Author Topic: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 107589 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline AbuDhabi

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #195 on: September 22, 2013, 03:36:54 PM »
Please please please please please make it possible to select whether an event is worthy of an interrupt or not. :(
 

Offline Erik L (OP)

  • 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: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #196 on: September 22, 2013, 03:47:26 PM »
Please please please please please make it possible to select whether an event is worthy of an interrupt or not. :(
I believe this is already in there. One of the buttons on the Event Log screen should bring up this functionality.

Offline AbuDhabi

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #197 on: September 22, 2013, 03:54:22 PM »
I believe this is already in there. One of the buttons on the Event Log screen should bring up this functionality.

The only pertinent thing I can see is "Filter events". Will this actually stop them interrupting, rather than just stop them from showing up in the log?

EDIT: That didn't do the trick.

I'm fighting this missile battle (one-sided so far, but there are more enemies than I have missiles for). It's been six hours, realtime, trying to process it. I'm finally nearly out of missiles to shoot, and maybe then the massacre my ships will receive at the hands of the decimated meson-armed corvettes will go faster. The game pauses every five seconds, game-time. I've set my ships on autofire. I want this battle to end already.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 04:15:49 PM by AbuDhabi »
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #198 on: October 03, 2013, 06:28:23 AM »
Suggestion for troops in fleets:  90% reduction (or more!) in load time for "Load Troops into Drop Module from within Fleet" order.   It feels silly waiting days for your elite power armor troops to lazily walk down to the hangar and board their dropships , even with cargo handling systems.  Especially with the addition of Cryo Drop Modules in 6.3... :)



@AbuDhabi, if you're still around - do you know about the "Minimum Intervals" box in the system map? You can put, say, 50 intervals in there, click auto turns and 30s, and the fights will require a lot less clicking of time buttons. :)

I believe some events do stop interrupting if you filter them, but that generally doesn't include combat events...
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Silver Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #199 on: October 03, 2013, 12:46:20 PM »
There was, what could be called a bug, in version 5.x, where a fleet of dropships loading from a fleet of troop transports would only load one ship at a time. so if you had 4 troop transports, the loading time would be 4x what you would expect.
As I haven´t done any invasion in 6.x I don´t know if this behavior is still around.
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #200 on: October 05, 2013, 03:40:36 AM »
New Shield mechanics allowing more different designs with varying recharge time.

* Double the effective damage absorption per HS on shields.
* Remove the built in recharge, and change the tech to instead regulate minimum possible recharge time (Perhaps ranging from 900 down to 60 seconds).
* Remove fuel need and instead add a reactor/power plant requirement to shields for recharging, with equal reactor tech level a shield should need equal power plant HS to provide 300 sec recharge.
* Adding shield to ship without any reactor now gives design warning (since it won't be able to recharge at all).


If you have a shield today that provides 6 points of absorption for 2HS, with this mechanic you will instead need a 1HS shield and a 1HS power plant to recharge it with to get the exact same performance. But it also lets you design ships with a shield system with 0.1 HS reactor and very slow recharge instead for more maximum absorption, or a quicker recharging shield (if your tech allows).

This also gives a logical synergy with beam weapons since while they are not firing the extra reactor can provide faster shield recharge time, and if reactors are knocked out weapons can use shield reactors as backups.



Or you can take this all the way with a complete ship power system, involving things like tapping auxiliary power from engines and almost all systems requiring reactor/power-plant power to run. (should also come with the option to armor the now critical reactors/power plants).
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #201 on: October 07, 2013, 09:18:55 AM »
From the last battle I fought...

Could the log file not be an unformated write?  Trying to sort out what happened looking at the log file is difficult as the turns events are all jumbled up.  Could instead the various things be a bit more organized so that you don't have to puzzle your way around the log file?  They appear far more organized when I look at the event listing itself, but the text file is a mess at times.

Also the fleet combat control panel list is major pain to sort out.  I can't see any rhyme or reason to the listing.  So 4th Squadron Battlegroup is not immediately above 4th Squadron Support Group and 5th Squadron...instead you have to scan through the list trying to find the ships.

Once you find the task group you wish to control it is not bad, most things can be found and you can control things fairly smoothly.  One thing that wasn't clear was the ammunition display, it took me a while to sort out when no ammo showed up in the window that meant the ship was out of ammo.  For a while I wasn't sure if no missiles showing meant there was none or you were on your last set.

A ship automatically ceasing to fire when it runs out of ammo would also be nice....not really required but it generates a lot of reports until you manually cease that weapons fire.

What I would like though is an automatic tally system that record hits on target.  Making tick marks on paper works but is prone to human errors.

Lastly, something that really looks wierd.  Ships only acquire combat experience when they take damage.  This should be changed that any time they fire a weapon against a hostile target they get experience.  They should also gain experience from after battle repairs.  They should not gain experience from taking damage.  My ships which engaged a Wolver for over 20 minutes of in game time learned nothing, they learned nothing while attacking the Wolver ships, yet the ships gained 5% in experience while being destroyed...which isn't particularily helpful.  The same is true laters.  Two long battles against a wolver ship taught my navy exactly 0.  Not single point of experience was gained.
 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #202 on: October 08, 2013, 01:04:09 PM »
Also the fleet combat control panel list is major pain to sort out.  I can't see any rhyme or reason to the listing.  So 4th Squadron Battlegroup is not immediately above 4th Squadron Support Group and 5th Squadron...instead you have to scan through the list trying to find the ships.

They are sorted by order of task group creation (i.e., by the database-only field "FleetID").  I agree it should be alphabetical as in many other locations.
 

Offline AbuDhabi

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #203 on: October 09, 2013, 06:09:53 PM »
@AbuDhabi, if you're still around - do you know about the "Minimum Intervals" box in the system map? You can put, say, 50 intervals in there, click auto turns and 30s, and the fights will require a lot less clicking of time buttons. :)

I believe some events do stop interrupting if you filter them, but that generally doesn't include combat events...

I know of this. Unfortunately, there seems to be a bug where missile launches stop the game disregarding minimum increments. See my complains in the bugs thread.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #204 on: October 25, 2013, 12:43:24 PM »
Soft lock

Ability to lock/launch missiles with self-guidance on passively tracked targets calculated interception points. (Based on their current speed and heading as well as missile speed)
Missile would have 0% chance to hit unless able to pick up the target on it's own sensor.

This would give stealth oriented ships operating alone the ability to fire on detected targets without revealing them-self.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 01:00:53 PM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #205 on: October 26, 2013, 01:47:20 AM »
Soft lock

Ability to lock/launch missiles with self-guidance on passively tracked targets calculated interception points. (Based on their current speed and heading as well as missile speed)
Missile would have 0% chance to hit unless able to pick up the target on it's own sensor.

This would give stealth oriented ships operating alone the ability to fire on detected targets without revealing them-self.
You can already fire missiles at waypoints, just place one in front of the target, and you should be able to launch a salvo of self guided missiles at it.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #206 on: October 26, 2013, 02:48:00 AM »
You can already fire missiles at waypoints, just place one in front of the target, and you should be able to launch a salvo of self guided missiles at it.
Yes I know that, but this only works when they have already spotted you and thus are heading straight for you... Which defeats the entire purpose of operating passive only "stealth" ships that can fire without being detected.

If they have not detected your ship the missiles launched will be moving at them from an angle and you have to make trigonometric calculations yourself for an interception point based on their speed, your missile speed and that angle.

My suggestion is that the game can take care of these calculations for me.

Edit: Some more info and discussion here:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6489.msg66505.html#msg66505
« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 03:52:43 PM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline SakSak

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 12
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #207 on: October 26, 2013, 08:01:18 AM »
Galactic Map, System Notes Icon

It is already possible to write short notes regarding some system into the Galactic Map function mode. However, nothing in the game alerts me to systems that I have placed notes on, or otherwise find important to remember. I must remember which system was important and then select the Notes-tab to see if I had written a memo to myself regarding that system. At which point, if I remember the system was important to begin with, I might as well memorize the reason as well. This works for a small number of systems, but as the number of systems explored grows, the number of task groups to keep track of, order queues, prioritization and other topics keep increasing, the map note functionality increases in usefulness.

But only if I remember which systems I had mentally tagged as to having notes worth remembering on.

Instead, it would be preferable if there was an icon next to the system if I had written notes regarding it. A simple exclamation mark would do, attached to the system much like fleet presence symbols, empire flags or shipyard icons are. Thus, at a glance it would be possible to open the Galactic Map and see immediately which systems I have chosen to remind myself of as important or having notes on.

Tying the presence of said exclamation mark (or other symbol) into presence of a text-string in the notes-field, or a simple checkbox option, would both be reasonable alternatives.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #208 on: November 09, 2013, 03:38:00 AM »
So about Engine Sizes...

It's nice that we got some more options for really small missile engines in 6.30, but it did turn the drop down menu into quite a mess.

While it's nice and important to be able to make a distinction of a 0.10 MSP and a 0.11 MSP engine (the latter being 10% larger) it is not so critical to be able to specify the difference between a 4.00 MSP and 4.01 MSP engine (the latter being only 0.25% larger) or a 4.99 vs 5.00 MSP engine.


Suggestion 1:

Change missile engine sizes to a (roughly) 10% size difference basis for clarity.

0.10 MSP
0.11 MSP
0.12 MSP
...
0.20
0.22
0.24
...
1.00
1.10
1.20
...
3.00
3.25
3.50

and so on...



Suggestion 2:

Adapt this to small (Fighter and FAC) Engines, and also change their fuel consumption values to matter as design choices. Currently you can get decent range / flight times out of Fighters even with 50% of total size being engine, Max Engine Power Mod and very small fuel-tanks (5% or less of total size). To get a feel closer to real fighters that regularly carry 25%+ of their weight as fuel and burn it in a matter of hours I think these changes would be welcome.

Size 1.0 (50 ton) still minimum size of a normal engine = x3.00 fuel consumption (using same formula as missile engine design size)
Size 1.1 (55 ton) = x2.81 fuel consumption
Size 1.2 (60 ton) = x2.65 fuel consumption
Size 1.3 (65 ton) = x2.51 fuel consumption
...
Size 2.0 (100 ton) = x1.87 fuel consumption
Size 2.2 (110 ton) = x1.75 fuel consumption
Size 2.4 (120 ton) = x1.65 fuel consumption
...
Size 5.0 (250 ton) = x1.00 fuel consumption

Note1: This also retains the option to build fighters and FACs that have fuel efficiency close to currently, but restricts it to engines size 4-5 or larger (200-250 ton).

Note2: If the same formula is used all the way down to size 50 engines it would lead to fuel consumption = -79% and mirror missile engine fuel consumption formula, but that might not be desirable. Even if it's not I think it would be useful to develop a formula that is balanced and fits for both applications though. Distinctions between missiles/ships are ensured by the different max power mod values used (and can be balanced through these as well if needed).

Note3: I actually found some more information on real fighter planes here. It seems that fighter jets use 25-45% of weight for internal fuel and frequently add droptanks on top of that!!!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2013, 01:18:12 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Stardust

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 84
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #209 on: November 09, 2013, 10:11:16 AM »
It would be convenient if right clicking a jump point that leads to a discovered system produced a drop down that allows you to go to that system's view.  The drop down might also include colonized bodies in the system and immediately connecting systems.