Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 226059 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 57 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2415 on: September 16, 2019, 04:08:12 AM »
I disagree - a good system is flexible, robust and balanced.
If it's strictly preferable to give ships long mission lives than to invest into the maintenance system, the system is broken.
If it's strictly preferable to make ships fuel-efficient to the point of rendering fuel logistics irrelevant, the system is broken.

Ideally, breaking the usual assumptions would be possible but not the norm - leading to higher total costs or requiring significant design concessions.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1073
  • Thanked: 84 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2416 on: September 16, 2019, 05:58:34 AM »
I disagree - a good system is flexible, robust and balanced.
If it's strictly preferable to give ships long mission lives than to invest into the maintenance system, the system is broken.
If it's strictly preferable to make ships fuel-efficient to the point of rendering fuel logistics irrelevant, the system is broken.

Ideally, breaking the usual assumptions would be possible but not the norm - leading to higher total costs or requiring significant design concessions.

I would agree to some point here, but that also depend in what role-play you wan't to be possible. The current system at least give you the options for some machine race or something to abuse these system. Perhaps from a mathematical perspective it is way more effective to just give ships an extreme long maintenance cycle and scrap and build new ones and ignore maintenance facilities altogether... I don't know...

If it could be better balanced I would not be against it, but I don't see it as necessary to play the game and don't abuse it.

As I said before... there are many more ways to abuse the game mechanics in Aurora but you don't need to do it to get a balanced game. Aurora is as far as I understand first and foremost a role-playing platform so you do whatever you feel is best for you to get the best playing experience.

I always restrict myself and all my factions to way more restrictive rules to how things work in the game, for role-playing. As all the factions live by the same rules it is fair and balanced.

Aurora is not a game to win, it is a game to play the way you see fit.

It obviously does not mean that there should not be some sort of balance or that things can be changed or fixed.

I did state in one of my answers above that I think the resource cost for technology in and if itself is gamey... you don't pay 20% higher resource cost just because a technology is 20% more efficient or better. In the real world the cost of a tank of the same mass is going to be roughly the same no matter what technology it contains since the industrial technology to develop it is there to support it as well. Any new matriel used in the new tank is now produced by industry as new technologies has been discovers, industry that would otherwise have produced the old material for the old tanks and so forth...
So the industrial cost are going to remain roughly the same. What changes are usually the skill of labour, today the cost of labour is much more expensive since both the ones that build, operate and maintain equipment need to be more skilled. So it is often the human investment that change, you need more skilled people over time for development and research but less for actual production. Both operation and maintenance take more skilled people but often less people overall.

If the cost of stuff remains roughly the same and instead you need to advance the industry and human capital to support it to develop it things would work better in this particular regard because the cost to maintain would be roughly the same in terms of human resource invested in it. managing the skill to maintain more advanced equipment would go hand in hand with the actual advanced equipment. Old equipment would still need to be maintained and would become more and more expensive over time in comparison with new technology. This is usually how it works in real life, older system become more and more expensive to maintain as newer more efficient technologies take over.

Exactly how any of this would translate into Aurora I have no clue, but the system as it is are Gamey to begin with. I don't think there is an easy fix so using personal restriction to get the game to play like you want to is sufficient to a certain degree here and there.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 04:02:38 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Offline Xenotrenium

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • X
  • Posts: 6
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2417 on: October 10, 2019, 10:23:09 PM »
Posted a bug in regular Aurora that revolves around moving pdcs around as parasites

hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8144. 915

might be relevant to consider validating orders when a TG is manipulated in certain ways
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 510
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2418 on: November 05, 2019, 09:05:26 AM »
With the recent changes to the salvage mechanics when in orbit of a population, can we lug wrecks around with a tug?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7945
  • Thanked: 4374 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2419 on: November 05, 2019, 11:50:21 AM »
With the recent changes to the salvage mechanics when in orbit of a population, can we lug wrecks around with a tug?

Not at the moment, but it could be added.
 
The following users thanked this post: AlStar, QuakeIV, Graham

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 148 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2420 on: November 05, 2019, 12:29:16 PM »
With the recent changes to the salvage mechanics when in orbit of a population, can we lug wrecks around with a tug?

Not at the moment, but it could be added.
That could create a whole new way of salvaging. My tugs are often idle for years, so pulling wrecks to the orbit of a "salvager" planet would be a good job for them.
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, Graham

Offline Bughunter

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 646
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2421 on: November 05, 2019, 04:14:17 PM »
I cannot imagine anyone hauling a salvager+transports around then because moving tugs will be a lot easier. Probably also less risky if the system is not fully secured.

While I like the improvement on micromanagement and having another option available I think it does remove some of the risk/reward tradeoff when sitting for days on a hot piece of space loot hoping no hostiles will show up before you get your freighters out. And it does make better salvage tech almost useless.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 349
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2422 on: November 05, 2019, 09:12:51 PM »
I mean, on the flip side it makes considerably more sense so I think the tradeoff is worth it personally.  Traditional salvage might still be preferable for salvaging clusters of really distant wrecks.  I am admittedly somewhat biased, because I almost never salvaged due to how much of a pain it was compared to the payoff.  If I can just send tugs to drag stuff home and then use the colony to store the salvage, that sounds greatly preferable to me.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 175
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2423 on: November 06, 2019, 04:17:02 AM »
I don't know. It might make playing easier, but if I think about the narrative... A wrecked ship is likely to have descriptions like "shattered keel", "debris field drifting through space" and so on; the mechanical transition from 'ship' to 'wreck' strongly suggests to me that it necessarily lacks the structural integrity to be dragged around by a tug. (Sure, maybe in someone's Star Trek game they can bubble even the extreme of "pile of screws and armor shards flying in loose formation" in order to tractor it back to the nearest starbase, but not every universe is so forgiving.)

I guess if it's coded in there's no compulsion for a player to use it if it doesn't suit their story, so more options are better.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline mandalorethe1st

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • m
  • Posts: 6
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2424 on: November 06, 2019, 09:38:24 AM »
Quote from: papent link=topic=8497. msg116395#msg116395 date=1568582071
That would be pretty cool to see like a production bonus for continuing to build the same design at a shipyard it starts expensive but as you reach serial production the resource costs and production time decrease to show efficiency of manufacture and the progress from experimental to staple of the fleet? but on the other hand, would it handicap the AI? as they are suppose to switch designs more often in this upcoming version, i believe.

I agree.   I think adding a bonus for serial production and a handicap for first-of-class ships makes sense.   First of class warships IRL are typically 25-50% more expensive and can take extra years to produce.   I think modeling this in game would produce realistic industrial inertia, where its cheaper and easier to build old ships than to design new ones, especially when new ships offer relatively minor gains in performance.   This is why the US is still building Arleigh Burke class Destroyers.   This inertia is modeling the experience gained by the shipbuilders in reducing time and cost by streamlining the production facilities and the intangible experience gained by the people actually assembling the craft.   These little tweaks add up to substantial time savings.   The production bonus should also degrade if there is no activity.   

In game, I would model the experience as an exponential decrease, leveling off at about the 20th ship for 3/4ths the production time.   Cost should come down as well.   
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 510
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2425 on: November 06, 2019, 09:45:52 AM »
In that case, retooling to a related ship with low refit costs should probably have minimal effect on the serial production bonus.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 148 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2426 on: November 07, 2019, 12:27:53 PM »
I guess if it's coded in there's no compulsion for a player to use it if it doesn't suit their story, so more options are better.
Ding ding ding! Here I completely agree. Nothing forces a player to use one method over the other. More options is better.

I think adding a bonus for serial production and a handicap for first-of-class ships makes sense.
We already have the retooling for a class thing. It can take over a year to retool a shipyard. So why add a handicap on top? It already is better in some cases to build a new shipyard instead of retooling, to take advantage of the "free" first retool, and this would reinforce that behaviour.
 

Offline Rabid_Cog

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 288
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2427 on: November 07, 2019, 02:01:29 PM »
I'd rather just have it as a bonus. Stacking 1% reduction in build cost per item built, up to a max of 5/10/15/20% limited by a tech as a simple idea. So the base price IS your first-of-class cost which reduces for each one you build. Keeps things simpler. Your first in class cost would be per shipyard or per production run then, though.
I have my own subforum now!
Shameless plug for my own Aurora story game:
5.6 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4988.0.html
6.2 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5906.0.html

Feel free to post comments!
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5452.0.html
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 507
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2428 on: November 07, 2019, 02:23:22 PM »
I'd rather just have it as a bonus. Stacking 1% reduction in build cost per item built, up to a max of 5/10/15/20% limited by a tech as a simple idea. So the base price IS your first-of-class cost which reduces for each one you build. Keeps things simpler. Your first in class cost would be per shipyard or per production run then, though.

I think the retooling cost does essentially the same thing and is even simpler than that.
 

Offline mandalorethe1st

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • m
  • Posts: 6
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2429 on: November 07, 2019, 03:03:34 PM »
Quote from: Bremen link=topic=8497. msg116821#msg116821 date=1573158202
I think the retooling cost does essentially the same thing and is even simpler than that.

I always thought of the retooling costs as the work required to literally modify the equipment at the shipyard to make a new class.   You need to make forms for the hull, jigs for equipment that are unique to classes of ships and supports for the hull before it is complete.   You could include first-of-class costs in that as well, and it might be simpler.

Quote from: Rabid_Cog link=topic=8497. msg116820#msg116820 date=1573156889
I'd rather just have it as a bonus.  Stacking 1% reduction in build cost per item built, up to a max of 5/10/15/20% limited by a tech as a simple idea.  So the base price IS your first-of-class cost which reduces for each one you build.  Keeps things simpler.  Your first in class cost would be per shipyard or per production run then, though.
.   

I like this idea, and I think it would be easier to implement.   The same bonus should also apply to construction 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 55