Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441822 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Haji

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #555 on: March 14, 2017, 02:51:57 AM »
Unfortunately it says " build a more equal distribution of freighters and colony ships" which would imply the lines will keep building as many colony ships as freighters irrespective of whether or not there is any work for them.
Speaking of 7.2 changes list will orbital maintenance modules build maintenance supply points?
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #556 on: March 14, 2017, 02:58:31 AM »
Unfortunately it says " build a more equal distribution of freighters and colony ships" which would imply the lines will keep building as many colony ships as freighters irrespective of whether or not there is any work for them.

I agree that it would really be nice if shipping lines would "calculate" how many colony ships, liners and cargo ships you actually need and build those instead of just building an equal distribution of ships.

Even better would be if we could manually "specify" which ships we prefer. It shouldn't be too hard to code, if Steve wants to. A simple combo box with "cargo", "colonists" and "both" would do the trick. Also for roleplay.

To make an example: "The State notifies that there will be an important colonizing push in the next decades". Choose the appropriate combo-box option and the shipping lines will build more colony ships than other types of civilian ships.

I think it would make perfect sense too.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #557 on: March 14, 2017, 07:15:07 AM »
Or allow you to straight up ban production of new trade, colony, or freighters if you wish.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #558 on: March 14, 2017, 07:16:55 AM »
Even better would be if we could manually "specify" which ships we prefer. It shouldn't be too hard to code, if Steve wants to. A simple combo box with "cargo", "colonists" and "both" would do the trick. Also for roleplay.
RP wise it may make sense to have each shipping line with just one type of ships: one only with colony ships, one only with freighters...
 

Offline Haji

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #559 on: March 14, 2017, 07:23:13 AM »
Or allow you to straight up ban production of new trade, colony, or freighters if you wish.

That is already coming according to the change notes but it does not solve my particular problem of having half the commercial ships orbiting useless instead of earning me some much needed profit.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #560 on: March 14, 2017, 12:02:40 PM »
I've seen the same problem with unused shipping.  My thought is that the best solution is to have the lines look at how much money they're making from each type of ship, and bias the RNG that selects new ships based on that.  If your freighters are making twice as much per ship as your colony ships, then the RNG would buy 2/3rds freighters, 1/3rd colony ships.  If that's too extreme, then have the RNG work 50% based on profit, and 50% based on the existing distribution.

RP wise it may make sense to have each shipping line with just one type of ships: one only with colony ships, one only with freighters...
That would actually come very close to solving the problems you see with poor allocation of shipping, too.  If the freight line is earning a lot more than the colony line, it will have more money to buy new freighters with, and none of that money will be squandered on colony ships or (especially) fuel harvesters.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #561 on: March 14, 2017, 12:13:03 PM »
RP wise it may make sense to have each shipping line with just one type of ships: one only with colony ships, one only with freighters...
That would actually come very close to solving the problems you see with poor allocation of shipping, too.  If the freight line is earning a lot more than the colony line, it will have more money to buy new freighters with, and none of that money will be squandered on colony ships or (especially) fuel harvesters.
Also, if you want more freighters, subsidise freight line. If you are planning for big colonisation task, give credits to colony line.
No more "OK, I give you 100k for more freigh... why are you building more colony ships? @_@".
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #562 on: March 14, 2017, 11:09:44 PM »
If you outright ban colony ships then subsidise the line it should build a bunch of trade and frieghters. Eventually those colony ships will get old and not be replaced.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #563 on: March 15, 2017, 09:12:26 AM »
If you outright ban colony ships then subsidise the line it should build a bunch of trade and frieghters. Eventually those colony ships will get old and not be replaced.
How do you do that?  Back when the shipping lines built your designs, it was possible to pull this off, but they design their own ships now, so you can't.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #564 on: March 15, 2017, 10:56:42 PM »
I wouldn't necessarily say it needs to "calculate" what will be needed, but if it has a bunch of colony ships sitting around doing nothing whilst it's freighters are all in constant use, they should prefer to build more freighters and ignore colony ships.And vice versa. If both are heavily used it should build a more equal spread (from that point on). If it has both sitting around doing nothing then just maybe it'd be a better idea for them to hold off on buying new ships.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 11:01:28 PM by Person012345 »
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #565 on: March 16, 2017, 05:12:44 AM »
Has Steve written something about the statistics of C# Aurora? As simple and effective as the given system is for one player, I find managing several empires rather difficult with it. So I would appreciate a more sophisticated system for the new version  ;D
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #566 on: March 16, 2017, 08:27:20 AM »
Has Steve written something about the statistics of C# Aurora? As simple and effective as the given system is for one player, I find managing several empires rather difficult with it. So I would appreciate a more sophisticated system for the new version  ;D
I don't really understand what you mean by statistics I'm afraid? Do you mean some sort of Empire wide performance reporting?
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #567 on: March 16, 2017, 02:12:03 PM »
you know about the Production Overview, right? in the f2 screen.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #568 on: March 16, 2017, 08:35:31 PM »
It seems like the AI could be reactionary.  I obviously have no idea how practical this is, but if all ships of a certain type are consistently busy, the freight lines should want to make more of them.  Conversely, if they largely aren't doing anything, then it could decide to slow production again.

Obviously depending on how things are implemented, that could be a massive pain to code, but its an idea I guess.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #569 on: March 17, 2017, 09:58:42 AM »
I don't really understand what you mean by statistics I'm afraid? Do you mean some sort of Empire wide performance reporting?
I mean some working statistics like:

Minerals/ Actual/ Mining Year/ Mass Driver Transfer Year/ Used Year
Neutronium/ 12.455t/ 3.445t/ 822t/ 4.115t

Chooseable for "Single Planet" / "System" / "Empire" as well as time spans like "Last Month" / "Last Quarter" / "Last Year". Actually there are several statistics but they are not so useable in my opinion. Basically do what is available for money for all other relevant values.