SE IV future
 

I am alarmed about the priorities in the SE IV development in the Last time: MM seems to focus more and more on game balance and making hard coded changes to "fix" it. First the engine overloading weapons, then the allegiance subverter and organic armor. Next will be the religious talisman and phased polaron beams. Then what about null space weapons (no counter!), mines and many more that are not really balanced?
Game balance certainly is important for human player games and I understand and respect all concerns about this. But you will with absolute certainty never get a complete agreement about it. Players who loose will always feel that the enemies have unbalanced advantages.
On the other hand, the possibily to adapt SE IV to the wishes of the players seems to be ignored: You want a reliable counter to the allegiance subverter: play without computer virus. You think the religious talisman is too strong: double or triple its size. There are almost endless possibilities to adapt the game balance as you like it. But instead of letting the player using this, MM makes one hard coded change after the other, that disrupt irreversibly the existing balance. You think that is exaggerated? If you have a fleet with the engine overloading weapons as main weapon and after the patch they don't skip shields anymore, you would probably agree. Or if you used the computer virus in combination with the allegiance subverter, which is made completely useless after the next patch, you might be not happy either.
These changes disrupt the continuity of SE IV. If you install a patch into an ongoing game you will get major changes in the game balance and you can't do anything against it. Your only option is not to install the new patch. That's extremely bad in my opinion.
Sorry for the long post and the negative critic, but this might very well kill my interest in the future of SE IV and I am very worried about it.

[ October 13, 2002, 07:23: Message edited by: Q ]

Re: SE IV future
 

I agree. For quite a while early in this game's run people were spending their time making the AI more challenging. And developing tactics that would work against various threats a human would mount.

Now, the urge is to achieve some perfection of balance so that advantages are perfectly countered.

I submit that these two points of view are mutually exclusive. And I don't understand why the second one seems to have won some sort of effort on MM's part for hard code changes. I really think people should carefully read Q's post. It really points out a number of ways in which the balance can be altered without a hardcode change.

The transition from developing more interesting tactics to trying to cripple another's exploitive tactics was not a smooth one. Although it was a long time in coming and not as noticeable at first.

A while ago, the first cryptic message came. I hope someone remembers it. Someone said to be certain before a PBW game that all rules were worked out or some such foo. There were a few more Messages on "PBW etiquette". These Messages had no real content. I distintly remember Geo saying something to the effect that this sort of thing can't be perfectly achieved, so some flexability is required.

So, I say again, who got spanked, so badly, by whom, that hardcode changes are needed?

[ October 13, 2002, 11:44: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: SE IV future
 

You guys are blowing things way way out of proportion here. Really. You are totally overreacting.

If you look at the sum total of the Last several patches it's almost completely about adding features and customizability. Second priority has been fixing bugs. But the overwhelming trend has been towards adding flexibility.

The two specific cases you cite are bug fixes. The fact that you don't agree that they should be done is noted, but many people will say that these bugs were long overdue for being fixed. Everybody has their little list of quirks about this game that they feel shold have been fixed at one time or another. And Malfador takes just as many complaints from players about not ever fixing these things as he does from players complaining when he does finally fix one.

Who gets to decide when the game is "finished"? And no more changes get to be made? Is any game ever finished?

Even if you don't agree with them, they don't change the nature of the game all that drastically. You shold just adapt and move on. The game is still a great game.

Geoschmo

Re: SE IV future
 

Geoschmo I estimate you and your opinion very much but your statement that "these are bug fixes, get over it and adapt" seems a little bit too simple in my very humble opinion.
I don't want to argue about the definition of a bug but why was the skipping shields of engine overloading weapons a bug?? And then are the shields skipping of shield disruptors and weapon overloading weapons also bugs?
The argument that the crew conVersion is not realistic if there is no crew is of course valid. But if you build (and that's what you can make the AI do) a ship with crew and master computer and you destroy the master computer why is the ship still immune to the allegiance subverter? And why can a ship where the crew quarters have been destroyed (but never had a master computer) still be converted?
And why did MM remove the possibility of the allegiance converter to act on units? A possibility that was never used in standard SE IV. I was just an possibility for modders.

I don't say that SE IV is bad or MM does bad work. But you can't deny that in the Last time there have been things removed from the game in an irreversible way. And that's the point I am worried about because it goes against the major advantage of SE IV: it's flexibility and variety.

Re: SE IV future
 

Q, I am not arguing that these changes don't take away some of your choice. Obviously they do. And I am not going to get into a debate over whether or not they are valid changes. We could go around and around on it and argue both sides of it and would get nowhere. If you don't like the changes, by all means email Malfador and let him know about it.

What I will agrue though is your and Arkcon comments that these two relativly minor changes some how show some change in priorities or are some sort of overall effort to "balance" the game. They simply are not that at all. Malfador gets emails all the time from fans with suggestions. Someone at some point suggested these changes and Malfador was convinced enough to make the change.

If you disagree with these changes, please email Malfador and suggest something else. Nobody here knows anymore about thier motivations and reasons for doing things than you do. That's all I am saying.

Geoschmo

Re: SE IV future
 

I completely disagree with the original poster. We need more game-balance tweaks, not fewer. Most people play generic SE4 - why not keep perfecting it? From a purely number-crunching perspective, there is a lot of room for improvement. Sure, I can tweak them myself, but then who would I play with?

[ October 13, 2002, 20:46: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: SE IV future
 

Arkcon, you're implying that there is some sort of conspirisy going on. I just don't see it. While I too am unhappy with some of the changes coming I wouldn't dream of faulting MM's intentions. I believe that MM is just trying to make his game better, as he has always done. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with both spoon and Q - see, it is possible http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Relentless play balancing by MM is more than welcome but if it is possible to achive by adjusting values in data files rather than hardcode changes than I would vote for "softer" approach.

Re: SE IV future
 

Sounds like these problems would be solved if MM introduced multiple damage types to some limited extent.

However, I can see some point to this. There is a line somewhere between expansion and revamping. After a while you just have to take your hands off of what exists and move on.

I'm not for stopping the tweaks, but we've all gotten used to the game as is--exploits, bugs and all. Time is better spent adding things or expanding what is instead of endlessly changing values.

I don't mind the changes that much, although the engine weapon was a fave of mine for defensive purposes.

Re: SE IV future
 

For one thing, i feel some degree of shame because it is i who had endlessly suggested and supported various changes to game balance because i feel some things are much stronger while others are much weaker. It had never been so in SEIII, in there i had tested and proved in combat that the most useless of weapons in the game (MB, Torpedoes and so on) were useful to an exteme if used correctly. In SEIV there is no such thing, there are several weapons that briefly overpower others and are somewhat easier to research than their counterparts in SEIII if they did exist.
Example? PPB could be a perfect example. To research PPB you had to research shields 3 (i think), APB 6, Physics 2. And the research project itself wasnt any cheap. In SEIV you can rush to Physics 2 and get the PPBV in same cost you would get APBVII.

Yet i consider the changes being done rather logical. Organic armor cannot regenerate over its capacity but it makes sense to have it regenerate itself after combat because it would do so in combat anyway, and one game turn or even move is MUCH more than a combat or even two. Allegiance Subverter - how in name of god can you convert a destroyed computer??? Makes sense, too. Psychical weapons are still one of the best in the game, Telekinetic shows one of the best (size to research to range to damage to cost) ratio and it is easy to research. Mental flailer is also powerful because of early availability compared to its counterpart, Energy Dampener which is lvl.6 racial weapon which is only aviable in late mid game. And so on. I still would like to see PPB and crystalline and so on changed, but i consider all the changes rather logical.

And Last thing, Q - you say this distrupts the current games. Think differently - it makes more challenge for the players to adapt to new tactics in progress. And Q, Ionic Dispenser is in no way useless weapon even after being unable to skip shields. They have a decent damage and 1 ROF and 30kT size and rather cheap cost, and even if only 1 is put to a ship eventually it will overpower similar design with no Ionic Dispenser. Tachyon are weak and only way for them to be powerful is to skip shields, and Shield Distruptor is specialized weapon which costs heck a lot to build and to research and is SUPPOSED to be able to skip all shields.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's my preference too. There seems to be very little fine-tuning done by MM, and I think that's too bad. I'd like to see every weapon have its place, and for every facility to be worthwhile - something that can all be achieved by simple data changes...

Re: SE IV future
 

I'd like to see crystaline racial tech improved.

Re: SE IV future
 

Unless you are fighting a only organics player it is completely useless. I'm in a game now where my ally and i are fighting a crystalline player. I'm organic he's not so he does all the main fighting because my ships get ripped to shreds whenever i attack yet his (sheilded) roll over fleets of the enemy that are 10x their size.

One thing that admins need to think over is how the change to a new mod will affect current players. Big play balance changes can obsolete entire fleets and then turn someone who is in 1st into a Last place player through no fault of their own, while this wasn't really a true change, but rather a bug, the TDB bug in, IIRC, 1.78 has really hurt an ally of mine in one game.

Re: SE IV future
 

When the rules are changed there should be an addendum to explain the logic behind the changes: a designer's note.

It's not clear to me that some of the rules changes were necessary - I used almost all of the "exploits" that were taken out by the "patch" - so it would make me feel better to at least understand where these changes are coming from.

I have to admit that my initial reaction to the changes was to assume that some whiner was able to convince MM because he kept getting beat.

BTW: I am in a pbw game where the vote was not to upgrade because of the rules changes - which sort of defeats the purpose of upgrading if you ask me.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with that, and I think Q does too. However, the issue I have with this particular fix is that it was done.... rather sloppily. We've gone from one extreme (crewless ships could be converted) to the other (crewed ships with a destroyed computer are still protected).

Now, I don't even pretend to be a computer programmer (or even a vague semblance of one), it seems to me that this should be a simple boolean test:

IF an Allegiance Subverter hits the target
AND the target has Crew Quarters present
AND there is no functional (destroyed doesn't count) Master Computer present
THEN the target is converted.

Simple, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

As to the change in focus by MM, I must admit that I see it too. Whether it is intentional or not, only MM knows for sure. But the Last official patch made a significant hard-code change to the Ion Dispersers. Granted, another change made them more powerful (weapons won't fire if out of supplies), so that balances out some. But the ID definately doesn't hit as hard and fast as it did before, and that is an important change.

Now there is the (much needed and well balanced, IMHO) changes to the Organic Armor, and to the AS. Both of these will affect ship design somewhat, but the AS was a SIGNIFICANT shift in effectiveness.

So, in short, the Last patch and the current beta have 3 big changes in them (well, 4 really, but 2 of them are interconnected.)

The ID and supply issue: Well balanced, if a bit heavy handed. Multiple damage types would fix this nicely.

(Note: I'm not a beta tester, so therefore can only speculate about the following)
The Organic Armor fix has been on players To Do list for MM for a long time. I think it is probably pretty balanced out, although OA may need a damage structure boost to keep it competative w/other protection measures.

The Allegience Subverter, on the other hand, seems more like it is just MM's first step towards balancing this weapon. If he can make it follow the Boolean test above, it should be balance fairly well.

PS. I disagree with some of you on one major issue. Yes, I think he should be working on fine-tuning the game balance, but except for extreme cases (ie PPB, which needs to be stretched out over similar ranges and damage levels to APB) he shouldn't waste his time with editing txt files. That's what modding is for! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I think he is right on focusing on the Hard Code changes needed to balance the game. After all, he's the only one that can make those changes! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: SE IV future
 

News from the new beta Version:

Version 1.81:
1. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types,
again.
2. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with
a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or
not). It does not matter if there is a Bridge on the ship.
3. Fixed - AI will no longer launch "Anti-Planet" Drones in combat.
4. Added - Option to strategems to control how many drones are launched
per target in combat.
5. Changed - You can now give drones orders to Attack warp points. This
is essentially the same as telling them to warp through
and attack anything on the other side. Any survivors can then
be given new orders.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Drone Control! Woohoo!
*Dogscoff sings with delight, and hopes GT can't hear him from this thread.

Re: SE IV future
 

2 rounds from a Walter PPK zip across threads and give Dogscoff a right dinging on his armour plated forehead (explains a lot about him actually that feature does)

Re: SE IV future
 

I would rather see hard code changes to allow for more soft code changes...

As what Q was stating in his first post.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm...ever heard of the Hal 9000 series?

Re: SE IV future
 

Good point Kwok. Realistically if a race is capable of installing a MC on it's ships, would they have the crew as a backup for the MC? What they would do would be have a crew as primary control and install a MC as a backup. If that is the case then the MC would need to have internal security which can be used to incapacitate boarders, or the primary crew if it determines they have been "compromised". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE IV future
 

I imagine the master computers to be like early Versions of the Minds in the Culture novels - utterly superior to us fleshlings and completely independent.

I do think any MC enabled ship would have "backup" controls to drive the ship if the computer should be out of action.

Re: SE IV future
 

Hehe, so there we have two completely reasonable, and utterly irreconcilable differences of opinion about it. So what's poor programer to do then. Flip a coin? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Actually more than two, if you count Puke's comment. Anybody got a three sided coin, or do we have a "flip off" tournament.

Geoschmo

[ October 15, 2002, 18:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Roll a d6, then take mod 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

That said... does anyone actually build ships with both crew quarters *and* MC's? For me, the two are effectively mutually exclusive; the expense of crew quarters makes them silly to add to an already expensive MC. This makes the AS problem easy. It can convert crewed ships, but not convert MC ship; on an MC ship, there aren't any crew to smash the MC.

Re: SE IV future
 

Dumbluck, I think more clearly people's impressions of the patch changes (I won't even call them fixes anymore) are reflected in their feelings about whether or not there was a problem. For example you make the case the OA changes are balanced and have been asked for for a long time. By contrast you seem to imply that the AS change was some sort of unilateral plan by Malfador and infer that you haven't heard much call for this change.

I am not sure if that's what you are saying, but if it is I can tell you that is just not the case. The AS has been complained about just as often, and for just as long as the OA one. Human nature however is that we tend to minimize or forget alltogether arguments that run counter to our own established perceptions.

I think your (and others) proposed final solution does make sense however. If a ship were built with MC and crew quarters (I would prefer bridge, but I guess it doesn't really matter) then the AS should probably be able to convert it once the MC is destroyed.

Geoschmo

Re: SE IV future
 

the AS issue could be alot simpler. IF hit AND crew quarters (or bridge, or whatever) THEN convert.

why the heck would having a MC prevent crews from being converted? Kirk smashed the MC they put incharge of HIS ship, why couldn't a converted SE4 crew smash their MC? this way, there is no invulnerable ship design. you are either exposed to virus problems, or you are exposed to AS problems.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Roll a d6, then take mod 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

That said... does anyone actually build ships with both crew quarters *and* MC's? For me, the two are effectively mutually exclusive; the expense of crew quarters makes them silly to add to an already expensive MC. This makes the AS problem easy. It can convert crewed ships, but not convert MC ship; on an MC ship, there aren't any crew to smash the MC.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quite a few TDM races do just that to frustrate too smug humans. (there is no way to make AI build pure MC ship, only crew+MC)

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If that is what modding was for, then the PPB would have already been fixed, and everyone would be playing with a more balanced Version of that weapon. Unfortunately, the pool of people that plays mods is relatively small, so instead we see most everyone playing vanilla SE4 with some sort of love-hate relationship.

I also dispute that it would take MM much time to address the most blatant balance issues. Seriously. He could send out a poll to known number-crunchers in the community, figure out what is broken, and then fix it in a couple of hours.

Modding, in my opinion, is not for balancing the core game, but for making new and different play experiences. Like P&N new race-styles, and Proportions focus on homeworlds.

-Spoon

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Damn, Spoon said it all first.

[ October 16, 2002, 22:58: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: SE IV future
 

I always imagined a ship with a master computer to be like a beserker - so when you destroy the master computer, in my mind, it should just be a hulk not able to do anything and certainly not able to be converted.

Re: SE IV future
 

Is what I don't understand is that ships with a destoryed MC can't do much of anything in combat anyway. So if you hit it with a computer virus you still take it out of action. The former converting of the ship with an AS seemed sort of like an added bonus. Why complain about the AS conVersion when the computer virus still disables the ship?

Re: SE IV future
 

I think the main reason the PPB was never changed is that no consensus could ever be reached even among those that believe it needs fixed. I am sure Malfador got plenty of suggestions, but everybody has a different one. And there are plenty of people, myself included, that don't even buy into the whole "fact" that they are unbalanced to begin with. I am not trying to start another discussion about all that or anything, I think we did that particular one to death. Just pointing out that there are other reasons besides lack of time for things not to be changed.

Geoschmo

[ October 17, 2002, 00:34: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The lack of concensus is exactly why MM needs to head the effort of game balance. Why would you want to play a mod that goes against your erroneous conclusion that PPBs don't need balancing? (hehe! resist the bait!)

I want to use torpedos in a competitive game! I want to build those terraforming facilities! A few small changes here and there. That's all I ask.

-Spoon

Re: SE IV future
 

Then what it takes is to start a topic which would be open for, say, two weeks and collect all the things people want tweaked. Then in the next two weeks twenty of them would be chosen as the top nuber of people mentioning them and a vote be held for people to choose 10 out of 20. And the final 10 would be e-mailed to MM.

EDIT: Double wording

[ October 17, 2002, 00:53: Message edited by: Taera ]

Re: SE IV future
 

It's been done Taera. Several times. Some of the changes in recent patches were results of such brainstorming sessions. In other cases the results were never sent is as far as anyone knows. But taking a poll is not the same as reaching a consensus.

Geoschmo

Re: SE IV future
 

What i ment was opening a topic strictly moderated by local Moderators to delete all topics which have anything else but ideas. This way it could stay clean, i guess. But i can see your point. Ohwell.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">After re-reading my post, I can see how you read in that I thought the AS changes was "some sort of unilateral plan by Malfador and infer that you haven't heard much call for this change." I do not think that. I know that the AS issue has been around for a long time as well. I was simply stating that I think (hope) that this is just MM's first step in re-balancing the AS. Similar to the OA's 2 step fix (not accumulating regen points before hit, and all OA fixed after combat).

The way I see it, MM could do 2 things to finish the AS.
1. (my favorite) is the boolean test stated previously.
2. Make the MC and Crew Q/Life S/Bridge incompatble (ie. you can only mount one or the other) This way, a Crewed ship isn't immune from the AS.

Just my overpriced $0.02.

PS. Did anyone find out if the OA will regen after combat if all of it was destroyed in combat?

[ October 17, 2002, 10:10: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: SE IV future
 

Geo: if it is to be done it should be considered with the Moderators because i know what can become of "what to balance" mod.

But on the other hand, i agree with you. I can live with current weapons actually. PPB can be changed a little and so are the crystal shards, but thats not a major issue i presume.

Re: SE IV future
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wasn't trying to say noone should do that. It can't hurt. I was just pointing out that it had pretty much been done a couple times already and it didn't result in all these changes.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From a game play perspective this would be good. You would probably get some complaints from a realism perspective though. I would love to see this idea expanded on. We have suggested to Malfador some way to have techs that are prevented from being on the same ship, not just these two. If he could add it as some sort of ability then we could mod it in ourself wherever we want.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It does not. But it can be modded to do so.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why should Malfador head the effort to fix the game balance when we can't even convince him the game is unbalanced? A lot of us would prefer he not even waste time making data file changes and concentrate on hard code changes only, and you want him to spend time moderating a "blue-ribbon commision" on game balance issues? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The point is that those are things you can change. And yes Malfador could change them too, but no matter what he changes them to not everybody will be happy with them, so some of these things it's like, why bother? Of course the same could be said about hard code changes I suppose, but at least in those areas it's not like we can change those ourselves if we don't like them.

Obviously if there were some area that was clearly out of whack, and there was an pbvious change to fix it that didn't unbalance something else, I would be all for him changing that. And he has done so in the past. Missles and PDC are a good example.

But since there is no consensus on these things, and everybody can easily change them on their own, there is no real incentive for Malfador to change them.

I can't tell you the number of people that have come out on this forum with grand ideas for a "Game Balance mod", and cited all these wonderful examples of what's wrong with the game and what they were going to do to fix it. I even decided at one point to do so with my "Art of War mod". And to date I have seen none advertised as being complete, including my own. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Many mods have changes to these areas, but they are all just parts of a mod for some other purpose, not really a strict "Balance Mod".

So one of two things is the case here. Either it's harder than people think to make all these changes in the stock data files (A couple of hours? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ) or once people got in and started making changes and playtesting they realized the stock game isn't all that unbalanced to begin with. In my case I can tell you it was a little of both.

Not wanting to play mods is no excuse at all. Modpicker makes it a breeze, and I can even set them up on PBW for multiplayer play, and do so all the time. I think people would love to play a mod that was complete. TDM gets played a LOT. But a lot of people only have so much time to play, so they don't want to be bothered playing a mod that is only half done, or doesn't really do any better than the stock game.

Geoschmo