why are holds and mass scoops 2 seperate systems?
can holds contain anything other than mass?
do mass scoops do anything other than filling holds?

assuming no;

does the seperation, and consequent increase in required systems, do anything to weaken already specialized designs? I've seen no evidence to suggest this. (maps?)
This seperation does increase the base cost of a ship by increasing the size of the smallest possible functional design, which only serves to narrow the design possibilites.

is there a compelling reason to have a powered, active, system and an unpowered, passive, system instead of combining them into a single scoop/hold "mass system"
unifying them would also relieve such annoying scenarios as having lots of one functional but none of the other, simply by a fluke of attack nano choices which have effectively rendered two systems useless as opposed to just one.

Weapon variety, repair, and a few extra tactics (craft with multiple cargo holds can remain in grav-wells for longer and still be offensively viable for example). Also, entering a system automatically fills the hold...

Mapmaker wrote:

Weapon variety, repair, and a few extra tactics (craft with multiple cargo holds can remain in grav-wells for longer and still be offensively viable for example). Also, entering a system automatically fills the hold...

You just gave me a list of reasons to try building a ship that replaces all mass scoops with holds. None of that would be altered by combining scoops and holds...

wait, it would give ships slightly larger effective holds which could, if sufficient power were provided, fill faster...
-hrm-

I think either I'm missing your point or you missed mine.

given that we now have more uses for holds, even if those are seperated by class of ship, and will presumably at some point add further uses I'd like to amend the suggestion;

Could mass scoops not only collect but also store combat mass, like a specialized hold?
At the moment, this would lead to holds being replaced in combat ships with mass scoops, though additional uses for holds might eventually reverse that trend.
This would reduce the minimum required size of ships allowing more space for other systems (or simply a reduced number of systems) and thus more variety in designs.

The reason scoops and hold are different is about hording.

A player who designs large hold, small scoops can stock up, and then charge into combat, doing well UNTIL the hold is empty. They will tend to fire single warhead drones of more power.

A player who has more scoops is about filling and firing constantly. They took the hit on other systems to allow their ship to constantly replenish.

i.e. the two system creates a choice during the design. It will allow play styles and ship designs to differ from player to player.

the problem I keep running into is even placing those systems together, one or the other (but not both) get destroyed effectively taking out two systems with one hit. ok, my ships tend to have lots of both scoops and holds, so it's several hits. And I've taken to interlacing the holds and scoops- however I've still ended up with lots of one and none of the other through randomness.

which is not to say I disagree with anything you just said, I completely understand that and have been trying to find an argument around it myself. the closest I've come is what if we up the capacity of holds, which allows mass scoops to be useful alone and still makes holds an option to substantially increase capacity even when scoops are non-functional due to power, gravity, or other constraints. Whether or not that's feasable (aside from you deciding so) is entirely dependant on much of a limitation the ability to get to (or back to) combat mass should be.

as a counter to my own post, based on a counter-argument presented to the idea of "pre-loading" factories;

-each system might hold a seperate amount of "mass." why should mass scoops be special?
+Because mass-scoops do not utilize mass, they produce it. By allowing them a rate of storage they become self-contained units, as opposed to requiring a second system to perform their function.

-How do holds perform their intended ability to allow excess mass to be stored without being undercut by scoops?
+As I already said, they would require their capacity be increased. This is why other systems which use mass should not be given mass-capacity.

-If the function of scoops is mass, and this is the reason they should be able to function without holds, why shouldn't the same logic apply? Is the difference between production and utilization significant enough that it merits them being "special?"
+Perhaps not, however they do have a fixed capacity for mass; one unit per turn. Drone racks require a minimum of one mass per entire ship's complement, do they recieve that (one, with no further increase) as capacity, or should each rack store one? Factories spend up to 5 mass, or they produce one. Assuming the more important issue is the larger one, this would mean they store 5 mass which requires that holds, to serve function, must contain ~10, which is as much as most ships can hope to contain in their entire complement of holds currently and seems radically excessive.
Holds, now (on different ships), serve a purpose beyond simply being "the other half" of the mass creation-storage equasion. However, this makes scoops the lesser cousin; serving only to fill holds. Why not allow them to function as an autonimous system, being buttressed and upgraded by the use of holds, if a player desires, instead of as a prerequisite. Further, this serves the same function as granting factories and drone racks their own storage because it allows the removal of holds, if desired, or a moderated increase in storage-capacity without the wild increases that giving those systems independant storage would create.

examples based on current system design vs scoop storage/doubled holds;

running a factory;
+Current;
++minimum;
+++factory, 5 holds, 1 mass scoop, 2 engines (1 use / 5 turns)
++optimal (1 use/turn)
+++factory, 5 hods, 5 mass scoops, 6 engines.
+Suggested;
++minimum;
+++factory, 1 mass scoop, 2 holds, 2 engines (1 use / 5 turns)
++optimal (1 use/turn)
+++factory, 5 mass scoop, 6 engines.

Running a single drone rack in space (normal function)
+Current;
++minimum;
+++drone rack, 1 hold, 1 mass scoop, 2 engines
+Suggested;
++minimum;
+++drone rack, 1 mass scoop, 2 engines

Running a single drone rack under gravity
+Current;
++minimum;
+++drone rack, 1 hold, 1 engine (1 turn)
+Suggested;
++minimum;
+++drone rack, 1 mass scoop, 1 engine (1 turn)
-OR-
+++drone rack, 1 hold, 1 engine (2 turns)

GameAdmin wrote:

The reason scoops and hold are different is about hording. A player who designs large hold, small scoops can stock up, and then charge into combat, doing well UNTIL the hold is empty. They will tend to fire single warhead drones of more power. A player who has more scoops is about filling and firing constantly. They took the hit on other systems to allow their ship to constantly replenish. i.e. the two system creates a choice during the design. It will allow play styles and ship designs to differ from player to player.

the idea I'm forwarding is an evolution on that- same principal, larger application. All ships have to have holds and mass scoops currently. This idea (expanded hold capacity plus mass scoop capacity) allows a player to carry that forward- they can choose whether they have both, giving expanded capacity with limited fillrate, or the prerequisite one (scoops) which gives limited capacity but (more) constant fill rate- with a reduced possibility of their primary choice being reversed by random damage.

But I quite like the current balance, in that you cannot do everything. i.e. repair and fire off drones. Or even fire of high warhead drones turn after turn without also having to scoop.

GameAdmin wrote:

But I quite like the current balance, in that you cannot do everything. i.e. repair and fire off drones. Or even fire of high warhead drones turn after turn without also having to scoop.

1) I frequently repair one or two systems and fire off new drones. that's actually part of my frustration with the repeated loss of holds but not mass scoops- given the designs I would think I'd loose both- frequently in equal proportion- but that's not how it's working out, and I loose the ability to do either because I have only scoops left. The only accounting I can make of the cause is blind luck, and its just aggravating to repeatedly loose all functionality not because my enemy is better or I screwed up. (yes, I have ships with 6+ scoops and 10+ holds floating around. The only fights they've lost are singles caught against multiple enemies, and then they still usually severly wound someone first.)
2) I don't think that the change I'm proposing alters the scale enough to fire high warhead drones repeatedly without also scooping. in fact, while I think this change will alter specific circomstances and extend the fill/empty cycle (on both the fill and empty sides). I do not think this will signficantly change the composition of those warheads; people will scoop/fill at the same rate so they will have to either sacrifice the same time/power filling at the same rate (simply using expanded capacity at the same rate), more turns less often (filling and emptying in a longer cycle), or more turns more often (what you're talking about, high warhead-count drones, however the firer then has to spend the longer time-cycle refilling).
The possibility of higher fill-rates might appear to raise from the ability to replace holds with scoops. However, only half the holds could be thus replaced, as the rest would have to be engines, unless the extra scoops simply became redundency/hold capacity (which changes ship-durability, not in-turn capability). Even at half-again the capacity, there is an upper limit at which produced mass is useful because drones racks limit the power of the drones, swarm-gen, and factories limit the used mass. Which is not to say that a ship under this change could not benefit, simply that other limits restrict how many uses for mass the ship has.

I think it's a change that has a narrow range of effects and will not overly impact the balance you like. Perhaps that's because I'm already dedicating so much space in ships to this strategy, but I don't think that anyone who isn't will be able to use the boost to do anything wierd.

Raise this again further down the line. At the moment I don't think this mechanic is at all broken, and so I don't want to touch it.

I'm not sure that I ever will. But raise it again when the rules are all stable.

I have to agree with Jonathan here, I can't see any problem with the current arrangement of holds and mass scoops.

I've also not had any problems with not being able to harvest mass by loosing either all scoops or holds. Although I suppose this rather depends on how you've placed your systems.

I tend to have holds to scoops in either a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio which means I have to loose a lot of holds before I can't harvest. It also means that I tend to start with a large amount of combat mass which means that supplies don't tend to start to run low until I get into heavy combat.

I also tend to have my mass scoops somewhat shielded by other systems in my designs which makes it harder for them to be knocked out quickly.

Admittedly the main reason I have a lot of holds compared to scoops is that I'm using them as armour on the grounds that super structure is rubbish. Extra holds are at least useful and hold loss is not cricical to my designs unless I loose a large quanitity of it and by that point I've normally taken such a battering that low numbers of surviving holds is usually the least of my problems.

Super Structure rubbish!!!

You do know of the last release?

Quote:

It costs 3 to buy, rather than 5 during ship manufacture It still costs 5 mass to repair or manufacture It only counts 0.33 towards size for movement, rounded. So 2 superstructure will be rounded from size 0.66 to size 1. It will deplete attack nano by 2 rather than 1. It will be destroyed by 1 attach nano, but will absorb a further unit of attack nano.

And you still say useless!!!

Admittedly I hadn't noticed that.

That change does makes it more useful, might have to experiment with a design with some of my surplus armour holds replaced with equivelent weight in superstructure.

Although to be honest gut reaction still says not as useful as a functional system.

Although since we still have the ship multibuy problem and I've got no money currently it could be a long while before I get round to buying any more.

Fortunatly I actually have some merchants, otherwise I'd be completely stuffed.