Shipyard Ops post.

Available Non-obsolete Ship Classes
Explorers/Cruisers
Excelsior 2287-Now [511m, 2.3m t]
C6 S5 H4 L5 P5 D6
Cost [230br 150sr, 4 years], Crew [O-6, E-5, T-5]
Excelsior-A 2314-Now [511m, 2.3m t]
C7 S6 H4 L6 P6 D6
Cost [230br 160sr, 4 years], Crew [O-6, E-5, T-5]
Ambassador 2315-Now [594m, 3m t]
C8 S9 H7 L9 P9 D8
Cost [300br 240sr, 4.75 years], Crew [O-7, E-7, T-6]
Light Cruisers

Constitution-B 2310-Now [289m, 1m t]
C5 S3 H3 L4 P3 D5
Cost [100br, 80sr, 3 years], Crew [O-3, E-4, T-4]

Constellation-A 2314-Now [310m, 700kt]
C3 S4 H2 L3 P3 D4
Cost [70br, 50sr, 3 years], Crew [O-2, E-4, T-2]

Renaissance 2314-Now [285m, 1m t]
C5 S3 H4 L5 P4 D5
Cost [100br, 80sr, 3 years], Crew [O-3, E-5, T-3]


Long-range Explorer
Oberth 2260-Now [120m 150k t]
C1 S5 H1 L2 P1 D0
Cost[15br, 60sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-1, T-4]

Frigates
Miranda 2280-Now [277m, 655k t]
C3 S1 H1 L2 P1 D2
Cost[60br, 40sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-1]
Miranda-A 2312-Now [277m, 655k t]
C3 S2 H2 L3 P1 D2
Cost[60br, 45sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-1]
Refit Cost from Miranda [20br, 10sr, 1 year]


Centaur-A Refit 2308-Now [315m 800k t]
C3 S3 H2 L3 P3 D3
Cost [80br, 70sr, 2 years], Crew [O-1, E-2, T-2]

Click to shrink...

If we have to start breaking the rules of the votes not to lose the game, then screw it.

Things like "Build aux to keep thread happy" on spreadsheets are an excellent way to poison debate. Just little nudges on the climate of the thread like that can do a lot to dissuade the presentation of rational arguments.

Click to shrink...

We don't actually have any choice to debate so there's not much to be poisoned... but I'm sorry if it was too snarky. Lately I've been replacing it with the more neutral "Open for auxiliary builds".

 

[lbmaian]

I disagree. Given a) feedback on the current situation and b) the means to actually do something about it I'm pretty sure we'd do a reasonably good job of it without any explicit mechanical penalties.

We do things that make obvious good sense in universe without any explicit mechanical consequences all the time, if anything we have a tendency to decide to do things just because they sound good even when the actual mechanics that represent it are disadvantageous, and often spend mechanical resources for merely narratively represented outcomes, and sometimes mechanical effects merely serve as clue for narrative consequences that are considered much more important. For example for me "this option gives militarization" is a strong warning sign that this isn't something the Starfleet should do, that it would upset the Council, and therefore that we better had some really important reasons if we take it. The direct mechanical effects of militarization don't really matter that much to me, and I would much rather pick an option that costs 100pp than one that gives +1 militarization, even though 100pp can buy off a point of militarization and sometimes we get reductions for free. Other people had negative reactions to the apointments of some people giving pp rewards, until they got used to the idea that this doesn't automatically make the character a slimeball.

Now if extra mechanics actually help make the game make more sense and don't complicate things they might still be a good idea, but I don't think we need them just to make us pay attention.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, part of it is that there are players that want logistics to be completely abstracted out of the game, to ignore it whenever possible, and mechanical penalties are a blunt way to force them to confront the fact that logistics are part of the game.

But other part is that it does make sense. All that political grumbling we keep hearing about this, particularly recently with a certain party in power? Well, what else is there except to model that as political cost?

 

[Vebyast]

A small point: I didn't care about the political aspect of the N'Gir thing. I cared that that the people involved in it were all handed idiot balls for the duration.

edit: Corollary: I'd have been happy with a redo of core political question minus the idiot balls.

 

[Nix]

Here is how the Shipyard Ops vote request reads. Look at the bolded part.



Here are the available non-obsolete ship classes per the Shipyard Ops post.



If we have to start breaking the rules of the votes not to lose the game, then screw it.

Click to shrink...

This is sophistry, and not even the clever kind.

The rules say "submit a build plan" but don't actually put strict limits on what is allowed as part of a build plan (if the "To make a plan, pick a ship you would like to build" limited build plans to exactly that they could only contain one ship). They list some specific things that are allowed, but we haven't restricted ourselves to things that are explicitly allowed in a long time. For example they don't explicitly allow starting a refit later than the berth becomes available as the "you may ... that will Commence ..." only explicitly allows doing so at the specified time and "build" as used elsewhere doesn't explicitly encompass refits. Nor do they explicitly allow moving a build to another berth, or resuming a paused build. Generally we have been allowed to do anything that obviously should be possible to do. Allowing a starfleet auxiliary command to build a ship in a berth you control is obviously possible to do, as members do that frequently. The auxiliary commands obviously do have the ability to build ships outside the specified list.

(Saying that we still should get explicit confirmation that we are allowed to do that would be reasonable, but concluding that we aren't based on that exact wording isn't.)

 

[pheonix89]

Here is how the Shipyard Ops vote request reads. Look at the bolded part.

Here are the available non-obsolete ship classes per the Shipyard Ops post.

If we have to start breaking the rules of the votes not to lose the game, then screw it.

We don't actually have any choice to debate so there's not much to be poisoned... but I'm sorry if it was too snarky. Lately I've been replacing it with the more neutral "Open for auxiliary builds".

Click to shrink...

THIS kind of shit is why people are calling you obstructionist.

You keep insisting that things we can obviously do IC are impossible because the QM didn't explicitly list the option. The appropriate response to that is to ask the QM to fix the oversight, not throw out a line of bullshit about how a UI oversight magically means we can't build logistics ships.

 

[Nix]

Honestly, part of it is that there are players that want logistics to be completely abstracted out of the game, to ignore it whenever possible, and mechanical penalties are a blunt way to force them to confront the fact that logistics are part of the game.

Click to shrink...

As Briefvoice himself pointed out opportunities to address logistics haven't actually lost any votes so far.

 

[Void Stalker]

THIS kind of shit is why people are calling you obstructionist.

You keep insisting that things we can obviously do IC are impossible because the QM didn't explicitly list the option. The appropriate response to that is to ask the QM to fix the oversight, not throw out a line of bullshit about how a UI oversight magically means we can't build logistics ships.

Click to shrink...

Except we have raised the point in the past and asked for that and it has not happened yet. I know I am having a problem with this idea that we should have fixed it when we have not had the options yet. This was in part due to the system still being worked on.

My intention with the Auxiliary Shipyard is to just let those four berths bubble away and automatically produce things. It won't draw on your main force Starfleet budget. I could add auxiliary ship options to the Shipyard Ops post if you want to build outside of the logistics budget, though I'd have to establish costs, I'm not sure how well I'd be able to convey requirements.

Click to shrink...

 

[pheonix89]

Except we have raised the point in the past and asked for that and it has not happened yet. I know I am having a problem with this idea that we should have fixed it when we have not had the options yet. This was in part due to the system still being worked on.

Click to shrink...

Given how often the problem comes up, that means to keep raising the issue.

And the post you quoted itself outright says the option is available if we ask and that the big issue is UI.

 

[Void Stalker]

Given how often the problem comes up, that means to keep raising the issue.

And the post you quoted itself outright says the option is available if we ask and that the big issue is UI.

Click to shrink...

Except we had several posters ask for it afterwards and we still do not have that option available. Would I like that option to be available? Yes, but it has not been so anything we can do know is look for solutions that can be implemented in the future when those options become available and ask for the options to be made available.

 

[Nix]

Except we have raised the point in the past and asked for that and it has not happened yet. I know I am having a problem with this idea that we should have fixed it when we have not had the options yet. This was in part due to the system still being worked on.

Click to shrink...

That's about directly building and paying for them, as opposed to allowing auxiliary commands to use our berths with their existing budgets, as members do. Merely allowing access would have none of those issues.

 

[Void Stalker]

That's about directly building and paying for them, as opposed to allowing auxiliary commands to use our berths with their existing budgets, as members do. Merely allowing access would have none of those issues.

Click to shrink...

The first post responding to the one I quoted asked if we could lend berths out, we did not get a yes or no on if we could at that time.

 

[Kolar]

The first post responding to the one I quoted asked if we could lend berths out, we did not get a yes or no on if we could at that time.

Click to shrink...

If we actually do it then he has to give a yes or no instead of brushing it off. So lets just fucking do it already and end the debate if we can or can't. This argument isn't getting anywhere as is.

 

[Briefvoice]

THIS kind of shit is why people are calling you obstructionist.

You keep insisting that things we can obviously do IC are impossible because the QM didn't explicitly list the option. The appropriate response to that is to ask the QM to fix the oversight, not throw out a line of bullshit about how a UI oversight magically means we can't build logistics ships.

Click to shrink...

People keep calling me obstructionist, but no one has yet been able to explain what I am obstructing or otherwise preventing from happening.

I think maybe at this point the debate is between a vote wording saying, "Open for auxiliary command to build" and a vote saying "Auxiliary command will build here". Is that what we're arguing about?

EDIT: Also, my metaphor about birds mating to produce cargo ships and freighters was boss and deserves every like in the world.

 

[Nix]

The first post responding to the one I quoted asked if we could lend berths out, we did not get a yes or no on if we could at that time.

Click to shrink...

That was towards the end of a shipyard ops vote that used all berths and just before the first MWCO where members loaning berths to Starfleet auxiliary commands became a thing, which is sort of a yes. Given that precedent it's hard to see how it could be not possible.

 

[Forgothrax]

People keep calling me obstructionist, but no one has yet been able to explain what I am obstructing or otherwise preventing from happening.

I think maybe at this point the debate is between a vote wording saying, "Open for auxiliary command to build" and a vote saying "Auxiliary command will build here". Is that what we're arguing about?

Click to shrink...

No, some of us remember what you said at first.

Behind the curtain, I just plain don't want to do it, so I'll make any excuse and argument I can to push back and fight the idea. I know it may be a valiant rearguard against many thread participants like you who seem to really want to do it, but I'll do my best. Maybe I can delay another in-game year or two... whatever I can would be a victory.

Click to shrink...

Your intent overall is to be obstructionist in regards to logistics, period. You already let that cat out of the bag. With these words already posted, is it at all unreasonable that many of us view actions that hint at obstructionism to be truly intended to be so?

 

[Simon_Jester]

No. I don't think we need a way to solve the problem. Much like exceeding the combat cap would automatically apply penalties, exceeding our natural (RA Logi builds & Aux yards included) logistics tail would automatically apply penalties. Having ways to expand logistics would be good, don't get me wrong, but applying a penalty for too fast expansion would not be bad even with no way to solve other than wait for logistics to catch up.

Click to shrink...

From the point of view of designing a game that a reasonably broad sample of humans will actually enjoy playing, penalties for rapid expansion are bad unless there are ways to address them and mitigate them. Because if the normal process of playing the game is 'build more ships, expand the Federation,' and you suddenly start getting thwapped with penalties because you played the game too well...

"Stop expanding until logistics catch up" is tantamount to "stop playing the game."

For it to be good game design, you need to offer an alternative mechanism for gameplay- something to do instead of "build more ships, expand the Federation." The obvious choice being something like "create more auxiliaries, so that you can resume building more ships and expanding the Federation."

Having sharp, punitive penalties for expanding the fleet beyond a fixed logistics 'cap' is not a good gameplay mechanic without features like that. You'd need to also have in-game mechanisms for raising the cap, or more 'natural' mechanics for limiting fleet size (i.e. ongoing wars and limited construction budgets) that prevent the logistics cap from becoming burdensome. Sort of like how the combat cap naturally increases to scale with our defensive requirements and the overall size of the Federation, or how we have mechanisms in place that can buy down Militarization points and so on.

Things like "Build aux to keep thread happy" on spreadsheets are an excellent way to poison debate. Just little nudges on the climate of the thread like that can do a lot to dissuade the presentation of rational arguments.

Click to shrink...

Very, very much this.

A small point: I didn't care about the political aspect of the N'Gir thing. I cared that that the people involved in it were all handed idiot balls for the duration.

Click to shrink...

Very much this. Sulu didn't get the chance to even investigate the claims being made to him by the councilors, so we were forced to vote 'yes' or 'no' on a proposal that we only later found out was being presented to our viewpoint PC in slanted terms. Then we got a meeting in which the president berates Sulu (and by extension, us) for "why do you hate me so much," on account of our voting 'no.'

So yeah, this.

 

[SynchronizedWritersBlock]

If we actually do it then he has to give a yes or no instead of brushing it off. So lets just fucking do it already and end the debate if we can or can't. This argument isn't getting anywhere as is.

Click to shrink...

Exactly