SE IV future

[geoschmo]

Good point Kwok. Realistically if a race is capable of installing a MC on it's ships, would they have the crew as a backup for the MC? What they would do would be have a crew as primary control and install a MC as a backup. If that is the case then the MC would need to have internal security which can be used to incapacitate boarders, or the primary crew if it determines they have been "compromised".

[dogscoff]

I imagine the master computers to be like early Versions of the Minds in the Culture novels - utterly superior to us fleshlings and completely independent.

I do think any MC enabled ship would have "backup" controls to drive the ship if the computer should be out of action.

[geoschmo]

Hehe, so there we have two completely reasonable, and utterly irreconcilable differences of opinion about it. So what's poor programer to do then. Flip a coin?

Actually more than two, if you count Puke's comment. Anybody got a three sided coin, or do we have a "flip off" tournament.

Geoschmo

[ October 15, 2002, 18:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[LazarusLong42]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Actually more than two, if you count Puke's comment. Anybody got a three sided coin, or do we have a "flip off" tournament.

Roll a d6, then take mod 3.

That said... does anyone actually build ships with both crew quarters *and* MC's? For me, the two are effectively mutually exclusive; the expense of crew quarters makes them silly to add to an already expensive MC. This makes the AS problem easy. It can convert crewed ships, but not convert MC ship; on an MC ship, there aren't any crew to smash the MC.

[geoschmo]

Dumbluck, I think more clearly people's impressions of the patch changes (I won't even call them fixes anymore) are reflected in their feelings about whether or not there was a problem. For example you make the case the OA changes are balanced and have been asked for for a long time. By contrast you seem to imply that the AS change was some sort of unilateral plan by Malfador and infer that you haven't heard much call for this change.

I am not sure if that's what you are saying, but if it is I can tell you that is just not the case. The AS has been complained about just as often, and for just as long as the OA one. Human nature however is that we tend to minimize or forget alltogether arguments that run counter to our own established perceptions.

I think your (and others) proposed final solution does make sense however. If a ship were built with MC and crew quarters (I would prefer bridge, but I guess it doesn't really matter) then the AS should probably be able to convert it once the MC is destroyed.

Geoschmo

[Puke]

the AS issue could be alot simpler. IF hit AND crew quarters (or bridge, or whatever) THEN convert.

why the heck would having a MC prevent crews from being converted? Kirk smashed the MC they put incharge of HIS ship, why couldn't a converted SE4 crew smash their MC? this way, there is no invulnerable ship design. you are either exposed to virus problems, or you are exposed to AS problems.

[oleg]

Originally posted by LazarusLong42:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Actually more than two, if you count Puke's comment. Anybody got a three sided coin, or do we have a "flip off" tournament.

Roll a d6, then take mod 3.

That said... does anyone actually build ships with both crew quarters *and* MC's? For me, the two are effectively mutually exclusive; the expense of crew quarters makes them silly to add to an already expensive MC. This makes the AS problem easy. It can convert crewed ships, but not convert MC ship; on an MC ship, there aren't any crew to smash the MC.

---

Quite a few TDM races do just that to frustrate too smug humans. (there is no way to make AI build pure MC ship, only crew+MC)

[spoon]

Originally posted by dumbluck:

PS. I disagree with some of you on one major issue. Yes, I think he should be working on fine-tuning the game balance, but except for extreme cases (ie PPB, which needs to be stretched out over similar ranges and damage levels to APB) he shouldn't waste his time with editing txt files. That's what modding is for! I think he is right on focusing on the Hard Code changes needed to balance the game. After all, he's the only one that can make those changes!

If that is what modding was for, then the PPB would have already been fixed, and everyone would be playing with a more balanced Version of that weapon. Unfortunately, the pool of people that plays mods is relatively small, so instead we see most everyone playing vanilla SE4 with some sort of love-hate relationship.

I also dispute that it would take MM much time to address the most blatant balance issues. Seriously. He could send out a poll to known number-crunchers in the community, figure out what is broken, and then fix it in a couple of hours.

Modding, in my opinion, is not for balancing the core game, but for making new and different play experiences. Like P&N new race-styles, and Proportions focus on homeworlds.

-Spoon

[Wardad]

Originally posted by spoon:
I also dispute that it would take MM much time to address the most blatant balance issues. Seriously. He could send out a poll to known number-crunchers in the community, figure out what is broken, and then fix it in a couple of hours.

Modding, in my opinion, is not for balancing the core game, but for making new and different play experiences. Like P&N new race-styles, and Proportions focus on homeworlds.

-Spoon[/QB]

Damn, Spoon said it all first.

[ October 16, 2002, 22:58: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[rextorres]

I always imagined a ship with a master computer to be like a beserker - so when you destroy the master computer, in my mind, it should just be a hulk not able to do anything and certainly not able to be converted.