Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tree

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: February 11, 2018, 09:00:22 AM »
What might be possible is to save systems created in game for future use (assuming version compatibility) and add some tools to modify systems in-game.
That'd be great.
Would it possible to also force the game to generate a somewhat customized system? Something like asking for a G2V class star or a planet with a colony cost below 1 or usable Lagrange points, that sort of thing? Maybe not make the game generate the system with a goal in mind but maybe make the game generate a system and trash it instantly if it doesn't fit, until it outputs one that does? With some limit maybe, so that you can't just ask something impossible and get the game locked up forever.
That'd preserve some of the surprise, even if you know there's going to be a close to inhabitable planet in the new system, nothing guarantees there won't be an NPR, or Precursors. If you get a G2V star, nothing says there'll be an inhabitable planet, etc.

2
C# Aurora / Re: Research changes planned?
« on: January 15, 2018, 07:29:35 AM »
I don't believe empires should be punished for growing big, especially in a game with "Expand" in its name. (that's what one of the 4Xes stands for, remember?) Especially, especially in a solo game where balance doesn't matter.

Currently Aurora supports all kinds of play styles, and in regards to research too. You can put all of your labs on three-four scientists and go forward fast in a field of research (or three-four), you can spread your labs over all your scientists, you can slowly attribute your labs because the technicians need time for retraining or whatever else, you can give all your leftover scientists a lab each, you can give them zero and let them train on the cheap, you can have a civilization with superbly advanced engines but terrible industrial capacity or weapons, one that grows slowly and evenly in all fields, one that has very advanced technology but is going through a mineral crunch since they never developed jump point theory, etc. You can do anything, nothing forces you into one playstyle.
All the suggestions I've seen on the forums lately only do one thing, restrict what can be done in the game, which is very dumb since Aurora was made to support/play out Steve's fictions. The more restrictions there are, the less difference there'll be in all fiction until we're all playing the same games and desperately going against gameplay to introduce differences in our stories instead of having the stories supported by the game. Aurora needs to be open and generic so it can support all kinds of fiction, not to be a closed system that only enables one genre, one playstyle; I doubt many people would still be playing if we were locked into playing Steve's empires and unable to create new games or ship designs. We should be able to make up all kinds of scenarios, actually play them out inside Aurora and see how and where it all goes (as we can right now) instead of playing the game and later writing fiction that's completely removed from the gameplay and game's events.

3
C# Aurora / Re: Research changes planned?
« on: January 13, 2018, 03:30:11 AM »
Steve's already considering a global research modifier, if you want it to take you a hundred years to go from ion to magnetoplasma, you'll be able to, no need to make it all even slower.

4
Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: December 26, 2017, 08:21:18 AM »
I made a map. Aurora date when I made it was 16/03/2038.
I'm about to send ships to Alpha Centauri, I know there's at least one star swarm queen left there and there was a matriarch in Gliese 563.2, I'm hoping it came with the queens too and that I just didn't see it last time.


5
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 09, 2017, 02:56:43 PM »
If they're not too much trouble to code, I am always in favour of toggles to turn off sections of the rules for people who don't want to use them, but one of the stated goals of Aurora was to force the player to choose betwen the difficult task of conquering a planet with ground troops, and the easy route of nuking everything to death from orbit, at the cost of having a largely uninhabitable rock.
And we didn't need a new combat system or biomes for that. We already have that choice to make right now.

6
Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: November 08, 2017, 03:39:36 PM »
What is this invade thing you speak of? surely theres only glass the surface from Orbit
or have I been doing it wrong all these years?
That's certainly what I'm going to do in Aurora C#.
Nuke from orbit until they surrender, dodging the new ground combat, and just relocate survivors.

7
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 18, 2017, 02:32:58 AM »
I'm a bit worried about Steve trying to tackle ground combat. It's a very difficult gameplay to design and balance. Something that rts and grand strategy games today still have difficulties to get right. For me the simple but straightforward ground combat aurora has is fine. I sincerely wish Steve delays this aspect of developement until everything else is ready
It'd be nice to get the Aurora port to C# first and keep the reworked ground combat for Aurora C# 2.0.

8
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:51:39 AM »
I'm all for more details and fun stuff, but how will NPRs handle all of that? If you have any ideas on this already, that is. Will I be able to spy an NPR world, see they favor heavily infantry with anti-personnel and anti-air weapons, so that I'd know to land in tanks with anti-personnel weapons? What would an NPR do if the roles were reversed, or are they still going to not bother with invasion and just use orbital bombardment to force a surrender?
Will troop transport components be broken up further for all four kinds of units or re-united in a single one?
Will units still retain different kinds of capabilities at basic levels much lower than their specialization? Or would a mortar company finding itself on the front lines become completely useless because it only has bombardment capabilities and absolutely 0 anti-personnel/anti-vehicle?
Also combat walker sound like they could be made generic enough that they're not specifically walkers anymore, just super heavy vehicles or wunderwaffen (such as the Fat Boy from Supreme Commander, or War Wheels from DC). Not sure what else you could call them though, yeah.

And since this is the PDC thread and they're disappearing, well, are we going to be able to build stations with industry directly, like orbital habitats? Or are those components going to remain a special case? It seems like right now from a rapid test I can build an orbital habitat with industry, even if it's loaded with guns and hangars... I don't mind too much being forced to have an orbital habitat module if I want to build a station and bypass the shipyard, but still, would be better (and cheaper) if I didn't need that.

9
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: September 19, 2017, 05:18:52 AM »
I guess hangar PDCs will have to be replaced with civilian stations then?

10
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Designing ship hulls instead of ships
« on: September 06, 2017, 03:33:34 AM »
I think several of us are talking about the "additional eligible classes" we can build (we find them on the DAC tab of class design window) when a shipyard is tooled for a specific ship class. Counter-intuitively we can't really design a stripped-down basic frame and build variations from it at added cost.
I think the "if two ships are similar enough, you can build both in the same yard" is plenty intuitive already. Plus yards are clearly specialized by class, makes sense you wouldn't be able to build wildly different ships from just one unless both ships were designed for that from the beginning, making them effectively variants of one another. Which means the game already handles what the OP wanted.

11
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: September 02, 2017, 06:20:01 AM »
Is it already possible in C# to search for a commander by name or sort them by name? Could you add "name" as a search criterion so we could order them alphabetically like we'll be able by bonus?

12
Rye123's Fiction / Re: Second Outbound Flight - 2
« on: August 31, 2017, 07:36:44 AM »
I'm planning to add MSP storage to the fighter, so that'll help a lot too, thanks!

I'm not too used to energy weapons, what does the "6" in "6-0.05" mean?
6 is how much energy it needs to fire, 0.05 is how much energy its capacitor gathers per 5-second increment. So there it'd need 120 5-second increments, making it 600 seconds between shots overall, meaning you only need a power plant that gives out 0.05 energy per 5 seconds, not 6.
You can increase how much energy goes into the weapon/5-second by increasing your capacitor recharge rate tech. Using the reduced-sized modifier also greatly decreases how much energy it gets. I think you might have been too far in miniaturization there, but with a smaller power plant, you should be able to fit a laser closer to normal size.

13
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Designing ship hulls instead of ships
« on: August 25, 2017, 03:54:47 AM »
I still don't see how there'd be any difference with the current Refit button. I can upgrade only engines just fine, or copy a design and replace the guns just fine already, or copy my colony ships and make the newly created a variant a cargo ship.

how unsatisfying designing a ship actually is.
That's like, your opinion, man. Designing ships yourself is one of the best parts of Aurora.

14
C# Aurora / Re: Aurora C# Screenshots
« on: August 06, 2017, 10:15:21 AM »
Will NPR ships still have infinite fuel and maintenance in C#?
What about ammo?

15
C# Aurora / Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« on: July 19, 2017, 10:45:22 AM »
Not to rain on your parade, but given the civilian hangar inefficiency isn't that going to be a massive ship to try and tug around the galaxy? And presumably pretty slow as well. Not to mention the size of civilian jump engine you'll need.
Doesn't matter, civilian shipyards are cheap and easy to get big and I need something to spend all these minerals on anyway. Won't even need to be that massive, just hangars for one ship, and magazines for one reload. And the warships themselves don't need to be huge in the first place.
And not for a lengthy campaign, but for a battle. Every battle.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5