0.4.9 thoughts after an evening
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:22 pm
Hi,
0.4.9 candidate thoughts so far:
UI:
...Older bugs retained: Going to fullscreen still crashes Intel integrated graphics; I have to use Nvidia. Config does not remember that I want to start in fullscreen. UI remembers some settings but not others across launches or even across games within a session, especially pertaining to window sizing and location, regardless of whether autorelocate is set.
...New bug: When the system panel is set not to show the giant planets on the side, the unhappy face indicating that a planet is insufficiently happy is still displayed all on its own.
AI:
Something new and good: The AI seems to actually pursue a coherent tech path for hulls rather than pursue hull tech randomly! I was attacked by hulls deeper into the organic tree rather than a mishmash of different kinds of starter hulls. I had not seen this before. Yay!
An old stupid friend: So, there's a monster hanging out on a system the AI wants, and the AI sees it, so parks an outpost ship one sector away and waits for a while, until it eventually brings up a small fleet to kill it, and then attacks the monster with the fleet AND THE OUTPOST SHIP, even though it is obvious that the fleet cannot kill the monster in one or even two rounds, but that the monster can kill the outpost ship, which is of course what happens. Another AI player is able to see my huge fleet bearing own on a single ship that has no hope of doing anything but die. Rather than move, and it had fuel to do so, it died.
Overall: The AI seems less effective. If I can survive the initial onslaught, or if it doesn't happen because I am too far away, the AI has a hard time bringing the fight to me. I suspect this is worse than before, but I could be misremembering.
Game features:
Race balancing: Some of the better races were nerfed and that's a good thing. (Looking at you, Scylior)
Fighters: A mix, but perhaps I don't understand the deeper implications. I like that Interceptors get 2x launch,though I think fighters should get 1.5x launch, to make ship design easier and more consistent. At that point, one could have Fighter/Bomber/Interceptor Launchers to match their respective hangars, which would let you remove the restriction on a single ship carrying multiple types. I like that Interceptors prefer to hit other fightercraft, but this also means that if an enemy force deploys a single fighter, *all* of the opposing interceptors will attack it, which... yuck? I should have expected this behavior from reading the changelog, but it was an unpleasant surprise. I've been advocating target preference for a long time, but I think it needs further thought. Between flak guns and interceptors going straight for fighercraft, are bombers still viable? On the positive side, I find myself once again considering direct fire weapons as primary. I've not gone into the math yet, but my basic robohull for 049 is 2Zort+1Interceptor+1Laser. Until now I've used single designs for each 'generation' of ship, but I suspect that I will want to start building fleets of mixed types, so that I also have bombers; I see this as a mixed blessing: There are more interesting design choices, but its no longer possible to just peel off a bunch of ships to accomplish a mission, which imposes another burden on the AI. Oh, and has the Spinal Cannon been changed so that it doesn't target fighters?
Fuel: I think I understand the intent but so far I don't like it. As usual, it seems to make life especially hard for the AI to do anything outside of supply. It also makes great supply especially awesome, and it makes the Energy line of hulls even better, since they have the best fuel, and Solar Hulls make fuel totally obsolete. I'd have good things to say about how interior slots become more important, except that hulls have not been reconfigured to reflect this change. Against the AI, I can still do everything that I used to, only it's a bit more cumbersome. I suppose I could build a raider type (generic roboraider: flak+laser+2zort+fuel).
-----
Tangent, not about this release, but about an alternate (admittedly more difficult) targeting design:
Every time a weapon or fighter attacks, still assuming the basic principle that every weapon always hits something for its full damage, there's a target that the attacker would prefer and a target that the defender would prefer. If all things are equal, there can be a 50% chance of either, or perhaps a 3-way split if we add the possibility of a totally random target. Good/bad pilots can then be changed to modify this probability rather than modify weapon damage: Good pilots are more likely to hit prime targets; bad pilots are more likely to run into their defenders. There can be generalship tech for this too, perhaps with fighters having their own subtree. Different kinds of weapon have different algorithms for determining choice, or anti-choice, and even shifts to the usual "if all things are equal," reflecting more or less accurate weapons, or weapons for which certain targets are not valid at all.
For Interceptors, for example, it would be nice if once all enemy fighters are accounted for, maybe some can attack something useful; conversely, it would be nice if sometimes an Interceptor was not able to attack the bomber that it would really like to shoot down, and have to settle for something else.
-----
Anyway,
Ken
0.4.9 candidate thoughts so far:
UI:
...Older bugs retained: Going to fullscreen still crashes Intel integrated graphics; I have to use Nvidia. Config does not remember that I want to start in fullscreen. UI remembers some settings but not others across launches or even across games within a session, especially pertaining to window sizing and location, regardless of whether autorelocate is set.
...New bug: When the system panel is set not to show the giant planets on the side, the unhappy face indicating that a planet is insufficiently happy is still displayed all on its own.
AI:
Something new and good: The AI seems to actually pursue a coherent tech path for hulls rather than pursue hull tech randomly! I was attacked by hulls deeper into the organic tree rather than a mishmash of different kinds of starter hulls. I had not seen this before. Yay!
An old stupid friend: So, there's a monster hanging out on a system the AI wants, and the AI sees it, so parks an outpost ship one sector away and waits for a while, until it eventually brings up a small fleet to kill it, and then attacks the monster with the fleet AND THE OUTPOST SHIP, even though it is obvious that the fleet cannot kill the monster in one or even two rounds, but that the monster can kill the outpost ship, which is of course what happens. Another AI player is able to see my huge fleet bearing own on a single ship that has no hope of doing anything but die. Rather than move, and it had fuel to do so, it died.
Overall: The AI seems less effective. If I can survive the initial onslaught, or if it doesn't happen because I am too far away, the AI has a hard time bringing the fight to me. I suspect this is worse than before, but I could be misremembering.
Game features:
Race balancing: Some of the better races were nerfed and that's a good thing. (Looking at you, Scylior)
Fighters: A mix, but perhaps I don't understand the deeper implications. I like that Interceptors get 2x launch,though I think fighters should get 1.5x launch, to make ship design easier and more consistent. At that point, one could have Fighter/Bomber/Interceptor Launchers to match their respective hangars, which would let you remove the restriction on a single ship carrying multiple types. I like that Interceptors prefer to hit other fightercraft, but this also means that if an enemy force deploys a single fighter, *all* of the opposing interceptors will attack it, which... yuck? I should have expected this behavior from reading the changelog, but it was an unpleasant surprise. I've been advocating target preference for a long time, but I think it needs further thought. Between flak guns and interceptors going straight for fighercraft, are bombers still viable? On the positive side, I find myself once again considering direct fire weapons as primary. I've not gone into the math yet, but my basic robohull for 049 is 2Zort+1Interceptor+1Laser. Until now I've used single designs for each 'generation' of ship, but I suspect that I will want to start building fleets of mixed types, so that I also have bombers; I see this as a mixed blessing: There are more interesting design choices, but its no longer possible to just peel off a bunch of ships to accomplish a mission, which imposes another burden on the AI. Oh, and has the Spinal Cannon been changed so that it doesn't target fighters?
Fuel: I think I understand the intent but so far I don't like it. As usual, it seems to make life especially hard for the AI to do anything outside of supply. It also makes great supply especially awesome, and it makes the Energy line of hulls even better, since they have the best fuel, and Solar Hulls make fuel totally obsolete. I'd have good things to say about how interior slots become more important, except that hulls have not been reconfigured to reflect this change. Against the AI, I can still do everything that I used to, only it's a bit more cumbersome. I suppose I could build a raider type (generic roboraider: flak+laser+2zort+fuel).
-----
Tangent, not about this release, but about an alternate (admittedly more difficult) targeting design:
Every time a weapon or fighter attacks, still assuming the basic principle that every weapon always hits something for its full damage, there's a target that the attacker would prefer and a target that the defender would prefer. If all things are equal, there can be a 50% chance of either, or perhaps a 3-way split if we add the possibility of a totally random target. Good/bad pilots can then be changed to modify this probability rather than modify weapon damage: Good pilots are more likely to hit prime targets; bad pilots are more likely to run into their defenders. There can be generalship tech for this too, perhaps with fighters having their own subtree. Different kinds of weapon have different algorithms for determining choice, or anti-choice, and even shifts to the usual "if all things are equal," reflecting more or less accurate weapons, or weapons for which certain targets are not valid at all.
For Interceptors, for example, it would be nice if once all enemy fighters are accounted for, maybe some can attack something useful; conversely, it would be nice if sometimes an Interceptor was not able to attack the bomber that it would really like to shoot down, and have to settle for something else.
-----
Anyway,
Ken