Author Topic: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion  (Read 31622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MagusXIX

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 167
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2016, 10:05:03 AM »
Quote
These mechanics not only make maintenance cleaner, it will also make is easier for the next stage, which is implementing deep space maintenance facilities.

It's happening!!!

 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 228
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2016, 10:07:22 AM »
Hmm so v7 comes out with lots of nice shiny additions and so I start a new campaign and spent the regulation amount of hours getting it all setup correctly to begin. Then some bugs are discovered and while fixing them Steve puts in some new shinies, since there were serious bugs I hold off doing anything and wait for v7.1 with the new DB. v7.1 comes out and hot on it's heels v7.2 pops up promising so many wonderful shinies I simply have to have them, and it also means waiting due to a db change. When will this torture end?  ;D

It will never happen. Suck it up like a man, start playing now, and start again once 7.2 is out!

Real Aurora men are not afraid of restarting :P
 

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 434
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2016, 11:15:08 AM »
Quote
These mechanics not only make maintenance cleaner, it will also make is easier for the next stage, which is implementing deep space maintenance facilities.

Now we just need a none military hanger and we can finally have real deep space outposts and the like.
 

Offline linkxsc

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2016, 11:30:10 AM »
Question on the new maint change then.

Does this mean Id need to constantly build maintenence supply points. Or while ships are in orbit, will the maint facilities still "make enough" to support the ships they are servicing?
I realize everyone should be building some msp, but often I only do it for combat ships and such.


Also with regards to civvy hangars and magazines, ill make a nice suggestions forum post about my views, this we wont turn this thread into another suggestions forum.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 814 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2016, 11:45:51 AM »
Question on the new maint change then.

Does this mean Id need to constantly build maintenence supply points. Or while ships are in orbit, will the maint facilities still "make enough" to support the ships they are servicing?
I realize everyone should be building some msp, but often I only do it for combat ships and such.

As things stand you would  have to build them using construction factories, although you can build a lot quite quickly and you start the game with a stockpile. You would need minerals to build them but you no longer need minerals for maintenance so it is about the same.

However, I guess one option would be for maintenance facilities to build maintenance supply points. You could turn them on and off like fuel refineries.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 228
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2016, 11:53:22 AM »
However, I guess one option would be for maintenance facilities to build maintenance supply points. You could turn them on and off like fuel refineries.

This might actually be better Steve. Consider this: now maintenance costs mineral, but does not use construction factories time. With this change, as much as I like it, you'd have to use factories to produce maintenance supplies. So it is a disadvantage compared to how it works now, because you cannot build other things in the meanwhile.

On the other hand this solution would means you need mineral where the maintenance facilities are if you want to produce maintenance supplies. So there are pros and cons to this....
 

Offline linkxsc

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2016, 12:00:55 PM »
Eeh im not super big on the idea of them producing them...

Though the thought occurs that they (being specialized maint facilities) could turn them out very quickly. And perhaps a tech could be added (much like the fuel production techs) to increase the rate of maint production.

I'll make a suggestions forum post about it after lunch for people to mull it over in. Cause to an extent it would strip out a bit of micromanagement in having to produce the things.
It would also let you send maintenence ships (with modules) to your automined planets, and at forward positions turn out MSP to use (and with the new civvy msp storage, theres nothing to stop my FAC tenders from hauling a few thousand MSP anyways.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2016, 12:50:59 PM »
I don't mind the idea of building them with construction factories. Gives more control, and given how cheap they are you can just build a huge chunk and ignore them if you want.

I'm thinking about the tactical and strategic considerations of this change (or more specifically, the deep space maintenance one). Will we also be getting recreation module usage in deep space? Otherwise the benefits are kind of limited.

If we can also use recreation modules, though, it gets interesting. Maintenance modules can't support themselves, so you'd still probably want a large commercial "base station" with maintenance and recreation modules, and probably a bunch of armor, then put it in place with one or more smaller weapon platforms. I'm not sure how useful they'd be; generally the only static things I want to defend are colonized planets, and generally if I know that there's a threat on the other side of a jump point I'd prefer to concentrate on attacking it rather than defending. Though I suppose if you already have them built you can just leave them guarding a fuel harvesting operation or whatever and then tow them to a strategic location if hostilities break out.

Even if I don't end up using it, it adds a new strategic option, which is always nice.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 814 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2016, 12:55:02 PM »
Will we also be getting recreation module usage in deep space? Otherwise the benefits are kind of limited.

You can already use the recreational module in deep space - unless a bug is preventing that.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2016, 01:43:53 PM »
Oh, opps. For some reason I thought they only worked at planets, like maintenance facilities do currently.
 

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 801
  • Thanked: 23 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2016, 04:35:59 PM »
Great implementation change to go for MSP instead of minerals. The mineral management was so far the only thing really holding me back from opening up other fleet hub colonies beside home, because they were a hassle to manage.

Also: Finally a use for Sorium in post gas-giant exploitation empires. :)

Now we just need a none military hanger and we can finally have real deep space outposts and the like.
Hmm, civil hangars are not really needed for this, because you can maintain any separate military hangar with enough maint. modules on position, so it doesn't really prohibit the concept of a deep space base.
As far as I can see, current changes are completely implementing the thing! :D
Oh the possibilities. I have like 2.5 game ideas still waiting for time from before 7.0, and now this comes along. :)

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
However, I guess one option would be for maintenance facilities to build maintenance supply points. You could turn them on and off like fuel refineries.
This might actually be better Steve. Consider this: now maintenance costs mineral, but does not use construction factories time. With this change, as much as I like it, you'd have to use factories to produce maintenance supplies. So it is a disadvantage compared to how it works now, because you cannot build other things in the meanwhile.
Some people had thought before that this was already how the MSP were produced (yet they thought it happened automatically), and I also think it would make sense. I could live with a little reduced industrial, but this is fine too.
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline Havear

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2016, 02:06:02 AM »
Oh, opps. For some reason I thought they only worked at planets, like maintenance facilities do currently.

I'd very much like to see maintenance facilities decoupled from planets and tied to, say, location instead. With commercial supply, fuel, and ammo storage as well as recreation and other modules, the only thing missing from a complete support outpost/maintenance station is the ability to handle overhauls.
 

Offline swarm_sadist

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 186
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2016, 01:36:56 PM »
While I like the fact that maintenance is simplified on the product end, making the MSP cost every single resource just makes the system more complex and inefficient on the manufacturing side.

Take my very simple 2000t gravsurvey ship. It has no active sensors, passive sensors or jump drive to be cheaper. It doesn't require tritanium, neutronium (heavy-duranium armour), vendarite, or sorium, and only requires 5x corbomite for the bridge. I designed this due to a shortage of most resources, and the fact that I wanted the least amount of sorium going to maintenance as possible.

To properly maintain ALL ships now, you now require one world with access to all minerals in order to produce MSP. Any shortage of one resource now means that ALL ships suffer maintenance failures, instead of just the ones that need them. The good thing about the new system is a resource shortfall will have a delayed effect on maintenance, as long as there are MSP stockpiled.

Further, since MSP are used to repair a ship in transit, and shipyards repair in orbit using minerals, are shipyard repairs changed in any way by this? I wouldn't think they are but it doesn't hurt to ask.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 01:40:59 PM by swarm_sadist »
 

Offline linkxsc

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2016, 01:49:51 PM »
Due to the new gap below in the mining and maint window. Perhaps some of the buttons on the lower end of the overview window could be duplicated there, for the people with low resolution monitors, so they can still SM somewhat reliably.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 814 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2016, 02:04:17 PM »
To properly maintain ALL ships now, you now require one world with access to all minerals in order to produce MSP..

Further, since MSP are used to repair a ship in transit, and shipyards repair in orbit using minerals, are shipyard repairs changed in any way by this? I wouldn't think they are but it doesn't hurt to ask.

It's nine minerals, as Vendarite and Corbomite aren't needed. The other minerals are all needed for different types of ship. Rather than have different types of maintenance supplies for different ships, which would be a lot of micromanagement, the variety of minerals needed for creation of the MSP is still al lot easier than ensuring the right combination of minerals is at each place where maintenance is required. Now you can build in a central location if needed and distribute as required.

Repairs are unchanged.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51