Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, because PBW games are run from the command line, not from within the game menu the way you did. Running the game from the command line you have an option that allows you to skip all Messages. That's how PBW turns are run. The drawback of course is that the game owner doesn't know if the player uploaded an incorrect .plr file or something. But without that option someone would have to sit by the PBW server 24/7 and wait for error Messages to popup. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, not really. More like Problem avoided. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Your way works of course, but what some people wanted to be able to mod was a standard single use, damage-on-impact drone with the special damage types. The 30-turn reload weapon on a drone will get to come back and fight another combat round.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Plague drones: simultaneously making two rarely used technologies very tempting.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I'm shocked, simply shocked, that you don't sit in front of the PBW server 24/7. Yeesh, what is the world coming to? he he.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually it would be cool if all errors of this type were done when you hit end turn. So that you correct errors like this.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I use drones. They're very useful to buy yourself time against a larger enemy force. Most human opponents are unwilling to traverse a "wall of drones" warppoint unless they're sure they can come through intact. Ans most players, given the rarity of drone use, are stymied by them. They simply don't know how to react.

As far as offensive force goes, Plague drones would be quite useful. I hadn't quite thought that one all the way through. Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It would be great if there was an option in PBW that it won't process the turn if one of the plr files is incorrect. I think it wouldn't be a big work for MM to add that to SE.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, it probably would be easier for Malfador to make that change in Se4 then it would be for us to get PBW updated to take advantage of it at this point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, it probably would be easier for Malfador to make that change in Se4 then it would be for us to get PBW updated to take advantage of it at this point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You think it would require too much work compared to the benefit it gives? Especially now when there's not so long before SE5 comes. (hmm, long is relative concept http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, not really. More like Problem avoided. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Your way works of course, but what some people wanted to be able to mod was a standard single use, damage-on-impact drone with the special damage types. The 30-turn reload weapon on a drone will get to come back and fight another combat round. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">More importantly, direct fire weapons can MISS. Ramming does not. (Yes, yes... queue rediscussion of whether this is 'realistic' or not in another thread. We're talking about pragmatic game play issues now.) Placing Combat Sensors in a drone to reduce the odds of missing (but still not ENSURE a hit...) is difficult/expensive given their small size. But seekers, and drones are just very big seekers, always hit if they reach the target. Being able to use the special damage types as warheads is the best application for drones.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yay!
Missle-mod!!

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

"8. Fixed - Drones were not inflicting special damage types."

That's strange. I used frequently drones with special damage weapons and as far as I have seen it without problems. What kind if special damage did not work??

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

can MM put some specialwarheads into the vanila?
please?

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I have never tried it, but can you ram a planet?

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I just tried it, and yes you can ram planets.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's how anti-planet drones work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I was having trouble getting fighters to ram planets in strategic combat... yes, I know that's a dumb tactic, but this was a a game where pretty much everything but shield depleters, boarding parties, fighters, and drones are taken away... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Furball 5?
Has to be.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I'm really not up to date so forgive me if it is asked before:

Vers. 1.86
11. Fixed - AI would build all of the same colonizer type in a given turn.
Will that prevent those endless rows of "wrong" colonizers the Aquilaeians built in MB's AI contest?

Two more topics from the contest:
Will the AI now take the bonus into account when it comes to colonization?
Will design rotating still take place?

PS:
Thanks to Xaren Hypr for finding an error in the EEE-files and to Mephisto for correcting it in the TDM-files. I know that was months ago, but better late than never...

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Any news about new (beta) patch?

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

uhmmm, you must be psychic... this just came out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Version 1.87:
1. Added - "Move Hundred" to Cargo Transfer window.
2. Fixed - In Simultaneous games, scanned enemy ship designs would not be saved.
3. Fixed - "Max Positive Anger Change" and "Max Negative Anger Change" were being
used as percents instead of tenth of percents.
4. Fixed - Ships were not receiving experience for kills made with seekers.
5. Fixed - Increased the population amount for the storehouse in combat simulations.
6. Fixed - The Small Graviton Beam is now under the Gravitational Weapons tech area.
7. Fixed - Mothballing would not generate a log message in simultaneous games and would
show a messagebox instead.
8. Fixed - Unmothballing would not generate a log message in simultaneous games.
9. Fixed - Converting resources would not generate a log message in simultaneous games.
10. Fixed - The Abandon Planet order would not generate a log message in simultaneous games.
11. Fixed - Intelligence reports on planets were not showing the cargo they contained.
12. Fixed - In Computer Versus Human games, the AI's would get negative happiness modifiers
on treaties (Partnership) they were forced to have.
13. Fixed - AI's would continue to propose the existing treaty in a Computer Versus Humans game.
14. Fixed - In the Combat Simulator, any player that has a base or a planet will start in the
center of the combat map.
15. Fixed - The Fleet Report window's list will now respond to the Mousewheel.
16. Fixed - The component list in the Tactical Combat window will now repsond to the Mousewheel.
17. Fixed - The Add Design window's components available list will now respond to the Mousewheel.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">huh?

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Narf, in the combat simulator, when you set up the scenario, there is a finite amount of population available to set up the scenario with. It's been increased.

PvK

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">nope. the current Version is still 1.86

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hot damn, this one has been one of my suggestions from the onset of the games beta release. Tis great to see it fixed. Thanks Aaron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is huge!!

No more going from Jubilant to Riots in one turn!

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Thank you very much for posting the new fixes. This will be indeed a great patch and confirms my opinion that SE IV still has a big potential for improvement.
Can anybody explain what
"12. Fixed - In Computer Versus Human games, the AI's would get negative happiness modifiers
on treaties (Partnership) they were forced to have."
means?
How do you force a AI to make a partnership??

[ December 21, 2003, 06:01: Message edited by: Q ]

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I think it probably refers to the game setup option to have all AI vs. all humans. I guess the game forces them into a partnership, which, depending on their individual happiness files, may make them angry. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Slick.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

In vs AI games, the AIs will ALWAYS have Partnerships with each other. Every single one of them. They also automaticlly declare war on all the human players.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Oh yes, that makes sense. Thank you Slick and Phoenix-D for the explanation.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wow ! This is GREAT !!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And it's only a bit over week when I posted these! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Impressive, thanks Aaron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Still waiting for those comma separated lists for Vehicle Type and Target Type in Components.txt. Come on beta testers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't see this one very important. Current combinations are enough for most situations and if you want a different one just make two components.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Umm... it would have a huge impact... there are a lot of vital combinations that are not currently allowable. Making 2x to 5x as many components is hardly a good solution. Even if you don't like it, many people would, and it is not a major code change, just a minor one.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Can't disagree that it would have pretty significant impact, and I agree it would be nice to have. But I am not sure how you can say it's a minor change. It might be a minor thing to have it read a comma delineated list, but the actual function of those variables in the list has interpreted. Depending on how the current code is written that could be a mojor bear. Don't really know, but you can't really either I think.

That being said, it has been requested. Hopefully it will get done.

Geoschmo

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

2x to 5x so many components? I thought there are only few components which would need a special combination. But I agree it would be a minor code change so perhaps it's coming.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

The code to read in and interpret comma separated lists is already written. Check out CompEnhancement.txt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Adamant Mod for one could really make use of this... weapons, engines, armor, etc. could all use a comma separated list, rather than All or having 5 separate entries. Scale mounts and all. P&N PBW Version could also benefit from this directly.

Even just a few simple ones could open up many modding possiblities without having to unnecessarily duplicate lots of components, such as Sat\Base, Ship\Drone, Ftr\Sat, etc. But, adding in more of these would be silly. Just make them allow comma separated lists and you get all combinations in one swoop.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

We are the knights of se4...

We demand... the COMMA SEPARATED LISTS! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And we will say se4 until you give them to us!

se4 se4 se4 se4 se4

(in other words, pretty please? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I don't think the difficulty is in parsing the list of allowed targets. I think the difficulty is in how combat code handles the target selection restrictions. If he wrote it a certain way and has to completely re-write it to allow comma seperated lists instead of fixed choices he runs the risk of introducing bugs. He might not want to run that risk at this late date.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's what I was trying to say, but couldn't explain it that well.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Ok... the vehicle type field has none of those issues. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

Say... do the latest betas have a different scale for population modifiers than the old one? Aaron said he was going to implement a 1% increment system, for a smoother curve. Just wondering if he put it in yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If not, please remind him on the beta forum.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, it probably does. But that's kind of the point. The code needed to use a comma delineated list for the vehicle type field in the compenhancments file is not the same part of the code needed for the targetting and vehicle type field in the components file. So it's probably not a simple matter of reusing exsisting code. At least you can't know it is without seeing the code, which none of us can.

Don't get me wrong. The point I was trying to make was not that it wasn't a change worth making, just that you can't say it's a "minor" change neccesarily. You have no idea how complicated of a change it might be.

Geoschmo

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">He has not.

As far as I know he doesn't read the beta forums looking for bug reports and requests. He Posts there when he has a new patch, and we discuss things amongst ourselves. Requests posted there aren't likely to get any better response then your emails.

Geoschmo

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes I do Geo. Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true.

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well I don't want to keep bugging him about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I've just done something about it...

Would you forum goers mind playtesting this for me before I send it off to Aaron, its getting late over here.
http://imagemodserver.mine.nu/Miscel...k_settings.txt

Re: Post 1.84 beta history
 

I made a file like that months ago... I sent it to Aaron, and that is what I was wondering whether he had put it in or not.

It is right here.

[ December 22, 2003, 04:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]