SE:V, I'll be honest

[Slick]

I've played the demo a few times and tried out as many things as I could. I've looked at the data files. I've read the opinions of others. I've really worked at trying to like this game. I want to like this game. But it is just missing something intangible. I just don't get that "just one more turn" feeling. I have come to the realization that having to work at liking this game means that I just don't find it fun. I'm a huge SE fan and it hurts me to say these things but I think honesty is the best policy. I want so badly to like this game that I actually stopped playing the SE:V demo and started a new game of Starfury just to cheer me up a little. I'll give it some time to sink in.

I see huge potential for "funness" in this game but it's just not there yet. There's no single thing that has taken away the fun for me but here's a list of some things that I find disappointing:

- the UI. Enough said in other threads.

- the bugs; there are waaay too many at T-minus-one-month to release. I am hoping that MM will live up to past expectations and fix these but they will surely turn potential buyers off permenantly.

- the overall cumbersomeness of the game. This partially overlaps with the UI issue but there is more. Things are not very intuitive. Yes, once I figure it out, I know how to do it, but there is still a lot of cumbersomeness. Information that I want is there but not readily accessible. Too many of the things that I think should be options in-game are only modifiable in the data files.
This may sound trivial to most people but I know several people who won't mod the game based on the principle that they shouldn't need to for changing basic options - and they are very "turned off" as potential customers and won't be buying the game over this issue alone.

- the great unknown of what will be fixed after release. MM has a great reputation for continuously improving the game. I give him 100% credit for that. Without getting into an argument over the possibility of bug-free games here, there is a customer expectation of a certain level of performance at the time the game is installed. Frequent, hard crashes are unacceptable. Many of the issues are not fatal (software) flaws; many are just the cumbersomeness issues, so how many of these will be fixed?


I really want this game to be good, but it's just not there yet. Will I buy it? I am still not sure. I know it's too late, but I'll say this anyway: I am willing to wait as long as it takes for the release if the time is being spent to improve the game.

[RonGianti]

Well, there was quite a learning curve going from SEIV to this demo, but I'm over the curve and LOVING this game.

The demo is broken. Resources disappear, Neutral AI is basically disabled, etc. But have you looked at all the new treaty options? The fleet options? I even like the UI myself, now that I figured out how to customize it.

I wish this was called an alpha demo myself, but I have no doubt that I'll get the game on release day, and no doubt that it will be fun and playable right out of the box, and no doubt that patches will come regularly too.

[Captain Kwok]

Slick,

What options do you think should be in-game settings?

[Slick]

A long list, without listing every item, a lot of the things in "settings.txt" would be a great start. Some of the other data files have some items that would be great too. Being able to save them off as a "preferences" file would be better. I'm not talking about the whole file, just the ones that would make sense to be in-game. I guess "make sense" is subjective, though...

A couple of examples would be how "sight" is handled, default number of systems, etc. Those kinds of things.

[Santiago]

I guess one of the big questions is how close is the demo to the finished product?

I know MM is only one guy. But if I was the developer I would be all over the forums wanting to know people's reactions, bugs, ideas etc. Not working thru a few dedicated beta testers. That's just me.

[Fyron]

Aaron is rather reclusive.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Although I think he has posted here, sometime in the past.

[Atrocities]

I want to be honest too. I love the game. Despite all of its flaws and problems I absolutlely love it. You know why because I know its just going to get better and better. (See me in one year.)

[Possum]

I'm kind of with Slick on this one. Yes, I know, I'm agreeing with a guy who uses a Han Solo pic as his avatar. So sue me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

There's something about the SE5 demo that just doesn't grab me the way SE4 did, even the very first time I saw it.

People are saying "give it time, get past the learning curve". But the fact is, there's nothing that makes me want to. Like Slick said, I want badly to like the game, I'm trying hard to like the game, but it's not happening yet...

[Santiago]

Ah I didn't know that thx for the info. Even if he's in a cave at the top of a mountain- as long as he's got an internet connection to keep working on a great game.

[Santiago]

ps the demo's grown on me and SEV has lots of possibilities.

[tmcc]

I love the game so far, but that being said I have to agree with slick to some degree. There is something missing that keeps me from the "just one more turn" syndrome. I have been analyzing why I feel this way and I think I've identified a couple of things:

1) It feels tedious. No stacking, clicking and dragging components, multiple menus to get the data you need, etc. etc. At times I just have enough.

2) Compared to SEIV the turns process much more slowly.

I think between being tedious and slow it saps my energy. with SEIV I'll often look at the clock and say "oh crap it's 2:30 AM and I have an 8:00 AM meeting". That has not yet happened with SEV and I can say for sure that it did with the SEIV and SEIII demos.

[Black_Knyght]

I have to go with <font color="blue">Slick</font> &amp; <font color="green">Possum</font> here.

While I respect the interestes and opinions of those who are enthusiatic about SEV, it just doesn't "<font color="red">GRAB</font>" me the same way the other version did. Too many things to work at, too many fixes needed, I don't want to have to mod a game to play it, just a lot of different things combine to suck the interest in out of me.

I know this is an unpopular opinion overall, but it's still how I feel.

On an additional note, I have to agree with <font color="purple">Santiago</font> about what Aaron should be doing.

Reclusive or not, if you release a product you need to stay alert and on top of your customers points of view and concerns, rather than just sticking to a few chosen opinions. This forum is a golden opportunity to do just that, and would be a treasure trove for improving what wrong with the game..

[Fyron]

Aaron does read all of the emails you send in...

[Captain Kwok]

Black_Knyght said:While I respect the interestes and opinions of those who are enthusiatic about SEV, it just doesn't "GRAB" me the same way the other version did...

Although you've been biased against SE:V from the onset - long before the demo became available. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Not that I care. If you like a game, you like it. If you don't then you don't - it doesn't matter much to debate about it. But if it's just a few issues you're having that's preventing you from having fun, share them and pass them on. It's likely you're not the only one feeling this way and lots of things can change right?

[Santiago]

Imperator Fyron said:
Aaron does read all of the emails you send in...



What's a valid email address?

[Fyron]

se5 at malfador dot com.

[marc420]

Played the Demo for awhile, then gave up. Game feels more like work. Like was said, just didn't grab me. Its a combination of things .. a UI that is very non-intuitive, always feel like I'm in the wrong place trying to do the wrong thing. But more than that. Maybe the fact that its mainly just SE IV's dataset, when I had long since moved on to playing mods in that game. Maybe its the bugs, all the things that just don't seem to work. Maybe its the 100 turn limit, and the thought that I'll be stopped from playing if the game ever does get interesting.

I'm long since sick of companies that release a game on a certain date to make the Christmas season. And a buggy demo at this point makes me think that's what's happening here. Usually I'd expect the last month of a game to be spent on play-balancing, most bugs should be long gone by then. But in this game, that seems to get little attention ... its just SEIV again. The feel seems to be to do nothing here and let the modders do the work later.

Partly I'm disappointed in the focus of the game. 3D means nothing to me, so when I see all the effort spent on 3D, it makes me think of other things that could have been done.

I'm interested in strategy gameplay. I'm interested in a strong AI. How much could have been done here if the focus wasn't on 3D? Too much I see SEIV, but with 3d. And with tools and spaces for modders maybe to improve, but not those improvements used in the demo.

Oh well ... I might come back after some patches and after the modders go to work. But for now, its pretty much a sure thing I ain't buying this one on release.

[Fyron]

This is actually one of the worst times to release a game. Christmas season is Nov/Dec. Sept./Oct. is bad because it is just at the start of school, so back to school shopping has generally tapped people out, and it is too early for most people to be doing Christmas shopping. Instead, they are more likely to buy nothing and save money for Christmas shopping in Nov./Dec.

Honestly, I don't think I'd buy this game on release either. Didn't buy SE4 for about 8 months, and that paid off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Uncle_Joe]

I havent been able to form a valid opinion on the gameplay yet because I its just too unstable for me. Way too many crash outs to try and make a real investment in learning it.

But from the little I've been able to play, I do agree that something appears to be missing. I know its not just me being tired of the genre because I've been away from SE4 for a while and I wanted to get back into it. I came here to see what was up and I saw that the SE5 demo had just hit. So there was definately an interest factor there for me.

As other have said, it does sort of seem like work. The ship construction which should be one of the coolest features seems cumbersome and not intuitive (engines can go anywhere, guns on the back can shoot to the front etc). It doesnt help that the game repeatedly crashes out during both ship construction and the combat simulator.

I'm definately going to approach the final release with caution. Like others, I really WANT to like the game, but so far I havent been wow'ed in any way. I'm hoping for a much better AI than SE4, but I'm being encouraged by what I've been reading about it. SE4's AI never gave a feeling of immersiveness. It agreed to treaties/request and never bothered to follow through. There was no feeling of dealing with other empires (which both MOO2 and the Civ series have managed). I dont expect a strategic and tactical genious from the AI, but something so that you can at least feel like its another actual faction. So far, it appears that SE5 has no done a lot to change that issue.

On the positive side, the change in the combat engine appears welcome, but again I have to reserve final judgement due to crashing issues. In theory, I like how you have to explore the star systems too. How it actually works out remains to be seen.

Still, I'm tentatively looking forward to the release. I'll keep an eye on what others feel about it and I'll see what the patch/upgrade situation looks like. I'm hoping that I can get even a fraction of the enjoyment I got out of SE3 and SE4 (both WELL in excess of the investment).

[frightlever]

I stopped posting here about a week or two ago when people with a negative view were more or less getting hounded off the forums. Interesting to come back to this as one of the latest threads with a majority of the posters unlikely to buy the game at release.

I want SEV to succeed as much as the next guy but I'm not emotionally invested in MM or Aaron Hall. I give him money he gives me a game, much the same as a supermarket and food. If he was doing it for free then fair enough but he's doing it for money (and no, I don't work for free either but I don't expect blind faith from my clients either. It would be nice though...) and specifically he's doing it for Strategy First's money and we'll be paying them. By all accounts from the beta testers he's ignored valid concerns over the UI and makes next to no effort to engage his users. This isn't charity so could the next guy who tells me MM is a one man band and we should cut him some slack please explain why?

In fact if you want a real conspiracy theory SEV can be buried in mediocrity while SF has their East European coders knock out SE6 the real time strategy game a la Warcraft 3. Jagged Alliance 3D anyone?

I really want to buy SEV and enjoy it and I'll probably STILL buy the game on release if it hits Steam. The real question is whether I'll still be playing it in five years time.

And to Marc420, my brother in disdain for 3D froo froo crap, Amen!

[Fyron]

frightlever said:
I stopped posting here about a week or two ago when people with a negative view were more or less getting hounded off the forums.

Did I miss some posts somewhere? I never saw anyone "hounded off the forums." Sure, there were a few people reading way too much into things, but not much more than that. It's a discussion forum, so of course people will post some contrary opinions to whatever else gets posted. That is hardly hounding anyone off the forums.

[Black_Knyght]

Captain Kwok said:
Although you've been biased against SE:V from the onset - long before the demo became available. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Not that I care. If you like a game, you like it. If you don't then you don't - it doesn't matter much to debate about it. But if it's just a few issues you're having that's preventing you from having fun, share them and pass them on. It's likely you're not the only one feeling this way and lots of things can change right?



Interesting....

Yes, I expressed my personal opinions several times BEFORE the release of the SEV Demo. I said that the direction SEV seemed to be going didn't appeal to me, or what it's new focus was going to be.

But, having a negative point of view about something you're not fond of when others are is known as biased.

When the SEV Demo was released I downloaded it and gave it a fair try, rather than ingore it, berate it, or comment on it out of ignorance. I am willing to address issues with an open mind because I am, admittedly, right and wrong about things in equal measure.

I tried it, and found it not to be to my liking, to have numerous issues, to be exactly what I was concerned it would be. Like many others I expressed those thought and opinions.

But, having a negative point of view about something you're not fond of when others are is known as biased.

I listened to other points of view and suggestions, tried them out, and still ended up with the same opinion. In fact, I've tried the Demo now several dozen times. I've tried new directions, offered suggestions, the works. It does not grab my attention the way SEIV did, I'm not fond of it, and I thought to express those thoughts here in the forum provided for them.

But, having a negative point of view about something you're not fond of when others are is known as biased.

The issues I have with it have also been expressed by others as well. I added my voice to theirs, not with biased intent to simply tear it down, but in hopes that something somewhere might be done to improve what I feel are flaws within it. It's not a matter of "just a few issues you're having that's preventing you from having fun", it's a total combination of things as a whole that I'm not thrilled with.

But, having a negative point of view about something you're not fond of when others are is known as biased.

No, I don't like where it went, how much effort goes into playing it now, dealing with the various flaws and bugs, needing to adapt to this or mod that to get what seems like it should've already been there. But, I've also given it several fair efforts to change my point of view, and it has still failed to do so.

I guess if not liking it after that is biased, then yes - I'm biased.

[Black_Knyght]

frightlever said:
<font color="red">I stopped posting here about a week or two ago when people with a negative view were more or less getting hounded off the forums</font>



Interesting perspective. I seem to recall feeling pretty much the same way, though I was basically very politely told I was full of it and "biased".

Glad to see I'm not the only one who saw that around here....

[Captain Kwok]

To clarify, the "only a few things" comment was directed at players who have only a couple of items standing between them and being happy about the game. Not everyone who's had problems with the SE:V demo.

BK, I never saw anyone call you full of it. I merely said you went in biased because you made a point of posting a lot that you weren't going to abandon SE:IV for SE:V just because it was new. And it was mostly a jest as I added a "razz'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I hope no one thought I was hounding them. My goal was for players who were having issues to forward them to MM etc. Hence most of reply posts was directed players to report bugs/annoyances... so nah. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Matryx]

My goodness, another conspiracy pops up. Can you still not see that no-one has intended to drive anyone away?
Apologies and clarifications were forthcoming the last time you said this, and now given that you now say you feel we told you that you were full of it, I dread to think how you read the most innocuous posts :/

In all frank honesty, other people's concerns about a game don't get me bothered - there's plenty of other people I would end up playing with, so you don't see me jumping to defend any point here or there unless I know it's incorrect and no-one else has explained it. I *know* I'm going to enjoy the game, so I'm happy to sit quietly and leave others to their opinions.
I would agree with Kwok's statement though, historically you've been fairly anti-SE5 so yes you do come across as biased - not that it's necessarily a *bad* thing mind you - you can't ever get a balanced opinion on a subject, but again as Kwok said - there's nothing to debate really - If you like it, great. If you don't - share the reasons and move on (er, back) to other games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the only reason I ever hung out with the community is because they've always been so level-headed and welcoming. Hell, I take 2 or 3 year breaks between posts sometimes and yet the community doesn't change. There is no hounding out of the forums for negative opinions, but equally there's no need to repost the same things over and over. Directions to adress things straight to MM is purely because Aaron is very distant from the community as a whole (imo), but when people send things to him he does read them, given these facts now perhaps you can see that the perceived hounding you had was merely misinterpreting helpful advice?

[Black_Knyght]

Captain Kwok said:
To clarify, the "only a few things" comment was directed at players who have only a couple of items standing between them and being happy about the game. Not everyone who's had problems with the SE:V demo.

BK, I never saw anyone call you full of it. I merely said you went in biased because you made a point of posting a lot that you weren't going to abandon SE:IV for SE:V just because it was new. And it was mostly a jest as I added a "razz'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I hope no one thought I was hounding them. My goal was for players who were having issues to forward them to MM etc. Hence most of reply posts was directed players to report bugs/annoyances... so nah. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif



In the interest of clarity, let me state that it seemed to me that you were adressing me personally, since the post was directed to me. And I didn't realize or catch that you might be "razzing" me. Being refered to as biased because I had my doubts and expressed them also tends to raise my hackles a bit. I frequently say what I think or feel, but I always give things a fair chance to prove me wrong.

As to being "full of it", no - no one has directly used those words, but I have been told "your wrong,that's not what's happening here" or "i don't see that around here" or "that doesn't happen around here". Basically - I'm full of it if I say it seems like negative viewpoints are being hounded. And yet, obviously it's NOT strictly my point of view. I've quoted others with the same perspective for a reason. I'm not trying to pick a fight or be difficult. I am trying to point out something evident not only to me, but several other people here as well. evident enough that some have even stated they quit coming here for a while because of that.

I have said many times I'm not abandoning SEIV for SEV, that's true. I never once said I wouldn't give SEV it's fair shake, only that I wasn't in favor of the changes that were being incorporated into it. When the Demom was released I downloaded it, tried it, expressed my problems with it, acted on the suggested responses, and still didn't feel happy with it. I continued to try to see beyond the issues that bug me, and still nothing changed. And, once again, I expressed what and why I wasn't happy with it. My not being rabidly in favor of the game has drawn a fair bit of flack.

[Xrati]

We all come here for the same reason. Sometimes it's to 'agree to disagree' and how we do that reflects on the people who post. Nobody comes here to insult anyone or berate them. We all have our beleifs and opinions, but we need to consider others when we post. Enough said. Feel free to express yourself and please enjoy those freedoms and respect your fellow players/board posters. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Ludd]

OK, all together now.....

I'd like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves

Chorus:
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company
(That's the song I hear)
I'd like to see the world for once
(Let the world sing today)
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills
For peace throughout the land
That's the song I hear
(That's the song I hear)
Let the world sing today
(Let the whole wide world keep singing)
A song of peace that echoes on
And never goes away

(Repeat 1st stanza and Chorus)

Put your hand in my hand
Let's begin today
Put your hand in my hand
Help me find a way

(Repeat Chorus til fade) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[RonGianti]

frightlever said:
I stopped posting here about a week or two ago when people with a negative view were more or less getting hounded off the forums.




*snip*

Funny, I feel exactly the opposite. I'm feeling hounded off the forums because a handful of people hijack threads with constant whining about minor issues.

I'm enjoying the demo and made to feel like I should not be because of minor issues.

In all the threads I've read, I've seen the beta testers here answering questions with more patience than I would have for the constant whiners. I've seen a number of posts that read more like a list of demands than questions and instead of ignoring them, the beta testers patiently answer questions and acknowlege issues.

[VanderVecken]

I Loved that song, I sang it in either 5th or 6th grade, then Coke got it in their TV ads and the purity of it's message was forever tarnished with a 'Ka-ching' Cash register sound in my mind. Peace and Harmony should not equal Rotten teeth and Obese teen-agers.
Sorry I went O.T. but did I mention that when I was a kid that I just loved that song.

[Ragnarok-X]

On a scale from 1 to 10, i would rate it with 6.5. I definitly like SEIV better. I was expecting more, especially from

- ground combat (woah, this is bad)
- planet development (look GalCiv 2)

[Black_Knyght]

RonGianti said:

frightlever said:
I stopped posting here about a week or two ago when people with a negative view were more or less getting hounded off the forums.




*snip*

Funny, I feel exactly the opposite. I'm feeling hounded off the forums because a handful of people hijack threads with constant whining about minor issues.

I'm enjoying the demo and made to feel like I should not be because of minor issues.

In all the threads I've read, I've seen the beta testers here answering questions with more patience than I would have for the constant whiners. I've seen a number of posts that read more like a list of demands than questions and instead of ignoring them, the beta testers patiently answer questions and acknowlege issues.





"...answering questions with more patience than I would have for the constant whiners..."

"...posts that read more like a list of demands than questions..."


What a perfect illustration of what I'd been trying to say...

[PDF]

Ragnarok-X said:
On a scale from 1 to 10, i would rate it with 6.5. I definitly like SEIV better. I was expecting more, especially from

- ground combat (woah, this is bad)
- planet development (look GalCiv 2)



Personnally I'd rate at 6-some also, don't care much for Cd combat but agrees on planet dev. But, bleh, GC2 planet development su.. well is not to my taste http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . If ever we could have a game with a good planet dev system such as MoO2's or Civ-like ...

[Ragnarok-X]

PDF said:

Ragnarok-X said:
On a scale from 1 to 10, i would rate it with 6.5. I definitly like SEIV better. I was expecting more, especially from

- ground combat (woah, this is bad)
- planet development (look GalCiv 2)



Personnally I'd rate at 6-some also, don't care much for Cd combat but agrees on planet dev. But, bleh, GC2 planet development su.. well is not to my taste http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . If ever we could have a game with a good planet dev system such as MoO2's or Civ-like ...



Sry, cant follow you here. MoO2 had no system at all...you were just constructing buildings, but a planet itself had absolutly no influence on its productivity, apart from fertility and population.

Thats why i like GalCiv 2`s system. You can actually see a MAP of the planet, and symbols indicate certain ressources. It reminds of Ascendancy, which`s system i like a lot as well.
But ground combat...oh well. I thought SEIV GC was horrible. Then i thought GalCiv2s GC was EVEN MORE horrible. Than i played SEV and thought its the worst GC to be developed, ever. Its like Imperium Galactica, which is already years old, but EVEN older.


To sum it up, im rather dissapointed by SEV. It feels like a real let down, one in a long series, raging from MoO3 to GalCiv, to Sword of the Stars, now to SEV. I was expecting a glorious game, made by a player, for players. I think ~ 3 more months development time would be good http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

To be honest though, SEV is already the best of the few games i named.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I think people are getting defensive on wether SEV is equal to SEIV or not, and I've seen some things said on this forum that disapointed me.

Just remember, a game is not worth getting pissed off at your friends over.

[Uncle_Joe]

Ragnarok,

Out of curiosity, what was your take on Sword of the Stars? I gather that you dont/didnt care for it. I have it, but havent really been able to get 'into' it. Its not really a '4x' game IMO, its more like an RTS with a turn-based econ side.

What about it was disappointing for you?

[Noble713]

I've got to agree about the planet development/economic model. Really, virtually every game I've played has had a disappointing economic model. SE5's is a step up from SE4, however, as the inclusion of maintenance costs for structures and populations forces players to put a little more thought into expansion beyond "Colonize EVERYTHING!!!!1111"

I'd really like to have a 4X game with a more realistic, complex economy similar to Supreme Ruler 2010's: raw material concentrations on the planet maps, industry-wide efficiency levels that can be improved, finished goods production that consumes raw materials, international trade on a market, inflation, loans/debt, etc.... I find all this much more engrossing than the simple "Trade = bonus resource production" model of the SE series.

Gee, the Amon'Krie are flooding the market with dilithium crystals and undercutting my profits. Should I improve my production methods to reduce my own costs, or just invade and occupy their dilithium-producing planets, and then ramp up my markup rate to recoupe the costs of the war?

But then again I'm an Economics major, so that probably impacts my suspension of disbelief WRT game economies.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

www.knightsoft.ca (http://www.knightsoft.ca) - Starknight. Raw materials to processed materials to finished goods. Other than that, it's pretty simple. It's also fun.

[AngleWyrm]

But if it's just a few issues you're having that's preventing you from having fun, share them and pass them on. It's likely you're not the only one feeling this way and lots of things can change right?



Constructing an already designed ship takes too many mouse clicks:
Select planet hex Select planet (from choice of planet, sattelite, mine, ships in orbit) Select Construct Object Select category 'ships' Scroll down list Double click ship close menu
The build queue does not let you see the solar system and planet you are working with.


Gee, the Amon'Krie are flooding the market with dilithium crystals and undercutting my profits. Should I improve my production methods to reduce my own costs, or just invade and occupy their dilithium-producing planets, and then ramp up my markup rate to recoupe the costs of the war?

But then again I'm an Economics major, so that probably impacts my suspension of disbelief WRT game economies.



As an aside, what do you think about an economy based on one credit = one man-hour of work?

[Ragnarok-X]

Uncle_Joe said:
Ragnarok,

Out of curiosity, what was your take on Sword of the Stars? I gather that you dont/didnt care for it. I have it, but havent really been able to get 'into' it. Its not really a '4x' game IMO, its more like an RTS with a turn-based econ side.

What about it was disappointing for you?



The game is bad. Combat is very bad, research is using an old, outdated system as well. The entire colony/development-system is horrible, actually the worst i have seen. One system is resembled by a single planet, which you develope by TWO sliders ? huh ?!

Ship construction is boring. Diplomacy is non-existant. Ground combat is hilarious, no depth or tactic or anything like that involved. The only thing that is good is that those 4 races are using unique expansion/propulsion systems, but thats about it. Should i compare SotS to SEV, i would say SotS is an even bigger let-down than SEV :p And that already means something.

I have to admit that a good mod, like Star Wars Mod or Adamant Mod or Devnull Mod could change my opinion about SEV.

[Theonlystd]

Now i know i dont post often so doubt many care of my opinion :p

But i start played Se3 empires prolly 6,7 years ago.. Been playing Se4 pretty much non stop for months here latly.


I was excited about the demo and well it was a bit of a let down.

I cringe to think how much time was wasted on horrid 3d graphics.. Ground Combat teh i thought that was lame when i was 13, 8years ago in imperium galactica 2..

And omg how did ship design manage to make it this far in its current shape that'll keep me from playing tell its fixed in some way even i have better things to do than that process? Y cant i double click on a planet to bring up the construction que? Scrolling and stuff seems a bit jerky. I also just dislike the 3d enviroment the zooming in and out.

Tho its not all bad.. I like the new supply and ordance system,the larger tech line, the real time combat could have potential really gotta test it againist Ai's in big battles to know if they can handle it or not.

[Barnacle Bill]

AngleWyrm said:
As an aside, what do you think about an economy based on one credit = one man-hour of work?



An hour of work by the guy who mows my lawn and an hour of work by a cardiovascular surgeon do not have the same market value (especially to the guy needing bypass surgery).

[Barnacle Bill]

PDF said:
If ever we could have a game with a good planet dev system such as MoO2's or Civ-like ...



I think it was a mistake for these sorts of games to move away from the more abstract "Stellar Conquest"-based system used in the original MOO, the original (8 bit) Reach For the Stars, etc... Most of the tedious late-game micromanagement of big empires stems from having to mess with all the individual buildings on planets/cities - and is worse in the Civ games (and to a lesser extent MOO2)where you've got to micromanage what the individual population units are doing, clean pollution, etc... Much more streamlined to have production calculated as (population + factories) * (some constant for planet "richness"), with advancing technology just raising the allowed ratio of factories to population. I'd rather spend my time micromanaging ship/unit design &amp; tactical combat.

On the other hand, I do like the separation of resources from production, with resources being consumed proportional to production. This would eliminate the "richness" factor in the above calculation, which would instead factor into resource production (which would be relatively independent of population). The idea would be an economy of relatively few high population industrial worlds being fed by a larger number of low population mining colonies, the former probably being of high habitability and the latter mostly domed. Then some elegant rules to cover resource convoys to be defended from pirates &amp; enemy player commerce raiders to create a military purpose for small ships...

[Raapys]

Did any game ever really have a better planet development system and economy model than MoO3? Looking past the bugs, I can't really remember any that even came close. All other games have such simple systems, MoO3's is *complex* and rather realistic.

IMO an ingenius macromanagement system( development plans, budgets, etc.) that even allows for very much micromanagement if you'd rather do things yourself.

[Barnacle Bill]

Raapys said:
Did any game ever really have a better planet development system and economy model than MoO3? Looking past the bugs, I can't really remember any that even came close. All other games have such simple systems, MoO3's is *complex* and rather realistic.

IMO an ingenius macromanagement system( development plans, budgets, etc.) that even allows for very much micromanagement if you'd rather do things yourself.



I can't honestly address MOO3, because I never got far enough into my first &amp; only game of it to get even a little bit up the learning curve. I was a regular on the on the forum during its development, and was very enthusiastic about the game concepts ("The Elephant") described there by Alan Emrich. However, my enthusiasm receded as they first started throwing features overboard, and then threw Alan overboard, and a couple of high profile volonteer devs/ uber-betas / whatever-you-want-to-call-em left in a huff or were pushed. Anyway, I ended up buying the game but just didn't get drawn into it as I usually do with 4Xers.

[Ragnarok-X]

Raapys said:
Did any game ever really have a better planet development system and economy model than MoO3? Looking past the bugs, I can't really remember any that even came close. All other games have such simple systems, MoO3's is *complex* and rather realistic.



Yeah, that was pretty much the best system. Each planet had several regions, all with different fertility and mineral richness, plus regional AND planet-based extras. Plus DPAs which were influenced by the amount of people working each region. VERY good. It wasnt even as bugged as the rest of the game.

[AngleWyrm]

An hour of work by the guy who mows my lawn and an hour of work by a cardiovascular surgeon do not have the same market value (especially to the guy needing bypass surgery).


Or the guy needing a lawn mowed.

And here I wonder if the original reason is simply that there are a lot of lawns to mow, so a fella could make a living at it. But bypass surgery is a skill needed only rarely, thus we make up for it by paying him a full wage for a few hours' work.

Then of course greed set in.

[Xrati]

OK, you've divided the game into two separate issues. I’ve played Reach for the Stars and MOO3. MOO3’s economics are a game within the game and could stand on its own. RFTS is a basically simple game with all the economics factored in. Has anyone ever played any game that had economic micromanagement and space combat in it that was any fun to play? If you want economics the get a game based on that and if you want planetary development then go get something like SimCity. You cannot get all those factors into ONE game. Somewhere, if you want combat and ship building you have to regulate the economics and planetary building. Do you really want a game that will take you hours to do one turn. You just can’t have it all!

In MOO3 when you get large the economics become unmanageable, as at that point you want the computer to take over the many planets you now have. The AI is flexible but still has problems taking over where you leave off. What you are all asking for is four separate games in one that run well. When you find one, please let me know.

[Ragnarok-X]

Xrati said:
OK, you've divided the game into two separate issues. I’ve played Reach for the Stars and MOO3. MOO3’s economics are a game within the game and could stand on its own. RFTS is a basically simple game with all the economics factored in. Has anyone ever played any game that had economic micromanagement and space combat in it that was any fun to play? If you want economics the get a game based on that and if you want planetary development then go get something like SimCity. You cannot get all those factors into ONE game. Somewhere, if you want combat and ship building you have to regulate the economics and planetary building. Do you really want a game that will take you hours to do one turn. You just can’t have it all!

In MOO3 when you get large the economics become unmanageable, as at that point you want the computer to take over the many planets you now have. The AI is flexible but still has problems taking over where you leave off. What you are all asking for is four separate games in one that run well. When you find one, please let me know.



I want at least to be able to actually manage my economy. In Moo3, i was managing my planets almost ALL the time. It wasnt that hard. Of course its a matter of taste.
Click on a region, see its mineral value, and build mining or industry DEAs. Or research. Or gouverment. Or military.

In SEV, i have exactly 5 things to value, mineral %, organic %, radioactive %, pop, size. THats it. Again, should i grade those 2 eco models on a scale from 1 to 10, i would give MoO 3 a 7-8, and SEV probably a 4-3.

One thing you are missing in your comparion to Reach for the Stars is that that game was about macromanagment. You usually had fleets of douzens, maybe hundreds of ships, which you just send bulk against hostile fleets.
Research was very simple as well, same goes for colonization. There was only planet size and atmosphere/temperature to keep in mind, of thise the last two were indicated by a colorcode (yellow, blue, green..)

The entire game was more about big view. SEV offers a lot of micromanagment though, because of that i want to micromanage my economy as well.

btw Are there any news of Aaron liste to the suggestions, like double-click-opens-the-planet-window, or rightclick opens-component-details, another rightclick-close-component-details ?

[arthurtuxedo]

Theonlystd said:
Now i know i dont post often so doubt many care of my opinion :p

But i start played Se3 empires prolly 6,7 years ago.. Been playing Se4 pretty much non stop for months here latly.


I was excited about the demo and well it was a bit of a let down.

I cringe to think how much time was wasted on horrid 3d graphics.. Ground Combat teh i thought that was lame when i was 13, 8years ago in imperium galactica 2..


Did you shudder to think of the time wasted on SE4's graphics, which were hugely improved over SE3? Or SE3's improvement over SE2? I wasn't around this board until just after SE4 was released, but I'm sure a lot of people did complain about how Aaron shouldn't have been focusing on graphics in the buildup to SE4, too.

All the complaints about the graphics just confuses me. Either they're complaining because Aaron supposedly focused on "flashy 3D graphics over gameplay", or they're pointing out that the graphics are the opposite of flashy, and are in fact quite dated. Well, which is it? And can any of you look me straight in the face and tell me you would pay $40 if the game looked exactly like SE4 with a few new effects? Did you pay full price for SE4 Gold when you already had SE4? I sure as hell didn't. When you release a sequel, everything should be improved, including the graphics. If these graphics complainers would really listen to themselves, I think they'd realize the absurdity of their complaints.

[Tim_Ward]

Theonlystd said:
("Why" - Ed) cant i double click on a planet to bring up the construction que?



Like you could in SEIV or SEIII, you mean? Let's be honest; the SE series has always been a bit of a UI disaster area. I can remember having the same thoughts back when I got the SEIV demo. You end up getting your teeth and getting used to it, though, because it's by far the best 4x series on the market.

[tmcc]

arthurtuxedo, you are correct. I was lurking here back then and lots of people complained about the effort put into the SEIV graphics over gameplay.

On that note, am I the only one who thinks that the facility, component and unit graphics are better in SEIV than SEV? The new ones are bigger but look cloudy and don't have much in the way of additional detail.

[Cube]

Whoever designed the SE4 UI needs to come back and work on SE5. As it stands now, the interface is much too cluttered and busy, i.e. too many visual elements and no distinct organizational layout.

The SE4 UI had a minimalist technical feel and out-of-your-way quality that presented the game perfectly. It also had a cohesive graphical motif that gave it a palpable professionalism.

As SE5 stands at the moment (with its Starcraft command interface and OS X menu dock), it looks like someone just installed a badly designed WindowBlinds theme from 1998.

[Ludd]

Cube said:
the interface is much too cluttered and busy, i.e. too many visual elements and no distinct organizational layout.

The SE4 UI had a minimalist technical feel and out-of-your-way quality that presented the game perfectly. It also had a cohesive graphical motif that gave it a palpable professionalism.



I agree completely. SEIV was elegant in its design, SEV, unfortunately, is not.

I will still be buying it though.

[Raapys]

Actually, I'd have to say I love MoO3's way of dealing with colony/empire related options. I find the only thing I'm really micromanaging is when I want to have some ships ready fast, at which point I put a few of my best colonies to produce my desired ships only. There's some minor issues with the computer being slow to build the latest ship factories and the way the computer *always* build troops, etc. If you've set up your development plans nicely, you'll find that the AI actually make surprisingly intelligent choices when it decides on which DEA's to develop and such, though.

And AI competence aside, I really like the way the whole thing is set up and connected in the game(research, economics, planet development). There's obviously huge room for improvement, and the game is only half-done, but they really managed to set it apart from the regular micromanagement 4x games, bringing a far more epic feel to it. With the right hacked-exe patches and mods it's actually great fun.

Bump on the SEIV interface vs SEV's. Doubtful something like a major interface change will be done in a patch, though.

[tmcc]

Regarding the designer of the SEIV UI vs that for SEV I am pretty darn sure that they are one in the same.

[AAshbery76]

I found the UI of SEIV took an hour or so to get used,I see no diffence in the SEV UI, apart from it looking 5 times nicer graphicly.

[Ludd]

SEIV look with SEV game improvements.

The perfect game game for me.

[capnq]

arthurtuxedo said: All the complaints about the graphics just confuses me. Either they're complaining because Aaron supposedly focused on "flashy 3D graphics over gameplay", or they're pointing out that the graphics are the opposite of flashy, and are in fact quite dated. Well, which is it?

I suspect that those two complaints are coming from two separate groups. Can anyone find an example of the same person saying both things? (I don't care enough to look for one, myself.)

Arguments over the quality of game graphics (like arguments over any kind of art) are a waste of time and bandwidth, IMO. Tastes vary too much to form a consensus.
Did you pay full price for SE4 Gold when you already had SE4?

Yes, I did. A lot of SE4 owners did not take advantage of the discount Shrapnel offered, because they wanted to support Aaron and Shrapnel. (Granted, some didn't take the discount because of what was wanted as "proof of purchase" [a piece of the original CD].) Strategy First hasn't yet earned that level of customer loyalty.

[Theonlystd]

arthurtuxedo said:

Theonlystd said:
Now i know i dont post often so doubt many care of my opinion :p

But i start played Se3 empires prolly 6,7 years ago.. Been playing Se4 pretty much non stop for months here latly.


I was excited about the demo and well it was a bit of a let down.

I cringe to think how much time was wasted on horrid 3d graphics.. Ground Combat teh i thought that was lame when i was 13, 8years ago in imperium galactica 2..


Did you shudder to think of the time wasted on SE4's graphics, which were hugely improved over SE3? Or SE3's improvement over SE2? I wasn't around this board until just after SE4 was released, but I'm sure a lot of people did complain about how Aaron shouldn't have been focusing on graphics in the buildup to SE4, too.

All the complaints about the graphics just confuses me. Either they're complaining because Aaron supposedly focused on "flashy 3D graphics over gameplay", or they're pointing out that the graphics are the opposite of flashy, and are in fact quite dated. Well, which is it? And can any of you look me straight in the face and tell me you would pay $40 if the game looked exactly like SE4 with a few new effects? Did you pay full price for SE4 Gold when you already had SE4? I sure as hell didn't. When you release a sequel, everything should be improved, including the graphics. If these graphics complainers would really listen to themselves, I think they'd realize the absurdity of their complaints.




2d Graphics in line to the lasts game graphics prolly a bit easier then designing 3d graphics.. I wasnt around either so no idea. But this kind of game i dont care about the graphcis.. Yes the 3d graphics are horrible that doesnt mean alot of time wasnt invested in them cause making lots of such graphics isnt easy. Not to mention i find it an uneeded drain on processing and such.

And yes i would gladly pay 40,50 for a game that improves the gameplay,ai,interface and does nothing with the graphics. As long as i can tell the difference bewteen different ships and planets i dont much care.





Tim_Ward said:

Theonlystd said:
("Why" - Ed) cant i double click on a planet to bring up the construction que?



Like you could in SEIV or SEIII, you mean? Let's be honest; the SE series has always been a bit of a UI disaster area. I can remember having the same thoughts back when I got the SEIV demo. You end up getting your teeth and getting used to it, though, because it's by far the best 4x series on the market.



No sadly but come on this is the 5th game. I doubt im the only one who thought that double clicking to bring up construction que's would be handy..This would be the kind of improvment id expect in the 5 release of such a game. These are the kind of things that keep me from being able to get any of my friends to play.. Mix bad UI stuff with a rather complex game and they all think its way to hard.

[Tim_Ward]

Mix bad UI stuff with a rather complex game and they all think its way to hard.



Their loss.

[wrongshui]

Modelling and texturing a primitive 3D model is about as time consuming as making 8 different 2D pictures for a ship.

[Captain Kwok]

wrongshui said:
Modelling and texturing a primitive 3D model is about as time consuming as making 8 different 2D pictures for a ship.

Not necessarily. Many people are already created 3d models for the 2d sets to start...

[Raapys]

And can any of you look me straight in the face and tell me you would pay $40 if the game looked exactly like SE4 with a few new effects?

I'd probably be more positive about buying the game if that was the case, actually. Then I'd know that the money would have been used for gameplay/AI improvement, not spent on developing a fairly needless(to me) 3D engine, which, from what Aaron said in the latest interview, was the hardest and most time-consuming feature to implement in SEV.

For that matter, I'd probably pay 40$ just to get a ground-breaking AI update alone.

Besides, the Football Manager( former Championship Manager) series are good examples of games where players are more than happy to pay full price even if it's just for some very minor tweaking and an updated player database.

[arthurtuxedo]

Theonlystd said:2d Graphics in line to the lasts game graphics prolly a bit easier then designing 3d graphics.. I wasnt around either so no idea. But this kind of game i dont care about the graphcis.. Yes the 3d graphics are horrible that doesnt mean alot of time wasnt invested in them cause making lots of such graphics isnt easy. Not to mention i find it an uneeded drain on processing and such.


I'm not sure at all that it would have been less time consuming to make a new 2D graphics engine. In many cases, 3D is actually easier because you don't have to come up with a whole new graphic for each and every facing, animation, and different configuration.


And yes i would gladly pay 40,50 for a game that improves the gameplay,ai,interface and does nothing with the graphics. As long as i can tell the difference bewteen different ships and planets i dont much care.


I believe you, but the majority of gamers, even niche gamers, want to see some improvement after 6 years or they won't plunk down $40. And let's face it, the graphics vs. gameplay argument is a false dilemma anyway. Improved graphics can lead to improved gameplay. For instance, the new real time combat system wouldn't have been possible without the 3D graphics. You could have had a real time system with 2D, sure, but the ships wouldn't be able to pass over and under each other and planets, and I can't imagine how it would have worked with a lot of ships if they can't occupy the same square.

Let's also not forget that "gameplay" should be taken to mean the entire gaming experience, which includes the graphics. If they're an eyesore, it does drag down the gameplay.

[Captain Kwok]

I can understand complaints about how the UI is clunky or the demo is buggy or the AI isn't optimized, but I can't see how SE players can argue that game mechanics were not improved or gameplay was sacrificed. Seriously the unfair combat of SE:IV was eliminated, ground combat was at least expanded, improvements were made to construction point usage, unit individualization, research, customizable lists, etc - and that's not even talking about the modding capabilities of SE:V versus SE:IV.

[Theonlystd]

arthurtuxedo said:

Theonlystd said:2d Graphics in line to the lasts game graphics prolly a bit easier then designing 3d graphics.. I wasnt around either so no idea. But this kind of game i dont care about the graphcis.. Yes the 3d graphics are horrible that doesnt mean alot of time wasnt invested in them cause making lots of such graphics isnt easy. Not to mention i find it an uneeded drain on processing and such.


I'm not sure at all that it would have been less time consuming to make a new 2D graphics engine. In many cases, 3D is actually easier because you don't have to come up with a whole new graphic for each and every facing, animation, and different configuration.


And yes i would gladly pay 40,50 for a game that improves the gameplay,ai,interface and does nothing with the graphics. As long as i can tell the difference bewteen different ships and planets i dont much care.


I believe you, but the majority of gamers, even niche gamers, want to see some improvement after 6 years or they won't plunk down $40. And let's face it, the graphics vs. gameplay argument is a false dilemma anyway. Improved graphics can lead to improved gameplay. For instance, the new real time combat system wouldn't have been possible without the 3D graphics. You could have had a real time system with 2D, sure, but the ships wouldn't be able to pass over and under each other and planets, and I can't imagine how it would have worked with a lot of ships if they can't occupy the same square.

Let's also not forget that "gameplay" should be taken to mean the entire gaming experience, which includes the graphics. If they're an eyesore, it does drag down the gameplay.




The guy above said.. Aaron said it was time consuming and hard. And tahts what i usually hear.. I've never seen a devloper go Thankfully this edition we've upgraded to 3d graphics and it saved alot of time over the old 2d engine.


And yes graphics are part of gameplay.. Just in games like this a very unimportant part to me. And plenty of games succeed with little or even no graphics. Refer to FM series or the Ootp series.. I dont play 4x games to admire the graphics..Ill buy dominion 3 they really didnt do anything to the graphics...

Im sure they could of figured out something in the 2d engine.. Maybe the real time space combat will be good enough to make up for the crapdom that is the graphics in the rest of the game. Wont know tell i get to partake in large battles againist the Ai.

[Possum]

Cube said:
Whoever designed the SE4 UI needs to come back and work on SE5. As it stands now, the interface is much too cluttered and busy, i.e. too many visual elements and no distinct organizational layout.

The SE4 UI had a minimalist technical feel and out-of-your-way quality that presented the game perfectly. It also had a cohesive graphical motif that gave it a palpable professionalism.

As SE5 stands at the moment (with its Starcraft command interface and OS X menu dock), it looks like someone just installed a badly designed WindowBlinds theme from 1998.



Hear him! Thank you for articulating what I hadn't the wit to say for myself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Thermodyne]

Well here is my two cents. The UI is clumsy and ruins the game play. This version will have a hard time fitting into slot 5 of the SE saga. It is missing that special something that the other versions had. With 2 and 3, I spent hours and hours playing in the beginning. With 4 it took a little longer to warm up to, but was still an evolution of the series. This one looks like/plays like a knock off. IMHO we have traded game strategy for eye candy. For those of us who loved SE3, this is quite a ways off the path. I wish MM all the best and I hope the game sells well, but as it is now, I don’t think this will be my cup of tea.

PS:

I was going to skip this part, but the days that I have the energy to post are too few of late.

I have to wonder as to the direction that the SE series is taking. It is becoming less of a strategy game and more of a FX game with each new version. I am left wondering who has the greatest amount of influence on the evolution of the game.

[eddieballgame]

Do I see MOO3 making a come back? With the last patch, mods, moddabilty, &amp; STABILITY. This game (in my opinion) should be considered a classic. Alas, such is not the case, but the game does have a "feel" like no other.

[Kana]

Captain Kwok said:
I can understand complaints about how the UI is clunky or the demo is buggy or the AI isn't optimized, but I can't see how SE players can argue that game mechanics were not improved or gameplay was sacrificed. Seriously the unfair combat of SE:IV was eliminated, ground combat was at least expanded, improvements were made to construction point usage, unit individualization, research, customizable lists, etc - and that's not even talking about the modding capabilities of SE:V versus SE:IV.



I agree...SEV does have many modding capabilities, and the code under the hood so to speak, is going to be very helpful in modding...

Yet...I could have easily lived with SEIV graphics, a non-real time combat engine, and these improvements...

[Ragnarok-X]

Captain Kwok said:...ground combat was at least expanded...



Sorry Kwok, but that argument is a bit weird, dont you think ? To be exact, i would prefer the old system over the new. I for one cant call the current system an improvment. That is the worst ground combat, ever. I was hoping for something similar to MoO 2, and now we get a C&amp;C -clone which additionally appears to be the ancestor of C&amp;C 1 :p

[Barnacle Bill]

AngleWyrm said:
Or the guy needing a lawn mowed.

And here I wonder if the original reason is simply that there are a lot of lawns to mow, so a fella could make a living at it. But bypass surgery is a skill needed only rarely, thus we make up for it by paying him a full wage for a few hours' work.

Then of course greed set in.



I wouldn't call it greed. It is a matter of (1) the investment in training time and expense to produce a cardiovascular surgeon is a whole lot higher than that to produce a lawnmower-pusher and (2) the percentage of the population that is mentally capable of getting through the training to successfully perform open heart surgery is a lot lower than the percentage of the population mentally capable of mowing a lawn. Why would anybody go through all those years of medical school, residency, etc... and pay all those big tuition bills if at the end he got paid the just same as a non-skilled laborer?

The value of anything (including an hour of your labor) is exactly what somebody else will pay you for it, and not a penny more or less, and if the market price isn't high enough to justify the investment then suppliers exit the market (which in fact is happening in the US medical industry as malpractice insurance rates continue to rise and insurance reembursement continues to fall).

[Barnacle Bill]

arthurtuxedo said:
You could have had a real time system with 2D, sure, but the ships wouldn't be able to pass over and under each other and planets, and I can't imagine how it would have worked with a lot of ships if they can't occupy the same square.




Why couldn't they occupy the same square? They can in board games like Starfire &amp; Starfleet Battles? It's called "stacking". It happens on the system map now (and in SEIV and in SEIII). The above games had "range 0" entries on the CRT and SFB had rules for determining weapon direction at range 0 (since it had directional weapons &amp; shields). A set of rules that can be written for a board game could certainly be programmed for a computer game.

In fact, with location quantized to a grid (hex is better, but still true for squares), the SFB proportional movement / pre-ordered movement system effectively is real-time. I can envision an almost direct real-time port of the SFB system, with the player able to pause at any impulse to change movement orders (subject to turn mode) or fire weapons that bear &amp; are charged, and the computer just stepping through the impulses. You would not have to take the complexities of SFB internal energy management, sticking with the more simplified SF/SE assumption that (aside from ordnance &amp; weapon cycle times) everything in the ship can be run simultaneously at full bore. You could track shields &amp; armor by the hex side they face and determine weapon firing arcs by the side they face and how much extra $/hull space you spend on a mount with a bigger arc. A 2D system that eliminates the issues of SEIV combat is very doable...

Not to say that I dislike the SEV system, just that it wasn't the only way to skin the cat...

[Captain Kwok]

Ragnarok-X said:Sorry Kwok, but that argument is a bit weird, dont you think ? To be exact, i would prefer the old system over the new. I for one cant call the current system an improvment. That is the worst ground combat, ever. I was hoping for something similar to MoO 2, and now we get a C&amp;C -clone which additionally appears to be the ancestor of C&amp;C 1

I'm not saying that it isn't ugly - but it is certainly an improvement in gameplay terms. Factors like speed, range, reload times, armor, and shields are all involved. Heck if you're using strategic combat then it's not much different that SE:IV ground combat but with advantages of the items I mentioned.

Thermodyne, I see your points about UI etc. I don't see how strategy was traded for eye candy though. By my experience, there's more strategy involved with SE:V...

[aegisx]

I didn't really like the SE4 UI, but I only played the game 5 years after it was released. On the other hand, I like the SE5 UI which seems more intuitive to me, just another viewpoint.

As far as strategy, I agree with kwok in that it there seems to be more but there is a 3d layer on top of it.

[Xrati]

I agree with Kana, I'm not very fond of REAL-TIME combat. In multi-ship combats the advantage always goes to the computer as it will give and process orders much faster then I can. If I wanted real time then I would purchase a ‘first person’ action game. I want to be able to sit and drink my coffee while doing combat or be able to pause the action (which never seems to be an option with real time) when something comes up in the middle of combat. The only way to determine if your ship designs are good is to run them in battle where you can see what is taking place and the results of the battle as they happen.

I will wait to hear the reviews on this board before I decide to purchase SEV. I’m not interested in a game that will be corrected after it’s released. I would rather purchase a functioning game out of the box and patch it later to improve it, but if the game is not similar to SEIV and what’s new is what doesn’t work, then MM missed the point of releasing the game.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

[Barnacle Bill]

Xrati said:
I want to be able to sit and drink my coffee while doing combat or be able to pause the action (which never seems to be an option with real time) when something comes up in the middle of combat.



SEV combat is pausable.

[AAshbery76]

You can slow the real time combat down to a crawl if you want too,you don't have to pause,there are multiple speeds.

[Q]

Xrati did you try the demo?
I seems that you got a completely wrong idea about the real time combat in SE V: you can stop whenever you want and take all the time you want.

[Phoenix-D]

SE5 combat is pauseable, you can set it to AUTO pause after running for a certain number of seconds, and you can slow it down to 1/8 speed on top of that.

Plenty of time to do whatever's needed.

[arthurtuxedo]

Personally, I don't even give commands in combat. I just sit back and watch the battle unfold, and only intercede when my ships do something really braindead.


Barnacle Bill said:

arthurtuxedo said:
You could have had a real time system with 2D, sure, but the ships wouldn't be able to pass over and under each other and planets, and I can't imagine how it would have worked with a lot of ships if they can't occupy the same square.




Why couldn't they occupy the same square? They can in board games like Starfire &amp; Starfleet Battles? It's called "stacking". It happens on the system map now (and in SEIV and in SEIII). The above games had "range 0" entries on the CRT and SFB had rules for determining weapon direction at range 0 (since it had directional weapons &amp; shields). A set of rules that can be written for a board game could certainly be programmed for a computer game.

In fact, with location quantized to a grid (hex is better, but still true for squares), the SFB proportional movement / pre-ordered movement system effectively is real-time. I can envision an almost direct real-time port of the SFB system, with the player able to pause at any impulse to change movement orders (subject to turn mode) or fire weapons that bear &amp; are charged, and the computer just stepping through the impulses. You would not have to take the complexities of SFB internal energy management, sticking with the more simplified SF/SE assumption that (aside from ordnance &amp; weapon cycle times) everything in the ship can be run simultaneously at full bore. You could track shields &amp; armor by the hex side they face and determine weapon firing arcs by the side they face and how much extra $/hull space you spend on a mount with a bigger arc. A 2D system that eliminates the issues of SEIV combat is very doable...

Not to say that I dislike the SEV system, just that it wasn't the only way to skin the cat...


You're correct that it could have been done with 2D, but it would have been much more difficult to keep track of and had a more complex set of rules that would be harder for players to learn. SE combat has always been simple, and necessarily so given the huge number of ships on each side that might have been fighting it out. I shudder to think of trying to figure out what was happening in a real-time 500 ship furball when any ship that enters the same square as another becomes a 'stack', or to try and give orders to those ships.

[Barnacle Bill]

arthurtuxedo said:
I shudder to think of trying to figure out what was happening in a real-time 500 ship furball



I wouldn't want to do that in 3D or 2D, real-time or turn-based. Playability with that many ships in a battle mandates giving orders by multi-ship formation to reduce the number "units" the player has to keep track of individually. In a computerized game, that is completely feasible with the type of 2D proportional movement system I described.

[President_Elect_Shang]

So many bugs, UI lost me totally; I wasn't even sure if this was SE or a cheap knock-off by a no-name company. I will wait to see if later patches clean it up. Presently there is no way I would spend my money on a game that comes across as a cheap attempt at mass market appeal which has fallen way short.

This sort of reminds me of Metallica with their drive towards mass market appeal. They have a few good songs in the present but the past was clearly superior.

[Fyron]

Xrati said:
I’m not interested in a game that will be corrected after it’s released. I would rather purchase a functioning game out of the box and patch it later to improve it...

But you purchased SE4? It required several post-release patches to be "corrected" and functioning well. It's demo was extremely buggy too. Aaron has never veered from the industry standard of "release now, patch later." He just puts out more in patches than many developers do.

...which never seems to be an option with real time...

Actually, pausability is a feature in a lot of real time strategy games. It isn't used much in Warcraft clones, but the better RTS games do use it.

BarnacleBill:
Sure, you could have some complex turn-based initiative system. But consider that continuous time is, in fact, the ultimate extension of phased initiative systems; each "phase" lasts milliseconds. The amount of action taken during each phase is miniscule, since we can't follow milliseconds of execution, but it is still there. During each step, every ship gets a chance to act; it is somewhat abstracted away, of course, which is a good thing. The more complex turn-based initiative systems tend to be a chore to play, not too much fun. Something simple like Moo2 (with 1.31 patch) could have worked, but why stop with such a limited system?

[Barnacle Bill]

Imperator Fyron said:
But consider that continuous time is, in fact, the ultimate extension of phased initiative systems; each "phase" lasts milliseconds.



Agreed. As the resolution of the grid gets greater and the time increment represented by an impulse gets shorter, you arrive at "real-time".


Imperator Fyron said:
The more complex turn-based initiative systems tend to be a chore to play, not too much fun.



I don't know about that. Too many people have been playing too much SFB for too many years (~30 now) for that charge to stick. The big problem with it is that the level of detail is too great to represent large fleet actions as required for most 4Xers. However, just taking its impulse movement concept doesn't require the taking the rest of it. The root of it is an "impulse" is just a mini-turn, and instead of differentiating by speed how many hexes/squares you move per "turn" it differentiates by speed how many "turns" you have to wait between moves. That eliminates the "missile dance". The other aspect of it was that you pre-plot your moves for the turn (in this case turn referring to a fixed number of impulses, not an individual impulse). Adapted to reducing micromanagement in a computerized version, this could just mean ordering a speed and end point for the formation, which in essense is how the move orders in SEV's tactical combat system work now. That could be combined a la "Steel Panthers" with the possibility to give weapon firing orders by range for individual weapons. Toss in a little more computerized intelligence and you could just order a formation to close to a certain range on a designated enemy formation and engage it with a certain weapon. It can be done in "real-time" or proportional turn-based, 2D or 3D - doesn't matter.


Imperator Fyron said:
Something simple like Moo2 (with 1.31 patch) could have worked, but why stop with such a limited system?




Certainly I would not consider the MOO2 system ideal. However, MOO evolved from a grand-strategic 4X board game in which combat was just a die rolling excercise (no tactical movement). SE evolved from a tactical space combat board game that acquired a 4X grand-strategic outer game only after establishing itself as a successful tactical gaming franchise (the first strategic rules for it were the second expansion product). So, one would expect more in the way of a tactical game from a new SE than from a new MOO (at least I would).

[Fyron]

SFB is not a computer game though. It requires a fair bit of dedication to play. All that pre-plotting stuff sounds fairly tedious, to me. In a "board game" setting, it can't be avoided if you want a decent system. With a computer game, we don't need to have overly complex initiative systems when there are easier (for the players) ways. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Xrati]

I'm sorry Q, didn't try the demo. I was under the impression that it was your normal REAL TIME combat. I will eventually try the demo when I get time at work as I have dial-up and really don't want to download all night. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif I apologize for the misunderstanding. The only real time game I’ve played that I enjoyed was Breach 3, where you could pause the game, issue orders and then continue the combat, and even then some of the units would still do what they wanted (part of the game mechanics). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Maybe with that being said and more revelations everyday the game will turn out to be good, in a NEW sort of way! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Xrati]

Fyron, I actually purchased SEIV after the release of some of the first patches. I am happy to wait for the same in SEV. I'm not in a hurry! I'm still playing SEIV and I am getting ready to play test AT's STMod1942. I finally finished DL'ing all the new files.

You cannot compare SFB to SE series. SFB is a complex board game that attracts 'rules lawyers' as the rules tend to be vague in areas or interpreted incorrectly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I have no doubt that SEV will be brought to a very playable state. The only question is how long will it take and will the true SEIV player finally accept the NEW game for what it is, "change."

[Barnacle Bill]

Imperator Fyron said:
SFB is not a computer game though. It requires a fair bit of dedication to play. All that pre-plotting stuff sounds fairly tedious, to me. In a "board game" setting, it can't be avoided if you want a decent system. With a computer game, we don't need to have overly complex initiative systems when there are easier (for the players) ways. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



With the computer doing the record-keeping, a lot of the complexity goes out the window. The "Move to" order in SEV tactical is conceptually identical to how pre-plotting would be done.

[Barnacle Bill]

Xrati said:
You cannot compare SFB to SE series. SFB is a complex board game that attracts 'rules lawyers' as the rules tend to be vague in areas or interpreted incorrectly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif




Another issue that goes away in a computer implimentation, since the "rules" are the program code and can't be lawyered.

[Kana]

Well there is a computerized version of SFB, its called Star Fleet Command. It is bascially an RTS tactical engine, on top of a hex-based strategic engine. Sound familiar? It was programmed with a majority of the SFB rules, except that instead of turns, they used time. Again sound familiar? While I enjoyed it, especially if you slowed down the timer (again familiar), it still in the end wasnt the SFB you play on a table top.

As for RTS 'tactical' games I like, the Combat Mission series, is by far the best. You basically have paused real time turns. You give orders to your troops, and then you press end turn, computer or other player puts in their orders, then they end turn. At that point the turn runs for 1 min. During that minute all you can do is watch what happens in shear terror, hoping all goes your way. Rinse, wash, repeat. Again this sounds vaguely familar. The problem that now lies with SEV for me, is that with the scope of the number of ships, and units available in 'tactical' combat, plus with bascially a poor interface, makes an unenjoyable 'tactical' experience. I for the most part will be playin simo games anyway, because of PBW, or PBC, and in single player, because it tends to be more fair to the computer and vice versa...

So basically the graphical combat engine is just an over glorified 3d movie of combat results.

[Captain Kwok]

I don't see how it is over-glorified. Aside from the fact it does serve a functional purpose, it just uses 3d models of ships rather than 2d renders or 2d sprites - which by the way are just as time consuming to make as 3d models or to set up effects with...

[Suicide Junkie]

Se5 tactical is paused real time turns if you want it to be...

[Kana]

Well I started with SE3, and loved it. Got SE4, hated it initially, but grew to love it. I dont hate SE5 all that much, and the UI complaints are really minor, it didn't take me long to figure out many of the little tricks on my own, without any beta tester help.

Certainly most of my complaints with SE5, have to do with gameplay issues more than anything else, and I'm sure they will be either corrected, or modified in the future. Or I will just come to except them. Like I did for SEIV.

[Caduceus]

I agree with Kana. I too started with SE3, got SE4 and hated the changes initially. I am growing to like SE5.

[Thermodyne]

Well after quite a few hours of playing, I still have some doubts. I have yet to complete a game with out a memory error crash, so my observations are all from less than 50 turns in.

I find that the more eye candy I turn off, the less cluttered the UI feels. Big displays with 1400 settings helps too.
I also find that this game seems to want to be driven from the key board, way to many extra clicks in the mouse controls. It would be nice if the mouse’ing was cleaned up.
The way the game reports events is a disaster, nuff said. I really hope they fix this. I really do. Before they release the game. Seriously this needs to be fixed.
And while I have yet to get far enough along to have a large empire and fleet, I suspect that it will be somewhat more difficult to manage it.

Early on, most of the changes I have experienced are eye candy and FPS stuff. I can’t really say that I have found many improvements to the strategy part of the game. The UI seems to go out of its way to be less than useful. And there seem to be windows that are redundant, asking questions that could be answered in the next window. I also find that many of the windows are too much candy and too little information. I have yet to encounter an AI anywhere near as smart as a TDM-AI. And some are back to SE4 demodumbness. IIRC the SE4demo AI’s would also send ships through the warp points one at a time even after they knew the WP was defended by a fleet.

I have done some runs on several different systems, and so far all work equally well up to a point. (Same Memory exception on all three) I’ll give it a run on Vista next, and the perhaps XP64.

All in all the game is playable and being new, it holds my interest. Let’s hope for a demo patch in the near future.

[Phoenix-D]

Perspective is always amusing. Just read a GalCiv's player account of the SE series- SEIV unmodded, I think.

Remember how we always complain about the AI being too easy? He was complaining that on easy mode it "ruined MP games by going on a rampage and taking out a couple players".

[Thermodyne]

I give up! Damn Access Violations are just too numerous to bother trying to continue. Every time I get a little infrastructure going and start to move on an AI, I get an AV error.

Maybe I’ll drag out an old system and see if it does better with less resources to abuse.


On another front, the Game runs on Vista. I had some issues with the 7800 video driver, it over fills the monitor and prevents mouse access to the window edges. I had to use the default driver and safe mode on the memory. I haven’t played it enough yet to see what kind of errors pop up.

[Captain Kwok]

The demo will be updated when the game is released, so that should help with the bugginess of the current demo.

[Noble713]

I'm always surprised reading about crashes, graphical glitches, and show-stopping bugs. I haven't had a single problem at all. *shrugs*

[Kamog]

You are very lucky! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Kana]

No problems here either...

[Q]

With the exception of game crashes with combats involvolving large number of top technology fighter I had no technical problems either.

[Barnacle Bill]

Kana said:
Well there is a computerized version of SFB, its called Star Fleet Command. It is bascially an RTS tactical engine, on top of a hex-based strategic engine. Sound familiar? It was programmed with a majority of the SFB rules, except that instead of turns, they used time. Again sound familiar? While I enjoyed it, especially if you slowed down the timer (again familiar), it still in the end wasnt the SFB you play on a table top.



I played it, too. You are right - it wasn't really a computer SFB but a computer game based on SFB material - because of the RTS combat. It kind of illustrates the point I'm trying to make, though. A clever TBS implimentation of SFB on the computer could have eliminated much of the tedium &amp; speeded game play without changing it into an entirely different game. Similarly the issues with SEIV combat could have been resolved without going RTS - via a clever implimentation of a SFB-like proportional movement system and the ability to order formations to procede to a designated location (vs a click-fest of moving it individual hex by individual hex).

[Xrati]

Ah, Yes! I think they used to call it Strategy? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Thermodyne]

Noble713 said:
I'm always surprised reading about crashes, graphical glitches, and show-stopping bugs. I haven't had a single problem at all. *shrugs*



What environment are you running it under?

System specs

Video card and driver version

[Thermodyne]

Q said:
With the exception of game crashes with combats involvolving large number of top technology fighter I had no technical problems either.



Same question for you, what environment are you running it under?

System specs

Video card and driver version


I’ve tried it on three systems now and get the same memory errors on the two XP systems, and a lock up on the Vista system. The Vista problems seem to be Video driver of DX related, but on the XP systems it looks like sloppy code. I’m thinking that I might try it on an old 845 Intel system and see how it does there.

[Q]

Athlon 64 3400+, 512 MB RAM, Nividia GeForce FX 5500.
And your little gadget knows already that I have Windows XP (home edition). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
I just have the usual automated updates for Windows XP.
And I use the video memory usage on "auto" in the SE V setup.
I never cared about the graphic card driver until now, but it says it is version 6.1.7.2.

[Thermodyne]

Q said:

And your little gadget knows already that I have Windows XP (home edition). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif




LOL the little gadget is for your enjoyment only. It exists only in your mind, well actually on your computer. No one else sees the info besides you.

[Noble713]

Thermodyne said:
What environment are you running it under?
System specs
Video card and driver version



Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2
Asus Pentium-4 2.8GHz motherboard
1 GB of RAM
NVidia Geforce 6200 OC 256MB AGP graphics card
-drivers version 6.14.10.9131 (I think)
-Forceware (??) version 91.31
DirectX 9.0c
SiS on-board sound chip (piece of crap)
30GB and 120GB hard drives
plus CD burner, DVD burner, joystick, and pimptastic case with extra fans and flashy LEDs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

I used to keep up with the various Windows Automatic Updates until a few months ago, when it tried to install some "anti-piracy" junk. I had to do a System Restore to get rid of it, and have since turned the Auto-Update off.

[Santiago]

I'd post over at Strategy First but the site fails again to recognize my login and its just too slow.

Anyway, I have tried the demo on 3 pc's. I know I'm not the only one who's been having crashes, turns that lock-up on processing, access violations, range errors etc. Never actually made a full 100 turns yet.

2 have ATI Radeon and one is intel based graphics. None of the pc's have ever had problems playing any game, even online games.

I can't quite put my finger on it. But the game in most areas does not quite seem as responsive as it should be.
If it was an online game, its almost like lag or memory leak issues.

I just hope that with release upon us, and most people worrying about mods and how the game works, that just being able to play the game is a big issue that I hope is being looked into and not put on a back burner.

[Devnullicus]

I'm with Thermodyne - I get a lot of crashes as well with the demo.

[Thermodyne]

Well I hear some peeps down under have the full game, we’ll just have to wait and see what their early reports are.

[Elsemeravin]

Don't you think that when comparing early stock SEIV (without patches) and "stock" SEV (demo...) and then checking current SEIV with mods, you can dream about what SEV will become.

On my list of impossible-to-do modding wishes from SEIV, I expect more than 70% to be done without problems from what I see in the data files. I guess more will become available latter on (like sensors types :p)

So for me SEV is going straight into the right direction with more potential than SEIV had.

Of course if I would compare current SEIV with adamant mod and SEV demo ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif