Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#1 Post by Magnate »

Hi all,

I'm a long time fan of this game, and hugely grateful to the devteam for all their work. It is a better game than the original MoO series ever were, and I am excited for the potential of influence and trade and diplomacy and all the other possible future mechanics. I just re-read my first post (https://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=9167) and almost all the things I had concerns about have been addressed since then. Only two of them haven't:

One is that the frequency of space monsters is still too binary for me. I really want a Very Low setting which is about 1/5 of the current Low setting. But this is not a big deal, and nobody else seems to mind.

The other one has got much, much worse as the MP games have evolved our strategies. In the current (ninth) MP game, Oberlus is using against me the strategy I successfully used against him a few games ago - building empty chaff ships to soak up my shots and preserve his capital ships. This is my first game playing with Arc disruptors, which seem hugely overpowered by being able to target all of ships, fighters and planets yet still have as many shots as flak cannons and are upgradeable like fighters and fixed beams. I've worked out why - they're a response to the chaff strategy, by being able to target more ships. As I'm not building chaff it feels OP.

I really really dislike the game becoming one of stochastic modelling - how many chaff ships do I need to build with this fleet or that fleet to take this system or that system. It turns the game from a space opera into a spreadsheet. While I admire the invention of the arc disruptor and I'm sure it can be balanced (my tip would be to not allow it to target fighters), I think the chaff problem needs a more fundamental solution, urgently. When I compare the enjoyment of playing FO today against the enjoyment of playing Elite or Path of Exile or Stellaris, this one thing is what is making the difference - it's spoiling the immersion.

I'll keep this short and avoid pleading for UI complexity with targeting options. There is one simple change that would solve it. I'm sure it's been discussed before but I'd welcome a recap of dev views:

Unarmed ships (which in this context means those with no weapons, fighters or troops) should be ignored for targeting purposes, by armed ships and planets. Just like incapacitated planets are ignored.

That way you don't have to change the combat system at all, and suddenly chaff becomes properly, joyously pointless.

It does mean that you need a third setting in addition to Hide and Control, because of course you need a way to dispose of scouts and so on. So you leave Control to mean attack everything (like now) and add Respond to mean attack only armed ships (including troop ships).

Thoughts?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#2 Post by Oberlus »

Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:51 am(Arc Disruptors)'re a response to the chaff strategy, by being able to target more ships. As I'm not building chaff it feels OP.
They are useless against shields.
Its price, 40 PPs (twice of a flak or MD, same as a plasma), coupled with its maximum damage-per-shot (7), makes it an utterly bad investment when you face shielded ships. Just a 30 PP shield (-3) will make them half as powerful. A 50 PP shield (-5) will make them close to useless (6 damage for 40 PP, much worse than a plasma cannon).
I really really dislike the game becoming one of stochastic modelling
It's been always an stochastic modelling, even without the Arc Disruptor and the chaff. How much damage do I need to kill that many ships with so much HP per ship? And if they have shield? Etc.
With the new additions it allows for some rock-paper-scissors. Just some.
If you remove all that, the whole game becomes a no-brainer modelling. Do you like to know if you will win just as a function of your starting position (how many good/adeq planets around you)? Because if there are no different tactics, some better than others depending on the tactic of your enemy, then the only thing that matters is PP and RP, so that the one with the bigger fleet wins (period).
It turns the game from a space opera into a spreadsheet
I'm not using any spreadsheet (or combat simulator). I just saw you were building unshielded robos with bombers and I went for heavy bombers with arc disruptors.
While I admire the invention of the arc disruptor and I'm sure it can be balanced (my tip would be to not allow it to target fighters), I think the chaff problem needs a more fundamental solution, urgently. When I compare the enjoyment of playing FO today against the enjoyment of playing Elite or Path of Exile or Stellaris, this one thing is what is making the difference - it's spoiling the immersion.
Hm?
So a weapon that throws a wave of energy hitting some fighters spoils your immersion?
And the mere existence of "fighters" shooting "behing the shields" does not?
Unarmed ships (which in this context means those with no weapons, fighters or troops) should be ignored for targeting purposes, by armed ships and planets. Just like incapacitated planets are ignored.
That means "forbid chaff strategy".
I like having chaff strategy. Stars! had it and it was great.
IMO, you are not used to that strategy yet and don't know how to react to it, but once you learn it is a nice thing to have.

Anyways, chaff can be balanced to be less interesting: scale up price of hulls. It is an option at galaxy creation.
We could do that in your server. Make it x2.0 or x3.0 and you'll see how cheap empty hulls like organic are no longer so good at distracting enemy shoots.
No need to change mechanics to be able to shoot down scouts, troops, etc.
This has been extensively discussed in the forums and that is the best solution.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#3 Post by labgnome »

Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:51 amOne is that the frequency of space monsters is still too binary for me. I really want a Very Low setting which is about 1/5 of the current Low setting. But this is not a big deal, and nobody else seems to mind.
I think it could be a good idea to have a more granular selection of monster strength. Maybe even separate settings for monsters with nests and monsters without nests, as nests can be captured and those monsters tamed.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#4 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:49 amThey are useless against shields.
Its price, 40 PPs (twice of a flak or MD, same as a plasma), coupled with its maximum damage-per-shot (7), makes it an utterly bad investment when you face shielded ships. Just a 30 PP shield (-3) will make them half as powerful. A 50 PP shield (-5) will make them close to useless (6 damage for 40 PP, much worse than a plasma cannon).
That's true, and since I have previously complained that shields are overpriced and poor bang per buck, it's nice that one side effect of the wrong solution to chaff is to make shields more worthwhile. But it is still the wrong solution to chaff. That doesn't mean it has no place in the game though - to be clear, there are three distinct issues here:

1. Whether arc disruptors are balanced
2. Whether they are the correct solution to chaff
3. Whether chaff needs solving

We are discussing all three.
I really really dislike the game becoming one of stochastic modelling
It's been always an stochastic modelling, even without the Arc Disruptor and the chaff. How much damage do I need to kill that many ships with so much HP per ship? And if they have shield? Etc.
With the new additions it allows for some rock-paper-scissors. Just some.
If you remove all that, the whole game becomes a no-brainer modelling. Do you like to know if you will win just as a function of your starting position (how many good/adeq planets around you)? Because if there are no different tactics, some better than others depending on the tactic of your enemy, then the only thing that matters is PP and RP, so that the one with the bigger fleet wins (period).
I don't agree with this at all. There is plenty of rock-paper-scissors with four different hull lines and different weapon types and different fighter types and shields and core slots and armour and so on. There is absolutely no coherent argument that chaff enhances the experience, or that without chaff the game is brainless. I struggle to see why you are exaggerating that argument so much.

Yes to a degree there is always some modelling of randomness involved, but using chaff takes it to a totally different level than simply thinking what mix do I need of small ships and big ships, fighters/flak/weapons, shields, armour etc. I will try to explain why I think it's important.
It turns the game from a space opera into a spreadsheet
I'm not using any spreadsheet (or combat simulator). I just saw you were building unshielded robos with bombers and I went for heavy bombers with arc disruptors.
Yes I know that, it was a figure of speech. There is no combat simulator for FO, and long may there not be. I'm not using a spreadsheet either, but the mental modelling is complex enough that I can now envisage one!
So a weapon that throws a wave of energy hitting some fighters spoils your immersion?
And the mere existence of "fighters" shooting "behing the shields" does not?
Neither does. My objection to arcs hitting fighters is one of balance, not immersion. There is no other weapon in the game that can hit all of ships, fighters and planets with more than one shot. For balance, the arc should hit either fighters or planets but not both.

The immersion point is important to me, so here is my attempt to explain it. It is perfectly conceivable that nimble ship-launched fighters can get inside shields. It is equally conceivable that arcs of energy (or sand) can hit both ships and fighters. It is utterly inconceivable that anyone commanding a warship, whether their life is at stake on the bridge or they are in some sort of Ender's Game remote control situation, will fire their weapons at unarmed ships instead of at the ships which are firing at them. It's just utterly utterly ruinous to immersion. I understand and love the elegant simplicity which permeates FO, and I understand that random targeting obviates the need for huge complexity in target prioritisation, but I feel so strongly about the need to be able to have commanders who can tell the difference between firing on a scout and firing on a warship that I am willing to learn the code and write the pullreq myself.
Unarmed ships (which in this context means those with no weapons, fighters or troops) should be ignored for targeting purposes, by armed ships and planets. Just like incapacitated planets are ignored.
That means "forbid chaff strategy".
I like having chaff strategy. Stars! had it and it was great.
IMO, you are not used to that strategy yet and don't know how to react to it, but once you learn it is a nice thing to have.
Ha ha ha. Do you not recall the game in which I used it to rather good effect against you and JonCST? I believe you had not experienced it before, judging from your comments at the time. You may also recall my comments in other threads about using it reluctantly, and not being willing to ignore it if it is there. I can't tell if you have forgotten or are joking, but I am not unused to it. I simply detest it (whether I'm using it or opposing it).

It is clear that we have very different preferences about space 4X games. I hated Stars and grew up on VGA Planets, which made chaff pointless by having weapons cost a tiny fraction of the cost of hulls - this is another solution which you suggest later. Stellaris has another alternative - fleet command capacity (which is complexity FO doesn't need). I'm sorry that you like having chaff. I don't understand why it doesn't spoil the game for you, but it takes all sorts. Yes, my solution would effectively forbid it, but I do not think the game would be at all poorer for it. Quite the opposite. No more angsty debates about the cost of colony base hulls!
Anyways, chaff can be balanced to be less interesting: scale up price of hulls. It is an option at galaxy creation.
We could do that in your server. Make it x2.0 or x3.0 and you'll see how cheap empty hulls like organic are no longer so good at distracting enemy shoots.
No need to change mechanics to be able to shoot down scouts, troops, etc.
This has been extensively discussed in the forums and that is the best solution.
Ok, I confess I do not have the bandwidth to keep up with all these discussions. If hull costs can be increased without increasing the cost of other components, then I agree that is an alternative solution. I will add this to the settings for the 10th MP game.

But I would still like to code and test a third fleet stance in which the fleet will attack capital ships and planets but not unarmed ships. I genuinely think this would be an improvement to the game, though if you actually like chaff as a strategy I doubt you will agree.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#5 Post by Oberlus »

Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:19 pm I have previously complained that shields are overpriced
Come here and praise me.
Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:19 pm
It's been always an stochastic modelling[...]
I don't agree with this at all. There is plenty of rock-paper-scissors with four different hull lines and different weapon types and different fighter types and shields and core slots and armour and so on. There is absolutely no coherent argument that chaff enhances the experience, or that without chaff the game is brainless. I struggle to see why you are exaggerating that argument so much.
I guess we agree to disagree?
It's true that different lines allows for some tactics, but few. In the end, bigger hulls with as many as possible fighters plus rest armour and some weapons are only end game tactic.

I struggle to see why you are against Arc Disruptors, apart from "I don't like chaff", which I respect but strongly disagree. Every other player likes it or don't care at all.
I think you still need to see the results of battles with it before you can really have an informed opinion.
Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:19 pmit was a figure of speech
To which I disagree.
There is no combat simulator for FO
I programmed mine. I used it during previous game. But it's clumsy and slow to enter fleet compositions, plus I got "experience" (not enough yet) to figure out what is the probable outcome of a battle. I also played alot with statistics, distributon of shots, etc. (there are a few thread here in the forum, I understand you didn't read them because you were gaining experience in other games instead :twisted: )
My objection to arcs hitting fighters is one of balance, not immersion.
Ah, misunderstanding from my side. I tend to interpret language literally, and you especifically said it breaks your "immersion".
There is no other weapon in the game that can hit all of ships, fighters and planets
Isn't it cool to have different kind of weapons?
Maybe we could make Arcs to not hit planets. But it makes absolute sense to be able to shoot ships and fighters.
Also, we've been playing FO for several years before KISS hard targetting and most weapons targetted everything. Dunno why it is bad to have a single weapon with clear disadvantages (vs shields, high cost early game) that can target everything.
For balance, the arc should hit either fighters or planets but not both.
I disagree it is necessary for balance, but I would not mind changing it. Anyway, most hulls have plenty of space for weapons so they can mount Arcs along with Big Guns to cover all necessities. It would make little difference. In current game, my ships mount heavy bombers and arcs, so if arcs do not target planets they would be more effective against your fighters and unshielded ships. I wonder if then you would have a different opinion.
It is perfectly conceivable that nimble ship-launched fighters can get inside shields.
It is perfectly conceivable too that they don't. It's all quite unrealistic, so I just focus on gameplay and fun and forget about realism in a game full of inconceivable fluff.
It is utterly inconceivable that anyone commanding a warship, whether their life is at stake on the bridge or they are in some sort of Ender's Game remote control situation, will fire their weapons at unarmed ships instead of at the ships which are firing at them.
Here you are clearly wrong: this ships are undistinguishable from armed ones (same hull, fake weapons). Voila.

It's just utterly utterly ruinous to immersion.
Seriously, that's on you. If I can live with the utterly utterly utterly ... utterly nonsense of piloted fighters (quoting myself from another thread: "the moment you put dogfights in space you are waaaaaaaay out of realism. The very concept of "fighters" (with cocky fighter pilots and the corresponding bulky life support systems) approaching huge hull ships defended with strong shields and thick armors to shoot at them their tiny fighter weapons makes little sense. Then you add the dogfight thingy with ships slow enough to not make pilots into blobs of fluids at the turn forces required to dodge weapon beams that should have relativistic speeds, and it instantly sinks deep into the abyss of ridiculous nonsense. And the fighters doing actual damage to the super star destroyers: facepalm.") I hope you can live with Arc Disruptors as long as they are not a nobrainer or a useless weapon.
I understand and love the elegant simplicity which permeates FO, and I understand that random targeting obviates the need for huge complexity in target prioritisation, but I feel so strongly about the need to be able to have commanders who can tell the difference between firing on a scout and firing on a warship that I am willing to learn the code and write the pullreq myself.
No need for that, we have discussed this extensively (I think you could enjoy reading more of what has been going on in the forum in the last year).
See this PR and search forum for related discussions.
Ha ha ha. Do you not recall the game in which I used [chaff] to rather good effect against you and JonCST?
You mean exploiting the greatly unbalanced cheap comsats? Yes, I remember, and that was fixed, now comsats are more expensive, although not so expensive as mobile hulls, so mobile hulls are considerably less exploitable than old, cheap comsats.
I believe you had not experienced it before, judging from your comments at the time.
You're wrong. I ha experienced them, and I made it clear before that game, that comsats were a exploit until fixed, and asked to not abuse them, to which you answered "if it's in the game I'll use it". And so the winning empire (you) was impossible to beat because comsats were so cheap that you could defend your position with little forces while pwning somewhere else. It was just dirty. I'm glad that is not possible anymore.
I can't tell if you have forgotten or are joking, but I am not unused to it. I simply detest it (whether I'm using it or opposing it).
Then I don't understand how you could be so surprised when saw my symbiotic hulls. L29Ah, swaq, me, everyone is and have been using them to some extend (but clearly not gamebreaking).
Ah, no, wait, I know why you don't seem to be prepare against mobile chaff: you skipped a game and conceded quite soon in two other games, because bad start (sorry for that, that really needs fixing), so you didn't see the big battles with tiny armed ships, huge armed ships and mobile chaff.

If hull costs can be increased without increasing the cost of other components, then I agree that is an alternative solution. I will add this to the settings for the 10th MP game.
Settled!
Because, regardless of all the above disagreement between you and me, I can really enjoy a game without chaff. I like adjusting to different setting, I love having to think and figure out new strategies, so I am absolutely up for that match :D

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#6 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:12 pm
Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:19 pm I have previously complained that shields are overpriced
Come here and praise me.
Done - thank you!
Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:19 pm
It's been always an stochastic modelling[...]
I don't agree with this at all. There is plenty of rock-paper-scissors with four different hull lines and different weapon types and different fighter types and shields and core slots and armour and so on. There is absolutely no coherent argument that chaff enhances the experience, or that without chaff the game is brainless. I struggle to see why you are exaggerating that argument so much.
I guess we agree to disagree?
It's true that different lines allows for some tactics, but few. In the end, bigger hulls with as many as possible fighters plus rest armour and some weapons are only end game tactic.
I expect you have more endgame experience than me but I'd be surprised if there was only one. Advanced empires *should* be building bigger hulls, but do they go for faster ones, or self-repairing ones, or cloaked ones, or ... and I'd also be surprised if fighters were so game-breaking - four- or five-shot flak with good pilots (six with those resurrected dudes - Misiorla) should make fighters a really dubious investment.
I struggle to see why you are against Arc Disruptors, apart from "I don't like chaff", which I respect but strongly disagree. Every other player likes it or don't care at all.
I think you still need to see the results of battles with it before you can really have an informed opinion.
How easy it is to misunderstand each other - I am not against arc disruptors! I think they are a great addition to the game, and I'm aware that this is my first game with them so I'm keeping an open mind about their balance etc. What I was against was the mentality of "oh we've solved the chaff problem now we have them". I can like them without changing my views on chaff.
My objection to arcs hitting fighters is one of balance, not immersion.
Ah, misunderstanding from my side. I tend to interpret language literally, and you especifically said it breaks your "immersion".
I did say that, and I was referring to the fact of armed ships shooting unarmed ships in combat, not the concept of arc disruptors hitting whatever.
There is no other weapon in the game that can hit all of ships, fighters and planets
Isn't it cool to have different kind of weapons?
Maybe we could make Arcs to not hit planets. But it makes absolute sense to be able to shoot ships and fighters.
Yes I agree with that, and yes it is cool to have different weapons, this is why I like the arc!
Also, we've been playing FO for several years before KISS hard targetting and most weapons targetted everything. Dunno why it is bad to have a single weapon with clear disadvantages (vs shields, high cost early game) that can target everything.
Yeah maybe - if shields were 33% cheaper as per your pullreq I might well think that!
For balance, the arc should hit either fighters or planets but not both.
I disagree it is necessary for balance, but I would not mind changing it. Anyway, most hulls have plenty of space for weapons so they can mount Arcs along with Big Guns to cover all necessities. It would make little difference. In current game, my ships mount heavy bombers and arcs, so if arcs do not target planets they would be more effective against your fighters and unshielded ships. I wonder if then you would have a different opinion.
Well you would then have had to build a more heterogeneous fleet, and that would be satisfying!
It is perfectly conceivable that nimble ship-launched fighters can get inside shields.
It is perfectly conceivable too that they don't. It's all quite unrealistic, so I just focus on gameplay and fun and forget about realism in a game full of inconceivable fluff.
It is utterly inconceivable that anyone commanding a warship, whether their life is at stake on the bridge or they are in some sort of Ender's Game remote control situation, will fire their weapons at unarmed ships instead of at the ships which are firing at them.
Here you are clearly wrong: this ships are undistinguishable from armed ones (same hull, fake weapons). Voila.
It's just utterly utterly ruinous to immersion.
Seriously, that's on you. If I can live with the utterly utterly utterly ... utterly nonsense of piloted fighters (quoting myself from another thread: "the moment you put dogfights in space you are waaaaaaaay out of realism. The very concept of "fighters" (with cocky fighter pilots and the corresponding bulky life support systems) approaching huge hull ships defended with strong shields and thick armors to shoot at them their tiny fighter weapons makes little sense. Then you add the dogfight thingy with ships slow enough to not make pilots into blobs of fluids at the turn forces required to dodge weapon beams that should have relativistic speeds, and it instantly sinks deep into the abyss of ridiculous nonsense. And the fighters doing actual damage to the super star destroyers: facepalm.") I hope you can live with Arc Disruptors as long as they are not a nobrainer or a useless weapon.
I am perfectly happy with arc disruptors. But I will spend a little longer on immersion because it's a big factor in why people play 4x games. Ultimately they're all optimisation games, but the reason MoO3 failed where 1 and 2 were huge successes was because it lacked any immersion - it wasn't otherwise a worse game.

I think we just have different views and feelings about space opera. After growing up on Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica the idea of a tiny ship-launched fighter damaging a huge star destroyer is perfectly fine, good even. It's not the limitations of physics that break immersion for me, it's anything that goes against human instinct.

So let me deal with your fake weapons point. For me it is too hard to pretend that they're fake weapons and mentally justify them as valid targets. But if FO evolves to the point where I genuinely cannot tell what weapons are on a ship until I engage it (unless I have invested a LOT in scanning techs), then I would be perfectly happy with that. It comes back to the bug I found a few games ago where I didn't see your plasma upgrades until I researched plasma myself - you should see no numbers, or the right numbers, but definitely not the wrong numbers. So for me targeting chaff will always break immersion until I don't know they are chaff. (That is another wholly different solution, to try a game patched so that no enemy ships have any numbers at all.)
Ha ha ha. Do you not recall the game in which I used [chaff] to rather good effect against you and JonCST?
You mean exploiting the greatly unbalanced cheap comsats? Yes, I remember, and that was fixed, now comsats are more expensive, although not so expensive as mobile hulls, so mobile hulls are considerably less exploitable than old, cheap comsats.
I believe you had not experienced it before, judging from your comments at the time.
You're wrong. I ha experienced them, and I made it clear before that game, that comsats were a exploit until fixed, and asked to not abuse them, to which you answered "if it's in the game I'll use it". And so the winning empire (you) was impossible to beat because comsats were so cheap that you could defend your position with little forces while pwning somewhere else. It was just dirty. I'm glad that is not possible anymore.
Wow, that's insulting but ok. Perhaps you think I have insulted you somehow, in which case I apologise. For the record, I used both comsats and mobile chaff in that (fourth) game - and I did not make the comment about refusing to use comsats (and you did not ask me not to use them) until the start of the fifth game, when the discussion began because of its effect on the fourth game. But if you want to feel superior by remembering it in such insulting terms, go ahead.
I can't tell if you have forgotten or are joking, but I am not unused to it. I simply detest it (whether I'm using it or opposing it).
Then I don't understand how you could be so surprised when saw my symbiotic hulls. L29Ah, swaq, me, everyone is and have been using them to some extend (but clearly not gamebreaking).
When did I say I was surprised? That the mighty Oberlus who never uses exploits chose to build fleets using only mobile chaff and two new and poorly balanced techs (heavy bombers and arc disruptors)? Perish the thought!

No, I wasn't surprised. I have been concentrating poorly and not thinking far enough ahead - I am disadvantaged but not surprised!
Ah, no, wait, I know why you don't seem to be prepare against mobile chaff: you skipped a game and conceded quite soon in two other games, because bad start (sorry for that, that really needs fixing), so you didn't see the big battles with tiny armed ships, huge armed ships and mobile chaff.
I really don't know why I have upset you so much - perhaps you feel personally insulted by my criticism of arc disruptors. I do think they're an excellent idea, and perhaps I will appreciate their balance much more after a few games, or perhaps they will not target planets, or something. But again, for the record, I conceded the first time because I was thoroughly trounced by L29Ah (it was a tactical decision to deny him access to my pilots - and as with comsats, I recommended that it be prevented in future games), and the second time because the galaxy was too small and I just lost interest in playing the whole game in wars from turn 7.

But I can easily imagine the big battles you describe, because we had several in the fifth or sixth game - the one where TSO, Oleg and I were against swaq, JonCST and alleryn. But I suspect the use of chaff simply grew in subsequent games, and the arc was a response to that. I would prefer more control over targeting to eliminate chaff (until they can be hidden in a proper fog of war implementation), but they're much better than more chaff.
Because, regardless of all the above disagreement between you and me, I can really enjoy a game without chaff. I like adjusting to different setting, I love having to think and figure out new strategies, so I am absolutely up for that match :D
Good! I am quite enjoying this game with chaff, though I have spent this evening calculating shot distribution before doing my turn!

ThinkSome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#7 Post by ThinkSome »

TL;DR

More ideas:
  • Make drydocks repair only one ship at a time;
  • multi-shot upgrades for ARC disruptor ->4->5->6 shots

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#8 Post by Ophiuchus »

Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:19 pm My objection to arcs hitting fighters is one of balance, not immersion.
Why not spam interceptors?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#9 Post by swaq »

ThinkSome wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:47 pm More ideas:
  • Make drydocks repair only one ship at a time;
  • multi-shot upgrades for ARC disruptor ->4->5->6 shots
That would mean drydocks are nearly worthless and especially so after you get Field Fleet Repair.

Increasing the number of shots of the Arc Disruptor (and not the damage as much) would make shields more effective against it. Currently it's 2*3=6, 4*3=12, 7*3=21. If we instead did 2*3=6, 3*4=12, 4*5=20 then then defense grid would always be a very strong counter and deflector shield would be completely immunity. It would also make the Arc Disruptor better as flak. Not sure if that's what we would want for balance but it's worth considering.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#10 Post by Ophiuchus »

ThinkSome wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:47 pm TL;DR

More ideas:
  • ..
  • multi-shot upgrades for ARC disruptor ->4->5->6 shots
Not possible to balance that at all. I started with that idea. Dig up the design discussion if you want the gory details.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

ThinkSome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#11 Post by ThinkSome »

swaq wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:05 pm
Yes, it would discourage unshielded chaff in late game, when field repair and upgraded ARCs are available. The dry dock change would discourage chaff in early game. Repairing only one ship/turn could be balalanced by

1) building more drydocks at the same shipyard (and thus you sink PP into drydocks instead of chaff)
2) Some drydock research upgrades (repair rate?)

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#12 Post by Ophiuchus »

Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:51 am This is my first game playing with Arc disruptors, which seem hugely overpowered by being able to target all of ships, fighters and planets yet still have as many shots as flak cannons and are upgradeable like fighters and fixed beams. I've worked out why - they're a response to the chaff strategy, by being able to target more ships. As I'm not building chaff it feels OP.

I really really dislike the game becoming one of stochastic modelling...
Thoughts?
The main problem is my opinion not that the game changed, but that the knowledge how the game works increased/it is more necessary to be efficient in multiplayer than in single-player games. The efficient way was always stochastic modelling. Or did you mean the modeling got more complex? I think the base i still the same.

Anyway some more things about arc disruptors, the counters are shields and fighter-chaff.

Researching arcs is also a complete different research tree - building plasma weapons is usually more effective than arc disruptors (depending on your and your enemy empires). So if your main investments can wait until plasma, arcs are probably a huge waste. Also the main line gives you access to great fighters if you want to upgrade your investments. And if you get good pilots forget about arcs as well.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#13 Post by Ophiuchus »

ThinkSome wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:13 pm
swaq wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:05 pm
Yes, it would discourage unshielded chaff in late game, when field repair and upgraded ARCs are available. The dry dock change would discourage chaff in early game. Repairing only one ship/turn could be balalanced by

1) building more drydocks at the same shipyard (and thus you sink PP into drydocks instead of chaff)
2) Some drydock research upgrades (repair rate?)
I think we would rather remove drydock repair completely than doing the repair-a-single-ship thing.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#14 Post by Ophiuchus »

Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:51 am it's been discussed before but I'd welcome a recap of dev views:

Unarmed ships (which in this context means those with no weapons, fighters or troops) should be ignored for targeting purposes, by armed ships and planets. Just like incapacitated planets are ignored.
Troop part costs almost nothing even in early game.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Freeorion is being ruined for me and there is a simple fix

#15 Post by Oberlus »

Magnate wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:42 pmAdvanced empires *should* be building bigger hulls, but do they go for faster ones, or self-repairing ones, or cloaked ones, or ... and I'd also be surprised if fighters were so game-breaking - four- or five-shot flak with good pilots (six with those resurrected dudes - Misiorla) should make fighters a really dubious investment.
Late game we have medium (Sentient) to huge (Titanic, Solar) hulls. Sentient are not the way to go. The survival rate for bigger (sturdier) hulls makes the the right choice when both sides have similar PP investment, because they can repair. Cloaked ones do not work once they are not cloaked (another thing to fix, there is a thread around). Faster ones (Solar) are currently too expensive, but even if their cost is downed, as long as it is not too cheap compared to slower but tougher hulls, they are still weaker for the same price. Not the right choice to hold on a chokepoint.
I do agree with you in that these differences bring in gameplay diversity even end game. But still I want more to improve replayability.
So I'd like it to be less no-brainer to get the bigger hulls, more depending on circumstances, more tactical and strategic diversity. One way to get that is to keep smaller (earlier) hulls to have a role late game (chaff among others). Another way is to have some rock-paper-scissors in the weapons&defences tactics: you build many small warships or chaff? I use multishot weapons (Arcs). You mount multishot weapons? I build shielded ships. Many shielded ships? Take this bombers and suffer. Many bombers? Enjoy this flaks and interceptors.
Etc.

I agree FreeOrion can be fun without chaff and Arcs. I just find it better with chaff and arcs, more fun for the mix.

I don't know why I get so involved in defending my vision of the game, even more when game has already many ways to adjust to different visions and tastes (like disabling chaff viability, adjusting cost or available targets of weapons, etc.). It's like I want to convince you to have the same vision and taste I have.

But I am not offended! At all!
I really don't know why I have upset you so much
Really! I'm not!
Well... I'm a bit upset with current universe generation algorithm, but not upset by you. In fact I'm grateful because you are giving me a good fight to enjoy this already-lost game.
And I'm certainly not offended by your dislike of the Arc weapon and chaff tactic, I guess I am too vehement defending those.
How easy it is to misunderstand each other - I am not against arc disruptors!
Gah! :lol: Alright! :D
I'm keeping an open mind about their balance
That's certainly open to debate. Ophiuchus wanted initially to price them at 20 PP. I came up with some scenarios that made him change his mind. We might still be a bit off the sweet spot.
So let me deal with your fake weapons point. For me it is too hard to pretend that they're fake weapons and mentally justify them as valid targets. But if FO evolves to the point where I genuinely cannot tell what weapons are on a ship until I engage it (unless I have invested a LOT in scanning techs), then I would be perfectly happy with that.
Oh, man! I see your point now! I would say like "WTF fake weapons? I can see them in the galaxy map!" :lol:
Hmmm... I guess this should be addressed somehow...
Wow, that's insulting but ok.
Sorry, that wasn't my point nor my intention. You mean the "That was dirty", isn't it? I didn't mean it as an insult. You clearly stated that you would use that mechanic unless fixed, and I didn't like your decision, but you were honest from start and didn't break any rule. And you wasn't the only one using comsats in that or following games.
Perhaps you think I have insulted you somehow, in which case I apologise.
Nope, not at all.
For the record, I used both comsats and mobile chaff in that (fourth) game - and I did not make the comment about refusing to use comsats (and you did not ask me not to use them) until the start of the fifth game, when the discussion began because of its effect on the fourth game.
Oh, really? That makes sense... Memory is not one of my best abilities, indeed.
But if you want to feel superior by remembering it in such insulting terms, go ahead.
:oops:
Then, you were not against comsats (as chaff) at game fourth? You did not comment anything about not liking them until later? I guess you changed your mind about that afterwards? Never mind.
When did I say I was surprised? That the mighty Oberlus who never uses exploits chose to build fleets using only mobile chaff and two new and poorly balanced techs (heavy bombers and arc disruptors)? Perish the thought!
Well, here I do take some offense, from the "poorly balanced" part (the other part I understand it, if you felt offended by my wrong memories and rash words about exploiting comsats). I did try my best helping Ophiuchus to find a nice balance, running spreadsheets with different hulls, weapons and fleets compositions pitched against each other, to find out the stats that are good, average and bad depending, instead of just mostly good or mostly bad. Right now there is no sign or prove that they are poorly balanced. You, at least, have not commented any (but I keep misunderstanding you, so I can't tell). If you think they should cost more or less, or do more or less damage, make your suggestions.
The surprise, I assumed it from your recent complain about chaff when ThinkSome send a scout and my fleet was revealed, and then you retreated until building your own share of chaff (which I dunno if it is the best strategy when I have so many Arcs...). If this wasn't a surprise and everything is following your plan, OK!
I said I take some offense, but not serious one, I'm not asking for apologies, I understand I offended you (which I regret). So...
Are we OK?
Anyway, don't get your guard down, because the Mighty Oberlus plans to spank your bum in next game!
I am disadvantaged but not surprised!
You might not be aware yet that I am the most disadvantaged empire by far in the whole galaxy: you got trapped (and made your way out) with some natives to conquer. I just got nothing to colonize: 1 good planet, 2 adeq. (you control them now), 3 poor, and 2 barren for Exobots. Not a single native except those 57 you stole from me. In 7 hops around my HW! Well, plus the system owned by o01eg that has 1 more adeq. I think I could be doing better in your position than in mine. And that seems to be true judging by your huge fleet compared to mine, despite I've been doing little else in last 25 turns apart from pumping ships out.
If you don't believe me, check out Empires window and tell me what PP and RP you see for my empire. Is it bigger than yours by any chance?
I'm not playing because any prospects of victory. I know since turn 25 I have lost. Maybe my teammates can do something. Until swaq open the floodgates.
So no, you are NOT disadvantaged when compared to me, quite the opposite I would say (I still need to see your space to really know).
I was thoroughly trounced by L29Ah (it was a tactical decision to deny him access to my pilots
That he didn't like it, not being able to grab your species because you conceded and your populations just poof out. He asked to disable that option: if a player concedes, his planets and species remain. Now you have to do evacuation or something before conceding.
I suspect the use of chaff simply grew in subsequent games
Yes. L29Ah was our master, I think: bombers and chaff till the horizon.
and the arc was a response to that
Nope. Ophiuchus had been working on that for a long time. It arouse as an answer to comsat spam. The comsat spam got a simpler an faster fix: up its cost (there was some reluctance to it for the bad effect on troop drops, but it got fixed when Ophiuchus came with the idea of upping cost along with internal slots, simple but brilliant). But Arcs still had its own appeal for a new tactic: multishot anti-ship weapon, good against many small warships, bad against big shielded ships. There was no other weapon covering that niche. So it made its way into the game even when chaff (unarmed ships) could be solved in other ways.

Post Reply