Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

"- 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

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They 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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can do that now by trading ships loaded with population. Whatever's in the ship's cargo goes with it.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

Is there any new patch coming up actually?

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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?

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 :<

Quote:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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:...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks, I've already done both of them it before I post my idea.

Quote:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;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...

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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%).

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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...

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

As per other thread.

Fix the Message system...

Ability to edit Messages...

Ability to view previous Messages...

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

Immigration/Emigration/Expatriates/Foreign Nationals!

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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?

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 ... !

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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) ...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd LOVE this. I'd also like to see the Restricted Trait fields (etc) in RacialTraits.txt made to work ...

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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?

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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?

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

What were the final results of the poll Jimbob?

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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?

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.)

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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 ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

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.

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Done. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ November 01, 2002, 02:56: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
 

David: Thanks for the new poll. I went and voted first thing.

Heman: Good to see you've joined the dark side my friend http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Remember, the more warp types, the better the FTL modelling!!! While I may have voted for one type of new warp point type, I'm really hoping for a kettle full.