new SEIV patch !! - Page 6

Suicide Junkie · #51 January 28th, 2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

If the attacking ships have a Bridge (or Auxillary Control), they should still get 1/2 movemement after the CV takes out the master computer.

No, they will get 1/8 movement.

------------------------------------------------

Not having Bridge/Aux con = 1/2 movement penalty
Not having Lifesupport = 1/4 movement penalty
Not having Crew quarters = 1/2 movement penalty

Not losing speed due to Computer Virus attack = Priceless.

geoschmo · #52 January 28th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Any feedback about my Prefer/Allow/Disallow idea? If it sounds reasonable, especially to the AI modders out there, I'd like to send it to Aaron. It seems a simple enough means to permit AI use of MCs but yet prevent all-out usage. And it gives one more thing to mod.

I think a better idea is to follow the pattern as it is now for other components and use the "Misc Ability" requirements that are in the design files currently instead of making up new rules. The problem before wasn't getting the AI to build ships with MC. All you had to do was put them in the design files and it used them. The problem was getting the AI to not also put a bridge/LS/CQ component along with the MC. That I beleive was what was asked for. At least that's what I asked for. I don't know what others suggested. I don't know if there was some programming limitation that made that difficult or what. But if I was going to ask for another change it would be to default to using the B/CQ/LS as before, but if the design file called for MC and MC was available us that instead.

The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well.

Geoschmo

[ January 28, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Krsqk · #53 January 28th, 2003, 08:44 PM

"The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well."
Couldn't you just call for the B/LS/CQ abilities as Misc Abilities?

geoschmo · #54 January 28th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
"The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well."
Couldn't you just call for the B/LS/CQ abilities as Misc Abilities?

Maybe. What I was thinking is though is that the first part of the idea would override that. If se4.exe sees MC in the mics abilities it is supposed to use MC instead of a bridge. BUT, if it sees bridge in the misc abilities farther down the list, it needs to know "Now I want you to use both".

I could see it getting confused and using the Last one requested, or always override with MC. But I am not a programmer. I am sure there's a way around that.

Geoschmo

Crimson · #55 January 28th, 2003, 08:56 PM

I know how to get people to stop grumbling about AI limitations. Tell them to start build one of their own.

Then maybe they'll see that programs have a habit of doing things that they were not program to do and rarely do the things that they were suppose to do.

geoschmo · #56 January 28th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crimson:
I know how to get people to stop grumbling about AI limitations. Tell them to start build one of their own. Then maybe they'll see that programs have a habit of doing things that they were not program to do and rarely do the things that they were suppose to do.

Well, technically a program is incapable of doing something it wasn't programmed to do. Although it's prefectly capable of doing something that it was programmed to do that you didn't know you programmed it to do.

Geoschmo

Baron Munchausen · #57 January 28th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by Krsqk:
"The only thing then is for the cases where you might want both. But the current fix has that problem as well."
Couldn't you just call for the B/LS/CQ abilities as Misc Abilities?

Maybe. What I was thinking is though is that the first part of the idea would override that. If se4.exe sees MC in the mics abilities it is supposed to use MC instead of a bridge. BUT, if it sees bridge in the misc abilities farther down the list, it needs to know "Now I want you to use both".

I could see it getting confused and using the Last one requested, or always override with MC. But I am not a programmer. I am sure there's a way around that.

Geoschmo

This is not a problem. All you have to do is install a subroutine to remove standard ship control components when the MC is installed. Don't change anything with regard to the standard components. If you DO want both, just put the abilities for the standard ship controls after the call to the MC ability just like you would if you wanted extras in a standard ship.

What would be more interesting is to have supply usage enabled for crew quarters and life support. Then you could have default supply usage for ships if you wanted it, and this would be an extra advantage for the MC as well.

I'd also like to see different effects for crew quarters that let you have more or less 'ample' accomodations for your crews - then you could get better crew morale/performance for good quarters but less space for war machinery, or less crew morale/performance for poor quarters but more space for sheer equipment. You could even have racial advantages/disadvantages involving more or less need for life support equipment in your ships. As it is, we have the usual 'all or nothing' problem. Either you have enough Crew Quarters or not. But I suppose that's a major design change that would be too much for SE IV at this late stage. We'll have to wait for SE V to ask for that.

[ January 28, 2003, 22:02: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Dralasite · #58 January 29th, 2003, 12:57 AM

When playing with AIs, most of us give them some sort of bonus, right? So having them build a MC on colonizers or transports isn't quite as bad as if a human did it.

Arkcon · #59 January 29th, 2003, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dralasite:
When playing with AIs, most of us give them some sort of bonus, right? So having them build a MC on colonizers or transports isn't quite as bad as if a human did it.

Yeah, we really do have to try and see. People are really worried about the MC on a colonizer, but it is on a one way trip after all. I know, the farther it goes, the more maintenance costs mount up, but what if it doesn't go far?

[ January 28, 2003, 23:00: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Nodachi · #60 January 29th, 2003, 02:55 AM

I remember arguing about this before my, ahem, absense.

The changes made so that an AS can no longer effect a ship with a damaged MC make perfect logical sense because a ship with an MC has no crew to convert. However, if a ship's MC is destroyed then that ship should be dead in the water instead of being able to continue to fight with a movement penalty.

The change so that AI's will always use the MC if they've researched it is way too heavy-handed. We're going to see some odd, and very expensive, AI ship designs.

It looks to me that the AI in general just got handicapped and psychic AI's just got screwed.

Other than those issues the patch seems great.

(I don't want to be totally negative!

)