UbeOne
Daydreaming CPU
- Location
- Philippines
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I disagree with your opinion on reliability, but I do not roll my eyes nor make sarcastic remarks at your expense.
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)
- Thread starter OneirosTheWriter
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
-
- Tags
- star trek exploration fully automated luxury gay space communism top level canon (canon) #hashtagcontent all-encompassing space amoeba cardassian boy bands cardassian magical girls darkest bureaucracy debate makes the qm cackle like palpatine hoh is an empire quest it has to be foreign infiltrators more ships ship happens singers delenda est starfleet this is not an empire quest ur waifu is collective?
SuperSonicSound
Shadowmancer of the Shadow Cabal
Its because high reliability designs naturally gravitate all failure chance into the hull. The lack hull research doesnt help but would not make much difference at this stage. I could slap some designs together to demonstrate the issue but im on my tablet in bed rather than on my pc.
They can't really be abused though at least not in that particular way.
Last edited:
AKuz
Been Better
- Location
- A Rising Tide of Horrors
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I have not.
> : |
I guess it just hasn't been a high priority, and I forget where the post even is anymore.
- Location
- Anchorage, Alaska
Excellent! One more for the counter-revolution!
- Location
- Austin, TX
Does someone have a 'this vs that' ship comparison, say a (science) heavy cruiser/explorer, as a comparison? So a 98% reliable (excluding the dangerous two), vs an 85%-ish ship?
- Location
- Anchorage, Alaska
...I'll go ask!
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Technically, I don't think a cap was ever put on them yet, at least not in the recent snakepit.
We aren't really forgetting about that.
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the expected value of events due to poor reliability is going to be negative. Funny events that could grant bonus rp will be less common that repairs, and repairs will cost resources and time, though it's very likely they won't take berth space, since starbases can repair minor damage to escort-sized ships.
There's some math disagreement on the expected value of reacting to + succeeding events when trading +1 stat for -5% reliability.
From what I can tell, most agree that there could be political/ethical (read: GM might do something) consequences if we explicitly try designing poor reliability into ships.
Unfortunately, this is impossible to fully calculate (in terms of expected value) because we don't have full visibility into how events take into account stats, nor exactly how poor reliability events play out.
Okay, found:
Last edited:
I don't think anyone's seriously pushing for a 85%-ish. I was thinking along the lines of 94-95% for science ships and escorts.
- Location
- Anchorage, Alaska
It would emphasize the difference that those percentile points can make, though. I'll edit my request in the other thread to allow for a 95% variant as well, though.
- Location
- Anchorage, Alaska
Really quick designs only a minute or so each
Thanks Nix, for these quick thrown together example ships! I'll get back to you on what the differences between these designs are, but unless I completely miss what those yellow boxes on the far right are, I don't think there is a big difference in research time between these ship types?
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Just thought I'd throw my two cents in on the ship design philosophy arguments.
The most important part about reliability isn't whether we have 98% reliability or 97% on an individual ship, its what the chances are that we have enough ships go out in a year that something becomes a problem (delaying production in order to repair ships, not being able to meet defense requirements, discover the borg while our best ships are being repaired etc.)
I don't know enough about statistics to do any example calculations but I think its important to consider what effects a breakdown actually has. The reliability number that matters isn't the number listed, but what the chance of a bad breakdown is. (0.6x(1-number listed)?)
The most important part about reliability isn't whether we have 98% reliability or 97% on an individual ship, its what the chances are that we have enough ships go out in a year that something becomes a problem (delaying production in order to repair ships, not being able to meet defense requirements, discover the borg while our best ships are being repaired etc.)
I don't know enough about statistics to do any example calculations but I think its important to consider what effects a breakdown actually has. The reliability number that matters isn't the number listed, but what the chance of a bad breakdown is. (0.6x(1-number listed)?)
- Location
- somewhere
Yes (assuming the section sizes had been researched before, which they haven't in this case so the difference would actually not be that big), though I don't think that matters as much when the prototype takes 6 years anyway. 9 years total or 11 years total, you are waiting for about a decade anyway.
- Location
- United States
so @Nix and whoever else was debating the reliability issue earlier (got bored so i skipped a few pages)
might i remind you that beyond the "out of operation" time, the "funny accidents" have repair costs. berth space, BR and SR (15 of each seems about average from our non-combat based repairs).
crew losses are also possible. (call it 0.05 of each type per accident) (yes, this is 100% a blind guess at what seems reasonable)
having low reliability (85% as an example) means that over 30 years of service, we can expect it to have an accident ~4.5 times. lets call it 4 just for ease of math.
thats 60 BR, 60 SR and 0.2 of each crew, and an extra year of yard time for each ship we build basically.
95% reliability has a third of those numbers.
by putting out high reliability ships, we may get slightly less capable ones, but we can afford to put out ~25% more ships from reliability savings alone.
might i remind you that beyond the "out of operation" time, the "funny accidents" have repair costs. berth space, BR and SR (15 of each seems about average from our non-combat based repairs).
crew losses are also possible. (call it 0.05 of each type per accident) (yes, this is 100% a blind guess at what seems reasonable)
having low reliability (85% as an example) means that over 30 years of service, we can expect it to have an accident ~4.5 times. lets call it 4 just for ease of math.
thats 60 BR, 60 SR and 0.2 of each crew, and an extra year of yard time for each ship we build basically.
95% reliability has a third of those numbers.
by putting out high reliability ships, we may get slightly less capable ones, but we can afford to put out ~25% more ships from reliability savings alone.
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ, USA
The difference between 6 and 11 is significant, one takes 83% longer, thats could make a huge difference.
Only steal from the very best.
One day, I will find a place to fit an homage to the pie fight from How Much for Just the Planet?
- Location
- Anchorage, Alaska
More stuff from the Design thread!
And, what's this? Someone doing an analysis for me? HOW CONSIDERATE!
Here's a decent 98% reliablity Explorer similar to what we want:
Does this work:
It's a bit thrown together, but note the much shorter research time.
And, what's this? Someone doing an analysis for me? HOW CONSIDERATE!
lbmaian
a thirsty squirrel
- Location
- USA
Going back to an older discussion...
You mean home garrisoning that Constellations are optimized for? The sample events Oneiros showed that having crappy ships doesn't necessarily mean that they're a liability. Sure, they probably are in a couple events, but it still looks like even mediocre ships can have a net positive impact in events (relative to completely missing an event), especially if they're accompanying a better ship that responded to the event.
We are not going to replacing Constellations anytime soon, refit or no refit.
Furthermore, given how long the Constellation lasted in canon, I'm pretty sure there's going to be more refits available in the future. The only questions are: when, how good, and whether we could skip this particular refit for a better one in at that time.
You mean home garrisoning that Constellations are optimized for? The sample events Oneiros showed that having crappy ships doesn't necessarily mean that they're a liability. Sure, they probably are in a couple events, but it still looks like even mediocre ships can have a net positive impact in events (relative to completely missing an event), especially if they're accompanying a better ship that responded to the event.
We are not going to replacing Constellations anytime soon, refit or no refit.
Furthermore, given how long the Constellation lasted in canon, I'm pretty sure there's going to be more refits available in the future. The only questions are: when, how good, and whether we could skip this particular refit for a better one in at that time.
- Location
- somewhere
An equally well (or not) designed build without any design techs at all would have even lower performance.
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Oh okay, so you're saying that waiting 11 years for a superior ship would be better than an inferior ship 5 years sooner. I think I agree with that. With the exception of in times where we seem to have some sort of war/crisis coming up (Cardassians, for instance).
- Location
- Australia
THERE IS NOW A 48-HR BAN ON DISCUSSION OF RELIABILITY
ALSO, GOOD MORNING, HOW ARE YOU GUYS?
ALSO, GOOD MORNING, HOW ARE YOU GUYS?
- Location
- USA
Sleepy as I am in a proper US time zone
UbeOne
Daydreaming CPU
- Location
- Philippines
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I'm all right, looking forward to the next turn.
AKuz
Been Better
- Location
- A Rising Tide of Horrors
- Pronouns
- She/Her