Author Topic: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0  (Read 28637 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2801
  • Thanked: 1058 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #120 on: January 10, 2024, 01:50:51 AM »
This has been the way crew grade worked since before I started playing VB6 Aurora, back when the big change was that jump gates did not need components anymore and commercial shipyards started at 10,000 tons instead of 1,000 tons like military. We had Gunboat engines and Fighter engines as special cases to use in addition to Missile engines and actual Ship engines. You have a lump sum of crew and junior officers and it grows based on how many academies in total you have. Increase your training level and the pool goes down, decrease your training level and the pool goes up. Use the Conscript tickbox for ships that will never see combat to save trained crew for your military ships and as Nuclearslurpee said, once you run out, your ship's crew grade will start as negative instead of a positive number.

If that does not happen, then you've encountered a bug.
Does the pool replenish over time?
Ships that are scrapped send their crews back to the pool and building more academies increases the speed at which the pool grows.
 

Offline AlStar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 204
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • Flag Maker Flag Maker : For creating Flags for Aurora
    Race Maker Race Maker : Creating race images
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #121 on: January 10, 2024, 09:28:29 AM »
Could we get an autosave function? Default it to, say, once a year?

Asking as someone whose computer decided to reboot overnight to install an update and lost about an in-game decade of progress.
 

Offline db48x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • d
  • Posts: 641
  • Thanked: 200 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #122 on: January 10, 2024, 09:31:45 AM »
Could we get an autosave function? Default it to, say, once a year?

Asking as someone whose computer decided to reboot overnight to install an update and lost about an in-game decade of progress.

Ouch. Might I recommend an upgrade to Linux? More of a side–grade, I guess, since it is harder to run Aurora there. At least it doesn’t force you to reboot for upgrades.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #123 on: January 10, 2024, 09:41:09 AM »
along with this making asteroids far more common in systems (as would be realistic) would promote many more people to use astoid mining ships which are far more vulnerable than their planetside counterparts.

Personally i would like to see 10x-100x more asteroids since as far as i know it doesn't impact performance anymore, maybe even 1000x more asteroids to make automated mining operations much more worth their time and risk.

Seconded. I noticed this when setting up a bunch of habitable systems for player races, the number of asteroids in Sol is rather anomalous in Aurora and I'm not sure it should be. Although I can see why having large asteroid belts be a bit rare is good for gameplay in making asteroid mining systems valuable finds, this value could be preserved by toying around with the mineral generation rate for asteroids if needed.
 

Offline captainwolfer

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • c
  • Posts: 224
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #124 on: January 10, 2024, 04:23:02 PM »
along with this making asteroids far more common in systems (as would be realistic) would promote many more people to use astoid mining ships which are far more vulnerable than their planetside counterparts.

Personally i would like to see 10x-100x more asteroids since as far as i know it doesn't impact performance anymore, maybe even 1000x more asteroids to make automated mining operations much more worth their time and risk.

Seconded. I noticed this when setting up a bunch of habitable systems for player races, the number of asteroids in Sol is rather anomalous in Aurora and I'm not sure it should be. Although I can see why having large asteroid belts be a bit rare is good for gameplay in making asteroid mining systems valuable finds, this value could be preserved by toying around with the mineral generation rate for asteroids if needed.
I have found systems with lots of asteroids before. They aren't common, but are pretty good when they do exist.
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1706
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #125 on: January 10, 2024, 06:37:12 PM »
It is honestly not uncommon in my known stars game for systems to have asteroid belts with lots of asteroids. In some cases systems have even had multiple asteroid belts usually a system belt and a gas giant belt.

So I'm not convinced that there is a systematic problem with asteroid generation.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #126 on: January 10, 2024, 07:51:33 PM »
It is honestly not uncommon in my known stars game for systems to have asteroid belts with lots of asteroids. In some cases systems have even had multiple asteroid belts usually a system belt and a gas giant belt.

So I'm not convinced that there is a systematic problem with asteroid generation.

My experience has been that I tend to find systems with thick asteroid belts or systems with reasonably habitable planets, but not both.

I don't have a problem with this in general, since both kinds of systems are good finds and variety keeps things interesting, but given that Sol has quite a lot of asteroids it is a little weird to me that most systems resulting from Create Habitable System do not. It's not a big deal though, using SM mode to create an asteroid belt is not hard.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2801
  • Thanked: 1058 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #127 on: January 10, 2024, 08:08:46 PM »
There is also a really wide variety of possible outcomes when Aurora generates a system and I doubt many of us have really seen sufficient numbers of systems to make statistical analysis of what is common enough and what is not. Humans are notoriously bad at statistical analysis as well as probability calculations. It's not rare for players to go "this is too common" or "this is too rare" after playing just couple of games with less than 100 systems in total.

Could we get an autosave function? Default it to, say, once a year?

Asking as someone whose computer decided to reboot overnight to install an update and lost about an in-game decade of progress.
I'm sorry dude but you know you can press the save button yourself? I can understand leaving your PC on for the night but at least manually save Aurora before going to bed. Windows does not force an update when you're actively using the PC afterall. Having said that, an auto-save on 1 January of each year is a good idea.
 

Offline AlStar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 204
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • Flag Maker Flag Maker : For creating Flags for Aurora
    Race Maker Race Maker : Creating race images
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #128 on: January 11, 2024, 12:50:39 AM »
I'm sorry dude but you know you can press the save button yourself? I can understand leaving your PC on for the night but at least manually save Aurora before going to bed. Windows does not force an update when you're actively using the PC afterall. Having said that, an auto-save on 1 January of each year is a good idea.
Oh, it's totally my fault - I forgot to hit the save button before I went to sleep for the night. I even thought to myself the next day "you know, it's been a while since I last saved - I should probably do that," right before I flipped the screen on.

Updates that cause a reboot are rare enough that this was really just me being unlucky.
 

Offline Ragnarsson

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • R
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #129 on: January 11, 2024, 01:19:47 AM »
I'd like to suggest some method of over-riding the game's automatic class designations on player designed ship or station classes. This would obviously need some limitations, such as not being able to change commercial, military or station designations (and probably some others I haven't thought of at the moment). The default works well enough in almost all cases but occasionally gets in the player's way.

For example, I just designed a mobile asteroid mining ship intended to be nearly self-sufficient. It has cargo holds to drop a mass driver then move it when necessary and, crucially, troop transport capability to carry then drop STO's on whatever rock it parks above, in case any unfriendly pests come to bother it.

But when I add the troop transports, it changes the design to a Troop Transport for auto-assignment purposes, due to Troop Transport Bays having precedence over mining modules when determining class type. This is a bit frustrating, as the entire purpose of this ship is to mine so I'd prefer commanders with the relevant bonuses. The ability to manually set design types when necessary would obviate this irritation.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, BAGrimm, nuclearslurpee

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2801
  • Thanked: 1058 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #130 on: January 11, 2024, 04:44:53 AM »
For the time being, couldn't you have two ships working in tandem in the same fleet?
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #131 on: January 11, 2024, 09:11:50 AM »
I'd like to suggest some method of over-riding the game's automatic class designations on player designed ship or station classes. This would obviously need some limitations, such as not being able to change commercial, military or station designations (and probably some others I haven't thought of at the moment). The default works well enough in almost all cases but occasionally gets in the player's way.

For example, I just designed a mobile asteroid mining ship intended to be nearly self-sufficient. It has cargo holds to drop a mass driver then move it when necessary and, crucially, troop transport capability to carry then drop STO's on whatever rock it parks above, in case any unfriendly pests come to bother it.

But when I add the troop transports, it changes the design to a Troop Transport for auto-assignment purposes, due to Troop Transport Bays having precedence over mining modules when determining class type. This is a bit frustrating, as the entire purpose of this ship is to mine so I'd prefer commanders with the relevant bonuses. The ability to manually set design types when necessary would obviate this irritation.

A while ago Steve changed the priority ordering so that cargo holds would not take priority over orbital modules, because I had a similar issue with OMs that had a cargo hold to move their mass driver around. I don't think it should be any problem to make a similar change here.

I would suggest more generally for Steve that the "industrial" modules (sorium harvester, orbital miner, terraformer, stabilisation, etc.) should all have precedence over the "logistical" modules (cargo, troop transport, colonist, tanker, etc.) as a general rule for auto-assignment categorization. I think it is much more common to have industrial ships with some logistical capabilities bolted on top than the other way around, since the industrial modules are generally quite large and make up most of a ship.
 
The following users thanked this post: Ragnarsson

Offline joshuawood

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • j
  • Posts: 48
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #132 on: January 11, 2024, 09:29:11 AM »
could we get a "Fleet fire at will" button here:

https://i.imgur.com/maQ51AG.png

needing to go into "ship combat" can be a bit tedious.
 
The following users thanked this post: Zeebie, Black, tastythighs

Offline tastythighs

  • The Orange
  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #133 on: January 11, 2024, 10:35:31 AM »
Commercial hangar decks are not grouped with other hangars in the list of components in the class design screen, but commercial magazines are grouped with other magazines.
And somehow, I always look in the wrong place for each every time. Please save me.

 

Offline deathpickle

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • d
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #134 on: January 11, 2024, 05:07:02 PM »
ground combat suggestion for aircraft and AA:
The current system is that light AA targets the planes hitting its formation.  Medium AA can hit that + one lower formation.  Heavy AA hits all planes everywhere.  Heavy AA being able to target unlimited everything makes it a no-brainer choice in every situation. 

Basically the idea is to make it that each AA unit covers formations with the same rules as above, except that it covers a fixed amount of tonnage, and going over coverage reduces effective hit rate equally proportionately, (no loss).  For example, two light AA's that cover 5000 tons at 50% is the same as one heavy AA that covers 10000 tons at 100%. Consider the size of the front, if you having an interstellar invasion, the battle will be on fronts spread out in squads all over the entire planet against low flying aircraft hugging the ground.

Basically what I want is that heavy AA is less coverage efficient than using many medium AA even if it targets everything.  Maybe medium ones cover efficient, and maybe small ones best fit every crevasse, and heavy can hit units on CAP, or something like that kind of like how heavy arty's special feature is being able to hit backline.  Maybe you can make it that small AA's are normal at 100% coverage, but going with more size than its coverage 10% worse than a proportionate amount, whereas heavy is the opposite, where anything beyond its coverage is 10% less better than the proportionate, such that for heavy you want to be over your coverage, and using this you can create some kind of interesting dynamic.  I have a feeling that won't be necessary though, and just making smaller ones simply cover more does the same trick.

I also think AA guns should have uridium costs that scale based on their tracking speed too, so ships aren't paying extra on those engines for nothing, and should simply take the nerf both of these changes causes.  Fighters are expensive, they require expensive hanger space, FFD's and maintenance facilities, yearly msp payments.  They could be op, and you still might not want to use them because you'd rather spend your vendarite.  They shouldn't be quite as easy to kill with AA as they are now - after all if they were just a little higher in space, they wouldn't be hittable at all - or at the very least would be only hittable by reasonably damaged weapons that costs not-vendarite. . .  AA damage like all ground units hyperscales with technology for free.  That means past a certain point, armor on fighters is basically a trap you're guaranteed 1 shot if hit (nothing about ships gets cheaper with tech, just lighter, but ground units do get straight up more efficient).  I think planes need to be balanced around getting one shot tbh because there isn't really a satisfying way to fix the AA hyper damage, and honestly, fast jets make sense and it can inadvertently balances things.  I also think a plane perfectly designed against its target on ground support should destroy that AA cost-efficiently and over-all function cost efficiently.  It should only be (very) cost inefficient when trying to do the same on flak suppression and the like, or else really, why waste the FFD on something that is simply worse? Remember, AA still functions as a ground unit! they really really effective!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2024, 05:24:52 PM by deathpickle »