SE5 progress
 

Anyone got any information on how its coming along - has beta testing begun (dont tell us details - perhaps just that you are taking part and SE5 is moving forward) if the non disclosure statements allow for that ?

Re: SE5 progress
 

Hang around the SE4 Yahoo group - Aaron's been posting on there recently! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://games.Groups.yahoo.com/group/SE4/

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Do you really think thats a good idea? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: SE5 progress
 

Beta testing has not yet begun.

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What is that supposed to mean?

Re: SE5 progress
 

It's supposed to mean that this group turned into the "l33t" club for SE5 discussion not for everyone, right?

Sorry for offense Gandalf, but the original post sounded not very good too.

Re: SE5 progress
 

By "this group" you mean the forum here? I never saw this as an elite group. Quite the opposite in fact. Its a very open and friendly community. Or is it the yahoo group you meant?

[ June 14, 2004, 02:19: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">[Londo Mollari accent] You EEEDYOT! [/Londo Mollari accent]

Most people have forgotten that email list after the Shrapnel BBs took over as the main support forum. Now you'll see thousands of people jump back on there and you won't get near as much information, let alone input, as Aaron has to quit posting or even reading under the sudden explosion of traffic!

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am afraid that the light at the end of the tunnel that was SEV has been turned out do to fiscle (sp) cut backs.

Call your local gamer and have them buy SE IV and Starfury in order to fund the electical costs for the computers needed to produce SE V.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif (J/k)

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes I spoke about that yahoo group. And Baron's comment just confirmed my suspictions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Well it's usual dualism, afterall: if you're too open to suggestions - you're flooded, if you're not - no feedback at all. Should be the golden mean there, but it's difficult then where's thousand plus one fans who have their own opinion about the next game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE5 progress
 

Well I was in email conversation with Aaron which helped to prompt the hints about too much OT, and the suggestions to start stickies on subjects Aaron can zoom into. It seemed better than his suggestion to start another forum for him.

Im hoping he will poke his head in here soon. I think its much easier to spot SE technical subjects.

Re: SE5 progress
 

Someone needs news about SE5 eh, well as one of the 'Official' Artists working on se5. (I'm building the UI with Aaron) Let me say this,..

The Development is comming along nicely. Aaron got the game engine up and running about 2 months ago. (I can attest to this because I have an early alpha Version) Aaron and I are currently working on inserting all the different UI elements. (He's working, I'm just making his work look good form a visual perspective)

I believe that Aaron said on Yahoo that in a couple more months, he'll be posting some screenshots. (patience is indeed a virtue, but it's a high cost vurtue.)

I know it's not much info, but I am under an NDA after all.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

P.S. I wouldn't worry if I were you, SE:V is going to surpass all of your expectations. (It has allready surpassed all of mine.)

Have a great day.

Re: SE5 progress
 

I'll take your word for it David, this is indeed good news http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE5 progress
 

I'd kill to see a feature-list for the new SE game.

But then I'm just violent...

Re: SE5 progress
 

Hi All,

No, I haven't forgotten about you guys! Its just that some questions came up in the Yahoo list and I thought I'd answer them. Since I'm finalizing the data file structure, seemed a good time to get some feedback on the layout from modders.

Here's what I posted in Yahoo about the current layout of weapons in the data file:

Name := Anti - Proton Beam
Description := Focused energy beam used as a medium range weapon.
Picture Number := 18
Maximum Level := 100
Tonnage Space Taken := 30
Tonnage Space Taken Inc Per Level := 0
Tonnage Structure := 30
Tonnage Structure Inc Per Level := 0
Cost Minerals := 50
Cost Organics := 0
Cost Radioactives := 10
Cost Minerals Inc Per Level := 5
Cost Organics Inc Per Level := 0
Cost Radioactives Inc Per Level := 1
Supply Amount Used := 5
Supply Amount Used Inc Per Level := 0
Ordinance Amount Used := 0
Ordinance Amount Used Inc Per Level := 0
Can Be Placed In Ship Sections := Inner Hull, Outer Hull
Component Type List := Technological
General Group := Weapons
Custom Group := 0
Number Of Requirements := 2
Requirements Boolean Evaluation := AND
Requirement 1 Type := Empire Tech Area Level
Requirement 1 Name := Energy Stream Weapons
Requirement 1 Description :=
Requirement 1 Operation := >=
Requirement 1 Amount := 1
Requirement 1 Amount Inc Per Level := 1
Requirement 2 Type := Design Vehicle Type List
Requirement 2 Name := Ship, Base, Satellite, Weapons Platform, Drone
Requirement 2 Description :=
Requirement 2 Operation := None
Requirement 2 Amount := 0
Requirement 2 Amount Inc Per Level := 0
Number Of Abilities := 0
Weapon Type := Direct Fire
Weapon Target Type List := Ship, Base, Planet, Fighter, Satellite, Drone
Weapon Damage Min Point Blank := 15
Weapon Damage Max Point Blank := 20
Weapon Damage Min Dec Per 10 Rng := 5
Weapon Damage Max Dec Per 10 Rng := 5
Weapon Damage Min Inc Per Level := 0.5
Weapon Damage Max Inc Per Level := 0.5
Weapon Maximum Range := 30
Weapon Maximum Range Inc Per Level := 1
Weapon Damage Type := Normal
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Weapon To Hit Inc Per Level := 0
Weapon To Hit Dec Per 10 Rng := 10.0
Weapon Reload Rate MS := 2000
Weapon Display Effect Name := Beam
Weapon Explosion Effect Name := Explosion
Weapon Sound Effect Name := apbeam.wav
Weapon Beam Burn Color := 110, 177, 240
Weapon Beam Duration := 50


But it was pointed out that the weapon damage at range design is not all it could be. So I revised it a bit and came up with:

Weapon Type := Direct Fire
Weapon Target Type List := Ship, Base, Planet, Fighter, Satellite, Drone
Weapon Damage Type := Normal
Weapon At Range Distance Increment := 10.0
Weapon Min Damage At Range := 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
Weapon Max Damage At Range := 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0
Weapon To Hit Modifier At Range := -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0
Weapon Min Damage Modifier Formula := [%ListedAmount%] + (([%Level%]-1) * 0.5)
Weapon Max Damage Modifier Formula := [%ListedAmount%] + (([%Level%]-1) * 0.5)
Weapon To Hit Modifier Formula := 0
Weapon Reload Rate MS := 2000
Weapon Display Effect Name := Beam
Weapon Explosion Effect Name := Explosion
Weapon Sound Effect Name := apbeam.wav
Weapon Beam Burn Color := 110, 177, 240
Weapon Beam Duration := 50


So instead of those pesky Inc Per Level fields, we would now have formulas to come up with the new values. Of course, speed may be an issue, so it will require some performance testing once its in and working (no guarantees that formulas will survive that).

Progress is good on the game. The basic engine is up and running and I'm busy going through and getting screens working (which is a major time consumer with 50+ screens).

At present there's still a debate about Research and Intelligence. Right now I'm moving it back to an SE3 style with percentage allocation for research tech areas and percentage intelligence spending against each empire. With all the pros and cons, the final decider for me was that percentage allocation method greatly reduces the micromanagement (as you only need to visit these screens occasionally once the allocations have been set).

So if you have suggestions for the game, please post them. Nothing is set in stone, as the SE4 beta testers will confirm. SE4 changed radically during its beta test. And I do read the ideas posted here. In fact I copy all of the ones that catch my eye to a huge Word document.

Of course, I can't guarantee that everything will make it in. But even simple ideas can have a tremendous effect.

Aaron

Re: SE5 progress
 

The ability to use exponents in the formulas is a must. Otherwise, we can not set up diminishing returns at higher tech levels very well...

[ June 14, 2004, 18:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE5 progress
 

You still haven't corrected 'Ordinance' I see... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The word for ammunition is 'Ordnance' without the 'i' in it. Both words are from the same root, but 'ordinance' is used to designate laws or customs (civil or religious) while 'ordnance' is used to designate military supplies.

Can the 'cost per level' entries take negative numbers so we can have decreasing costs as technology advances? Can tonnage also take negative numbers so size be reduced as tech levels advance?

And btw, just a sudden thought, could we have 'intermittent' beams as well as continuous? It would be cool if you could figure out how to make something 'pulsed' rather like the phasers in Star Trek II. Those had a really satisfyingly believable sense of 'particle beam' about them.

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Would it not be simpler to just add:
[%range%]

And then use:
Weapon Min Damage := 15 - ([%range%]/2) + (([%level%]-1) * 0.5)
Produces:
15 @ range 0-1
14 @ range 2-3
13 @ range 4-5
...

Then you don't need to specify all the "damage at range"s.
If you want a step function you could have a round-to-integer function:

Weapon Min Damage := 15 - 5*round([%range%]/10) + (([%level%]-1) * 0.5)
Produces:
15 @ range 0 to 9
10 @ range 10 to 19
5 @ range 20 to 29


PS:
You will definitely want to only parse the formulae once each if possible.

Having a separate formula.txt with named equations to use with parameters given by the particular components could make this simpler.

Most stock components use very similar formulae, and reusing them would probably help.

[ June 14, 2004, 18:49: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">of course you can. you can either edit the beam graphics to make it look pulsed (just like now) or you can create a Version of the weapon that does less damage but fires faster. notice the reload time in turns is replaced by reload time in miliseconds, so you could have a 1/4 power beam that fires twice a second instead of a full power beam that fires every other second.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">that would be cool, but it would have to be formulaic so that it could not reduce past a given number. should be exponential (as mentioned) so that cost could either raise or lower approaching but not passing some number.

[ June 14, 2004, 18:59: Message edited by: Puke ]

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Supply and ammo counted seperately?
*dogscoff does an arcane little dance of glee.

Fantastic! Of course a little help with the resulting micromanagement would be nice...

Re: SE5 progress
 

Maybe this will catch an eye... or two. (or not, then please, please, ignore me, but for the love of god, don't tell me, I don't think I can take it!)

Diplomacy. Nothing too fancy, just a bit more control.

Imagine a list of options for the type of "treaty". User defined treaties.

The list would contain check boxes that would allow, or limit what could and could not be done.

Standard treaties would assume that certain boxes are already checked... but, for instance, in the case of a Non-Agression Pact, you can't attack one another, but you could uncheck a box that would allow for free movement and colonuization within your systems. Violation would result in the cancellation of the treaty.

In the case of a Trade Treaty, you could uncheck boxes corresonding to Rad, Minerals, or Organics for the ones you do want to trade, or the ones you don't. Research and Intel treaties could be handled the same way. Military ones might be sharing information, but not Resupply bases, etc.

Assign point values (with refrence's to point scores of the players involved) to all of this and that way the AI can evaluate whether or not the trade or treaty is worthwhile.

One more thing (sorry if I have unleasehed the flood gates) Research (ever play spaceward ho! ?), it might be cool to have a "Random Tech" research option where the player can invest some research points into the development of a big advance in technology (kind of like finding a ruin where it gives you a special tech, or multiple techs at once). The catch is you never know when it will pay off...

[ June 14, 2004, 20:32: Message edited by: clark ]

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That would be much more realistic a research system! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Come to think of it, perhaps there should be a field in a tech entry that says "Can Be Found In Ruins" (or perhaps "Ruins Value" where a single tech can count for multiple "normal ruins techs" on planets which would give multiple techs), so you can prevent the really powerful ones (like colony techs) from being found too easily?

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This looks great to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is very neat to see how you set this up. Thanks for posting it.

Edit, Looks like SJ suggested a simular idea to mine that looks better than mine.

[ June 14, 2004, 21:58: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great to hear from you, Aaron!

I agree that formulas are a must, because diminishing returns of research is very important for playbalance. If you have concerns about the speed, how about parsing the formulas only once, at game setup, creating a table with hard numbers and save them to a file? In times where a Gigabyte more or less is not an issue, it is always a good idea to trade disk space for processing time if in need.

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I want to believe! (F.Mulder motto and mine too)

PS: "Trust noone" is good motto too, but it's unpropriate here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: SE5 progress
 

Well some good progress being made thanks MM(aaron) for posting that update for us.

Re: SE5 progress
 

I like SJ's suggestion on the formulas. Or maybe instead of having two seperate fields you could have a "weapon damage at range" field that accepts a formula OR a straight listing of damages at range like SE4.

The latter sounds like it might be complicated to code, though.

Re: SE5 progress
 

Just a few questions about the “Ordnance Amount Used” entry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

When weapon components use this entry will they all use the some ordnance supply or can we have different ordnance supplies e.g. torpedoes, missiles, shell projectiles, energy?

Will we be able to have components that can make ordnance on bases and ships?

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think I would prefer if bases and planets just automatically re-supplied ships with ordnance. I can see it turning into a potentially micromanagement nightmare otherwise.

Re: SE5 progress
 

The features new weapons data file look great. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Does this formula-based method allow unlimited tech levels to be researched?

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think I would prefer if bases and planets just automatically re-supplied ships with ordnance. I can see it turning into a potentially micromanagement nightmare otherwise. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The simplest solution would be to handle it like supplies are in SE4. Build a faclity to resupply with ordinance, or incorperate the ability into the resupply depots.

Definitely seperate the two abilities, though, for modding purposes if nothing else.

Re: SE5 progress
 

About beta testing...I'm sure the list will be long for the people who would love to be on that list...I was wondering what the chance would be for someone not in the 'inner circle' to be able to beta test when that time comes?

Kana...who has beta tested he's fair share of other games...

Re: SE5 progress
 

Great news, thank you Malfador!

I especially like the tech requirement with the boolean evaluation. If I understand this correctly it would make it possible to research a component with two different approaches choosing "or" and creating technologies that are excluding each others.

One thing I would love to see for weapons is the lines:

Skips shield level =
Skips armor level =

Then you could create indefinite levels of armors and shields and weapons that penetrate them.

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As I only have less than 200 Posts I know I am in no "inner circle", however I am regular in all my games and always give warning if I will be absent. I wish to give notice of my enthusiastic willingness to help beta test.

Re: SE5 progress
 

Who on this forum wouldn't want to beta test http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Anyway, beta testing isn't that easy if you take it seriously. I did it once for a game and i remember it was quite tedious at times. Off course being able to play your favourite game before it's released is really great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And being a programmer, it was also fun for me to think how the programmers pulled off certain things.

As to what i want to see changed in SE5, 2 biggies:
* being able to assign one ship as the succesor of another in the design view so that you can upgrade all ships of type very easily without looking them up and clicking and clicking. All this clicking to upgrade prevents me from spending more time coming up with devious schemes to become supreme ruler http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

* lists should remember their position (some already do now)

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's already something very similar to that - instead of indefinite levels, you specify various shield and armor *types*, so for instance you could have an Energy Shield which stops energy weapons 100% and a Matter Shield which stops matter weapons 100%... then you could define a damage type called Particle Beam which gets through each of those shields 50% http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: SE5 progress
 

SO who removed my Last post about forum members being given a link to beta test a demo Version of the full beta testing that the "inner circle" get - please put the post back it was a valid idea -

Those that arent on the beta test get the offer of a limited demo Version instead - it would get some interest and publicity for when the full Version is out ?

Re: SE5 progress
 

Beta demos are dangerous because they don't represent the completed game and people often ***** about bugs.

EDIT: especially early in the beta process when the game tends to be well neigh unplayable.

[ June 16, 2004, 00:25: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's a good solution.

Re: SE5 progress
 

There is no such creature as a "Beta Demo". A Beta 'Version' is sent out to all accepted beta testers and ALL testers sign an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) The so called "Beta Demo's" are usually what is refered to as "Warez". (stolen copies or otherwise 'leaked' copies that have no business being circulated to the public.)

As was mentionned, there are many, MANY changes that occure during beta development and it's not just bug fixes. Gameplay balancing and often new features are added in the beta stage. It would be a very bad thing to have unfinished, unpolished, untested software floating around the net.

Don't feel bad, just make sure you apply for the beta when Aaron puts the word out that the beta is about to start. Yes there are some regulars that can be called "the IN crowd" but Aaron always likes to infuse his beta testing with fresh blood. THings to keep in mind when applying for a beta position, Experience and or high Interest in 'Modding' is a definate plus. Aaron also looks for a wide variety of system specs to get a good idea of what the min/reccomended system will be for playing the game. (Look at the system specs for Starfury and you'll have an idea of the range he will be looking for.)

So, the bottom line is.. don't expect a "Beta Demo" (it is not forthcomming) and be sure to apply for the beta test when the time comes. (probably closer to fall than winter 2004)

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: SE5 progress
 

Just to let you know David, some companies do release "Beta Demos"

Jowood, for example, released the Soldner Beta Demo
http://soldner.jowood.com/?RubrikIdentifier=726&lang=en
Look down the page to where it says "US Beta Demo"

Now to the most extent you are right however, as most companies wont publicly release beta demos (unless they are apart of the MMORPG world, but they call that "Open testing") and most of these that are found have been leaked by a beta tester

Re: SE5 progress
 

can we expect beta screenshots, (possible) feature lists, and such? maybe sanctioned beta logs from a couple of the testers?

or is there too much fear of other companies cribbing MM's ideas?

Re: SE5 progress
 

An "offical" update - say twice a month with feature lists, direction updates and screenshots would be good - it would just help with these discussions in terms of thoughts, feedback and new ideas that could be included at a late stage or a brainstorming session on how best to implement new ideas.

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's pretty much what we had from Starfury, isn't it? So I'd personally expect something similar for SE5...

Re: SE5 progress
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's probably more a fear of announcing things that then don't show up in the published game. Look at all the features listed for SE IV that never actually appeared. The ship_sizes file is full of unused options. It sure would have been great to have all those unimplemented fancy 'exclusions' and extra abilities for ships, wouldn't it? We had to wait for the Gold Version before we even got drones. If he goes announcing all his grand plans for SE V and then finds out they are too hard to implement, what then? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE5 progress
 

Then only list them onc things are implemented.

50+ screenshots though - should be interesting.