Return PDCs please

[Alsadius]

It seems pretty easy to have STO missile units. Just make them work like logistics forces - they get consumed by firing. The cost of a STO missile force is based on the cost of a missile, in the same way that the cost of a STO laser force is based on the cost of the laser. And automated firing only when a force gets to planetary orbit, but you can manually fire sooner.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

its part of an infrastructure of radar, command and control, support forces, maintenance.

Radar and C&C are assumed to be part of the weapon, support and maintenance (supply) you provide yourself.

Nobody here is afraid of a counter viewpoint, the way you write your posts just makes it seem like you are incapable of understanding the simple concepts we are presenting to you.

     
Oh I am quite able to understand a valid, logical argument.   What i hate are cliques of people thinking a poster is attacking their game system.   If you
don't understand the difference between the old system and the new than I sure can't help you.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

Look plasticpanzer, we're now on page 4 of what's become a circular argument.

So far, you've been presented the reasons why

- PDCs were an issue in the first place
- That the developer chose to remove them on purpose
- Suggestions for how to replace them in the system as it currently is
- Arguments for why the current system is better.

You can argue all you want on the third and fourth points, but the first two are set in stone. Steve chose not to code PDCs into C# Aurora. It's not a case of flipping a switch and making some bug fixes to get them working - they literally do not exist in the code of this version.

So here's the last thing you can do, assuming you haven't done it so far:

Post your request to add PDCs to the game in the C# Suggestions thread and sit back and wait to see when or if Steve ever does anything with it.

That's it. You can argue endlessly with everyone if it amuses you, but stubbornly repeating that you want PDCs over and over again in response to people isn't going to improve your chances of getting PDCs added to the game.

This is in the suggestion section.   The only problem is with people walking into this conversation is they will not understand it is JUST a suggestion.   I don't know why folks become so possessive and hostile when they think somebody is attacking somebody's game system.   I am not attacking it.   The reason I argue is the answers given by folks that counter my SUGGESTION are full of holes and can't hold water.   EITHER system of PDC or ground defenses is a work around.  You just have more fun building your own units and folks who play this game love micromanagement and so do I.   You and other folks seem to be the one creating this circular argument that I respond to only because of a) not so subtle hostile/snarky responses b) giving reasons that make no logical sense or are totally unrealistic c) you don't like my suggestion.   If you don't like it don't respond....because it was just a SUGGESTION.   The decision was already made.... and I responded with my SUGGESTION. 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Look plasticpanzer, we're now on page 4 of what's become a circular argument.

So far, you've been presented the reasons why

- PDCs were an issue in the first place
- That the developer chose to remove them on purpose
- Suggestions for how to replace them in the system as it currently is
- Arguments for why the current system is better.

You can argue all you want on the third and fourth points, but the first two are set in stone. Steve chose not to code PDCs into C# Aurora. It's not a case of flipping a switch and making some bug fixes to get them working - they literally do not exist in the code of this version.

So here's the last thing you can do, assuming you haven't done it so far:

Post your request to add PDCs to the game in the C# Suggestions thread and sit back and wait to see when or if Steve ever does anything with it.

That's it. You can argue endlessly with everyone if it amuses you, but stubbornly repeating that you want PDCs over and over again in response to people isn't going to improve your chances of getting PDCs added to the game.

This is in the suggestion section.   The only problem is with people walking into this conversation is they will not understand it is JUST a suggestion.   I don't know why folks become so possessive and hostile when they think somebody is attacking somebody's game system.   I am not attacking it.   The reason I argue is the answers given by folks that counter my SUGGESTION are full of holes and can't hold water.   EITHER system of PDC or ground defenses is a work around.  You just have more fun building your own units and folks who play this game love micromanagement and so do I.   You and other folks seem to be the one creating this circular argument that I respond to only because of a) not so subtle hostile/snarky responses b) giving reasons that make no logical sense or are totally unrealistic c) you don't like my suggestion.   If you don't like it don't respond....because it was just a SUGGESTION.   The decision was already made.... and I responded with my SUGGESTION.

Nope... we say it is bad idea to reintroduce the old PDC mechanic and we would not want Steve to waste his energy on that instead of something else, especially when there already is a mechanic that represent what the old PDC did already. We simply don't see the point in such unnecessary work.  I would rather that Steve spend time on other features such as diplomacy, Ship administration, QoL improvements or just new mechanics instead, Steves time is limited.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

I hardly think my suggestion carried any weight to begin with.   I never said he MUST change back.   I would
like to see them set up differently.   At the moment I am tinkering with a planetary fort and it actually to me
seems kinda wimpy and unsupported but that is just me.

What I don't understand is the knee jerk response to my simple post.   Steve is not under attack nor is the
game.   As I repeatedly said it was a SUGGESTION.  Why is that so hard to compute?

Feels like Deja Vu all over again...

[Pedroig]

Static Emplacements should get a a bonus, not a penalty, to armour.  Don't mind the "to be hit" penalty they receive, but armour being twice as effective on a vehicle compared to an emplacement just seems wonky.  It's like a .5 instead of a x5 multiplier is being applied...

[Jorgen_CAB]

I hardly think my suggestion carried any weight to begin with.   I never said he MUST change back.   I would
like to see them set up differently.   At the moment I am tinkering with a planetary fort and it actually to me
seems kinda wimpy and unsupported but that is just me.

What I don't understand is the knee jerk response to my simple post.   Steve is not under attack nor is the
game.   As I repeatedly said it was a SUGGESTION.  Why is that so hard to compute?

Feels like Deja Vu all over again...

Likewise we did not say he MUST avoid adding PDC back.

But if you create your own thread for a suggestion you will have to accept that people will voice their opinion on that issue... I created a suggestion thread about alternative jump drive mechanic which allot of people had issues with... that resulted in some pretty good discussion in my opinion. I did not expect everyone to agree with me on my opinion and arguing something can be quite healthy for both sides of an argument... 

The important thing is to not take things personally... it is difficult to objectively say an opinion (unless it is a fact) is wrong in many cases.

[Droll]

Haven't read the thread but i'll say my piece. Given how STOs work the only valid argument I can see here is that STOs do not have missiles.

However the missile PDC role can very much be substituted with defence satellites. In my case I have 100s of 400t "fighters" with 10 AMM tubes each. Much like the missile PDCs of old I can turn my planet into a no-fun zone. I could also put heavier missiles on these to get anti-ship abilities and since they are fighters you can build hundreds of them and just set their officer priority to minimum. You need to move them to a planet with no installations? Use a carrier - much easier to move stuff en masse compared to the janky PDC component system (which actually needed some form of construction to assemble anyway).

PDCs are important in VB6 because maintenance facilities do not prevent the maint clock ticking on ships so you needed hangars on the ground. However the new maintenance mechanics allow you to just keep stuff in orbit and on the ground to a much larger scale than before - completely superceding any perceived armour benefits that PDCs have.

Remember that in order to bust STOs from outside their weapons range the only guarantee is to use highly radioactive missile that will render the planet useless for years if your lucky. And any defence satellites will shut that down anyways.

The fortification and terrain bonuses of STOs also render the +5 free armour of PDCs completely moot since now your defensive beam weapons have actual evasion as opposed to just tankiness.

IMO the lack of PDCs has not removed any sort of depth from the game thanks to the many new features that frankly replaced their uses.

[Father Tim]

Haven't read the thread but i'll say my piece. Given how STOs work the only valid argument I can see here is that STOs do not have missiles.

However the missile PDC role can very much be substituted with defence satellites. . .

Yes.  That was the deliberate design decision made for C# Aurora.