Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Replace attitive calculations with multiplication, to reflect actual probabilities; eliminate bizarre 'edge effects'.

This is best illustrated by example: I have a 25% chance to hit a ship at a certain range. If that ship is equipped with ECM-1, that gives him a 20% defence bonus. Logically I should be 20% less likely to hit him (.25*0.8), giving me a 20% chance to hit. Of course the mechanics in SE4 do not currently work like this. The percentages are simply subtracted, giving me a 5% chance to hit. In this situation his '20%' ECM is actually giving him more like 80% protection. There are examples like this wherever percentages are calculated.

To correctly implement probabilities, factors should _always_ be multiplied.

I'm sure Aaron was/is well aware of this fact. My strong suspicion is that the floating-point maths required to do this correctly, as opposed to much faster integer maths for addition, was one of the limiting factors. Given the massive increase in processor speeds since the original SE games, I think that the average PC could cope with this now. I would much, much rather have this than any whizz-bang rotating 3D maps..

And while I'm here.. can we have sizeable windows and right-click support back again? I'm sure the code is still out there somewhere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

A few user-interface enhacements (and one on fighters). Usability over eye-candy every time.

Large zoomable (2-D!) galaxy map, with detailed sidebar, so I can choose a system and get a list of planets, values etc in the sidebar. A bit like the old Mac classic Spaceward Ho!, or the little I saw of SE3.

What would be perfect for me would be the ability to 'zoom' to an area of the galaxy and show several systems as 'scaled-down' system maps. With fleet locations, WPs and ship movement lines, and ability to issue orders from here. I currently do this manually on a sheet of A3. See note on high resolution below!

Fleet list and galaxy map shown at same time, so I can
- see what fleets are in which system on the galaxy map.
- click on a fleet in the list and have its location highlighted in galaxy map.

Construction queue to show list and details for higlighted item at same time. Ability to select multiple queues and add same job (build a frigate at all 6 of these systems..)

Support for my 1600*1200 screen to show all this at once.. 8-)

Simplified, Starfire-like fighter combat with separate, low, 'anti-Fighter' hit probablities for most ship weaponry. One hit, one kill, no killing the whole stack.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can you be sure that MM does not prefer many of these bonuses/penalties to be additive instead of multiplicative? Additive values make sense in a lot of places. ECM does not alter the current chance to hit, it alters the base chance to hit.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But in this case, most of the 3d part is already done in Starfury, so it won't be at the expense of gameplay.
About the first part...i guess it depends on the game, and how many cutting edge 3d features are used. May i ask what computer you have now?

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

In the Construction Window, ability to right click on a given planet and select "Go to Planet." This will take to to the system map with the planet highlighted.

Pretty please?

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Speaking of combat, there's a simple (and logical) feature of most games which the SE series has never had. Variable damage. If your weapon hits it always does the same damage. This is a bit odd. Can't you get a 'near miss' where your missile explodes near but not near enough? Can't you have a beam hit but not stay on target long enough to do full damage? Maybe MOO went a bit far with such widely variable maage for all weapons, but there really ought to be some sort of fluctuation in damage in SE combat, even if it's just a random chance for an occasional near miss. On the flip-side of course, there are also things called 'critical hits' in many other games. This would also be a nice feature for SE to have.

If we had a user controllable (setting in the text files) chance for both 'near miss' doing half damage and 'critical hit' doing double or quadrupal damage we could add a very nice element of unpredicability to combat. Ship could occasionally do surprising damage, or survive much more damage than expected, as happens in real life.

This could be done with SE IV right now, let alone in SE V.

[ March 07, 2003, 19:21: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

1. One feature that I would love to see is a way to implement 2 ways to enter a system. The first is via the wormhole (ie SEIV) and the second could be through a slower more direct path which ignores the wormhole. I haven't played Moo3 but I think it institutes ship travel like that. Anyway, I think it is a good idea b/c it still enables you to attack an enemy homeworld that has a well defended wormhole. The cost, of course, is that it will take you much longer to get to the enemy homeworld without using a wormhole.
2. Would love to be able to add more then 20 races in the next game.
3. How about being able to set pre-game racial enemies, etc.
Maybe this has been mentioned, maybe not. Just my 2 cents...

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

I like that idea Baron. Someone, but I forget who mentioned this before. Right now the damage system is set, if you hit it does whatever damage at that range.
Such as, for example: 80 80 80 70 70 60 0 0 0 0 0
The other person that mentioned this said the system could be changed to do this: 80-60 80-60 80-60 70-50 70-50 60-40 40-0 0 0 0 0 0
To me, this would be a good system to use. I give credit for this idea to that one person. Dang memory can't think of who it was though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Sorry whoever you were. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

How about Palaces.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I mentioned that I emailed that suggestion to MM a week ago or so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I doubt I was the first person to think of variable damage, but I was the one that posted about it a short while ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The critical hits would be another nice addition.

BM:
It would require major rewriting of many code functions to implement such systems, and so it is very unlikely that it would be introduced in SE4, as SE4 seems to be done with patches adding major new features. It better be done for SE5 though, or else a certain game developer is going to get a lot of complaints. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Leaders!!!! Ones that improve specific areas of your empire, addding, for example a % bonus. Kinda like an upgraded minister. Or other examples:
- a legendary fleet commander that adds +5%
- Scavenger- ship/fleet needs no maintenance
- Defector Scientist adds +3 empire research
- Hot Rod- commander gets extra movement
- Games comissioner- may upgrade the happiness state of any given planet by 1 each turn.
- Black market contact- random boosts in minerals

You can run wild with this concept! will also add to the roleplaying feel.

Basic % chance per turn of acquiring one (like 05%), may trade for them, or find them (special tech).

Include Facilities that improve your chances or attracting leaders.

This would be Kool!
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Stone Mill:

The Star Trek mod does have 'Captains' which give various bonuses and things like that.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

I hate to admit I have never looked at the Star Trek Mod but I'm guessing the "Captains" are small components with various Abilities such as:
Repair, Attack, Deffend, Storage and others?

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You'd be correct, but your first statement causes me great pain http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif !

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

captain,
It is a reflection of my limited mind and newly found self control. I also admit I like to try devloping in a vacume.
Maybe when the Gryphin mod is semi finished.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

This thread went forum -> private -> back to forum because we thought it would be of general interest..

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And so it returns.. 8-)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm, we obviously don't agree on how to interpret something like "range modifiers to remain constant". To be clear, I am advocating a probability-based, multiplicative system across the board, including for range modifiers. So instead of having a 10% penalty per square and applying that in an additive manner, I would have a multiplicative factor by range. Translating the current scheme directly, that would be 1.0 at range 1, 0.9 at range 2 and so on: 0.8, 0.7, 0,6 and so on down to a factor of zero at (max range +1). My argument runs along the lines that in this scheme, the range modifiers are MORE constant, not less. So if the factor for range 6 were 0.5, and the factor for range 7 were 0.4, you would always be 20% less likely to hit at range 7 than range 6.

Let's extend this a little further, because I think this is interesting. This also 'bleeds' into another thread currently running on variable damage. In fact I would not use the scheme above, translated directly from the current additive one, because of course you could never hit at beyond range 10. What you would actually need is some scheme which expressed your relative chance of hitting based on actual range versus maximum range.

Option a) Constant for all weaponry
This would have to replace the 'base chance of 100%' with a factor based on range. That would then be modified, in multiplicative probability fashion of course, by factors like crew quality, ecm, sensors and so on. For a nominal range 10 weapon, you could have a scheme looking like:
Range 1 - base chance = (11-1)/10 = 1.0
Range 2 - base chance = (11-2)/10 = 0.9
..
Range 7 - base chance = (11-7)/10 = 0.4
..
Range 10 - base chance = (11-10)/10 = 0.1

But for a range 5 weapon, the base chance would go 1.0, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4. 0.2

Now, the subtle bit about this is that it does eliminate a situation where you can be 5 squares from an enemy and have a ~100% chance of being hit, because you are within his maximum range and the other factors favour the attacker. But if you were 6 squares away your chance would be ZERO. This is precisely the sort of 'edge effect' I was talking about. I did not support this point very well originally, so thanks for disputing my original idea and making me think about this much more deeply 8-)

Option b) - weapons vary in their range profile. This is where we are crossing over into the 'variable damage' thread. This is also where I'm plagiarising Starfire and SFB shamelessly. What we would have here (and this is an increase in complexity, granted) would be a table per weapon of its base 'to hit' chance and damage at each range within the maximum. The hit chance should always 'tail off' towards the maximum range. The damage does not have to. Like missiles in Starfire, or SE4 for that matter; a hit is a hit. Or the old SFB Photons versus Disruptors argument. So some of those very long range energy stream/pulse weapons could have attenuated 'to hit' profiles. Conversely, the base chance to hit for some weapons might be lousy or nil at short range. Run the destroyers in close to the battleships and their guns can't be brought to bear... you can also have some weapons that are inherently more or less accurate than others (analagous to the additive WMG bonus.. but I would spread it out over its optimum range bracket).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There's a limit to how far that 'implies' argument can be taken of course, because we are postulating what others, or at least a majority of others, might understand by a 'percentage chance'. But for me, at least, "50% chance" is synonymous with a probability of 0.5. Similarly, I interpret "20% bonus" for a particular factor as meaning "20% more likely with that factor than without it", and hence I would think of that as being 1.2 times the probability. Conversely a 20% penalty would mean (20% less likely with that factor than without it", and hence 0.8 times the probability. As I said above, in probability terms that bonus or penalty always has exactly the same effect.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Disagree. . As argued above, in probability terms the relative chance of hitting at range X versus range X+1 would always be the same. No edge effect at all. The argument about "when each modifier goes into effect in the calculations" I reject because it depends on using a mixture of addition and multiplication. Both operations are associative and commutative in themselves;

a + b + c = c + b + a = (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
a * b * c = c * b * a = (a * b) * c = a * (b * c)
BUT
(a + b) * c != a + (b * c)

In fact the current system has mixed the operations; in that we have a series of additive operations, resulting in a number. That number is then divided by 100 to give a probability. I'm advocating no additives at all, but multiplication for all these calculations.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I stand corrected completely on this one. 8-) As someone who habitually makes use of that particular nice little additive modifier, I am hoist on my own petard now... but in the interests of consistency I guess I would have to swallow that if we went multiplicative...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think I did, when I first downloaded the SE4 demo, a long while back now. I've had an enforced 1 year break from SE4, so the talk of SEV had not even begun at that stage. Part of the reason I suspected machine limitations/unacceptable overhead of floating-point calculations was that large battles can take so long to calculate as it is, on a lower-spec machine.

This grew to a real beast of a posting, apologies to anyone who made it down here...

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

The additive system allows for more bonuses and penalties to be applied at the same time without making the mathematics unnecessarily complex.

The percentage to hit is indeed a probability, but the method of acheiving the final probability currently used in SE4 allows for more flexibility and more options.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your system makes all bonuses/penalties have less effect at long range than they do at short range though. A 20% penalty to hit from the enemy having ECM I currently gives you a to hit chance of 80%, modified by range. In your system, you get to hit chances like this with a range 10 weapon:

range 1: 1.0 * .80 = .80
range 2: 0.9 * .80 = .72
range 3: 0.8 * .80 = .64
range 4: 0.7 * .80 = .56
range 5: 0.6 * .80 = .48
range 6: 0.5 * .80 = .40
range 7: 0.4 * .80 = .32

So, at range 1, the ECM provides a 20% to hit penalty (from 100% to 80%). At range 5, it provides only 12% to hit penalty (from 60% to 48%). Your system makes the ECM less effective at longer ranges, which does not make any sense (being counter-intuitive and all). The same thing applies to all other modifers too. They are not supposed to provide variable bonuses, but constant bonuses.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This requires that the to hit modifiers be very strictly limited to only a few input values, instead of all possible modifiers just being added to the to hit chance. It also unnecessarily complicates the calculations, while granting counter-intuitive effects.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know how algebra works...

Converting a percentage to a decimal probability value is completely irrelevant to this argument. That one operation of division in no way makes the se4 system have mixed operations. All chances to hit are added, there is no multiplication in them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if you use unnecessarily large floating point variables. With the to hit chances, you really only need them to have 4 digits, the 1 place and 3 decimals. Any more does not have a significant effect with rounding errors on the calculations. These variables are not much larger than the integer variables, as they can also get 4 digits in them. Both require negative input values, so that balances out in the memory size of the variables.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Also, how would you propose to implement both ECM and Combat Sensors? Which gets priority? Say both have a 20% modifier. Base chance to hit is, say, 80%.

Do CS first, then ECM (the other way gets the saem answer):
.80 * 1.2 = .96
.96 * .80 = .768

With either method, the 20% bonus and 20% penalty do not cancel each other, and you are left with an overall penalty to hit, even though you have the same power of ECM and CS. You would have to very carefully calculate the values of ECM and CS to make sure that they actually cancel each other, and not end up with stupid results like getting an overall to hit penalty. Or, you have to add the .2 and -.2 to the base 1.0 modifier, which results in using additive properties again. The current SE4 system does not have any of these problems. They become more severe when you start adding even more factors to the calculation (various armors, training, racial bonuses, facility bonuses, etc.)

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I checked out the site (nice!) and I'm eager to heve a look. I had no idea. Pardon my ignorance. I hope this does roll forward into SEV.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Malfador has produced the best Space strategy game ever (SEIV) and I am sure they could do a great planet base strategy game kinda like Smac or EOFS (Empire of the fading suns). What does this has to do with SEV you might ask yourself.... well I was thinking that it would be really fun to combine such game with SEV into one. And since I still want SEV to be a Space Empire game that SMACalike game should be a seperate game but fully linkable with SEV. It might be a micomanagement hell but I am sure I am not the only one that enjoys that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Also Malfador has come up with great solutions in SEIV to reduce the micromangement so I guess they could do so as well in this.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the absolute heart of the disagreement here. Because I regard that effectiveness as being exactly the same _relative_ chances to hit with or without ECM.
So at range 1, if I fit ECM to my ship the enemies chance of hitting me is 0.8 times what it was...(80% / 100% )
At range 5 the enemies chance of hitting me is 0.8 times what it was... (48% / 60% )
At range X ... and so on.

You see the result as different because you are subtracting the percentages, and I think that is incorrect.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But what do you think of the idea of a 'to hit' chart then? Base chance to hit depends on range _and_ weapon, all modifiers to that based on multiplicative maths.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No offence intended, and I had assumed you did. I only decided to define my terms when we moved this back to the public forum. I disagree on the relevance because a percentage and a decimal probability are synonymous in my view, and this implies that percentages should never be added, only multiplied.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would implement them exactly as you have calculated, because I don't regard that as a stupid result, but a correct one. But I completely agree that the vast majority of people would not find that intuitive, and would expect a 20% bonus to cancel a 20% penalty. But ask the majority of people what 80% of 120% is and I suggest that they would get it wrong. That is, I guess, sufficient argument when we are talking about a game, not putting people on Mars here..

Agreeing to disagree on the additive modifiers then, what about 'to hit' charts? Base chance to hit depends on range _and_ weapon, all modifiers to that based on (multiplicative/additive) maths. I'd be interested in your views on that, because whether you add or multiply there is a huge 'edge effect' at maximum range with standard 10% penalty per square.

Rigelian

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

An API for reading game files and producing .plr files.

There are times when I'm travelling that I wish I could create a turn from a web browser on a public machine. The interface could be fairly simple, just showing the incoming Messages, what my previous orders were and options to edit the orders. It would be a bit clumsy, especially for dealing with a battle situation, but better than not playing at all.

Also, I saw a request 5 pages back for lists that remember their position. This would be nice and, I imagine, fairly simple to implement.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

A list of spotted enemy ships, a way to remember their positions.
i e a foreign ship log, so that you can quickly see incursions and the way they are going.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

I'm not terribly fond on how planets are arranged on the system maps.

It would be nice if the planets were in a more natural arrangement with each planet having its own elliptical orbit around the star(s) which would be updated each turn. The equations for an elliptical orbit with gravitational effects are not complex if done on a 2d plane.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, and your view is counter to how it should work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that is a very, very bad idea. It makes things unnecessarily complicated, for no real gain.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course they are synonymous. But, there is no reason why probabilities can not be added. There are many benefits to doing so, which I have already enumerated.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point is that (in this example) the level 1 ECM is supposed to cancel out the level 1 CS, and vice versa. There is not supposed to be a net ECM bonus. To get this set up with multiplicative values is next to impossible when you take other modifiers into effect.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is highly possible that those edge effects were intended, and not they are not necessarily a bad thing. At extremely long range, you should not have a very good chance to hit.

Overall, the additive system allows for much more flexibility and customization, with much less work involved in getting things balanced properly.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the equation is not complex. But, the coding gets more complex and requires a lot of CPU clock cycles when you have several thousand (or more) planets on the map to move around each turn.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ohhhh, very good! Very good suggestion indeed!
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

You know, I find all these abstruse arguments about the proper way to factor ECM and sensors to be much less interesting than the idea of having several different types or categories of sensors and ECM just like cloaking. So you can be really good at one or a few but not necessarily good at ALL of them. Look at what we have today -- Radar (radio wavelengths), microwave (near visible light but not quite), visible light (laser/lidar)... they all behave differently and have their advantages/disadvantages. Maybe there's an advantage to x-ray sensors? Countermeasures for each would be very different, of course. I'm sure that nebulae would have different effects on these various types of sensors, too. That would be a good way to make the game more interesting.

Decoys and chaff would be nice, too. I hope we can get MM to include those in SE V combat.

[ March 08, 2003, 19:29: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

P&N PBW has different types of CS and ECM that add together. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

P&N has differently named components in different tech fields that use the same ECM and sensor values. If they were different they wouldn't stack.

MM has to change the hard code to allow different types of combat sensors and ECM.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Actually, they are in the same tech field, just different families. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Your proposed system just gets unnecassarily complicated, with little (if any) real benefit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 08, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Getting near time to put this one to bed (right before me)
But a couple of (quick) rebuttals:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know, that's dangerously close to an 'argument from authority'. See my post about Galileo in the 'Rating Fyron' thread.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't think it was that bad! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif After all, as I said a lot of existing games work that way. In terms of complexity, players already look up and compare damage profiles by range for the weapons - why not an 'accuracy profile'. If nothing else, tell me why having (for example) a minimum range for missiles would be a bad idea.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you apply a strict mathematical definition of probability there is a very good reason. It's wrong! But the driving factor here is what works best for the game, as you say. I don't think we are any closer to convincing each other though.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Speaking strictly from pure mathematics, maybe. But this is more of a reality thing, and not theoretical mathematics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bah. As I already stated, arguments from authority do not apply to the game (except maybe if you are arguing with the game designer, but that is still stretching the argument from authority definition very, very far).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now this is different than what you have been saying before... but, consider that the maximum range is the range until the weapon dissipates (for an energy weapon, at any rate) so much that there is not enough energy to cause significant damage. So, it doesn't matter if you can hit them, if the weapon is no more powerful than a laser pen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because that limits you to having only 2 bonuses. Or, you have to limit them to 1 of 2 categories that add together to get the multiplicative value. Which again, is more limiting than the current system. Also, what is 1.0 / 1.2? 0.833. Now, the 20% ECM penalty has dropped to 16.7% (or .167).

[ March 09, 2003, 01:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What are you talking about?
If you want many bonuses and penalties, you just keep multiplying or dividing. I don't see the problem here.

And, come on now. You wanted the so called "20% ECM" description to mean that it cancels a "20% CS"
Now you're complaining that the effect isn't exactly 20% when the combat sensors are not involved?
Diminishing returns are part of the point of using multiplication!

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am talking about an example where the CS I and ECM I were supposed to cancel each other out.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem is that you get unpredictable results doing this. It creates many more complications than the few "problems" it solves.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My point was that using multiplication is not that great of an idea. With your system, ECM does less than it should when there is no CS component.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Ok ok, here is me 2 cents worth for SE5 :

*MODDING* - The same way as they did it in i-war2-EoC: All mods are zipped (with the corrtect paths in them) and will override the base game files (ONLY if they exist in the zip) and the zips are all placed in se5/mods subdir. Ingame then you choose just by clicking those mods that you want to turn them on.

*ORDERS* - (Re)make order queueing: All orders (say, for a ship) can be handeled same way as facilities in contruction queues; using mouse you can move orders up/down, replace or remove them. ALOT easier than clicking cancel and doing ALL those 20+ orders AGAIN due misclick on you minelayer...

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Fyron,
Its not unpredictable. If it were, then you'd get a different answer each time you did the math.
It may not be blatantly obvious, but it is quite simple.

"ECM does less than it should when there is no CS component."
Bah, Fyron.
An ECM-50 device (50% defense bonus) under this system will halve your chance of being hit.

It will turn a 20% into 10%, and an 80% into 40%. You take (statistically) half the damage during combat. That is the way it is supposed to work.

[ March 09, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Zipping them is overkill. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You can already place the mods into a Mods subfolder if you want. You just have to make sure to include that in the Path.txt. An in-game option to select the mod would be nice though.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is unpredictable at the modding stage. You have no idea what other types of bonuses a ship is going to have when you design the values of the ECM components, for example. Sure, you can guess, but you end up with different levels of effects with your proposed system depending on what else is affecting the ships. This is what makes it essentially unpredictable.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If there was only one or two things that modify your to hit chances, then sure. But, there are many, many things that go into the calculations, which make your proposed system not a good one to use. That statement was made under the assumption that you did not forget about my previous post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif With your system, a 20% ECM that cancels a 20% CS only gives 17% defense when there is no CS on the ship. When there are other modifiers in play, it will get even messier.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

It is unpredictable at the modding stage. You have no idea what other types of bonuses a ship is going to have when you design the values of the ECM components, for example. Sure, you can guess, but you end up with different levels of effects with your proposed system depending on what else is affecting the ships. This is what makes it essentially unpredictable.

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

Um, Fyron, it's not quite so unpredictable as you think. As SJ said, an ECM-50% will halve your chance of getting hit. Regardless of any other factors. Period. If you had a 50% chance to get hit, it would drop to 25%. If you had a 10% chance to get hit, it would drop to 5%. And a CS-200% would either double your chance of hitting or halve your chance of missing (there is a difference, read the Stars! manual http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ), regardless of any other factors. How is that any more unpredictable than the current system, where a 40% to-hit bonus could be a big boon (if your tohit is 10%) or useless (if you have a Religious Talisman)?

More ideas...

Resource converters that can only convert specific types of resources, so you could have a "Radioactives Denaturing Facility" which converts radioactives into ordinary minerals but won't work at all on minerals or organics... and why not treat population as a resource for this purpose, so you could have a "Soylent Green Processing Plant" which converts people into organics (or minerals or energy or whatever your race is made of), but at a cost of unrest? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Racial traits that have more than one effect on the game, and racial traits that have a certain effect a specific ability or family of components/facilities/etc. without having to make duplicate entries for them - so I could create a "Natural Merchants" trait that not only eliminated the need for spaceports but doubled the carrying capacity of cargo modules, or a "Regenerating Shields" trait like in Stars! - all shields are 50% stronger and regenerate 10% per round, but internal components and armor have only 65% the normal hitpoints. (slightly modified from Stars! since Stars! treats armor differently)

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did you read the rest of my Posts? I said it becomes unpredictable when you have more than just CS and ECM affecting to hit chances. Then, I went on to do some math to show that the ECM has a different level of effect when the attacker has CS and when the attacker does not have CS. Now, add 10 other factors into the calculations, and they get extremely messy, with not enough net gain to justify it.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Orders for ships: How about an editable order sequence like Stars! -- That is the one feature of the game that I really liked. You could create a complete sequence of actions and 'apply' them to any given ship. It would be really great to be able to tell a transport in SE to go to here, pick up exactly this many mines/sats/troops, go to here, drop this many mines/sats/troops, etc. You could hve one transport handling many types of cargo at once instead of crudely picking up all it can carry of ONE cargo type and dumping all it carries of that ONE cargo type. This degree of automation would reduce 'micro-management' dramatically in SE V.

Resources: You know, the 'Value Improvement Plant' strikes me as stupid and I've modded my SE IV to have seperate facilities to improve each resource. I put them in the upper three levels for each resource extraction field since the Robotoid Factory is always a better choice than any of the specialized facilities, and it actually makes sense to combine those abilities since automation can improve all forms of production/harvesting.

ConVersion could logically be split up as well, but the hardcode would have to be changed to allow it. There are lots of good applications, too. Organic races ought to be able to convert organics to minerals early on, for example. Call it 'bio-mining' where they have the plants extract the minerals from the soil and then harvst and refine them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Other types of conVersion should be very rare and difficult. Converting anything to radioactives, for example.

As for 'Soylent Green'... that's an 'ethical' thing. There ought to be a racial trait, call it 'Xenophage', where your race regards other races as food and is willing to eat them. This would provide extra food when you capture alien populations (boosting population growth) but would make most other races hate you and affect diplomatic relations very badly. Resistance on conquered worlds would logically be much more persistent and desperate, too. I suppose you could logically let these races have a special facility to convert population to organics to represent other uses of the corpses. We use 'everything but the squeal' with pigs, as they say. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It has been asked more than once in the beta forums why the 'advanced storage' trait doesn't affect ship cargo like it does planet cargo. Keep asking. MM will notice sooner or later.

As for regenerating shields, I was thinking that Temporal races need some defense advantage. Self-regenerating shields would be a good one for them. Shields normally regenerate after combat anyway. It makes sense for time manipulation to let you get regeneration in combat more easily than other races. Give them a same sized shield generator that also does regeneration. No need for extra component.

[ March 10, 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And what we are saying is that it has THE EXACT SAME effect when the attacker has CS and when the attacker does not have CS.
"It halves (quarters/4-5ths/etc) the to hit chance" Is that so hard?

What you are saying is that the absolute chance to hit goes down by a varying amount. Very true, but a constant absolute change means that the real effect of the bonus varies depending on the situation.

---

Examples:
Base to-hit chance = 100%
ECM bonus: 50%
Additive : 100-50 = 50% chance. Your ship survives twice as long.
Multiplying: 100*.5 = 50% chance. Your ship survives twice as long.

Base to-hit chance = 50%
ECM bonus: 50%
Additive : 50-50 = 0% chance. Your ship survives FOREVER.
Multiplying: 50*.5 = 25% chance. Your ship survives twice as long.

When adding multipliers, that ECM-50 changed from a decent defense to an invulnerability device.
When multiplying, the effect on the combat was the same independent of the base chance.

Baron Munchausen:
Lots of good stuff there, but I'm sure the xenophages would be horrible to implement.
Perhaps it would be better to have a simple
"each turn, mixed populations change into race's population (max 10M converted per turn)"
and
"Reproduction rate doubles when mixed populations are present"

[ March 10, 2003, 00:03: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... ?
You ever played independence war 2 WITH few dozen mods ? You'll be supprised how much less messy it is with all different mods in self contained zips instead like in the current se4g.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

It can't be less messy than launching SE4 with the modlauncher program.
The only point of zipping them would be to save disk space.
Then the modlauncher would have to unzip the mod before playing, or worse the game itself would need to search files inside the zip adding an unnecessary delay.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

*AUTOROUTING* - New autorouting choises for ships, atleast "nearist waypoint"-option (and should be able to made default from Empire options, btw http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ), or even like in Stars!-game, autorouting to a planet of your choise - whitch autoroutes all ships with route order again next round and so on.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can imagine additional benefits to having mods in a zip file.

Instead of specifying a single directory in paths.txt, your could specify a comma-separated list of zip files that would all be loaded (combined) at runtime. If the same file exists in multiple mods, the one with higher priority would be picked (where priority is defined by the order of the list). This would allow the creation of 'base' mods (like image mods) to be easily used with other mods. Currently this requires manually copying files from one directory to another.

Of course, this really doesn't require zip files, the paths.txt file could just as easily have a comma-separated list of directories.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

FYI: The Imagemod requires no copying.
It is designed to be able to replace the base files without affecting any games.
You install it, and you're done; it will be used by any mod that calls for it.

Besides, due to the interconnectedness of the files, (and balance issues, of course) there are few mods that are actually compatible in that way)

[ March 10, 2003, 12:37: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

I'd wanna to see these features in SE5:

- Saving/reloading new game options, or restart game with same option button.

- Adjustable starting technology level in new game options, not only the disable/enable choice.

- Moddable tech level cost function, maybe:
Tech Level Cost Low = 5000 12000 20000 35000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tech Level Cost Normal = 10000 24000 40000 70000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tech Level Cost High = 20000 72000 160000 350000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Just like the weapons range-damage list.

- Reduce technology poverty gap between strong and weak empires. Maybe a naturally 3% science pts trade between all empires, or exponentially growing tech cost in overall like Civ series, or labs in same system have decayed efficient as their number grows like Imperialism Plus.

- Slow down technology advancement, or at least automatically/freely component upgrade of same family. I don't want to see my ship on battle carrying PPB-II when I already developed PPB-V.

- Seperate spaceyard queue and planet facility queue like MOO3. Players may assign some spaceyards to local ministers (maybe with abilities/skills), and ask them to build certain type of ship series.

- A campaign editor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- Better troop combat. Maybe a small battlefield of chess size board.

- Different chasis classes that belong to different technology tree.

- Improvement of colony modeling. Europa Universalis would be a good reference - some planets are just not worth to be developed, while some are critical and must be managed carefully. Make the planet environment and population more important.

[ March 13, 2003, 07:23: Message edited by: Foreman ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

Make empire experience points somewhat meaningful!

Perhaps add a very small amount of additional racial points to spend for every "x" points.

Also, the option to disable it in settings so players don't exploit it in multiplayer games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

I've pretty muched stopped playing SE4...(it sounds strange to even write)...and I feel the need to write a short diddy about what will bring me back for part 5.

Combat. Combat plain and simple.

Even with all the tech, the weapons, ship sizes, offensive and defensive components, space combat in SE4 feels like salvos with nuclear weapons. Many times the first strike wins the battle. I am not sure how it came to be, but in spite of all the gadgets, combat is won before it begins. By that I mean, combat starts with your first spent research point. By the time your ships face-off, the script is largely written. There is little room for tactics. Perhaps the present system would be sufficient if two humans (beyond the scope of hotseat) could go toe to toe in tactical combat mode. Dunno.

That being said here's what I suggest:

-Retreat option (it's been suggested a billion times.
-Expanded individual ship settings to allow in combat tweaking for special roles. (In other words, treat ships more like the large complex machines they are. Perhaps power levels effecting movement, weapon strength & shield strength)
-Add reality to ship movement (no abrupt u-turns, etc)
-Location placement for weapons and armor (i.e. if you unwisely placed all your PPBs forward, you won't be able to fire at anything aft.)
-Make damage location specific.
-Ship statistics which would effect performance...readiness, morale, supply, etc.
-Human on human tactical combat (although I am at a loss to suggest how it should be done)
-Small scale phenomenon to spice up the combat playing field (i.e. Planetary gravity, atmosphere, asteroids, blah blah blah.)
-Friendly ships should be able to occupy the same square. Perhaps even non-friendly, but I haven't thought through that one yet.

As far as ground combat goes...some could be added, but I think it could still be kept at a simulated state like it is. Perhaps it could be done with a map and orders, allowing the player to drop the troops, after which they attack by themselves. Perhaps it would be fun to also have an extraction option to save their lives if they start to lose.

I realize SE4 isn't solely a space combat sim, but to me half the fun of building and researching kick *** armadas would be to see them tested under a combat system allowing tactical and operational depth.

Maybe turn based tactical combat between humans would be more viable under a simulaneous move system, rather than U-GO-I-GO. Not necessarily real-time, which would turn it into a click fest, but an order phase where both players essentially pre-move their pieces. Then both sides moves are executed simultaneously. Would be interesting if you wanted Frigate A to move forward 5 squares and then fire at the closest ship, but wouldn't know exactly which ship would be the closest.

Perhaps I am talking about another game as yet undeveloped...

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be like a battleship getting automatic upgrades from 14" main guns to 16" main guns while cruising solo on the open sea.

You should alter your strategies, and regularily swap out the front-line warships with the brand new ships, and retrofit the old ones.
Another good option is to include a SpaceYardShip in with your fleets, so you can do on-the-spot retrofits.
If you're just swapping out 2 or 3 guns, that can be done easily.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have you tried any mods to reduce damage (and thus the advantage of first-strike?)
The B5 and Trek Mods should give you a good, complex battle, too:
With leaky armor and shields, everyone takes some amount of permanent damage from each hit.
Plus, firing until the ship is vaporized will mean a lot of wasted firepower into a hunk of scrap armor with perhaps only a single tiny weapon still active.
If your strategy tells the ship to switch targets too early, though, you could be leaving a deadly opponent firing broadsides into your fleet.

Playing a Pirate or Nomadic race in P&N might be good for you, too. Fleets remain small, tactical combat lets you run complex combat strategies, and there is always a hint of danger as you hide from the large AI fleets and try to sneak in and ambush the small convoys.

[ March 13, 2003, 16:57: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
 

This may have been said, but I know that AI is a big issue in seiv that people want changed. I'd suggest that the AI in the released game can just be so-so, as long as you have good AI modding tools. Of course, this might be as difficult as building a good AI.