Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 442015 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #675 on: March 30, 2017, 10:41:26 AM »
Usually there are loads of scientists in my scientist-pool - and they don't do anything. How about adding a new team-function: Science-Team. And those can be set to research a project instead of a single scientist...  :D
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #676 on: March 30, 2017, 10:48:50 AM »
Am I the only person who thinks that with the changes Steve has already made we have more than enough terraforming detail? I'd much rather Steve moved onto other areas now.

Terraforming is a very important part of the game, especially for those who roleplay. Still, I do feel we are getting a good improvement already in this field.

I just wish we could see some bonus to wealth generation for well-terraformed planets (atmosphere, water etc) make it in for the release. Or a malus for planets without an inhabitable atmosphere/ecosystem.  :)


Usually there are loads of scientists in my scientist-pool - and they don't do anything. How about adding a new team-function: Science-Team. And those can be set to research a project instead of a single scientist...  :D

They are already going to be useful for survey ships in C# aurora. So, you probably won't have enough of them (depending on how many academies you build, of course...)
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 10:52:00 AM by Zincat »
 

Offline Haji

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #677 on: March 30, 2017, 12:35:34 PM »
I'm confused about the hydro/atmo water balance.  Is the 0.14% above a rate, or is it an equilibrium level?  (I would vote for equilibrium level.)  If it's an equilibrium level, then how does that square with what I think I read in the rules change, which is that 20% hydro requires 1 atmo of water (which seems way to high, given that Earth has 75% hydro without having 3.75 atmospheres of water vapor :) ).

The way I understand the change is not that you need 1 atmosphere worth of water vapour floating around to get 20% of hydrosphere, you merely need to generate the gases and then they will condense. If you generate 0.5 atm. worth of water vapour it will condense into 10% hydrosphere for example, although the condensation rate is fixed, so it may not happen at once and there will always be at least some vapour in the atmosphere left.

- Maybe hydro system shouldn't be controlled by terraforming at all (since it takes so much material).  Either you take what you get (without being able to change), or one is able to drop asteroids/comets (whole new game mechanic that probably isn't worth it), or hydro percent change costs 10s of thousands (or even millions) times as much as gases when done through terrarforming.

To be honest when I consider terraforming and the need to add not only water but gases as well I always imagined chucking rocks at a given body the best way to get what you need. It can be quite cheap in terms of energy (a nuke or two to nudge an object into a new orbit especially if it's in a Lagrange point of a gas giant) and easy, just time and money consuming. Having it incorporated into the game would be nice as it would be more realistic than just conjuring everything out of thin air. Of course if we had a realistic terraforming there would be the problem of removing gases as in some cases it just appears like they end up in some black hole.

Having said that I'm essentially fine with the changes as they are. They are simple to understand, simple to implement and give you wide range of choices which means you can role-play to remove implementations you're not fine with. And since it's not overly complicated it also means it doesn't force you to play by its rules (which is why I'm against ideas that give bonuses or penalties to bodies which are well terraformed/not terraformed. If I want to play a race well adapted to domed cities I don't want to be penalised in game for that. For that matter in such cases I can just add penalties myself. But I digress).

Am I the only person who thinks that with the changes Steve has already made we have more than enough terraforming detail? I'd much rather Steve moved onto other areas now.

I don't think you're the only person, but you must also understand that the terraforming mechanics are of great importance to me, and apparently, many other people. What attracted me to Aurora was not the combat system, but the incredible detail of the star systems, allowing me to take an asteroid and turn it into an important naval base and industrial node (in theory as up until now the costs of orbital habitats and underground infrastructure was far too high). Seeing my colonies grow in various, sometimes contrived circumstances, is what kept me glued to the game, despite its many issues, for... I don't know. Six years now? Maybe even longer I think. Anyway, because of that everything that has to do with ability to colonise and change bodies to my will, allowing me to create new nations in the most unlikely of places, is of utmost importance to me. And apparently many other people judging by the response.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #678 on: March 30, 2017, 12:42:18 PM »
I don't really have a problem with terraforming being a real challenge for larger worlds. IMHO terraforming should be a massive undertaking, not something you can accomplish in a half-hearted fashion over a couple of years!
My problem with this logic has always been 'larger worlds'.  The overall balance of terraforming time is a question probably best answered by having a box labeled 'racial terraforming tech multiplier' so that players can set it as they like.  But saying 'no, the scaling is OK because big worlds take a long time' makes no sense when small worlds are still fast.

Also, Steve, I've brought gravity scaling up at least three times, and been ignored each time.  Is there a reason for this?  I ask so that I don't keep annoying you by bringing it up if you've decided that you don't want to include it for some reason.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #679 on: March 30, 2017, 11:08:15 PM »
My concern was not to add terraforming parts but look how Hyroextent was affecting max population size especially on 100% water worlds.

I just believed the terraforming was an unrealistic option, to add water vapour or take water vapour away. Both being a mix of hydrogen and oxygen, add water vapour would not change the hydroextent that much it would be relevant, even if you didput 1% water vapour into the atmosphere to make the hydroextent at 99%. Depending on temperature it would just eventually return to the sea again over a period of time. As I said the best way to effect hydroextent is making the world colder, even creating an ice age. Like our own planet did long time ago. That the best way of affecting hydro extent, or in the case of a cold planet with minimal water that is mainly ice (aka Mar) warm the planet.

 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #680 on: March 31, 2017, 04:21:40 AM »
I don't think you're the only person, but you must also understand that the terraforming mechanics are of great importance to me, and apparently, many other people. What attracted me to Aurora was not the combat system, but the incredible detail of the star systems, allowing me to take an asteroid and turn it into an important naval base and industrial node (in theory as up until now the costs of orbital habitats and underground infrastructure was far too high). Seeing my colonies grow in various, sometimes contrived circumstances, is what kept me glued to the game, despite its many issues, for... I don't know. Six years now? Maybe even longer I think. Anyway, because of that everything that has to do with ability to colonise and change bodies to my will, allowing me to create new nations in the most unlikely of places, is of utmost importance to me. And apparently many other people judging by the response.

I agree and identify alot with this. Much of the beauty and attraction of Aurora is it's ability to generate unique systems, stories and situations.

Thus any changes which add more uniqueness to planets or systems, or allows more lifelike flows of civilian traffic/development/industries/trade is going to rank very high on my wish list for the game. It helps greatly to become more immersed and make the stories more plausible and interesting.

Population capacity and the terraforming changes that go with it are really great from this perspective since each planet in your empire will be even more unique and memorable when their size, tidal-lock and hydro extent now all impact their potential.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #681 on: March 31, 2017, 02:52:27 PM »
More detail to terraforming is always appreciated!
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #682 on: April 01, 2017, 09:54:34 AM »
Also, Steve, I've brought gravity scaling up at least three times, and been ignored each time.  Is there a reason for this?  I ask so that I don't keep annoying you by bringing it up if you've decided that you don't want to include it for some reason.

Apologies for not responding. I understand that gravity would be a factor. However, for the sake of ease of understanding I plan to just leave it at surface area for now.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #683 on: April 01, 2017, 09:58:54 AM »
I'm confused about the hydro/atmo water balance.  Is the 0.14% above a rate, or is it an equilibrium level?  (I would vote for equilibrium level.)  If it's an equilibrium level, then how does that square with what I think I read in the rules change, which is that 20% hydro requires 1 atmo of water (which seems way to high, given that Earth has 75% hydro without having 3.75 atmospheres of water vapor :) ).

The water vapour added to atmosphere condenses into liquid water on the surface. It doesn't remain in the atmosphere.

Only 0.001% of water on Earth is in the atmosphere, which is about 2-3% water vapour. You would actually need far more water vapour then specified in Aurora to create surface water but I am trying to strike a balance between realism and playability.
 

Offline bitbucket

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • b
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #684 on: April 01, 2017, 08:32:00 PM »
The water vapour added to atmosphere condenses into liquid water on the surface. It doesn't remain in the atmosphere.

Only 0.001% of water on Earth is in the atmosphere, which is about 2-3% water vapour. You would actually need far more water vapour then specified in Aurora to create surface water but I am trying to strike a balance between realism and playability.

I'm, uh, going to quote from Wikipedia here:

Quote
By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere. Air content and atmospheric pressure vary at different layers, and air suitable for use in photosynthesis by terrestrial plants and breathing of terrestrial animals is found only in Earth's troposphere and in artificial atmospheres.

Your formula for water vapor content is workable, but you might want to cut it by two-thirds or so.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #685 on: April 02, 2017, 01:31:35 AM »
Have you at all thought about adding in things like AI/automation options for certain ship components that makes them more effective/efficient/need less crew? It would be pretty interesting to have an endgame where you have completely robotic ships. You could also make drone fighters (which honestly seem like the most plausible form of space fighter combat).

The way I see it working is that in the design menu for building a new ship component you get a slot for the AI/automation tech level you'd like to use. Obviously this would make the component more expensive.

I'm not sure whether this should increase the size of the component or not seeing as the primary reason for having it in the first place is to save space by needing less crew. Thoughts?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2017, 01:35:07 AM by BasileusMaximos »
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #686 on: April 02, 2017, 04:11:08 AM »
Have you at all thought about adding in things like AI/automation options for certain ship components that makes them more effective/efficient/need less crew?
Yes, racial tech in the style of fuel consumption one that instead lowers the required crew was suggested multiple times. See e.g. Reduced Crew, Focused Mines, other things.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #687 on: April 02, 2017, 11:33:46 AM »
I roleplay that Mercassium is either life support or computer support.  Mercassium is an ingredient for research facilities, so I just RP that my really long endurance fighters are actually drones.

You still have to pay, either way.  The only time it would be an issue is when something I RP as a drone fighter uses its life support to rescue life pods.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #688 on: April 02, 2017, 11:37:30 AM »
I would like to see an option on the Task Group menu to see how long a particular move command is expected to take.  That way, if I click on Move To Wolf when I MEANT to Move To Wolf-Harrington, the time it takes might clue me in.

If it showed estimated times for refueling, loading cargo, etc, that would be awesome.
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #689 on: April 02, 2017, 12:09:22 PM »
I would like to see an option on the Task Group menu to see how long a particular move command is expected to take.  That way, if I click on Move To Wolf when I MEANT to Move To Wolf-Harrington, the time it takes might clue me in.

If it showed estimated times for refueling, loading cargo, etc, that would be awesome.
There already are estimates for the first command and all commands of given TG, together with distance.
If you switch to "All orders" and use several "Move to" commands it get recalculated after each of them so you can see the difference between Wolf and Wolf-Harr.
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Sandy