Retrofit Rant

Slick · #1 February 13th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Not a real rant, but I just wanted to mention that it is frustrating to me that the retrofit cost plan doesn't make sense. The way it stands, you can upgrade a very old component to the latest tech much cheaper than a newer component due to the older component costing less. There are many examples of this but one that bothers me is that Spaceyard component. Upgrading a Spaceyard I to Spaceyard III is cheaper than upgrading a Spaceyard II to a Spaceyard III. It would seem that this should be the other way around, but since the Spaceyard I costs less than the Spaceyard II, it is cheaper to remove.

Ok, I feel better now.

Caduceus · #2 February 13th, 2005, 02:16 PM

So following that logic, you keep mothballed fleets to save minerals with a mass upgrade once you get PDC 5?

Hrm.

/me wanders away to ponder this

geoschmo · #3 February 13th, 2005, 03:06 PM

I don't see why retrofitting an earlier component would be more expensive then retrofitting an older component. However, I agree it also doesn't really make sense that retrofitting a newer component should more expensive either. I guess what you are suggesting would be the removal cost be some sort of flat rate, or perhaps based on tonnage instead of a percentage of the cost of the component being removed?

Suicide Junkie · #4 February 13th, 2005, 03:12 PM

I would suggest making it somewhat negative, since you're effectively scrapping the old component.

Slick · #5 February 13th, 2005, 03:42 PM

Ok, reality does not apply to a game such as SEIV, but let's not debate that. I would think that an upgrade is not a complete trashing of the old component and a complete installation of the new component. The closer the 2 components are to each other, the less would need to be changed. Thus, there would be more work to upgrade a more obsolete design and its cost should reflect that.

This gets into some sticky points. What about components that get cheaper as they get more advanced? What then?

That's my $0.02

Zereth · #6 February 13th, 2005, 06:33 PM

I never thought it made much sense that you pay extra for the component you're putting in, _and_ pay part of the cost of the component you're taking _out_. Shouldn't you get something _Back_ from the old component, if anything? If nothing else, you could break it down for scrap or something. As well as the fact that you apparently compeltely remove your old DUC III to put in a DUC IV.

geoschmo · #7 February 13th, 2005, 06:38 PM

I believe that the idea of getting something back for the new component is built into the idea that you are not paying full price for the new component. Although it does seem a backwards way of doing it.

Fyron · #8 February 13th, 2005, 07:10 PM

You need to have the retrofit add cost at least 100%, if not higher, for retroseries builds where you are just adding new components. Having a negative cost for removing a component makes normal upgrades cheaper than gamey retroseries builds. You can even do something fun like 200% cost to add a component, -115% cost to remove it. Note that you can never gain any resources from a retrofit. This makes adding components in a retroseries 2x as expensive, while upgrading a component to the next version in the family is a bit less expensive than the cost of the component alone. It also makes it so that if you replace your DUCs with APBs, you pay a lot more than just upgrading DUC I to DUC II, but still less than if you were just adding APBs to an empty hull.

Nodachi · #9 February 13th, 2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Fyron said:
than gamey retroseries builds.

I thought you considered retroseries a feature. Have you changed your position?

Fyron · #10 February 13th, 2005, 07:41 PM

No. Features can still be gamey.