Things we'd like to see in the next patch [Archive]

Elowan

August 21st, 2002, 10:41 PM

My thoughts:

1) ability to save default game settings for subsequent single-player games --
a) racial points
b) system: good, average, number of planets, etc

2) don't show un-researched ship designs from previous games in design list or gray them out.
a) perhaps able to toggle them on or off

3) option to save upgraded designs under same name if not in build queue or already built
a) as we now can with Edits. This would allow an upgraded edit without having to strip out all the 'obsolete' stuff

4) for those of us compulsives who name each ship - a drop-down list of names when the Name button is clicked on
a) read from shipname.txt list

More at 11. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Lemmy

August 21st, 2002, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Elowan:
My thoughts:

1) ability to save default game settings for subsequent single-player games oh yeah, definitely nned that one, it's soooo annoying that when you make a bad start, you have set all the settings again.

Deathstalker

August 21st, 2002, 11:02 PM

I'd like more 'Mount Options' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Like: 1) Ability to affect Armor Regen, Emissive Armor ability,
2) Add different types of damage (quad shield, boarding parties only, etc) so the weapon does normal damage as well as the new type.
3) Rate of Fire (mounts that add/subtract to it)
4) Engine speed (ie, maybe add a 'Combat Movement' option)

Other stuff:

Line in the 'Anger.txt' so that races could be naturally 'hateful' of differnt races. (ie, race A always hates race B)

'Saved' game options (ie, points etc) so you can start a game without massive set up every time.

Elowan

August 21st, 2002, 11:31 PM

More ...

5) external build queue files so that they don't disappear when you start a new game along with editable names of the queues.

6) ability to rename/edit Waypoint names without them disappearing when the Rename button is clicked.

overminder

August 21st, 2002, 11:43 PM

About the racial hate. You are talking about just in Mods right? It's kinda hard to have a hate against someone you never seen before as the stander game seems to show. Just my two cents of course.

Puke

August 21st, 2002, 11:53 PM

no, out of game too. i personally oppress every Texruk i meet. I say "hey, tuskey, why dont you go chew some cud out in that medow, like the rest of your flea-bitten kind!"

and they say, "hey, thats a good idea. thanks!"

and when i work with one, i make sure it keeps under the glass ceiling. "sorry, pal. xenomorphs aint allowed to be employed here above a mailroom level. and stop chewing on that evelope. and creatures with MORE THAN ONE STOMACH are not allowed to participate at the buffet line!"

Pax

August 21st, 2002, 11:56 PM

1.)UI change of build queues to mirror/mimick the UI of Research Projects and Intel Projects; this would include
... one, tracking roll-over from one "build project" to another;
... two, allowing a "distribute evenly" WRT that queue's Rate limits, permitting simultaneous build of multiple items;
... three, would unify the mechancis and feel of the three "queue" type UI points.

2.) As stated earlier in ths thread, the ability to affect Rate Of Fire in weapons.

3.) NEGATIVE shield regeneration -- so we could, for example, make shield components which produce HUGE shields for their size (11 shield hp per kT of component, say), but, which will eventually burn out themselves and the entire rest of thats hip's shield network, in a few turns. EXAMPLE: a 100kT "Hyper Shield Generator" which produces 10,000 shield points, and "self-depletes" at 2500 points per round. Without weapons fire, and without supplemental sources of shield regeneration ... in four turns, *pffft* no shields. With ~3000 points of weapons fire, the shield s will fail partway through the seocnd round's portion of incoming fire.

4.) Ship and Base components that produce Research and Intel points, given directly to the Empire-wide stockpile -- or at least, the option to MOD for them.

5.) Base components that allow bases to act, in a limited way, like Resupply Bases -- say, a certain # of ships, and/or a certain limit of supplies produced each turn (for handling fleets). Since we apparently cannot pop ships into a fleet with the Base any more v1.78 and later ...

6.) The ability to mod-create components, or mounts, which expand SYS' build rates, and counterpart facilities for planets. IOW, if I want to double or treble the physical size of my spaceyard, I should be able to do so, and see -some- return on the investment. Doesn't have to produce another Queue for the ship or planet ... just more CAPACITY for the sole queue of the spaceyard-capable ship or planet.

7.) The ability to create components that give build capacity to a Ship, but do NOT include full spaceyard capacity. JUST UNITS. Thus oen might be able to build a large ship that builds sattelites, and ONLY sattelites, and then directly deploys them. Or mines. Or Weapon Platforms, and delivers them. And so on, while NOT orbiting a planet and UNABLE to build *ships* (making the component cheaper, and probably SMALLER).

Arkcon

August 22nd, 2002, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by overminder:
About the racial hate. You are talking about just in Mods right? It's kinda hard to have a hate against someone you never seen before as the stander game seems to show. Just my two cents of course.In the default game, the description for the Eee say that they hate the Drushoka. The reason given is because the Eee are an energy race and the Drushoka use energy draining weapons and the Eee are frightened by them.

Problems:
1). Like you said everyone is just starting to explore space and shouldn't have met as yet

2). The Drushoka don't use energy draining weapons, their weapon choice seems to be going as fast as they can for High Energy Weapons. There aren't even energy draining weapons in the game. Well, shield depleters, but they don't kill the Eee.

3). IMHO, people(dinosaurs,crystal shards,organic energy blobs) ought to be able to get along if circumstances warrant. If they're losing the war, met a worse opponent.

4). The AI often gets mad and declares war anyway. The goal I guess is to prevent the Eee and Drushoka from ever having better then nonintercourse treaty or something

Seems to me the fastest way to fix this "bug" would be to remove text from the description.

Once in a while, someone reads the self destruct description "Overloads engines to destroy ship and boarding ship". Then, dutifully destroys the engines, trys to board, and gets blown up. And wnat's to know what they did wrong.

Another text block fix the game needs.

Lemmy

August 22nd, 2002, 12:08 AM

enforced racial requirements and restrictions in RacialTraits.txt

Puke

August 22nd, 2002, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Lemmy:
enforced racial requirements and restrictions in RacialTraits.txtyeah.

Makinus

August 22nd, 2002, 12:23 AM

My two cents:

1) an AI that recognizes more types of colonies (it only recongnizes the default ones)so we can edit the AI files so the AI use better the planets that it colonizes... (could be optional).

2) re-activate the Restricions field in the facilities .txt files, so we can set facilities dependent of population, that some "bigger" facilities (like Space Yards) can only be constructed in higly populated planets... (could be optional also).

Makinus

dogscoff

August 22nd, 2002, 12:24 AM

whhel mouse support (just to shut everyone else up=-)

Alter route finding to auto-divert ships and fleets to resupply depot if they can do so at no extra movement cost.

Baron Munchausen

August 22nd, 2002, 12:38 AM

I think there's a difference between most wanted and most needed additions to the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Most wanted is probably new features and abilities. The 'exploding' component that does additional damage when destroyed is a good example. Discussed but never implemented. Also, planetary cloaks, planetary engines, warp gates, research/intel generation from components (for nomads), restore the ability to colonize asteroids (like SE III), restore the chlorine atmosphere type, more political functions like a 'capital' facility and some real need for it to control your empire... the list is endless. MM will have no trouble at all coming up with ambitious ideas for SE V! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Most needed is a bit different, although many of the most needed features are also wanted. We really, really need those 'arbitary' ability tags for components so people can stop using facility or stellar abilities just to foolthe AI into doing what they want in ship design. We also really need an ability for the AI to make 'either-or' choices in ship design (either a Quantum Reactor OR a Solar Panel, but NOT BOTH!) in misc. abilities. Currently the only 'hierarchical' choices the AI can make are for weapons. We need more options for the AI to use in choosing how to colonize planets and how to construct it's colonies once it has founded them. And it needs to 'rethink' it's colony types once in a while and be able to CHANGE the type of a colony if it would be really helpful to do so. Some sort of controls to influence the policy of the Intelligence Minister would go a long way towards making AI intel usage actually make sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And some way to specify how many ships of what type go into a fleet, especially if it understood more than just 'attack' and 'defense' fleets, would help make the AI more effective strategically. In short, the AI needs LOTS more options to make it more sophisticated. The AI is the weakest part of the game at present.

[ August 21, 2002, 23:40: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Ragnarok

August 22nd, 2002, 01:13 AM

"1.)UI change of build queues to mirror/mimick the UI of Research Projects and Intel Projects; this would include
... two, allowing a "distribute evenly" WRT that queue's Rate limits, permitting simultaneous build of multiple items"

This idea I like. Also to go along with this idea is to make the Space Yard facility sort of like Repair Bays. What I mean by this is Repair Bays have a set amount of how many components it can repair per turn. Maximum of 8 if I'm not mistaken. It'd be nice if the Space Yard facilities were like this. So for instance: Space Yard I would have a maximum of one ship being worked on per turn. Space Yard II would be three, Space Yard III would be five. Temperal Space Yards would have something along the lines of: I = 2 ships, II = 5 ships, and III would be able to work on 8 ships per turn.
Then as was in the other idea be able to devide points evenly or all in one ship. This is just what I'd like to see.

"Restore the ability to colonize asteroids (like SE III)"

I like this idea as well. I didn't play SEIII, but this was the case in SEII. But if it was added again make it so you can't build facilities to the asteroid fields. But only be able to put like a few robot miners there. It could be made so it could be a facility but only asteroids could be able to build them and that's the ONLY facilities it could build. Don't know how hard this would be to add but would be interesting to see.

jimbob

August 22nd, 2002, 01:45 AM

If we go back to the poll I did a fairly long time ago (and then after doing all that work never forwarded it to MM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ), a good 13% of votes (of 205 total) were for less predictability as to where the satelites are when combat happens (opinions ranged from randomly place at one of the corners around the planet to actual orbital movement).

And 9% voted for mouse wheel support.

I think these should be included in the next patch.

It was nice to see that many of the community's wants were included in 1.78. The number of possibilities with the mounts is quite impressive (yah MM!)

[ August 22, 2002, 00:46: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Puke

August 22nd, 2002, 01:45 AM

i dunno. i dont think that i would go about italicizing want and need like they are some kind of absolute truth. i think your needs are about as important as many of other peoples wants, in the grand scheme of things.

to me, they are infinetly less important: i dont play against the AI.

the only thing the game "needs" are bug fixes. and i have not noticed any since the Last few patches. actually scratch that, i never checked if the UI bug i noticed with gold regarding drone cargo moving was fixed. and i may or may not have found a bug with ships tracking targets that cloak after they are ordered to intercept them. DocShane wont tell me.

tbontob

August 22nd, 2002, 02:24 AM

My suggestions would also ask MM to focus on the human/computer interface to make things easier for us.

1) Make the windows resizable and moveable.
2) In the Ship/Units menu (F6), list the ships under the fleet name.
3) For something really innovative (and possibly difficult to program), allow us to create our own style of window by permitting us to add or remove components of the windows. I frequently find myself switching between windows to a) find the information I need and then b) to implement the changes I want based on the information found in the other window.
4) If 3) above is difficult/impossible, then we should be able to highlight a planet in one window and when we move to another window, we are directly taken to the highlighted planet in the new window.
5) Mouse wheel support.
6) Changing the discription of the buttons to show the default state as a positive statement. (See the thread "Understanding Battle Strategies...Newbie question"

My $.02 worth from a newbie

tesco samoa

August 22nd, 2002, 02:56 AM

1. Reports... and sortable ones
2. the ability to name ships what ever you want without fear of someone else beating you to the punch... Yep dups on ship names... associated with the empire.

3.The ability to turn off all the information that the other empires see about a race... and what they name their systems and planets.

4. a map maker that is easier to use..

5. mod everything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

6. reports that are sortable

7. hot seat via tcpip...

tesco samoa

August 22nd, 2002, 02:57 AM

oh yea... the ability for empires to write scrips... Ie... if i have this and this build this and this on a new planet...

Grandpa Kim

August 22nd, 2002, 04:14 AM

the only thing the game "needs" are bug fixes. Thank you Puke! Although I think there is still much to fix.

DirectorTsaarx

August 22nd, 2002, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
"Restore the ability to colonize asteroids (like SE III)"

I like this idea as well. I didn't play SEIII, but this was the case in SEII. But if it was added again make it so you can't build facilities to the asteroid fields. But only be able to put like a few robot miners there. It could be made so it could be a facility but only asteroids could be able to build them and that's the ONLY facilities it could build. Don't know how hard this would be to add but would be interesting to see.Actually, I would think asteroids would be a natural place to put storage facilities - it's a fairly common theme in SF...

Originally posted by atomannj:
-Anger levels against player defined empiresBeyond this, maybe anger levels based on another race's culture or racial tech (i.e., crystalline races have more anger towards organic races & vice versa); and use of planet/star destroyers or nebula/black hole creators should make other races angry (maybe planet/star creators or nebula/black hole destroyers should make other races happy, too...)

Like many others, I'd like to see the game save my favorite setup options...

Suicide Junkie has posted a mod for adding facilities that increase a planet's construction rate; but, as Pax mentioned, I'd like to have a similar option for ships/bases.

Other random options (most of which have already been mentioned):
Research/Intel production by components
Component that provides ability to build units only
Activate restrictions on racial techs, so choosing, say, Organic means you can't use Crystalline. Most useful for things like P&N mod so you can't choose both normal & nomad techs...
Warp gates
A "move to" command for drones
Simulate trade routes by imposing a production penalty on resource production based on distance from nearest space port; if the palace facility is implemented, maybe a second penalty based on distance between palace and space ports. This could be expanded to allow "secondary" palace facilities to be built nearer fringe colonies, which would reduce the penalty imposed. Another expansion would be a component that could be installed on bases that would reduce the penalty, based on the idea of providing a "rest stop" on trade routes (for those pesky nebula/storm/organic infestation/etc. systems).
Tugs - ships that can tow other ships/bases, carry specialized modules (remote mining pallet, carrier pallet, combat pallet, base expansion pallet, supply pallet, etc.).

That should be enough for now... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Arkcon

August 22nd, 2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
Actually, I would think asteroids would be a natural place to put storage facilities - it's a fairly common theme in SF...
Well, using the SciFi model, mining facilities, radioactive extraction, space ports, resupply depots are all plausible. It could be setup so that only huge asteroid fields can build one facility that could possibly be OK, but would it be unbalanceing. You could now build a shipyard, or just repeat build units on any colonized asteroid field. Atleast with harsh environment, population wouldn't grow fast. But you could, LOL, add condition improvement facilities, atmosphere converters, or just drop population.

[ August 22, 2002, 16:47: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Wardad

August 22nd, 2002, 06:21 PM

Fix the Crystaline Racial Tech.
Make it desireable.

Poll Results: Racial Tech Trait Poll
(60 votes, up to to votes each)
Crystalline 12% (7)
Temporal 23% (14)
Psychic 40% (24)
Religious 53% (32)
Organic 43% (26)

GMLocutus

August 22nd, 2002, 06:30 PM

i think we need flowers in this game or maybe narcotics i think drugging the enemy is far more easier

LGM

August 22nd, 2002, 06:40 PM

I would like most of all:

The ability to load a submitted turn in a simultaneous mode game and edit the turn and resubmit. Nothing more frustrating than saving your turn and remembering you forgot to do something so you must either submit what you have or start totally from scratch. Or your ally send you an email proposing to do something just after you did your turn.

Other enhancments that I would like:
 Make Ship Yard Limits on Total Resources, not a limit on each of the three components. This would reduce the speed at which organic races can produce ships. They would still have the benefit of using less metal. Almost every ship (other than organic race ones) around bound by the Ship Yards limit on Minerals.
 Allow use of components in Fleets. This would make Emergency Resupply and Propulsion components much more useful.
 Re-Engineer tbe Minefield Model (many threads on how this might be done)
 Re-Engineer the Intelligence Model. Make the Intelligence system modified by troops, security forces, Ships, Crew Experience, Happiness, etc. There should be alternate defenses for empires that cannot muster enough Counter Intelligence. In fact, I would advocate you eliminate Counter Intelligence and make facilties, troops and ship components the only defense against Counter Intelligence. No blanket defense, just localized defenses.

mac5732

August 22nd, 2002, 07:50 PM

a small thing, the ability to put the planets names above the planet so the the Y,P,S, etc letters could be underneathe or vica versa, Currenly they become intermingled,

Mac

tesco samoa

August 22nd, 2002, 08:37 PM

yes a save the game in sim would be really good

Barnacle Bill

August 22nd, 2002, 08:51 PM

The #1 thing I want is fix for the AI issue regarding claims of systems and colonization. If I make a treaty that prevents me from shooting them and lets them through my minefields, I want it understood that for the duration of the treaty they will not colonize in a system which I claim but they don't, and will not claim a system I already claim (or reclaim it if they "give" it to me).

I realize that something has to be done about conflicting claims when the treaty is established. I favor making resolutrion of conflicting claims a requirement for the treaty offer - in any diplomatic message requesting a treaty higher than NI every contested system has to be covered as part of the deal package (either the side sending the message offers to "give" it or the requests that the recipient of the message "give" it).

Spoo

August 22nd, 2002, 09:20 PM

I'd like a filter to hide weapon mounts that aren't allowed on the selected ship size.

geoschmo

August 22nd, 2002, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Spoo:
I'd like a filter to hide weapon mounts that aren't allowed on the selected ship size.Um, isn't that in the current patch?

Ragnarok

August 22nd, 2002, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Spoo:
I'd like a filter to hide weapon mounts that aren't allowed on the selected ship size.Um, isn't that in the current patch?<hr /></blockquote>Yes it's on the current patch. I figured that one out in my current game I'm playing. (TDM Mod).

Ragnarok

August 22nd, 2002, 11:13 PM

Another thing I'd like to see on the next patch. Is for Temp Space Yard facilities be in the same family number as normal Space Yards. In patch one it was like this and you'd just press "Upgrade" and it'd jump to the best Temp Space Yard you had. But not anymore. This can be modded but I'd rather see it as part of the normal game.

Same is true of monoliths and regular miners.

Spoo

August 22nd, 2002, 11:28 PM

Um, isn't that in the current patch?
Then I guess I'm satisfied. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

overminder

August 22nd, 2002, 11:40 PM

In the next patch I would like to see the ability to repair allied ships. So I could repair racial tech I gave my partner if it was damaged and he didn't have the ability. Maybe even the ability to build joint ship. An organic tech on a Temporal races warship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif for ex.

[ August 22, 2002, 22:40: Message edited by: overminder ]

Mister Cat

August 23rd, 2002, 12:40 AM

My patch wishlist (2 cents worth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

1. I know others have mentioned it, but I'd really like to be able to save default settings for new SP games... maybe we should start a letter-writing campaign http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

2. Useful satellites (on sectors with planets). Even if the game put 1/4 of the sector's satellite pool at each 'corner' of the planet involved... *anything's* got to be better that parking them in a single lump.

3. The ability to prioritise resource allocation (when you're running at a loss) even on a really coarse level, say between ships facilities and units. If I'm gasping for minerals, I want to get new mining facs Online ASAP.

4. Empire flags on enemy and allied ships. Sometimes it's really hard to spot little teeny grey ships.

5. Mutually exclusive tech trees. This could have all sorts of applications... particularly when giving empires a bit of character, but also as way to add some variation to the endgame.

Growltigga

August 23rd, 2002, 12:47 PM

My tuppence worth'

1 I really want the ability to put fleets into other fleets as per my 'fleets within fleets within fleets' post

2 I really want the ability to make up 'armies' with troop units

Krsqk

August 23rd, 2002, 03:29 PM

Oh, just something approaching the complexity of Nethack would be nice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Actually, it would be nice if populations kept their own characteristics, etc., when captured (instead of just atmosphere type).

Trajan

August 23rd, 2002, 03:47 PM

Gentlemen,

I would like to see improved ground combat. Currently it seems like a default assualt setting where the attacker alwyas wins. (At least that is the state of affiars in my AI games.)

The poor AI is never prepared for ground assualts.

Having this be an option (ie tactical or strategic just like the space combat) would be interesting.

I miss being able to Fleet bases. I used to fleet them around critical planets and worm holes. It made tracking them much easier.
I don't really care about the supply issue, so if they could find some way for us to fleet bases again I would be very happy.

Cheers!
Trajan

overminder

August 23rd, 2002, 08:52 PM

I believe in the SETTING.TXT you can make it so you can add bases. The line is something like this add bases to fleet = FLASE. Just change it to true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

overminder

August 24th, 2002, 12:16 AM

Here is another item I would like that the treaties of Protactor and subjuation would let you use their space yards and supply depots.

HEMAN

August 24th, 2002, 04:57 AM

I would like to see Ruin teck tree. Example; your ship discovers a componet on a ruin world, then a teck field pops up on the research menu.So player can research further. whata you guys think?.

dumbluck

August 24th, 2002, 05:52 AM

HEMAN: Moddable.

oleg

August 24th, 2002, 06:04 AM

It is moddable but it might still be worth to be included in "official" SEIV.

I personally want better balance of weapons - just check out many recent discussions on this forum about how ubber-powerfull are PPB and how completely, utterly useless are torpedos and graviton hellbores. Yes, it is all moddable but it is still so much better to have "balanced" default SE.

[ August 24, 2002, 05:05: Message edited by: oleg ]

Mister Cat

August 24th, 2002, 06:37 AM

... and while we're at it, I'd really like the warning box for redundant system-wide (and planetary) facilities to check facilities in other planet's construction queues as well as those that have already been built.

Oh, and self-dismantling atmospheric conVersion facilities would be nice, too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gozra

August 24th, 2002, 06:48 AM

I am not sure this is hardwired or 'moddable' but I would like to see point defense and mines 'miss' once in a while and also sensors that are not one hundred percent. And the ablity to research a faclity that will let you research a technology or trait that your race does not have access to in the inital setup.

Elowan

August 24th, 2002, 08:18 AM

I'd like to see the ability to 'Remote Launch" using Waypoints instead of having to scroll to planet, warp point, etc.

I'd also like more than 10 way points.

Being able to edit the order queue would be nice. Now all you can do is cancel it and start over.

Also - when clicking on the "Wrench" (construction queue) I'd like the entire queue to be shown - not an empty list - when using Multi-Add. I know you can see what's being built (a t least 3 somethings) before you hit Multi-Add - but that gets lost because you can't move the Multi-Add dialog.

Not being able to move overlapping windows is a pita. There are some API's available to activate that feature.

[ August 24, 2002, 07:24: Message edited by: Elowan ]

Haven

August 24th, 2002, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Mister Cat:
... Oh, and self-dismantling atmospheric conVersion facilities would be nice, too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Has anyone tried to us the destroyed on use ability with the atmospheric conVersion facilities??

Gorgo

August 25th, 2002, 12:28 AM

Something which will probably never come: If combat replay in simultaneous games would show which components are damaged, I would become a collector of classic battles and never leave the house again. This would really help to understand what's going on in battles.

javaslinger

August 25th, 2002, 05:02 AM

Anyone have any idea if there actually is another patch planned or just work on SEV?

Fyron

August 25th, 2002, 08:08 AM

SEV is a long ways off.

javaslinger

August 25th, 2002, 11:19 AM

Actually, Tim Brooks (?) told me that the combat engine game would be out early next year and SEV would be out by the mid/late part of next year....

Puke

August 25th, 2002, 11:36 AM

to use the vernacular, "w00t."

dumbluck

August 25th, 2002, 12:00 PM

Puke: Huh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

tbontob

August 29th, 2002, 04:00 AM

Other things I would like to see as an improvement to the human/computer interface:
1) The numbers in the empire menu line up properly and commas used to separate thousands and millions. This is a really easy fix.
2) Counter-intelligence projects in Empires/Intelligence/Counter-intelligence does not fail. If it is at the top of the list, it is "topped off". We shouldn't have to micromanage this.

Other thoughts:
1) Resource storage. Now, it is a all or nothing thing. I'd like to see the computer allocate temporary storage if there isn't enough "regular storage available". It could "charge" the ratio of temporary storage/regular storage for whatever is in "temporary storage." to cover rust, spoilage, theft etc because it is not a good storage facility. So a small amount in temporary storage (relative to permanent storage) would not be too expensive...but a large amount will be. For example,
-regular storage 100,000
-temporary storage 50,000
-Cost of temp/stor 25,000 (50,000/100,000)(50,000)

2) $$$$ Here we are in a sophisticated universe and we can only barter! I'd like to see a medium of exchange introduced. Some thoughts are:
-Populace can be taxed affecting their happiness
-Projects require money
-Minerals/organics/radioactives can be bought and sold on the open market with money. Maybe on a sliding scale...the more you buy the greater the cost per unit and the more you sell the less money you get per unit. So there would still be an incentive to contact other players [Edit: to] exchange resources for money.

[ August 29, 2002, 03:02: Message edited by: tbontob ]

jimbob

August 29th, 2002, 05:06 AM

2) $$$$ Here we are in a sophisticated universe and we can only barter! I'd like to see a medium of exchange introduced. Some thoughts are:
-Populace can be taxed affecting their happiness
-Projects require money
-Minerals/organics/radioactives can be bought and sold on the open market with money. Maybe on a sliding scale...I couldn't agree more! In addition to having a money requirement for projects (maybe to speed them up? [within reason]) and open market for resources (how about little space bazaars scattered about the universe like ruins... and the person who colonizes/owns the planet gets a % cut of all tranactions), how about the following:

1) the ability to sell any technology to the "open market". Anyone can then buy the technology that has access to the open market, but you the seller get a royalty fee every time it is sold! Of course players may buy it and then choose to trade it to other races, enter galactic software piracy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

2) the introduction of Plug & Play components. That's right, introduce a component that is essentially a socket, into which you can plug specially designed components of the correct size. Then players can trade individual pluggable components to one another (or purchase with cash on the open market) that can then be integrated onto any ship with the correct socket size/type.
While this would require huge amounts of hard code change, just think of the possibilities!

-players that act as weapons and tech brokers (far more effective than trading whole shipsback and forth)
-players can get others hopelessly addicted to their components by flooding the cheap Version of their product, but then drop production (especially useful if you are the only one with the racial ability to make a certain product)
-by messing with the socket size/type of the component, you could regulate the use of the components you sell (player A only has Parallel ports, so you could cut him out by making all your components scuzzy, etc).
-You could also ensure that you sell an inferior product vs. the one that you actually use by increasing the bulkiness of the items you sell.

Just a few thoughts

[ August 29, 2002, 04:14: Message edited by: jimbob ]

jimbob

August 29th, 2002, 06:57 AM

Oh, and one of the main reasons money even exists (besides being a universal replacement for bartering goods/services) is it's transferability. Resources are relatively bulky, and so difficult to transfer (you can even capture large quantities from retreating enemies) while money, especially once in the paper/electronic for is considerably more 'manouverable'.

So, I'd also like to see that resources are physically split between the storage facilities, and that the resources within the storage facility are captured when the planet is. Money on the other hand would not be a capturable commodity, or to a much lesser degree anyway.

Of course Money should just be one of the resources, not a universal replacement for resources. After all, when times get tough, ya can't eat gold!

Fyron

August 29th, 2002, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by jimbob:
Of course Money should just be one of the resources, not a universal replacement for resources. After all, when times get tough, ya can't eat gold!If you're a human. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Mephisto

August 29th, 2002, 10:58 AM

That sounds neat! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Originally posted by jimbob:
[QUOTE]
2) the introduction of Plug & Play components. That's right, introduce a component that is essentially a socket, into which you can plug specially designed components of the correct size. Then players can trade individual pluggable components to one another (or purchase with cash on the open market) that can then be integrated onto any ship with the correct socket size/type.
While this would require huge amounts of hard code change, just think of the possibilities!

-players that act as weapons and tech brokers (far more effective than trading whole shipsback and forth)
-players can get others hopelessly addicted to their components by flooding the cheap Version of their product, but then drop production (especially useful if you are the only one with the racial ability to make a certain product)

dogscoff

August 29th, 2002, 11:39 AM

No! Don't introduce money! We already have 3 resources, and they represent money perfectly well as it is. If you want more resources and micromanagement, ask MM for improvements to supply and population. Let _them_ be your fourth (and fifth) resources. Here's my wishlist in that area:

-Limited supply generation and storage for facilities (instead of just the "quantum reactor" resupply depot we have now)

-Auto redirection of fleets and ships to supply depots if they can do so at no extra movement cost. (reduces micromanagement)

-Minimum population to operate facilities. If there's not enough population for all your facilities, you have to shut some of them down.

-Population keeps *all* of it's attributes when repatriated, not just the atmosphere it breathes.

-Facilities that can increase/ reduce the maximum population limit of a planet.

-independent migration of population. For example, population would automatically move from dangerous to safe planets & systems, from poor to rich, from settled to frontier - in extreme cases moving from one empire to another. (Economic/ political/ war refugees) This would move population managment from the realms of micromanagement into macromanagement, and make you empire feel more like a dynamic, organic society. Just imagine what it would do for roleplay and diplomacy, too...

-A more complex plague model. Not just level 1, level 2 etc. Perhaps have a "plague severity" percentage. I think I'll open a new thread on this...

-Maybe introduce other social problems too. Famine, Drought, Crime waves? Allow plagues and similar problems to spread from planet to planet, including allied planets. Could create some interesting diplomatic situations.

-Allow a planet to go beyond its maximum population limit, at the cost of reduced happiness and greater plague/ famine etc probability (think refugee camp)

tesco samoa

August 29th, 2002, 05:04 PM

We have the multi-add why not the multi delete

and view ship movements in this system only !!!!

DirectorTsaarx

August 29th, 2002, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

-Limited supply generation and storage for facilities (instead of just the "quantum reactor" resupply depot we have now)
I'd suggest extended that idea so we "buy" supplies with resources; I know the game tries to model this with maintenance costs, but if we're going to limit the supplies available at a resupply depot, there needs to be a way to buy extra supplies. And maybe the supply generation should be tied to production - the more mins/orgs/rads you produce, the more supplies are available...

dogscoff

August 29th, 2002, 05:46 PM

I'd suggest extended that idea so we "buy" supplies with resources;
Good idea. How about a facility a bit like the resource converter. Resources go in one end, supplies come out the other.
You'd need either a mix of resources to get supplies (ie 1000m+1000o+1000r=1000supplies) or even better, have it so that you can buy with any of the 3, but you get better rates on rads and orgs than you do on the others. Make those rads and orgs work for you...

Baron Munchausen

August 29th, 2002, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dogscoff:

-Limited supply generation and storage for facilities (instead of just the "quantum reactor" resupply depot we have now)
I'd suggest extended that idea so we "buy" supplies with resources; I know the game tries to model this with maintenance costs, but if we're going to limit the supplies available at a resupply depot, there needs to be a way to buy extra supplies. And maybe the supply generation should be tied to production - the more mins/orgs/rads you produce, the more supplies are available...<hr /></blockquote>It certainly sounds reasonable for a Resupply Depot to COST a certain amount of resources to operate each turn. But you could just as easily reason that the maintenance costs of ships is precisely the resources cost of the supplies they use (along with replacement parts, etc.). So, it's kind of a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" situation...

[ August 29, 2002, 20:38: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

klausD

August 30th, 2002, 01:03 AM

Hi!
I am also not for introducing "money" as rescource. Money is the human expression of having an abstract trade medium. In SE4 there are not very many human societies. Most are Aliens. Its not at all sure that an alien society developes concepts like banks, stock exchanges or money. Thats why we should concentrate rather on "hard" resources which every race can see, feel, touch, swallow and use for warwarfe.

But I am for more different resource types. Why having a limit on 3 resource types? I think the amount of resources a game can have should NOT be hardcoded. It should be moddable. Then we could have rare resources for special components for example. ("hey lets trade 10000 organics against 100 polymorphus crystals because I wanna buy 5 hypercomputer III components for my new cruiser design")

IMO this would be an valuable addition to the existing resource system.

To the suggestions of dogscoff:

"-limited supply generation"

Oh yes this is a good idea. Additionally there should be the possibility to transfer supply points manually form one ship to another. The automatic transfer is not really satisfying.

"-Minimum population to operate facilities. If there's not enough population for all your facilities, you have to shut some of them down."

I am also for this, but the problem is that in the beginning the most planets have just 1 POP. this means that you cannot operate facilities ohn fresh planets. Thus I would suggest for not shutting facilities down if they dont have enough pop. They should rather operate at an lower rate (50% efficiency or so)

"-Population keeps *all* of it's attributes when repatriated, not just the atmosphere it breathes.

-Facilities that can increase/ reduce the maximum population limit of a planet.

-independent migration of population. "

This ideas are really good. They improve the game IMO much. I like also the social ideas of dogscoff.

Another things I would like to see

-short range fighters: cheaper fighters which cannot operate on the system map, just in tactical combat.

-space docks which are used only for building space units. (fighters, drones etc.)

-army camps which are used only for building ground units.

-more differenciated ground combat system. It should honor different ground unit designs but it should also be simple. (please no second "fading suns" or "space general")

-the possibility to get "rumors" of different parts of the galaxy. These rumors should be false or true. For example the message should be delivered in form of a lucky event, or in form of a special intelligence mission or in form of having automatic infos about operations of allies and neighbours. (because you have different own organizations - abstract- operating in the other territory. )

Sorry for my bad English

Klaus

dogscoff

August 30th, 2002, 01:23 AM

Klaus, I like your ideas. Some of them may be moddable now, the short range fighters being one of them. Just take out the small fighter engines and force the player to use afterburners. Add different levels of afterburners for different levels of engine tech.

Also, I love the rumours idea, and it might be moddable! A while back someone noticed that random events and intel projects were in fact based on the same code. Lots of people went away to add new intel projects based on the existing random events (destroy star, plague etc)

However I'm not if sure anyone tried to do it the other way around and create new random events based on the existing intel projects. If that worked you could get information about other empires as random events. This would be very very cool. I wonder if the other empire would get angry at you. I wonder if you'd get information about empires you haven't met yet. Even cooler...

DavidG

August 30th, 2002, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by klausD:

But I am for more different resource types. Why having a limit on 3 resource types? I think the amount of resources a game can have should NOT be hardcoded. It should be moddable. Then we could have rare resources for special components for example. ("hey lets trade 10000 organics against 100 polymorphus crystals because I wanna buy 5 hypercomputer III components for my new cruiser design")

IMO this would be an valuable addition to the existing resource system.
KlausYup that would be a very cool idea!! Could make for some interesting games such as fighting over that one planet with some special resource or being forced to be real nice to the empire who controls a certain resource and then trading for it.

Zanthis

August 30th, 2002, 05:26 AM

If you're gonna be buying supplies with resources, I'd suggest a conVersion setup something like this:
 1 of any single resource type = 1 supply 1 of two different resource types = 3 supply 1 of all three resource types = 6 supplyThis encourages you to use all three resources, but if you happen to have a stockpile of one specific type, you can convert just that resource into supply.
It goes without saying that extra resources that exceed your storage should automatically be converted into supply for you at the most favorable rate (e.g., an extra 100 minerals and 50 organics would yield 200 supply).

Puke

August 30th, 2002, 06:49 AM

I like Dogscoff and Klaus's ideas alot, although i dont think im for the whole 'buying' or 'converting' supplies idea. i like micromanagment, but not that much, and i like the ability to ignore micromanagment if i want.

DirectorTsaarx

August 30th, 2002, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dogscoff:

-Limited supply generation and storage for facilities (instead of just the "quantum reactor" resupply depot we have now)
I'd suggest extended that idea so we "buy" supplies with resources; I know the game tries to model this with maintenance costs, but if we're going to limit the supplies available at a resupply depot, there needs to be a way to buy extra supplies. And maybe the supply generation should be tied to production - the more mins/orgs/rads you produce, the more supplies are available...<hr /></blockquote>It certainly sounds reasonable for a Resupply Depot to COST a certain amount of resources to operate each turn. But you could just as easily reason that the maintenance costs of ships is precisely the resources cost of the supplies they use (along with replacement parts, etc.). So, it's kind of a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" situation...<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, my idea only has merit if we accept the idea that a resupply depot only creates X number of supplies per turn. There'd have to be a minimum number of supplies it can generate, but we should be able to "buy" more (just like resource conVersion). As Baron points out (and I pointed out in the original post), we're already paying a "maintenance cost" for each ship that theoretically covers the cost of supplies, but then again it takes a lot more to maintain a battleship that's actively engaged in a campaign than it does to maintain that same battleship on routine patrol. So, I'd contend that the built-in maintenance cost is for supplying a ship on routine patrol; during long campaigns, more supplies would be required. As the game stands now, those extra supplies just "appear" magically at resupply depots, but if a resupply depot has to store supplies and/or generate those supplies at some specified rate, there should be a way to force the generation of those supplies. I suggested tying supply generation to production because empires with large production surpluses ought to have the ability to produce more supplies than empires that are barely able to pay maintenance costs on the existing ships. And also as a way to reduce the micromanagement of converting resources to supplies.

I'd probably also recommend levels of "resupply" facilities, tied to the existing resupply research chain, so at resupply level 5 you'd get both a quantum reactor component and a quantum reactor facility. BTW - if we end up with a resupply depot that only produces a set number of supplies per turn, then bases would need to be changed as well...

I also think MM should have implemented the proposed feature (way back during the initial design phase of SE4) of being able to "buy" research - i.e., convert extra resources into research points (or even intelligence points) in an emergency. Unfortunately, the AI would never be able to use that properly...

Krsqk

August 30th, 2002, 05:22 PM

"I like Dogscoff and Klaus's ideas alot, although i dont think im for the whole 'buying' or 'converting' supplies idea. i like micromanagment, but not that much, and i like the ability to ignore micromanagment if i want."
What a great excuse for a new Supply Requisition minister. Or, maybe, a new function for the Resupply minister...We all know how intelligent he is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Barnacle Bill

August 30th, 2002, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by jimbob:

2) the introduction of Plug & Play components. That's right, introduce a component that is essentially a socket, into which you can plug specially designed components of the correct size. Then players can trade individual pluggable components to one another (or purchase with cash on the open market) that can then be integrated onto any ship with the correct socket size/type.
While this would require huge amounts of hard code change, just think of the possibilities!
The original (1977) Version of Starfire had this. You put whatever letter represented your weapon inside [] on the control sheet. It cost extra, but then you could swap out weapons at no cost. That Version really had no campaign (well the "Starfire III: Empires" expansion, but not until 1980), just suggestions for how one might be implimented, but IIRC that is where the optional rule for this was, and it suggested that you could build the weapons separately and store them at planets. One thing we talked about doing was using Stellar Conquest as a strategic module for Starfire, converting each Stellar Conquest IU into some number of Starfiire McR, and otherwise following the suggested rules from the back of the STarfire manual. We never got around to trying it, though.

geoschmo

August 30th, 2002, 05:37 PM

You can give a resupply facility a negative amount of resource production. It does work. It's like maintenance for facilities. There owuld be a couple of wierd things though. If you can get past them though it will approximate what you are wanting I guess.

First of all, it would cost you resources every turn the resupply facility is in operation, not just when ships are refueling. And it wouldn't cost you any more to refuel a bunch of ships than it would to refuel one, so it wouldn't be a true "resources to supply" converter.

Secondly in a regular infinite resource game it would be cheaper to put a resupply depot on a low resource world than on a high resources one. Just as a resource extractor produces less on a low resource world, the negative production on the facility would be factored by the value of the planet. On a planet with all zeros it would be free to operate.

Thirdly in a limited resource game, the facility would actually improve the value of the planet it was on, just like a value improvement plant. But it would work on a fixed rate instead of a percentage like a value improvement plant does.

Geoschmo

Krsqk

August 30th, 2002, 07:00 PM

You could give it the Solar Resource Generation ability with a negative number--but then binary and trinary star systems pay more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

DirectorTsaarx

August 30th, 2002, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You can give a resupply facility a negative amount of resource production. It does work. It's like maintenance for facilities. There owuld be a couple of wierd things though. If you can get past them though it will approximate what you are wanting I guess.

First of all, it would cost you resources every turn the resupply facility is in operation, not just when ships are refueling. And it wouldn't cost you any more to refuel a bunch of ships than it would to refuel one, so it wouldn't be a true "resources to supply" converter.

Secondly in a regular infinite resource game it would be cheaper to put a resupply depot on a low resource world than on a high resources one. Just as a resource extractor produces less on a low resource world, the negative production on the facility would be factored by the value of the planet. On a planet with all zeros it would be free to operate.

Thirdly in a limited resource game, the facility would actually improve the value of the planet it was on, just like a value improvement plant. But it would work on a fixed rate instead of a percentage like a value improvement plant does.

GeoschmoI'd never even considered modding the current game to include paying for supplies... sounds like my initial thought holds true, that it's fairly useless unless resupply depots are changed to produce limited amounts of supply. Which isn't likely to happen as a patch for SE4; but maybe for SE5 (which, if all the way-out ideas on the forum as a whole are implemented, could really be micromanagement hell... but we'd probably all still love it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

HEMAN

August 30th, 2002, 11:15 PM

What i would like to see in the next patch is: (Print out) feature, when i finished setting up a game i would like to see everything on(setup) related to this. this way after playing 500 turns in a certain game, my memory is kinda Blank.

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition #97 Enough...is never enough.

Elowan

August 31st, 2002, 12:33 AM

We all know (most of us - that is) by now -- that SE IV can be a micro-management nightmare.

One of those nightmares was upgrading a facility on a zillion planets. This is a breeze if you click on the Planet icon (upper left) and then click on Upgrade Facilities. Yahoo!

This doesn't help - though - for those inevitable 'lost' planets whom you (the emperor or whatever) has neglected to fill the build queue. Now you have to wade through a zillion planets to find the ones that have some slots open.

If there's a way of showing just the 'open-slot' planets -- I haven't found it yet. But wouldn't it be nice if you could set the list so that only undeveloped or partially undeveloped planets would show up?

Works for me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Captain Kwok

August 31st, 2002, 05:52 AM

If you select the wrench (constuction queue menu) that lists all the planets - click on the heading "Construction Queue" - that will sort them by alphabetically order showing all the empty queues at the top.

DavidG

August 31st, 2002, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
If you select the wrench (constuction queue menu) that lists all the planets - click on the heading "Construction Queue" - that will sort them by alphabetically order showing all the empty queues at the top.True that helps but still the ability to filter it and only show those planets with space available would be very nice.

[ August 31, 2002, 16:21: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Suicide Junkie

August 31st, 2002, 06:40 PM

Just sort it by # of facility slots used.
Zip to the bottom and check on all of the planets with zero facilities built.

You can also scan the list to see if any planets aren't full of facilites, and doublecheck them.

capnq

August 31st, 2002, 06:53 PM

I would like the AI to check its current treaty status before it proposes one, and cancel the proposal if it already has that treaty with you.

I'm tired of getting Partnership proposals from my partners every turn.

August 31st, 2002, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by capnq:
I would like the AI to check its current treaty status before it proposes one, and cancel the proposal if it already has that treaty with you.

I'm tired of getting Partnership proposals from my partners every turn.Well that is very strange: I never saw this!!
What Version are you playing??

tbontob

August 31st, 2002, 08:33 PM

In AI games, I almost always get the treaty proposal twice in a row. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

That is, I decline it, and then the next turn, it is proposing it again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Skulky

August 31st, 2002, 10:27 PM

1. I really want better analysis tools so i can see what i'm doing and where i went, Basically i could print out a bunch of stats and records from a 100 turn period and then analyze them to my hearts content.

2. A built in calculator, no buttons, would just ref to the keypad but a little window that responds to 1587/15 or whatever ftr/mine/invasion math you need to do without opening windows calc each time.

3. when you use a LR scanner on an enemy i want that ship added to my list of enemy designs, and then i want to be able to click on any ship of that class that i know what it looks like and WITHOUT a LR scanner see what it is. I don't like clicking back and forth when the computer could automate this and it woudl still be super fair. B/c i can't record the designs my LR scanners get i need to write them down http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif micro hell.

tbontob

September 1st, 2002, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by HEMAN:
What i would like to see in the next patch is: (Print out) feature, when i finished setting up a game i would like to see everything on(setup) related to this. this way after playing 500 turns in a certain game, my memory is kinda Blank.
A print out would be a nice feature. Would also allow a person to more objectively compare the games he played.

HEMAN

September 1st, 2002, 10:43 AM

I'd like to see in the next patch : Stronger
( Population minister ),and a setting to adjust this. On certain mods,most of the time the minister drops pop but stays there when the planet has only 2 bars. even see minister take from a low pop world?. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Skulky Wrote;A built in calculator, no buttons, would just ref to the keypad but a little window that responds to 1587/15 or whatever ftr/mine/invasion math you need to do without opening windows calc each time.

Reply ;Absolutly?, using all 4 of my brains is too hard, using paper & pen is a distraction.

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition #16 A deal is a deal...until a better one comes along.

[ September 01, 2002, 09:54: Message edited by: HEMAN ]

Elowan

September 1st, 2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
If you select the wrench (constuction queue menu) that lists all the planets - click on the heading "Construction Queue" - that will sort them by alphabetically order showing all the empty queues at the top.But I mean queues that are unfilled or with slots open. Currently your method only shows which planets are building and which are not. It says nothing about unfilled slots.

Phoenix-D

September 1st, 2002, 08:07 PM

"It says nothing about unfilled slots."

Yes it does. There are multiple tabs on the left side of that screen, click the facilities tab and it will show you the number of facilities each planet has. You can also click on the # of facilties list (top part) and it will sort by that collum.

Phoenix-D

capnq

September 1st, 2002, 09:11 PM

I'm tired of getting Partnership proposals from my partners every turn.

Well that is very strange: I never saw this!!
What Version are you playing?? Well, it is a rather odd situation: A PBW game in v1.49 + TDM-ModPack 2.0, AI vs Humans. The two "AIs" that keep sending the proposals are actually human-controlled empires that need a replacement player. (If anyone's interested, the game is "The Evil Within".)

Elowan

September 1st, 2002, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Elowan:
If there's a way of showing just the 'open-slot' planets -- I haven't found it yet. But wouldn't it be nice if you could set the list so that only undeveloped or partially undeveloped planets would show up? Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
... There are multiple tabs on the left side of that screen, click the facilities tab and it will show you the number of facilities each planet has. You can also click on the # of facilties list (top part) and it will sort by that collum.

Phoenix-DWell!! Another du'oh moment brought to you by Mother Nature. Stay tuned for more!!

Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

[ September 01, 2002, 21:42: Message edited by: Elowan ]

orev_saara

September 2nd, 2002, 05:18 PM

I see a lot of good ideas on this list. Also a couple of bad ideas, but I'll just ignore them and hope they go away. My thoughts are regarding supply. For more realism, there really shouldn't be an arbitrary "supply" resource. Instead, ships should be forced to carry the same resources that you use elsewhere. For example, a human ship would need minerals for spare parts, which would be used up as time passes, and at an accelerated rate when moving, firing weapons, etc.; radioactives for reactor fuel, used much like minerals; and organics for food, used at a more or less constant rate. This would of course add complexity, but I think it would be cool. Obviously, this would also require physical movement of resources around the empire to make sense, but I like that idea anyway. Especially if you combine it with moddable resources like someone suggested. Or we could keep things simple.

Also, a question. I've created components for ships that produce intel points and research points, but I've never tested them. Do these not work?

tesco samoa

September 2nd, 2002, 05:29 PM

Good idea on the print outs... That would be nice... a nice spread sheet... with the info...

Love reports... and lots of them that are sortable...

But this unique naming system is driving me nuts...

As does the fact that names give away too much info..... If a player changes his planet name then only the player should see this not the rest of the players...

jimbob

September 3rd, 2002, 04:01 AM

Also, a question. I've created components for ships that produce intel points and research points, but I've never tested them. Do these not work? Suicide Junkie (and others) have tried to get the intel and research components to work, but no luck so far. It has been requested as a patch improvement, but MM has not yet done the hardcode changes needed.

Mylon

September 3rd, 2002, 03:52 PM

I'd like to see an infinite research tree. Something one can pour excess research points into for marginal improvements of resource production, weapon damage, supply storage, armor/shield use, ect. The levels of course get progressively more demanding of research points and only provide marginal improvements, but it'd be something for a research based race to go on late in the game. A single mineral producing facility that changes production based on tech might be more appropriate than a separate type of facility for each level.

Sattelite and mine limits: Satellites should be limited by a matter of maintenance, not some arbitrary number. Mines should be a bit more abstract in use to easily allow more than 100. Stars! uses mines in a percentage chance of hitting mines based on speed. Minefields also decay naturally. Thus, mining an area shouldn't be a guarantee of destruction of the enemy, nor should a single minesweeper be guarentee of safety of a fleet.

Zanthis

September 3rd, 2002, 05:51 PM

Speaking only on the topic of research, I'd like the following:
 Make divide points not waste points when projects are near completion. Instead, pool extra points and redivided them. Same for the remainder in the case of uneven division. Hate having 10,000rp and dividing over three projects and getting 3,333rp in each. Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the AI always use divide? This would help it out too. Set an option in Settings.txt or the game config screens that allows us to choose diminishing returns for research. In other words, the more rp you dump into a project, the less actual rps it gets. Just for example, using: RP * 0.95^(RP/10000) would yield a 5% loss for every 10000 rps in a single project (that is, 20000 rps would yield 5% less than 10000 rps). The ability to restrict a tech from someone with a racial tech. The existing value in the TechArea.txt file for specifying a racial tech could be used, just switch to flags instead of numbers. So instead of 1-5 for racial techs, use 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16. Then use 32, 64, 128, 256 and 512 for a racial tech restriction. So, if making a tech available to Organic is 2, restricting from those with Organic would be 64. Just add numbers together to get multiple restrictions/permissions (i.e., 992 would mean no one with a racial tech could access that technology). And if it isn't already possible (keep forgetting to check), make it so a racial techs can have a starting level, thereby granting said tech to only those allowed to access it in the first place.
That's my quick list for reseach improvements.

oleg

September 4th, 2002, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Zanthis:
Speaking only on the topic of research, I'd like the following:
[list] Make divide points not waste points when projects are near completion. Instead, pool extra points and redivided them. Same for the remainder in the case of uneven division. Hate having 10,000rp and dividing over three projects and getting 3,333rp in each. Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the AI always use divide? This would help it out too.AI research like humans - it never divide point equally. Regardless of how many projects you programed it to keep in research queue. MM get this aspect right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ratqueen

September 4th, 2002, 02:11 AM

The first things that come to mind for me are:

1. Sticky options to start the game (drives me nuts to have to reset my favorite settings every time I start a game!)

2. Ability to select exactly which techs and levels we want to start a game with (as it was in SE3.)

tbontob

September 4th, 2002, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Ratqueen:
The first things that come to mind for me are:

1. Sticky options to start the game (drives me nuts to have to reset my favorite settings every time I start a game!)
You have my vote!

tbontob

September 4th, 2002, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Mylon:
I'd like to see an infinite research tree. Something one can pour excess research points into for marginal improvements of resource production, weapon damage, supply storage, armor/shield use, ect. The levels of course get progressively more demanding of research points and only provide marginal improvements, but it'd be something for a research based race to go on late in the game. A single mineral producing facility that changes production based on tech might be more appropriate than a separate type of facility for each level.

.One way of doing this for ship components is to have miniturization occur after the basic research for a particular component is completed. This would allow us to cram more components into a ship.

Unknown_Enemy

September 4th, 2002, 03:37 PM

a "50" button in the transfer menu.

Simple, but still lacking.....

Mylon

September 4th, 2002, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
One way of doing this for ship components is to have miniturization occur after the basic research for a particular component is completed. This would allow us to cram more components into a ship.Yep. That works, except whether miniturization should apply to specific components (researching miniturized depleted uranium) or if it should be applied in general (miniturized weapons) is a matter I'm undecided.

Captain Kwok

September 4th, 2002, 06:23 PM

You could always create a new tech area called "Miniturization" and as you research it, it gives you new mounts which make components smaller but continue to have their normal strength/abilities.

javaslinger

September 4th, 2002, 07:46 PM

Wow!!

I haven't read this thread in a few weeks and WOW!!!

You all have my mouth watering... If SEV included most of these I'd be a happy man right there!!

Is there a patch still coming before SEV? I was told by shrapnel that SEV was due mid next year...

Also, some have said there are still legitamate bugs... What are they?

Thanks,

Ken

Mylon

September 4th, 2002, 09:13 PM

The problem with using mounts is that it would not apply infinitely. That is, someone would have to create each individual level, and probably even different modes of miniaturization, since it would take quite a few levels of improvement for miniaturization to overcome the usefulness of large weapon mounts. Thus, there should be large weapon mount miniaturizations in addition to miniaturization of other mount variants. To do this manualy would be a mess, but using a hardcoded infinite research tree would handle this nicely.

Mylon

September 4th, 2002, 09:49 PM

Other things I would like to see:

Discovered ruins should give the the ability to research a new tech area that leads to reproducing and modifying any artifacts recovered. Analysing enemy ships would give a bonus to researching technology the ship uses.

Resources. I found this a bit deeper it the thread and I would also like to see limited resoruce production, though probably based on a per turn basis rather than a mineral conVersion basis.

Population immigration. Another idea deeper in the thread that would make sense. Given that alliances between races, particularly trade alliances, would involve these races mingling, it would make sense to see more than one race on a border planet near an ally.

Partial retention of captured race stats. The idea is that a captured race would probably be enslaved for purposes of the owning empire. Certain aspects of the race might not apply under enslavement, and revolts might turn the planet into an independant or back to the hands of the empire the race belonged.

Battle simulator. This is sort of a love/hate relationship, really. It makes sense that such a race would have the technology to similate their enemy's ships, but this also removes the excitement of only being able to test your new design in real combat.

tesco samoa

September 5th, 2002, 02:24 AM

My god. I was looking at a turn on PBW... My mouse moved over the play the ship movement for all ships... My brain went... Damn you don't click that button,, don't click that button. My hand went... Left mouse click coming up...

The Horror. The Horror.

That is brutal... There has to be an escape for it...

i waited 25 minutes and then 3 finger .....

Its a 2ghz system...

Get rid of it or make it so we can stop it... Ever watch a fleet of about 150 ships over and over and over... Not nice.

HEMAN

September 5th, 2002, 07:07 AM

What i would like to see in the next patch is a

a) Total terriforming Racial trait;
Total terriforming - would speed up TIME in facilitys related to atmosphere and condition by 75%.
b) More varity on mines like; Mine damage only weapons or engines on enemy ships.

dogscoff

September 5th, 2002, 09:11 AM

b) More varity on mines like; Mine damage only
weapons or engines on enemy ships.
This is moddable. I think Pirates & nomads might include it. S_J?

Discovered ruins should give the the ability to research a new tech area that leads to reproducing and modifying any artifacts recovered.
Also moddable. Check out Proportions mod.

Analysing enemy ships would give a bonus to researching technology the ship uses.
Ummm... it does. Or do you mean that the analyse button should be less powerful, and give you a bonus rather than a full tech level for each tech?

Resources. I found this a bit deeper it the thread and I would also like to see limited resoruce production, though probably based on a per turn basis rather than a mineral conVersion basis.

Population immigration. Another idea deeper in the thread that would make sense. Given that alliances between races, particularly trade alliances, would involve these races mingling, it would make sense to see more than one race on a border planet near an ally.
Agreed.

Partial retention of captured race stats. The idea is that a captured race would probably be enslaved for purposes of the owning empire. Certain aspects of the race might not apply under enslavement, and revolts might turn the planet into an independant or back to the hands of the empire the race belonged.
No one (except MM) is quite sure about this, but it is rumoured that captured races have a happiness modifier that makes them prone to rioting and therefore revolt. Still doesn't happen very often though.

The problem with using mounts is that it would not apply infinitely. That is, someone would have to create each individual level, and probably even different modes of miniaturization,
True, but as far as I'm concerned this is just fine. It wouldn't take too long for one of us to mod in a few dozen levels of miniaturisation, but it would probably take up many hours of Aaron's time to hardcode it. The tech tree doesn't have to be infinite, just big enough that no sane person could usefully research it in a real game. That can be modded.

Is there a patch still coming before SEV? I was told by shrapnel that SEV was due mid next year...
I think there probably will be more se4 patches. We certainly haven't heard that there won't be, and patch suggestions to Malfador are still being accepted with a "we'll add it to the to-do list". As for SEV, the release is a long way off yet and is probably subject to a lot of other factors, including (but not limited to=-) the success/ failure of the impending 3D combat thing.

Shyrka

September 5th, 2002, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Mylon:
I'd like to see an infinite research tree. Something one can pour excess research points into for marginal improvements of resource production, weapon damage, supply storage, armor/shield use, ect. The levels of course get progressively more demanding of research points and only provide marginal improvements, but it'd be something for a research based race to go on late in the game. A single mineral producing facility that changes production based on tech might be more appropriate than a separate type of facility for each level.
Im interested in this feature too. Take a look to my post in this thread (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=004527;p=2). All thoughts are welcome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

LGM

September 5th, 2002, 07:57 PM

I would like to be able to suppress the abiltiy of a player to know their score ranking (game setup option) when all scores information is not shared with other players.

TerranC

September 6th, 2002, 12:22 AM

The SS Dedicated has served your nation well.
It has fought in many major battles, and always survived to see another day.
But the ship itself is now heavily outdated.
The crew, however, is still willing to command a starship.

You send the dedicated into a fight with a high tech dreadnought.

An option to transfer crew experience.
In order to do that:

You must have a ship that has 0 experience.
It must be younger than 50 turns
it must be mothballed.

In order to stop the transfer whenever it wants to:

The Transfer must take in a space yards.
Or the crew *experience* is lost due to the lack of Environment suits. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

In order to prevention of abuse Ie: a battlemoon with 50 experience:

The transfer is only allowed once.
The transfered ship has no movement points for 2 turns.
The transfer is only allowed with crews with 25-30 experience. (0-25: too young. 30-50: Too old. Admiral status)

DavidG

September 6th, 2002, 12:42 AM

How about this one:
(perhaps more of an SE V possibility)

The ability to upgrade a ship that contains componets you can't build yourself. Then you could for example buy an organically armoured vessel from your allie and then just put your own weapons engines etc. on it. Could make for an interesting game with lots of trading going on as races trade their unique techs.

jimbob

September 6th, 2002, 02:02 AM

Terran: Brilliant thought about the transfer of skilled crews. Instead of limiting the number of times a crew could be transfered, or on the basis of their skill level, what if you assign a specific # of crew needed per ship mass (this is clumsily represented by the number of crew quarters needed).
Then, if you wish to do a transfer, you would select how many crew members would be transfered between the ships. The new skill level of each ship would then be recalculated.
You could therefore load up a planet sized ship with a veteran crew from a scout, but their skill level would be diluted out by the new recruits who make up the majority of the crew. Likewise you could split up a veteran crew from a huge vessel between many smaller ships and bring up their skill levels considerably.
Some people may even start overcrewing their ships so that as the ship gains experience, it can be slowly bled of officers who can now command new ships.

DavidG: I think this would be best accomplished through plug-N-play components. Just buy and trade the individual components from others. If you capture a ship with interesting plug-N-play components, disassemble for it's components instead of analysing it for the technology.

That's just my 2 peso's.

[ September 06, 2002, 01:06: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Baron Munchausen

September 6th, 2002, 03:36 AM

Keeping track of 'crews' is a bit difficult since a 'crew' is actually a composite of hundreds or possibly thousands of people/creatures. And the number of crew required for each given size/class of ship is going to be different, not to mention differences caused by changes of the equipment in use. An 'experienced' crew of a missile ship is not going to be nearly so competent if you transfer them to a carrier. How do you track the 'type' of training that the crew has? And anyway, the AI cannot use the current system. How will it handle a more complex system?

I think that what is required is some sort of 'pool' of crew experience based on the number of ships in you have in service and how long they are in service. A sort of 'accumulated hours of operation' measurement, averaged over the number of ships you have. As this pool grows larger relative to fleet size, the default experience of your ships can increase because you can assume a better general level of training in your 'armed forces'. But ships getting destroyed in combat means dead crew, so you should also suffer losses from your pool due to combat losses. Ship and fleet training facilities will still have a use, but they should just add to the 'experience pool' and all ships just rely on the global 'average' experience/training level. This would be much more usable by the AI then the current system.

Ships should still gain experience individually for success in combat, but this system would tend to 'even out' the difference between ships and make your fleet have a similar level of effectiveness. I suppose some people will not like this feature of the system. But isn't that how it works in real life? Do navies in our world generally have radically different levels of crew competence among their ships? If you still want to have 'elite' units than maybe you should be able to give some ships a special designation as 'elite' and pay extra maintenance costs for their extra training so they can be above the fleet average. The AI could also deal with this more easily than having to park ships over a given planet until they are trained.

[ September 06, 2002, 02:49: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Zanthis

September 6th, 2002, 04:17 AM

I really like the crew xp ideas floating around. I'd like to add that I personally feel crew should be treated as a resource. You just cannot instantly train the crew for 10 baseships every month. Combined with Baron Munchausen's global crew experience system, you could do something like:

You have X crew in your empire. You have Y experience evenly divided among them. Each crew quarter carries 1 (moddable) crew. Whenever a ship dies, your total experience becomes Y/X*(X-n) where n is the number of crew that ship carried. You total crew in the empire obviously becomes X-n.

Training facilities add crew every year. The base experience of these new crew members varies based on the level of the facility. Lower ones add 0 xp crew to your empire, reducing the overall experience. You could also have the ability to draft crew, which requires no facilities but the drafted crew have negative experience and therefor more strongly reduce the overall experience of your fleet.

Further, you could still track individual ship experience. Say the system worked just like now. Only every year, each ship has its experience "harvested" out of it to add to the empire pool. So any given ship's actual combat ability would be determined by Empire Experience per Ship plus the ship's own Experience. Losing ships before their earned xp could be harvested out could obviously be rough.

capnq

September 6th, 2002, 08:59 PM

In Tactical Combat, I'd like to be able to set individual ships on auto, rather than it being all or none the way it is now.

Baron Munchausen

September 6th, 2002, 09:38 PM

I've wanted to have auto-movement and auto-fire as seperate options, like they were in SE III. Still ask once in a while. You never know when MM might actually do something. I asked for the hotkeys to disable or enable all weapons at once for months before he finally did that.

Being able to individually tag ships as AI controlled is an interesting idea. I'll add that to my list. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

September 7th, 2002, 08:53 AM

This would be probably for SE V not for a patch but anyway:
1.) The possibility to give a weapon one or several families of component/facilities as target. You could then expand dramatically the special weapons you have now, e.g. a weapon that destroys only allegiance subverters or religious talisman.
2.) For every weapon a line of the shield level they can skip: 0 = no shield skipping; 1 = skips shield level 1 and so on.
3.) Introduce shield levels: you could create a almost never ending race of research for higher shield levels and weapons that can defeat them.

StarJack

September 7th, 2002, 10:03 AM

I'd like to be able to research a small tech tree that enabled additional population growth on a planet that had reached it's maximum based on planet size. Super Skyscrapers, Underground or Orbiting population habitats, etc. that added a percentage increase or a fixed # of additional population...

DavidG

September 7th, 2002, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Q:
This would be probably for SE V not for a patch but anyway:
1.) The possibility to give a weapon one or several families of component/facilities as target. You could then expand dramatically the special weapons you have now, e.g. a weapon that destroys only allegiance subverters or religious talisman.
In a similar vien how about a way to aim a weapon. You could select targetting priorites for your weapons. ie aim for the engines or weapons. aiming could be done such that your chance to hit would be less but would increase your chance to hit a certain component

Zanthis

September 7th, 2002, 10:43 PM

I'd like to see a "Shield Damage Multiplier" added to every weapon. So if you wanted to do quad damage to shields, set it to four. Want to do 20% more, set it to 1.2 . That would allow the new Weapon Damage Types to be removed and let us use various levels of shield damage along side special Weapon Damage Types. You could make an engine damaging weapon that did half damage to shields, etc. Easy change too.

Mylon

September 8th, 2002, 03:00 PM

More features I'd like to see:

Upgrading facilities. Upgrading a facility should only reduce the cost by one half of the old facility rather than decreasing the new facility cost by half. Furthermore, when upgrading you should be able to choose from different levels along the same tree, which can be toggled by the "show latest" checkbox.

Space yard construction. Apparently the minimum a space yard can construct per turn is 2000 of each resource. I would like to see this minimum removed to reflect large penalties, such as those found in Proportions.

Additional building/facility traits: Extra living space (adds set amount or percentage to maximum population) and production bonus. Both these options (and perhaps many of the other facility traits) should be optional whether they stack or not. Thus, a planet with two cities (Proportions Mod) could build faster than a planet with one or none and reflect the additional development.

DavidG

September 8th, 2002, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Mylon:

Space yard construction. Apparently the minimum a space yard can construct per turn is 2000 of each resource. I would like to see this minimum removed to reflect large penalties, such as those found in Proportions.
Me confused. What do you mean by this? Space Yards can construct with less than 2000 if they are on slow build or if you take a negative in Construction for your Race.

Mylon

September 8th, 2002, 03:49 PM

In Proportions, when I build a space yard II my production shoots up from about 500 or so per turn to 2000.

Suicide Junkie

September 8th, 2002, 07:48 PM

Perhaps the spaceyard 2's are just that much better than not having a space yard.

Space yards ARE affected by the population modifiers.
Take a look at the abilities tab, and add up all those modifiers to SY rate, then multiply by the base rate of your yard.

What you might be seeing is:
Empire Base Planet Mineral Usage Rate := 500 instead of 2000.

So you only get 500 build rate until you finish your spaceyard...

Mylon

September 8th, 2002, 10:20 PM

Actually, it seems that if the modifiers would set the space yard rate to less than 2000 resources per turn, it is set to 2000 resources per turn. When I have 40M population or so I have a -60% modifier. The modifier is still there after building the space yard, but the production still makes a dramatic jump. Thus, bonuses apply quite well, but only limited penalties actually apply in that the space yard constructs 2000 instead of the advertised 2500.

Phoenix-D

September 8th, 2002, 10:35 PM

Again, I'm not seeing this in my Proportions game. Planet with SY II, 80m people- 1370 build rate.

Phoenix-D

DavidG

September 9th, 2002, 01:24 AM

How about a way to edit a message that was sent in game! How many times have you sent a message only to realize later in your turn you want to add or change something in it.

HEMAN

September 9th, 2002, 09:10 AM

I would like to see seperate Componets that can generate research or intell points. Example ; Research Station http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif . This was in the Jim bob poll, but i dont know the reason this didnt make to the patch v1.78.

dogscoff

September 9th, 2002, 10:20 AM

would like to see seperate Componets that can generate research or intell points.
Yeah, we've been asking for this forever, but I guess Aaron just doesn't like the idea.

As for the crew thing... I'd love to have a really involved crew management system. Each ship would require a certain number of crew to operate, according to size, and how many weapons, engines and so on it has.

Different amounts of crew would affect the ship's performance, kind of an extension to the current "destroy crew quarters and lose half your movement" situation. Crew members could be killed in combat, boarding attempts and random events, and so it would be important to carry some "spares". Of course you'd need extra crew quarters to house them.

Anyway crews would have to be recruited from planets (maybe even tracking their racial abilities=-) and could be transferred from ship to ship. That way you could rescue a crew from a crippled ship by sending out another ship with extra crew quarter space or some free cargo space. It would make boarding parties and allegiance subverters far more interesting as well=-) Throw in morale tracking as well and you'd have a brilliant system. Micromanagemnt hell, but a brilliant sytstem.

More ideas:
How about an option to NOT display unexplored systems of the galaxy map? It kind of narks me that you can see the general "shape" of the galaxy and can guess where some warp points are going to and from before you have explored the whole map.

Oh, and how about if ships that had been taken over with the Allegiance Subverter had a chance to overcome their psychic programming and convert back for a few (strategic or tactical) turns?

Mylon

September 10th, 2002, 03:15 PM

I'd like to see either a larger combat area, or less rounds in combat. The effect is that I would like to see unarmed ships actually capable of outrunning (in combat) armed ships. If a ship moves too far on the combat map, this could be reflected by movement on the system map, with the ship that moved being down one movement point for that turn. It seems rather silly for ships to get stuck against the "edge" and then pounded by dreadnaughts.

Shyrka

September 10th, 2002, 07:39 PM

1 � The ability of editing the orders list for ships, with the posibility of change the orders order and delete them.

2 � Displaying a note when the units that you are trying to build in a planet will not fit in the storage space of the planet.

3 � Some type of "Auto launch units" order.

zaphod-42

September 10th, 2002, 08:22 PM

The encryption of the .exe and savegames is a great feature that i like very much.

But please switch it off for the maps so we have the possibility to code our own editors (with all the missing features like generation of single systems, cut & paste ...).

Suicide Junkie

September 10th, 2002, 09:10 PM

I'd like to see either a larger combat area, or less rounds in combat.In settings.txt, there is:
number of space combat turns := 30
Number of Ground combat turns := 10

I'd reccommend setting the ground combat turns down to 1 or 2 as well as fiddling with space combat. Set like that, battles for a homeworld can take a year!

DavidG

September 13th, 2002, 12:47 PM

What I'd really like to see is more detail of what is happening in the combat screen in simultaneous games. Like you get if you do auto turns in tac combat in a single player game. You can see what components are getting dammaged in combat. Why is it not like this when you replay a combat in a simultaneous game? It makes it hard to asses you efective your weapons are. And ground combat is even worse. You either win or lose. There is no way to tell how close you were to winning. Why not the ability to replay ground combat like you in the tac combat of a single player game?

Elowan

September 13th, 2002, 07:55 PM

SEIV is a lot about micro-managment and we could use some additional help with that.

For example: more waypoints in a scrolling list.

The ability to assign actions such as picking up pop and unloading same through the waypoint button. If the waypoint is at a planet, then allow the move else - warning or gray out action selection.

Ditto sending off pop to another planet. If the destination planet does not have enough room for the pop - you should get a warning. And if you've automated the pick-up and delivery of pop - if the target planet cannot accept any more pop - you should get a msg to the effect that the planet is at capacity.

Ditto sending out a sentry ship: go to waypoint 5; assume sentry duty at waypoint 5.

Mylon

September 14th, 2002, 01:34 AM

Yes! More stats to go by when making designs!

Heh... I was wondering why I used to be able to see what components were destroyed and now I can't. I didn't know it was because of strategic and tactical combat. Another thing I would like to see is the two renamed a little, because I keep getting them confused! I had to turn off the manual combat mode at game start 'cause I kept clicking on that one for the unimportant battles I didn't want to see. "Strategic" and "Tactical" are too close in meaning to really be too separate.

tesco samoa

September 16th, 2002, 06:06 PM

The ability to mod treaties....

I.e. I would like a level above partnership where what ever you research is given to your partner since this is already available. It would solve all that screwed up tech trading and you would not have to worry about.

September 16th, 2002, 06:23 PM

Ten pages in this topic with wishes only for the next patch!!!
If I was Aaron this would give me a serious headache http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

geoschmo

September 16th, 2002, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Q:
Ten pages in this topic with wishes only for the next patch!!!
If I was Aaron this would give me a serious headache http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .Well, hopefully he will just see it as a good thing. At least it's ten pages of feature requests instead of ten pages of bug reports. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And maybe if some of these things don't ever make it into an SEIV patch, they will be considered for SE5.

Geoschmo

DirectorTsaarx

September 16th, 2002, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Q:
Ten pages in this topic with wishes only for the next patch!!!
If I was Aaron this would give me a serious headache http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .Well, hopefully he will just see it as a good thing. At least it's ten pages of feature requests instead of ten pages of bug reports. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, I've only heard about 2 bugs so far: some kind of problem with the ship/fleet window scroll buttons, and a bug with certain special damage types (the .5x, 1.5x, 2x, and 4x vs. shields damage are applied to both shields AND regular damage now).

jimbob

September 16th, 2002, 09:09 PM

Various warp point effects would be an amazing mod tool... like "create warp point - unstable X turns" where X can be any number up to 10 for example. Or "create warp point - random turns" where the worm hole will close spontaneously after a random number of turns. Then it would be so easy to simulate various types of FTL propulsion, etc. etc.

This might be asking for the sky, but how about "create warp point - unstable X ships" where any number of ships up to 10 can pass through before the worm hole colapses!? Of course "create warp point - unstable random ships" would be an obvious addition http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Man, we could do some nifty stuff with this.

President_Elect_Shang

September 16th, 2002, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Mylon:
I'd like to see either a larger combat area, or less rounds in combat. The effect is that I would like to see unarmed ships actually capable of outrunning (in combat) armed ships. If a ship moves too far on the combat map, this could be reflected by movement on the system map, with the ship that moved being down one movement point for that turn. It seems rather silly for ships to get stuck against the "edge" and then pounded by dreadnaughts.Thats what I say also. In SE III you could do just that. Idon't know why Aaron tossed it out.

geoschmo

September 16th, 2002, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Thats what I say also. In SE III you could do just that. Idon't know why Aaron tossed it out.While I am not opposed to the idea of retreat in principle, I have yet to hear a suggestion for how it could be implemented that I like. Simply allowing ships to reach the edge and withdraw as they could in SEIII would be fine for turn-based games, but it would have some serious issues in simultaneous turn games. Since you can't change orders in mid turn and allow a retreating ship to go on it's way, you could very easily pull an enemy fleet way out of position by giving your ship a retreat order.

Geoschmo

tbontob

September 17th, 2002, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
What I'd really like to see is more detail of what is happening in the combat screen in simultaneous games. Like you get if you do auto turns in tac combat in a single player game. You can see what components are getting dammaged in combat. Why is it not like this when you replay a combat in a simultaneous game? It makes it hard to asses you efective your weapons are. And ground combat is even worse. You either win or lose. There is no way to tell how close you were to winning. Why not the ability to replay ground combat like you in the tac combat of a single player game?I can't agree with you more! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tbontob

September 17th, 2002, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Mylon:
I'd like to see either a larger combat area, or less rounds in combat. The effect is that I would like to see unarmed ships actually capable of outrunning (in combat) armed ships. If a ship moves too far on the combat map, this could be reflected by movement on the system map, with the ship that moved being down one movement point for that turn. It seems rather silly for ships to get stuck against the "edge" and then pounded by dreadnaughts.Yes...we have an artificial system now where ships are in a box... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Captain Kwok

September 17th, 2002, 06:00 AM

I think the best solution to the combat map problem is that when a ship reaches the edge of the map it should be able to "withdrawl" or "retreat".

Gandalph

September 17th, 2002, 06:04 AM

I would like to see a patch that solves all current problems without introducing more problems.

Skulky

September 17th, 2002, 06:23 AM

just an idea, how about setting retreat options on your fleets/indiv ships strategies, default to don't chase unless have no orders, but oculd be set to a various combination of if thens.

btw, i want a scenario editor (that's like very powerful, basically be able to start a scenario on 2400.0 because all editing is done b4 game starts)

and then some ways to make If>Then statements that your fleets/ministers could understand, simple stuff, like if he breaks his fleet up and dispresses it then go straight for homeworld, but if he keeps it together hit his fleet. Of course it would have to be done wtih pulldown menus or something.

But just to qualify all this, SE4 + esp GOLD, and of course PBW are all great and i think that would still be playing Pharoah or some other crap strategy game ifit weren't for SE4. Thanks MM and Aaron + PBW + Shrapnel

Captain Kwok

September 17th, 2002, 04:07 PM

A larger combat map would just be more chasing which is boring!

geoschmo

September 17th, 2002, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
A larger combat map would just be more chasing which is boring!What's the difference between more chasing on a larger combat map, and more chasing on the strategic map? That would be the result of simply adding the ability to retreat from combat.

Geoschmo

Katchoo

September 17th, 2002, 04:23 PM

How about creating only 1 point on the map where you can retreat through (high velocity space current?). This way it makes running away a bit more challenging then just heading for any edge on the playing grid, and it gives one of the combatants the strategy of trying to block the escape route from the other attacker/defender.

The escape route could be placed in the same place on every map or could be placed randomly for added difficulty.

Has this been suggested before? Probably, but i'm too lazy to check http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tbontob

September 17th, 2002, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
How about a way to edit a message that was sent in game! How many times have you sent a message only to realize later in your turn you want to add or change something in it.I aggree with you. This shouldn't be a difficult fix! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Elowan

September 17th, 2002, 09:17 PM

How about a staged strategy?

I don't see where you can create a list of 1st option, 2nd option, etc. Am I missing something here? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Captain Kwok

September 17th, 2002, 10:32 PM

Posted by Geo
What's the difference between more chasing on a larger combat map, and more chasing on the strategic map? That would be the result of simply adding the ability to retreat from combat.
Sort of, but the ship might be lucky enough to get to a defended planet or base!

Baron Munchausen

September 18th, 2002, 12:57 AM

What we really need to solve this 'retreat' problem is a new movement system using coordinates instead of discrete 'boxes'. When ranges are absolute you'll know if you're in range or not and be able to keep hauling *** toward safety even if you are under fire. Maybe for SE V... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ September 17, 2002, 23:57: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

tbontob

September 18th, 2002, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Gandalph:
I would like to see a patch that solves all current problems without introducing more problems.We all have dreams.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tbontob

September 18th, 2002, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
I think the best solution to the combat map problem is that when a ship reaches the edge of the map it should be able to "withdrawl" or "retreat".Or as someone mentioned...have a larger combat map. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slick

September 18th, 2002, 06:06 PM

What about the "don't get hurt" strategy being modified (i think this must be hard coded) to automatically retreat if its speed is the same or faster than all enemy ships?

Slick

LGM

September 18th, 2002, 06:48 PM

I would like:

1) Allow Planets and Bases to be in fleets to get the Fleet bonsus and to keep defenders by the planet or base.

2) Allow Simultaneous turns to be saved in partial form and finished later.

3) Allow a Sent Message to be edited.

4) Allow us to specify an optimal range value for a ship design and use that to determine where to move the ship.

5) Allow formations to be added without creating a Mod.

6) Allow the Ordinal Position in a game to be hidden so a player does not know what place they are in.

7) Fix Seek After fleets to move after all non Seek After fleets. This will prevent the situation where two equal speed fleets will pass through each other if one is Seeking the other and the other is moving past the seeking fleet.

8) Fix the Quad damage bug with Temporal weapons. Currently does Quad to everything, not just shields.

9) Allow Queues to start production of next item with left over capacity.

10) Store copies of prior turn Messages locally for future reference.

11) Add Combat Replay for Ground Combat in Simultaneous Games.

12) Update Technology Report to reflect what partners have, do not limit to their ship designs. Or at least allow players to send a message to allies that will automatically tell them all their technology levels. This will facilitate partner technology trading. Also consider added an All option for technology under Gifts, Demands, and Trades.

13) Allow the ability to colonize planets with matching foreign breathers in a game where colonization is limited to breathable atmosphere (Green plus only games).

14) Add component, troop, and facility deterrents to intelligence and eliminate Counter Intelligence. Add an advanced trait to give immunity to loyalty based intelligence attacks (call it Absolute Loyalty).

15) Make every Intelligence operation have a time delay after point level is reached. If you could make the time delay calculated based on sectors from the nearest int facility that would be great!

16) Allow targetting priorities to include ships with certain component types: Quantum Reactor, Colony Module, Talisman, Warp-Point creation, Star Destruction, Planet Destruction, Ship Yards, etc.

17) Allow targeting to include an option for Easiest (use for direct fire) and Hardest (use for missles) to hit.

18) Re-evaluate Weapon efficiency. Make Graviton Hellbore a weapon to consider. Make Phased Polaron less cost effective (2.0 Damage per kiloton at max range and skips normal shields). There are whole threads on this issue.

19) Make ship versus ship ramming have a % change to miss modified by ship experience on both sides. Apply size modifiers as well.

20) Show component damage during simultaneous combat replays.

21) Attack and Defense modifers during simultaneous combat replays.

QuarianRex

September 18th, 2002, 07:51 PM

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet. What I would really like to see is the order of planetary cargo damage to be reversed.

Currently, planets see their fighters, mines, troops, and satellites get wiped out before the weapon platforms even get touched. If they could reverse that so the largest units (the weapon platforms) get smoked first then you might actually be able to get some interesting ground combats (the defending troops not being previously wiped out to protect the weapon platforms).

Does anyone know why it was set up like this? In ship combat components tend to get damaged from largest to smallest and I can't see why it would be reversed for planets.

overminder

September 18th, 2002, 11:12 PM

I would like to see the ablity to use the resupply depot of a subjugated empire or a protacted one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Elowan

September 19th, 2002, 12:36 AM

I'd like the map editor fixed.

Make or modify a system on a map by adding a small/tiny planet, no atmosphere. Now add another larger planet in the same place only with a breathable atmosphere. Now set that as Start Point 1. Save the map. Start SEIV and change the start conditions for systems to Good, 3.

Load the map and start the game. Nine times out of 10 - the tiny planet will have been converted to a breathable atmosphere planet but not be changed in size and the other, larger world will not be a starting planet at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Sad but true.

Baron Grazic

September 19th, 2002, 01:41 AM

I'd like to see the Politics redone so that :-
1. The AI followed up on his threats
2. Add a Value in the 'Treaty Grid' that says if 2 races know each other, but don't have a treaty.
3. Add some more Setup options to enable just the Score & Rank of all races, but no other details like number of Planets, Resources, etc
4. A history of Events, so that I don't have to remember that Iolo Sun will blow in 3 turns.

That is enough for now.

President_Elect_Shang

September 19th, 2002, 02:45 PM

Afraid Geo is right. I tried it also.
What do you and Geo have to say on the "Arcs of Fire?" Good idea, bad idea? Go ahead and criticize, I can take it. My idea is that it would make ship speed in combat more valuable.

Suicide Junkie

September 19th, 2002, 05:47 PM

7. (May already exsist) A way to disable the frelling Fleet Leader during tatical combat. I have lost way to many ships because of them trying to follow the GD leader and using up all their moves freaking out like a GD grasshopper on a hot plate!CTRL-(1-9) sets ships to be members of the matching fleet number.
CTRL-0 sets the ships to have no fleet designation. This applies to leaders as well.

You can also go into the orders menu and select clear fleet designation, or clear all fleet designations.

DirectorTsaarx

September 19th, 2002, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />7. (May already exsist) A way to disable the frelling Fleet Leader during tatical combat. I have lost way to many ships because of them trying to follow the GD leader and using up all their moves freaking out like a GD grasshopper on a hot plate!CTRL-(1-9) sets ships to be members of the matching fleet number.
CTRL-0 sets the ships to have no fleet designation. This applies to leaders as well.

You can also go into the orders menu and select clear fleet designation, or clear all fleet designations.<hr /></blockquote>You can also set "all ships break formation" in the strategies screen (I think that's where it is). Then you don't have to worry about weird formation movements in strategic combat...

DirectorTsaarx

September 19th, 2002, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by QuarianRex:

Does anyone know why it was set up like this? In ship combat components tend to get damaged from largest to smallest and I can't see why it would be reversed for planets.Actually, I think ship armor is damaged from smallest to largest, and other components are typically damaged largest to smallest... but I think there's some randomness involved as well, because sometimes I see engines get destroyed before weapons...

Slick

September 19th, 2002, 06:15 PM

One of my pet peeves is having to keep going back to the log and scrolling to find my spot. Even if you filter the log, sometimes this can be a chore if lots of things happen that turn.

I would like to see a "goto next [and previous] log entry" button. That way I can quickly step thru the events, even filtered, to act upon the new developments without having to go back to the log and scroll.

Suicide Junkie

September 19th, 2002, 06:26 PM

Actually, I think ship armor is damaged from smallest to largest, and other components are typically damaged largest to smallest... but I think there's some randomness involved as well, because sometimes I see engines get destroyed before weapons...Correct, although it is hitpoints that matter, not size. Most components have the same size as hitpoints, so this distiction only comes into play with mods and armor.

The B5 mod uses the fact that tougher internals are hit more often quite extensively. The B5 armor is simply high-hitpoint internals, so it gets hit more often, but is not guaranteed to be hit first.
Standard SE4 uses the "weaker armor gets hit first" feature for Stealth, Scattering and Emissive armor. The three above all have special abilities, and are much bigger, so they have more hitpoints. That makes the regular armor absorb a lot of the damage that would otherwise damage your extra ability armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

September 19th, 2002, 06:52 PM

With these internals, how much more often are you thinking that they get hit. That doesn't seem to jive with what I see. It appears for all intents and purposes to be completely random to me. I suppose if it just a small difference in chance it's possible I would not see it. An internal armor would offer some resistance as cannon fodder soaking up the damage that would otherwise go to usefull components. If the cost was low enough, or the tonnage to structure ratio were high enough I could see a lot of use in having these comps on your ship. But do they really get hit any more often than other comps? Have you done some real analysis to determine this?

Suicide Junkie

September 19th, 2002, 07:28 PM

Yes, I have.

At worst, the system randomly picks a hitpoint on the ship and then figures out what component it belongs to. (so a 20 hitpoint engine is twice as likely to be hit than a 10 hitpoint Bridge)

However, it does even better than that.

I did some simulations while balancing the B5 armor;
Two otherwise identical ships... both have the same tonnage devoted to weapons, engines and C&C. The remaining space on design A was all heavy armor and design B had all Light armor.

The light armor had 50% more hitpoints than the light armor. (6000, vs 4000), but the heavy armor came in 8kt components instead of 1kt components. Thus, the heavy armor have 5 times more hitpoints per component.

In actual combat, the Heavy ships won 2 out of three times!
With auto tactical, this was shown to be a result of the heavy armor blocking a greater % of the shots from the enemy weapons. The light armor ships would get hit, and suffer damage to weapons much more often than the heavy armored ones would.
Occasionally, the light armor ship would get lucky, and not lose a weapon until late in the battle. By that time, the heavy armored ship was nearly out of armor, while the light ship still had 2000 hitpoints left.

Slick

September 19th, 2002, 08:06 PM

The light armor had 50% more hitpoints than the light armor. (6000, vs 4000), but the heavy armor came in 8kt components instead of 1kt components. Thus, the heavy armor have 5 times more hitpoints per component.
Can you explain this a little further?

geoschmo

September 19th, 2002, 08:52 PM

Hmmm, I am still not conviced SJ. I did some quick tests myself using identical ship designs in auto-tactical and watched the order the components got hit in. I didn't mod any internal armo comps, but I use basehips with lost of extraneous comps, cargo bays, supply bays, fighter bays, to simulate the effect. The cargo bays do seem to get hit more frequently than the supply bays, which would seem to coroboate your findings. However the APBs which have a structure of 20 were getting hit more frequently than the cargo bays which have the same structure. And when I used meson bLasters which have a structure of 20 and figther bays which have a structure of 30, I saw no greater frequency of fighter bays destroyed than weapons. And bridges, engines, life support and crew quarters seem to be hit more frequently than they should based on their relative structure.

Also, I did some tests with armor I's and III's and the armor was destroyed almost exactly evenly in every case. I thought you had said previously that higher hitpoint armor is destroyed first. That also is questionable according to the results I am seeing.

Granted I did not do a tremendous ammount of testing. It's possible that I just don't have enough data. But I have enough to say if there is an increased chance, it's likely very small.

Geoschmo

capnq

September 19th, 2002, 09:10 PM

Satellite launchers do not work in combat. Only during movement.
This is only true in Strategic Combat. They work perfectly well if you launch them manually in Tactical.

LGM

September 20th, 2002, 01:12 AM

I have another bug for my list:

Satellite launchers do not work in combat. Only during movement.

Another addition:

Allow drones to be recovered.

Atrocities

September 20th, 2002, 01:27 AM

1. Wheel Mouse support
2. Slider Bars (to move from right to left up down etc.
3. An ADD TO ALL EMPTY QUES feature that allows one click instead of SHIFT many.
4. Improved Political operations.
5. The ability to use other races ship images if you steal their designs, or conquer them. Once Conquered, their ship images are added to your your ship construction list. You can choose to use your ship images or theirs.
6. A withdraw from combat option for Tatical and Stratigic combat. (You can avoid the fight entirely, RETREAT - STRATIGIC - TATICAL or run from it after its started OPTIONS, WITHDRAW. This feature would allow all ships that have the ability to leave to leave the combat area and can not be used for combat. Damaged ships that can not leave are automatically destroyed, or captured if the attacking fleet has capture ships. Why you ask - well have ever engage an enemy fleet that you thought was 12 ships and it turned out to be 90? You have 20 ships, and now your committed. A nice advantage for race who use cloaking devices but a P.I.T.*** for those who don't.)
7. (May already exsist) A way to disable the frelling Fleet Leader during tatical combat. I have lost way to many ships because of them trying to follow the GD leader and using up all their moves freaking out like a GD grasshopper on a hot plate!

[ September 19, 2002, 12:40: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

President_Elect_Shang

September 20th, 2002, 01:40 AM

Ok, this thing is up to 12 pages so if I am repeating something someone else said forgive me.

I would like to see the capability of moving through jump points made into an �ability� to be giving out of the Ability.txt file. Such as �Combat Best Experience� ability for example.

I would also like to see the ability �Drop Troops� programmed so that it can work with fighters. Actually it is for a strain of fighters that I call small craft. You can think of them as pre-fighter fighters, just think of the shuttles used in Star Wars or Star Trek that ferried men and equipment.

Finally I would like to see (this is a big one) a new �ability� that could be called �Dock Ship� or �Link Ships�. I think this one is pretty self-explanatory but just in case it would allow two or more ships to link up but not fire when linked. This would allow for the creation of a strain of warships that need a piggy back ride through jump points but can �unlink� before combat; fight; then link back up for the next transit.

Oh, since I am making out a wish list two more things. Change the tactical screen from squares to hexes; add in the ability to flee combat like in SE III; and add firing arcs to the Ability.txt file or as a line in the Components.txt file such as the �Weapon Type� line is.

That�s a lot of wishes!

Atrocities

September 20th, 2002, 01:44 AM

I would also like to see the ability �Drop Troops� programmed so that it can work with fighters. Actually it is for a strain of fighters that I call small craft. You can think of them as pre-fighter fighters, just think of the shuttles used in Star Wars or Star Trek that ferried men and equipment. Try this:

Name := Large Fighter Transport
Short Name := Smart Craft
Description := Fighter that can carry troops
Code := FL
Primary Bitmap Name := FighterLarge
Alternate Bitmap Name := FighterLarge
Vehicle Type := Fighter
Tonnage := 95
Cost Minerals := 300
Cost Organics := 0
Cost Radioactives := 0
Engines Per Move := 1
Number of Tech Req := 1
Tech Area Req 1 := Fighters
Tech Level Req 1 := 3
Number of Abilities := 2
Ability 1 Type := Combat To Hit Offense Plus
Ability 1 Descr := Maneuverability increases chance to hit enemy targets in combat by 50%.
Ability 1 Val 1 := 50
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0
Ability 2 Type := Combat To Hit Defense Plus
Ability 2 Descr := Small size makes ship 60% harder to hit in combat.
Ability 2 Val 1 := 60
Ability 2 Val 2 := 0
Requirement Must Have Bridge := True
Requirement Can Have Aux Con := False
Requirement Min Life Support := 1
Requirement Min Crew Quarters := 0
Requirement Uses Engines := True
Requirement Max Engines := 9
Requirement Pct Fighter Bays := 0
Requirement Pct Colony Mods := 0
Requirement Pct Cargo := 25

[ September 19, 2002, 12:46: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

September 20th, 2002, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet. What I would really like to see is the order of planetary cargo damage to be reversed.

Currently, planets see their fighters, mines, troops, and satellites get wiped out before the weapon platforms even get touched. If they could reverse that so the largest units (the weapon platforms) get smoked first then you might actually be able to get some interesting ground combats (the defending troops not being previously wiped out to protect the weapon platforms).

Does anyone know why it was set up like this? In ship combat components tend to get damaged from largest to smallest and I can't see why it would be reversed for planets.I did not see it in the history.txt but I believe this has already been changed. At least I conquered several planets with weapon platforms and troops on it and my ships only destroyed the weapon platforms before my troops landed. They had to fight againts the enemy troops and militia together (Version 1.78)

geoschmo

September 20th, 2002, 01:52 AM

Atrocities, that won't work currently. Units cannot hold cargo, even if you mod them to have cargo components.

Geoschmo

Atrocities

September 20th, 2002, 01:54 AM

I thought as much, I have never tried it myself, just trying to offer an avenue of exploration.

Atrocities

September 20th, 2002, 04:43 AM

Thanks SJ and DirectorTsaarx

President_Elect_Shang

September 21st, 2002, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The light armor had 50% more hitpoints than the light armor. (6000, vs 4000), but the heavy armor came in 8kt components instead of 1kt components. Thus, the heavy armor have 5 times more hitpoints per component.
Can you explain this a little further?<hr /></blockquote>I did some test as I was working on my mod and found that components with a higher �Tonnage Structure� where more likely to be hit than ones with lower numbers. I think this is the same thing SJ was saying. My idea is:
a) The game computes the percent tonnage structure of each component in percent value based on the total tonnage structure of all non-armor components.
b) If the ship is hit than it randomly assigns the hit based on the percent value found in step a; i.e. if the tonnage structure of a single weapon is 30% of the total tonnage structure of all components than 30% of the time it will be hit first.
c) Each hit is assigned randomly unless the Last hit was not enough to destroy the component. Once the component is destroyed the process starts over with the next hit.

Note that it is based on the total �Tonnage Structure� and not the �Tonnage Space Taken.� Also if I wasn�t so dang tired right now I bet I could work up a formula to test this idea against. One Last thing; if anyone test this and finds it�s right (or just asks Aaron) than I want my idea made into: �The Shang Law� because I believe it applies �gameversally� (I just coined that one) to damage from any source. Man I need some sleep, goodnight all.

[ September 21, 2002, 04:17: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

dumbluck

September 21st, 2002, 06:56 AM

Geo:

Which determines hit probability: Tonnage structure or Damage structure. IIRC, they are identical for cargo/supply/fighter bays, but the armor has a much higher Damage structure than Tonnage structure (thus the advantage of using it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ). Maybe that is why your test data didn't cooberate that of SJ?

EDIT: mi keebord cant spel!

[ September 21, 2002, 06:00: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Suicide Junkie

September 21st, 2002, 07:12 AM

geoschmo: Bigger internals, smaller armors get hit first.

Compare the Plasma projection armor and the Standard armor in P&N.

Slick:
For example:
Light armor - 1 kt, 12 hp = 12hp/kt
Heavy armor - 8 kt, 64 hp =8 hp/kt

Shang:
B) cannot be quite right, since the light armor had a greater % of the hitpoints of the ship, and it still let more damage hit the internal components.

President_Elect_Shang

September 21st, 2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
geoschmo: Bigger internals, smaller armors get hit first.

Compare the Plasma projection armor and the Standard armor in P&N.

Slick:
For example:
Light armor - 1 kt, 12 hp = 12hp/kt
Heavy armor - 8 kt, 64 hp =8 hp/kt

Shang:
B) cannot be quite right, since the light armor had a greater % of the hitpoints of the ship, and it still let more damage hit the internal components.Refer back the post in part A. I said it was for Non-Armor. I didn't test armor since it will always get hit first and I wasn't concerned with the order in which it was. It sure does not sound like the same process goes on for armor. Umm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

SJ you always get in such a rush when you read. Take your time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ September 21, 2002, 10:02: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

Sinapus

September 23rd, 2002, 03:28 PM

How about an ability to allow a facility to increase the max population of a planet?

(It's probably too much to make a component that can act as a 'planet' and have facility#/population# abilities so you can put it on a base hull and build space colonies and such.)

[ September 23, 2002, 14:28: Message edited by: Sinapus ]

Mylon

September 23rd, 2002, 03:40 PM

Unless population bonuses are changed (10% for an extra 1 billion?) then I really don't see the point in allowing extra population through a facility. If you just want the population without the production bonus, you can "harvest" excess population from the planet with a cargo ship.

Suicide Junkie

September 23rd, 2002, 05:10 PM

Refer back the post in part A. I said it was for Non-Armor. I didn't test armor since it will always get hit first and I wasn't concerned with the order in which it was. It sure does not sound like the same process goes on for armor. Umm?

SJ you always get in such a rush when you read. Take your time. That WAS non-armor (internals).

The components were called armor, since that was their main function, but they did not have the armor ability.

This "armor" was designed to be leaky, so some shots will get through, and damage the critical components.

geoschmo

September 23rd, 2002, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
geoschmo: Bigger internals, smaller armors get hit first.Right, and that's what I meant to say. I remeber you saying the smaller armor goes first. But what I saw in my tests was an almost randomly even distribution of armor damage between armor I's and Armor III's. No advantage to either. Or when you say smaller for armor do you actually mean tonnage? Are armor components destroyed by size while internals are destroyed by structure?

Geoschmo

Dragon of the void

September 24th, 2002, 09:54 AM

Very interesting tests, and thanks to you for taking the time AND telling us the result, so we can understand SE4 dynamics better.

Just one question:
When you do your tests, what kind of weapoon are you using ???

If, for example, you use a weapon that can not destroy the big component in one hit (or the left over damage from a hit after destoying a component is not enough to destroy another big component), you get the following result:

Comp. A (big) is hit, but not destroyed. Points are stored. Next hit, another random component is selected. Stored points are added.

Comp. B (small) is hit, and destroyed.

This has nothing to do with what component is selected randomly more often than the other, but with the viewable result you get (destroyed component). Or do you have a way to tell what component was hit, but not destroyed ???

overminder

September 24th, 2002, 04:42 PM

Here is a thought. What about making population used in ship/base building. say 0.1 for the smallest size then incressing as the ship size did. It would make older, more heavly pop worlds all the more importen. maybe even for troops. A single troop could be a 0.001 pop. It would make smaller ships a lower drain on worlds to build but give organics a new plus.

tesco samoa

September 24th, 2002, 06:06 PM

Fix the ship movement and ship combat initative. From being one empire goes first then the other.

And as always... Fix that one on one relationship with names...

tesco samoa

September 27th, 2002, 03:04 AM

How about this one.

When you are in the colonize window... ANd you have scrolled down near the bottom of the list... Select the colonize button...

The list stays where it is and does not reset to the top of the list

ckotchey

September 27th, 2002, 05:56 PM

Here's one...
When I start my turn, for example, let's say I've built 5 colonizers, so I have 5 identical Messages in my turn log. I go to the 2nd one, and click "goto", which takes me to the ship, so I do my things with that ship. I bring the log back up, but the list is "reset" with the "cursor" on the first entry in the log...so I can't remember now...did I just handle the message for the 2nd colonizer? the third? I think when it comes up, the "current" item should be remembered from the Last time I had it open.

Slick

September 27th, 2002, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by ckotchey:
Here's one...
When I start my turn, for example, let's say I've built 5 colonizers, so I have 5 identical Messages in my turn log. I go to the 2nd one, and click "goto", which takes me to the ship, so I do my things with that ship. I bring the log back up, but the list is "reset" with the "cursor" on the first entry in the log...so I can't remember now...did I just handle the message for the 2nd colonizer? the third? I think when it comes up, the "current" item should be remembered from the Last time I had it open.Yes, I sumbitted something similar to MM requesting "goto next[previous] log entry" HOTKEYS which would send you to the next[previous] location and show you the appropriate log entry. That way you could quickly go through the log and take actions on any entry as required.

Slick

ckotchey

September 27th, 2002, 07:13 PM

A minor thing, I'd like to see three different images used for the Mineral, Organics, and Radioactives storage facilities - each color coded...as it is now, they are all he same, and all green, so my first impulse is to think that they are all organics storage facilities.

Suicide Junkie

September 27th, 2002, 07:30 PM

There are three components near the end of the components images that would work very well for storage facilities.

Just do a bit of copy & paste, and change the picture numbers.

tesco samoa

September 29th, 2002, 10:10 PM

100 waypoints.... Hell... 5000... that way we cannot run out of waypoints.

Slick

September 30th, 2002, 05:59 PM

While we are talking about waypoints, I would like to see a system similar to "Empire Deluxe", which is a pretty old DOS based game which is as addicting as SE4.

Basically, in ED you had "paths". There were 3 different kinds: land unit, air units and sea units. Paths could be chained together with no limit on the number of legs. This made production of units in the inner parts of your empire very easy to set up so that new units eventually made it to your forward staging areas or battle areas.

In SE4, this would translate into being able to link waypoints to waypoints and make each leg only apply to selected ship types. This would fix one of my pet peeves: if you want to move a ship a long distance, you have to manually tell it where to resupply along the way. I believe you can turn on the resupply minister, but once he activates, the remainder of the ship's orders get lost.

If only the linked waypoint option was implemented (with increased number of waypoints) this would be a great improvement. Then we could set up paths linking inner shipyard areas to the front lines having the ship resupply as necessary along the way.

Slick

[edit: spppelling]

[ September 30, 2002, 17:01: Message edited by: Slick ]

capnq

October 2nd, 2002, 01:24 AM

Hmm, I've yet to play a game where I needed all ten waypoint slots that we get now.

HEMAN

October 4th, 2002, 05:19 AM

Things we'd like to see in the next patch;
(1) Moddable Ministers to fine tune them?.

(2) A list of all highest (numbers) features for the game so modders will know the limits (example max systems 255. Max pop/Max damage/facilitys etc.

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition #89 Ask not what your profits can do for you,but what you can do for your profits.

Foreman

October 5th, 2002, 05:13 AM

Features I do want:

- Trade or buy ally populations, or any other peaceful ways to have populations with different breathing air.
- Make intelligence actions important and deadly, not a just-for-fun option like now.
- Adjustable ship movement ratio between battle and tactic turns. Currently its fixed at 50%.
- A new game option : round moving range : moving horizontal/vertical costs 2 move points and diagonal costs 3 move points. Also the range checker shall be revised.
- Classify fighters to interceptors and bombers, which is majorlly designed to attack other fighters and ships respectively.
- Some weapon that can make splash damage, and maybe even presist several turns during battle.
- Familiar environment/suitable breathing air bonuses for defending side during ground battles. And maybe some new local military facilities that can enhance these bonuses.

Phoenix-D

October 5th, 2002, 05:18 AM

"- Make intelligence actions important and deadly, not a just-for-fun option like now."

Comm Mimic, Ship Insurrection, and Puppet Political parties aren't good enough?

Phoenix-D

Chronon

October 5th, 2002, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by HEMAN:
Things we'd like to see in the next patch;
(1) Moddable Ministers to fine tune them?.I agree wholeheartedly! I would love to be able to entrust the ministers with the truly tedious tasks like moving population around and have them do it the way I wanted them to. This would allow me to focus on the empire level decisions.

Foreman

October 5th, 2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"- Make intelligence actions important and deadly, not a just-for-fun option like now."

Comm Mimic, Ship Insurrection, and Puppet Political parties aren't good enough?

Phoenix-DThey are good, but:
- Lv1~3 Applied Intelligence researching cost is expensive.

- intelligence center is also taking a space of facility, which could be used to build researching center. And 500 researching points are much better than 500 intelligence points, because technology makes you grow rapidly.

- Overall, most current intelligence projects are too specific. Special projects are important, but regular information collection is necessary, and some long-term information sources shall be available.

oleg

October 5th, 2002, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Foreman:
Features I do want:

- Classify fighters to interceptors and bombers, which is majorlly designed to attack other fighters and ships respectively.

It is already present in SE IV. You can make separate designs for fighters and bombers, assign them completely different strategies and even make AI build whatever mix you like ! In fact, some custom AIs do exactly just that. Several mods, for example Proportions, also have a nice selection of specialized weapons for "fighters" and "bombers".

[ October 05, 2002, 14:17: Message edited by: oleg ]

capnq

October 5th, 2002, 08:37 PM

Trade or buy ally populations, or any other peaceful ways to have populations with different breathing air. You can do that now by trading ships loaded with population. Whatever's in the ship's cargo goes with it.

Taera

October 6th, 2002, 01:47 AM

Is there any new patch coming up actually?

Sinapus

October 6th, 2002, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Mylon:
Unless population bonuses are changed (10% for an extra 1 billion?) then I really don't see the point in allowing extra population through a facility. If you just want the population without the production bonus, you can "harvest" excess population from the planet with a cargo ship.Well, I did mod my settings.txt to give higher bonuses for various population levels. With a facility that gives a population bonus, it could be possible to boost the populations of smaller planets above points where you get an additional bonus.

That and the other thing about space habitats is something I've thought of from time to time. O'Neill colonies and such. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

capnq

October 6th, 2002, 10:07 PM

Is there any new patch coming up actually? I can recall at least two mentions of bugs that the beta testers' current build has already fixed, but no rumors of a release date.

tbontob

October 9th, 2002, 09:17 AM

What I would really, really, REALLY like to see is for us to have the capacity to program how our ships and fleets do battle.

Over fifteen years ago (Is it really that long? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), a game was written for the Apple whereby robots fought with sensors, weapons, movement etc. Using boolian, we would program the robot and then match it agains others.

It was a hoot. And a lot of fun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If this could be done over 15 years ago, it should not be difficult to implement it into this game.

Nodachi

October 9th, 2002, 06:05 PM

I'd like to see mounts that can add an ability to a component.

I don't know if this could work but how about the ability to use more than one mount?

Mounts that could affect the ROF of a weapon would be good.

A restricted field add to the tech areas. Ex; You have tech A, you can research tech B or tech C, you choose B and now you can not research C. This would add a new element for modders to work with.

Gryphin

October 9th, 2002, 06:30 PM

I would like to see:
When you are selecting a Way Point to send a ship to I would like to see the system on the map the way it is in where you Set them. When you select a waypoint the system "lights up" on the map

[ October 09, 2002, 23:54: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Foreman

October 9th, 2002, 06:38 PM

Thanks canpnq and oleg. I've tried these suggestions and almost satisfied. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

After some more playing on this game, I found that checking construction instructions of all planets cost most of my time. If a planet isn't building anything, it's either well developed (filled all facility slots) or not given suitable instruction yet. I would like to see new planet status icon that represents 'no space yard there and all facility slots are filled with highest tech buildings'. Then I may just sort them and pick the planets without that icon.

About the 'interceptor and bomber classification' I mentioned on Last message, I've tried to edit game data (based on Prportions mod) to achieve it. Simply two major concerns:

- All class of fighters have some internal supply storage ability.
- Two sets of small fighter engines: one normal set, and the other without supply storage ability BUT cost much supply during movement. The latter one even get higher engine thrust. The latter set of new small engines could be used to defend planet and/or carriers during battle but cannot leave their planet/carrier to battle since firing cost supplies.

About the 'easier way to get population of different race', I do think migrations shall be allowed during partner kingdoms, just like USA and UK. If players could upload some population while download same amount population, AND not making that planet dormed, that shall be allowed.

Trading ships with loaded population is quick, but I cannot know what's the tranport loads before exchange, and I am playing no-saving games.

[edited: syntax]

[ October 09, 2002, 17:41: Message edited by: Foreman ]

Suicide Junkie

October 9th, 2002, 07:01 PM

About the 'easier way to get population of different race', I do think migrations shall be allowed during partner kingdoms, just like USA and UK. If players could upload some population while download same amount population, AND not making that planet dormed, that shall be allowed.Trading for a race that breathes the same atmosphere accomplishes nothing except make your people angry.

You can't undome any new planets, and you suffer from the "alien population" happiness penalty.

About the 'interceptor and bomber classification' I mentioned on Last message, I've tried to edit game data (based on Prportions mod) to achieve it. Simply two major concerns:...Adding (or removing) supply storage to the fighter's hull (in vehiclesize.txt) would solve the first problem.
The second problem is easily solved by adding restrictions to the components. One-per-vehicle would prevent someone from adding both types of engine.

If a planet isn't building anything, it's either well developed (filled all facility slots) or not given suitable instruction yet. I would like to see new planet status icon that represents 'no space yard there and all facility slots are filled with highest tech buildings'. Then I may just sort them and pick the planets without that icon.Can't you just sort the colonies by facility slots used, and then just scroll down to the empty ones, and deal with whichever ones have no black-and-yellow construction in progress icon?

Foreman

October 9th, 2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />About the 'easier way to get population of different race', I do think migrations shall be allowed during partner kingdoms, just like USA and UK. If players could upload some population while download same amount population, AND not making that planet dormed, that shall be allowed.Trading for a race that breathes the same atmosphere accomplishes nothing except make your people angry.

You can't undome any new planets, and you suffer from the "alien population" happiness penalty.
<hr /></blockquote>Let me give an example:
- I am playing a race breathing methane
- I have an ally that breathes oxygen
- My transporter loaded 40M population of my race
- This transporter is moved to an ally planet, which is a rocky methane planet, domed since my ally don't breath methane.
- In this case, I hope that I may unload 40M methane population and upload some oxygen pop.
- The population exchange action is allowed only if the incoming race can remove the domes of a planet, maybe not immediately (if some original population left there) but his ally can really benefit from it.
Exchanging transporters with population is not migration but politic tricks :<

<blockquote>quote:<hr />About the 'interceptor and bomber classification' I mentioned on Last message, I've tried to edit game data (based on Prportions mod) to achieve it. Simply two major concerns:...Adding (or removing) supply storage to the fighter's hull (in vehiclesize.txt) would solve the first problem.
The second problem is easily solved by adding restrictions to the components. One-per-vehicle would prevent someone from adding both types of engine.<hr /></blockquote>Thanks, I've already done both of them it before I post my idea.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If a planet isn't building anything, it's either well developed (filled all facility slots) or not given suitable instruction yet. I would like to see new planet status icon that represents 'no space yard there and all facility slots are filled with highest tech buildings'. Then I may just sort them and pick the planets without that icon.Can't you just sort the colonies by facility slots used, and then just scroll down to the empty ones, and deal with whichever ones have no black-and-yellow construction in progress icon?<hr /></blockquote>Yes I can. I just want a more convenience tool. If 'next planet' could skip planets that have that new icon it would be even better.

Sorry for my bad english syntax, and thanks for the advices. Maybe someone there feels that I am an unexperienced player, but I do accomplished more than 20 SE4 games, and keep reading forum for more than half year. I just didn't post before.

henk brouwer

October 12th, 2002, 01:12 AM

I'd really like to see this bug fixed (AI not using bonus correctly, posted by Oleg):

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007152

It shouldn't be too hard too fix but would have an enormous impact on AI performance.

And ofcourse I'd like to see the AI use captured populations, but that would probably require a lot of work from Malfador...

Foreman

October 21st, 2002, 07:01 AM

another one cent idea: a new warhead.txt file that defines whether a damage type will bypass something or not -

DAMAGE TYPE := Engines Only
Bypass Normal Shield := False
Bypass Phased Shield := False
Bypass Armor Ability := True
Damage Armor := False
Damage module only terms := 1
Damage module 1 := Standand Ship Movement

DAMAGE TYPE := Mine Warhead
Bypass Normal Shield := True
Bypass Phased Shield := True
Bypass Armor Ability := True
Damage Armor := True
Damage module only Number:= 0

etc...

Or maybe the boolean values could be some numbers, which identity damage type vs specific module, such as Quarter2Shields (400%).

dogscoff

October 21st, 2002, 09:42 AM

Trading for a race that breathes the same atmosphere accomplishes nothing except make your people angry
Not true. Put 2 million Terrans on a planet. in 10 turns you'll have 3 million population.

Now remove the population and put 1 million Terrans and 1 million Cue Capp on the same planet. In 10 turns time you'll have 4 million population. Doesn't seem like a big deal but in Proportions games, for example...

tesco samoa

October 22nd, 2002, 05:23 AM

As per other thread.

Fix the Message system...

Ability to edit Messages...

Ability to view previous Messages...

tesco samoa

October 26th, 2002, 03:03 PM

i still think he should open the game up....

That way we can code our own changes...

Also...

Another thing i would like to see.

Set level for defences at a location.

IE.... You deploy mines above a warp point that will be set off against anyone below Partnership...

OR WP and Mines at this planet will fire on any ship below Military alliance.

TerranC

October 26th, 2002, 05:45 PM

Immigration/Emigration/Expatriates/Foreign Nationals!

CombatSquirrel

October 26th, 2002, 10:36 PM

There are two things I would like to see in the newest patch.

1) the option of excluding certain tech areas from research if a player has a particular racial tech already selected (very useful to avoid the :honor system: in many mods), and

2) the change in refueling at starbases modified (again). It would be useful and justifiable if a ship that Mothballs and then is eventually Unmothballed at a base gains its full supplies. I think that is a reasonable workaround. It still puts ships out of play for a least a turn, costs a small amount of resources for the Unmothballing, and hoses crew experience. All justified by the nature of base drydock, and manditory crew reassignment (or just awesome shoreleave). But it still allows deepspace bases to be used (as they should be) as rallying points for conquest.

Combat Squirrel

[ October 27, 2002, 01:50: Message edited by: CombatSquirrel ]

DavidG

October 27th, 2002, 01:58 AM

If MM implements even a small fraction of these suggestions he is god! I wonder if we could narrow it down to some things we really want. Perhaps make a list of 10 to 20 things then we could vote on the ones we'd most like to see?

Val

October 27th, 2002, 03:40 AM

I'm sure it has already been said, but I'd still love to see worm holethat have a time delay between systems (the jump will take an extra turn to arrive at destination) and see worm holesthat will automatically close after a set number of turns. (After the ship opens the worm hole it can only sustain it for x # of turns, then it colapses).

That and voice commands http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Pax

October 27th, 2002, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Nodachi:
I'd like to see mounts that can add an ability to a component.Oh HELL yeah! I'd LOVE to turn the Talisman into a MOUNT. The more guns you have benefitting from the Talisman's effects, the more it costs you ... !

I don't know if this could work but how about the ability to use more than one mount?It could be done, IMO. Instead of a "choose one" drop-down list, a "tick-box" list like in empire options.

The difficulty there would be, to prevent using Large -and- Massive mounts for the same weapon; a "restricted mount(s)" field would have to be added, or a "mount family" field and only allow one mount of a given family number (once you pick one, grey out the rest, for example).

Mounts that could affect the ROF of a weapon would be good.Hell yes, again. For example, a "Rapid Fire" mount that cuts damage by 2/3, but also cute ROF by 50% (round UP, so half of 3 is 2) ...

A restricted field add to the tech areas. Ex; You have tech A, you can research tech B or tech C, you choose B and now you can not research C. This would add a new element for modders to work with.I'd LOVE this. I'd also like to see the Restricted Trait fields (etc) in RacialTraits.txt made to work ...

QuarianRex

October 27th, 2002, 08:14 PM

One thingnthat I would like to see is for the emotionless trait to be fixed. Tis supposed to provide a flat +20% bonus and stay there. Instead it merely freezes the pop happiness at current level.

I had thought that this bug was fixed but I was playing a SE4-1.78 Proportions game and managed to take an enemy homeworld after a sustained siege. Imagine my supprise when I noticed that my spoils of war were frozen at -100%!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

There was nothing I could do. I tried replacing the population, and even tried scouring it with neutron bombs, but in the end I just had to scrap it and move on.

My wrath was legandary.

tokche

October 28th, 2002, 01:55 AM

a blockade strategy. a fleet goes to a planet kills all of its defenses but after the defenses are down the ships just blockade the planet. this would be very useful when trying to force another empire to surrender but they wont. Jst blockade their Last planet and just wait. they cant do anything.

HEMAN

October 28th, 2002, 03:08 AM

DAVID G wrote; If MM implements even a small fraction of these suggestions he is god! I wonder if we could narrow it down to some things we really want. Perhaps make a list of 10 to 20 things then we could vote on the ones we'd most like to see?.

Oh yes, I remember JIMBOB doing a poll like that.

jimbob

October 28th, 2002, 05:54 AM

Yah, and then I did the stupidest thing ever...
procrastinated.

I've still got all the data though.
Should I resurect the final analysis for y'all?

Hotfoot

October 28th, 2002, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by tokche:
a blockade strategy. a fleet goes to a planet kills all of its defenses but after the defenses are down the ships just blockade the planet. this would be very useful when trying to force another empire to surrender but they wont. Jst blockade their Last planet and just wait. they cant do anything.Couldn't you do this by creating a custom strategy where the ships/fleet only damage the planet to a certain amount (say 75-80%) then pull back?

PaladinX

October 28th, 2002, 10:55 AM

Definitely casting in my $.02 in favor of making trait requirements and restrictions work in racialtraits.txt. Definitely has my vote. I'll even send in an actual two cents if it will help http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

-Paladin

Val

October 28th, 2002, 06:43 PM

What were the final results of the poll Jimbob?

DavidG

October 29th, 2002, 01:22 AM

Yea I like to see tha Poll jimbob. I like to vote in it too. There are a lot of good suggestion in this thread. Just as there are a lot that are really more SEV type enhancements. Be nice if we could give MM a nice short doable list of things we'd like.

And based on a current game here is one: Satelite placement. Aren't these things supposed to orbit a planet? Please please please don't place my 100 satellites a mile away on the opposite side of the planet from the attack. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif spread em out a bit.

jimbob

October 29th, 2002, 02:18 AM

Okay, the thread was called:

SE:IV Platinum Edition (voting topic)

For the entire thread just enter "Platinum" into the search engine (right next to the big bullet at the top of the screen http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ). The original voting choices are in the very first post. The final tally of what people wanted is posted here below. As long as I've got you though, my personal Favorites as of today are 1) Warp Point Types - I want 5!!, 2) Better Satelite Placement and 3) more damage only types. But hey, I'm just a hack modder - ask Suicide or Val or Rolo or.... Anyway here's the poll data:

Top 15 choices in descending order of popularity:

#12 a-c, spread out/orbit satellites around planets, 13% of votes
#29, mouse wheel support, 9%
#1, components with research and intel functions, 7.5%
#7&8, more �damage only� categories, 7.5%
#22, add �system randomizer� to editor, 6%

#23, add more warp point types, 5.5%
#4, give drones �move to� in orders menu, 5%
#14 , introduce race specific anger modifiers (a.k.a. the blood feuds modifier), 5%
#16, , teach AI to utilize captured populations (utilizing atmospheres) 4.5%
#26, auto-resupply by en routeships running low on supplies, 4%

#6, option to not require star for some types of constructed planets, 3.5%
#17, improve AI combat tactics� esp. �just out of range� and �in & out of range�, 3.5%
#13, introduce anger modifiers for the use of certain components or facilities, 2.5%
#15, give �declare war� teeth. If human or AI agrees, enforce the war footing, 2.5%
#24, racial points used to buy starting technologies, 2.5%

For those who love stats...
General Statistics of the Voting Process:
-total votes cast 205
-top 5 choices received 43% of votes
-top 10 choices received 67% of votes
-distribution is standard bell curve, slightly wide std. dev.

The mouse wheel was the only anomalous topic, with 9% of the votes, but only 5 individuals voting for it. For the most part these voters (more accurately �devotees of the mouse wheel�) cast all their votes for #29. I think that I should have limited the number of votes per topic to 3 per person to even this out, but too late now. Perhaps if someone opens a new thread - Platinum II - we could get a new vote keeping in mind the new threads, new ideas, old ideas, etc, and we could fix up the way the weighted voting works.

[ October 29, 2002, 00:20: Message edited by: jimbob ]

jimbob

October 30th, 2002, 02:56 AM

Okay, so no responses to that yet...

Here's what I want for warp point types, five different abilities to add to abilities.txt:
Edit: and by the way, none of these are my original ideas, they've all come from other people at this site

1) ability open warp point
- opens a normal warp point
Value 1 : max distance it can open
Value 2 : 0

2) ability open periodic warp point
Value 1 : max distance it can open
Value 2 : # of turns it appears open then # of turns it appears closed

3) ability open delayed warp point
Value 1 : max distance it can open
Value 2 : turns it takes a ship to get through to other side.

4) ability open "single use" warp point
Value 1 : max distance it can open
Value 2 : # of ships that can pass through before it closes.

5) ability open sieving warp point
Value 1 : max distance it can open
Value 2 : largest ship size that can pass through in kT. Larger ships just excluded, not damaged.

Edit: 6) ability open vampire warp point
Value 1 : max distance it can open
Value 2 : number of resources used per ship that travels through the warp point.
Okay, this one's mine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The number of uses of these abilities are almost limitless - especially if we were able to have more than one ability to each warp point -- can we have multi ability warp points though??

[ October 30, 2002, 01:00: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Val

October 30th, 2002, 03:44 AM

I like 'em a lot! This would add quite a bit to the game, as far as making it represent different types of Sci-Fi universes.

As for you being a hack, I will remind you that what you submitted for the B5mod was added almost untouched - other than stuff that had already been done without your knowledge - hardly a hack IMHO http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

DavidG

October 30th, 2002, 01:53 PM

I think the best type would be:

7) ability open "Temporary" warp point
Value 1 : max distance it can open
Value 2 : # of turns it stays open

I think this would be a great way to simulate warp drive or Hyperspace drive. All ships could get a warp drive component and then open their own warp point which would then close behind them.

DavidG

October 30th, 2002, 01:59 PM

And yes I love the Plantinum thread. I've been thinking about starting Platinum II thread. I just need to find time to browse through this thread to pick up other's ideas. I've got a list of bout 10 things myself.

jimbob

October 30th, 2002, 09:43 PM

I think this would be a great way to simulate warp drive or Hyperspace drive. All ships could get a warp drive component and then open their own warp point which would then close behind them.So the warp point would have to have three abilities total
Ability 1 : # turns open
Ability 2 : max distance
Ability 3 : max # ships that pass through

Of course Ability 3 could be hardcoded into "Open Temporary Warp Point" so that only 1 ship can pass through. y'know what I mean?

Sinapus

October 31st, 2002, 04:50 AM

Actually, I'd just like to see the next patch...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

(That "drones 'attack' warp point by going through it and attacking anything on the other side" looks very useful. Hope the AI can do it.)

HEMAN

October 31st, 2002, 05:28 AM

Yes JIMBOB, i like the warp editions & DAVID G satilite placements too? a definite vote on me.
Hey JIMBOB are you going to make a new poll?. with new ideas from others that made a post too.??

[ October 31, 2002, 03:30: Message edited by: HEMAN ]

Rexxx

October 31st, 2002, 03:20 PM

I would like to see some improvements for the AI and AI-modding. Forgive me, if I repeat ideas mentioned before:

Fleets:
I would like to decide for myself which design-type can join a fleet. More influence on composing the fleets (numbers of ships AND types) would be nice, too.
The standard training facilities are a great advantage for human players. They are useless for the AI which is too busy sending its ships around. Systemwide effects would help. Training works fine for a psychic AI and makes it a much more challenging opponent. I know that renders one of the main advantages of psychic races pretty useless but it should be possible to compensate for that.

Design
A distinction between the abilities of cloaking devices, ECM and stealth armor. I prefer maximized defensive equipment for my races (ECM plus Cloaking plus stealth plus scattering armor) but so far I found no way to handle it.
The construction vehicles file allows calling for names but the numbers (must have...) are still referring to types only.

Mines
Minefields and mine sweeping should be much more unpredictable. In the current Version mine sweeping is just a matter of mathematics.
The AI tends to forget mining warp points to systems without planets or does it much too late.