Voting for new features and bugfixes for Yitzi's patch version 3.5

[Yitzi]

I am making decent progress on version 3.4, and am therefore taking votes on version 3.5.

The voting works as follows: Post, and assign to each option a number from 0 to 100, where 100 means you really want it, 50 means you want it half as much (given a choice between two 50-rating features and one 100-rating feature, you don't really care), etc.  There is no limit to how many things you can vote for.

The options are as follows:

Features:
1. Create a new faction ability CANBUILDUNIT that allows the faction to build that (predesigned) unit even without the required technology.
2. Search for faction files not only in the main directory but also in the factions subfolder if it exists.  While I've revised my initial consideration and think it will be substantially easier than I'd first thought, it's still fairly uncertain, so the vote total for this option is halved, and if it proves unfeasible I may back out and go for the next-highest option instead.
3. Add an option causing needlejets on hold (but not on sentry) to not scramble; this allows you to save damaged needlejets while still being able to use sentry to keep them ready to intercept without having to press spacebar every turn.
4. Redoing the storage of resource information.  This will (while I'm at the area) allow solar arrays/mirrors to be given a flat energy bonus in addition to the altitude-based bonus; probably more importantly, it will allow future patches to enable changes to resource outputs of things that currently are hardcoded (such as tree farm/hybrid forest, manifold nexus, landmarks, etc.)
5. Add confirmation dialogue when destroying terrain improvements, in order to avoid accidentally destroying your own improvements or those of a base you're hoping to capture.  This will not be an option, but rather automatic, and will not apply to using artillery to destroy improvements by firing at them.
6. Allow targeted tech stealing to be enabled (and it can be enabled even with random tech stealing disabled).
7. Give a (moddable) bonus when using projectile weapons against energy armor or vice versa.  Due to the relative ease of this change, the vote total for it will be doubled.
8. Create an option preventing the AI from contacting human players.
9. Allow the mouse scroll wheel to scroll the f4 screen.  Due to the expected difficulty, the vote total for this option is halved, and I reserve the right to back out and pick the next highest scorer if it proves too difficult.

Bugfixes:
1. Get the "bonus comm frequency" faction bonus working.
2. Cause the f3 screen to correctly display energy interest.
3. Due to the low number of nominations for bugfixes, write-ins are allowed for bugfixes in this case.

[Dio]

Features:
1. 25
2. 0
3. 0
4. Does this mean the bonuses from facilities like energy banks, network nodes, etc. could potentially be modified? 50-90
5. 25
6. 100
7. 100
8. 50
9. 0

Bugfixes:
1. 100
2. 100

[ete]

Going by things I'm likely to use..

Features:
1. 100 (esp. if the unit can be specified in the faction file rather than alphax, but either would be pretty awesome)
2. 70
3. 25
4. 30
5. 30
6. 45 (if it includes lower probability of success than standard techsteal, 20 otherwise)
7. 10
8. 0
9. 35 (but maybe PlotinusRedux would be more likely to have explored the relevant functions?)

Bugfixes:
1. 60
2. 40


Some ideas for possible bugs to nominate for others are linked to from the wiki bug list page. Remember to check them in game though, since many may have been fixed since those lists were created.


I'd also say that if we can get hold of scient's latest patch which he almost released before vanishing merging that would be a pretty high priority, since it had a bunch of improvements I'd love to see (like being able to make custom units with different reactor strengths). Someone'd need to either find a test copy he handed out (I had one, but that comp died) or track him down and get a new one for merging. I'll put that on my to-do list.

[PlotinusRedux]

We'd have to coordinate on 9 since I've already co-opted the scroll wheel for zooming.  But there's no reason it couldn't both zoom on the map and scroll text boxes when they're up.

[Dio]

Features:

6. 20 (low mostly because techstealing is already super-powerful, it'd be interesting but that does not need a boost)

Note: I would also like to add that the way the feature currently would have worked is that the sucess and survival rate for a targeted techsteal would be half that of a random techsteal. This halving is on top of the penalty that occurs if you try to steal tech from the same base twice.

[ete]

Ah, okay. If that's included I'd say maybe 40.

[Yitzi]

4. Does this mean the bonuses from facilities like energy banks, network nodes, etc. could potentially be modified? 50-90

No it does not; that would be doable even without it, unless you want huge modding changes in which case that wouldn't help.  This would be relevant for per-tile bonuses only, such as tree farm/hybrid forest on forests, not per-base percentage boosts.

I take it that that means that you vote 50, rather than 90?

1. 100 (esp. if the unit can be specified in the faction file rather than alphax, but either would be pretty awesome)

No, the unit itself would have to be specified in alphax, and would count as one of the maximum of 64 predesigned units.

9. 35 (but maybe PlotinusRedux would be more likely to have explored the relevant functions?)

That could help a lot.

Bugfixes:
1. 60
2. 40

Just so you know, features and bugfixes are tallied separately.

Some ideas for possible bugs to nominate for others are linked to from the wiki bug list page. Remember to check them in game though, since many may have been fixed since those lists were created.

I'd also say that if we can get hold of scient's latest patch which he almost released before vanishing merging that would be a pretty high priority, since it had a bunch of improvements I'd love to see (like being able to make custom units with different reactor strengths). Someone'd need to either find a test copy he handed out (I had one, but that comp died) or track him down and get a new one for merging. I'll put that on my to-do list.

That'd be great; if not, I can probably copy them (custom units with different reactor strengths should not be that difficult.)

We'd have to coordinate on 9 since I've already co-opted the scroll wheel for zooming.  But there's no reason it couldn't both zoom on the map and scroll text boxes when they're up.

Better to have it zoom only when there are no other zoomable windows up.  In any case, if you know how to have it use the scroll wheel I'll probably want to copy that if that option wins out.

[Dio]

4. Does this mean the bonuses from facilities like energy banks, network nodes, etc. could potentially be modified? 50-90

No it does not; that would be doable even without it, unless you want huge modding changes in which case that wouldn't help.  This would be relevant for per-tile bonuses only, such as tree farm/hybrid forest on forests, not per-base percentage boosts.

I take it that that means that you vote 50, rather than 90?

Correct, I am voting with a 50% based upon your answer to my question.

[ete]

1. 100 (esp. if the unit can be specified in the faction file rather than alphax, but either would be pretty awesome)

No, the unit itself would have to be specified in alphax, and would count as one of the maximum of 64 predesigned units.

Okay, that would work fine. We'll have to standardize #UNITS and have an allocation system for factions, but it's unlikely we'd run up against a limit of 64 for a long time.

Bugfixes:
1. 60
2. 40

Just so you know, features and bugfixes are tallied separately.

Okay, I was trying for an average of ~50, and the two seemed fairly close. Both would be good improvements, but neither stands out to me. If you'd like to adjust so my highest is 100 for each category I can do that.

I'd also say that if we can get hold of scient's latest patch which he almost released before vanishing merging that would be a pretty high priority, since it had a bunch of improvements I'd love to see (like being able to make custom units with different reactor strengths). Someone'd need to either find a test copy he handed out (I had one, but that comp died) or track him down and get a new one for merging. I'll put that on my to-do list.

That'd be great; if not, I can probably copy them (custom units with different reactor strengths should not be that difficult.)

Cool, I've tracked down his e-mail and contacted him asking for the patch and permission to use it. If that does not work in the next week or two, I'll try again to find a profile of his somewhere he's active.

[Buster's Uncle]

That would be SHF forums, IIRC, if he's active anywhere.

[ete]

That would be SHF forums, IIRC, if he's active anywhere.

Unfortunately Last Active May 05 2013 03:06 PM that's a dead end. My last resorts are facebook and linkedin, both of which have dozens of others with the same name and may not even have him.

[Yitzi]

Okay, that would work fine. We'll have to standardize #UNITS and have an allocation system for factions, but it's unlikely we'd run up against a limit of 64 for a long time.

Alternatively, it could just be added for the game in question.

Okay, I was trying for an average of ~50, and the two seemed fairly close. Both would be good improvements, but neither stands out to me. If you'd like to adjust so my highest is 100 for each category I can do that.

Up to you.  If you feel that you don't care that much about either as compared to other posters, you can leave it lower to give them more say.

That would be SHF forums, IIRC, if he's active anywhere.

Unfortunately Last Active May 05 2013 03:06 PM that's a dead end. My last resorts are facebook and linkedin, both of which have dozens of others with the same name and may not even have him.

Scient does seem to be hard to get a hold of; on the flip side, if he were easy to get a hold of, I might never have taken over the patching business...

[Sigma]

Features:

1. 100 (God so many possibilities with this)
2. 30 (Seems handy though not a game changer)
3. 10
4. 75 (Voting for future potential)
5. 10
6. 50 (This seems pretty dang cool)
7. 75
8. 10
9. 10

Bug fixes
1. 100
2. 10

[ete]

Okay, that would work fine. We'll have to standardize #UNITS and have an allocation system for factions, but it's unlikely we'd run up against a limit of 64 for a long time.

Alternatively, it could just be added for the game in question.

True, but I think having a standardized set would be easier from a user's perspective, less messing about with setup pre-game, and not too hard to maintain with github/ACU.

Okay, I was trying for an average of ~50, and the two seemed fairly close. Both would be good improvements, but neither stands out to me. If you'd like to adjust so my highest is 100 for each category I can do that.

Up to you.  If you feel that you don't care that much about either as compared to other posters, you can leave it lower to give them more say.

I'll leave it, I don't have particularly strong feelings on those two. More features for custom factions is always fun, but I also like displays showing things correctly.

That would be SHF forums, IIRC, if he's active anywhere.

Unfortunately Last Active May 05 2013 03:06 PM that's a dead end. My last resorts are facebook and linkedin, both of which have dozens of others with the same name and may not even have him.

Scient does seem to be hard to get a hold of; on the flip side, if he were easy to get a hold of, I might never have taken over the patching business...

Indeed.

I just hope I don't have to contact the 50+ Brendan Caseys on facebook...

[gwillybj]

1 ) 50
2 ) 50
3 ) 75
4 ) 60
5 ) 80
6 ) 100
7 ) 75
8 ) 80
9 ) 25

B1 ) 100
B2 ) 100