Hi, just dropping by to give some feedback on the "tiger team" system.
While it's certainly an improvement from before, where the only thing you could do when a problem appeared was pray, I do feel that the cost to hire them is a little high... I mean, it's a gamble to use them, because even if you go for the most expensive solution you stay below the 80% threshold, and therefore it's not a certain investment. Moreover, you can use one and get a go, and then on the next mission step have another... it can spiral upwards very quickly.
Do somebody else feel the same way?
Cost of "tiger teams"
-
Italianfan88
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:57 pm
Re: Cost of "tiger teams"
I feel the same way. They are kind of useless.
The cost of using them doesn't beat the cost of waiting another season and going in with better specs. I do like the concept, but something is missing.
Thoughts on improvement. One cost for the team, but with three random levels of improvement. 2 positive, and one slightly negative. I suggest a negative possibility since hiring a team should have some risk, and sometimes too many people can be a real problem.
I also suggest teams get better with use. If you are hiring an outside agency, you should get point for building up some familiarity.
- 5%, +5%, +10% in effectiveness.
Starting point is the average of MC +.05 each time they are used.
Cost for a team is 40% of mission cost and only charged once per mission.
I'm throwing numbers out here for illustration.
I like the idea that the team is there for an entire mission. There should be an upfront cost. I don't like the idea that they are there for only one mission point.
As I think about the dynamics. Maybe a new team can only help at one mission point and an advanced team could help at the three weakest.
I'm not a fan of the abort button, but I do like the idea of a downgrade button. If we go for duration 3, we should be able to cut it back to duration 2 if it gets a bit harry.
These are just some thoughts. What do you think?
The cost of using them doesn't beat the cost of waiting another season and going in with better specs. I do like the concept, but something is missing.
Thoughts on improvement. One cost for the team, but with three random levels of improvement. 2 positive, and one slightly negative. I suggest a negative possibility since hiring a team should have some risk, and sometimes too many people can be a real problem.
I also suggest teams get better with use. If you are hiring an outside agency, you should get point for building up some familiarity.
- 5%, +5%, +10% in effectiveness.
Starting point is the average of MC +.05 each time they are used.
Cost for a team is 40% of mission cost and only charged once per mission.
I'm throwing numbers out here for illustration.
I like the idea that the team is there for an entire mission. There should be an upfront cost. I don't like the idea that they are there for only one mission point.
As I think about the dynamics. Maybe a new team can only help at one mission point and an advanced team could help at the three weakest.
I'm not a fan of the abort button, but I do like the idea of a downgrade button. If we go for duration 3, we should be able to cut it back to duration 2 if it gets a bit harry.
These are just some thoughts. What do you think?
Re: Cost of "tiger teams"
I think for myself that too cheap "Tiger Teams" would simply make the game too easy. They have a real impact on the game, especially when your Mission Controllers aren't super-trained. Also, it really depends of the mission type.
My personal guideline is not to use them for unmanned probes, as the consequences of a failure are usually limited. That's completely different for a mission that involves a "R&D costly" crewed spacecraft like Apollo, LOK or Soyuz.
Some uncrewed test missions are really important, and I might use a team there when needed (like Apollo uncrewed Suborbital test, which is a key to the Moon if you choose that path).
And there are of course the big prestigious manned missions like a manned lunar orbital flight, that involve my elite astronauts. Training them takes (quite realistically) years and a lot of money, and there failure is not an option.
And also when the consequences in terms of prestige are quite a disaster, and I need to reach a "prestige ceiling" before the quadriennal review.
I've played quite a lot in "Hard" mode, and there I find them really useful. Its much easier to recover from a failure in "Normal" mode, so of course the consequences of a failure aren't really the same.
Note that its already planned to halve the costs of such "Tiger Teams" in the particular case of 2-launches missions, which should make those EOR/docking missions a bit less insane !
My personal guideline is not to use them for unmanned probes, as the consequences of a failure are usually limited. That's completely different for a mission that involves a "R&D costly" crewed spacecraft like Apollo, LOK or Soyuz.
Some uncrewed test missions are really important, and I might use a team there when needed (like Apollo uncrewed Suborbital test, which is a key to the Moon if you choose that path).
And there are of course the big prestigious manned missions like a manned lunar orbital flight, that involve my elite astronauts. Training them takes (quite realistically) years and a lot of money, and there failure is not an option.
And also when the consequences in terms of prestige are quite a disaster, and I need to reach a "prestige ceiling" before the quadriennal review.
I've played quite a lot in "Hard" mode, and there I find them really useful. Its much easier to recover from a failure in "Normal" mode, so of course the consequences of a failure aren't really the same.
Note that its already planned to halve the costs of such "Tiger Teams" in the particular case of 2-launches missions, which should make those EOR/docking missions a bit less insane !
Nicolas Escats
Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager Contributor
Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager Contributor
-
Italianfan88
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:57 pm
Re: Cost of "tiger teams"
I was looking at something in between "too costly" and "too cheap"... I acknowledge that they have an impact on the game, because it gives you extra reason to look up the budget, but as of now I think it's somewhat unbalanced...
Re: Cost of "tiger teams"
It's funny that you say don't use them for unmanned probes. That's where I like them the best. They aren't as expensive on a probe and are great to test a Saturn V rocket. I also like the the Explorer probe has less mission points.
The one thing I don't like is the concept that you would be calling in an ad hoc team in a moment which really happens in seconds. I'd rather the concept of hiring an extra team from the beginning of the mission.
On Normal, I didn't see the point. On hard I used them for the Rocket test. Maybe on Buzz Hard I'll love them.
I've landed on the moon in 1963 on Normal and 1965 on Hard.
The one thing I don't like is the concept that you would be calling in an ad hoc team in a moment which really happens in seconds. I'd rather the concept of hiring an extra team from the beginning of the mission.
On Normal, I didn't see the point. On hard I used them for the Rocket test. Maybe on Buzz Hard I'll love them.
I've landed on the moon in 1963 on Normal and 1965 on Hard.