Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[Garfunkel]

You should probably at least name the systems that start their name with numbers as those are extra confusing.

[Alsadius]

I mean in the list on the left (or in the mini-map there), not between the systems in the map.

Ah, misread you. Agreed, that'd be nice.

It would be nice to have systems sorted by importance/population size when using the "Autoroute to system" option (similar to how bodies inside a system are sorted with Colonies on top). When you reach 100/200+ systems the list starts to get pretty long, and "Sol" tend to get filtered far far below all the numbered systems 

I probably could rename key systems as a workaround but I prefer to not do that since it looks smegty.

FWIW, putting a symbol like * in front of the name will sort it to the top of the list, and IMO doesn't look that bad. But if Steve can find a decent way to give us the option to sort by population, I wouldn't complain.

You should probably at least name the systems that start their name with numbers as those are extra confusing.

This actually makes me think of another suggestion on that front - in the Rename System button, it'd be nice to be able to auto-pick a name from the selected theme list. Should hopefully be easy for him to add a button like that.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

This actually makes me think of another suggestion on that front - in the Rename System button, it'd be nice to be able to auto-pick a name from the selected theme list. Should hopefully be easy for him to add a button like that.

There is one - its called Select Name.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

It would be nice to have systems sorted by importance/population size when using the "Autoroute to system" option (similar to how bodies inside a system are sorted with Colonies on top). When you reach 100/200+ systems the list starts to get pretty long, and "Sol" tend to get filtered far far below all the numbered systems 

I probably could rename key systems as a workaround but I prefer to not do that since it looks smegty.

Added for v2.6
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg170494#msg170494

[alex_brunius]

That's brilliant, even showing number of Automines/DSTS in the system!!

Edit:
Although CMC systems probably won't show up normally since they require a population of at least 10m to spawn unless this is outdated:
"That system body must be in a system with at least one population of ten million and..."
https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg110347#msg110347

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

In the Galactic Map, in the Overview tab, I would like to recognize the JPs having a jump gate.
A different color of the name or of the dot in the mini-map, or a label next the name.
In this way, it's just evident where a stabilisation ship is needed, without opening each system map.

Added for v2.6
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg170497#msg170497

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

That's brilliant, even showing number of Automines/DSTS in the system!!

Edit:
Although CMC systems probably won't show up normally since they require a population of at least 10m to spawn unless this is outdated:
"That system body must be in a system with at least one population of ten million and..."
https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg110347#msg110347

Populated systems are shown first, followed by those that don't have populations but do have automated mines, CMC, etc.

[nakorkren]

Some proposed tweaks for the Galactic map.

• Can the System name and any other annotations display over top of the line that indicates connections to the next system (and for that matter on top of the colored rings that indicate JP survey status)? Right now the line displays over top of the name and the % geo survey complete, and probably other things I haven't checked yet. An alternative would be to have the lines between systems display starting some gap away from the system so it wouldn't be at risk of overlapping annotations around the system.
• When the % of bodies surveyed number is toggled on, could that % be displayed only if less than 100%? It would significantly reduce clutter near the center of known space, where most systems will be at 100% and that info is no longer useful
• A more involved change: There are multiple colored rings that go around the system to indicate various things (grav survey incomplete, unexplored jump gates, maint facilities, colonies, ground survey locations, naval headquarters, sectors, military restricted systems, and possibly others I've missed. That is conceivably 8 different concentric circles! To reduce clutter, could there instead just be a single circle, subdivided into different arcs for each indicator? The color coding for each arc could be kept the same, and it would take up a lot less space. If arcs are more complicated to code/render, maybe it could just be colored dots around the perimeter, similiar to the colored dots used to show different criteria of worlds in a system.

[Garfunkel]

I never play with those things permanently on. I toggle them on and off to get a quick overview of what the situation vis-a-vis exploration or whatever is.

[nuclearslurpee]

I never play with those things permanently on. I toggle them on and off to get a quick overview of what the situation vis-a-vis exploration or whatever is.

Seconded. I prefer the current circles because they are easy to see at a glance when turned on. I only leave 2-3 on all the time, the rest I just toggle to check for something.

[Kaiser]

Since how the civilian ships work has been reformed, I bring up a something I believe It was suggest in the past and so making possible for the civilian ships to create convoys instead of having hundreds of single ships travelling on their own, this in turn may have the following benefits:

1) The civilian ships will not depart upon the need to bring goods and people, but based on the possibility of create a convoy (and/or a combination of both) which will slow down the entire sector and so the civilian income and creation of new ships.

2) It will be more realistic, civilian ships travel in groups regardless if they are at sea or in space (I guess ), still It would be possible to see lonely civilian ships travelling to add more variery.

3) This will give the possibility for the player to create escorts, which is nice for RP purposes as well as for the gameplay with the raiders not having easy life anymore, at some point there are too many civilian ships, escorting 1 by 1 is impossible and would not make any sense rather then a 10+ ships convoy.

4) It will help to reduce the map cluttering (maybe even performance improving?)

What do you think?

[alex_brunius]

Populated systems are shown first, followed by those that don't have populations but do have automated mines, CMC, etc.

Yes, that was my point. The only situation a CMC system without population can exist should be if that population was wiped out after the CMC was spawned, so it would almost never be shown.

It's not a complaint just a reflection from a player perspective and might even be good code architecture if your able to reference the same code as for system bodies, and it's pretty unlikely to be hurting performance enough to spend time to remove.

[nakorkren]

When NPCs recognize a ship of yours as a threat and ask that it leaves the system, could they include WHY the ship is considered a threat? I.e. it is above 10k tons, has military engines, has active sensors, etc? I believe those are the three things that prevent diplomatic ships from being recognized, and it would be really useful for newer players to get some sort of feedback that explains why their diplomatic ships keep causing a diplomatic ruckus.

E.g. "The Empire of Mushrooms has sent a message to Diplomacy Is Just Wind suggesting that our forces leave System ABC in the near future as this system lies within their territory and Diplomacy Is Just Wind has been observed using active sensors and hence has been classified as a threat. Origin of the message was blah blah blah."

[Gram123]

Could we have System number shown in the Galactic map? I'm pretty sure it was possible to display in VB Aurora a long time ago. Could possible require Spacemaster active, if its considered info that should not be available to the regular player.

[nakorkren]

Now that ranged defensive fire/area PD is useful again due to the (re?)introduction of laser warheads, can we have an additional option when designing STO units to pick between "Final Defensive Fire PD" or "Area PD"? Right now there's only one toggle, and you either get short range high speed or long range low speed, but you can't get both which is needed for ranged/area PD.