Author Topic: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion  (Read 30905 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5659
  • Thanked: 377 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #105 on: December 31, 2013, 10:25:39 AM »
Would it be difficult to have options to add black holes also to non real stars games?

It would be sweet to be able to run games where you can encounter both kinds of strange astronomical features added!

They should already be there.

Offline Zed 6

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Z
  • Posts: 128
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #106 on: December 31, 2013, 11:10:40 AM »
Will Hyper Drive ever return?
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1243
  • Thanked: 161 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #107 on: December 31, 2013, 01:46:15 PM »
They should already be there.

Ok! Then I guess they are just rare, though I read somewhere they are only used in real stars games...
 

Offline Wolfius

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • W
  • Posts: 89
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #108 on: December 31, 2013, 09:16:38 PM »
Both nebula and black holes are in random stars games? When did that happen?  I've been hoping for that since they were introduced.

I think you took them out since there were none in the volume of space you had catalogued with the Real Stars option.

I think you're thinking of nebulas.

Tho I'd personally like a game start option to enable both; I like them, I don't care if it's unrealistic, but I know there are others who disagree.
 

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 292
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #109 on: January 05, 2014, 07:34:48 AM »
Suggestion: tie the size of exclusion zones to a race's militancy/xenophobia/expansionism as well as political modifier. Static values between games are dull, and increasingly-bolder forays near your worlds would be a good barometer for deteriorating relations.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #110 on: January 05, 2014, 08:04:39 PM »
All these NPR enhancements are awesome, and I'll be restarting my campaign when the next. Erosion comes out so I can add the USSR, China, Europe/NATO, and possibly African nations, South/central American Union, India, and Pacifica. I imagine by that time my progress will still be so low I can easily recreate everything in the new game.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #111 on: January 13, 2014, 02:10:45 PM »
So will we see 6. 40 in January?
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #112 on: January 16, 2014, 03:05:23 PM »
I am really glad about the civilian scrapping change steve just put up, but I would say that 10 years is a bit too long for scrapping. 10 years is a long time. How about reducing it to 8 years or something? What do you guys think?
 

Offline joeclark77

  • Commander
  • *********
  • j
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #113 on: January 16, 2014, 04:11:36 PM »
It'd be interesting if shipping lines would specialize.  Say you start with one colony ship line, one freighter line, etc.  That way they'd grow in accordance with the actual demand for shipping, instead of growing randomly.  You wouldn't end up with a glut of colony ships and a shortage of freighters, for example.  And you could direct your subsidies to just what you want to see more of.
 

Offline Alfapiomega

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 232
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • My Youtube channel
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #114 on: January 17, 2014, 12:45:44 AM »
One thing that I find a bit strange is what happens if the ship is on a long cargo route. Steve mentioned it's conditional orders get deleted and so do the current orders. What happens to the cargo?
"Everything is possible until you make a choice. "
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #115 on: January 17, 2014, 02:30:31 AM »
It's default orders get deleted, I imagine it finisheds it's current orders before being scrapped.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Alfapiomega

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 232
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • My Youtube channel
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #116 on: January 17, 2014, 02:47:25 AM »
It's default orders get deleted, I imagine it finisheds it's current orders before being scrapped.

I re-read it and I missed the bold letters. So it's ok :)

During the 5-day update any ships flagged for scrap and without orders are scrapped at that point. This should result in a lot more of the older ships being scrapped.
"Everything is possible until you make a choice. "
 

Offline Aldaris

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 114
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #117 on: January 17, 2014, 06:12:41 AM »
I am really glad about the civilian scrapping change steve just put up, but I would say that 10 years is a bit too long for scrapping. 10 years is a long time. How about reducing it to 8 years or something? What do you guys think?

Personally I think the opposite. Once you get to the higher engine techs, you're likely to spend significantly longer than that between major new shipping tech developments. I'd suggest changing the mechanic to "After 10 years it checks if there's a engine tech available, if so, scrap, if not, mark for re-check next year and keep chugging along. Scrap anyway at the 20-year mark."
 

Offline Alfapiomega

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 232
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • My Youtube channel
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #118 on: January 17, 2014, 06:16:08 AM »
Personally I think the opposite. Once you get to the higher engine techs, you're likely to spend significantly longer than that between major new shipping tech developments. I'd suggest changing the mechanic to "After 10 years it checks if there's a engine tech available, if so, scrap, if not, mark for re-check next year and keep chugging along. Scrap anyway at the 20-year mark."

Not a bad idea.
"Everything is possible until you make a choice. "
 

Offline Wolfius

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • W
  • Posts: 89
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #119 on: January 17, 2014, 06:19:27 AM »
I am really glad about the civilian scrapping change steve just put up, but I would say that 10 years is a bit too long for scrapping. 10 years is a long time. How about reducing it to 8 years or something? What do you guys think?

Ten years is fine; if anything I wouldn't mind if it was longer, atleast if it took tech into account. iRL freighters are usually built with a 25-30 year life-expectancy, tho especially earlier on when you've got fairly rapid and dramatic improvments in the tech avalible that can feel like it's a tad too long.