SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List - Page 20

Aloofi · #**191** March 5th, 2003, 04:08 PM

About the starmap, keep in mind that in a game we, the player, are roleplaying an Imperator, President or whatever you wanna call it, and a President have an staff to give him all information well detailed, so when i look to the starmap I don't expect to see a Galaxy like looking at the real stars, but a representation of the information that my aids gave me upon which I'll make my decisions for the whole Empire.
So I don't care for a "real" starmap, but for one that tells me clearly which system is closer and which one is more strategically important. If you can make a 3D starmap that acomplish this, then is ok with me, but if the 3D starmap is in any way confusing, I would keep the current starmap, because I don't have an staff next to me when I'm playing to ask them what I need to know.
I can even argue that the current Starmap is a 2D representation of real Space to show the distances in an understandable way.
I'm all for a better 2D starmap, but I have big doubts about a 3D map.
Even if we get a 2D starmap with rotation planets I would hope that I can turn that thing off and play with stationary planets.
I expect to be an all powerful Imperator, not a lowly starship commader that needs to worry about planet orbital location in a system!

mottlee · #**192** March 5th, 2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Nooooo.....Minesweepers shouldn't be able to sweep while cloacked!
The mere action of removing one of your mines would give away the sweeper location.

I've found that IF mines are removed W/O going BOOM you get no word as to being removed so if clocked you will not know

Rigelian · #**193** March 5th, 2003, 08:54 PM

(I'm on 1.49, so apologies in advance if this is fixed in Gold, but I think not).

If I could change one thing in code, it would be the trade algorithm. In a multiplayer, there is nothing more frustrating than smashing an opponents 'real' economy completely, then having him come back at you with his massive trade revenues from multiple allies. Especially when someone has gifted him a safe moon somewhere in the corner of the map to keep him alive. This would be an incredibly simple fix:

Trade bonus = 20%(max) * value of SMALLER "real" economy.

By "real" economy I mean output of planets and remote mining. This of course makes much more sense in 'realism' terms as well.
Slightly OT, if anyone knows a mod to achieve this effect or similar I will be very interested.

capnq · #**194** March 5th, 2003, 10:58 PM

Quote:

In a multiplayer, there is nothing more frustrating than smashing an opponents 'real' economy completely, then having him come back at you with his massive trade revenues from multiple allies.

I don't find this at all unrealistic. It's roughly what happened in World War II.

SalsaDoom · #**195** March 6th, 2003, 04:05 PM

Here is what I want.. I want to be able to use 3d models directly in the game. Converting them to flat images is very 90s. Heh. And, most importantly, I want the model to be something that I can directly export from Blender (http://www.blender.org) because having to buy something like 3DS Max is unrealistically expensive -- I KNOW that all those mod makers for other games pirate their copies

Also, you lose a lot of detail converting.. being able to move the map around in a 3d fashion and zoom in on ships and stuff. Battleship eye candy to go with my Gunboat diplomacy

Ed Kolis · #**196** March 7th, 2003, 12:39 AM

Just not like MOO3 where your ships look like gnats and you can't tell a Trilarian from a Psilon - sure, it might be cheezy to have ships appearing to be bumper-to-bumper in combat, but at least we can SEE the pretty models that took so long to develop!

(Yes, I know you can zoom in on MOO3 combat, but then you can see about three of your ships on the entire screen, the enemies are pounding you from what would be Toledo at that scale, and they're STILL about half an inch tall, surrounded by acres and acres of empty black space!

)

Rigelian · #**197** March 7th, 2003, 02:54 AM

Quote:

I don't find this at all unrealistic. It's roughly what happened in World War II.

No, the SE4 analogy for that would be GIFTS from Allies, i.e. massive transfer of 'real economy' resources to a flagging ally/allies. Did the US get any of that lend/lease stuff or Marshall Aid back again?. I think not. Thanks again, by the way... bet you wish you'd left the French out now, eh? 8-)

Back on topic, when I talk about trade I mean the 'free' resources generated for both sides by a trade treaty. In classic economic terms, the bonus to both parties from trading a surplus for a scarcity - everyone wins. But on average everone wins about the same amount, based on the amount of trade, based in turn on the surplus available to be traded. If the smaller economy has, say, 20K of surplus to trade, that's about what the other side will get out of it too. This is why I think the algorithm is in error. How can I get 100k of resources from trading the surplus of my 10k of actual production? 2K is what I should actually make out of it.

Why do I have such a problem with this? Several times I've been in games where someone is dominating the game and will win soon. The difficulty is in persuading people to drop their super-lucrative treaties with him to even begin an alliance.

Plus the situation where you have almost wiped someone out but their 'virtual economy' remains huge. As I said, no problem with a larger ally GIVING resources, that's fine because its costing them. Trade doesn't.

Rigelian
(My trade-limited game ConventionalWarfare_1_49 begins this Saturday)

Fyron · #**198** March 7th, 2003, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SalsaDoom:
Here is what I want.. I want to be able to use 3d models directly in the game. Converting them to flat images is very 90s. Heh. And, most importantly, I want the model to be something that I can directly export from Blender (http://www.blender.org) because having to buy something like 3DS Max is unrealistically expensive -- I KNOW that all those mod makers for other games pirate their copies

Also, you lose a lot of detail converting.. being able to move the map around in a 3d fashion and zoom in on ships and stuff. Battleship eye candy to go with my Gunboat diplomacy

I would rather have MM spend their time making a good game than making an impressive 3d system. Gameplay wins over graphics any day.

Wizarc · #**199** March 7th, 2003, 05:31 AM

Stay away from 3D, it seems when game creators try to move their games to 3D First: you gota buy a new computer. Second: the gameplay goes in the crapper. Stick with good gameplay and micromangment(kidding, not too much micro).

mac5732 · #**200** March 7th, 2003, 06:07 AM

AI to aggressivly defend wormholes with bases, mines, sats and defensive fleets, also to increase the number of defensive bases over his major worlds. Currently mostly ship building bases.

Tactical ground combat, maybe on the order of the old Star General game, simple but fun

AI to carry out all Diplomacy aggreements, ie; they agree to attack someone, they do, etc.

just some ideas Mac