Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 273370 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1425 on: February 05, 2021, 12:40:58 AM »
Civilian shipping: It would be nice of you could create some kind of priority queue for what the civilians ship around. In my case I wanted to ship some MDs to some new colonies and added them to the source planet. However the civilians finished an oder order of Installations first (which took them ages). So some kind of priority system for the requests would be nice to have.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline serger

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 634
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1426 on: February 05, 2021, 10:05:47 AM »
Just another suggestion to reduce heavy weapons ineffectiveness during assault.

Divide fortification bonus between current camouflage masking effect (reducing hit chance) and additional armouring masking effect (reducing penetration chance).
It will lead to the increase of AV, arty, aerial and space-based heavy weapons effectiveness against fortified garrisons comparing to mere infantry and AP weapon, that needs a breakthrough to be effective.
 

Offline Kishmond

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • K
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1427 on: February 05, 2021, 11:59:16 AM »
Why oh why is "Salvage nearest wreck" a galaxy-wide standing order?
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, Droll

Offline unkfester

  • Silver Supporter
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 79
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Discord Username: unkfester
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
    2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Donate for 2024
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1428 on: February 05, 2021, 01:42:44 PM »
I've fell foul of that one too
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1429 on: February 05, 2021, 05:00:49 PM »
Why oh why is "Salvage nearest wreck" a galaxy-wide standing order?

Probably the only instance in aurora where a feature is too automated
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1430 on: February 05, 2021, 07:31:44 PM »
 - Can we bring back the button that let's us Research all techs up to a certain RP cost?
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll, Warer, captainwolfer

Offline Warer

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 177
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1431 on: February 05, 2021, 07:34:42 PM »
- Can we bring back the button that let's us Research all techs up to a certain RP cost?
Super second
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1432 on: February 06, 2021, 12:55:15 AM »
Is there a way to generate two separate "person has died" message? Usually, I ignore when a person dies or leaves his service because I don't need to react to it. But that is of course totally different when a character in an important position dies. Like a sector commander etc. So, is there a way you could separate that somehow into two different kinds of "death" messages so we can color code the one we need to react to?
 
The following users thanked this post: serger, Zap0, nuclearslurpee

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2248 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1433 on: February 06, 2021, 11:22:58 AM »
Is there a way to generate two separate "person has died" message? Usually, I ignore when a person dies or leaves his service because I don't need to react to it. But that is of course totally different when a character in an important position dies. Like a sector commander etc. So, is there a way you could separate that somehow into two different kinds of "death" messages so we can color code the one we need to react to?

Piggyback: Some way to access a dead/retired officer's service record, even if just during the construction increment after their death, so we can honor our most decorated admirals with a moment of silence, or potentially even award posthumous medals to make ourselves feel better about leading our fleet to certain death out of sheer overconfidence eh he deserved it...
 
The following users thanked this post: serger, Warer

Offline kilo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • k
  • Posts: 249
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1434 on: February 06, 2021, 04:19:12 PM »
Can we have planet based shield generators like in Star Wars during the attack on Hoth? It might destroy the balance between ships and STO units though.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2248 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1435 on: February 06, 2021, 04:54:25 PM »
Can we have planet based shield generators like in Star Wars during the attack on Hoth? It might destroy the balance between ships and STO units though.

Making the same suggestion multiple times does not improve the odds of it being implemented.

I don't think planetary shields would fit well, as presumably they would take damage from every shot and be destroyed very quickly. STOs and other ground units have as their principal defense from orbital fire a high fortification level that makes them very difficult to hit. The alternative is incredibly strong shields which would definitely make STOs overpowered as things currently stand, they already gain a 25% range bonus over ship weapons.
 

Offline papent

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 45 times
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1436 on: February 06, 2021, 06:23:45 PM »
Can we have planet based shield generators like in Star Wars during the attack on Hoth? It might destroy the balance between ships and STO units though.

I don't think planetary shields would fit well, as presumably they would take damage from every shot and be destroyed very quickly. STOs and other ground units have as their principal defense from orbital fire a high fortification level that makes them very difficult to hit. The alternative is incredibly strong shields which would definitely make STOs overpowered as things currently stand, they already gain a 25% range bonus over ship weapons.

roleplay the fortification bonus as nuclearslurpee suggested? otherwise how would the mechanics of such a system work?
In my humble opinion anything that could be considered a balance issue is a moot point unless the AI utilize it against you because otherwise it's an exploit you willing choose to use to game the system. 
Rule 0 Is effect : "The SM is always right/ What SM Says Goes."
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1437 on: February 07, 2021, 12:24:27 AM »
Change the name of Power Armor and Heavy Power Armor to Improved Armor and Advanced Armor.

Using a less specific name makes roleplaying easier. I hate how I have to clad my assault infantry in 'power armor' when I believe such thing should be used for truly elite units.
 

Offline serger

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 634
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1438 on: February 07, 2021, 02:34:11 AM »
In addition, Power Armour name makes an illusion of depending on Shields tech line, so I'd like it to be renamed, too.

It can be renamed manually in the DB (DIM_GroundUnitArmour and FCT_TechSystem tables) and I think it's rather safe to do, though "no bug post" rule will be swithed on.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1439 on: February 08, 2021, 02:47:10 AM »
I know there already is all of stuff that we need to research in the game but I really would like for complete ships to be needed to be researched in the same way we need to research components. Building new ships in reality are a pretty research intensive thing to do even if most the individual components are more or less known or common. Everything always need some sort of special treatment to work in practice.

There could be a template ship type and then you can do variation of that same ship... so variations should then be a separate thing. The template is the basic ship hull with a basic sett of components you then can do variation of that template which are much cheaper to research, similar to retooling for a similar ship.

When you update a template to a new ship type that are similar to the old template is also is cheaper but not nearly as cheap as just doing a variant ship type.

In this I think that components probably need to be weighted not only in cost but also in size and/or type depending on if the ship is variant or you need to produce an entire new template. You also would then replace the retooling system with this system as well. A shipyard retooled for a certain template could also build all the variants.

It would be a nice opportunity to make ships more into a modular lego system rather than the more free form we have today where anything goes everywhere. In reality I'm sure we could not just put any component in any place on a ship without some consequence. So making some changes to fit such a system into the design would be nice as well. It would put a few more restrictions as some components would compete for the same space on the ship while others won't. There definitely should be a large difference if a component need to be placed closer to the edge of a ship or not or if it matter more or less to some components, this then could also have an impact on how different components are exposed to combat damage as well rather than just being based on size. Sensors for example usually are pretty small but often will have to be placed in compromised locations so should be much more likely damaged when just looking at pure size. Compared with an engineering section that likely are located much deeper inside a ship and thus less likely to be hit.

I also think that the research cost should not scale linear by size so a small ship should be allot more expensive than a larger ship seen to their mass. A small fighter should be relatively expensive to design versus a 100kt carrier seen to their respective size.

In any way... we then would have to research each ship design and all its variants and then we retool the shipyards to build them. This would give us a more "realistic" ship design procedure... in general I don't think the retooling cost is nearly enough of a cost to represent the investment in building new ships.

Obviously not a small change so nothing to take lightly...  :)
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, serger