Author Topic: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 173936 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ty55101

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • t
  • Posts: 66
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #330 on: June 03, 2016, 05:22:36 PM »
Could you add some type of randomizer for the ship names? Maybe a checkbox on whether or not the names are put in order or not on the class creation screen. I love my giant cruisers/carriers being the list of books in the bible in order, but I hate it when my army of dog fighters are in alphabetic order.
More guns = more funs
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1438
  • Thanked: 63 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #331 on: June 06, 2016, 08:03:06 AM »
I don't know if this has been fixed but could the way combat experience is given out be looked at?  So far as I can see no experience is given out to ships that use their weapon systems in combat which seems wrong.

I hope this has been fixed since 6.10.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #332 on: June 06, 2016, 09:43:00 AM »
I see no problem with this part.  Reshaping a world should be the work of generations, and not "Sister Jenny found a planet on her lunch break, it should be ready for the Amish Colonists by Tuesday."
Then you should have a problem with the other side, which is that terraforming of small worlds will be unrealistically short.  Regardless of anyone's views on the optimal time for terraforming, a model which scales with the square of the planet's diameter is a bad one.

I don't know if this has been fixed but could the way combat experience is given out be looked at?  So far as I can see no experience is given out to ships that use their weapon systems in combat which seems wrong.

I hope this has been fixed since 6.10.
The problem there is defining 'combat', particularly for missile-armed ships.  Otherwise, it would be easy to get really, really good crews by building conventional-engine training missiles.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1438
  • Thanked: 63 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #333 on: June 06, 2016, 10:14:25 AM »
Defining combat isn't a problem...shooting a weapon at a hostile target is combat.

I'm not sure when the game has an SM mode that allows pretty much anything that it is necessary to put in "cheat protection."  Yes you can get super well trained crews by cheats but the current way prevents any crew skill advancement that isn't from leader training.   Ships appear to only gain skill while being damaged...in most cases a damaged ship will either be destroyed (making the gain moot) or take losses to crew which will negate the gain.

Sure I can designate a rock as a hostile and shoot a missile at it, but the fact is it costs me a missile.  Maybe a cheapso missile but still one that took resources to build.  And frankly a live fire excersize is better than a simulator any day of the week.  Actually I'm not sure I can designate the rock as hostile...I can just designate it as a target?  Or am I not following what you are trying to say Byron? 

It is just that currently you gain no experience from sucessful combat which seems odd.  A group of ships that sucessfully ingages and destroys every inbound missile launched at them over a 10 min period will gain 0 combat experience.  Maybe I'm nuts but I'd think they would have learned a lot from that experience.

Having finished Jabberwocky over the weekend...this point is driven home to me.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #334 on: June 06, 2016, 11:01:49 AM »
I have to agree, just getting experience from getting wholes shot in you does not seem the best basis of advancing crew experience. Perhaps having a system that ties to combat actions but also provides for reducing benefits as crew get more experienced.

Also looking forwadd to reading the results of jabberwoky.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #335 on: June 06, 2016, 12:16:33 PM »
Defining combat isn't a problem...shooting a weapon at a hostile target is combat.

I'm not sure when the game has an SM mode that allows pretty much anything that it is necessary to put in "cheat protection."
Actually, crew skill above 10% is something which isn't easily cheated without the DB password.  Point taken, but it's not so much 'cheat' as 'loophole'.

Quote
Sure I can designate a rock as a hostile and shoot a missile at it, but the fact is it costs me a missile.  Maybe a cheapso missile but still one that took resources to build.
Look at how cheap missiles can be made.  A size 1 missile with 0.99 MSP of minimal-multiplier conventional engine and 0.01 of fuel would cost next to nothing.   
Quote
And frankly a live fire excersize is better than a simulator any day of the week.  Actually I'm not sure I can designate the rock as hostile...I can just designate it as a target?  Or am I not following what you are trying to say Byron? 
You can't designate a rock as hostile.  You can shoot at waypoints.  If you require hostile targets, then it's a bit harder to exploit.  Although now I'm thinking about leaving a spoiler PDC alive and neutered to use instead. 

Quote
It is just that currently you gain no experience from sucessful combat which seems odd.  A group of ships that sucessfully ingages and destroys every inbound missile launched at them over a 10 min period will gain 0 combat experience.  Maybe I'm nuts but I'd think they would have learned a lot from that experience.
I agree that it's odd, and I'd like to fix it. The best solution I can think of would be based on actual damage to hostile targets, with the training bonus based on what the target is, so shooting at freighters would be less lucrative than shooting at warships.  That may or may not be manageable to implement, and it doesn't game nearly as easily as other options.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #336 on: June 06, 2016, 05:38:28 PM »
Actually, crew skill above 10% is something which isn't easily cheated without the DB password.  Point taken, but it's not so much 'cheat' as 'loophole'.
Look at how cheap missiles can be made.  A size 1 missile with 0.99 MSP of minimal-multiplier conventional engine and 0.01 of fuel would cost next to nothing.    You can't designate a rock as hostile.  You can shoot at waypoints.  If you require hostile targets, then it's a bit harder to exploit.  Although now I'm thinking about leaving a spoiler PDC alive and neutered to use instead. 
I agree that it's odd, and I'd like to fix it. The best solution I can think of would be based on actual damage to hostile targets, with the training bonus based on what the target is, so shooting at freighters would be less lucrative than shooting at warships.  That may or may not be manageable to implement, and it doesn't game nearly as easily as other options.
Maybe have crew grade scale explicitly with the capabilities of the ship (so a higher grade crew refitting to more advanced weapon systems, most specifically beam fire control and missile quality, will have their grade lowered somewhat, but still be higher than lower grade crews), and then make it so grade increase is based on the difficulty of the shots your ship makes?
In example, if you upgrade your ship by replacing BFC with better designs, the grade of all crew adapted to older ships goes down a bit, but not enough to make the upgrade a straight debuff (if anything, it should just slightly reduce the immediate benefits of refit while expanding the potential growth overall. That way, or ships can improve their skills by working with primitive systems, but overall, having the newest and best performing weaponry will benefit their skill most in the long run.
That said, missile effectiveness isn't necessarily static to an individual ship, so not sure how that'll be handled.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #337 on: June 07, 2016, 01:27:13 AM »
Why don't fractional WH have a %age chance to destroy an armor block? So a 3.4 WH would destroy 3 armor block, and have a 40% chance of destroying a fourth.
 

Offline ty55101

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • t
  • Posts: 66
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #338 on: June 07, 2016, 01:38:40 AM »
Why don't fractional WH have a %age chance to destroy an armor block? So a 3.4 WH would destroy 3 armor block, and have a 40% chance of destroying a fourth.

I would imagine it is because Steve put the variable type as ints so it can't hold decimals/fractions. Honestly, putting that into the system would make too much variance on something that is already random. (in my opinion) Armor columns are already rounded too and most people design missiles to have a cubed damage output because it is how to get deepest into the hull. (most likely to damage the ship)
More guns = more funs
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1438
  • Thanked: 63 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #339 on: June 07, 2016, 06:43:46 AM »
I would require hostile targets, otherwise you could be shooting at rocks or waypoints and while "live fire excersizes" are good they aren't that good.

You could also for missiles scale the experience with the (cost of launched missile/most expensive missile of that size) but that is likely a pita to program and has its own issues.

Also keeping a neutered spoiler about is different from firing cheepso missiles how exactly?  In both cases your are exploiting the mechanics, and if someone wants to do this in aurora I think that is  an issue between them and their confessor.

The issue of fake wars and crew grade is a big one in Starfire so I'm familier with what can be abused but I still think the current system is in dire need of a good (or Good and KISS) suggestion on how best to implement a better solution.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #340 on: June 07, 2016, 10:25:59 AM »
Maybe have crew grade scale explicitly with the capabilities of the ship (so a higher grade crew refitting to more advanced weapon systems, most specifically beam fire control and missile quality, will have their grade lowered somewhat, but still be higher than lower grade crews), and then make it so grade increase is based on the difficulty of the shots your ship makes?
That would be an interesting idea, although it's not at the top of my list of reforms I'd like to see for crew.  The problem is how to scale it properly, particularly because BFCs have two factors.

I'm going to repost a suggestion I made long ago for improved crew realism:
First, the crew pool tracks people and points separately.  The academy has a level that it pumps people in at.  For example, it may add 100 people and 20000 points in a given week.  These are added to the pool values.  When a ship is commissioned, it takes the correct number of people and points, based on the pool averages.  Adjusting the academy training level only affects the inflow, not what's already in the pool.  Also, people should leave the pool.  Maybe 5% a year, of average points.  In wartime, you can check a box which temporarily slows the loss rate, but eventually (5 to 10 years later) it comes back to normal, or even goes higher.  After you uncheck it, the war timer counts backwards until it reaches 0, so people don't just toggle it on and off when they get to the point of diminishing returns.
Second, rotate people on ships.  To make it easy, whenever a ship gets shore leave, a certain number of people rotate back into the pool, based on how long it's been out.  Maybe 10% per year.  They're replaced with normal people from the pool.  This is to avoid the "ICBM station with an enormous crew rating" problem.
Third, allow picked crews, and unpicked crews.  These have maybe 150% and 50% of normal points, respectively, taking the appropriate number of people and points from the pool, and getting those values when the crew rotates.  This is to allow you to have a good crew on your fancy new battleship, and give your second-line PDCs the dregs.
Fourth, conscript-crewed ships should not feed into the pool.  Because of the nature of the crews (and to avoid flooding the pool with untrained people), the people who leave the ship at the end of their tour are just lost. 

Integrating your suggestion would mean that while under refit, the crew loses points, or at least stops gaining them.

I would require hostile targets, otherwise you could be shooting at rocks or waypoints and while "live fire excersizes" are good they aren't that good.
Agreed.  It also avoids minelayers being the best ships in the fleet.

Quote
You could also for missiles scale the experience with the (cost of launched missile/most expensive missile of that size) but that is likely a pita to program and has its own issues.
That's not a bad suggestion, although it isn't perfect.  First, it would be easy to build a weird training missile.  Size 1.1, maybe.  Or, if rounding is implemented, some size that doesn't get used for anything else.  Second, the most expensive missile might be a special-purpose one considerably more expensive than normal.  It's better than counting all missiles equally, certainly, but I still don't think it's the right solution.

Quote
Also keeping a neutered spoiler about is different from firing cheepso missiles how exactly?  In both cases your are exploiting the mechanics, and if someone wants to do this in aurora I think that is  an issue between them and their confessor.
There's a fine line here.  You don't want to create a system where it's too easy to make exploits, but this isn't a multiplayer game, either.  And my point was that a neutered spoiler could be used to bypass a system which required you to fire missiles at a hostile target if firing was all that was required. 

Quote
The issue of fake wars and crew grade is a big one in Starfire so I'm familier with what can be abused but I still think the current system is in dire need of a good (or Good and KISS) suggestion on how best to implement a better solution.
I think our best bet is to base it on damage to hostile ship targets.  It's hard to fake that, and with a bit of careful design, gaming the system will be limited and come with tradeoffs.  You can get XP by shooting up the civilian fleet of the people you're conquering, but then you won't get it when they surrender, for instance.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #341 on: June 07, 2016, 10:50:38 AM »
But if you base it on damage dealt, carrier crews will never get anything.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #342 on: June 07, 2016, 10:58:44 AM »
But if you base it on damage dealt, carrier crews will never get anything.
That's a necessary consequence.  Also, carrier crew training is somewhat less important than fighter crew training anyway.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1438
  • Thanked: 63 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #343 on: June 08, 2016, 09:09:53 AM »
Basing it on damage dealt also precludes point defence ships for the most part.  And speaking from experience the escorts might infact play critical roles in combat.

The system is Starfire Assistant basically rates the intensity of the combat and then rolls to see if the crewgrade improves.  The SM decides on the intensity based on the battle in question.  I don't see how this could be 1:1 brought over though.

Carriers can be handled in that the mothership gets training based on the damage the fighters based on it do.

 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #344 on: June 08, 2016, 09:43:25 AM »
Basing it on damage dealt also precludes point defence ships for the most part.  And speaking from experience the escorts might infact play critical roles in combat.
I was assuming (but didn't state) that killing missiles would also count.  Probably on a flat points per missile kill basis for reasons of simplicity.

Quote
The system is Starfire Assistant basically rates the intensity of the combat and then rolls to see if the crewgrade improves.  The SM decides on the intensity based on the battle in question.  I don't see how this could be 1:1 brought over though.
I don't think it can at all.  Aurora doesn't do discrete combat, and human judgements need to be removed where possible.

Quote
Carriers can be handled in that the mothership gets training based on the damage the fighters based on it do.
How and why, though?  First, carrier crew training doesn't seem to do all that much (although I admit to not using carriers that much).  Second, this doesn't make much sense.  How does the fighters attacking make the carrier better?  Third, fighters aren't permanently attached to motherships in a way that makes this sensible.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman