Latest Feedback

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
IamZeke
Space Floater
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 9:11 pm

Latest Feedback

#1 Post by IamZeke »

As my sometimes custom I post a feedback thread. (I'm using the July 2020 version now)

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=10095
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=10639

First one went well and the 2nd degenerated because of of the audacity of me to criticize.

The 2nd likely because I wasn't pleased anymore of the game direction and some feeling determined to defend it. You've turned your focus, at least imo, towards multiplayer than expanding the depth of the single person game.

Let me get right in front of this and say that MP is of no value at all to me ever for this game. If I want MP then I have the entire MMO genre to indulge in. I do play MMO, but to be done right the game must be built around gaming clan architecture. All MP games must be MP games by design to ultimately have long term success. Trying to be both never has worked for the long term success of both SP and MP aspects. Make a choice and commit. Nothing less that 100% commitment to one of two every truly works.

The creators have to make a choice. MMO or Single Player. I expect some bravado to declare otherwise, but I've been seeing the trends since the 90's computer games. Show me a game that excelled at both long term. Granted that long term success for any computer game is rare, but the fact remains that all games ultimately end up picking one or the other.


If you choose MP for long term priority, I can't agree, but that isn't my place. You are volunteers creators. But I can recommend you get off the fence and quit trying to be everything to everyone. Do I need to bring up the cliches on that?

So my criticisms will be on the SP aspect. That's all I intend to play FO for. I'd appreciate it if you could declare MP is your planned future if that is indeed so, in order to go looking for SP games instead.


In my last thread I complained about the lack of good game starts. I prefer to "poll" for a good starting position. Like most everyone else in real life, I have no intention of simply taking what is thrust at me when I have options. A good starting position is the difference between a hard game I might simply quit or that I'll win handily. Nothing else changes the difficulty of this game like what you have to start with. That you require repeated toggling at the outset of each new game to create certain conditions shows a desire to suppress game polling. Always having to come back and uncheck the box for Experimentors is irritating. A player should be able to set all parameters (general, balance, multiplayer, test, content, planets) and toggle it to stay fixed until changed. I hate game polling a couple dozen times and needing to uncheck the Experitmentors box each time. And if I want a bonus of +1 on asteroid population I shouldn't need to go toggle it each poll. Of course you could accept that players poll the game for advantage and quit trying to suppress it. Hell you could even embrace and assist it but I'm wasting pixels pointing that out. Some content creators see polling as an insult. A forum thread poll was done after my last thread and it showed that a minority polled as a matter of habit. The poll being worded to "out" polling players obviously will suppress the % who admit it and then taken as a zero sum proof that because a minority do it then it can be ignored, instead of accepting thread poll being low and perhaps a minority habit is worth being catered to in order to make more users happy. As a setup toggle it need not upset the other group that dislikes it, but let's be politically correct and pander to cancel culture, right?

The prior point about truth in setup toggling is a true criticism. There are no difficulty settings with a toggle that mean anything. Aggression factor means little. So many starting parameters mean little as well. Disagree? Start with any race and choose a high planet count per system. Then change the number of systems. 150 systems have far fewer planets per system than 40 systems. I've learned to choose the latter to get the actual planet density I want, which gives lie to the actual planet density toggle. The games uses averaging algorithms in order to achieve a desired difficulty level, regardless of player choices. Why bother with toggles if you plan to overrule them anyway? If the toggle is to actually mean something then there should be the same number of average planets per system regardless of how many systems you chose at outset.

Let me harp on my old gripe for a moment. Empty systems should be far fewer and all of them dead ends. I don't care one bit about future stars and systems coalescing. The idea that happens in a living observable time frame is utterly preposterous. Newly created systems on dead open space is beyond unrealistic. It takes billions of years to happen. An empty system visited won't have an exit either. It's deep space. They don't hang exit signs in space. An early space faring species that makes a jump into deep space with nothing truly immediate on scanners is going to run back to the jump point they came from in panic before they lost track of it. That they could scan the volume of the average star system that is 100% empty and find an invisible jump point is absurd. Quit being so invested with your graphics that you create absurdities as a matter of normality. A big game of 150 to 200 systems might have a fraction of 1% coalescing over the technological expansion period of a species. It should be so rare as to not affect gameplay for most players. It darn sure shouldn't affect strategy or game setup parameters. If the game has any reflection of realism at all then empty systems are basically dead ends. If that makes connecting to the rest of the galaxy impossible then ditch all the empty systems with connections or simply trap the player for billions of gameplay years. Your plan to have graphical nebula create new systems because someone thought it was cool needs a cold water splash of reality. "Just a game" has limits of credulity because physics is here to stay.

You need to be more explicit on nerfs and bonuses. Scyliors always have an extra unlisted nerf of the home planet being one stage smaller. If you do it there then you do it to others without being explicit. Players deserve to know.

Make the AIs treat all opponents the same. I typically boost my radar early. I watch all the time where the AIs ignore aggressive expansion opportunity to a neighbor species, in order to pile up ship stacks hoping to outnumber the guardian force I have blocking access to my areas. The game is quietly geared to go after the player character before anything else. It's disingenuous to the concept gameplay. A real species would either button up equally or expand where they had opportunity. If you want to come out and say the game is always against the player then state it. Don't wrap it up with the fiction of game mechanics. Either the AIs are on the same team or they aren't, and that should be a toggle choice, not a quiet algorithm because creator want that.


OK, lets the feisty defenses begin. The last thread response to challenge my criticisms and come back with the ubiquitous "you should just learn to play better" fanboy responses is why this OP isn't soft with rounded edges. This time the criticism comes unvarnished and realizes the fanboys be fanboys that they deserved to be steamrolled at the outset. Those that actually want the feedback were given the best general explanation. If you want me to drill down more on a certain point then I'll be happy to to be more communicative. I'm basically here with a paired mind. Those that want to discuss my critique will be met cordially and be given the best feedback I can. Those that read this and think it is time to defend the ramparts will be met with the antagonism you fostered in the last go-round. All games get fanboy defenders who take umbrage at game criticism. I happen to be a fanboy of fanboy persecution. Those wanting to drill on aspects and get feedback will get the same from me neutrally. Those wanting an argument out of it will get it. I'm quite capable of doing both at the same time. Just remember that the past thread created the confrontational nature of this one. The group is responsible for its past. It's your choice to relive it or move on.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#2 Post by Oberlus »

TL;DR

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#3 Post by LienRag »

IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 am Disagree? Start with any race and choose a high planet count per system. Then change the number of systems. 150 systems have far fewer planets per system than 40 systems. I've learned to choose the latter to get the actual planet density I want, which gives lie to the actual planet density toggle. The games uses averaging algorithms in order to achieve a desired difficulty level, regardless of player choices. Why bother with toggles if you plan to overrule them anyway? If the toggle is to actually mean something then there should be the same number of average planets per system regardless of how many systems you chose at outset.
I'm not involved in the game code, but what you describe is either an hallucination from your part or a bug.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#4 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:45 am
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 am Disagree? Start with any race and choose a high planet count per system. Then change the number of systems. 150 systems have far fewer planets per system than 40 systems. I've learned to choose the latter to get the actual planet density I want, which gives lie to the actual planet density toggle. The games uses averaging algorithms in order to achieve a desired difficulty level, regardless of player choices. Why bother with toggles if you plan to overrule them anyway? If the toggle is to actually mean something then there should be the same number of average planets per system regardless of how many systems you chose at outset.
I'm not involved in the game code, but what you describe is either an hallucination from your part or a bug.
That part is probably true. Universe generation does fill the systems nearby a HW if it doesn't have enough planets. Its effect on planet density is negligible in normal setups (apart from the fact that no empire will have all empty systems at 3 or less hops from its HW), but is noticeably in a setup where all HW are at less than 6 hops from each other and the planet-filling routine sends low density to oblivion.
Not a bug, IMO. But universe generation could be improved, by allowing it to remove planets from dense HW vicinities when desired density is low, instead of always adding planets to low density vicinities. Not a priority I guess.

The part about "the game uses averaging algorithms" is just gibberish, I don't believe IAmZeke knows anything about the code or how it works.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#5 Post by Oberlus »

Some hints that could help players with issues similar to IAmZeke's:

You can change chances of empty systems by modifying some lines:
https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/ ... les.py#L30
L40, 42 and 44, the last value on each line.
L56-58, the first value on each line.

You don't need to toggle balance stuff on every game.
You can set game rules to disable Experimentors by default, I think, never tried. For sure you can change in game rules the planet sizes, cost factors and others.
But it would be cool to remenber toggles between games...

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

Re: Latest Feedback

#6 Post by Ophiuchus »

IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 am..long rant about what other people should or shouldnt do...

So my criticisms will be on the SP aspect. That's all I intend to play FO for. I'd appreciate it if you could declare MP is your planned future if that is indeed so, in order to go looking for SP games instead.
The game is/will both be MP and SP. The veterans here feel that AI is way too bad to give a good challenge (that is after you know the game very well). Yes that means that this is not a SP only game and balancing for MP will affect SP game. If that is not your cup of tea, just move on.
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 amEmpty systems should be far fewer and all of them dead ends.
In my opinion there are far too few empty systems, i hope we will add about an extra empty hop in the next fuel/speed/distance revamp.
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 am...long rant about realism...
You should know. We do care about realism... but we care about everything else more. And the kind of realism we care about is space-opera realism.
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 amScyliors always have an extra unlisted nerf of the home planet being one stage smaller.
This one may be valid
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 amMake the AIs treat all opponents the same.
AI does not even have a concept of different kinds of enemies. Confirmation bias i guess?
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 amThe last thread response to challenge my criticisms and come back with the ubiquitous "you should just learn to play better" fanboy responses
Still a valid response IMHO
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 amIf you want me to drill down more on a certain point then I'll be happy to to be more communicative.
You should try the opposite approach-I find it hard to find points in the noise. So rather stay short and on the point.
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!

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Latest Feedback

#7 Post by o01eg »

IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 am Let me get right in front of this and say that MP is of no value at all to me ever for this game. If I want MP then I have the entire MMO genre to indulge in. I do play MMO, but to be done right the game must be built around gaming clan architecture. All MP games must be MP games by design to ultimately have long term success. Trying to be both never has worked for the long term success of both SP and MP aspects. Make a choice and commit. Nothing less that 100% commitment to one of two every truly works.

The creators have to make a choice. MMO or Single Player. I expect some bravado to declare otherwise, but I've been seeing the trends since the 90's computer games. Show me a game that excelled at both long term. Granted that long term success for any computer game is rare, but the fact remains that all games ultimately end up picking one or the other.

If you choose MP for long term priority, I can't agree, but that isn't my place. You are volunteers creators. But I can recommend you get off the fence and quit trying to be everything to everyone. Do I need to bring up the cliches on that?
I've read up this entire text and found nothing about MP disadvantages. Also there wasn't such choice made and core devs never dropped SP part.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-11.2, boost-1.78.0
Ubuntu Server 22.04 x64, gcc-12, boost-1.74.0
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 2024-03-15.b3de094.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm

User avatar
drkosy
Space Dragon
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:41 am

Re: Latest Feedback

#8 Post by drkosy »

It's important to always think about that this game is 100% free and not a AAA production. The team does this all for free and they do great work :!:
I only do single player games and it feels great. The AI is not the greatest challenge, but there are others. Like: Terraform all planets to good enviroment the fastest you can. Play with monster count high. Optimize your gaming performance etc.
I played MOO2 a lot in highest AI difficulty. Only the first 100 rounds were challenging, but I played it on and on. Just to try out new strategies. Exactly that is what I like for that game. You can play it on and on.
Since I play singleplayer only I can just fiddle around with races, techs and so on to change the game the way I like it. I suggested some things here and my suggestions were refused. That's great because others know the game better than me. Therefore I just change things for myselve (like introduce hyper techs) :)
The possibility to easily modify the game is actually the greatest thing I like on the game.

By the way: There is really one thing I would like to have. A modelling kit for players species like MOO2. At start you choose "custom" and than you can model your own species. You have some starting points to spend, perks that cost points and nerfs that bring points. I know that is not on the priority list and therefore I do it by editing the .focs.txt files of the races :D Since I play only against AI that's not a problem...
Want some fresh experience? Try Kosymod

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#9 Post by defaultuser »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:42 pm
IamZeke wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:45 amScyliors always have an extra unlisted nerf of the home
You should try the opposite approach-I find it hard to find points in the noise. So rather stay short and on the point.
Yeah, I think there were some valid points that got lost amid the verbiage and paranoia (sorry).

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#10 Post by defaultuser »

I don't want to pile on the OP, because I think there's some validity in there.

I still don't exactly understand what Zeke means by toggling. Is that looking at the starting position on turn 1 and picking a different one? Or exploring out four or five turns then switching? It's often difficult to say how bad the start is until your 20-30 turns in.

With randomization, you're going to get a lot of variance because there are many moving parts. Trying to get a very similar start each time would require restrictions like X number of Adequate planets within three jumps and Y number of Good planets within five - that sort of thing. I'm not sure exactly what Zeke wants in that area. A ton of options?

And yeah, with it as it is, you can get some really easy starts, and some really bad ones. I think the bad ones, played to failure or success, teach you a lot more. Adversity is the mother of learning or something like that.

My basic game is Cluster, Low Planets, Low Starlanes, 150 systems, 4 AIs. The fact that games vary quite a bit with those basic settings is a plus for me. I don't have to change a bunch of parameters to get a different game style, and to me that's a good feature - not a problem.
Last edited by defaultuser on Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#11 Post by defaultuser »

It would be helpful to have discussions of the various topics brought up, in a clear and dispassionate manner. Explain the problem and what you'd like to see. Some things like settings that aren't "sticky" should be pretty easy to analyze and decide. Others are a bit unclear to me.

IamZeke
Space Floater
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 9:11 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#12 Post by IamZeke »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:48 amTL;DR
Then why even waste time replying?
LienRag wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:45 am I'm not involved in the game code, but what you describe is either an hallucination from your part or a bug.
I've used every version for about 4 years now. Planet density changes depending on how many systems you pick.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:04 am That part is probably true. Universe generation does fill the systems nearby a HW if it doesn't have enough planets. Its effect on planet density is negligible in normal setups (apart from the fact that no empire will have all empty systems at 3 or less hops from its HW), but is noticeably in a setup where all HW are at less than 6 hops from each other and the planet-filling routine sends low density to oblivion.
Not a bug, IMO. But universe generation could be improved, by allowing it to remove planets from dense HW vicinities when desired density is low, instead of always adding planets to low density vicinities. Not a priority I guess.

The part about "the game uses averaging algorithms" is just gibberish, I don't believe IAmZeke knows anything about the code or how it works.
Of course, I'm not bothering to read the code of this game. But program code to populate a simulation are used in many disciplines. It's not some deep mystery.

The idea that the game doesn't have empty systems at less than 3 hops is not true. I'll get an empty system next to or the 2nd one my homeworld in more than half my restarts. Fact is that getting empty systems within 3 are the norm. It's not just this version either. Of course, if you count a system that will coalesce later into a system as full then we disagree. Coalescing systems are basically useless to my early buildup and not worth my consideration at polling time.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:32 am Some hints that could help players with issues similar to IAmZeke's:
I appreciate the effort, but I'm not going to be poking into the code. My game modding time is for other games, like Transcendence.
Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:42 pm In my opinion there are far too few empty systems, i hope we will add about an extra empty hop in the next fuel/speed/distance revamp.
Because you want the game to play the way you want it to for every player instead of letting every player chose how they like to play the game.
This one may be valid
Maybe? The only maybe is that you haven't notice how many other instances, because there is no maybe about this one. You saying maybe is an attempt to dissemble.
AI does not even have a concept of different kinds of enemies. Confirmation bias i guess?
I can watch the game AIs repeatedly ignore open attack opportunities on each other all the time in favor of sending all production to the system facing the one with my blocking force.
Still a valid response IMHO
If you are creating game code for official release and are telling users to play better then you should be removed from the development team on the spot.
defaultuser wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:38 pm Yeah, I think there were some valid points that got lost amid the verbiage and paranoia (sorry).
Because the last time I tried to offer advice politely I got "you should play better" rammed at me. They took offense at polite criticism, so now I'll just be as rude as some were to me in the past here. Reap what is sown is the cliche.
defaultuser wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:02 pm I still don't exactly understand what Zeke means by toggling. Is that looking at the starting position on turn 1 and picking a different one? Or exploring out four or five turns then switching? It's often difficult to say how bad the start is until your 20-30 turns in.
Toggling means the choices made before the game starts.

So my polling goes like this. At turn one you look at the home system. Home world always has to be research oriented, so a gas giant or asteroids without another planet there you can set at some point to production are waste. If you see one of those then just restart because you've wasted local planet population. If it passes that then save the game and send scouts. The colony ship has to be landed almost immediately on a useful planet outside the home system, otherwise it is a waste. Then you will need about 2 or 3 more production planets close without having to fight to get at them. This is a couple scout moves into the game and more often than not will fail these basic requirements. If the game passes the homeworld test and the local production need test then you play for the 20-30 turns to find out if you will get the next tier needs. Those needs are White/blue star, a research buff planet, a populated black hole or red dwarf worth collapsing later for late game heavy ship production, a neutron star, and if a weak fighting race then a fighting species to capture. Finally you need a system in front of all that to block attack from while you ramp up behind it. If you can get all the system and planetary needs and a way to close the door on the rest of the races then winning is mostly assured. But getting all that has a very low probability and why I probably restart 30 to 50 games before accepting one that meets my needs. The most typical restart is seeing AI's that can access your core needs area from two directions.

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Latest Feedback

#13 Post by defaultuser »

Why does homeworld have to be research?

But you don't "need" all that stuff you say. People play games without that every day. Like I mentioned, working through a tough start teaches you a lot.

How would you even guarantee all that setup? A whole bunch of check boxes?

User avatar
drkosy
Space Dragon
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:41 am

Re: Latest Feedback

#14 Post by drkosy »

If you see one of those then just restart because you've wasted local planet population.
I really disagree, because you don't need a perfect start in the game. I once had only one planet to settle, the very next and only way out was blocked by a spacemonster. Nevertheless I won the game. It always depends on what you do and how you choose to move further. That is exactly what makes it interessting to play one game after another.
That's why I like the game as it is. Because I know that the game is at version 0.4.10 which means it's quite a long way to go...
Want some fresh experience? Try Kosymod

UrshMost
Space Kraken
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:32 am
Location: Great White North Eh

Re: Latest Feedback

#15 Post by UrshMost »

IamZeke wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:53 am So my polling goes like this. At turn one you look at the home system. Home world always has to be research oriented, so a gas giant or asteroids without another planet there you can set at some point to production are waste. If you see one of those then just restart because you've wasted local planet population. If it passes that then save the game and send scouts. The colony ship has to be landed almost immediately on a useful planet outside the home system, otherwise it is a waste. Then you will need about 2 or 3 more production planets close without having to fight to get at them. This is a couple scout moves into the game and more often than not will fail these basic requirements. If the game passes the homeworld test and the local production need test then you play for the 20-30 turns to find out if you will get the next tier needs. Those needs are White/blue star, a research buff planet, a populated black hole or red dwarf worth collapsing later for late game heavy ship production, a neutron star, and if a weak fighting race then a fighting species to capture. Finally you need a system in front of all that to block attack from while you ramp up behind it. If you can get all the system and planetary needs and a way to close the door on the rest of the races then winning is mostly assured. But getting all that has a very low probability and why I probably restart 30 to 50 games before accepting one that meets my needs. The most typical restart is seeing AI's that can access your core needs area from two directions.
If you enjoy playing that way then more power to you, but you may be the only one who plays like that. I personally like the challenge of difficult starts and it feels unfair when I occasionally get a really good start. The game becomes boring quickly and I restart. It's not uncommon for me to play 200 or 300 turns or more before I start to overcome some of the stronger enemies (300 systems, 12 AI). I have never abandoned a start because it was too hard. Do I lose sometimes? Sure, but that's the challenge that makes it fun. And it's a learning experience; how could I have done that better?

I usually play Human so my viewpoint may be skewed, but I only keep my homeworld on research until robotic hulls or so, but this varies game to game. Asteroids in your home system are never a waste, that's what Exobots are for.

Also, I think you are confusing MMO with multiplayer. A game that allows a few friends to play against each other in the same environment is 'massively' different from a game designed to be an MMO.
Windows 10 64bit, AMD 8 Core, 16 GB
Nvidia GTX 670 @ 3240x1920
FreeOrion Build: Latest Windows Test Build

Post Reply