Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 134659 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TheRowan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1395 on: September 11, 2019, 08:36:21 AM »
Game balance. If fighters/FAC both get a bonus to tracking from ship speed + can use turrets, then they would always be the best Point Defense platform, which I don't think should be the case.

I don't have an issue with turreted fighters being the most effective Point Defence platform, because they already have a price attached to that effectiveness. Using PD Fighters means you also need a Fire Control for every fighter rather than multiple turrets per FC on a larger ship. It means you need hangar bays, taking up more space than just mounting the weapons directly on the ship. You need mutiple crew quarters for each crewmember on your PD fighters (one on the fighter, one on the carrier). You need scanners on each fighter or run the risk of a separate scanner being destroyed and rendering the entire squadron ineffective. In other words, you may get the most effective PD platform, but not necessarily the most efficient.
 

Offline Titanian

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • T
  • Posts: 100
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1396 on: September 12, 2019, 08:01:18 AM »
This touches on the element my brain can't wrap around which is that linear speed translates to tracking speed.  But in a fluid, turning is the death of linear speed.  The titanic was famously a fast ship that couldn't turn.

I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.

I know the game also traditionally has infinite acceleration, but at least this would bring a little acceleration factor into play without the full newtonian calculations.
The whole tracking speed calculation of the game doesn't make much sense - after all, the only thing a turret should care for is the angular velocity. If something comes at you directly, it's speed should not matter at all.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 646
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1397 on: September 12, 2019, 10:56:05 AM »
The whole tracking speed calculation of the game doesn't make much sense - after all, the only thing a turret should care for is the angular velocity. If something comes at you directly, it's speed should not matter at all.

It doesn't come right at you. Some evasive manoeuvrers from the missile is counted into the calculation as I understand it.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 507
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1398 on: September 13, 2019, 02:38:20 PM »
This touches on the element my brain can't wrap around which is that linear speed translates to tracking speed.  But in a fluid, turning is the death of linear speed.  The titanic was famously a fast ship that couldn't turn.

I feel like if work was going to be added here, it should consider a factor for ship level agility like what missiles have. A "rudder tech" tech and component line.   Perhaps a speed penalty for tracking when agility is low. A tracking penalty for attacks against when agility is high.  Tracking penalty for spinals when high speed goes above rudder sizing.

I know the game also traditionally has infinite acceleration, but at least this would bring a little acceleration factor into play without the full newtonian calculations.
The whole tracking speed calculation of the game doesn't make much sense - after all, the only thing a turret should care for is the angular velocity. If something comes at you directly, it's speed should not matter at all.

No, this is the opposite of the problem. What matters for accuracy is how much space the target could possibly be in by the time your weapon hits - which in Aurora with lightspeed beams is going to be between zero and five seconds after being fired. So if the target moves at 1000 km a second, it could (theoretically) be anywhere within 5000 km of where it is now when the beam reaches it.

Realistically, it would be effectively impossible to pick anywhere within a 5,000 km sphere at random and hit the target, so it would probably be fair to say that ships can't just instantly change their speed and direction. But assuming the acceleration/deceleration/turning abilities of a ship are roughly proportional to its speed, then it's reasonable to say that accuracy should scale relative to that speed.

Meanwhile angular velocity should only really matter if it can literally rotate around you faster than the turret can, which isn't likely with a minimum combat distance of 10,000 km.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 349
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1399 on: September 14, 2019, 12:13:15 AM »
Could just be that the 'fire control' is a huge supercomputer cluster that tries to predict the enemies position, and higher tech ones can generate acceptable hit probabilities against more agile enemies.

As for the turrets themselves and stuff, perhaps it relates to their ability to very rapidly make extremely minute adjustments to the direction they are pointing?  Assuming a 1km target at 128,000km range (I often have turrets that can shoot this far to my memory), thats about a 1.5 arcsecond target region (assuming my calculator fiddling just now was correct), which it seems to me is a tricky sort of target to snapshot instantaneously.

Not really sure about spinals to be honest, that just seems a bit wacky that ship agility significantly helps them aim.  I assume they have a degree of gimballing in their mounts, but it seems like said gimballing would be the main deciding factor to decide a hit in most cases.
 

Offline Ranged66

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1400 on: September 14, 2019, 05:38:33 AM »
Facility:

Mining Hub. When placed on a planet, it will send out small automated mining vessels (mechanics could be similar to mass driver packets, just for fluff and looking cool) to nearby (1m km, upgrades with engine efficiency tech?) asteroids and small moons, slowly harvesting their minerals at a set amount per year. Could scale with the mining techs.

Module/mechanic:

Laboratory module. Make it huge, expensive, crew-intensive and heavy, but I've always wanted to make science vessels. There must be heaps of discoveries waiting to be found in those new star systems, considering the breakthroughs we already made with our limited space exploration IRL. It could allow for a new mechanic, where some planets can spawn with a pool of 'research points' in a specific field. A science vessel could perform research near the planet, then return and offload those research points into a tech currently being researched.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 05:52:42 AM by Ranged66 »
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 349
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1401 on: September 14, 2019, 10:01:57 PM »
That sounds like a really fun idea to me.
 

Offline Ranged66

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • R
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1402 on: September 16, 2019, 02:03:47 PM »
Not sure how hard this will be to implement:

A game creation option to make JPs orbit too
If enabled, perhaps give them a chance to spawn in some Lagrangian points (L1, L2 or L3?) of planets
 

Offline mtm84

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 60
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1403 on: September 17, 2019, 11:26:58 PM »
LPs already orbit, I can’t imagine it would be much more difficult to add that to JPs if desired.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 510
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1404 on: September 18, 2019, 04:36:44 AM »
JPs make less sense to jump though. They're links between starsystems. And while starsystems shift location relative to eachother over time, the process takes thousands of years due to the vast distances involved.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Z
  • Posts: 333
  • Thanked: 37 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1405 on: September 18, 2019, 07:42:41 AM »
JPs make less sense to jump though. They're links between starsystems. And while starsystems shift location relative to eachother over time, the process takes thousands of years due to the vast distances involved.

What Hazard said. It does not make sense for the JP to move. They are, supposedly, "relative" to the position of the star they lead to.
At least, that's what I had understood
 

Offline Impassive

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1406 on: September 19, 2019, 03:22:31 AM »
We could also then have the trouble with waypoints and deepspace installations that are setup at a specific spot near a JP as a base to launch strikes from, but you don't want to be too close incase you don't eliminate the threat before jump shock wears off.
 

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 70
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1407 on: September 19, 2019, 08:22:32 AM »
Regarding gravity tolerances, instead of allowing us to set a range greater or less than the optimum gravity, can we instead have minimum and maximum acceptable gravity boxes? Higher gravity is generally far more dangerous than lower gravity. Experiments on primates have shown that while sustained 1.5 g is survivable indefinitely, 2.0 g is lethal within an hour. However, lower gravity, even microgravity, is far, far more survivable over a long period.

Humans can optimistically survive between ~0.10 g and ~1.50 g, but there's no way to set such a range with an optimum of 1.0 g.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7945
  • Thanked: 4374 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1408 on: September 19, 2019, 08:47:53 AM »
Regarding gravity tolerances, instead of allowing us to set a range greater or less than the optimum gravity, can we instead have minimum and maximum acceptable gravity boxes? Higher gravity is generally far more dangerous than lower gravity. Experiments on primates have shown that while sustained 1.5 g is survivable indefinitely, 2.0 g is lethal within an hour. However, lower gravity, even microgravity, is far, far more survivable over a long period.

Humans can optimistically survive between ~0.10 g and ~1.50 g, but there's no way to set such a range with an optimum of 1.0 g.

Yes, that is a good point. Maybe the gravity tolerance should be asymmetrical vs the baseline in general, rather than as a specific case.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1073
  • Thanked: 84 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1409 on: September 19, 2019, 01:15:41 PM »
Regarding gravity tolerances, instead of allowing us to set a range greater or less than the optimum gravity, can we instead have minimum and maximum acceptable gravity boxes? Higher gravity is generally far more dangerous than lower gravity. Experiments on primates have shown that while sustained 1.5 g is survivable indefinitely, 2.0 g is lethal within an hour. However, lower gravity, even microgravity, is far, far more survivable over a long period.

Humans can optimistically survive between ~0.10 g and ~1.50 g, but there's no way to set such a range with an optimum of 1.0 g.

The problem with gravity is that it is a very complex question... it is one thing that a grown adult can survive but can you actually LIVE under those environment without being in the top 10% of the human population in terms of physical and psychological fitness. How about old, sick and children not to mention infants?!?!

No... I think that in terms of actually living most human settlements would need gravitational infrastructure for most gravity and the tolerances probably are very small in real terms, exactly how much is hard to say but these are much more complex questions outside the scope of the game.

I don't believe that humans will ever be able to LIVE on Mars outside a select small elite of fit relatively young people... not unless we manage to overcome gravity issues with some advanced technology in the future for all kind of people.
 

 

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