Author Topic: Suggestions Thread for v2.0  (Read 82811 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #540 on: May 26, 2023, 10:44:05 AM »
Once the mechanics are implemented, state commercial fleets could be flagged to act the same way very easily.

Love the proposal here, it's a bit more complex than what I originally suggested but a lot more robust and good for roleplay.  ;D

Really like this idea to let commercial fleets piggyback on some of the civilian AI and features, that would be a big automation help. One thought: a tweak to the current contract system would be nice so that if the supply at a planet is set to a value greater than the amount currently available on that planet, the civilian AI/system doesn't stall and spam "Fleet was unable to pick up installation" messages - either picking a different contract or ignoring it until it can be filled. This would be particularly helpful in the early game (and especially if player commercial ships can use the same features), for example when moving infra + colonists to a colony in Sol the rate of transport usually exceeds how fast Earth can build infrastructure, requiring manual control of that process.
 
The following users thanked this post: BAGrimm

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1703
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #541 on: May 26, 2023, 12:02:30 PM »
Once the mechanics are implemented, state commercial fleets could be flagged to act the same way very easily.

Love the proposal here, it's a bit more complex than what I originally suggested but a lot more robust and good for roleplay.  ;D

Really like this idea to let commercial fleets piggyback on some of the civilian AI and features, that would be a big automation help. One thought: a tweak to the current contract system would be nice so that if the supply at a planet is set to a value greater than the amount currently available on that planet, the civilian AI/system doesn't stall and spam "Fleet was unable to pick up installation" messages - either picking a different contract or ignoring it until it can be filled. This would be particularly helpful in the early game (and especially if player commercial ships can use the same features), for example when moving infra + colonists to a colony in Sol the rate of transport usually exceeds how fast Earth can build infrastructure, requiring manual control of that process.

You mentioned contracts and reminded me how amazing being able to set mineral contracts would be, especially being able to just set a "fill to reserve" contract to maintain reserve levels for populations.
 
The following users thanked this post: DEEPenergy, BAGrimm, Skip121

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #542 on: May 26, 2023, 06:29:57 PM »
You mentioned contracts and reminded me how amazing being able to set mineral contracts would be, especially being able to just set a "fill to reserve" contract to maintain reserve levels for populations.

Since a single standard cargo hold can carry 12,500 units of minerals, there would need to be some logic that keeps civilians from trotting off to Alpha Middleofnowhauri with 25 duranium in their hold, while still being robust enough to maintain the reserve stock of 1000/500/1000 dur/uri/gal the naval base in that system keeps phoning home about.

Possibly a new civilian ship type with the 5,000-ton cargo hold (or smaller) designated as a mineral hauler would be useful here?
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll, BAGrimm

Offline nakorkren

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • n
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 194 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #543 on: May 29, 2023, 05:00:10 PM »
If they don't already (and if they do I've not seen it), would it be possible for officers to improve their skills faster through combat experience (relative to the normal slow progression when in command of a ship/fleet/ground unit)? I would love to be able to train a ground combat officer up through intentional combat tours, e.g. boarding commercial prizes, capturing mining outposts, etc, before throwing them into the all-consuming fire that is a homeworld assault.

On a related note, how about adding a "prize command" skill that lets a naval officer reduce the "recovery" time before a captured prize ship is fully operational?

On an even more tangential note, it would be cool to have some economic reason (and in-game mechanism) to assign junior officers to customs duty (ala Honor Harrington in "On Basilisk Station" and countless other sci-fi novels). Maybe there could be some positive impact to Wealth collected from "Tax on Exports or Tax", "Shipping Trade Gods", "Tax on Shipping Colonists" and/or whatever it's called when you start trading with NPCs. Up to Steve whether that was granular enough to require actual customs cutters with assigned officers, or if it was more of an abstraction, like a role that could be assigned similar to Academy Commandant.
 

Offline GrandNord

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • G
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #544 on: May 31, 2023, 03:18:38 PM »
Just a small RP suggestion, would it be possible to have a new parameter to change the ideal planet hydrosphere ratio for a species during species creation? To roleplay more aquatic and semi-aquatic aliens. It would make sense for a more heavily aquatic species to require more infrastucture on dryer planets.

Also maybe that could at the same time reduce or remove the penalty if the hydrosphere percentage is too high if you set a very high ideal ratio.

I know it's not the most realistic thing in the world to have aquatic spacefaring aliens but it's a staple of science-fiction.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, lumporr

Offline boolybooly

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 171
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #545 on: June 14, 2023, 09:29:17 AM »
Suggestion for LP (Lagrange Point jump points) mechanics.

Wouldn't it be better if the LP created by a planet or stabilised by a stabilisation module, was at LP1 position, not LP5 as currently?

Currently LP5 means there is almost no benefit from LPs a lot of the time in relation to the body which causes them as LP5 is approx one radius away from the body, so it doesnt help travel to the body from another LP, whereas LP1 would be much closer to the body concerned, between it and the star.

This means a LP at LP1 would aways provide a shortcut to the body in question, so recorded movement orders etc are less likely to become obsolete and its worth stabilising gas giants with useful resources even if they dont have a large enough moon in their orbit to stabilise that.

 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, Mayne

Offline kilo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • k
  • Posts: 249
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #546 on: June 15, 2023, 02:11:49 AM »
For once it was Leonhard Euler who described the points 1. 2 and 3 first, but let us not talk about details. From a gameplay point of view, you could justify any of those. From a physics point of view, 4 and 5 are the most "stable". Non of these five points are minima of the gravitational force. 1, 2 and 3 are saddle points and 4 and 5 are local maxima. They are only relatively stable due to the Coriolis force letting the object circle around the L4 or L5 points. This requires the central object to be >100 times the mass of the satellite. Otherwise the potential becomes to steep and the Lagrange points become unstable.
The points 1, 2 and 3 are generally unstable due to the shape of the gravitational force around them and require constant readjustment.

Well I just created some gravitational profiles for the Earth-Jupiter system to visualize the Lagrange points.


https://www.imgbly.com/ib/lxlwr8kE8J[

https://www.imgbly.com/ib/nZKXehsGg7
« Last Edit: June 15, 2023, 02:14:10 AM by kilo »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #547 on: June 15, 2023, 03:31:50 AM »
From a gameplay perspective, the LG is intended to provide access to the parent star, rather than the specific planet. A high mass planet is just a handy place to position it from a lore perspective.

In addition, having the LG much closer to the planet would also provide a 'short-cut' to any attacking force, which changes the defensive situation considerably.
 

Offline superstrijder15

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #548 on: June 18, 2023, 06:07:10 AM »
In the intelligence window, for classes that you have destroyed, I would love to be able to see the total damage I did to that class, or perhaps the highest & lowest total damages to kill I have seen for the class. That would be useful while planning a fleet to engage it, since in principle what I want to do is be able to outlast the enemy ships, and for that it helps to know how long I can expect them to last under my guns.

I would also like other things such as the hit % against different classes of mine, but going that way lays madness.
 

Offline Kiero

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 175
  • Thanked: 117 times
  • In space no one can hear you scream.
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
    2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Donate for 2024
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #549 on: June 21, 2023, 03:06:18 PM »
Ship decoys. But in a flavor of something opposite to a cloaking device.
A concept of an unmanned craft a size of a FAC, equipped with a module posing as a bigger size ship with the ability to deceive active, EM, and thermal sensors.

So in reality it would be an unmanned 800 tons drone that will show on a sensor as 14000 tons, with 1200 EM emissions and 2000 thermal.
 

Offline Warer

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 174
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #550 on: June 21, 2023, 03:17:56 PM »
Dice roll research, been listening to a lot of Perun lately, instead of Research Labs giving a fixed amount of RP every five day increment they instead roll for that value to reflect the difficulties real life development programs can run into, potentially even having a chance to suffer a loss of progress. 

Also a line in the research tab that shows how much each project costs in terms of wealth.
 
The following users thanked this post: xenoscepter

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #551 on: June 21, 2023, 06:58:52 PM »
Dice roll research, been listening to a lot of Perun lately, instead of Research Labs giving a fixed amount of RP every five day increment they instead roll for that value to reflect the difficulties real life development programs can run into, potentially even having a chance to suffer a loss of progress. 

Also a line in the research tab that shows how much each project costs in terms of wealth.

 --- I do kind of like this idea, however RNG is seldom fun as a mechanic. I think this would be better if the RNG decayed over time. So while projects might hit big setbacks early on, maybe even hit several and hit them often, as time went on the setbacks would be fewer and lesser in scope. However, the chance should never decay to zero and the magnitude never fully decay either.

 --- So maybe a weight dice roll, earlier means more failures with a certain chance for them to be bigger failures. Likewise, over time the chance of those failures would diminish, while the consequences would also reduce.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #552 on: June 21, 2023, 07:04:54 PM »
 --- On the subject of research, it occurred to me while typing up that reply that Prototypes are kind of superfluous.

 --- It would be possible to have the act of creating a "Research Project" also create a corresponding prototype with no loss of functionality, only micro if/when a project doesn't work out.

 --- Currently we can just make a research project and that's that. Or we can make a prototype and then use that as a research project. However, prototypes ALSO create a sort of "phantom" research project in the background, so why not just have those in the forefront where they can be more easily cleaned up?

 --- If creating a 'Research Project" also created a Prototype if it was a component that would streamline the process. It saves clicks by going into the other Research Tab, saves clicks when "Creating Prototype" and saves clicks for "Researching Prototype".


Just an idle thought.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #553 on: June 21, 2023, 08:10:08 PM »
Dice roll research, been listening to a lot of Perun lately, instead of Research Labs giving a fixed amount of RP every five day increment they instead roll for that value to reflect the difficulties real life development programs can run into, potentially even having a chance to suffer a loss of progress. 

I'm not sure it would work well for Aurora, but I often dream about a research system which is based on named labs (like the U.S. National Labs or Germany's Planck Institutes for example), and you fund each one to direct some research in a semi-specific area with hazy outcomes and uncertain deadlines.

My dreams aside, the suggestion would be a neat off-by-default option, I think it is a nice flavor when paired with limited scientist admin.


--- I do kind of like this idea, however RNG is seldom fun as a mechanic. I think this would be better if the RNG decayed over time. So while projects might hit big setbacks early on, maybe even hit several and hit them often, as time went on the setbacks would be fewer and lesser in scope. However, the chance should never decay to zero and the magnitude never fully decay either.

I think this is a case where RNG would work well or at least be tolerable. If your research has 100 RP left, you expect it to finish this turn, and you get +50 instead, it's not the end of the world - probably only 1-2 more increments. Obviously this shouldn't be the default option but as far as RNG-driven gameplay options go it's much better than what usually gets suggested here.


Idle thought on prototypes

Broadly agree. We also need a better way to "cancel" prototypes than deleting the associated research project which is clunky IMO. I tend to avoid prototyping anything because it's such a hassle.

I would also like a functional "Future Prototype" feature that could actually be researched once the prerequisite techs are completed. Right now you have to design the same component twice if you want to design future ships while waiting for the next tech levels.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer, Skip121

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #554 on: June 22, 2023, 02:07:22 AM »
I liked the way MoO II dealt with research progression - you had to research up to a lower bound, after which each turn there was a percentage chance that you would get the tech, which increased with how many more research points you put in (and if you put in enough research points you got to 100 % and it triggered next turn).

For Aurora's system, the percentage chance to trigger should probably be based on how many RP went into the project in the last construction increment, rather than strictly on time, so to prevent running the chance up to 20 % and just waiting until it triggers while diverting labs to other uses.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer