AI QoL Changes

[CockADoodleDoo]

Hi!

With the changes to weapons, fleet engagements are exacerbating the issues that existed before weapons 2.0. Namely:

1. Strafing AI can't detect friendlies/enemies, will often collide into one another.
2. Poor distancing when idle.
3. Clueless players who are unaware that certain AI orders are broken.

Adding an AI spacing variable to the server.cfg would go a long way to fixing the first two problems. Calculating the distance to space the ships based on the maximum length of the ships, so that way formation order can be used again.

For the last one, the idle order should be removed full-stop. Neither of these orders serve a functional purpose. A ship sent on a move order will set to default to idle once they complete their move order. What is the purpose of a fleet ship that won't shoot at an attacking enemy? Idle order should be removed and the default order be idle-sentry.

 

[Edymnion]

Yeah, the AI is, to be blunt, a piece of crap right now. That's kind of intentional.

Its basically just bare boned enough to be functional right now so that various things can be tested. Like ships only really have to be able to move and fire. Turrets only have to be able to track and fire. Fleet commands only have to be basic enough to be proof of concept.

A full AI rewrite is going to be either part of the Universe revamp, or one of the patches immediately following it. This is due to the nature of writing an AI. You have to explicitly tell it how to use every single feature in the game, and if you keep adding or changing features, then the AI won't know how to use them anymore. So, instead of trying to keep the AI current, they've been putting it off until everything is done and they only have to redo it once.

 

[CockADoodleDoo]

Ok, these are still good suggestions for when that rewrite happens. You do not to be defensive of schine about this, that's why it's a suggestion.

 

[Edymnion]

Ok, these are still good suggestions for when that rewrite happens. You do not to be defensive of schine about this, that's why it's a suggestion.

Dude, thats not being defensive. Its "Yeah, it sucks right now. Here's why its like that now, and here's where they already plan on doing what you said."

 

[Lecic]

Dude, thats not being defensive. Its "Yeah, it sucks right now. Here's why its like that now, and here's where they already plan on doing what you said."

It does come off as a little defensive. "I know it's bad but let me write 2 long paragraphs trying to justify why it's okay right now that it sucks because they're probably fixing it in the future!"

Furthermore large chunks of this suggestion are basic AI functions that have nothing to do with future game features. "Don't collide with other ships" isn't something I foresee changing as a requirement for AI, unlike things like knowing how to use systems, which can change. This also extends to AI features that are outright broken at the moment, such as the idle command. Why are these features enabled when all they do is confuse and harm new or uninformed players?

These functions should have been implemented long ago because they work regardless of future system changes.

 

[Edymnion]

It does come off as a little defensive.

Huh, my bad then. Sorry.

Furthermore large chunks of this suggestion are basic AI functions that have nothing to do with future game features. "Don't collide with other ships" isn't something I foresee changing as a requirement for AI, unlike things like knowing how to use systems, which can change. This also extends to AI features that are outright broken at the moment, such as the idle command. These functions should have been implemented long ago because they work regardless of future system changes.

Well, at the time they were put in when the fleet options first came out, and served mostly as a "Hey, look at what we're thinking about doing" placeholder. Several of them outright say "This is buggy, be careful with this one". So its more like they're unfinished because they just never got back to them, due to them being "good enough" to test the basic concepts.

Why are these features enabled when all they do is confuse and harm new or uninformed players?

Because honestly, they're not interested in catering to new players right now.

I mean, it sounds bad, but its the truth. They're focusing on getting these revamps done, after which they are going to spruce everything up and THEN start working on advertising and actually trying to get new players. Right now they just plain don't want new players, because they don't need them.

 

[MacThule]

IIRC there's no "probably" about it - AI is already on the list for overhaul in the very next development phase, for painfully obvious reasons. It was weak before, basically a stub, and Schine obviously knew before overhauling weapons and power that it would need substantial re-calibration afterward to be functional with new systems. For that reason, I don't really know if any specific suggestions of how to fix individual AI problems are going to be relevant at this juncture since the core AI code itself might see substantial changes over the next few months.

But right now really is definitely the perfect time to drag out all the past and present problems and concerns with the game's AI because Schine needs to be aware of anything they have overlooked from the player perspective as they move into the next phase of actually overhauling AI.

I particularly love the idea of replacing Idle with Sentry as the default fleet condition. Schine seems to be heavily prioritizing strategic level play (empires, fleets, etc), so little stuff like this will become more and more of a big deal over time for players. Idle should be an option, because options are good and it already exists so there's no work involved in keeping it, but no one wants their fleets to constantly default to ignoring threats.

Personally, I am really hoping that Schine will be retaining additional, specialist support to develop the game's AI (the way they did for roids and planets) rather than trying to go it entirely in-house and treating it as a minor aspect of the game. There are loads of really amazing AI developers out there in today's market, and the game would benefit massively from an excellent AI.



On a side note unrelated to the original post itself; I try not to judge the value of an idea based on who is suggesting/objecting to it, but anymore it might be asking a lot of surviving forum members to pretend that they don't see who is posting. A wild chicken from 4chan Ranch isn't straight-up inviting a defensive response? That's not even real talk.

Edymnion probably wasn't put on the defensive because of the content of the suggestion or because some aspect of the game was (very validly) criticized. I don't think anyone here needs to pretend CuckADoodleDoo doesn't know that he's actively set himself up for a pretty much constant stream of defensive reactions based on his name alone (if for no other reason than bringing provincial politics to the table, up front, in every interaction he has), before ever even considering anything else about what he says, how he frames it, when he joined, etc.

If the chicken got some forum meta games that's fine - no one can stop him from playing, but obvious is obvious. Are y'all really going to fault people for reacting defensively to that? Is everyone really (still) supposed to just "play dumb?" Or do y'all actually assume everyone really is that dumb? I hope not, because assuming everyone else is a fool is a fool's error - it starts to just look like projection after a while.

It's a really good suggestion, at least in part. No one's fault but the cuck's own if his little forum games are more important than communicating about the actual game with an account not clearly designed to provoke a defensive response.

 

[Nosajimiki]

It does come off as a little defensive. "I know it's bad but let me write 2 long paragraphs trying to justify why it's okay right now that it sucks because they're probably fixing it in the future!"

Furthermore large chunks of this suggestion are basic AI functions that have nothing to do with future game features. "Don't collide with other ships" isn't something I foresee changing as a requirement for AI, unlike things like knowing how to use systems, which can change. This also extends to AI features that are outright broken at the moment, such as the idle command. Why are these features enabled when all they do is confuse and harm new or uninformed players?

These functions should have been implemented long ago because they work regardless of future system changes.

This is actually not as obvious as you think. There are a LOT of ways to tell two entities to not hit each other, and which solution is optimal may depend on factors that are not yet set in stone. The main hurdle is the many body problem. Making one entity avoid another is easy, but with a cluster of 30 entities, they will all just bounce around like a bunch of ADHD kids on LSD unless you establish a system for them to coordinate their evations. To solve this problem, the game will require a flight planning algorithm where ships choose a path and stick with it over a period of time where ships prioritize flight orders by factors including size, maneuverability, weapon ranges, extruded flight path profiles (with variance over time to account for recoil), clearness of airspace, ship role classification, etc.

If Schine implements this, and then decided to make a change to how thrust, mobility chambers, weapon ranges, or ship role classification work, then the AI could break.

 

[Edymnion]

Yeah, we know there are currently algorithms in place to make sure you don't spawn anything inside the bounding box of another object (its why sometimes spawning in a turret for your station tosses it damned near into the next sector), so there is some basic idea of "Hey, don't go here" already in effect. Like Nosajimiki said though, you're trying to actively determine paths for multiple moving objects in 3D space in real time, and thats some tricky calculations.

Its gonna have to happen though, just to keep drones from ramming their carriers if nothing else.

 

[Lecic]

I don't think anyone here needs to pretend CuckADoodleDoo doesn't know that he's actively set himself up for a pretty much constant stream of defensive reactions based on his name alone (if for no other reason than bringing provincial politics to the table, up front, in every interaction he has), before ever even considering anything else about what he says, how he frames it, when he joined, etc.

If the chicken got some forum meta games that's fine - no one can stop him from playing, but obvious is obvious. Are y'all really going to fault people for reacting defensively to that? Is everyone really (still) supposed to just "play dumb?" Or do y'all actually assume everyone really is that dumb? I hope not, because assuming everyone else is a fool is a fool's error - it starts to just look like projection after a while.

It's a really good suggestion, at least in part. No one's fault but the cuck's own if his little forum games are more important than communicating about the actual game with an account not clearly designed to provoke a defensive response.

Sounds like you're saying it's okay to treat a forum user differently based on unfounded assumptions about them.

 

[MacThule]

Sounds like you're saying it's okay to treat a forum user differently based on unfounded assumptions about them.

So you got games. Ok. You're gonna pretend "Cuck" is totally innocuous.

That's fun.

I'm not saying biased treatment of legit accounts is justified, but I am saying that some elements have forced people to exercise more personal discretion - rather than pretending that things like alting don't happen - necessary. And yes - it is literally within anyone's rights to make judgements about the individuals they interact with and respond accordingly. Wouldn't you agree?

As mentioned in the post you quoted me from, I strive not to judge based on the individual, but when it calls into question whether their interactions are even genuine, the identity has relevance.

Anyway... sounds like you're saying you don't actually know what cuck means or that only a very small cross-section of the political spectrum uses the term.

Would you also "act surprised" at forum members having a defensive reaction to someone with a username Zyk-B88 and using a Maltese Cross with some lightning bolts in it as their profile image? Would you pretend that defensiveness was unwarranted and not being deliberately provoked by the mask the member chose to present in forum? It's an extreme example and not equivalent, but when you make your profile about RL politics, it's not rational to then demand that others only respond to the in-game comments you make and not the comments you've made with your fictional personality as well.

 

[Cluwne]

Is that the smell of double standards and generally being full of shit I smell?

I try not to judge the value of an idea based on who is suggesting/objecting to it
*Does it anyway with a thinly-veiled personal attack.*

Yep, it is.

Worrying about who puts what in their name or avatar is a sign of being shallow an petty. You just implied that it's okay to treat people based on their name and not what they're actually saying. Is it also okay to treat people differently based on their avatar? How about their real name, hometown or country? And why not throw in race and skin color while you're at it.

A person can have a name like "HolocaustNeverHappened" with dancing Hitler in the avatar and you know what? I wouldn't give a single flying fuck. And neither should you.
If "KKK1488" makes a post in "Suggestions" I judge him or her or xer based on the content of that post, not their rather boring and uncreative choice of a name.
I find it incredibly ironic that an asshat clown seems to act more mature that the other, more "serious" forum members.

BACK ON TOPIC

For the last one, the idle order should be removed full-stop. Neither of these orders serve a functional purpose. A ship sent on a move order will set to default to idle once they complete their move order. What is the purpose of a fleet ship that won't shoot at an attacking enemy? Idle order should be removed and the default order be idle-sentry.

I politely disagree. Being able to leave ships idling in a sector without actually engaging anyone could be used to show force, threaten or otherwise keep ships ready in case the peace negotiation doesn't work out. In other words, it's mostly for RP and micromanaging. But no matter how useless it may seem it can be used to deepen the gameplay significantly, if only for a portion of players.

I do agree with fixing the non-functional orders though. We know, The Big Fix is coming with the universe update sometime Soon™, but it would be nice to have working stuff right now, without having to wait another year or maybe more, depending if Schine thinks pushing out the universe update is more important than having a working fleet AI.

 

[MacThule]

Worrying about who puts what in their name or avatar is a sign of being shallow an petty.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Mine is that calling out an openly provocative username for what it clearly is is being real, while demanding that everyone pretend member responses shouldn't be colored by deliberate provocation is an old and obvious sham, and completely without merit. I am also fairly confident that everyone can see that regardless of any attempt to undermine my personal character, whether forum readers bother to weigh in on the issue or not.

I wouldn't even note the issue - I've played along with Cuck so far - but a forum member was admonished for a slightly and politely defensive response when Cuck is obviously baiting such reactions at the outset of every interaction by his very handle. It's not a name he was given at birth by chance, it's what he chose, specifically to flaunt his own personal politics.

Pressuring forum members to ignore small but overt provocations is the thin edge of the wedge. From there it's a short step to painting their calculated reactions to the deliberate baiting as the actual misbehavior. Same old shenanigans, new alternate ID.

A person can have a name like "HolocaustNeverHappened" with dancing Hitler in the avatar and you know what? I wouldn't give a single flying fuck. And neither should you.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Your tolerance is laudable.

There is a reason why baiting is against the rules though. It's not innovation; it's old hat. So old that proscribing it is boilerplate in most forums at this point. This isn't a political freeze peach zone - it's private property and the owners have liability to consider. Real world stuff.

Petty provincial politics have no place here, and rubbing contentious political positions in people's faces here is straight up baiting.

So... your generous counsel is duly noted, but all of my fucks - flying, swimming, and running - are mine to give as I please. I have very little regard for your opinion about what my ethical standards "should" be.

Thank you anyway.
[doublepost=1531212894,1531212286][/doublepost]I'm not reporting Cuck for his profile or even suggesting that any action should necessarily be taken over his name.

It's a very minor provocation.

I just want him (and his friends) to be real. Not complain about people responding defensively and feign victimization, when off-topic, political provocation is clearly his intent.

 

[MrGrey1]

Worrying about who puts what in their name or avatar is a sign of being shallow an petty. You just implied that it's okay to treat people based on their name and not what they're actually saying.

What a load of fallacious dribble! Good Lord...
The name you choose and the avatar you choose is a direct reflection on who you are, your mentality, your maturity and a good indicator of how you will behave and how you will treat others. Even more so if those choices are blatantly offensive or derogatory. First impressions matter! Can't judge people based on the name they give themselves? BS! Total and utter BS!
It is NORMAL to treat someone with no social etiquette like the pariah they are. Act like a "cuck", expect to be treated like a "cuck". If you think it's ok to use abusive or derogatory language in your username on a public forum and that people shouldn't judge you accordingly then you got kaka for brains. So sick of idiots thinking they can be offensive to literally everyone who reads their name and not be held accountable for it. Immature. Childish. Puerile. Juvenile. Gah! Years of dealing with offensive usernames on servers, reading the juvenile mental diarrhea of the lowest common denominator of the stupidest corners of the internet have made this one of my pet peeves. Smack around the head with a clue bat you need! A really big one!

 

[jayman38]

Back to topic, please. AI improvements are worthy of further discussion.

 

[CockADoodleDoo]

On a side note unrelated to the original post itself; I try not to judge the value of an idea based on who is suggesting/objecting to it, but anymore it might be asking a lot of surviving forum members to pretend that they don't see who is posting. A wild chicken from 4chan Ranch isn't straight-up inviting a defensive response? That's not even real talk.

Edymnion probably wasn't put on the defensive because of the content of the suggestion or because some aspect of the game was (very validly) criticized. I don't think anyone here needs to pretend CuckADoodleDoo doesn't know that he's actively set himself up for a pretty much constant stream of defensive reactions based on his name alone (if for no other reason than bringing provincial politics to the table, up front, in every interaction he has), before ever even considering anything else about what he says, how he frames it, when he joined, etc.

If the chicken got some forum meta games that's fine - no one can stop him from playing, but obvious is obvious. Are y'all really going to fault people for reacting defensively to that? Is everyone really (still) supposed to just "play dumb?" Or do y'all actually assume everyone really is that dumb? I hope not, because assuming everyone else is a fool is a fool's error - it starts to just look like projection after a while.

It's a really good suggestion, at least in part. No one's fault but the cuck's own if his little forum games are more important than communicating about the actual game with an account not clearly designed to provoke a defensive response.

What on earth are you talking about? I tried to register as "Cockadoodledoo" but the first part got flagged as an inappropriate word so I meant to type "Cluck". Except that I fatfingered the name. I like polandball comics. You are being beyond deranged in this post, take a chill pill. Instead of derailing this thread, do the whole forum a favor and use the report function or PM me directly next time. Jesus christ.

 

[MacThule]

What on earth are you talking about? I tried to register as "Cockadoodledoo" but the first part got flagged as an inappropriate word so I meant to type "Cluck". Except that I fatfingered the name. I like polandball comics. You are being beyond deranged in this post, take a chill pill. Instead of derailing this thread, do the whole forum a favor and use the report function or PM me directly next time. Jesus christ.

This is so far from believable to every forum member with half a brain I am just going to move on and acknowledge jayman38 - I stand by my statements, but I do apologize to everyone - including you, Cuck - for massively furthering the derailment of your thread by following up on your tangential comment to Edymnion .

Improvements to AI should be a very high priority.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Yeah, the AI and fleet ordering sure could do with some work. For now I'm happy that I can send ships where I want remotely.
Although the broken targeting has been frustrating until the weapons update.

With the Idle order, I don't have a problem with it. Sure prevents my ships from attacking things accidentally. Especially if I'm being stealthy and positioning ships just out of range. Last thing I need is one of my idiot AI giving away their position prematurely.

Hopefully the AI and fleet controls are next on the agenda after universe.