Author Topic: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 60431 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SpikeTheHobbitMage

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 75
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #810 on: July 24, 2018, 09:53:50 PM »
As instructed:


One of the main issues I've been finding with beam ships is that continuously scaling costs for more advanced beam fire controls as tech advances. With that in mind, I'd like to propose that its costs only scale with the multipliers applied to it, the tech advances being "free" bonuses.

In further thoughts: What I'd envision to make beam FCs better: Higher base cost to compensate a bit the non-escalating costs. "Sliding" values for range and speed instead of fixed multipliers, allowing for more precise fine control of the values, with a minimum and maximum value. Said value might just be the present 25% and 4x, or it could be set by tech, starting closer to 1 and increasing back to the present possible values (or other values, although that might present some issues with absolute max range due to light speed).
We directly key in tracking speed when designing turrets, so having the same option for FC makes sense.  Selecting tonnage as well and getting a range might be advantageous.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #811 on: July 25, 2018, 11:13:18 PM »
Having more scalable beam fire controls sounds really fun to me.  Then you can have a long range laser battleship that has some gigantic super expensive fire control, just so it can fight off a 100 tonne harassment fighter from a much more advanced faction.  That sort of hilarity.
 

Offline Titanian

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 87
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #812 on: July 26, 2018, 06:21:40 AM »
And fire control tracking speed really need a nonlinear scaling factor. Otherwise x4 is always the right choice for turreted pd. All the other settings exept x1.25 get used only very rarely by me, as x1.25 is usefull for railgun pd as it futureproofs the firecontrols for when the next level of fire control speed instantly upgrades all non-turreted weapons. All the other settings I don't really use, as my bfc tracking tech is usually higher than my ship speeds anyway.

Finer granularity would be nice for several settings, especially capacitor recharge. Then one could finally produce 10cm laser with 1.5 recharge rate instead of 2, and so on. Would be especially useful for particle beams with all their odd power requirements.
 

Offline jwoodward48

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • j
  • Posts: 2
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #813 on: September 23, 2018, 02:21:37 PM »
In the System Information screen, Jupiter is listed as having the same magnetic field strength as Earth.  According to Wikipedia, this should be around 20 times that of Earth.  (Unless I misinterpreted "magnetic field" and it's measuring something different instead. )

(Also, Saturn should be somewhat less than Earth, but the two are listed as having the same magnetic field.  They're close enough that it's tricky, since magnetic field strength varies over the surface of Earth, but Saturn's average is less than the typical minimum for Earth, so it should be something from 0. 32 to 0. 84. )
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2230 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #814 on: September 23, 2018, 04:23:37 PM »
In the System Information screen, Jupiter is listed as having the same magnetic field strength as Earth.  According to Wikipedia, this should be around 20 times that of Earth.  (Unless I misinterpreted "magnetic field" and it's measuring something different instead. )

(Also, Saturn should be somewhat less than Earth, but the two are listed as having the same magnetic field.  They're close enough that it's tricky, since magnetic field strength varies over the surface of Earth, but Saturn's average is less than the typical minimum for Earth, so it should be something from 0. 32 to 0. 84. )

Thanks for mentioning. I will update them. At the moment, magnetic field isn't used for any in-game function so the discrepancy hasn't affected anything.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 485
  • Thanked: 57 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #815 on: October 15, 2018, 06:39:05 PM »
I suggest rethinking tracking speed to account not for the target's velocity, but instead its radial velocity.  A target moving directly towards or away from you has much lower radial velocity than one moving tangentially to you.  If you've ever gone skeet shooting, or defended against air attack in Silent Hunter 3, you'll surely have noticed it's much easier to aim at and hit targets moving directly towards or away from you.  It is also occasionally easier to aim at a target that is farther away than one that is closer, because farther targets will have a lower radial velocity.  A turret may be fast enough to track a target out near max range, but not fast enough to track it at close range.

This I think would provide a welcome buff to FAC's and fighters.  It would mean that turreted beam weapons would have optimal range bands, instead of always being more accurate as distance decreases.  This would mean fighters may be able to get in under the minimum effective range of the main guns, while remaining out of range of defensive armament.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 852
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #816 on: October 15, 2018, 06:49:38 PM »
I suggest rethinking tracking speed to account not for the target's velocity, but instead its radial velocity.  A target moving directly towards or away from you has much lower radial velocity than one moving tangentially to you.  If you've ever gone skeet shooting, or defended against air attack in Silent Hunter 3, you'll surely have noticed it's much easier to aim at and hit targets moving directly towards or away from you.  It is also occasionally easier to aim at a target that is farther away than one that is closer, because farther targets will have a lower radial velocity.  A turret may be fast enough to track a target out near max range, but not fast enough to track it at close range.

This I think would provide a welcome buff to FAC's and fighters.  It would mean that turreted beam weapons would have optimal range bands, instead of always being more accurate as distance decreases.  This would mean fighters may be able to get in under the minimum effective range of the main guns, while remaining out of range of defensive armament.

This would be an interesting addition to the game if easily implemented.

In spirit of this I also think that size should matter in ship to ship combat as well. It should be progressively harder to shoot at a small as oppose to a large target. Big targets should have the armor and shield advantages to take hits from big weapons, small targets should avoid them through size and speed.
 
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 975
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #817 on: October 16, 2018, 06:48:09 PM »
Shouldn't this thread be closed, since C# Aurora Suggestions thread exists? Or is it still useful to Steve as a sort of filing cabinet of dreams and hopes? :D
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7189
  • Thanked: 2230 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #818 on: October 16, 2018, 06:49:07 PM »
Shouldn't this thread be closed, since C# Aurora Suggestions thread exists? Or is it still useful to Steve as a sort of filing cabinet of dreams and hopes? :D

It should probably be closed in favour of the C# suggestion thread, although I will still work my way through it when I have the time.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54