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 - TheDeadlyShoe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83
Announcements / Re: Policy change
« on: February 28, 2018, 10:31:14 AM »
are the inactive accounts hurting the website at all?

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: February 27, 2018, 12:15:05 PM »
*strokes chin*

if the waypoint system is being extended like this, you could also mark Mining and Sorium Mining waypoints

C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« on: February 18, 2018, 05:50:48 AM »
in the current system the minutiae of balance are irrelevant because you detect everything with a big res 1... which is why the system is being changed, presumably.

The purpose of a picket ship is not to detect small ships without getting detected, it's to detect them at all, so a bigger sensor (ie on a fac) is typically better since you can see further (and use less pickets if you're trying to guard an arc or perimeter).  A fighter running res 20 actives can in theory work well for picket supression, if *also* paired with res 20 FCs, but that comes with its own hurdles and problems (namely reduced effectiveness in the strike role).  Res 20 actives are also really jacking up your EM output.

C# Aurora / Re: New sensor model and small fighters. Problem?
« on: February 18, 2018, 01:12:33 AM »
i believe aurora C will actually favor small fighters.  The changes will make it much harder for fighters to be spotted by size 50 sensors, and its fairly easy to include sensor fighters or fast scout ships in your hangars or fleets. You'll note NPRs occasionally making use of small, very fast ships with nothing but big sensors on them, and the purpose of those is to sit at their max sensor range while being effectively impossible to retaliate against.

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« on: February 18, 2018, 01:06:35 AM »
I really don't see what the game gains by having multiple levels of survey. It isn't a fun or interesting mechanic, and it adds nothing except micromanagement.

So my suggestion remains to just have the one level of survey. If you want to have the equivalent of more in depth surveys on larger planets, just increase the survey point cost of large bodies and have it give accurate reports the first time - then you can model larger and more efficient geo scanners by just putting more scanners on the survey ship.

It lets you pick out potentially useful worlds for further investigation, and then further-investigate them.  It's a good RP endeavor with practical benefits.  I don't think it was ever really intended as something you should do for every dead rock.  In Aurora-VB, i only team survey potential colonies and bodies that already have notably good minerals.

In Aurora-C, it could also potentially have impact on ship design, and on player behavior. Right now, optimal play essentially involves throwing out lots of expendable survey ships because they really arn't worth the fuel or effort of naval squadrons to even pretend to protect them.  A large science vessel worth many BP and carry as much as 10 or more commanders would in comparison be an asset of considerable worth.  Or, difficulty of survey could be split up between 'asteroidal' - easy - and 'planetary' - much more difficult'.

Consider that surveying is somewhat degenerate right now in Aurora VB.  There's little consideration of systems too far to practically survey - little use of forward survey bases - no percentage in protecting your survey ships.  It's unappealing micro precisely because there's little reward or engagement in the mechanic right now.

C# Aurora / Re: Defining which events break up the time progression cycle
« on: February 15, 2018, 01:44:54 PM »
maintenance events are the bane of my existence

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: February 12, 2018, 09:28:37 PM »
it's too early to say. AMM ships don't look like they'll be as strong, and the main reason tfs take no damage even when fired on is invincible amm screens that can only be depleted, rarely defeated.

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« on: February 12, 2018, 07:50:13 PM »
It is a good idea. I've been thinking along the same lines. It makes sense that a ship could fully survey smaller bodies but larger ones would need a ground-based survey for the full impact. This could also be combined with another suggestion that certain worlds could be identified as having additional potential. Now this becomes something with a lot less micromanagement, as it might only be one or two worlds in a system.

It could all be part of the Anomaly system

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« on: February 12, 2018, 04:11:23 PM »

If you want to do ground units though...*hmmm....*  Maybe they need an extended mechanic so they are cool?  You could have a matrix of challenges depending on the type of world being surveyed and attributes of the unit / unit leader could be checked/rolled against the challenges.  Failure could cause delays, materiel losses, or even the death of the formation leader.  So for example if you were surveying Mercury it might have the tags EXTREME HEAT, VACUUM.  Earth might have LARGE HYDROSPHERE, COMPLEX LIFE, MILD VOLCANISM, OXYGENATED.  A trojan asteroid might have MICROGRAVITY, VACUUM. These tags would each have a list of challenges associated with them, and a geo (or xeno?) team would roll against them along with some generic challenges like 'Structural collapse', 'Accident', 'Serial killer', etc. 

Ideally, there would be tradeoffs between attributes of vehicles used for the units. A too large unit may even be susceptible just from its size to more problems from seismic events et cetera.

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing Teams?
« on: February 12, 2018, 04:04:32 PM »
hmmmm...  There's value in removing possibly duplicated mechanics, but i am not sure about ground units filling all these functions...

There's not a lot particularly interesting about the ground units involved.  In practice, you'll churn out a few geo-units at the start of the game and then shuttle them around as necessary; same thing for xeno, except with a caveat of not doing it till you find some ruins.  It doesn't change anything on the ship design level; strategically you might start building troop transports earlier, but thats it.  It's unlikely your geo or xeno teams will ever get into any kind of fight or challenge. There are <spoilers>, but that isn't even a Team mechanic, but rather a recovery roll mechanic.

Conceptually there is also the difficulty that your geo teams are going to be examining places like tiny asteroids and comets, which is abstractable for a 'team' but a headscratcher for 'Science Truck Battalion 17'.

Scout units sound fine, though much like espionage teams, good luck ever using them outside a multi-earth start.

For my own games i usually RP using a science ship that remains in orbit when a geo or xeno team is conducting its work.  That would be extendable by having a 'Geology Lab' or 'Xenology Lab' which creates staff spots on a ship; then the lab-ship conducts the extended geo/xeno survey, rather than a team per se.

The Academy / Re: minimum requirement for civilian shipping
« on: February 05, 2018, 01:03:56 PM »
You need a valid shipping destination that is not your homeworld.

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Designing ship hulls instead of ships
« on: February 03, 2018, 02:46:32 AM »
IIRC Steve's talked about a system where slipways and slip size are convertible.  I thought it was in Newtonian Aurora but i couldn't find the post.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Initial Jump Point Defense
« on: February 02, 2018, 03:19:24 AM »
are you putting in hangar base and rotating it or what?  do you have maintenance off?

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Designing ship hulls instead of ships
« on: February 02, 2018, 03:03:39 AM »
I recommend not abusing it even though you can. Aurora isn't sturdy enough for that.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 31, 2018, 08:01:18 AM »
This should go for commercial stations and every structure in space too, everything should need at least some measure of support and cost to operate.

I agree with this - i increasingly don't like how once you have built fuel harvesters the fuel is free, not even costing you workers.

To stop this from messing with the acceleration of colonisation, you could have every however many arbitrary units of industrial infrastructure count as a facility that can be moved by freighters.
wouldn't you be able to avoid retooling costs by shuffling items around?  Not much of a cost when you're talking Earth-Luna.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83