Author Topic: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later  (Read 191200 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Naismith

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • N
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1065 on: November 03, 2012, 08:32:38 PM »
I would like to suggest adding time controls to the event window, preferably with an auto-turn check box.
I find that when I'm playing on a single monitor I have to keep flipping back and forth between the system map and the events window, so that I can see what's going on. Having the controls on the event window would let me run the game from there and only switch when I need to change something. I've attached a quick mockup of what I have in mind.
 

Offline Jumpp

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • J
  • Posts: 186
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1066 on: November 03, 2012, 09:46:28 PM »
It'd be nice to have some way to offer bigger shipping fees.   That way, if you've got a lot of stuff you want moved, and lots of money in your pocket, and the shipping companies are mostly ignoring you because their trade goods runs are more profitable, you can shift the incentives around and get their attention.
 

Offline ollobrains

  • Commander
  • *********
  • o
  • Posts: 380
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1067 on: November 03, 2012, 10:38:23 PM »
It'd be nice to have some way to offer bigger shipping fees.   That way, if you've got a lot of stuff you want moved, and lots of money in your pocket, and the shipping companies are mostly ignoring you because their trade goods runs are more profitable, you can shift the incentives around and get their attention.

some way of moving youre wealth has potential.  Premium to move or an urgency button.  Dunno find in my games the civs are very random sometimes no colonizers are built for ages in my current game 4 FH 2 freighters but no civ moving of colonists fixed that by doing it myself. 

Maybe specific freighter lines focusing on certain things.  That said with the Fuel harvestors broken they move towards the gas giant but never arrive and sit there for 8-10 years before their designs get obselted
 

wilddog5

  • Guest
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1068 on: November 06, 2012, 03:24:22 AM »
seeing as you can add fighters to a ship on the fighters/ ordernance tab of the class design screen, the fighters crew requirements could be added / removed from the carrying ship automaticaly.

sorry if it dosn't read well just got up
 

Offline Nathan_

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Commodore
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 701
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1069 on: November 06, 2012, 01:05:30 PM »
Instead of printing ships exceed deployment ship by ship, print ships in taskforce such and such have exceeded their deployment as just one line.
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1070 on: November 07, 2012, 07:43:03 PM »
Jump Transiting Skill
   This is the skill of effectively jumping through a point. In tactical jumps, ships are more likely to appear far from the jump point on arrival (up to the maximum of the drive), and in any jump, having a high skill for this provides a bonus to recover from jump sickness.

High Performance Piloting Skill
   Replace Fighter Operation with High Performance Piloting, representing skill at moving a ship with relatively high accelleration to avoid damage efficiently through a combination of jinking and feinting. Any ship could benefit from this, but the ratio of Acceleration to mass has a multiplicating effect on this.
   
   The effect is that all hits on a vessel could have a 5% chance to "miss" depending on skill.
   
   This makes all fighters somewhat more useful and strongly rewards smaller, faster ships.

Mineral Rolling Reballance:

Currently, a planet with two minerals at 0.6 accessability is much, much better than a planet with one mineral at 0.9 accessability. This is only natural, as the one with two minerals is effectively 50% better in terms of total tonnage of mineral output.

This is why HW-level minerals are so fantastic- they can easily have a total accessability of something like 7 or 8, meaning your mines are eight times as productive as they would be on a different planet with just one mineral at 1 accessability.

The mineral generator should balance the variety of minerals with the prevalence of minerals. Further, there should be extremely high accessability minerals to enable very attractive, small-term motherlodes of single types, such as you might expect to find in asteroids.

A spread of potential, equally-favorable mining claims might look like this:

Planet I:
   Red Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
   Blue Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
   Green Stuff: 0.3 10,000 Tons
   Glowing Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
   Clear Stuff: 0.3 10,000 Tons
   Reddish-Orange Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
   Plaid Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
   
Planet II:
   Glowing Stuff: 0.7 10,000 Tons
   Plaid Stuff: 0.6 10,000 Tons
   
Planet III:
   Blue Stuff: 0.8 10,000 Tons
   Green Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
   Clear Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
   Reddish-Orange Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
   
Asteroid 1224:
   Red Stuff: 2.6  5,000 Tons
   
Gas Giant I:
   Reddish-Orange Stuff: 0.4 30,000 Tons
   
How to actually generate this sort of thing, I'm unsure. Potentially, a planet could first figure out the relative density of each mineral, then multiply those values until, adjusting for the total quantity available, the total accessability reaches a randomly-assigned target value. Then adjusting the dice for the total acessability allows you to ensure there each system having somewhere between 0-2 good planets (TA 4+), a few moderate planets, (TA 1ish) a few bad planets (TA <0.5) and however many useless planets.

By picking a good distribution, you can feed NPC empires better, and you can more importantly drive players to get mining colonies out of the solar system, because right now earth usually has a TA of what, 7.4 or more? And, it can make it add really good planets with TAs of more than 8 which can be interesting points for conflict, but distinct enough for them to be a concern (do I go for this system, which has 1.0 accessability for everything on one planet and decades worth of minerals, or do I go for the system with the 10.0 accessability asteroid full of sorium, tritanium and duranium, which will give me 5,000 tons of each in a few months?)
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1071 on: November 07, 2012, 08:17:01 PM »
One thing that would be really nice is a consecutive type numbering system.  Let's say that I'm building FACs, which I'm just numbering, and not actually naming.  I want to start with FAC-1 and go from there, keeping the numbering across types.  The idea is that you could specify a prefix (FAC-, PT-, U-, etc.) and build ships named by that prefix and using the next number.  It would be possible to do this manually, making a list with a bunch of names, but an automatic method would be even better.  I hope I'm making sense. 
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1487
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1072 on: November 08, 2012, 12:59:44 AM »
Too much suggestions..this game are near-to-perfection

2 thing:1
1 Army Improvemnt (with a minimal planetary map? i dont know,Steve..if possible)

2 Ships icons,hexagon Galattic map (traveller like-style) more easy display-position


Very few thing.

Other all done.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1326
  • Thanked: 212 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1073 on: November 08, 2012, 02:12:00 AM »
Mineral Rolling Reballance:

Currently, a planet with two minerals at 0.6 accessability is much, much better than a planet with one mineral at 0.9 accessability. This is only natural, as the one with two minerals is effectively 50% better in terms of total tonnage of mineral output.

This is why HW-level minerals are so fantastic- they can easily have a total accessability of something like 7 or 8, meaning your mines are eight times as productive as they would be on a different planet with just one mineral at 1 accessability.
I would preffer if mining was just changed to make sense instead. I don't think it's logical or makes sense that all these minerals are in the same place so they can be extracted with a single mine. That only makes sense in the case of smaller asteroids (and could perhaps be their bonus).

Mining yield should instead be divided by the number of different minerals present (and you get to choose which ones you want to mine and which you want to ignore).

A planet with mineral A, mineral B and mineral C should need three mines to have the same base yield as a planet that only has mineral A. Or two mines if you ignore extraction of mineral C. Prefferably a checkbox right next the name where you mark which minerals you want to extract.

This would ofcourse require a rebalance with quite a bit higher base mining yields.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 02:13:42 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 292
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1074 on: November 08, 2012, 02:25:56 AM »
Well, trans-newtonian elements are only formed in the core, but even just a way to designate extraction priority would be nice. Slave the allowed level of priority to an 'onsite mineral sorting' tech perhaps.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1326
  • Thanked: 212 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1075 on: November 08, 2012, 02:45:04 AM »
Well, trans-newtonian elements are only formed in the core, but even just a way to designate extraction priority would be nice. Slave the allowed level of priority to an 'onsite mineral sorting' tech perhaps.
Even worse if they are formed in the core as opposed to the very thin crust!

The core has a much bigger total volume to search for minerals compared to the crust we mine today, I guess you could explain it away with technobabble about high tech trans newtonian extraction methods...

But I still think it doesn't make sense and as we concluded it's not good for game balance :)
 

Offline hostergaard

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • h
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1076 on: November 08, 2012, 07:08:31 AM »
Specialized training/fleets?

So for example a fleet can focus their training or operations on fighters and get a bonus on using them?


Oh, and having a little number that display the sum of skill percentages of all the selected officers of a team before creating the team would be great and help making the best combinations when having a lot of teams. 
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 66 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1077 on: November 08, 2012, 08:27:14 AM »
To log when a technology was developed and by whom.  It makes generating AARs much easier.  I am talking about in the research screen not in the log file where it is logged.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 09:55:52 AM by Paul M »
 

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 292
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1078 on: November 08, 2012, 09:18:59 AM »
Include the size of a designed engine in the default name generated for it
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1326
  • Thanked: 212 times
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #1079 on: November 08, 2012, 09:21:36 AM »
Include a new column to display the research year of all ship components in the ship components list.