v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[xenoscepter]

Yeah I kind of second what bremen said. Why not just have like, three modules:
- One transfers to all.
- One transfers to only one, but is smaller.
- One transfers to only fighters / facs, but does all of them at once and is smaller still.

And you just stack modules to add more transfer rate.

I also am not sure what the thinking is here.

[nuclearslurpee]

Yeah I kind of second what bremen said. Why not just have like, three modules:
- One transfers to all.
- One transfers to only one, but is smaller.
- One transfers to only fighters / facs, but does all of them at once and is smaller still.

And you just stack modules to add more transfer rate.

I also am not sure what the thinking is here.

The first one is the hub module which is getting removed, and I think that's fine. It doesn't add anything from a gameplay perspective once we allow refueling to be additive/multiplicative with additional modules, we simply reach a break point at which the hub becomes more efficient than X number of normal modules.

I like the simple idea of just having refueling modules be stackable - either N modules refuels N ships at once, or N modules refuels N times as fast, either one is fine to me (as long as it doesn't get weird with the increments, like having a 3-hour delay between refueling each ship or something). Same should go for ordnance transfer, of course - frankly, I don't see why all the logistics modules don't work the same way as cargo holds for internal consistency, anyways.

Then we just need two modules: one for big ships and one for fighters/FACs. I don't see a problem with allowing multiple small craft modules, either, since they can only be mounted on small craft - every 50 tons dedicated to an extra refueling module is another 50,000 liters of fuel you can't carry, so it's a fair tradeoff.

[Froggiest1982]

Thanks for the infinite conditional and standing orders, I am going to push it, I know, but I cannot hold myself.

Any chanche of a "template" system like for standard orders so that we won't need to set same combinations multiple times?

Thanks, still an awesome change, can't wait to use it.

EDIT: Just read the suggestion forum answer from your side, and it seems template are in the works 

[Kiero]

Thanks for the infinite conditional and standing orders, I am going to push it, I know, but I cannot hold myself.

Any chanche of a "template" system like for standard orders so that we won't need to set same combinations multiple times?

Thanks, still an awesome change, can't wait to use it.

EDIT: Just read the suggestion forum answer from your side, and it seems template are in the works 

Second on that.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Yeah I kind of second what bremen said. Why not just have like, three modules:
- One transfers to all.
- One transfers to only one, but is smaller.
- One transfers to only fighters / facs, but does all of them at once and is smaller still.

And you just stack modules to add more transfer rate.

I also am not sure what the thinking is here.

The first one is the hub module which is getting removed, and I think that's fine. It doesn't add anything from a gameplay perspective once we allow refueling to be additive/multiplicative with additional modules, we simply reach a break point at which the hub becomes more efficient than X number of normal modules.

I like the simple idea of just having refueling modules be stackable - either N modules refuels N ships at once, or N modules refuels N times as fast, either one is fine to me (as long as it doesn't get weird with the increments, like having a 3-hour delay between refueling each ship or something). Same should go for ordnance transfer, of course - frankly, I don't see why all the logistics modules don't work the same way as cargo holds for internal consistency, anyways.

Then we just need two modules: one for big ships and one for fighters/FACs. I don't see a problem with allowing multiple small craft modules, either, since they can only be mounted on small craft - every 50 tons dedicated to an extra refueling module is another 50,000 liters of fuel you can't carry, so it's a fair tradeoff.

I did consider simple 'stackable' refuelling systems, but I was concerned that the refuelling rate technology would become almost irrelevant, unless the individual refuelling systems are made much larger so that a decision to add more is a real choice.

Instead, I went for leaving the current tankers are they are and adding a new component that allows faster refuelling at the expense of size.

Having said that, I accept Bremen's point that my changes in pursuit of that goal will actually create a paradigm where its better to have multiple small tankers in a fleet instead of one large one - which I hadn't considered. In fact, right now you can have multiple small tankers and get around the refuelling rate tech.

Maybe the real problem is that the refuelling rate tech isn't particularly meaningful in small increments anyway. So on reflection, I will change refuelling systems to 2000 tons and allow them to be stackable. I'll start the refuelling tech lower and make the increments more meaningful.

EDIT: BTW, one of the great things about the forum is the collective intelligence that immediately spots inconsistencies that I hadn't considered

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've modified the refuelling update post in line with the above.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg173369#msg173369

[nuclearslurpee]

Next update is looking great now! 

I might still suggest changing the "Combat - Energy" category to be "Combat - Beam" category, to be consistent.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Next update is looking great now! 

I might still suggest changing the "Combat - Energy" category to be "Combat - Beam" category, to be consistent.

I choose energy because railguns aren't beams, but I guess we have beam fire controls

[xenoscepter]

So under the new change, will the Small refueling module still exist for fighters/facs?

[nuclearslurpee]

Next update is looking great now! 

I might still suggest changing the "Combat - Energy" category to be "Combat - Beam" category, to be consistent.

I choose energy because railguns aren't beams, but I guess we have beam fire controls

That, and "energy weapon" is a defined research category which notably excludes railguns and Gauss cannons. 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Next update is looking great now! 

I might still suggest changing the "Combat - Energy" category to be "Combat - Beam" category, to be consistent.

I choose energy because railguns aren't beams, but I guess we have beam fire controls

That, and "energy weapon" is a defined research category which notably excludes railguns and Gauss cannons. 

Ah! Excellent point

[Bremen]

Combat - Direct Fire Weapons?

[nuclearslurpee]

Combat - Direct Fire Weapons?

Combat - CLOSE RANGE?!?

[paolot]

Thanks Steve for these new updates!
The tech progression for the Refuelling Systems from 20k to 900k is it linear?
I think that small increments at the beginning, and larger ones towards the end, could create some subtle intricacies in finding the best balance between the systems to mount on a ship. And would push to invest and improve the tech.

So under the new change, will the Small refueling module still exist for fighters/facs?

Will we use a reduction factor to fit the refuel system to a fighter (like for engines)?
So, in theory, a fighter-tanker could refuel also large ships (rather impractical, but a large fleet of small tankers could).

[Ghostly]

Elated to see the standing orders getting some love, especially with Templates on the way, this was sorely needed! Might I suggest adding a Load Ordnance standing order and/or possibly tucking it under the Replenish Overhaul order as well (so it would add Refuel, Resupply, Load Ordnance followed by Overhaul into the ship order list)? My buoy-deploying survey ships would benefit from it greatly

Also, I'm still ruminating about possible ways of making conditional orders interact with conventional order templates for even more automation. One possibility that comes to mind is tweaking the order template UI slightly to allow moving templates up and down in their list and assigning numbers to them then adding conditional orders to execute the template #1-5 in the system where it's triggered. Just a thought!

Another weird quirk of conditionals that comes to mind is their inability to get triggered in sub-3h increments. For most orders this could result in very minor weirdness at most (not knowing for sure which way a Swarm survey ship that just entered the system went because the smallest increment to make it start surveying puts it out of range of your JP buoys) but for more tangentially combat-related ones such as Rescue Lifepod or Activate Sensors/Shields this can be incredibly annoying. If you find yourself needing to pick up 100 lifepods with 10 ships, this takes 30 hours at least, even if they're close enough that manually clicking would get it done in 5 minutes. Would getting rid of the minimum increment length for standing orders be too performance-intensive? (I would also like to bring up my previous suggestion to give diplomacy events the same treatment)

As for the Class Design UI update, this looks lovely, but I think the summaries should be kept out of the ship-specific Wide View section. They actually reduce readability greatly if they're all collapsed by default, and having all those extra lines reduces the threshold for how component-diverse a ship can be before scrolling is necessary to navigate it. I think readability should be prioritized here, and being able to check on every class design's components should require as few clicks as possible, with the old system accomplishing that just fine. Most ship designs don't have so many components that categories for each type would make sense anyway, so if you really want per-ship summaries, then having just the Defense category instead of also having Armour and Shield categories both of which would only ever hold one entry would be more than enough, this would actually result in less lines per screen than we currently have.