new SEIV patch !! [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

henk brouwer

January 27th, 2003, 05:35 PM

There's a message on shrapnel's front page saying the new patch is out ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 27, 2003, 15:36: Message edited by: henk brouwer ]

geoschmo

January 27th, 2003, 05:52 PM

Sweet!

Slick

January 27th, 2003, 05:57 PM

Anyone know what these really mean?

Version 1.84:
5. Added - Added two new target types for components: "Ships" and "Ships".

Version 1.82:
6. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
Slick.

Rollo

January 27th, 2003, 05:57 PM

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

Ragnarok

January 27th, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Rollo:
Nice! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Is it downloadable yet? I can't find a link for it anywhere. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Spoo

January 27th, 2003, 06:55 PM

Shrapnel main page
> downloads

Ragnarok

January 27th, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Spoo:
Shrapnel main page
> downloadsGot it.
Thanks Spoo and Gandalph. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Crimson

January 27th, 2003, 07:29 PM

Ha todays my b-day, what a great b-day present http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Now I just have to figure out how they knew http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Puke

January 27th, 2003, 08:29 PM

this has probably been covered, but whats this mean:

1. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types, again.
2. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or not). It does not matter if there is a Bridge on the ship.does 1 undo 2? or does 1 mean that you can crew convert all the damage types listed under the subverter? or does 1 mean that you can now crew convert unlisted types like planets?

I hope this means that we can mod in mind control rays from space, with which to take over planets. not because i think its a good idea, but because its just so funny.

geoschmo

January 27th, 2003, 08:41 PM

2 just means what it says. A ship with a MC is still protected from the AS even if the MC is destroyed.

1 is undoing a change made in 1.80. This was a beta patch not released to the public. He had changed it so the AS could NOT be modded to work against fighters/drones. Due to popular demand of the beta team and the general community, the exsistance of the change was made public even though the actual patch was not, he undid that change. I'd say if AS doesn't work against planets with 1.78 it's not going to work with 1.84 although I have never tried it. I agree that would be ridiculous.

Geoschmo

[ January 27, 2003, 18:44: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 08:56 PM

Geo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am wondering if there is a way to upgrade our PBW games to 1.84?

Of course, all the players would have to agree to play under 1.84.

But the first hurdle is, "Is it possible to play an existing game under 1.84"

[Edited real name]

[ January 27, 2003, 19:30: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 09:07 PM

I've downloaded the patch from this site.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/malfador/SEIVGold/SEIV_Gold_patch_3.htm

Now what do I do with it?

Do I need to have two games? One with 1.78 for PBW and another for 1.84

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 09:13 PM

Here are the patches.

Version History for Space Empires IV
---------------------------------------------------

Version 1.84:
1. Fixed - Reordered some of the formations to be better for ship movement.
2. Fixed - Tech Areas that were not allowed in the Game Setup would still show under the expected results list of research.
3. Fixed - Ships in combat will follow their fleet's strategy until they are no longer in a combat group. Once they are no longer in a combat group, they will follow their own strategy.
4. Changed - When planets take damage, weapon platforms will be destroyed first. After all weapon platforms are destroyed, then the remaining units will take damage randomly.
5. Added - Added two new target types for components: "Ships" and "Ships".
6. Fixed - The Designs Window list would not show a design with the same name as another, but with different case.
7. Fixed - AI would build multiple system-wide resource modifier facilities in a system.

Version 1.83:
1. Fixed - You could stop a "Slow Build" by clearing the queue.
2. Fixed - You could stop a "Slow Build" by giving a planet to another player.
3. Fixed - The Jraenar battleship portrait was 1 pixel to large.
4. Fixed - Intro screen graphic stretches to the screen size.
5. Fixed - "Any" and "None" were being confused in CompEnhancement.txt for the field "Weapon Type Requirement".
6. Fixed - Weapon Mounts were not showing in the expected benefits list when looking at a Tech Area report.
7. Fixed - AI will now use Master Computers on his ships correctly.
8. Fixed - Added more slots to all of the formations to keep ships together better in combat. New formations thanks to Imperator Fyron.

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless of whether they are in a combat group or not.
2. Fixed - Computer Players which had a "Computer Player Bonus" set above None were not using all of their bonus funds.
3. Fixed - The largest ship in a sector was not always being drawn on top in the system display.
4. Fixed - Planets in combat would not fire all of their weapons (sometimes).
5. Fixed - Planets in combat would not fire enough seekers against a target to guarantee its destruction (sometimes).
6. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little.
7. Added - The Log Window will now return you to the item you had selected the Last time you were in the window.
8. Fixed - Ships with a Tractor Beam would not fire weapons located after the tractor beam in their design.

Version 1.81:
1. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types, again.
2. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or not). It does not matter if there is a Bridge on the ship.
3. Fixed - AI will no longer launch "Anti-Planet" Drones in combat.
4. Added - Option to strategems to control how many drones are launched per target in combat.
5. Changed - You can now give drones orders to Attack warp points. This is essentially the same as telling them to warp through and attack anything on the other side. Any survivors can then be given new orders.

Version 1.80:
1. Fixed - Integer Overflow when a unit with no shields was hit by normal weapons.
2. Changed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will only work against ships regardless of the target type.
3. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or not).
4. Fixed - You can now give resource gifts in excess of 200,000.
5. Added - "x10000" and "x100000" to the Select Package window for resources.
6. Fixed - Fighters were unable to "Fire On And Destroy" ships.
7. Fixed - Organic Armor was pre-regenerating itself before damage occurred in combat.

Version 1.79:
1. Fixed - "X Damage to Shields" damage types were not working correctly.
2. Fixed - Shield Depeleters will now work properly against units.
3. Fixed - The result of a Communication interception intelligence project will be displayed with arrows in the log window.
4. Fixed - Ships would clear their order if trying to move to sector 0,0.
5. Fixed - Ships with regnerating armor will regnerate all of their armor at the end of combat.
6. Fixed - During a Deconstruct & Analyze, you would sometimes receive duplicate techs if a component and the vehicle size were new to you

geoschmo

January 27th, 2003, 09:28 PM

tbontob. Please edit your post and remove my name. It's not polite to use someones real name in a public forum. That is why we have nicks in the first place.

Geoschmo

Mephisto

January 27th, 2003, 09:36 PM

Special thanks to PsychoTechFreak and Zarix for keeping the bug they discovered/confirmed a secret until it was patched. Thanks, boys! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Crimson

January 27th, 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
Anyone know what these really mean?

Version 1.84:
5. Added - Added two new target types for components: "Ships" and "Ships".

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
Slick.so does any beta tester know whatz the deal with 1.84.5 is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

It should read:
5. Added - Added two new target types for components: "Ships\Planets\Sat" and
"Ships\Planets\Sat\Drone".

[ January 27, 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

Dralasite

January 27th, 2003, 09:42 PM

tbontob

January 27th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
tbontob. Please edit your post and remove my name. It's not polite to use someones real name in a public forum. That is why we have nicks in the first place.

GeoschmoMy apologies Geo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Was so excited about the new update, I just plain forgot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Mephisto

January 27th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Dralasite:
Its being asked all over the forum, but I'll ask here too. What will this mean for in-progress games? I'm sure it depends on the particular game and mod, but in general are these changes of the sort to really break things?I don't think it will break anything (instead, it will fix the TDB bug) and it is possible to upgrade. It always was, at least in a simultaneous game.

January 27th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Excellent! Everything seems to work fine with the new patch. The log list feature (return to the Last position) is extremly helpful for my current game where my log is about 500 lines!
The attack order for drones works even better than expected, because it seems that if you attack a warp point the drones will warp to the other side, which means you can really use them now for recon!!

orev_saara

January 27th, 2003, 10:17 PM

I don't have any games in progress right now, I've been working on my mod, which is my question. On the one hand, I didn't see any new features in the patch that I was particularly looking for, and I din't see any familiar errors, so I'm kind of reluctant to upgrade. On the other hand, I doubt this will be the Last patch, and I don't want my stuff to stagnate.

It looks like almost all of the stuff that changed was AI related, which I haven't done yet, so it should be fine. Can anybody else think of anything in the new patch that would require me to redo any data files?

Ragnarok

January 27th, 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by orev_saara:
On the other hand, I doubt this will be the Last patch, and I don't want my stuff to stagnate.I tend to disagree. Unless some bugs pop up for some players when they are playing the game I think this is the Last patch for Gold. Aaron will now be working on Starfury more and also SEV. But I could be wrong, which isn't uncommon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Dralasite

January 27th, 2003, 11:18 PM

I don't think it will break anything (instead, it will fix the TDB bug) and it is possible to upgrade. It always was, at least in a simultaneous game.Great, I'll upgrade tonight then! Thanks Mephisto!

Phoenix-D

January 28th, 2003, 12:02 AM

Its being asked all over the forum, but I'll ask here too. What will this mean for in-progress games? I'm sure it depends on the particular game and mod, but in general are these changes of the sort to really break things?"

I'd say almost all the time you can, in un-modded SE4. Some of the changes may require updating by mods, but it doesn't look like there were too many this time.

Phoenix-D

sparhawk

January 28th, 2003, 12:07 AM

Geoschmo, when will it be possible to change a game to SEIV Version patch3??

Thanks Sparhawk

Rexxx

January 28th, 2003, 12:27 AM

7. Fixed - AI will now use Master Computers on his ships correctly.

What does it mean? Equipping every ship with a MC "automatically" (we had this discussion some days ago) instead of bridge, CQ etc?
Won't have the time to test it for the next couple of days but I have to know...

[ January 27, 2003, 22:31: Message edited by: Rexxx ]

Krsqk

January 28th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Remember to keep a separate install of 1.67/1.78 handy for your PBW games, at least until they all upgrade.

Rollo

January 28th, 2003, 12:59 AM

Rexxx - yes, the AI will use MC on all ships as soon as they are available. It will not use B/LS/CQ then.

Rollo

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Its being asked all over the forum, but I'll ask here too. What will this mean for in-progress games? I'm sure it depends on the particular game and mod, but in general are these changes of the sort to really break things?"

I'd say almost all the time you can, in un-modded SE4. Some of the changes may require updating by mods, but it doesn't look like there were too many this time.

Phoenix-DMods will work perfectly fine. Upgraded games will work perfectly fine. The only difference is that mods will not use the new formations in 1.84 unless they are updated to do so. But, the unupdated mods will still work 100% ok.

Ed Kolis

January 28th, 2003, 01:07 AM

Even if it only has MC I (4000 minerals, 40 kT) and it's building an escort which only requires 1500 minerals and 30 kT worth of control components? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Desdinova

January 28th, 2003, 01:15 AM

guess the mc should be changed to 30kt to make it worth it volumewise.
also why is sheild generator I only 30kt but the rest are 40kt?

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 01:16 AM

The AI will almost never have only Escorts when it gets MCs.

Arkcon

January 28th, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Even if it only has MC I (4000 minerals, 40 kT) and it's building an escort which only requires 1500 minerals and 30 kT worth of control components? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Yes. It is the AI writers job to insure they don't research computers too soon. The goal is to allow the AI to defend itself vs the alliegence subverter.

geoschmo

January 28th, 2003, 01:42 AM

Although, it occurs to me that an AI unlucky enough to discover computers in ruins early on would be screwed.

We could do a mod which makes the MC too large to fit on smaller ships, and give a MC only mount above the ship size at which we decide the AI should start using them.

Geoschmo

[ January 27, 2003, 23:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Baron Munchausen

January 28th, 2003, 02:13 AM

But now there is Yet Another Vulnerability in the AI. Before, it was vulnerable to Psychic races because it didn't know to use the MC when it was in conflict with a Psychic race. Now it is vulnerable to ALL human players because it doesn't know to NOT use the MC when the player comes after it with the Computer Virus. And it will use the MC even in transports which is a ridiculous waste of resources. And yes, it will use them in any size ship so designing an AI that uses both large and small ships in the late game is impractical. This is a very bad change.

[ January 28, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Rexxx

January 28th, 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Arkcon:
It is the AI writers job to insure they don't research computers too soon.But that means no access to resource boosting facilities, too. And the colonizers will be getting very very expensive.

Spoo

January 28th, 2003, 03:09 AM

You could always mod the MC to be cheaper to help the AI.

Or move it to an offshoot tech of computer tech.

couslee

January 28th, 2003, 04:23 AM

Thats what I was thinking. a MC of ANY size of a colony ship is stupid.

sigh

Krsqk

January 28th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Well, I did a quick test, just being hopeful. Unfortunately, all ship designs use MCs, including transports, colony ships, etc. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Hopefully, this can be patched in the DesignCreation file. Maybe a Master Computer line with choices of "Prefer," "Allow," and "Disallow" or something like that. Then the AI could use it when available, use it as needed but also discontinue it/supplement it with B/LS/CQ when necessary, or simply not use it according to the design.

Rexxx

January 28th, 2003, 10:49 AM

Still haven't tested the new patch yet but I read about some very bad news.

I would say we've got a new ultimate weapon. Against those poor AI races who like robotoid factories and conquering my planets I would design a large weapon platform. Large WPs with combat sensors, 5 CV III and 6 PDCs should do the trick. This mounted CV has a range of 12, it skips shield and armor. Extremely efficient.
Well, an attacking fleet of direct fire ships will be getting in trouble. I would call that the renaissance of the plasma missile.
Add to this the talisman and direct fire ships become useless for planetary attacks. My next AI will be religious (as a bonus this trait allows access to resorce boosting facilities without the vulnerability against CVs). As I said very bad news...

Please, please tell me that this scenario is flawed.

[ January 28, 2003, 09:00: Message edited by: Rexxx ]

Fyron

January 28th, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
But now there is Yet Another Vulnerability in the AI. Before, it was vulnerable to Psychic races because it didn't know to use the MC when it was in conflict with a Psychic race. Now it is vulnerable to ALL human players because it doesn't know to NOT use the MC when the player comes after it with the Computer Virus. And it will use the MC even in transports which is a ridiculous waste of resources. And yes, it will use them in any size ship so designing an AI that uses both large and small ships in the late game is impractical. This is a very bad change.BM, it is better to have them just lose the MC from a virus than to have them lose the whole ship to an AS.

January 28th, 2003, 11:47 AM

You are all right about the AI problem with the master computer after the new patch. But IMHO the solution is quite simple: make the cost of a master computer equal or less than a bridge plus one life support plus one crew quarter and the size equal or less than 30kT. Then it will not harm the AI to use the MC even for the smallest ships.
In my personal mod I went a step further and made the master computer technology a racial technology and this works very well.

January 28th, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Rexxx:
Still haven't tested the new patch yet but I read about some very bad news.

I would say we've got a new ultimate weapon. Against those poor AI races who like robotoid factories and conquering my planets I would design a large weapon platform. Large WPs with combat sensors, 5 CV III and 6 PDCs should do the trick. This mounted CV has a range of 12, it skips shield and armor. Extremely efficient.
Well, an attacking fleet of direct fire ships will be getting in trouble. I would call that the renaissance of the plasma missile.
Add to this the talisman and direct fire ships become useless for planetary attacks. My next AI will be religious (as a bonus this trait allows access to resorce boosting facilities without the vulnerability against CVs). As I said very bad news...

Please, please tell me that this scenario is flawed.I believe it is flawed.
Look everything you describe was already possible before the new patch against human players who used master computers. Did that prevent the use of master computers??
You slow down ships by destroying their master computer, but they will still be able to fire and therefore destroy your colony if you have only the weapon platforms you describe. Then it is easy to repair the master computer after the combat if you have a repair ship in your fleet. And advanced AI races have ships with repair components in their fleets.
Therefore I don't think the computer virus has become an ultimate weapon.
But you point to a problem I criticized when the first news about this patch came out: if you start "balancing" the game by hard coded changes you might get more new problems than you solve.

[ January 28, 2003, 10:48: Message edited by: Q ]

Rexxx

January 28th, 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Q:
I believe it is flawed.
Look everything you describe was already possible before the new patch against human players who used master computers. Did that prevent the use of master computers??
You slow down ships by destroying their master computer, but they will still be able to fire and therefore destroy your colony if you have only the weapon platforms you describe. Then it is easy to repair the master computer after the combat if you have a repair ship in your fleet. And advanced AI races have ships with repair components in their fleets.
Therefore I don't think the computer virus has become an ultimate weapon.
But you point to a problem I criticized when the first news about this patch came out: if you start "balancing" the game by hard coded changes you might get more new problems than you solve.[/QB]Well, I don't give up so easily. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

My point was that a human player can easily exploit this new "Yet Another Vulnerability in the AI". Add lots of fighters to the WPs described above and the attacking fleet will get serious troubles.
You're right, advanced AIs use repair ships. However, so far I found no way to divide these ships evenly between my AI-fleets or to make sure that each fleet gets at least one. The only workaround I know of is to build "enough" of them and hope for the best. Another AI-problem which doesn't exist for the human player.

geoschmo

January 28th, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Nodachi:
The changes made so that an AS can no longer effect a ship with a damaged MC make perfect logical sense because a ship with an MC has no crew to convert. However, if a ship's MC is destroyed then that ship should be dead in the water instead of being able to continue to fight with a movement penalty.
Can't disagree with this from a realism perspective. However since ships with destroyed B/CQ/LS are allowed to fight and move with a penalty, then ships with a destroyed MC should be able to as well. No?

It looks to me that the AI in general just got handicapped and psychic AI's just got screwed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif The AI is handicapped, but I don't agree it's any worse then before, just different. We gave them their right arm back but we took their left. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Psychics maybe got screwed a bit, but the general consensus seemed to be before that Psychic was too powerful anyway.

Heavy handed I think is a good term for this change. I think a change was needed. I would have prefered something else, but I think this is better than what it was before. But hopefully in the next patch he will tweak it a bit more. The more people talk about it and make suggestions the better though because then we can get a better idea of what should be proposed to Malfador.

Geoschmo

[ January 28, 2003, 13:38: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

LGM

January 28th, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Q:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rexxx:
Still haven't tested the new patch yet but I read about some very bad news.

I would say we've got a new ultimate weapon. Against those poor AI races who like robotoid factories and conquering my planets I would design a large weapon platform. Large WPs with combat sensors, 5 CV III and 6 PDCs should do the trick. This mounted CV has a range of 12, it skips shield and armor. Extremely efficient.
Well, an attacking fleet of direct fire ships will be getting in trouble. I would call that the renaissance of the plasma missile.
Add to this the talisman and direct fire ships become useless for planetary attacks. My next AI will be religious (as a bonus this trait allows access to resorce boosting facilities without the vulnerability against CVs). As I said very bad news...

Please, please tell me that this scenario is flawed.I believe it is flawed.
Look everything you describe was already possible before the new patch against human players who used master computers. Did that prevent the use of master computers??
You slow down ships by destroying their master computer, but they will still be able to fire and therefore destroy your colony if you have only the weapon platforms you describe. Then it is easy to repair the master computer after the combat if you have a repair ship in your fleet. And advanced AI races have ships with repair components in their fleets.
Therefore I don't think the computer virus has become an ultimate weapon.
But you point to a problem I criticized when the first news about this patch came out: if you start "balancing" the game by hard coded changes you might get more new problems than you solve.<hr /></blockquote>If the attacking ships have a Bridge (or Auxillary Control), they should still get 1/2 movemement after the CV takes out the master computer.

Krsqk

January 28th, 2003, 07:39 PM

Any feedback about my Prefer/Allow/Disallow idea? If it sounds reasonable, especially to the AI modders out there, I'd like to send it to Aaron. It seems a simple enough means to permit AI use of MCs but yet prevent all-out usage. And it gives one more thing to mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

LGM

January 28th, 2003, 07:48 PM

I cannot believe people are still grumbling about AI limitations. Since there is no way to code your AIs to look at the environment around them, it will be hard to produce good AIs. You really need to be able to access information that would be available to a human playing the game. You need to know your resource levels, what are my shipyard capacities, what kind of races surround you, where there are big stacks of ships controled by other players, what those designs look like, etc.

If you really want to create smart AIs, you need to program them and have SEIV provide a way of indicating an executible module to make your designs (e.g. a COM object, a .NET object, or a DLL to invoke your AI code). In conjunction to this, SEIV would need to define interfaces that could be used to get information on the game (List of colonies, ships, units - friendly and enemy; Resource Information; Rival Race Information; Rival Designs; Treaty Grid; and so on all need to be available). Until you can create AIs in such a manner, they are going to be weakly driven by priority parameters. Those priority parameter are based on what you think is important in every game, they do not react to what actually transpires.

The only time I play SEIV is against humans, other than to test a race design for early growth (testing construction rate versus resource production) to make sure my designed race will be balanced.

This new patch fixed some bugs and weakness that human players could really exploid against other human players who do not know about them (or whose race cannot exploit them). A good fix was the quad damage versus shields fix. I moded those weapons to be Shields Only and I made the damage 4 times bigger to avoid Temporal Players from exploiting that bug.

The MC/Al Subverted takes away the unstopable combination of Virus + Allegiance Subverter for Psychic races. Now, the Psychic has one weapon for MC ships and one for crewed ships and he has to guess which type to build. You build both, you might not get to use one. This allows designs to be counterd, but at a cost. Before there was no counter to a Psychic with CVs before the patch.

Krsqk

January 28th, 2003, 08:21 PM

I don't think most of us disagree with the need for the fix, just the extent of the fix. AI use of the MC was broken, and it needed to be fixed. This patch did that. However, by not adding any limiting factors controlling the use of the MC (i.e., not on colony/transport ships), it gives a new set of obstacles to the AI. Colony ships will now be what, 4000 mins more expensive? That adds a turn to ship building for all but those with God-like construction. That is a disadvantage.

The solution I've suggested would allow the AI to use MCs when it's convenient/appropriate, but allow modders to control or forbid their use for designs which won't benefit from it. Admittedly, there will still need to be some hard-coded basis for determining when MC use/disuse is warranted, but it's better than nothing.

[ January 28, 2003, 18:22: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

capnq

January 28th, 2003, 08:31 PM

I cannot believe people are still grumbling about AI limitations. Not only do I believe it, I'm not even surprised at it.

Suicide Junkie

January 28th, 2003, 08:33 PM

If the attacking ships have a Bridge (or Auxillary Control), they should still get 1/2 movemement after the CV takes out the master computer.No, they will get 1/8 movement.

------------------------------------------------

Not having Bridge/Aux con = 1/2 movement penalty
Not having Lifesupport = 1/4 movement penalty
Not having Crew quarters = 1/2 movement penalty

Not losing speed due to Computer Virus attack = Priceless.

geoschmo

January 28th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Any feedback about my Prefer/Allow/Disallow idea? If it sounds reasonable, especially to the AI modders out there, I'd like to send it to Aaron. It seems a simple enough means to permit AI use of MCs but yet prevent all-out usage. And it gives one more thing to mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I think a better idea is to follow the pattern as it is now for other components and use the "Misc Ability" requirements that are in the design files currently instead of making up new rules. The problem before wasn't getting the AI to build ships with MC. All you had to do was put them in the design files and it used them. The problem was getting the AI to not also put a bridge/LS/CQ component along with the MC. That I beleive was what was asked for. At least that's what I asked for. I don't know what others suggested. I don't know if there was some programming limitation that made that difficult or what. But if I was going to ask for another change it would be to default to using the B/CQ/LS as before, but if the design file called for MC and MC was available us that instead.

The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well.

Geoschmo

[ January 28, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Krsqk

January 28th, 2003, 08:44 PM

"The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well."
Couldn't you just call for the B/LS/CQ abilities as Misc Abilities?

geoschmo

January 28th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
"The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well."
Couldn't you just call for the B/LS/CQ abilities as Misc Abilities?Maybe. What I was thinking is though is that the first part of the idea would override that. If se4.exe sees MC in the mics abilities it is supposed to use MC instead of a bridge. BUT, if it sees bridge in the misc abilities farther down the list, it needs to know "Now I want you to use both".

I could see it getting confused and using the Last one requested, or always override with MC. But I am not a programmer. I am sure there's a way around that.

Geoschmo

Crimson

January 28th, 2003, 08:56 PM

I know how to get people to stop grumbling about AI limitations. Tell them to start build one of their own. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Then maybe they'll see that programs have a habit of doing things that they were not program to do and rarely do the things that they were suppose to do.

geoschmo

January 28th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Crimson:
I know how to get people to stop grumbling about AI limitations. Tell them to start build one of their own. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Then maybe they'll see that programs have a habit of doing things that they were not program to do and rarely do the things that they were suppose to do.Well, technically a program is incapable of doing something it wasn't programmed to do. Although it's prefectly capable of doing something that it was programmed to do that you didn't know you programmed it to do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Baron Munchausen

January 28th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Krsqk:
"The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well."
Couldn't you just call for the B/LS/CQ abilities as Misc Abilities?Maybe. What I was thinking is though is that the first part of the idea would override that. If se4.exe sees MC in the mics abilities it is supposed to use MC instead of a bridge. BUT, if it sees bridge in the misc abilities farther down the list, it needs to know "Now I want you to use both".

I could see it getting confused and using the Last one requested, or always override with MC. But I am not a programmer. I am sure there's a way around that.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>This is not a problem. All you have to do is install a subroutine to remove standard ship control components when the MC is installed. Don't change anything with regard to the standard components. If you DO want both, just put the abilities for the standard ship controls after the call to the MC ability just like you would if you wanted extras in a standard ship.

What would be more interesting is to have supply usage enabled for crew quarters and life support. Then you could have default supply usage for ships if you wanted it, and this would be an extra advantage for the MC as well.

I'd also like to see different effects for crew quarters that let you have more or less 'ample' accomodations for your crews - then you could get better crew morale/performance for good quarters but less space for war machinery, or less crew morale/performance for poor quarters but more space for sheer equipment. You could even have racial advantages/disadvantages involving more or less need for life support equipment in your ships. As it is, we have the usual 'all or nothing' problem. Either you have enough Crew Quarters or not. But I suppose that's a major design change that would be too much for SE IV at this late stage. We'll have to wait for SE V to ask for that.

[ January 28, 2003, 22:02: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Dralasite

January 29th, 2003, 12:57 AM

When playing with AIs, most of us give them some sort of bonus, right? So having them build a MC on colonizers or transports isn't quite as bad as if a human did it.

Arkcon

January 29th, 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Dralasite:
When playing with AIs, most of us give them some sort of bonus, right? So having them build a MC on colonizers or transports isn't quite as bad as if a human did it.Yeah, we really do have to try and see. People are really worried about the MC on a colonizer, but it is on a one way trip after all. I know, the farther it goes, the more maintenance costs mount up, but what if it doesn't go far?

[ January 28, 2003, 23:00: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Nodachi

January 29th, 2003, 02:55 AM

I remember arguing about this before my, ahem, absense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The changes made so that an AS can no longer effect a ship with a damaged MC make perfect logical sense because a ship with an MC has no crew to convert. However, if a ship's MC is destroyed then that ship should be dead in the water instead of being able to continue to fight with a movement penalty.

The change so that AI's will always use the MC if they've researched it is way too heavy-handed. We're going to see some odd, and very expensive, AI ship designs.

It looks to me that the AI in general just got handicapped and psychic AI's just got screwed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Other than those issues the patch seems great. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif (I don't want to be totally negative! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Phoenix-D

January 29th, 2003, 03:53 AM

I know, the farther it goes, the more maintenance costs mount up, but what if it doesn't go far?"

It takes longer to build.

Phoenix-D

Baron Munchausen

January 29th, 2003, 04:41 AM

Not all colonizers are dispatched immediately. The AI files tell the computer to keep a certain number of them available regardless of the availability of planets to colonize. So the extra maintenance will have an impact. But colonizers are relatively rare. It's the use of the MC in all ships that is the real problem. Every population transport, every troop transport, every sat layer, mine layer, mine sweeper. All those ships will be costing much more in maintenance. And the AI already has trouble managing its resouce budget.

[ January 29, 2003, 02:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Captain Kwok

January 29th, 2003, 07:21 AM

I agree. It should be obvious that the master computer ability should have to be called for in the ai design files and not just automatically used in every situation once researched.

Has Aaron been e-mail on this subject?

Grandpa Kim

January 30th, 2003, 07:11 AM

So a CV on a WP can fire to range 12... So what? Its not gonna hit much at that range. In fact it would be hard pressed to get better than the minimum 1% chance at anything more than range 8 even with the 30% bonus. The ships, on the other hand, rarely miss once they are within range. I'm betting on the ships.

Kim

Mephisto

January 30th, 2003, 03:09 PM

Don't forget to adjust your Path.txt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

DavidG

January 31st, 2003, 02:15 AM

So I copy my se4 directory to a new folder install the patch and open by PBEM game and voila my race is now using a random ships set!? The wierd things is they were just using a stock set. Wierder still is that if I go back into ver 1.78 and open an old turn I also get a random ship set. WTF??

DavidG

January 31st, 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
So I copy my se4 directory to a new folder install the patch and open by PBEM game and voila my race is now using a random ships set!? The wierd things is they were just using a stock set. Wierder still is that if I go back into ver 1.78 and open an old turn I also get a random ship set. WTF??OK So I just figured out the reason for this was my crappy memory. I was really playing TDM game and race and didn't copy the TDM folder. DOH!

Desdinova

January 31st, 2003, 04:52 AM

is there any way to do a mass upgrade or issue of commands to ships and bases. it gets rather time consuming issuing commands/upgrades to each individual ship across the starmap. i know you can select all ships in the same square but i have ships scattered all over the place.

capnq

February 1st, 2003, 04:46 AM

is there any way to do a mass upgrade or issue of commands to ships and bases. I think there's a Minister that can do something like this, but I've never trusted them enough to try it.

couslee

February 1st, 2003, 04:50 AM

No. Because the ship has to be at a space yard to be upgraded.

Phoenix-D

February 1st, 2003, 06:10 AM

Said minister can move the ship back to be upgraded I think.

Then you just have to figure out if that's a good or bad thing..

Phoenix-D