Exobot Ideas

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#31 Post by Oberlus » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:25 pm

Pfff... My own nerdiness is hindering my reasoning here.

Harmoniliths, since they are lithic, it makes sense (to me) they can live deep in GGs, assuming lithic metabolisms can cope well with huge preasures and high temperatures.
Envirobrains, pictured as jellyfish or octopus (i.e. aquatic), wouldn't like to have to "swim" in an environment thicker than bitumen/tar or even in supercritical fluids. I picture Sly (gasbags) as living in the upper atmosphere of GGs, floating, but I can't picture octopuses "floating" in an hidrogen atmosphere. Because Envirobrains are aquatic, I'd like them in Terran, Swamp and Ocean, the most aquatic environments.

What about moving Exobot to Desert-Tundra-Barren, Harmoniliths Radiated-Inferno-Toxic and Envirobrains Terran-Ocean-Swamp?

The fact that Exobots are not Lithic is aside from the fact that the Crystal special is great for Empires rich in lithic populations. So, you place one single asteroid (with exobots) to growth focus and you get the bonus to all the rest lithic planets, including Harmoniliths on non-asteroid planets. You have no interest at all in the population bonus that would give the Crystal special to Harmoniliths in the Crystal asteroid belt itself, because they would be focused on growth and hence they would be producing nothing. And the rest of Harmoniliths in asteroid belts would be focused on influence, and hence would not get the production bonus from the eventual extra crystals they could have. You get more PPs and the same IPs if you let the Exobots in asteroids.

And yes, I confused Fulver with Jaumito's Nerada.

User avatar
labgnome
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#32 Post by labgnome » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:19 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:25 pm
Pfff... My own nerdiness is hindering my reasoning here.
Like I wouldn't understand that.
Harmoniliths, since they are lithic, it makes sense (to me) they can live deep in GGs, assuming lithic metabolisms can cope well with huge preasures and high temperatures.
See I was thinking of them not having much in the way of minerals to consume on gas giants and thus not really being able to grow there. Asteroids on the other hand...
Envirobrains, pictured as jellyfish or octopus (i.e. aquatic), wouldn't like to have to "swim" in an environment thicker than bitumen/tar or even in supercritical fluids. I picture Sly (gasbags) as living in the upper atmosphere of GGs, floating, but I can't picture octopuses "floating" in an hidrogen atmosphere. Because Envirobrains are aquatic, I'd like them in Terran, Swamp and Ocean, the most aquatic environments.
See I was picturing them preferring something nice and thick to just sit and float and think in, and thinking of the stereotypical "jellyfish floater" gas-giant creature. So weather the waters of ocean planets, or the mud of swamp plants or the sludge of toxic planets they would be at home.
What about moving Exobot to Desert-Tundra-Barren, Harmoniliths Radiated-Inferno-Toxic and Envirobrains Terran-Ocean-Swamp?

The fact that Exobots are not Lithic is aside from the fact that the Crystal special is great for Empires rich in lithic populations. So, you place one single asteroid (with exobots) to growth focus and you get the bonus to all the rest lithic planets, including Harmoniliths on non-asteroid planets. You have no interest at all in the population bonus that would give the Crystal special to Harmoniliths in the Crystal asteroid belt itself, because they would be focused on growth and hence they would be producing nothing. And the rest of Harmoniliths in asteroid belts would be focused on influence, and hence would not get the production bonus from the eventual extra crystals they could have. You get more PPs and the same IPs if you let the Exobots in asteroids.
So Exobots are supposed to get the robotic growth specials, which are only on the barren, radiated and inferno planets. If we move Exobots to desert, tundra and barren this messes-up that whole setup and we might want or even need to re-evaluate the distributions of the growth specials. Which is something which is an even bigger consideration than just introducing new species.

Going off of that, any lithic artificial species should be able to take advantage of the lithic metabolism special on asteroids. To my knowledge you have to be of the right metabolism to even use a special for the growth focus, so you can't use the crystals special in asteroid belts with exobots, as they are robotic not lithic.

If we are going to be switching around habitability, Harmonoliths can get asteroids and Exobots can loose them, if we want to have only one artificial species get them.

However if we are going to re-think the metabolism specials that is going to be quite an undertaking, but we could instead move one of the robotic specials to asteroids, if you are determined that only Exobots should get asteroids. It's a question of which task you would rather undertake.

However, if I remember correctly that one of the reasons that the "Gaseous" metabolism was created was that having the growth focus and having gas giants was considered too powerful at the time. So maybe having any of the artificial species get gas giants is a bad idea.

I'm going to go-ahead and re-suggest my former arrangement minus gas giant preference, as it's the simplest and works the best with what is already in the game, and requires the least re-working, and will be fairly strait-forward and easy to follow. Everyone gets asteroids, but at a different tolerance and no-one gets gas giants.

Exobots
  • Adequate: Barren, Radiated, Inferno
  • Poor: Tundra, Toxic, Asteroid
  • Hostile: Swamp, Ocean, Terran, Desert
Envirobrains
  • Adequate: Toxic, Swamp, Ocean
  • Poor: Inferno, Terran
  • Hostile: Desert, Tundra, Barren, Inferno, Asteroid
Harmonoliths
  • Adequate: Terran, Desert, Tundra, Asteroid
  • Poor: Ocean, Barren
  • Hostile: Radiated, Inferno, Toxic, Swamp
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.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#33 Post by Oberlus » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:35 pm

labgnome wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:19 pm
See I was thinking of them not having much in the way of minerals to consume on gas giants and thus not really being able to grow there.
The same applies to every living being. We all need minerals to live. Plus GGs are not free of minerals in their cores.
So Exobots are supposed to get the robotic growth specials, which are only on the barren, radiated and inferno planets. If we move Exobots to desert, tundra and barren this messes-up that whole setup and we might want or even need to re-evaluate the distributions of the growth specials.
I don't find problematic moving specials between environments. Plus there is no real problem here because:
To my knowledge you have to be of the right metabolism to even use a special for the growth focus
That is false (now). Exobots can be set to growth in an asteroid with Crystals and you get the bonus on every lithic-populated world supply-connected.

Exobots in barren and asteroids (that is tiny barren worlds) makes a lot of sense (immersion for me).
However, if I remember correctly that one of the reasons that the "Gaseous" metabolism was created was that having the growth focus and having gas giants was considered too powerful at the time. So maybe having any of the artificial species get gas giants is a bad idea.
That could be solved by setting a malus on GGs or not allowing the special bonuses on GGs.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#34 Post by Krikkitone » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:11 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:35 pm
However, if I remember correctly that one of the reasons that the "Gaseous" metabolism was created was that having the growth focus and having gas giants was considered too powerful at the time. So maybe having any of the artificial species get gas giants is a bad idea.
That could be solved by setting a malus on GGs or not allowing the special bonuses on GGs.
Or have a 4th "exobot" using the gaseous metabolism (say high level so it can have any focus.. but not particularly good at any)

User avatar
labgnome
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#35 Post by labgnome » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:32 pm

Krikkitone wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:11 pm
Oberlus wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:35 pm
However, if I remember correctly that one of the reasons that the "Gaseous" metabolism was created was that having the growth focus and having gas giants was considered too powerful at the time. So maybe having any of the artificial species get gas giants is a bad idea.
That could be solved by setting a malus on GGs or not allowing the special bonuses on GGs.
Or have a 4th "exobot" using the gaseous metabolism (say high level so it can have any focus.. but not particularly good at any)
I could see that, a species of "Jovians", that are gas-giant generalists, maybe something for the Void theme.
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.

User avatar
LienRag
Space Kraken
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#36 Post by LienRag » Sun May 17, 2020 2:01 pm

JonCST wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:03 pm
To me, the key thing about Exobots is that they enable colonizing asteroids. This is a bonus for production, because of the microgravity tech, and is the main reason for researching them rather than conquering a species which covers the barren/radiated/inferno niche when my "primary" species can't live in those "hostile three".
That's how I played them, but I learned recently that Outposts don't raise Upkeep, which means colonizing Asteroids is actually a bad idea since their very small production pales in comparison to the Upkeep raise they generate, at least in large enough Galaxies ?

On another topic, I like the way you're avoiding your new exobots to generate a total symmetry between environments, but shouldn't it be taken a bit further ?
Usually at middle-game (when Exobots appear) most Empires already have planets devoted to Production, others devoted to Research, and with the Government branch merged they'll have other devoted to Influence.
So the Harmoniliths and Envirobrains will not make for such big a difference in gameplay (some difference of course, but not that much) except maybe for players that spam them everywhere.
The fact that they are in different Research domains makes them more different, but has the drawback to make these Research domains less different.
labgnome wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:12 pm
Maybe the artificial species can be upgraded in different ways. So maybe the Envirobrain upgrade gets them more environments? Maybe other species start off at bad or average for their special focus, and the upgraded versions get better, while Envirobrains start off better, but just get access to more environments?
That's a good point to start, but we probably can do more.

To make these fancy Harmoniliths and Envirobrains more different from each others and from Exobots, maybe put them at different Research tiers ? Note that anyway Research-oriented species will have higher tiers earlier, so they can get higher-tier 'bots at nearly the same time than Production-oriented species gets lower-tier ones.

Maybe make Harmoniliths dependent on having one Lithic-metabolism specie in the Empire (to not break playability on no-native Galaxy Settings, we can have a high-tiered Research "Artificial Lithic Metabolism" that removes this constraint) ?

Also change how they work ?
Right now Exobots are the only colony that doesn't depend on being supply-connected, let's keep them like that and make Envirobrain available on an Oupost only if being supply-connected to another Envirobrain Colony or to any Organic-Metabolism Colony or to a Tundra outpost hosting a "Cryonic Artificial Life laboratory"...
And Harmoniliths could depend on a supply-connected Neutron star (for giving the "spark of life" to the initial crystal) to be available ?

Wouldn't that make for much more diversified gameplay and brings much dissymmetry to how 'bots compensate the starting specie' s preferred environments ?

User avatar
labgnome
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#37 Post by labgnome » Mon May 18, 2020 4:41 am

LienRag wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 2:01 pm
So the Harmoniliths and Envirobrains will not make for such big a difference in gameplay (some difference of course, but not that much) except maybe for players that spam them everywhere.
Their primary function isn't neissisarily for a big difference in gameplay, but to have access to different environments, particular in galaxies with low or no natives.
To make these fancy Harmoniliths and Envirobrains more different from each others and from Exobots, maybe put them at different Research tiers ? Note that anyway Research-oriented species will have higher tiers earlier, so they can get higher-tier 'bots at nearly the same time than Production-oriented species gets lower-tier ones.
The thing is you are going to want envirobrains more if you are starting off with a bad research species. So if anything they should be available earlier, not later.
Maybe make Harmoniliths dependent on having one Lithic-metabolism specie in the Empire (to not break playability on no-native Galaxy Settings, we can have a high-tiered Research "Artificial Lithic Metabolism" that removes this constraint) ?

Also change how they work ?
Right now Exobots are the only colony that doesn't depend on being supply-connected, let's keep them like that and make Envirobrain available on an Oupost only if being supply-connected to another Envirobrain Colony or to any Organic-Metabolism Colony or to a Tundra outpost hosting a "Cryonic Artificial Life laboratory"...
And Harmoniliths could depend on a supply-connected Neutron star (for giving the "spark of life" to the initial crystal) to be available ?
These suggestions I generally dislike.

Firstly part of the purpose of artificial species is that you don't need that pesky supply connection to a homeworld or another colony. You can just create them on the spot because they are artificial.

Secondly, they should be available to species of different metabolism types, if for anything to me it makes more sense that a non-organic species would create an artificial organic species, the same way a non-robotic species would create an artificial robotic species.

Thirdly, some magical "spark of life" coming form a neutron star sounds ore science-fantasy to me then science-fiction to me.

So here's something going off of my original suggestion and expanding on the idea that maybe gives you a bit of what you want.
  • Exobots: desert, tundra, barren as adequate. Also get asteroids as poor. Bad research and influence, average production.
    • Dust Repellent Construction: extra Exobot production on desert planets.
    • Cryogenic Lubrication Fluids: extra Exobot production on tundra planets.
    • Vacuum Engineering: extra Exobot production on barren planets.
    • Zero-Gravity Mechanics: extra production on asteroids.
  • Harmonoliths: radiated, inferno, toxic. Bad production and research, average influence. Also telepathic.
    • Harmonic Resonance: extra Harmonolith influence.
    • Hyperspacial Senses: gives prescience to Harmonoliths.
    • Psionic Resonance: gives telepathic detection to Harmonoliths.
    • Subsapce Link: gives shared vision to Harmonoliths.
  • Envirobrains: swamp, ocean, terran. Bad production and influence, good research.
    • Anti-Desiccation Mucus: extra population on desert planets.
    • Toxin Resistance: extra population on toxic planets.
    • Cryoprotective Enzymes: extra population on tundra planets.
    • Heat Tolerance: extra population on inferno planets.
    • Vacuum Adaptation: extra population on barren planets.
    • Radiation Resistance: extra population on radiated planets.
  • Jovians: gas giants. "Bad" at production, research, and influence.
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.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#38 Post by Oberlus » Mon May 18, 2020 10:49 am

labnome, I agree with many of what you say in your post.
Now what I disagree:


I don't like the Jovians. Four artificial species, when we know Geoff disliked the very idea of having more than one? Nah.
Give GGs to Envirobrains as poor (they float in the upper layers of the atmosphere), and that's it for the GGs.
And cross fingers for we ever getting more than one artificial species in the game.


Techs specific for pairs of environment+species: hell, no.
The bigger the tech tree gets, the worse. Plus it gives no fun at all, just more clicks and mouse sweeps.
Let the artificial species be affected by the same habitability techs that affect any other species. Aren't they all species? That's enough. Not open to discussion. You can go implement all that utterly cluttered stuff yourselves, and make a PR on GitHub, but you'll have my fanatical disapproval and I bet also the disapproval from more than one freeorion devs.


Envirobrains good research: no-no.
They are intended to be bad species for most of it, average at something is already more than enough.
Do not let every empire have good research species just from researching. Too much of a no-brainer for every bad/average species and for every non-wet environment species.

User avatar
labgnome
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#39 Post by labgnome » Mon May 18, 2020 11:59 am

Oberlus wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 10:49 am
I don't like the Jovians. Four artificial species, when we know Geoff disliked the very idea of having more than one? Nah.
Give GGs to Envirobrains as poor (they float in the upper layers of the atmosphere), and that's it for the GGs.
And cross fingers for we ever getting more than one artificial species in the game.
Envirobrains shouldn't get gas giants for the same reason exobots shouldn't get them, the combination of gas giant size and abundance paired with a growth special is too powerful. It is largely an idea to follow @Krikkitone's suggestion.
Techs specific for pairs of environment+species: hell, no.
The bigger the tech tree gets, the worse. Plus it gives no fun at all, just more clicks and mouse sweeps.
Let the artificial species be affected by the same habitability techs that affect any other species. Aren't they all species? That's enough. Not open to discussion. You can go implement all that utterly cluttered stuff yourselves, and make a PR on GitHub, but you'll have my fanatical disapproval and I bet also the disapproval from more than one freeorion devs.
Again, it was really a suggestion to accommodate @LienRag, by making their improvements asymmetrical.
Envirobrains good research: no-no.
They are intended to be bad species for most of it, average at something is already more than enough.
Do not let every empire have good research species just from researching. Too much of a no-brainer for every bad/average species and for every non-wet environment species.
Well the idea is that they would not get "boosts" to their research so they would start off better. But I can see your point.
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.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#40 Post by Oberlus » Mon May 18, 2020 12:19 pm

labgnome wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 11:59 am
Envirobrains shouldn't get gas giants for the same reason exobots shouldn't get them, the combination of gas giant size and abundance paired with a growth special is too powerful.
The GG trouble would be solved by changing HabitableSize of GGs from 6 to 4 (and remove the special trait of Sly devised to cope with that problem indirectly, which I always found rather hacky and awkward having the ability to set HabitableSize as per our needs).

I don't care if it is a follow up idea of anyone else, I just stated that the more artificial species the less likely we get this done.
Also, several veteran players have stated their dislike on the several artificial species, not just Geoff. They prefer the general Exobot approach.
Again, it was really a suggestion to accommodate @LienRag, by making their improvements asymmetrical.
Again: don't.
It's irrelevant if it is to accommodate someone else's preferences or yours. What matters is that it is a bad idea against several design principles of FreeOrion.
Well the idea is that they would not get "boosts" to their research so they would start off better. But I can see your point.
No reason for that, except maybe to accommodate someone's bizarre preferences.

User avatar
labgnome
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#41 Post by labgnome » Mon May 18, 2020 12:56 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 12:19 pm
...
That's a lot of hostility for a post that's actually agreeing with you.

As far as other players preferring the just exobots approach, those are not conversations I have had access to so I can't be expected to be aware of that. I really wish they had said something on the forums. This combined with my inability to get missiles to work is really disheartening. I mean I was in favor of exobots everywhere, but started this thread the way it as because that idea seemed to get a lot of push-back. I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative effort where we strove for consensus. Should I not try to incorporate other people's ideas into my own? Should I not try to reach an acceptable compromise?
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.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#42 Post by Oberlus » Mon May 18, 2020 2:38 pm

labgnome wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 12:56 pm
That's a lot of hostility for a post that's actually agreeing with you.
I don't know what hostility you mean.
Re. hostility: my post wasn't intended to be hostile, just blunt.
However, when you say "again, <something>" (which you say very often), it makes me think "again, as I already said and for some reason you didn't read or understand", which is awkward and disgusting to me, and certainly causes some frustration. Specially when you didn't state that clearly or it is completely out of the question for the message you are responding with that "again". But also because the forum is FULL of cases when you've been told to not over-extend on cluttered ideas, to keep things simple, and you keep doing the same again and again, but no body starts the sentences for you with an "again" (maybe I do, usually after one of your "again"). Do you get this? If you find my "again" hostile, maybe you should look into the way you communicate yourself. And preferably you could stop referring to someone else's hostility and just focus on the ideas you want to defend.

This "you're hostile" thingy between you and me happens quite often. Apart from my own tendency to be aggressive in the exposure of my ideas when I have to do it repeatedly, and specially when I find someone's way to address to me somehow disrespectful, I'd like to understand why this keeps happening.
Could you quote the sentences that seem hostile to you and explain to me why are they hostile to you? I will gladly explain the meaning and any frustration on my part that might make you uncomfortable.
As far as other players preferring the just exobots approach, those are not conversations I have had access to so I can't be expected to be aware of that.
That's why I am telling you. How could you know if I don't tell it to you? I don't know what's the point of you telling this, maybe excusing yourself? No need to: we share ideas, others say if they like it or not, and why. No need to keep taking "noes" as direct attacks to ourselves. Specially when one says "I don't like it because this and that", the other answers "your wrong for not liking it", and the one answers again "no, you're wrong from trying to convince me". That's a rather common blather that most of us commit to in our lives, we just need to learn to avoid them since they serve no purpose except to defend our self-wounded egos and to make threads in the forum unreadable.
I really wish they had said something on the forums.
You could also wish they to agree with you. Still, that will change nothing.
This combined with my inability to get missiles to work is really disheartening.
I also find disheartening when people keep suggesting things that are (to me) rather obviously against FreeOrion design principles and so are only useful to clutter the forums and pollute discussions. But I try to go on in spite of that.
Regarding missiles, have you tried installing Linux and compiling FreeOrion with Ophiuchus missiles PR? You can ask for help. But you can't call "inhability" to someone's refusal to do something. I mean, refusal <> inability.
I mean I was in favor of exobots everywhere, but started this thread the way it as because that idea seemed to get a lot of push-back.
What? I don't understand what this sentence really mean or what it has to do with previous quotes.
I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative effort where we strove for consensus.
Yes, that's what it is. That I don't like something or I set hard limits to what I can accept is part of the efforts to get such consensus. You can't expect that someone is going to cave in to your interests or tastes, specially if they are directly against the design principles of FreeOrion (which are hard limits).
I hope you can understand me and deal with strong "noes" from time to time.
Should I not try to incorporate other people's ideas into my own? Should I not try to reach an acceptable compromise?
Should you not try to incorporate bad ideas that degrade gameplay or are disliked by most players or go against design principles?
Absolutely. I mean, yeah, you should not.

Should you not try to reach an "acceptable" compromise between a bad idea and a good one?
Obviously you should not. The consensus to be reach is between good but incompatible ideas, as long as they fit well in FreeOrion design principles.
Many buildings for the same thing, many techs for the same thing, many clicks, many very-similar things, too much realism that hinders fun gameplay <- Bad ideas, avoid them.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Exobot Ideas

#43 Post by Ophiuchus » Mon May 18, 2020 2:46 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 2:38 pm
labgnome wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 12:56 pm
This combined with my inability to get missiles to work is really disheartening.
Regarding missiles, have you tried installing Linux and compiling FreeOrion with Ophiuchus missiles PR? You can ask for help.
For that PR at the beginning there was something missing in the backend. By now it is default-folder only and does not really need any compilation. But if you like i can build a snapped version you can install on linux. Or you ask for help in compilation in the correct forum here.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
labgnome
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#44 Post by labgnome » Mon May 18, 2020 4:13 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 2:38 pm
I don't know what hostility you mean.
Honestly...
However, when you say "again, <something>" (which you say very often), it makes me think "again, as I already said and for some reason you didn't read or understand", which is awkward and disgusting to me, and certainly causes some frustration. Specially when you didn't state that clearly or it is completely out of the question for the message you are responding with that "again". But also because the forum is FULL of cases when you've been told to not over-extend on cluttered ideas, to keep things simple, and you keep doing the same again and again, but no body starts the sentences for you with an "again" (maybe I do, usually after one of your "again"). Do you get this? If you find my "again" hostile, maybe you should look into the way you communicate yourself. And preferably you could stop referring to someone else's hostility and just focus on the ideas you want to defend.
This, this right here. And the rest of your post. It's the whole thing.

The fact that you go on-and-on, like your trying to shout over me in the forum. Picking apart every little thing for the smallest flaws. You're not being blunt, you're being mean. If you were just being blunt you could have said all of that in a sentence, maybe two, not a whole paragraph. Literally a whole paragraph about the fact that I started one sentence with the word "again".

It's literally that I agreed with you and told you you were correct but that wasn't enough for you. You wanted more. I don't know what. Do you want some apology out of me? Are you wanting to make this into an argument? Are you thinking you can humiliate me somehow with your arguments? Like why take apart my post with paragraph after paragraph going on about how awful I am? Or tell me how bad my ideas are? What do you hope to get out of this?

You go on like I did something horrible by trying to incorporate other people's ideas. Maybe they weren't the best. So what? Maybe you don't like them. So what? I got feedback, accepted it, but for some reason you don't want to move on. You say I'm bad at focusing on the topic but you're not any better at it than I am.
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.

User avatar
labgnome
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Exobot Ideas

#45 Post by labgnome » Mon May 18, 2020 4:26 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 2:46 pm
Oberlus wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 2:38 pm
labgnome wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 12:56 pm
This combined with my inability to get missiles to work is really disheartening.
Regarding missiles, have you tried installing Linux and compiling FreeOrion with Ophiuchus missiles PR? You can ask for help.
For that PR at the beginning there was something missing in the backend. By now it is default-folder only and does not really need any compilation. But if you like i can build a snapped version you can install on linux. Or you ask for help in compilation in the correct forum here.
I worry I'm beyond help. I tried with one of the newer releases of Free Orion and it didn't work. I'll try it again.

As far as compiling goes I literally have no idea how to compile. I'd need to be walked through everything.
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.

Post Reply