Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 142521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 792
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1695 on: August 07, 2018, 12:57:08 PM »

It would be good but don’t think possible from a game play perspective given relative speeds of ships v for example beam weapon ranges. For gauss fighters you could end up never being able to get in range and for longer ranger beams it could be a real nerf as you miss chance for multiple shots.


Why... this is only reaction to new orders. This has nothing to do with initiative.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 01:03:38 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 452
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1696 on: August 08, 2018, 02:00:18 AM »

It would be good but don’t think possible from a game play perspective given relative speeds of ships v for example beam weapon ranges. For gauss fighters you could end up never being able to get in range and for longer ranger beams it could be a real nerf as you miss chance for multiple shots.


Why... this is only reaction to new orders. This has nothing to do with initiative.

Trying to change ranges in a beam fight where you have order delays is very painful. I have bad memories of getting too close to swarm queen once and getting a large chunk of my fleet trashed before being able to pull range. Delays in giving a fire order to actually firing can be similarly painful.
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 532
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1697 on: August 08, 2018, 04:42:10 AM »
IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1698 on: August 08, 2018, 05:35:26 AM »
2009.zzz...2010....2011....2012....2013....2014....2015...2016....2017...2018...20xx...2120!! Aurora C# ALPHA Day.

:D
:P
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2723
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1699 on: August 08, 2018, 07:33:04 AM »
IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.

Agreed, a better behavior would be to continue with the previous order(s) until the delay has expired.

John
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 792
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1700 on: August 08, 2018, 11:41:35 AM »
IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.

Agreed, a better behavior would be to continue with the previous order(s) until the delay has expired.

John

This I agree with... if there is an issue with order delay that should be fixed not the delay itself. There should never be a case where zero delay is a must to play the game.

In my opinion having some delay always being the case seem more interesting overall and also mean that crew grade and officers competence always will matter.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Online Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 918
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1701 on: August 08, 2018, 02:49:46 PM »
Agreed.

But that would require that Aurora "remembers" the old order even after you remove or change it. Not sure if things are set-up in a way that would make it easy for Steve to implement such a feature.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 267
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1702 on: August 08, 2018, 03:04:57 PM »
I think the main issue is the full stop between orders.  Staying at the same speed and heading until able to react to the next order would be a bit more believable, achieve more or less the same thing and hopefully be easier to implement.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1780
  • Thanked: 71 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1703 on: August 10, 2018, 01:23:21 AM »
There's absolutely no reason for a task group to sit idle due to order delay, it makes sense they would continue the old order, the delay is in changing orders.
It's a terrible idea in battle to just sit still while waiting for commands, unless you had specifically been told to sit still beforehand.
" 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 Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 254
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1704 on: August 10, 2018, 01:45:50 AM »
There's absolutely no reason for a task group to sit idle due to order delay, it makes sense they would continue the old order, the delay is in changing orders.
It's a terrible idea in battle to just sit still while waiting for commands, unless you had specifically been told to sit still beforehand.
Yeah. Similarly it should be possible to assign a target rotation beforehand. If you know when and how you are going to change targets, the crews can plan ahead. (Fire on x till destroyed, then y then z) Changing target priorities should have a delay, but not following a preplanned firing pattern.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 267
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1705 on: August 10, 2018, 10:57:34 AM »
If anything, you might only expect momentary confusion in that case if the next planned target was already destroyed.
 

Offline the obelisk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • t
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1706 on: August 10, 2018, 11:30:09 AM »
Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 792
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1707 on: August 10, 2018, 02:41:13 PM »
Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

I agree... the biggest problem is when your fleet train things like FAC or other patrol ships with very short maintenance cycles or deployment times. The best thing would be that ships in a training command gain no training as long as they are anchored at a maintenance facility.

It would be nice if I could train my low deployment ships without huge micromanagement.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 254
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1708 on: August 10, 2018, 03:58:55 PM »
What happens to the maintenance of fighters and other parasites during training? The hardware surely has to be used for real, but continuously charging double maintenance with their ridiculously low deployment times is likely prohibitively expensive.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7095
  • Thanked: 1929 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1709 on: August 10, 2018, 07:08:54 PM »
Fleets undergoing fleet training being unable to use maintenance facilities or Recreational locations seems odd.  That would mean you'd need to remove the fleet from the training structure in order to have it recuperate when the ships and crew get too worn down during training, which seems pretty weird.

Without those rules, a training fleet in the same location as maintenance facilities and recreational facilities would effectively be training without cost.
 

 

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