What everyone hated about SE:IV

[Caduceus]

Griping about the new version is nothing new. These are threads from six years ago, on the eve of and just after SE:IV release:
Reference A (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=209463&page=508&view=coll apsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Reference B (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=209559&page=507&view=coll apsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Reference C (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB23&Number=209910&page=5 06&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)


Reference D (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=212297&page=493&view=coll apsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Anyway, you get the idea. The community is bigger than ever and we don't even have the full game in our hands yet.

[Phoenix-D]

On the other hand, we've still got some issues from SEIII that need addressing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[PvK]

Ya, good point. As I wrote somewhere else, I wasn't really satisfied with SE4 until the SE4 Gold. And I'm still think the stock unmodded data is far inferior to many mods (even simple ones that just fix some of the more glaring balance issues).

PvK

[Ragnarok-X]

Then again, some things cant be fixed by mods.

[Artaud]

Ragnarok-X said:
Then again, some things cant be fixed by mods.



Quite true. I think also that one should not have to rely on a mod to "fix" certain things.

Which is why I won't be buying SEV any time soon.

[Xrati]

You can never please all of the people all of the time. With that in mind just keep an open mind on SEV, after all the original reviews on Star Wars in the opening days, had it as a Good Guys vs Bad Guys movie, nothing more. It turned out to be a lot more!

[Suicide Junkie]

People should also *not* chain themselves to "stock" unnessesarily. Its not like stock is the bible or anything.

Maybe Aaron intentionally made it weak to encourage people to customize the game? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ragnarok-X]

Just to get this straight, mods were one of the best things in computergame history to be developed, and comparing SEIV stock to stuff like Adamant or Devnull (+++) defintly adds a lot of playability. However, i think its quite to be forced to use mods in order to enjoy something. Mods should add a new twist, new flair to a game.

I for one am definily open-minded regarding mods, but face it, you cant mod a "broken" interface, nor can you change certain things. You can only change what is allowed to change, and that would be datafiles.

[Suicide Junkie]

Which is exactly why I don't care to bug Aaron about stock too much.
Let Aaron work on the things that only he can fix, and leave the actual datafiles to us.

If only he'd let us write "stock"...

[Tim_Ward]

If only he'd let us write "stock"...



Not a bad idea.

Seriously, maybe it's time for Aaron to employ a few guys...

[Possum]

Caduceus said:
Griping about the new version is nothing new. These are threads from six years ago, on the eve of and just after SE:IV release:
Reference A (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=209463&page=508&view=coll apsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Reference B (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=209559&page=507&view=coll apsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Reference C (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB23&Number=209910&page=5 06&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)


Reference D (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=212297&page=493&view=coll apsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Anyway, you get the idea. The community is bigger than ever and we don't even have the full game in our hands yet.



Right, by the numbers.

A and B are quibbling about gameplay details.

C is about GOLD, not the SE4 launch.

D is *****ing about the AI.

Nowhere in any of those threads is anybody saying "The UI sucks. It's too clumsy, clunky and click-intensive. The ship design is needlessly complex and click-intensive; there is no reason at all to have multiple decks in the ship design screen, none."

Yet those are exactly the things we are saying about SE5.

[Tim_Ward]

"A and B are quibbling about gameplay details...

Nowhere in any of those threads is anybody saying "The UI sucks. It's too clumsy, clunky and click-intensive. The ship design is needlessly complex and click-intensive; there is no reason at all to have multiple decks in the ship design screen, none."



B is called "4 UI improvements to SE IV I would like to see".

[Suicide Junkie]

Those are still pretty minor UI complaints... particularily by comparison.

[Caduceus]

Possum said:
Nowhere in any of those threads is anybody saying "The UI sucks. It's too clumsy, clunky and click-intensive. The ship design is needlessly complex and click-intensive; there is no reason at all to have multiple decks in the ship design screen, none."




I'm sure I can find a post that discusses SE:IV UI and how everybody hated it at first (I know I did).

Honestly, in six months you'll be hopeleslly addicted to SE:V. Just like me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Artaud]

Suicide Junkie said:
If only he'd let us write "stock"...



I agree. The one-man development shop thing can only do so much. Development by committee is also not good, but many of the issues being brought up here as SEV "negatives" appear to have been brought up by the beta testers to Aaron. For whatever reason, he did not or could not act upon their suggestions.

Most of the things I see being brought up as "bugs" or irritants are really things that are rather obvious.

[Kamog]

Those were the good old days. When the first version 0.51 demo for SEIV came out, the A.I.'s were very weak and they didn't create fleets, so ships came through warp points one by one and attacked one by one. It was too easy to beat the A.I.'s and it quickly got boring.

SEV will be fixed and improved over time, just like SEIV did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Patience is a virtue,
Posses it if you can.
Seldom found in a woman,
And (Almost) never in a man.

[Mephisto]

Caduceus said:
I'm sure I can find a post that discusses SE:IV UI and how everybody hated it at first (I know I did).

Honestly, in six months you'll be hopeleslly addicted to SE:V. Just like me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



I hope so but I use the UI for over a year now and I didn't get over it yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Artaud]

I didn't hate the SEIV UI.

[Sivran]

Nowhere in any of those threads is anybody saying "The UI sucks. It's too clumsy, clunky and click-intensive. The ship design is needlessly complex and click-intensive; there is no reason at all to have multiple decks in the ship design screen, none."



I LIKE the multiple decks!

[Artaud]

Sivran said:I LIKE the multiple decks!



I don't mind the multiple decks, but I wonder what purpose they serve. I think "inner" and "outer" layers for your hulls are a good idea, but multiple decks? Is that a "feature" anybody asked for?

[Captain Kwok]

Artaud said:I don't mind the multiple decks, but I wonder what purpose they serve. I think "inner" and "outer" layers for your hulls are a good idea, but multiple decks? Is that a "feature" anybody asked for?

It's been mentioned many times that they are there for the extra slots - which in some cases are necessary for certain ship shapes or sizes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif

[Noble713]

I like the idea of multiple decks, but I think there should be more control over which ships have them and which don't. Frigates, destroyers and all units should have one deck, cruisers 2, battleships 3, etc....

[tmcc]

Regarding multiple decks it is fine as long as you can change them while having a component selected.

As far as the UI goes I hated SEIV at first as I was addicted to SEIII. The UI was improved over time to add lots of the features that were being requested. I would prefer that Aaron fix bugs and things like targeting and firing algorithms first and then focus on UI and feature adds. Let the modders fix the AI and adjust components and ships appropriately. This formula worked quite well in SEIV to the point that I consider it to be the best 4x ever.

Like six years ago there are things about SEV that really bug me today, units that don't stack, can't upgrade more than one ship at a time, lot's of extra clicks here and there, etc. etc. I have faith that over time SEV will be every bit as awesome as SEIV has been

[Kamog]

If all the components don't fit on one deck, I usually put all the engines on the bottom deck, the shields and weapons on the middle deck and the bridge, life support, crew quarters, sensors and everything else on the top deck. Just to keep things organized.

[Devnullicus]

Tim_Ward said:

If only he'd let us write "stock"...



Not a bad idea.

Seriously, maybe it's time for Aaron to employ a few guys...



Heh, if Aaron wanted to do some short-term contract outsourcing, I'd be happy to make some "stock" data files for SE5. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Hmmm, then again, my employer might have some issues with that since I already make computer games for a living. On the other hand, I suspect that if the opportunity arose, I could definitely talk my company into looking the other way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

And, of course, if he wanted a programming partner for SE6, well... hey, I can't imagine many other games I'd rather work on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif But I have a feeling that Aaron likes working alone. And I have to say I don't blame him! Making a game as a labor of love is very different than churning out games in teams of 100+ people!

[Atrocities]

What do I hate about SEIV?

1. The political system stinks.
2. No way to limit a component or facility to 1 per empire.
3. Intel is broken
4. No hero system
5. Limited AI ability
6. AI that doesn't follow the rules. (one per vehicle and the AI puts on two or more.)
7. No 3d planets.
8. Ugly limited 2d top down views that don't allow for scale of ship sizes.
9. No way to rename systems or insure that your going to start in the system you want unless you use the map editor.
10. The map editor is tedious and annoying.

[Glyn]

Atrocities, In #7 what do you mean by "No 3d planets"?
I assume your not talking about the planet objects in the system view.

[Noble713]

Atrocities said:

2. No way to limit a component or facility to 1 per empire.




Do we have this ability in SE5 now?

[MasterChiToes]

One thing that I hated about SEIV was that stars were created from empty space, and not nebulae... nebulae should come from exploded stars and stars should come from collapsed nebulae...

and what was with only being able to create one star per system? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

MasterChiToes said:
One thing that I hated about SEIV was that stars were created from empty space, and not nebulae... nebulae should come from exploded stars and stars should come from collapsed nebulae...

and what was with only being able to create one star per system? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Yes, this is one of the areas where realism would not hurt game play. Blowing up stars should always create a nebula. There is no need for the 'special' create nebula device. And when you 'destroy' a black hole it could also leave a nebula, since all the material trapped in that black hole has to go somewhere when it 'collapses'...

A slight adjustment of the mechanics of 'stellar manipulation' would contribute quite a bit to the believability of the game.

The reason for the restriction of one star per system was to keep people from filling a system solid with ringworlds or sphereworlds. While it's not very 'logical' to have an arbitrary limit you need to draw the line somwhere just as a practical matter. I'd actually be in favor of some further 'megascale' technology to make more than one star in a system. There is always room for one more god-like technology. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[MasterChiToes]

Baron Munchausen said:
The reason for the restriction of one star per system was to keep people from filling a system solid with ringworlds or sphereworlds. While it's not very 'logical' to have an arbitrary limit you need to draw the line somwhere just as a practical matter. I'd actually be in favor of some further 'megascale' technology to make more than one star in a system. There is always room for one more god-like technology. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


If the ring worlds and sphere worlds are as large (hex-wise) as they've been rumored to be, then the one star limit seems moot.
If stars were made from nebulae, then there would be a natural limit... even if detonating a star in a multistar system only destroyed one star and left a nebulae.

(I also always wanted to destroy small planets, add some megascale tech pieces, and then create a larger planet)