Master Wishlist Thread

[Rustyallan]

The ability to specify which class of ships are and are not auto-designed by means of a menu with checkboxes for each "SubRole" type.  I don't mind letting the AI generate new ships, but I get tired of modifying it and then because it's "not-designed-here", the AI creates a "new" design equivalent to the old design that it liked.

The ability for the player to customize formulas for auto-design via UI or modding.  Playing in a pirate-filled, monster-laden, chaotic galaxy with 20 AI empires, colony ships, construction ships, mines, and bases had BETTER be armed and shielded.  That's not as needed in a lesser galaxy, but is the first thing players who manually design add.

[taltamir]

retrofitting a ship should change its name.

If I build a Transport mk2 it gets named transport mk2 ###...
if I retrofit "Transport mk2 003" from design "Transport mk2" to design "Transport mk7" I would like for its name to change to reflect the new design. Current it remains named "Transport mk2 003", only now it is design mk7

[Rustyallan]

retrofitting a ship should change its name.

If I build a Transport mk2 it gets named transport mk2 ###...
if I retrofit "Transport mk2 003" from design "Transport mk2" to design "Transport mk7" I would like for its name to change to reflect the new design. Current it remains named "Transport mk2 003", only now it is design mk7

This should only occur for ships that are automatically named with that pattern. Player named ships and ships with unique names should not be renamed.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

retrofitting a ship should change its name.

If I build a Transport mk2 it gets named transport mk2 ###...
if I retrofit "Transport mk2 003" from design "Transport mk2" to design "Transport mk7" I would like for its name to change to reflect the new design. Current it remains named "Transport mk2 003", only now it is design mk7

This should only occur for ships that are automatically named with that pattern. Player named ships and ships with unique names should not be renamed.

There is no such thing a player named ship. You can only name DESIGNS...
If I design a design with the name Enterprise, then I build one, it will be named Enterprise 001... and if I build 10 more then they would be Enterprise 002 through 011.

If I retrofit the Enterprise 004 from an Enterprise model to Enterprise Mk2 model I want it to be renamed Enterprise Mk2 ### (not 004, but whatever is currently the lowest unused number for Enterprise Mk2).

now, if you had the option to actually NAME a SPECIFIC ship, then sure, I would gladly see that name kept.

That is, if I build 2 "Capital Mk5" ships and name them "A rock", "A hard place"... If I then retrofit them to design "Capital Mk6" then they should still be named "A rock" and "A hard place".

The way to go about it is to have a "name" field and a "designation" field. If the name field is blank (and there would be an erase button), then use the designation as a name for all purposes (but keep the actual name array blank).
If the designation is <Design Name> ###, and the designation changes whenever a ship is retrofitted.

So:
Name: Enterprise
Designation: Capital Mk5 004
Design: Capital Mk5

when retrofitted into design Capital Mk6 (and there have been 7 such ships built thus far) would become:
Name: Enterprise
Designation: Capital Mk6 008
Design: Capital Mk6

If I delete the name then it will show up as "Capital Mk6 008" in all reports where a name is displayed.

[Rustyallan]

There is no such thing a player named ship. You can only name DESIGNS...

I renamed all of my "haunted" ships to PD names. (I was surprised you missed that reference) Open a ship, on the right-hand side it shows the name, which you can change.

All of my capital ships and cruisers, as well as pirate and abandoned ships have custom names. (not named after their original class) That's how the game named them originally. Escorts, Frigates, Destroyers, and Troop Transports are the only ones named by class. And only when I manufacture them.

[Rustyallan]

In the Energy window in the ship design editor,&nbsp;change the Excess Energy Output color to yellow if it is below what is needed for Maximum Weapons Energy use per second but above Static Energy Usage.

Alternatively, change the MWEU/s number to red or yellow if it is above the Excess Energy Output.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

There is no such thing a player named ship. You can only name DESIGNS...

I renamed all of my "haunted" ships to PD names. (I was surprised you missed that reference) Open a ship, on the right-hand side it shows the name, which you can change.

All of my capital ships and cruisers, as well as pirate and abandoned ships have custom names. (not named after their original class) That's how the game named them originally. Escorts, Frigates, Destroyers, and Troop Transports are the only ones named by class. And only when I manufacture them.

I see it now... I avoid going to that screen if at ever possible because it takes forever to load.

[Rustyallan]

I see it now... I avoid going to that screen if at ever possible because it takes forever to load.

Which is another issue entirely.

We need a ship window that doesn't require loading the entire list.

The list also should default to a blank, from which you can select a filtered set to view.

I'm still early in a smaller galaxy, so it's not too bad to load... yet...

[Rustyallan]

You should not receive a negative on relations for having a "satisfactory" reputation. Satisfactory should mean they're satisfied, so why is it bad?

If an item that affects relations is (0), it should not be listed as a negative. I've been seeing a lot of "We are extremely bothered by your Satisfactory reputation (0)" lately and it's confusing.

Perhaps this is only apparent in higher aggression games as I did not see it in low aggression games.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

You should not receive a negative on relations for having a "satisfactory" reputation. Satisfactory should mean they're satisfied, so why is it bad?

If an item that affects relations is (0), it should not be listed as a negative. I've been seeing a lot of "We are extremely bothered by your Satisfactory reputation (0)" lately and it's confusing.

Perhaps this is only apparent in higher aggression games as I did not see it in low aggression games.

Which requires 2 changes:
1. If the total effect of an item on your relationship is 0, it should not be displayed at all. (same for affects on morale in planets)
2. Satisfactory should be for values of 0 through 10 and a new value called sub-par for -10 to -1. Rather then satisfactory being -10 to 10 as it is right now. (perhaps add another value called "neutral" for when it is exactly 0)

[Imrryran]

This game is great but I think it is lacking depth in the politic area.

At the moment the only control we have other politic is the government type, which is really restricted and feel quite "bland". I would really like to have more control on this.

For instance like in the Europa Universalis games, where you can move sliders representing your political orientation : centralisation against decentralisation, serfdom against civilian rights, narrowmindness against innovation, free trade against mercantilism, etc. Of course the sliders would need to be designed to accommodate the game set up, but I think they would add fun by making the empires on the map more different et permitting players to more finely tune their own empire. Each slider should give different bonuses and maluses, depending on its position and its type. It would also permit the player to influence the private sector. Finally they could also cause some random events, whose probabilities to happen would depend on sliders positions.

An other possibility would be the Civilization 4 or SMAC one, with different organization types for different parts of the state (justice, elections, economic policy, etc.). I think they can achieve results quite similar to the sliders. There are probably other possibilities but eh... I'm not a game designer.

[siRkid]

I would like to be able to r-click on an object and get a build menu (Send Construction Ship to build....). As it is now, I have to find the place I want to build then find a construction ship, then go back and find the place again without losing focus on the construction ship.

[Wenla]

Taxation wish:

I like to get 'mixed' AI/manual taxation controll, either so, that you can 'tick' those colonies you like to controll manually OR give a possibility to give maximum tax level for all colonies OR both. If I could select, I'll prefer first one.

But, you (and I) know that in real life you can't influense your taxation [:D]

[skulldownz]

Shall I design a Complex Station ,so it can working like a "AI:Mine Station" AND "AI:Resort Base" at the same time.

I design a complex station it has contained both mine module & passenger module ..but only work on selected role (such as only : "mining station" or "resort base").
------------------------------
Advance.. I hope AI bind with component not class or sub-class ..
------------------------------
Another suggestion:
add a BACK control.. so player can do a BACK TO PREVIOUS VIEW & ORIGINAL ZOOM LEVEL action .. like Internet Explorer ..yea..that BACK TO PREVIOUS PAGE..
------------------------------
Another opinion:
Hope can do a "retrofit" to mining station & resort base .

[hewwo]

I would like some more granular control over what kind of 'under attack' messages I get.

I don't care about kaltors attacking my exploration ships, or even pesky pirates that will be taken care of anyway, so I don't want to hear the siren noise all the time. On the other hand I DO want to know when something big goes down.

[Fishman]

I suggest only informing the player if the ship being attacked is outgunned by the attacking force. Otherwise they probably would not be sending a distress call anyway. On the other hand, perhaps this already happens: I have pretty much never heard a distress call from any battlecruisers, probably because anything messing with them is instantly reduced to slag.

[Rustyallan]

I don't want alerted every time one of the ships in a fleet I just sent out to attack someone comes under attack.&nbsp; Umm.. he's attacking, not being attacked!

I'm actually trying to think when I do want to be informed... when one of my colonies is under attack or a base in one of my colonized systems.&nbsp; I don't care about private ships being attacked.

[Canute0]

- Autosave timer only should work at Mainscreen. I dont know why but i mosttimes get an autosave when i just open any other screen where the game pause anyway.

- reduce the AI Empire wishes for Exchange Territory maps. Let the value of the Territory maps increase more before they try to ask for an exchange.

- "refuel at nearest point" should send a militaery ship NEVER to an KI Empire that dont like Militaery ships at their system. Or just add the option "refuel at nearest own fuel point"

- does KI empires doing Crash researches by their own ? If not they should get a generell research boost.

[Rustyallan]

wishing for...

An option to ignore ship/base design constraints at either the game setup or in advanced options.

[Fishman]

The ORIGINAL constraints made perfectly good sense. It's these new arbitrarily added rules that are UTTERLY STUPID, such as civilian ships that are now completely incapable of completing their missions because they will run from anything they see, even if they have thousands of shields and are utterly invulnerable. Previously you could just set them to go about their business and ignore the attackers, but now they INSIST you set the strategy to something asinine, even when it is an utterly stupid behavior for the loadout they have. My solution was just to treat them like the mentally retarded morons they've become and not give them any equipment or survival ability at all, as their deaths satisfied me and my contempt for stupidity, and watching them be destroyed, often by my own wave blasters, gave me the same warm fuzzyness that keeping them safe from all harm previously did.