Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 345409 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #165 on: May 06, 2018, 10:41:57 AM »
There was some talk about Jump Gates in the mechanics sections today, so I'll post an idea I've had for a while.

A blockade component that would allow a ship to stop traffic through a jump gate.  This would not stop ships with jump drivers.  Probably have to make it time limited somehow, perhaps it requires fuel to do it or something similar.

This launched a flurry (which is already long and shows no sign of stopping) discussion of ideas for modifying the construction and/or destruction and/or mechanics rules of jump gates.  I've split that off into a separate "Jump Gate Construction/Destruction (split suggestions)" thread here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10035.0

Please post any further ideas/discussion on jump gate mechanics to that thread to avoid cluttering up the main suggestions thread (which Steve uses as a filing cabinet and in which we want to keep signal to noise high).

Thanks,
John
 
The following users thanked this post: waresky, Demonides

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1486
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #166 on: May 08, 2018, 10:48:10 AM »
Yes, this is the key to any change involving extra detail. Does it add consequential decisions which add game play benefit greater than the additional micromanagement?

Steve..ive been buy Battletech too..but isnt so "Awesome" than someone think. So stop scrolling dick around..:)

And finish your "Job"...your/our Dream : #C

2020 incoming. Last Call..eheh
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #167 on: May 08, 2018, 11:45:27 AM »
Don't worry - I was back programming again at the weekend :)

Working on AI at the moment and NPR fleet design themes.
 
The following users thanked this post: waresky, Garfunkel, Zincat, JacenHan, papent, Kytuzian, serger, Jovus, King-Salomon, factory

Offline papent

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 45 times
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #168 on: May 08, 2018, 12:37:48 PM »
Two suggestions

May FACs be assignable to carriers in the class design window.
And may FACs also be assigned to squadrons like fighters.
Just two QOL items
In my humble opinion anything that could be considered a balance issue is a moot point unless the AI utilize it against you because otherwise it's an exploit you willing choose to use to game the system. 
Rule 0 Is effect : "The SM is always right/ What SM Says Goes."
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #169 on: May 08, 2018, 05:42:01 PM »
If it's not too late, can we get either "Missile Size Points" or "Maintenance Supply Points" renamed to something else?  Or at least, have their abbreviations changed so we don't have two MSPs?

My preference would be to have everything that is currently referenced in M(issile) S(ize) P(oint)s to instead be given in tons, but I could live with MRPs (Maintenance & Repair Points) or Mt (Maintenance) or RSPs (Repair Supply Points) or Quatloos or RoDTs*.


.


*Rolls of Duct Tape
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, DIT_grue, serger

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #170 on: May 08, 2018, 06:55:59 PM »
If it's not too late, can we get either "Missile Size Points" or "Maintenance Supply Points" renamed to something else?  Or at least, have their abbreviations changed so we don't have two MSPs?

My preference would be to have everything that is currently referenced in M(issile) S(ize) P(oint)s to instead be given in tons, but I could live with MRPs (Maintenance & Repair Points) or Mt (Maintenance) or RSPs (Repair Supply Points) or Quatloos or RoDTs*.


.


*Rolls of Duct Tape

How about RoQ?

Rolls of Quatloos

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #171 on: May 08, 2018, 07:54:45 PM »
Obviously MSPs should be renamed to SSSBs, for Self-Sealing Stem Bolts. Or if we want to keep the abbreviations the same, TSBs for Triple-S Bolts.
 

Offline ReviewDude01

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #172 on: May 09, 2018, 03:34:32 AM »
1.  Please: Make additional tech line of Jump Engines: Personal Only.  (Military only/maybe also commercial)

They would cost 50% of size and cost and tech would reduce that to say 30%.  They could transport only the ship with this engine.
Same rules as other engines (except squadron size obviously).

2.  Rename Beam Fire Control do Direct Fire Control? (It sounds a lot better to me dont know what about the community. )

3.  Make Artillery Cannon (a variation of Railgun, same logic as Particle Lance vs Particle Beam ) only 1 shot, same damage pattern, huge range, big size, low tech rp, slow reload, low energy cost. . . . analogy: Macro Cannon. . . . Just some huge conventional (gas boosted) basic cannons.  Separate Tech researching max size while using railgun launch velocity, (and obviously capacitor recharge rate tech)

Balance wise, it would essentialy work like a long ranged plasma carronade with slower reload and lower damage, and with low-tech cap.

3b: possibility: expand those Artillery Cannon to have possibility to Flak, or Fragmentation Flak.  Logic: it would have a chance to damage a set number of things in 1 group.  Aka: % chance for each shot to damage max X (7) of missiles (fighters).  This could be viable PD, or anti small ship but should be weak vs, Med to larger ships.  Low reload time.  Good counter to swarms of fighters or missiles.

4.  Just rename some weapons (and tech lines) as tech progresses.  Or give players an option to do so:

Example: Microwave beams from tech level 5 (or some tech level where it makes sense, like a bigger jump in efficiency) to Ion Cannon.
Particle Beams later to Neutron, Antiproton, Multi-Particle.   It would be just a new name.  No new functionality.  The best would if players could specify those names before starting play.  This would help imagination a lot making research slightly less tedious.

5.  Please, expand tooltips (text infos) when researching things.  To give (especially new) players more info about what this thing is doing etc.  I believe this is a little work but saves a lot of time googling or browsing wiki for others.



 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline ReviewDude01

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 22
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #173 on: May 09, 2018, 03:39:53 AM »
For example: The Artillery Cannon or Flak the one could use a warhead tech of missiles.

One last thing: Please, give ability for ships and fighters to equip 2 different types of engines.  The faster one (so the one guzzling more fuel) would be deactivated by default and it would activate only when in combat.  (However This could be a big thing balance-wise)
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #174 on: May 09, 2018, 04:30:59 AM »
The idea of having two kinds of engines (I am thinking of submarines e.g. stealth ships) might be a venue to go into - one for "silent running" and one which you use to "running away" when you have been detected.

Or expand one engine to be run in two different modes: "Attack" and "Transfer". When you transfer a ship from one base to the other, it runs in transfer mode - which for example expands the range (due to less fuel useage); and when in attack mode, it runs with maximum energy output but also maximum fuel use.
 
The following users thanked this post: ReviewDude01

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #175 on: May 09, 2018, 05:46:38 AM »
4.  Just rename some weapons (and tech lines) as tech progresses.  Or give players an option to do so:

Example: Microwave beams from tech level 5 (or some tech level where it makes sense, like a bigger jump in efficiency) to Ion Cannon.
Particle Beams later to Neutron, Antiproton, Multi-Particle.   It would be just a new name.  No new functionality.  The best would if players could specify those names before starting play.  This would help imagination a lot making research slightly less tedious.

There's nothing stopping you from doing this on a component basis now.
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Gold Supporter
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 19 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #176 on: May 09, 2018, 04:40:24 PM »
There's nothing stopping you from doing this on a component basis now.

This is exactly what I do for a number of my RP games, I like the idea of big space guns, so I name all the 'lasers' as if they were proper slug throwers.

As for stealth or multiple engines, you can just reduce task force speed. Thermal emissions scale with velocity. If fuel efficiency scaled with % of speed as well, to offer some benefit to operating on reduced velocity, that'd cover the latter. As long as its balanced so that its not superior to an engine built to be run at that slower speed, then it shouldn't have a significant effect on game balance.
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #177 on: May 09, 2018, 04:56:17 PM »
Working on AI at the moment

Well there goes Steve's sanity, Coding AI is not much better than doing a dermatological inspection of Cthulhu for mental health!



Extremely disturbing that my spellchecker knows the name Cthulhu!
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 04:57:54 PM by boggo2300 »
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 115 times
  • Discord Username: Jacenhan
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #178 on: May 09, 2018, 07:07:29 PM »
I'd like to suggest an "Ignore Colony" button for civilians. There are a lot of times where you need to have a "colony" on a colony cost 0 planet (espionage teams and ground invasions are the main ones) for gameplay purposes but you don't actually want any people sent there.

On a similar but probably more complicated note, I'd also like to suggest allowing multiple species to share the same colony. There are a lot of weird cases in-game right now where you can end up with multiple colonies on the same planet, trying to swap installations, minerals, or ground units between them, and if you try to consolidate them (assuming they are both the same species) into a single colony you risk accidentally deleting something important that you forgot to transfer. I think the biggest issues with this would be infrastructure requirements, but I don't think that would be an insurmountable problem.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #179 on: May 10, 2018, 07:14:21 AM »
I'd like to suggest an "Ignore Colony" button for civilians. There are a lot of times where you need to have a "colony" on a colony cost 0 planet (espionage teams and ground invasions are the main ones) for gameplay purposes but you don't actually want any people sent there.

On a similar but probably more complicated note, I'd also like to suggest allowing multiple species to share the same colony. There are a lot of weird cases in-game right now where you can end up with multiple colonies on the same planet, trying to swap installations, minerals, or ground units between them, and if you try to consolidate them (assuming they are both the same species) into a single colony you risk accidentally deleting something important that you forgot to transfer. I think the biggest issues with this would be infrastructure requirements, but I don't think that would be an insurmountable problem.

In C# Aurora, civilians will not send colonists to any colony with 0 population. This means you need to start your own populated colonies, but prevents the above situation.

Multiple species can't share the same population due to different environmental requirements, which affects not just infrastructure but other factors such as manufacturing efficiency. They can also have different characteristics in C# such as production and research bonuses.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus