Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 205732 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1096
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1350 on: August 23, 2019, 04:00:14 AM »
I think double fire gauss would be a little overpowered :)

Maybe something on the lines of advanced railguns, with an extra shot. Having said that, I haven't really looked at ruin-only weapons yet for C. I'll revisit the weapon concepts when I do.

It might be pretty cool if you were able to specify in game setup which weapon/shields and special tech-lines you want to be available freely, ruin only ( and at what chance ) or not available at all. I would for sure up the chance a bit to discover some ruin-only techs since in my experience you had to explore alot of ruins to get anything at all ( or I was just unlucky ).

Although being able to disable some techs that's normally freely available might cause some issues for the AI unless it's a player empire only setting.
 

Offline mtm84

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • m
  • Posts: 102
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1351 on: August 23, 2019, 04:25:30 AM »

It might be pretty cool if you were able to specify in game setup which weapon/shields and special tech-lines you want to be available freely, ruin only ( and at what chance ) or not available at all. I would for sure up the chance a bit to discover some ruin-only techs since in my experience you had to explore alot of ruins to get anything at all ( or I was just unlucky ).

Although being able to disable some techs that's normally freely available might cause some issues for the AI unless it's a player empire only setting.

If I remember right, Master of Orion 3 had a system where by each race would only see 75-80 percent of the tech tree in any one game, chosen randomly.  I'm not quite sure how you would adapt that to Aurora's tech system but its food for thought.  I'm all for having increased game/SM options (SM ability to seed special techs in ruins, anyone?)
 

Offline Doren

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • D
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1352 on: August 23, 2019, 10:35:13 AM »
I think double fire gauss would be a little overpowered :)

Maybe something on the lines of advanced railguns, with an extra shot. Having said that, I haven't really looked at ruin-only weapons yet for C. I'll revisit the weapon concepts when I do.
I honestly think that you should not get directly stronger stuff from ruins just alternatives for example meson weapon type could be rather interesting to get out of ruins (well not that interesting that we are accustomed to be able to use them from the get go) as it is rather unique among the weapon types

It might be pretty cool if you were able to specify in game setup which weapon/shields and special tech-lines you want to be available freely, ruin only ( and at what chance ) or not available at all. I would for sure up the chance a bit to discover some ruin-only techs since in my experience you had to explore alot of ruins to get anything at all ( or I was just unlucky ).

Although being able to disable some techs that's normally freely available might cause some issues for the AI unless it's a player empire only setting.
Possibly though right now there's not too many possibilities in tech other than couple weapon techs that could be interesting to get from the ruins while not hindering the normal gameplay. Unless of course, you were running campaing which is heavy tech restricted on purpose
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 515
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1353 on: August 23, 2019, 06:56:04 PM »
I'm not personally a huge fan of ruins providing tech that couldn't be developed by some other means.  I do kindof like the idea of them potentially providing a really huge boost to some particular technology though, personally.  Maybe work on some ruins for a decade or so and jump five or six levels of railgun tech.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 600
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1354 on: August 24, 2019, 05:22:21 PM »
If I remember right, Master of Orion 3 had a system where by each race would only see 75-80 percent of the tech tree in any one game, chosen randomly.  I'm not quite sure how you would adapt that to Aurora's tech system but its food for thought.  I'm all for having increased game/SM options (SM ability to seed special techs in ruins, anyone?)

I'm not personally a huge fan of ruins providing tech that couldn't be developed by some other means.  I do kindof like the idea of them potentially providing a really huge boost to some particular technology though, personally.  Maybe work on some ruins for a decade or so and jump five or six levels of railgun tech.

If you wanted racial differences you could combine these two, and have a startup option so that each race would start with one "advanced" tech (advanced lasers, compressed fuel, etc) at random, but they couldn't be researched normally. Then you could obtain new advanced techs by blowing up enemy ships with them and salvaging them :P

Maybe something on the lines of advanced railguns, with an extra shot. Having said that, I haven't really looked at ruin-only weapons yet for C. I'll revisit the weapon concepts when I do.

One more shot for gauss would scale differently as you increased the fire rate. I'd suggest giving them a slightly smaller base size.

Other ideas, since this came up in Discord awhile back:
Advanced Particle Beams: Slightly lower power requirement, same damage.
Magnetic Launch Rails: Larger, slower firing missile launchers that give missiles a bonus to velocity (that possibly falls back to the base value over time, if that wouldn't be too tricky to program)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 05:24:49 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1355 on: August 26, 2019, 11:25:39 AM »
Since maximum planetary population is now a thing, why not have the effects of radiation scale with how full the planet is? Realistically, high-intensity radiation will likely remain largely localised, and even on a planet that's undergone significant bombardment, there is still likely to be a significant part of the surface that is still habitable and safe. It should probably scale such that mildly irradiating a world will have nearly no effects if the population is at 1% of capacity, but will have severe effects at 10% and will cause total collapse at 100%. A completely irradiated planet will be dangerous even if the population is at just 0.1% of capacity.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 917
  • Thanked: 121 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1356 on: August 27, 2019, 02:42:21 AM »
Since maximum planetary population is now a thing, why not have the effects of radiation scale with how full the planet is? Realistically, high-intensity radiation will likely remain largely localised, and even on a planet that's undergone significant bombardment, there is still likely to be a significant part of the surface that is still habitable and safe. It should probably scale such that mildly irradiating a world will have nearly no effects if the population is at 1% of capacity, but will have severe effects at 10% and will cause total collapse at 100%. A completely irradiated planet will be dangerous even if the population is at just 0.1% of capacity.

I like the idea behind this. But even for barely colonized worlds the missile impacts (and radiation) would be right at the main colony site, mines etc. and thereby a major inconvenience even if everything could theoretically be moved to the other side of the planet. Still it could make sense that fully populated worlds are affected more, and in terms of gameplay becomes even more high-value targets.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1357 on: August 27, 2019, 07:08:35 AM »
That will depend on how much Infrastructure is needed per colonist. Higher infrastructure requirements would encourage more dense colonization efforts in an attempt to lower costs by limiting how much Newton compliant infrastructure needs to be covered for by TN Infrastructure. On an easily habitable world that's not as important because there are less problems that need to be covered for.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 527
  • Thanked: 32 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1358 on: August 27, 2019, 02:16:01 PM »
As an expansion to the intel options I was wondering whether the ability to detect levels of jump point activity and time since use through a scan of an un-stabilised jump point. I think this would add an interesting capability when it comes to tracking NPRs back to their homeworlds and vice versa for NPRs to find routes back to player systems. Longer scans might give number of jumps in recent periods or rough tonnage of jumps based on some technobabble on anlysis of disturbances in the jump point. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 516 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1359 on: August 27, 2019, 08:35:34 PM »
As an expansion to the intel options I was wondering whether the ability to detect levels of jump point activity and time since use through a scan of an un-stabilised jump point. I think this would add an interesting capability when it comes to tracking NPRs back to their homeworlds and vice versa for NPRs to find routes back to player systems. Longer scans might give number of jumps in recent periods or rough tonnage of jumps based on some technobabble on anlysis of disturbances in the jump point.


All of which are interesting ideas, but none of whose data are currently being recorded.  So Steve would first have to implement records for every jump point before we could then have technology / components to 'see' those records.  And I'm pretty sure trying to write an AI for how & when to scan wormholes would be a nightmare, meaning this sytem would be a huge benefit to Player Races, and very little to NPRs.
 

Offline Kiruth

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • K
  • Posts: 5
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1360 on: August 28, 2019, 10:52:25 AM »
I'd like to play more with mine and minefields, but when I played last time deploying mines was a bit of a chore (please note that it's more than an year that I don't play, and I'm no expert in Aurora).

1) Can we have a better way to create a "pattern/grid" of waypoint around a JP/Location?
Something like: DX on Jump Point -> Add orbital waypoints (ask for number of Waypoints, Name prefix and distance from body, deploy them on the chosen orbit at equal distance)

This should be quite easy for JP (since they are fix on the map), for planet/orbital bodies it add an "update position" cost but could still be usefull (and we already have orbital mechanics for moons and alike)

2) Can we have a way, during launch of mines/buoy, to limit the active sensor pickup range? I don't mean to limit the actual emissions, that would be undesirable for gameplay balance, but to have something like an engagement distance (eg.  if you output 100 emission and 10m range at resolution 10, if you limit during launch to 5m range it will still output 100 emission). . . this way we don't need to design/carry around multiple type of mines if we want to have "staggered" range of mines detection/activation
These option could also be applied to multi stage missile, so we can have only 1 type of sub-munition but we could design missile with sub-munitions configured differently (albeit I could not find an use of this configuration on top of my head)

Regarding the recent ground unit Intellicenge: do you plan to add bonus/intelligence breakthrough based on land/planet conquest? Maybe based on the type of infrastructure still intact and/or number of population still alive after the conquest? I think this could simulate acquiring information on technology and/or mass interrogation of population.
Do you also plan to address the trickling of Intelligence due to civilian shipping if we are talking about neutral powers? I seems to remember something like this mentioned for VB6. . .
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 516 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1361 on: August 30, 2019, 07:59:40 AM »
SUGGESTION

I suggest changing geological survey sensors to be a military system.  The original rationale for them to be civilian was so that commercial companies would build geo survey designs.  Aurora has changed so that civilians no longer build geo surveyers, removing the need for civilian geo sensors.

Geo sensors also break the 'sensors larger than one hull space are military systems' rule.  (The counter-point to this, that geo sensors should be reduced in size and effectiveness to one hull space to remain civilian, raises the question of why grav sensors cannot likewise be reduced -- or if they can, why they are not then civilian systems.)
 
The following users thanked this post: theoderic

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10014
  • Thanked: 10249 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1362 on: August 30, 2019, 08:07:26 AM »
SUGGESTION

I suggest changing geological survey sensors to be a military system.  The original rationale for them to be civilian was so that commercial companies would build geo survey designs.  Aurora has changed so that civilians no longer build geo surveyers, removing the need for civilian geo sensors.

Geo sensors also break the 'sensors larger than one hull space are military systems' rule.  (The counter-point to this, that geo sensors should be reduced in size and effectiveness to one hull space to remain civilian, raises the question of why grav sensors cannot likewise be reduced -- or if they can, why they are not then civilian systems.)

I have been considering this for a while and probably will make this change.

 

Offline Doren

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • D
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1363 on: August 30, 2019, 12:19:34 PM »
I'd really love if Galactic map would center on the system you have selected on system map
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 917
  • Thanked: 121 times
  • Discord Username: Bughunter
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1364 on: August 30, 2019, 12:38:04 PM »
I'd really love if Galactic map would center on the system you have selected on system map

I would hate the same thing as I don't want it to move around from where I centered it. Cannot be easy to be Steve  ;)
 

 

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 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72