Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's my preference too. There seems to be very little fine-tuning done by MM, and I think that's too bad. I'd like to see every weapon have its place, and for every facility to be worthwhile - something that can all be achieved by simple data changes...

Re: SE IV future
 

I'd like to see crystaline racial tech improved.

Re: SE IV future
 

Unless you are fighting a only organics player it is completely useless. I'm in a game now where my ally and i are fighting a crystalline player. I'm organic he's not so he does all the main fighting because my ships get ripped to shreds whenever i attack yet his (sheilded) roll over fleets of the enemy that are 10x their size.

One thing that admins need to think over is how the change to a new mod will affect current players. Big play balance changes can obsolete entire fleets and then turn someone who is in 1st into a Last place player through no fault of their own, while this wasn't really a true change, but rather a bug, the TDB bug in, IIRC, 1.78 has really hurt an ally of mine in one game.

Re: SE IV future
 

When the rules are changed there should be an addendum to explain the logic behind the changes: a designer's note.

It's not clear to me that some of the rules changes were necessary - I used almost all of the "exploits" that were taken out by the "patch" - so it would make me feel better to at least understand where these changes are coming from.

I have to admit that my initial reaction to the changes was to assume that some whiner was able to convince MM because he kept getting beat.

BTW: I am in a pbw game where the vote was not to upgrade because of the rules changes - which sort of defeats the purpose of upgrading if you ask me.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with that, and I think Q does too. However, the issue I have with this particular fix is that it was done.... rather sloppily. We've gone from one extreme (crewless ships could be converted) to the other (crewed ships with a destroyed computer are still protected).

Now, I don't even pretend to be a computer programmer (or even a vague semblance of one), it seems to me that this should be a simple boolean test:

IF an Allegiance Subverter hits the target
AND the target has Crew Quarters present
AND there is no functional (destroyed doesn't count) Master Computer present
THEN the target is converted.

Simple, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

As to the change in focus by MM, I must admit that I see it too. Whether it is intentional or not, only MM knows for sure. But the Last official patch made a significant hard-code change to the Ion Dispersers. Granted, another change made them more powerful (weapons won't fire if out of supplies), so that balances out some. But the ID definately doesn't hit as hard and fast as it did before, and that is an important change.

Now there is the (much needed and well balanced, IMHO) changes to the Organic Armor, and to the AS. Both of these will affect ship design somewhat, but the AS was a SIGNIFICANT shift in effectiveness.

So, in short, the Last patch and the current beta have 3 big changes in them (well, 4 really, but 2 of them are interconnected.)

The ID and supply issue: Well balanced, if a bit heavy handed. Multiple damage types would fix this nicely.

(Note: I'm not a beta tester, so therefore can only speculate about the following)
The Organic Armor fix has been on players To Do list for MM for a long time. I think it is probably pretty balanced out, although OA may need a damage structure boost to keep it competative w/other protection measures.

The Allegience Subverter, on the other hand, seems more like it is just MM's first step towards balancing this weapon. If he can make it follow the Boolean test above, it should be balance fairly well.

PS. I disagree with some of you on one major issue. Yes, I think he should be working on fine-tuning the game balance, but except for extreme cases (ie PPB, which needs to be stretched out over similar ranges and damage levels to APB) he shouldn't waste his time with editing txt files. That's what modding is for! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I think he is right on focusing on the Hard Code changes needed to balance the game. After all, he's the only one that can make those changes! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: SE IV future
 

News from the new beta Version:

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.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drone Control! Woohoo!
*Dogscoff sings with delight, and hopes GT can't hear him from this thread.

Re: SE IV future
 

2 rounds from a Walter PPK zip across threads and give Dogscoff a right dinging on his armour plated forehead (explains a lot about him actually that feature does)

Re: SE IV future
 

I would rather see hard code changes to allow for more soft code changes...

As what Q was stating in his first post.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm...ever heard of the Hal 9000 series?