The problem is not that adaptability should come at a price. It's that said price ends up being prohibitively high
((But the system was set up initially with an internal coherence/logic. You are trying to introduce a new concept (extreme modularity) so, again, should we change your idea to fit into the system as it already existed, or change the system (such as by introducing new mechanics) to accommodate your (or any particular) idea?))
((That depends on the idea, and in this case the idea is specifically breaking upon the edges of the established system. It plain doesn't work when something complete costs far less than the sum of its parts. The idea behind the MACS, and the "license" system I originally intended to use with it, was to make the suit more of a "complete" item, with a price more in line with its actual ability.))
21 token versus 13 for a Mk3-equivalent. And all you get is the ability to change the rockets to something else, but to change to a heavy laser, for instance, you'd waste 5 tokens trading in the rocket pack, and spend the return plus 6 more getting the laser, with very little change in overall "power" of the equipped suit, since you've traded mobility for firepower. 6 token for a respec of what already cost you 8 token over the norm is too much.
Could you be more clear in this example? I'm not sure what you are using as base values, so I can't even check the math really. Also, 'too much' is very subjective. In the end, aren't the markets (aka pw) 'right' about the correct price?
((Let's say you buy either a Mk2, or a MACS Core, for 5 token. Now let's say you want to upgrade to a Mk3(-like). With standard suits, you just buy a Mk3 for 13 token, and can trade in your Mk2 for 2 or 3. With MACS and the lease system, you lease in the exoskeleton and rocket pack for 8 token. With MACS and the standard system, you pay the full 16 token. Standard suits: 15 token spent (5+13-3). MACS+Lease system: 13 token (5+8). MACS+Standard system: 21 token (5+16). Now let's say you want to change your gear a bit, maybe you won't need flight for your next mission, but can use extra firepower. With the standard gear, you don't have much options until a new suit is made, but I'd expect an equivalent to the Heavy Laser MACS suit to cost some 16 token. With the lease system, you exchange the rocket pack for the heavy laser module, paying 2 tokens for respec and 1 token of lease cost difference. With the standard system, you would purchase the Heavy Laser module for its 12-token cost. Standard suits: 31 token spent (15+16). MACS+Lease system: 16 token (13+2+1). MACS+Standard system: 33 token (21+12).
Further breakdown: With standard gear, you have 2 full suits, one of which you're using, and the other remains as backup or available for rent/sale/giveaway. With MACS and lease (mac&cheese?) you have just the suit on your person, and half the cost of the modules hanging above your head. With MACS and standard purchase, you have the MACS suit on you, and a separate, relatively useless module, that isn't going to sell for much, and isn't usable by anyone who doesn't have a MACS system anyway.
The standard full-purchase system is good for amassing an armory. Every time you purchase something different, you put everything you don't use into a locker, so only a fraction of what you've spent ends up being actively useful to you. With the lease and exchange system, almost everything you've paid for remains on your person - which is pretty good when you're purchasing small, costly, interchangeable, and individually unusable items.))
With prices like that the whole modularity aspect can be tossed out the window
Not really, it just might mean the way the system currently works isn't ideal. you could change it to compensate for that effect by, for starters, making more elements standard in the suit (eg an exoskeleton, such as pw proposed). Remember, this thing doesn't have 'some' modularity, it has all of the modularity, it's its main feature. Just as with any tinker project, what you started out with might not be the optimal solution, but that doesn't mean the whole concept is rubbish.
((Making an exoskeleton standard would make it a) a Mk3-replacement out of reach of beginning players, b) pointlessly expensive to synthflesh-bodies that don't benefit from an exoskeleton, and c)... well, actually I don't think there's a c. Not a good c, anyway. I'd like to make the exoskeleton optional because it'd open up more options for people who are, say, strong enough not to need one. The ducted turbofan flight pack is a relatively cheap and cheerful flight solution that is way less costly than a Mk3, with almost none of the benefits besides being able to fly, and I'd like people to be able to use that without spending more tokens on swapping suits later.
I'd like to think that it's just the implementation that suffers, but as I explained in the calculations above, the full-buy system ends up hurting the player that uses a modular system, because either he wastes tokens on half-price trade-ins and overly expensive modules, or he accumulates a pile of gear he can't use that's even more useless than entire standard suits that can be purchased separately, and at similar cost.))
It's 'inherently unfair' in that a modular system like that causes any given loadout to cost as much for the end user to buy, as it would cost a tinkerer to prototype (sans grant), without much actual immediate gain.
Assuming for the moment this is all true, that still doesn't provide a reason to allow new mechanics to be made up to compensate. It just means that, in the current system, the idea might not really work out.
So, what exactly makes this idea so uniquely good compared to others that an exception to the rule should be made?
(Not saying you are wrong or attacking the thing, really just asking questions that occur to me.)
((Iunno. It makes sense for a modular system to exist (inasmuch as it doesn't make sense for a military organization to have its members stockpiling an arsenal they almost never use), and the lease system is actually PW's reimagining of my license idea. Under my idea, you could choose any loadout that'd fit on you, from the MACS catalog, as long as you had the requisite license purchased. I.e., you spend X money on the MACS suit and systems, and you are free to have any configuration of suit that fits within that cost. Add a cost to change equipment to that, and I think it'd be pretty fair. It doesn't allow you to get more power by making an "ace custom" like Milno did with his Milnoplate suit, but it provides various options to get what you want to have while staying within the same standardized system.))
Token cost doesn't reflect production cost, it's a measure of how dangerous a given piece of equipment is, so that a person with little experience and/or low competence, who has few tokens, doesn't get his clumsy mitts on something too powerful.
I don't entirely agree, token cost also reflects in-game resource expenditure I think.
((Production costs have only a secondary involvement in token costs, insofar as a more powerful or useful item is going to take more resources to produce. Like how a megaton nuke costs as much as a gauss cannon, or a battlesuit costs as much as four Mk2s.))
You're not getting an unfair amount of power per what you pay with this system, and you get a higher risk overhead with it (the higher non-lease cost to be paid for replacement), so I don't see how it is at all unfair.
Hmm. Suppose I design a new death tube, but it's badly designed or something so it's rather expensive for what it does (aka it costs more tokens than what those tokens should represent in power). So, should I redesign the gun until it makes sense in the current economy, or add a rule that people can license/rent/whatever the gun for a lesser price and with some added rules (aka added complexity)?
((The thing is, it won't cost more tokens, no matter how badly designed. If it's designed well enough to be mass-produced, it's going to have a token cost appropriate to its power. If it's designed so badly its power is terrible for how many resources it takes to make, then it won't make it to mass production.
What you're describing applies to prototypes only, and MACS is a mass-produced system.))
Also, could I ask that, whatever way the system ends up in, not to include straight up CON weapons? Because then people not using the system are directly at a disadvantage for getting the same already existing tech (when I talked about my suit idea before, I mentioned not adding straight up weapons (apart from kin amps perhaps) as an equipment option, and people seemed to agree with that idea).
((The only actual CON weapon available anywhere in the MACS system, if I remember right, is the Heavy Laser pack, and it's so terribly niche that I'm not sure anyone will actually use it. MACS only provides pylons and hardpoints for installing weapons, not the weapons themselves.))
but you guys keep mentioning 'standard repair costs'. What does that mean? To my knowledge, no such thing exists- I mean, seriously, when Feyri was returned from the Ice-9 mission, she was just a head with a helmet, yet she still got a full MK.III back, free of charge. To my knowledge, all of our non-consumable equipment works like that, regardless of how badly damaged it is.
True. I mostly added that in case that wouldn't be the case for whatever reason (such as the apc not getting free repairs). But indeed, it probably doesn't matter all that much, unless the lease system doesn't come with free repairs, it was more a 'just in case' thing.
((Same here, I mostly assume that you would have to pay for repairing damaged equipment. I don't actually remember what the repair costs are.))
Author
Topic: Hephaestus No Longer Exists: Crater thread. (Read 188454 times)