|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
I would like to see a patch that solves all current problems without introducing more problems.
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
A larger combat map would just be more chasing which is boring!
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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/image...s/confused.gif |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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... |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
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 |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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?
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
I have another bug for my list:
Satellite launchers do not work in combat. Only during movement. Another addition: Allow drones to be recovered. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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! |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
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 ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Atrocities, that won't work currently. Units cannot hold cargo, even if you mod them to have cargo components.
Geoschmo |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
I thought as much, I have never tried it myself, just trying to offer an avenue of exploration.
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Thanks SJ and DirectorTsaarx
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
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 ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
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 ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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.
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 ??? |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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.
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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... |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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 |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
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. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
Slick |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.