POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Based on thread 'things we'd like to see in next patch' here is a poll.

[ November 01, 2002, 03:12: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

You are only allowed to Vote for 3 things out of that list of Great Features. ...Very Hard... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Thanks for running a new poll Dave

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

interesting poll. three is good, too.

EDIT: removed my additional ideas to poll. lets get this sorted out without additional ideas.

EDIT2: It is a poll i wanted to have a while ago... it would be good to have a moderator watching over the topic to prevent numerous new ideas from popping up and preventing from poll to do anything.

[ November 01, 2002, 03:38: Message edited by: Taera ]

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

I'm missing my saving and opening of simul-turns for PBW, and my coveted map editor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif . Its a great list anyway though!

Also, how about all of them? They're all great!

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hehe that's what I though too after posting it. There are at least 10 of the items I would really like to have.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Some comments....

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You DO realize how unbalancing/unrealistic this is, correct? Maybe if there is a one per planet restriction...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If this is put in, it really should be set to off by default. Not everyone has the luxury of game files in excess of several megabytes. Even if it's just limited to storing the ship class/planet population, that's a lot of extra data to keep track of for each player.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">File size, but not as much as above... only 4 bytes * total_ships, but still, for such a trivial thing... ship experience is a good enough indicator of this.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, for this one, you're talking huge combat files. Right now, the game only has to save movement coordinates, firing targets (and whether the shot hit or missed), and ship damage at the end of each combat turn. This would require saving the component hit for each shot and if it's destroyed, as well. The file size increases of the Last two would be trivial compared to the hugeness of this if there is a big confrontation.

For those, IMHO, the "benefits" (AKA "coolness factor") of these updates wouldn't help gameplay significantly, and would add restrictions to some Users. You have to remember, not everyone has high bandwidth or insanely huge hard drives.

For the rest, nothing immediately comes to mind on potential problems, other than varying degrees of coding effort. And, since only one person (perhaps a few others) knows anything about the SE4 source, I can't really comment on difficulty http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

"If this is put in, it really should be set to off by default. Not everyone has the luxury of game files in excess of several megabytes. Even if it's just limited to storing the ship class/planet population, that's a lot of extra data to keep track of for each player."

The save files don't get that large even when you CAN see what everyone is doing.. (i.e. partnerships). I can see 90% of the galaxy in one of my games, and it's under a meg.

Phoenix-D

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's not just seeing a large percentage of the galaxy, it's storing WHEN you saw it, and doing that for each player. The game file contains the data for each player, so for every system there needs to be a section for when/if each player Last viewed that system, and what/where everything was in the system. This is much different than seeing what is in a large portion of the quadrant this turn.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Thanks for making this poll DAVID.
Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
You are only allowed to Vote for 3 things out of that list of Great Features. ...Very Hard...

REPLY; No kidding its hard http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .If i only could select 5 choices.
My choices are (a)satilite(b)Warpoint(c)Intell, too hard ,theres RAIN WATER coming from my HEAD??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Will, SP savegame files aren't that large, and they store all that combat data. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

That extra data would be tremendously useful. It would allow you to see just what went wrong when you lose a battle, and what went right when you win.

[ November 01, 2002, 06:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Of that list there is only ONE thing i really want, and it is wanted by several modders for as long as i can remember.

Components with intel and research abilities
<font size=1>(This could be expanded a bit by also letting the Cloack ability work for facilities and/or planets.)</font>

[ November 01, 2002, 11:12: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

File size??? I've got a 'small' 40GB HD Who the heck cares about file size? Info about what you saw in a system and when does not have to be stored in the .gam file. (I hate it when computer games forces you to use a pencil and paper or have a photographic memory)

Surely the components that are dammaged on each ship during simultaneous combat is already in the cmb file?

Ship experiance is not even close to a good indicater of amount of actual combat experience since it can get to 20% but just sitting in orbit.
Yes storing combat stats for individual ships is trivial but I think it would be fun.

BTW most of these ideas are not mine, just extracted from the other thread.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not disagreeing that it would be nice to have this extra info available. And some of it wouldn't increase the file size at all, cause the info is there, it's just not being accessed. But the issue of file size is not just one of HD space. Once the files get to a certain size they could begin to be a problem for people playing multiplayer. PBEM, PBW, TCP/IP, all three can be hampered if the files get too big.

Geoschmo

[ November 01, 2002, 14:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If this is put in, it really should be set to off by default. Not everyone has the luxury of game files in excess of several megabytes. Even if it's just limited to storing the ship class/planet population, that's a lot of extra data to keep track of for each player.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, ctually, that's not true. The data is all IN there already -- EVERY PLAYER gets that same .GAM file. So, that .gam file already includes data on which worlds are colonies -- and even, what EXACT facilities are on each, etc.

And the design data for each ship, to the exact component.

NOT just for the race you're playing. You may only see one race's worth of information, but it'd be no difficult thign to at -least- still mark -colonies- (don't show population, don't record shisp or orbitals or units, just mark them as COLONIES of the owning race). The information is all in there already, after all. The EXE just has to let us SEE some more of it.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't quite get it. There always needs to be one overall "true picture" copy of the map, which is what you're focussing on.

The suggestion would multiply the size by up to 21 times, since a separate map needs to be maintained for what each player saw Last time they were there...

One real map, and 20 variants, based on each empire's knowledge.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

DaveG, Thanks for putting this together. 3 options is a great idea. It realy forces you to say where you would like Arron to focus his efforts.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

bah... where is sortable reports... and search function when looking for stuff... and the filter button....end bah

good list... I voted on three. but could have picked about 10....

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what I was trying to say, just couldn't find the right explanation, I guess... With the current game file, the only thing that could be accomplished is a slightly toned down Version of omnipresent viewpoint.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IIRC, the combat data is stored in *.cmb files, but it has been a while since I've played, so I might be hallucinating http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Speaking of omnipresent view, what exactly does this do? I've never used it in a game and I've always wondered what it did.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

You can see everything in the quadrant. Think "god mode"... although I don't think you can see things like opponent ship designs, facilities on planets, etc. It's just like having a bare-bones satellite in each system, pretty much.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh ok, thanks Will.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Re: File size and viewing systems you've moved through

Of course file size is important for any files that need to be e-mailed or transfered, but could this data not be stored on the players own drive? Also I doubt even if it was stored in the .gam file that it would increase the file size by 21 times. The current 'snapshot' of the galaxy must contain a lot of info that you would not need to view a system (ie details on all facilities on every plant, build queues on those planets etc).

However the point is that being able to view what was in a system the Last time you could see it would be a very nice feature IMHO. Wether or not it is feasable or wether or not it would negativly affect the saved files sizes is a question only MM can answer.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

I do a lot of micromanagment and one thing I'd like is to see - that no one mentions - is the ability to give orders without having to jump to the planet or ship. For instance launch satellite or retrofit at the ship list.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

I tried, I really, reeally tried, but I couldn't do it. I cannot ask for only 3 of those almost all excellant choices. If I did restrict my vote to 3 choices, I would be lying about what I really want.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IIRC, the combat data is stored in *.cmb files, but it has been a while since I've played, so I might be hallucinating http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And? Whether the info is in 1 file or 2 doesn't really make a difference (except for a few bytes for creating the second file).

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

None of the above. Fix all current bugs, then we'll talk.

Kim

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Increasing the file size 21 times would be the maximum possible, it's much more likely that it would be lower, probably around 2-4 times file size (just a wild guess). However, in my original post, I said that if it's implemented it should be off by default... hence implying that there be a flag in the game options screen. I didn't say that it shouldn't be done because of file size, just that the ability to turn it on/off be included.

As for hard disk space, from beta testing to sometime around v.1.30, I was playing SEIV on a computer with a whopping 1GB hard drive (approximately 100MB was free, and it complained when free space fell below 75MB). Sure, in the current computer market, 40GB is small and 1GB usually refers to RAM, but not everyone buys a new computer every six months.

Imperator Fyron: I also seem to recall that after turns with rather large, multiple battles, the *.cmb files were also huge. But, as I said, it's been a while since I've played... because it's been a while since I could have played. I don't have access to any of my savegames at home, or I could probably dig up a big file. And of course, this one should also be a flag. I never said "remembering" the system and combat details should not be done, I just said they should be set to off (flags).

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

In one game turn where there was a hugely massive ship battle or 10, the cmb file was 616KB. Not very much, considering it gets overwritten every turn, and is rarely that large. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 02, 2002, 07:22: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You DO realize how unbalancing/unrealistic this is, correct? Maybe if there is a one per planet restriction...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actaully never thought about it before since this was someone elses idea. However I would think this could work if it was like Atmospheric Converter. After say a year you get 25% more facilities.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

RE: Adding facility spots. It's not as "sexy" maybe as adding a new hardcode feature toy, but you can mod in combo facilities that have the ablilities of different kinds of facilities, or enhanced facilities that are like two of the same kind of facilitiy. Does the same thing pretty much.

Geoschmo

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

*light clicks on in head* What if the views of these systems you "saw" were stored on YOUR harddrive? YOUR hard drive would take a "screenshot" each turn, then check if it needed to update it with a new one from the current .gam file. If it didn't then it would save it for your viewing. I already do this for one of my games with the "print screen" command and then placing it in a .ppt file only it doesn't have as much detail as a game generated one would.

If it was turned on in the normal game then each player (depending on their HD space) coudl decided whether to use it or not. I don't think you'd have a problem with hacking either, despite the generally honest nature of everyone here, because, unless you tricked the game into thinking you had a ship there you wouldnt' get a "newer" update.

Hope that makes sense.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

That could work... screenshots would be vastly inefficient, but saving system information into a seperate file (e.g. gameName_playerNumber.map, or whichever file extension) could work nicely. Would be more... graphical than keeping a Notepad (either the Windoze or the physical variety)archive of each game.

Thus, it becomes an individual player's option, and doesn't bog down TCP/IP, PBW, PbEM... Why didn't I see that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Oh well.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

What about the ability to save simultaneous game turns, and continue later?

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I second that! (Heck, it was hard enough picking three out of the ones presented....)

Quikngruvn

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's the main reason why I usually don't play simultaneous games although it would be much fairer against the AI. If it takes more than half an hour in the later game for me to make the turn, it is annoying that I can't interrupt, save what I did and continue later.
That should not be too difficult for MM to implement.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

OMG, when you're almos done with a turn, and gtg but leave your computer on and it frezzes and now you have an extra 2 hrs of work (which you just perfected).

AHHHHHHH, this i want to not be a problem, no?

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

i would like to see an option on the starmap editor that would allow you to select a position on the starmap then randomly create a starsystem at that location. then edit the system as usual from there.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Latest patch infos:

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless
of whether they are in a combat group or not.
2. Fixed - Computer Players which had a "Computer Player Bonus" set above
None were not using all of their bonus funds.
3. Fixed - The largest ship in a sector was not always being drawn on top
in the system display.
4. Fixed - Planets in combat would not fire all of their weapons (sometimes).
5. Fixed - Planets in combat would not fire enough seekers against a target
to guarantee its destruction (sometimes).
6. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little.
7. Added - The Log Window will now return you to the item you had selected the
Last time you were in the window.
8. Fixed - Ships with a Tractor Beam would not fire weapons located after
the tractor beam in their design.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little...

What ??

did it go from a horrible status to a half-A%% position ??

Please explain!

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

"7. Added - The Log Window will now return you to the item you had selected the
Last time you were in the window."

This is excellent!
If the same could be done for other large lists like construction, ship, colonies list it would make things a lot easier in large/late games.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You DO realize how unbalancing/unrealistic this is, correct? Maybe if there is a one per planet restriction...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actaully never thought about it before since this was someone elses idea. However I would think this could work if it was like Atmospheric Converter. After say a year you get 25% more facilities.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This would not be needed as much, if all the facility abilities could also be used by bases, like research and intel. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How about how soon we may see this patch. The TDB bug is wreaking havoc in several games.

[ November 04, 2002, 19:59: Message edited by: Gandalph ]

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

Bah. I want racial trait restrictions and requirements, and planetary drives http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

-Paladin

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummmm... does this mean unarmed ships/carriers/etc. will no longer run to the corners if they're part of a fleet that has a strategy of "[Optimum/point-blank/max/etc.] weapons range" or any of the other combat-oriented strategies? I can see that it might make planet invasions easier, and get rid of the "bug" that ships with only PDC will run from battle, but I'd like my supply and repair ships to stay away from the enemy ships...

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

If a warship on optimum range orders loses all its weapons, it will run for the corners.
So a ship that starts with no weapons will run for it too.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

6. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little. Really like to know what this means too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif ?.

I still like my idea of (1) Moddable Ministers to fine tune them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .

DAVID G >When do you think is a good time to close this poll,to send to MM.The poll looks pretty good what people want right now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummmm... does this mean unarmed ships/carriers/etc. will no longer run to the corners if they're part of a fleet that has a strategy of "[Optimum/point-blank/max/etc.] weapons range" or any of the other combat-oriented strategies? I can see that it might make planet invasions easier, and get rid of the "bug" that ships with only PDC will run from battle, but I'd like my supply and repair ships to stay away from the enemy ships...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps a hard-coded Fleet Strategy of "On Your Own" needs to be added, which only specifies "ships will use their own strategy, as specified for their design" ...

That way you can have a single fleet, a mixed lot of missile and beam-armed warships, with a single logistics-and-repair ship -- and the missile ships will use a good missile strategy, the beam ships will use a good beam strategy, and the logistics ship will run for the (figurative) hills.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can't this be done in the current game? Just create a strategy were all ships will break formation.

Re: POLL->things we\'d really like in Next Patch (Platinum II)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Er, did you miss this part ... ?

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless of whether they are in a combat group or not.

That means, if the fleet's strategy is "Maximum range" and you have Troop Transports (each with a single APB) -and- multi-APB warships in the same fleet, and set the fleet to Maximum Range -and- break formation ... the Troop Transports will still try to kinfe-fight with the enemy warships, before dropping off their troops.

Why?

Because the fleet's "Maximum Range" strategy will OVERRIDE the Troop Transport's "capture planet" design-strategy, even if the trasnports break formation.

So, I'd like to see some sort of way to have one or mroe types of ship override the fleet strategy.

Perhaps, for each strategy, a list of types, like the list of those types which break formation, would work -- but the list being design types, so you'd not see just "ships" but "troop transports" versus "carriers" and so on.

Unless we can get "nested fleets" -- IOW fleets within fleets -- the result will be a nightmare of MM for anyone seeking to use combined arms tactics (bunch of warships, supported by a couple carriers, and backed up by a logistics/repair ship or two and some troop transports).

By the current 1.82 setup, we will have to put each type of ship into seperate fleets, and move the fleets together, turn after turn (one turn's movement at a time, or, after the first turn's movement they will start moving one at a time, and NOT join battle as a single grouping ...). That means more MM, more effort, more time to process turns on the player end.

I'd like to be able to set fleets up to have seperate Battle Groups, each of which gets it's own strategy; then we could set up a point-blank PDC Aegis group, a Short Range APB "gunline" group, a Medium-range missile group, put the carriers at maximum range on Fighter Attack strategy, and have the troopships try and just bull their way through to the planet -- all in one fleet, with each group focussed on a different strategy, and even formation (putting the PDC/aegis ships into a disperesed formation, at a range where they are spread out among the other Groups, would be a possibility, for example ...).

At present, in v1.82, we may have to use multiple fleets for what, before, took only a single fleet to accomplish. *sigh*