Author Topic: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later  (Read 190851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nathan_

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Commodore
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 701
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #885 on: May 09, 2012, 02:39:48 PM »
You can transfer ships to another empire you SM into existence so you can stage such battles, though no AI control is possible.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 02:41:45 PM by Nathan_ »
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5688
  • Thanked: 418 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #886 on: May 09, 2012, 03:22:53 PM »
I really wish I could stage mock battles with my own vessels. 
[ooc]big snip of a good idea[/ooc]

I've suggested this multiple times :) Though not quite to this degree of detail. Currently the only way is to make a copy of the database, SM a race in, and give them some ships, then duke it out. When you are done, copy the backup database back to live and go one. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

Offline Jackal Cry

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • J
  • Posts: 16
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #887 on: May 09, 2012, 09:52:22 PM »
I thought of something else while rereading my post today.   I think forces in a battle exercise should suffer the same type of penalty that your ships suffer when you can see a hostile NPR.   However, the penalty in the exercise should not be as bad as the penalty in the real thing -- only 50% or 75% of the penalty should apply.   The stress of treating the exercise like it's real still causes people to mess up, but in the back of the crew members' minds they know they're not actually in life-threatening danger.   The amount of the Awaiting Confirmation penalty (or whatever it's called) is another thing that can be implemented in many ways, like allowing adjustable rates or choices in the Exercise window, but I don't believe that's necessary.   A flat percentage should work fine.   

While this isn't the main place for error reporting, I may as well post it now as it relates to other suggestions.   I've managed to zoom out so far in one system (the scale reads 24 LY) that anything I try to do in that system results in an error 6 Overload message.   Any attempt to zoom in or center the camera on anything creates an Overload *error* and crashes Aurora.   Attempts to do anything else give an Overload *warning* and then perform the action, to an extent.   I can zoom out further, but cannot zoom back in.   I looked for a way to directly set the zoom level in a system, but could not find one.   I had hoped such a setting would solve the issue.   I tried other things too, but they did not work. 

So, my suggestions:
- Add a way to directly set the zoom/scale of a system from the F9 System Information menu, Task Group menu, or regular map.   

- Add a line to the F12 Task Group menu that says where a task group is currently located: include at minimum the system, but hopefully also whether they're sailing In Space or orbiting a body (and list what body it is).   Currently I need to click the Center On Task Group checkbox and then see where they are, then uncheck that box and continue. 

- I'd like to have a Tandem design window where I can design missiles, turrets, and anything in the Design window, and see these three things side-by-side.   That is, I would like a window that has missiles design, turret design, and Design design right next to each other, keeping the windows the way they are now.   As the windows are now, that MIGHT be just the right size to take up most of the screen.   Alternatively, one window with large tabs to easily swap between the various system design windows would be quite nice.   It'd be even better if it included little summary windows of what's currently up in the other two design screens, so that you don't have to keep clicking back and forth to refresh your memory of the missile's statistics or the turret's armor.   Honestly, I think Aurora needs this. 

- To add to my currently existing asteroid miner Task Groups, I build mining vessels and initially store them in a temporary Task Group so I can move them to where my other mining vessels are and then combine the two groups.   This process is really clunky, especially when various ships finish production at different times but I want them to go to work immediately.   I can either make and delete Task Groups every time my ships are produced, or I can deal with a "This Task Group Is Not Currently Located At This Planet" message every time I try to build a ship into my Temporary Task Group. 
-- Either the F12 menu needs to be streamlined (but I have no real ideas how)
  or
-- You could do away with empty Task Groups having any set location.   If the Task Group is empty, it should not have a defined location, and should not be giving me confirmation messages every time I want my shipyards to construct new vessels into that Task Group.   I would like to see this change. 
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 03:17:37 AM by Jackal Cry »
 

Offline Havear

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • H
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #888 on: May 09, 2012, 10:39:27 PM »
The empty task groups somehow not accepting ships from another location because they're in two places is annoying.
 

Offline majortopio

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • m
  • Posts: 7
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #889 on: May 10, 2012, 05:09:15 AM »
I have a relatively small suggestion, at least I think it's small.  Not knowing VB, I can't really say programming-wise.

But I would love to see an auto-rename feature for moons of planets.  Right now, when I rename a planet, all of its moons retain the "---- X Moon X", which ruins flavor.  Instead of having to go through all of them and rename them, which can be a time consuming task when there's 30 of them, it would be nice to have an autorename feature like that of solar systems and their planets.  Just a flavor-related thing :)
 

Offline ussugu

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • u
  • Posts: 23
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #890 on: May 10, 2012, 08:21:12 AM »
I tend to build LOTS of terraformers (I love modifying planets) and trickle the new ships to my massive terraforming fleet.  I just make a new TG and don't worry about the random name given to it, move my new ships from my ShipYard TG and then tell the new fleet to join the massive fleet. 

That way, I don't have to worry about where the empty fleet goes.  It just disappears.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 12186
  • Thanked: 23779 times
  • 2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    Above & Beyond Supporter Above & Beyond Supporter :
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #891 on: May 10, 2012, 12:43:56 PM »
I have a relatively small suggestion, at least I think it's small.  Not knowing VB, I can't really say programming-wise.

But I would love to see an auto-rename feature for moons of planets.  Right now, when I rename a planet, all of its moons retain the "---- X Moon X", which ruins flavor.  Instead of having to go through all of them and rename them, which can be a time consuming task when there's 30 of them, it would be nice to have an autorename feature like that of solar systems and their planets.  Just a flavor-related thing :)

Actually, you've spotted a bug here :)

The moons should pick up the parent planet name if they don't have a player-assigned name. However, this code wasn't taking account of the fact the parent planet itself may have been renamed. I've fixed this for v5.70. If you rename a planet, any moon should now use that name unless the moon itself has also been renamed.

Steve
 

Offline Havear

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • H
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #892 on: May 10, 2012, 12:46:26 PM »
Another suggestion: in the special orders tab of the TG window, please add Copy Default Orders from Superior Formation and a Copy Conditional Orders from Superior Formation buttons. All of my survey ships are on detached duty and have the same conditional and default orders, and several other TGs are organized similarly.
 

Offline majortopio

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • m
  • Posts: 7
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #893 on: May 10, 2012, 01:03:21 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=2828. msg49724#msg49724 date=1336671836
Actually, you've spotted a bug here :)

The moons should pick up the parent planet name if they don't have a player-assigned name.  However, this code wasn't taking account of the fact the parent planet itself may have been renamed.  I've fixed this for v5. 70.  If you rename a planet, any moon should now use that name unless the moon itself has also been renamed.

Steve

Awesome! That'll save a great deal of time :)
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #894 on: May 15, 2012, 02:51:47 AM »
A Change to Unrest messaging,

When there are issue such as minority or population overload I think it is unnecessary to display unrest unless it is rising. If you have enough troops to set it to 0 again we should not have to see multiple log messages, which just spam every turn.

I suggest a slight coding change here.

Calculate the military deduction first and minus the total
Calculate the unrest second and add to the total
If the total is =< 0 Calculate the difference and display in the log there there was an increase or decrease of unrest
If the total is less then 0 set it to 0.

This way there is only one error message with unrest, and if it increase you know you have to increase the troops. You could display in the one message if you want how much the troops are reducing the increased unrest if you need that information displayed.

I have suggested this as I believe unrest message is too much spam, especially for controlled colonies. And hiding unrest actually could create a potential issue.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 02:53:20 AM by ardem »
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #895 on: May 15, 2012, 03:08:15 AM »
Unrest overhaul dependant on your chosen system of government.

I like to see when you start a war those governments such as republic etc to have a war fatigue over time where unrest is pushed is increase across the empire.

Ship, Colony, and troop losses should represent wide spread unrest. I see unrest not only as riot/protest but nervousness or lack of faith in the government, which affects production.

Victories should bring increase to morale of an empire.
Destroying enemy populations should bring greater unrest to republic and democracy style governments
Running out of minerals should impact highly on corporate governance.
Distance from the captial should impact various style of government.

The various governmental system should have greater swings then others such as military style government would get great plus and minus based on casualty ratios.

----------------------------------

I think the need for a greater diplomatic simulator would be needed as well, such as suing for peace, or territorial claims to systems would help.

Some of these additions to aurora will truly increase a space/combat simulator and add the major element which is missing currently and that is a greater political aspect which most 4x games have.
 

Offline 3_14159

  • Registered
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 84
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #896 on: May 18, 2012, 08:27:20 AM »
There are two smaller suggestions (both already proposed though I can't seem to find where, I'm just trying to get them back in your mind):

1.  No more PDC assembling mineral costs.
RP: Would it really be difficult to just pack the materials in the PDC containers? And, who wouldn't do so, considering that they'd be needed in any case?

Game: It'd free me from, well, always chartering a freighter, thinking about the exact minerals needed and so on.

Difficulty: Should, I guess, not be very difficult.  Probably changing a single multiplicator or something on a comparable scale.


2.  Box launchers from the beginning
RP: It's (at least according from the weight) just some clamps, a tube and the missile stuffed into them.  That shouldn't be too difficult, I'd say, at least compared to the other research costs.

Game: Well, that's the main question.  It'd encourage things like FACs at the beginning, and probably would make fighters a bit earlier and more deadly.  I can't see myself the whole scope of the changes.

Difficulty: Probably very, very easy.
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #897 on: May 18, 2012, 08:48:05 AM »
To me it always seemed like it was a bit backwards.  Box launchers should have been first and then you research the ability to reload in space.  Increasing reload speed with each tech but increasing the size of the launcher with each speed tech, which could itself be negated by further tech to miniaturize it.
 

Offline Havear

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • H
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #898 on: May 18, 2012, 11:09:24 AM »
I'd agreed with both. "Some Assembly Required" followed by "Batteries not Included" on prefabricated slap-it-together PDC parts is a bit odd. Turning the missile reload rate technology tree around would make more sense, but I'm a bit concerned at how it'll effect game play.
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #899 on: May 20, 2012, 04:24:19 PM »
It should be a middle ground, where reload starts slow, like ww2 torpedo launchers, then you can go for quick loaders and box launchers.