Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 213871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10133
  • Thanked: 11011 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1950 on: February 13, 2020, 01:14:29 PM »
C# has a 'story character' flag for commanders. One option is to retain those commanders in a 'KIA' list if they die.
 
The following users thanked this post: Darkminion, Future2063, QuakeIV, TMaekler, serger, Alsadius, Tikigod

Offline Kristover

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • K
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1951 on: February 13, 2020, 01:31:51 PM »
C# has a 'story character' flag for commanders. One option is to retain those commanders in a 'KIA' list if they die.

I don't think I would personally use the 'story character' flag in my games - I don't really want an 'immortal' commander on the roles who won't die or retire (but can be killed) and rather let your promotion/assignment routine work to churn and rotate and elevate new commanders.  But I would want to save the record of my Fleet Admiral who I watched over 40 years heroically rise through the ranks, discover new worlds and meet new races, and command the Fleet in the Great War before finally retiring.
 
The following users thanked this post: JacenHan

Offline Desdinova

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • D
  • Posts: 227
  • Thanked: 219 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1952 on: February 13, 2020, 01:34:05 PM »
If the idea is to track notable officers, I'd have it track those with a certain minimum promotion point value in medals. Basically, just decorated officers get tracked.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover

Offline Kristover

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • K
  • Posts: 159
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1953 on: February 13, 2020, 02:12:09 PM »
If the idea is to track notable officers, I'd have it track those with a certain minimum promotion point value in medals. Basically, just decorated officers get tracked.

Promotion score off medals  wouldn’t be a bad way to handle distinction particularly if you had a war hero Lieutenant Commander who goes down in a blaze of glory on his first assignment and earns the ‘Star of the Federation’ for his heroics.  I might want to name a dreadnought off the brave frigate commander.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1954 on: February 13, 2020, 09:25:13 PM »
Perhaps a list with "recent retirements/casualties" will save officers and the like for up to two years, with the option to inter them in a permanent "list of honor" manually, or to have a settable value for promotion score or rank that automagically pushes officers to the list of honor, where they can receive posthumous/postcareer medals and are kept with relative safety.
The middle list will have a rough average of around two years worth of officer production in listed names and attributes, but obviously won't be accessed as often as your normal list, which also maintains around two years worth of officer production.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 459 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1955 on: February 14, 2020, 11:45:28 AM »
Naval officers who got promoted X times
Ground officers who participated in X battles (since their promotions are rarer)
Scientists who have been in charge of labs for X years
Administrators who have been leading a colony for X years

It could be similar to the automatic medal process, where the players has a relatively small number of variables to adjust and then the game automatically tracks it. The "In Memoriam" system could, in fact, build on top of the medal system.
A-hem.  ;D

With all the possibilities that the automated medal system allows us, it should be feasible to expand it to save deceased/retired officers within certain criteria.
 

Offline kuhaica

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1956 on: February 15, 2020, 07:13:46 PM »
Hey Steve.  So a quick question/suggestion regarding the new Mantience storage bays and other such storage components.  Can it be possible to have a gradual increase in storage efficiency per size increase rather than just a flat liner increase of space directly proportion to the HS used? It's always something that has irked me somewhat in the game where space means everything.     

If I can use 5 Standard Maintenance storage bays or 1 Large storage bay, there is no difference, even though thematically that's 5 separate compartments with walls and all included.  Yet it gives me the exact same space as the large storage bay.  It would simply be nice if there was a gradual increase in storage the larger the size you have, even nicer if it applied to everything with storage mechanics.     


So rather then
Code: [Select]
Large: 2000 MSP, 5HS
Standard: 400 MSP, 1 HS
Small: 80 MSP: 0.2 HS
Tiny: 40 MSP 0.1 HS
Fighter: 20 MSP: 0.05 HS.

It can be a 10%+5% increase per size (rounded nicely)
Code: [Select]
25% Increase Large: 2500: 5 HS
20% Increase Standard: 480: 1 HS
15% Increase Small: 95 MSP: 0.2 HS
10% Increase Tiny: 45 MSP 0.1 HS
Base Fighter 20 MSP: 0.05 HS

A similar such 'formula' if you even want to call it that could be used for Crew Quarters, Fuel Storage and everything else which fits the function.   Effectively making better use of the space with and it feels slightly more realistic than everything being linear.   

Current Fuel
Code: [Select]
Ultra Large: 5,000,000: 100 HS
Very Large: 1,000,000: 20 HS
Large: 250,000: 5 HS
Basic: 50,000: 1 HS
Small: 10,000: 0.2 HS
Tiny: 5,000: 0.1 HS

Suggested Fuel
Code: [Select]
30% Ultra Large: 6,500,000: 100 HS
25% Very Large: 1,250,000: 20 HS
20% Large: 300,000: 5 HS
15% Basic: 57,500?: 1 HS
10% Small: 11,000: 0.2 HS
Tiny: 5,000: 0.1 HS
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 07:21:06 PM by kuhaica »
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline Tikigod

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1957 on: February 15, 2020, 08:05:26 PM »
Hey Steve.  So a quick question/suggestion regarding the new Mantience storage bays and other such storage components.  Can it be possible to have a gradual increase in storage efficiency per size increase rather than just a flat liner increase of space directly proportion to the HS used? It's always something that has irked me somewhat in the game where space means everything.     

If I can use 5 Standard Maintenance storage bays or 1 Large storage bay, there is no difference, even though thematically that's 5 separate compartments with walls and all included.  Yet it gives me the exact same space as the large storage bay.  It would simply be nice if there was a gradual increase in storage the larger the size you have, even nicer if it applied to everything with storage mechanics.     


So rather then
Code: [Select]
Large: 2000 MSP, 5HS
Standard: 400 MSP, 1 HS
Small: 80 MSP: 0.2 HS
Tiny: 40 MSP 0.1 HS
Fighter: 20 MSP: 0.05 HS.

It can be a 10%+5% increase per size (rounded nicely)
Code: [Select]
25% Increase Large: 2500: 5 HS
20% Increase Standard: 480: 1 HS
15% Increase Small: 95 MSP: 0.2 HS
10% Increase Tiny: 45 MSP 0.1 HS
Base Fighter 20 MSP: 0.05 HS

A similar such 'formula' if you even want to call it that could be used for Crew Quarters, Fuel Storage and everything else which fits the function.   Effectively making better use of the space with and it feels slightly more realistic than everything being linear.   

Current Fuel
Code: [Select]
Ultra Large: 5,000,000: 100 HS
Very Large: 1,000,000: 20 HS
Large: 250,000: 5 HS
Basic: 50,000: 1 HS
Small: 10,000: 0.2 HS
Tiny: 5,000: 0.1 HS

Suggested Fuel
Code: [Select]
30% Ultra Large: 6,500,000: 100 HS
25% Very Large: 1,250,000: 20 HS
20% Large: 300,000: 5 HS
15% Basic: 57,500?: 1 HS
10% Small: 11,000: 0.2 HS
Tiny: 5,000: 0.1 HS

If this was done I think the existing resource cost advantage (assuming these still exist in C#) between the options should be removed given there will now be actual performance gains, and the performance gains much more subtle given how much of a impact even a 1% or 2% extra bonus can mean for design performance. (Then there is the need to re-evaluate how many size iterations and their contents are actually required now given the scaling gains with multiple modules)

----------

On the subject of fighters, maintenance supplies and component failures I have always wondered if it were possible to have components essentially include basic supplies for one off repairs as part of the size they contribute to the hull design. As it seems daft that the base size consumed by 'general supplies' to support a ship based on deployment time doesn't include anything to do with keeping the ship operational. Maintenance modules would still be needed for larger designs to combat high failure rates and longer deployment times, but smaller craft with very short deployment times could effect at least one off repairs for a module before needing to return to some kind of support dockyard.

It wouldn't strictly be treated as 'Free maintenance supplies' but rather each module that the rule is applied to would have a flag variable that determines if that module can be repaired whilst deployed with no supply cost, once the first repair is made the flag then switches and future repairs consume supplies until the ship returns to some kind of supporting structure that can then reset the flag. This would need to be restricted to only particular types of modules to stop it being too silly though.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 08:14:29 PM by Tikigod »
The popular stereotype of the researcher is that of a skeptic and a pessimist.  Nothing could be further from the truth! Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the incessant chorus of those who say "It cannot be done. "

- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, University Commencement
 

Offline bankshot

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • b
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1958 on: February 17, 2020, 09:37:24 PM »
For the Intelligence section - class design summary.  In VB Aurora this is populated upon a successful interrogation (or I suppose a capture of a ship).  Salvage doesn't seem populate this tab (at least not so far for me).

Proposal:  when you successfully salvage a part from a wrecked ship add that part to a list of parts on this tab, creating a partial summary.  It won't be a complete summary unless you salvage enough wrecks to put together the full jigsaw, but it could at least accumulate the data you've gathered in one spot.  You could even extrapolate a bit based on observed thermal signature and speed and a salvaged engine the total number of engines could be predicted.  Ditto EM signature and shields. 
 

Offline Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1959 on: February 18, 2020, 11:59:05 AM »
Isn't the usual approach that larger designs are more cost-efficient, but no more space-efficient? That works fine for me.

Offline Saros

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • S
  • Posts: 2
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1960 on: February 19, 2020, 10:12:20 AM »
Quote from: Saros link=topic=9841. msg118445#msg118445 date=1580484964
Hi Steve, is there any plan for greater ability to manipulate ruins, and the various spoiler spawns? It would be a great tool to have for 'Lets play' or forum run games to be able to spawn/edit ruins and precusrors from spacemaster mode. 

Also is it possible to be able to have a toggle to make the game 'locked' without the spacemaster password.   i.  e.   you can't advance time without entering it.   Would help greatly with said forum games by being able to provide the save to players without worrying about them zooming forward in time.

Hey Steve, sorry if I missed it but did you have any 2c on these?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10133
  • Thanked: 11011 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1961 on: February 19, 2020, 01:15:00 PM »
Quote from: Saros link=topic=9841. msg118445#msg118445 date=1580484964
Hi Steve, is there any plan for greater ability to manipulate ruins, and the various spoiler spawns? It would be a great tool to have for 'Lets play' or forum run games to be able to spawn/edit ruins and precusrors from spacemaster mode. 

Also is it possible to be able to have a toggle to make the game 'locked' without the spacemaster password.   i.  e.   you can't advance time without entering it.   Would help greatly with said forum games by being able to provide the save to players without worrying about them zooming forward in time.

Hey Steve, sorry if I missed it but did you have any 2c on these?

There is a random ruin button on the System View. Nothing more specific than that yet. I'll try to sort something out post-launch when I start trawling through the suggestion thread.
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, BigBacon

Offline TMaekler

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 713
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1962 on: February 21, 2020, 11:46:22 AM »
Two ideas:

A) Stealth Jump: can only self-jump and jump will land at least 3mkm outside of Target jump point. Maybe increaseable by tech line to keep up with better sensor tech.
The drive needs special stealth jump tech, which limits the max size of a ship using it drastically - and uses a lot of resources. So you‘ll be basically limited to small submarine scouts or very weak attack ships who are able to stealth jump. Idea is to be capable of more secret elint collection as well as having to perform more patrols around your own defenses to be sure, nobody is listening... .

B) New Race factor: work morale. Values: 0 to 100. 0 halves the amount of work a population is capable of doing, 100 doubles the amount. Additionally an Option list where you can set the amount of workers used for factory production: same login from 0 to 100.
Goal is to be able to have a larger variety of races as well as options of using your workforce. In early game you usually have too many unused workers, so increasing the amount of people who would work in a shipyard would help building those ships faster. Later, when you have trouble getting enough workers, you can play with those numbers to optimize your empire workforce.
It basically always bugged me that every race you created was totally equal in terms of production... . This way, some races can be power houses for production and other be the more chilled work mules. Depending a bit on roleplay style... .
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 459 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1963 on: February 21, 2020, 11:55:08 AM »
Your B is already in:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg100712#msg100712

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
New Species Attributes

Each Species now has four new attributes, all of which default to 1.0 but have a low chance to be higher or lower:

1) Population Growth Rate Modifier
2) Population Density Modifier. This affect max population capacity, infrastructure capacity and orbital habitat capacity. Some species prefer more open environments while some can accept higher population densities than normal.
3) Research Rate Modifier (increases or decreases research rate)
4) Production Rate Modifier (affects factories, refineries and shipbuilding)

Player-created Species can have custom values set. Also note this is at the species level, not the empire level. Empire modifiers to Research or Production are based on technology rather than innate ability.
 
The following users thanked this post: TMaekler

Offline TMaekler

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 713
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1964 on: February 22, 2020, 04:57:40 AM »
 

 

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