Alpha Centauri 2

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire => Modding => Bug/Patch Discussion => Topic started by: Yitzi on January 21, 2016, 09:37:29 PM

Title: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on January 21, 2016, 09:37:29 PM
It's taken a while, but 3.5 is nearing completion (there are only a few features left to add), and I think it's time to start the voting for features and bugfixes to be included in 3.6...and there are a lot of candidates this time.

So the basic rules of voting are the same as last time: For each feature or bug you're interested in, assign a rating from 1-100 saying how much you want it (where 100 is the most, 50 is something you want half as much, etc.).  If you're not that interested in any, you can vote less than 100 for all of them.  Bugfixes and features will be tracked separately.

The options for features are:
1. Create the "Focus Research" production option, a research equivalent to "Stockpile Energy".
2. Create an auto-plant-forest auto-terraforming action for formers.
3. Make it moddable to have fully automated units continue full automation after being withdrawn from enemy territory.
4. Enable bombing as artillery for air units.  Air artillery would be at range 1 and only against non-air targets (and would have the effects of nerve gas against bases).  "Duels" would be done when attacking SAM units, and the maximum range and max damage vs. base/bunker, sea, and open would be set separately from land artillery; there would also be the ability to make it single-target.  In addition, if this is implemented there will be the ability to choose, for each non-missile air chassis type, whether artillery is always present (e.g. make it mandatory on copters and single-target to weaken chop-and-drop), present only with the Heavy Artillery ability, or unavailable (by default, it will be present only with Heavy Artillery, and Heavy Artillery is by default not available to air units, so it will play the same as without the mod).
5. Make it moddable to require a network node in a base to carry out techsteal and/or Kill Prominent Researcher in that base.
6. Create a "can only be built by AI" special ability, so that you can place it on predesigned units to make AI-only units.
7. Create the possibility for "interlude landmarks".  Unlike regular landmarks, these would not show up on the map, and could not be placed in-game, but they could be placed by a scenario (or even map) creator, and interludes could be made for getting within a certain distance of them (with further ability to adjust things somewhat based on what other interlude landmarks have been reached at what distance.)
8. Increase the 2048 unit limit to something set by alphax.txt.  Because this is fairly major, its total score will be halved...but it will vastly reduce the difficulty of many other possible changes.  Speaking of which.
9. Make infiltration not necessarily permanent; instead, infiltration would create a "pool" that is then depleted over time, with the rate of depletion being affected by the target's PROBE rating; when it hit 0, infiltration would end.  Repeating the infiltration action would restore the pool to maximum, and The Empath Guild would both increase the size of the pool and set it to maximum once built (but once it ran out, you'd need to infiltrate again).
  I am not sure yet if this is feasible without changes such as the one needed to increase the 2048 unit limit (option 8); therefore, if this wins, I will investigate; if it is not possible without option 8, any votes for this will count toward 8 as well, and this will only be selected if option 8 is as well.
10. Make an option that artillery vs. ship battles are to the death.
11. Make "Territory: max distance from base" moddable for sea bases.  Make it moddable how close a sea square has to be to land to be claimed by a land base, or vice versa.  Also make it moddable how far out to sea a square can be and still be claimed by a land base merely for being within its normal territorial radius (provided there are no bases in the same sea trying to get it), and likewise for how far inland a square can be and still be claimed by a sea base for being within its normal territorial radius (assuming no bases on that continent trying to get it).
12. Make the duration of sunspots, as well as their frequency, moddable.
13. Enable interlocks for energy theft.
14. Make the game remember the last directory it saved to, and default to that when saving.
15. Allow faction bonuses for forest nutrients/minerals/energy just like for fungus
16. Allow setting of PROBE modifier to be immune to infiltration, and modifier to be immune to all probe team actions (as Hunter-Seeker Algorithm).
17. Turn the Caretakers' "cannot build Voice of Planet" and "cannot build Ascent to Transcendence and will declare vendetta on anyone who does" into faction features that can be applied to any faction for any project, facility, or predesigned unit.
18. Allow users to assign a single faction ability to each project or facility, to then apply to the base with that facility/faction with that project.  (Start-of-game things such as TECH and UNIT wouldn't apply, of course, and something faction-wide like TECHCOST would work for projects but not facilities.)
19. Allow the cost of changing social engineering to be proportional to total population as well as difficulty.

The options for bugfixes are:
1. Make children's creches actually work right (i.e. fix all creche-related bugs).  This is fairly straightforward, and gets its total score doubled.
2. Fix the MP faction graphics bug.
3. Fix the bug where apparently the AI can attempt to corner the global energy market while such an attempt is already in progress.
4. Fix the bug where reactor autodesigns apply even when autodesign is turned off.
5. Fix the bug where turning a base to another faction causes non-combat units to disappear.
6. Make it so that in an artillery duel, the attacker does not sometimes have a -100% hasty penalty.
7. Make it so that the prompt about breaking a truce/treaty occurs before attacking a square with artillery (even if it doesn't hit), and before air attacks are intercepted, not after.
8. Make the faction energy bonus/penalty show up in the energy report screen (F3).
9. Examine a potential lead from kyrub that may fix the "bases are too cheap when exchanged" problem...and if it does turn out that what he noticed is a bug, fix it.  This should be fairly straightforward, and will count double.
10. Make "disable automatic prototyping" work properly in TCP/IP games.
11. Make it so that you can't invite AI to attack a human player unless you can contact them, and cannot call council unless you can contact all human and AI players.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Dio on January 22, 2016, 04:23:41 PM
Decipher Script Options:
100
Probe Energy Interlocks:
100
Children's Creche Bug(s):
100
Faction Energy Bonus/Penalty Display Correctly:
100
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Buster's Uncle on January 22, 2016, 04:45:29 PM
Fix the MP faction graphics bug
100

Create the possibility for "interlude landmarks"
100
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Dio on January 22, 2016, 04:47:31 PM
I want to attempt to make it so that all the military morale facilities fall under the influence of MILVIRUS script rather than just Command Centers.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Eadee on January 22, 2016, 06:12:50 PM
Features:
1. "Focus research" 100%
7. "Interlude Landmarks"100%
Bugfixes:
1. Children creches 100%
2. MP factions graphic bug 100%
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: MercantileInterest on January 22, 2016, 06:59:57 PM
Edit: If it's alright, would like to modify my vote to the following:

6. 50.

15. 100.

18. 60. This means factions can build unique facilities, right?

The options for bugfixes are:
1. 50.

6. 50.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: see on January 25, 2016, 11:43:08 AM
Features:
2: 20
7: 40
13:  20
17:  100
18:  100

Bugfixes:
1:  80
2:  50
7:  80
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: PvtHudson on January 25, 2016, 01:23:49 PM
Features:
4 - 100
5 - 100
9 - 50. I'm not an expert, but does it really requires more storage room? Can't "Infiltrated" flag be used as a counter, rather than as boolean?
11 - 100
19 - 50
Bugfixes:
1 - 100
4 - 50
5 - 50
7 - 30
9 - 100
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on January 25, 2016, 08:54:12 PM
Alright, I've made these choices largely with multiplayer in mind. For some areas, you'll see comments without votes. Don't want to skew things by larding down batches of 1s.

1. Comment: Seems to favor mineral grubbers over science factions.

By default, the option would be disabled, but it could be enabled by text modding.  (Oh, and you can always simply not provide any votes for something, if you so choose.)  Also, the ratio could be adjusted...by default if enabled it'd be 1 research for every 2 minerals, but it could be made even more extreme if desired.

Quote
4. 10. Wouldn't it just be easier to use the Alphax file to create cheap low attack value rockets?

It would, but sometimes someone might want bombers that aren't single-use.

Quote
5. Comment: Conducting a probe operation is already hard enough.

The option wouldn't have to be used...

6. 40.

15. 80.
16. 100. Prefer this over the other option because it helps probe more and leaves the Empath Guild worthwhile.

Quote
18. 60. This means factions can build unique facilities, right?

By "unique", you mean "for that faction only"?  That will actually become available in 3.5, but this would allow more options for what that unique facility can do.

Quote
The options for bugfixes are:
1. 50.

3. Comment: The AI needs all the help in can get. Or do you mean it's own attempt is in progress?

I think "its own"; I just heard about the bug.

6. 80. Artillery needs more support.

Quote
11. Comment: Sounds more like a feature.

Since normally you need contact to do such things, I think having an exception for human players (other than the general "can contact from the start" exception options) is a bug.

9 - 50. I'm not an expert, but does it really requires more storage room? Can't "Infiltrated" flag be used as a counter, rather than as boolean?

If that flag is already stored in an area large enough for a counter, you're right, but I'm not so sure that's the case.  I'll edit the original post to account for that, though.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: voker57 on January 27, 2016, 05:00:31 PM
Quote
4. Enable bombing as artillery for air units.  Air artillery would be at range 1 and only against non-air targets (and would have the effects of nerve gas against bases).  "Duels" would be done when attacking SAM units, and the maximum range and max damage vs. base/bunker, sea, and open would be set separately from land artillery; there would also be the ability to make it single-target.  In addition, if this is implemented there will be the ability to choose, for each non-missile air chassis type, whether artillery is always present (e.g. make it mandatory on copters and single-target to weaken chop-and-drop), present only with the Heavy Artillery ability, or unavailable (by default, it will be present only with Heavy Artillery, and Heavy Artillery is by default not available to air units, so it will play the same as without the mod).
50

Quote
5. Make it moddable to require a network node in a base to carry out techsteal and/or Kill Prominent Researcher in that base.
80

Quote
9. Make infiltration not necessarily permanent; instead, infiltration would create a "pool" that is then depleted over time, with the rate of depletion being affected by the target's PROBE rating; when it hit 0, infiltration would end.  Repeating the infiltration action would restore the pool to maximum, and The Empath Guild would both increase the size of the pool and set it to maximum once built (but once it ran out, you'd need to infiltrate again).
  I am not sure yet if this is feasible without changes such as the one needed to increase the 2048 unit limit (option 8); therefore, if this wins, I will investigate; if it is not possible without option 8, any votes for this will count toward 8 as well, and this will only be selected if option 8 is as well.
40

Quote
10. Make an option that artillery vs. ship battles are to the death.
70. By the way, they are to the death in TCP/IP, so maybe this can be at least unified.
 
Quote
13. Enable interlocks for energy theft.
50

Quote
19. Allow the cost of changing social engineering to be proportional to total population as well as difficulty.
40

Bugfixes:

Quote
1. Make children's creches actually work right (i.e. fix all creche-related bugs).  This is fairly straightforward, and gets its total score doubled.
100
Quote
2. Fix the MP faction graphics bug.
70
Quote
4. Fix the bug where reactor autodesigns apply even when autodesign is turned off.
100
Quote
6. Make it so that in an artillery duel, the attacker does not sometimes have a -100% hasty penalty.
80
Quote
10. Make "disable automatic prototyping" work properly in TCP/IP games.
100
Quote
11. Make it so that you can't invite AI to attack a human player unless you can contact them, and cannot call council unless you can contact all human and AI players.
70
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: L29Ah on January 27, 2016, 05:13:03 PM
f:
4. 5
5. 5
9. 50
10. 35
13. 15
14. 100
19. 5

b:
1. 30
10. 100
11. 40
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Vidsek on February 09, 2016, 04:49:25 AM
Features:
  1) 60%
  4) 40%
 8 ) 50%
11) 100%
12) 100%
15) 40%
17) 40%
19) 50%

Bugfixes:
  1) 100%
  4) 100%
  5) 100%
  7) 100%
 8 ) 40%
11) 50%
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: vonbach on February 09, 2016, 12:40:47 PM
2
4
8
11
15
All sound nice.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: ete on May 22, 2016, 07:28:58 PM
features:
2. 100 (would make lategame *much* more fun, micromaneging 40+ formers is super annoying, and I only want forests once I have Hybrid Forest everywhere)
5. 40
6. 45
8. 50
11. 10
12. 100 (sunspots are not a fun feature or an interesting challenge)
14. 20
15. 20
17. 15
18. 20
19. 15

bugfixes:
1. 40
3. 10
4. 35
5. 25
6. 10
7. 15
8. 30
9. 60
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Nevill on May 29, 2016, 04:09:59 PM
Features:
1. 30
2. 30
4. 80
6. 80
9. 100
10. 100
11. 50
13. 30
16. 80
17. 30
19. 30

Bugfixes:
1. 100
3. 100
4. 60
5. 60
6. 100
7. 100
8. 60
9. 100
10. 80
11. 80
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: vonbach on May 30, 2016, 01:59:57 AM
Honestly I'd be happy with just being able to auto plant forests.
Heres a question would it be possible to rename facilities in game?
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on May 30, 2016, 04:07:53 PM
Honestly I'd be happy with just being able to auto plant forests.
Heres a question would it be possible to rename facilities in game?

I think that if you change the name in your alphax.txt file, it will change the name in-game.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: vonbach on May 31, 2016, 08:58:05 PM
I mean without altering the alpha file.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: hilton on June 01, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
Option 2. - might it be easier to just create another option under former automation? Right now you can disable forests, terrain elevation, condensers/boreholes, fungus removal, sensors, and roads/tubes. The only thing you CAN'T disable is farms/mines/solar collectors. If you COULD disable those, you could get formers automated in any way you want - albeit I suppose the downside would be that ALL formers that are automated. Personally this would be my wish - mid to late game all I want is for automated formers to remove fungus, plant forests, and maybe build sensors. My usual Army Of Formers would be so much easier to manage. :)

(seriously, Army of Formers - my current game has a terraformer count that is nearly as high as my police sentinal count and 3-4 times my offensive unit count...)
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Lord Avalon on June 01, 2016, 09:04:04 PM
... (seriously, Army of Formers - my current game has a terraformer count that is nearly as high as my police sentinal count and 3-4 times my offensive unit count...)

Well, this doesn't really tell me much. Are we talking a few dozen, or what? And it isn't even your most numerous unit?  ;no
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on June 07, 2016, 11:39:54 PM
I mean without altering the alpha file.

Adding the ability to rename facilities in-game would be somewhat tricky, and if you want it to last between saves it'd be even harder.

(seriously, Army of Formers - my current game has a terraformer count that is nearly as high as my police sentinal count and 3-4 times my offensive unit count...)

Actually, I did some thinking about that phenomenon, and it occurred to me that the best solution might be to have improvements take much less time...but increase the upkeep of formers working on them (and clean reactor and SUPPORT rating wouldn't help with the extra).   That way, the limiting factor on terraforming isn't former numbers, so there wouldn't be a reason to get such a huge (and annoying to manage) number.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: MercantileInterest on June 12, 2016, 03:18:05 AM

Actually, I did some thinking about that phenomenon, and it occurred to me that the best solution might be to have improvements take much less time...but increase the upkeep of formers working on them (and clean reactor and SUPPORT rating wouldn't help with the extra).   That way, the limiting factor on terraforming isn't former numbers, so there wouldn't be a reason to get such a huge (and annoying to manage) number.

Really like this idea. Each former has a base 1 mineral support requirement? How much less time for improvements? Would still enjoy benefits for super former and weather paradigm.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on June 14, 2016, 03:44:55 AM

Actually, I did some thinking about that phenomenon, and it occurred to me that the best solution might be to have improvements take much less time...but increase the upkeep of formers working on them (and clean reactor and SUPPORT rating wouldn't help with the extra).   That way, the limiting factor on terraforming isn't former numbers, so there wouldn't be a reason to get such a huge (and annoying to manage) number.

Really like this idea. Each former has a base 1 mineral support requirement?

It'd be the same as previously...so 1 (affectable by SUPPORT/clean), possibly moddable to 0 at a future date.

Quote
How much less time for improvements?

It'd be moddable.

Quote
Would still enjoy benefits for super former and weather paradigm.

Most likely, when this is present, both of those would reduce the extra support cost instead of decreasing time spent (I'm thinking -1 to the cost for WP, and halved rounded up for super former)...but that might be made moddable as well.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on September 15, 2016, 08:35:57 PM
Voting is now closed, and the features and bugfixes slated for 3.6 are as follows:

-I intend to fix the creche morale bugs once and for all, and while I'm at it make it somewhat moddable in terms of effect on units homed to that base, as well as enable some modding of probe team morale rules.
-I intend to implement "bombing" (air artillery).
-I intend to implement an "interlude landmarks" system.  A guide to using the system will be included with the patch.
-I plan to check how difficult it will be to allow non-permanent infiltration; if it's not too hard, I intend to implement that as well.
-Territory rules for sea bases, and for sea bases affecting land spaces and vice versa, will be moddable.
-Disabling autodesign will apply to reactor-based autodesigns as well.
-The prompt about breaking a truce/treaty will apply before attacking with artillery or having air attacks intercepted.
-Scient has done quite a bit since his patch version that Kyrub (and then I) built off of, and I plan to start implementing some of that as well.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: MercantileInterest on September 16, 2016, 04:07:55 PM
-I plan to check how difficult it will be to allow non-permanent infiltration; if it's not too hard, I intend to implement that as well.

Might it be easier to allow probe teams to remove enemy infiltration?  ::) (Oh, please.) Something to keep in mind if it is too difficult. Non-permanent infiltration would be a definite improvement but it's not very strategic.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on September 19, 2016, 10:08:19 PM
-I plan to check how difficult it will be to allow non-permanent infiltration; if it's not too hard, I intend to implement that as well.

Might it be easier to allow probe teams to remove enemy infiltration?  ::) (Oh, please.) Something to keep in mind if it is too difficult. Non-permanent infiltration would be a definite improvement but it's not very strategic.

You mean as a probe team action carried out in your own base?  It could probably be done...but that might make infiltration too weak (since you need to get a probe team near the enemy and remove opposing probe teams to infiltrate, whereas removing it would not take such effort).

Unless removing infiltration required a probe team action at an enemy base...that might work.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: MercantileInterest on September 20, 2016, 02:24:07 AM
Originally thought it might require moving in on the enemy's HQ but that would be too hard if he's not located in a coastal or sea base. Suppose just any enemy base would work. In multiplayer games especially it would create a fun 'cold war' dynamic, with both sides striving to achieve information dominance.

Course, it wouldn't be right for this to affect alliance, planetary governor or Empath Guild infiltration. It would also make the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm even better. (In Binary Dawn, the technology for the Nethack Terminus follows HSA tech but the algorithmic enhancement special ability is pushed back to end of game research.)
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: dino on October 11, 2016, 11:46:46 PM
Could this thread be used to propose features for 3.7 patch ?

I've come to conclusion that the extremely heavy advantage given in the combat resolution to the attacker is the main reason that AI doesn't pose any threat to human player in combat.
2x bigger chance to hit for the attacker ( of comparable technological level ) coupled with splash damage for the defending stack,
It's super easy to knock down 5x bigger AI army with just a few cheap speeders without armor.

So I'd like an option to disable splash damage for regular combat ( you can still deal with huge SoD's with artillery and AI like using it a lot anyway).

As for the attacker chance to hit I see two solutions, one is easy to implement and balance, the other is more ellegant. Any of them would satisfy me:
1. Add an option to change % bonuses of perimeter defense and tachyon field. Then increase armor values and reduce base defenses % via alphax file. Or...
2. Modify combat resolution function so it'll use, as defender base chance to hit, a weapon stat without defensive % bonuses divided by attacker armor without offensive % bonuses.
Then teach AI to favor building units with both armor and weapon. BTW Teaching AI to upgrade its units would be great too, since it keep bases full of useless outdated units.

These changes would equalize chances of attacker and defender in the fileld without changing dynamics of base conquering much.
Currently the most efficient tactic is to flood enemy with cheap, no armor, no special abilities, multiple attack units and make sure you are an attacker in combat.

It would be a complete game changer for the AI as it cannot into maneuvering and uses a lot of infantry, but also more realistic and better for multiplayer too imo.
With these changes mobile units wouldn't completely dominate infantry and bonuses from special abilities and terrain would gain much more importance.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Yitzi on November 01, 2016, 01:41:39 PM
Could this thread be used to propose features for 3.7 patch ?

It's really somewhat early for that, but we can still discuss possibilities.

Quote
I've come to conclusion that the extremely heavy advantage given in the combat resolution to the attacker is the main reason that AI doesn't pose any threat to human player in combat.
2x bigger chance to hit for the attacker ( of comparable technological level ) coupled with splash damage for the defending stack,
It's super easy to knock down 5x bigger AI army with just a few cheap speeders without armor.

So I'd like an option to disable splash damage for regular combat ( you can still deal with huge SoD's with artillery and AI like using it a lot anyway).

The problem is that without splash damage, you'd be able to stack everything together and have the best defender against everything.  So if splash damage is eliminated, you'd need to make it so that it's not always the best defender that defends (how close you get to the best defender doing the job would probably be dependent on morale).

Quote
As for the attacker chance to hit I see two solutions, one is easy to implement and balance, the other is more ellegant. Any of them would satisfy me:
1. Add an option to change % bonuses of perimeter defense and tachyon field. Then increase armor values and reduce base defenses % via alphax file. Or...
2. Modify combat resolution function so it'll use, as defender base chance to hit, a weapon stat without defensive % bonuses divided by attacker armor without offensive % bonuses.

#1 would work and both are already planned for "eventually".  The same is true of a previously proposed idea similar to #2, where the attacker and defender take turns trying to hit the other (using their weapon against the other's defense; % bonuses would likely affect the damage done on a hit).

Quote
Then teach AI to favor building units with both armor and weapon. BTW Teaching AI to upgrade its units would be great too, since it keep bases full of useless outdated units.

AI fixing is another matter entirely, and a big one (I'd need to learn more about how the AI works first).  That said, if it's a good idea to favor building units with both armor and weapon that's sub-optimal balance-wise; in such case, it may be better to adjust the cost formula so that "just armor", "just weapon", and "mix of both" are all desirable in cases.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: MercantileInterest on June 20, 2017, 09:08:34 PM
Eagerly awaiting the return of Yitzi.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: sisko on July 28, 2017, 09:47:24 AM
Fix the MP faction graphics bug
100

Create the possibility for "interlude landmarks"
100

The same for me. Thx
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: RemoveFungus on January 06, 2018, 06:00:02 AM
Not to concerned one way or another about most options.

F8: 100 _ God yes the 2048 unit limit needs to be higher. You're essentially limited to Small or lower worlds if you wanna have enough units to completely fill the world.
F14: 50 _ Being able to change where you save files to might come in handy for keeping your saves organised.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on February 22, 2018, 03:46:13 PM
The point may be moot but I'll respond anyways.

1. Create the "Focus Research" production option, a research equivalent to "Stockpile Energy".

That smells like cheating.  It's definitely a major change in game mechanics.  I'm currently writing up a very long AAR about the Believers.  If I had this, wouldn't it basically make me not have the pain of my traditional faction research penalty?

Quote
4. Enable bombing as artillery for air units.  Air artillery would be at range 1 and only against non-air targets (and would have the effects of nerve gas against bases).

Nerve gas for free against bases, without atrocity consequences, would be cheating.  Claiming that strategic bombing of a city is an atrocity, is quite the politically loaded historical argument.  Everybody did it in WW II, and the British started it.  I'd prefer this can 'o' worms not be opened.

Quote
5. Make it moddable to require a network node in a base to carry out techsteal and/or Kill Prominent Researcher in that base.

Factions often have far more items of research than they have Network Nodes.  You are actually creating a defense for players: only build the bare minimum of Network Nodes.

Quote
9. Make infiltration not necessarily permanent; instead, infiltration would create a "pool" that is then depleted over time, with the rate of depletion being affected by the target's PROBE rating; when it hit 0, infiltration would end.  Repeating the infiltration action would restore the pool to maximum, and The Empath Guild would both increase the size of the pool and set it to maximum once built (but once it ran out, you'd need to infiltrate again).

I think you are offering to make single player games more tedious, especially on Huge maps.  It can take a long time to infiltrate.  For Roze, getting a unit all the way across the board to infiltrate is an important strategic objective, so that she'll get techs from infiltrated factions.  Why do you want to make people's lives hard?  Is this a Multiplayer bias?

Quote
10. Make an option that artillery vs. ship battles are to the death.

That would make Pirate incursions far more volatile.  You could lose quickly or they could lose quickly, instead of having it be a stalemate where the Pirates go away.  I prefer the latter because the Pirates are obnoxious and artillery is the antidote for them.

Quote
15. Allow faction bonuses for forest nutrients/minerals/energy just like for fungus

No.  That's grossly unbalancing.  You're supposed to have to obtain Ecological Engineering to get to a 4 minerals threshold on most tiles.  If you can just plant forests and get 3 minerals instead of 2, well that's some kind of silly baby game where the person who plants the most forests wins.  Getting a bonus for n/m/e means finding a resource bonus and putting your city in range to work it.  Or building your supply crawlers like you're supposed to.

Quote
16. Allow setting of PROBE modifier to be immune to infiltration, and modifier to be immune to all probe team actions (as Hunter-Seeker Algorithm).

And why should anyone ever be allowed to do that?  Probe teams are overpowered, but that doesn't mean it should be "fixed" by having someone become magically immune.

Quote
17. Turn the Caretakers' "cannot build Voice of Planet" and "cannot build Ascent to Transcendence and will declare vendetta on anyone who does" into faction features that can be applied to any faction for any project, facility, or predesigned unit.

For facilities, that sounds baroque.  Players will need to know what facilities they cannot build, such as modifying the faction's Help description and providing a popup saying they can't do X when they try.  For units, that sounds easily worked around in the unit design editor.  And just what kind of predesigned unit should be verboten?  Mindworms?  Any kind of missile?  Helicopters are the mark of the Devil?  I'm not seeing the point.

Quote
18. Allow users to assign a single faction ability to each project or facility, to then apply to the base with that facility/faction with that project.  (Start-of-game things such as TECH and UNIT wouldn't apply, of course, and something faction-wide like TECHCOST would work for projects but not facilities.)

This is coming across as word salad and smells like excessive micromanagement.

Quote
19. Allow the cost of changing social engineering to be proportional to total population as well as difficulty.

I can already be broke enough to not be able to afford social changes at times.  I don't think you are offering to make the game more enjoyable with this.  Rather, much more painful.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on February 22, 2018, 04:26:05 PM
That way, the limiting factor on terraforming isn't former numbers, so there wouldn't be a reason to get such a huge (and annoying to manage) number.

False.  You are clearly not playing on Huge maps routinely.  It doesn't matter how many Formers you build, or how fast they work.  There will always be far more squares than you are willing to make Formers to deal with, no matter how many Formers you make, and no matter how fast they work.  In late game I can remove fungus in 1 move.  At some point you've made so many Formers that you just aren't willing to make any more, for the sake of the mouseclicks.  I say this as someone who works every square by hand, because I think the AI is too stupid to be trusted with the job.

Please don't go mucking up the traditional relations between The Weather Paradigm, ability to cut fungus due to techs and Secret Projects, and Super Formers as far as former speed goes.  They ain't broke and don't need fixing.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: gwillybj on March 20, 2018, 01:34:43 AM
These would have been my picks:

Options for Features
(100) 8. Increase the 2048 unit limit to something set by alphax.txt.
(90) 10. Make an option that artillery vs. ship battles are to the death.
(80) 19. Allow the cost of changing social engineering to be proportional to total population as well as difficulty.

Options for Bugfixes
(100) 1. Make children's creches actually work right (i.e. fix all creche-related bugs).  This is fairly straightforward, and gets its total score doubled.
(100) 6. Make it so that in an artillery duel, the attacker does not sometimes have a -100% hasty penalty.
(100) 8. Make the faction energy bonus/penalty show up in the energy report screen (F3).

Did any make the cut?

Voting is now closed, and the features and bugfixes slated for 3.6 are as follows:

-I intend to fix the creche morale bugs once and for all, and while I'm at it make it somewhat moddable in terms of effect on units homed to that base, as well as enable some modding of probe team morale rules.
-I intend to implement "bombing" (air artillery).
-I intend to implement an "interlude landmarks" system.  A guide to using the system will be included with the patch.
-I plan to check how difficult it will be to allow non-permanent infiltration; if it's not too hard, I intend to implement that as well.
-Territory rules for sea bases, and for sea bases affecting land spaces and vice versa, will be moddable.
-Disabling autodesign will apply to reactor-based autodesigns as well.
-The prompt about breaking a truce/treaty will apply before attacking with artillery or having air attacks intercepted.
-Scient has done quite a bit since his patch version that Kyrub (and then I) built off of, and I plan to start implementing some of that as well.

From my selections, only the Children's Creche bugs are to be fixed. Everybody has been wanting that since Day One.

Slightly disappointed that features #8 and #19 aren't in. In #8, 2048 was likely set because of the limited memory availability in 1999. I doubt it's an issue now, and the number could easily be doubled. The challenge in #19 would have been fun for me.
Not disappointed about feature #10, although it seems like a "real" enough thing.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: vonbach on April 02, 2018, 04:29:44 PM
Auto plant forests.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 02, 2018, 04:33:15 PM
You mean added as a specific auto-setting?  Great idea. ;nod  Seconded.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on April 02, 2018, 08:34:38 PM
I'm not sure what "auto plant forests" would mean?  I don't want them planted everywhere, only on flat terrain that's arid or moist.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: vonbach on April 03, 2018, 09:45:26 PM
Quote
I'm not sure what "auto plant forests" would mean?  I don't want them planted everywhere, only on flat terrain that's arid or moist.
You can always chop them down. Auto plant forests would save me a huge amount of time.
Another idea is having the green settings affect how many resources you get from forests.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 03, 2018, 09:57:34 PM
I get it, b.  I don't use ANY auto-settings or governors, but I can see how someone who did might like the foresting option.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on April 03, 2018, 10:44:19 PM
You can always chop them down.

That doesn't make any sense.  It means the capability of the Former is being wasted.  It also means I'd have to do more mouseclicks correcting its stupidity.  What I need is a specification paradigm with enough options that I can distinguish when I want stuff to be planted.  I wonder if it's less than a programming language.

Quote
Another idea is having the green settings affect how many resources you get from forests.

I'm inclined to view that as unrealistic.  Going "Green" generally means embracing sustainable practices, which means lower yields than a Free Market.  Free Markets denude forests.  The realistic way to implement it, would be for all the trees to get chopped down in a Free Market.  Then eco-damage would be done because you don't have trees.  That's not SMAC though.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: vonbach on April 05, 2018, 11:13:10 PM
Quote
That doesn't make any sense.  It means the capability of the Former is being wasted.  It also means I'd have to do more mouseclicks correcting its stupidity.
Some people like to plants forests all over the place. I'm one of them and I don't think I'm alone. Auto plant forests would be a huge time saver.
Especially when  you build as many cities as I do. Besides you get minerals for chopping them down as I recall.
They also look nicer than mines or farms.
Quote
I'm inclined to view that as unrealistic.  Going "Green" generally means embracing sustainable practices,
Trees  grow back after you cut them. Besides using a forest doesn't just mean chopping it down for wood.
It should represent a host of smaller decentralized industries. From hunting to building materials to processing wood for fuel.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on April 06, 2018, 12:34:22 AM
Some people like to plants forests all over the place. I'm one of them and I don't think I'm alone.

Ok, admittedly in my last game I found out it isn't irrational, if you have Hybrid Forests.  I had to go back and undo a lot of my farm + solar collector squares because they weren't as high yield as just plain trees, minerals notwithstanding.  I will be more careful next game, as those farm squares can be worthwhile in the early game, but aren't worthwhile later.  I will try not to overproduce them, as that's wasting the capability of the Formers.

Quote
Besides you get minerals for chopping them down as I recall.

That can be useful for rushing productivity at the beginning of the game when your mineral yields are low, if you have spare trees to do it with.  Otherwise, I'm not going to bother as 5 minerals is not worth the mouseclicks.  Also in mid to late game it is better to have as many trees as possible, presuming you have Hybrid Forests.  Actually in the very late game the Fungus becomes super valuable, if you've got the Manifold Harmonics.  However by then, I think you should have won the game already by some other means.  So that makes it more of a sandboxing curiosity.

Quote
They also look nicer than mines or farms.

I do have a forest aesthetic bias and do not want to plant fungus on anything, even when it becomes far more valuable than forest.  I leave it all be.  I figure humans should live with trees, not mindworms.

Quote
Trees  grow back after you cut them. Besides using a forest doesn't just mean chopping it down for wood.
It should represent a host of smaller decentralized industries. From hunting to building materials to processing wood for fuel.

I don't think there's a tech universe we live in yet, where Green practices are going to yield more minerals and energy than scraping everything out of the earth and leaving it bleeding profusely with toxic waste.  Maybe someday, but I've studied a fair amount about wood gasification for instance, and I'm just not seeing it.  I'd really like a "wood gathering and chipping robot".
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on November 11, 2018, 12:56:05 AM
I find myself going over this old thread, wondering whatever happened to Yitzi, and a little sad about it.  I add another $0.02 with the wisdom of 6 months of modding hindsight.

The point may be moot but I'll respond anyways.

15. Allow faction bonuses for forest nutrients/minerals/energy just like for fungus

No.  That's grossly unbalancing.  You're supposed to have to obtain Ecological Engineering to get to a 4 minerals threshold on most tiles.  If you can just plant forests and get 3 minerals instead of 2, well that's some kind of silly baby game where the person who plants the most forests wins.  Getting a bonus for n/m/e means finding a resource bonus and putting your city in range to work it.  Or building your supply crawlers like you're supposed to.

This comment of mine was particularly spot on.  In my mod I came to recognize that the Pirates have enormous geographical advantage, due to their +1 Minerals on water bonus.  They already have piles of energy and food, and this the only thing that was lacking.  I changed their personality and their social engineering choices, making them Passive and pursuing Wealth.  They have this huge moat of vast resources around them, why should they stress or bother to conquer stuff?  Well they shouldn't.  My change works really well.  They're a very threatening faction in my games, because the AI is now leveraging an inherent geographic resource advantage.

Do this for forests on land, and it would be a disaster.  Game over, forest faction always wins. 

Quote
Quote
16. Allow setting of PROBE modifier to be immune to infiltration, and modifier to be immune to all probe team actions (as Hunter-Seeker Algorithm).

And why should anyone ever be allowed to do that?  Probe teams are overpowered, but that doesn't mean it should be "fixed" by having someone become magically immune.

I actually did end up using the existing MINDCONTROL faction ability, for the Believers.  You can do other things to them with probe teams, but you can't take over their units or bases.  It has an important effect on AI vs. AI fights.  Once the Believers start gaining enemy bases, they don't lose them, to the AI's usual probe team retaliation. 

So nowadays, I'm not so quick to dismiss the merit of having a full HSA ability as an option.  The key with such options, is to use them judiciously.  Like only 1 faction has the ability, it's thematically appropriate for them, and it's been play balanced. 
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 11, 2018, 01:09:52 AM
Yitzi was close to graduating college when he was last active here - stands to reason that we've lost him to having a real life, at least for now.  -But pinging him couldn't hurt.  He's missed, not just for the modding...
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on November 11, 2018, 01:38:24 AM
I actually just read his last posts according to his profile, to figure out "what happened", since I didn't quite remember.  Yep, looks like straightforward "gotta find a job and survive in the real world of money".

This has happened to pretty much every open source developer I've ever run into, unless they managed to transition immediately from their unpaid work into a job doing exactly that same work.  That can happen, but for it to happen, you have to be plugged into the commercial open source ecology to begin with.  Fiddling with SMAC binaries ain't that!

Some people do eventually come back to some project for a second try, a second round at it.  But it usually takes a few years of getting money, possibly paying off debts, acquiring enough career skill to have some savings and mobility in the marketplace, and not enough of another big thing to obstruct your life.  Like a SO, wife / husband, pregnancy, or even just a startup that completely sucks all free time out of you.  In my case I had a dot.com bust, that was "fun".  I still have not managed to go at my own SMAC-like project since then.

Least I got a mod done though.  Now if I can only protect that work by getting a large enough audience who cares for it.  This is of course bottlenecked by the number of SMAC players.  I'm just pointing all this out, as reasons why Yitzi would be fully justified to never come back to his patching work again.

Doing .exe patches as a generational project has got to be one of the harder things I can think of doing, in "open source" development.  No disciplinarian infrastructure = no long term progress.  The problems exceed the career windows of individuals willing to take such things on.
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 11, 2018, 02:20:59 AM
I don't regard him a necessarily gone for good, at any rate - though a good deal of his motivation for .exe patching was as a resume builder, and that's probably worked, or not, now...
Title: Re: Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6
Post by: bvanevery on November 11, 2018, 03:37:15 AM
An anecdote for me is back in 2010, some young guy did some truly brilliant work on a Wesnoth campaign.  I contributed 4 person months to the cause of polishing his campaign up the best it could possibly be.  He had great art direction but not really the game balance finesse, and I tweaked a line of dialogue here and there.  Halfway through that he wasn't really working on it much, I was.  We had a couple other people contributing.  We crossed the finish line, I was thanked, then they jettisoned me from the project.  They felt threatened, like I was taking over maybe.  Big age difference between us too.

So for many years, I'd occasionally watch to see if this guy would ever do anything again.  For the longest time, silence, nothing.  Recently I looked again and saw that maybe in 2016 or 2017, he finally did something?  6-ish years later.  And yes, a substantial effort now.  I don't even know if any of my contributions are still in there.  I don't find myself interested in finding out, as I've done enough Wesnoth for, like, forever.  So yes people can come back to things, but it can be pretty much an epoch in someone's career before they do so.

My falling out with the Wesnoth community was over the issue of visibility, for content producers like myself.  There was no path to personal glory.  You can't really sustain the level of effort I was putting out, when you have the sinking feeling that your work is getting a pittance of recognition, compared to what similar commercial effort would bring you.  Vast quantities of user made content existed in the Wesnoth ecology.  The Wesnoth core devs basically didn't care about all this content, they only focused on showcasing their "mainline" campaigns.  We had words, I got banned.

Yitzis usually need audiences, or they find better things to do.
Templates: 1: Printpage (default).
Sub templates: 4: init, print_above, main, print_below.
Language files: 4: index+Modifications.english (default), TopicRating/.english (default), PortaMx/PortaMx.english (default), OharaYTEmbed.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Files included: 31 - 840KB. (show)
Queries used: 15.

[Show Queries]