Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » Idea: Automating MM
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Mon, 09 October 2006 00:46   |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Coyote wrote on Sun, 08 October 2006 16:00 |
What are some things we could add to take a little burden off of the micromanagement load?
|
More orders to the Transport Task List.
1. Ability to load pop from a planet, specified by percentage. Meaning, pick up any amount of pop over this % of planetary Capacity. So you can quickly automate breeder planets without needing to worry about manually messing with the actual amount.
2. The reverse. Drop pop on this planet up to this % of Planatary Cap. Range should be up to 300%, at least, for IS.
3. Pull the stupid &%(#))%$ caps off the current transport orders. Currently the max you can automate is 4000kt.
4. Same as #1, kinda, but for minerals via kt amount to leave on planet. Move the rest. And the reverse. This would be great for shuffling mins from planets with a high min conc.
5. Ability to add SB's in the default production Q. Please!
6. The Ability to change the default Q, and it changes on every planet that has the default Q setup.
7. A hot key macro like "CNTRL ALT R" to redesignate all routes end points to a specific planet. This could have a nice logic check too, for larger universes. The logic would look at the end point planet, to see if it has a route, and if so, leave it alone. Only routes that end on a planet with no route order would be changed. In this way, routing chains for long distance multi jumps would not be messed up.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Mon, 09 October 2006 06:57 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 06:46 |
5. Ability to add SB's in the default production Q. Please!
|
Starbases and Ships, too, I would guess?  Some care would need to be taken with potential blocking builds, but otherwise... 
| Quote: |
6. The Ability to change the default Q, and it changes on every planet that has the default Q setup.
|
With a toggle, as the current behavior is also useful. 
| Quote: |
7. A hot key macro like "CNTRL ALT R" to redesignate all routes end points to a specific planet. This could have a nice logic check too, for larger universes. The logic would look at the end point planet, to see if it has a route, and if so, leave it alone. Only routes that end on a planet with no route order would be changed. In this way, routing chains for long distance multi jumps would not be messed up.
|
You lost me there.  It sounds intriguing, but can you explain it a bit more?
And now some of my own:
8. A "list closest planets with surplus of selected mineral/pop" button, for min/pop balancing tasks.  Current "surface mins" and "minconcs" views aren't nearly enough, as both need to be taken into account, or rather, "mining ratio" needs to be taken into account. 
8b. Alternatively, just add the "mining ratio" and "pop cap" views, plus the ability to select which ranges are actually displayed, such as "only 33% pop cap and above shown", or only "less than 15kT/yr Germ AND more than 300kT/yr Germ shown" (for balancing purposes)...
9. On the same vein: a "only planets with stargates" view. Perhaps a "only planets with routes" view. Perhaps a "find planets which route to ****" dialog... Ideally, allow for customisable / flexible views so that every would-be-emperor can define / tweak their own.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Mon, 09 October 2006 12:17 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 05:57 |
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 06:46 |
5. Ability to add SB's in the default production Q. Please!
|
Starbases and Ships, too, I would guess? Some care would need to be taken with potential blocking builds, but otherwise...
|
Yep, but I didn't want to shoot for the moon. 
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
7. A hot key macro like "CNTRL ALT R" to redesignate all routes end points to a specific planet. This could have a nice logic check too, for larger universes. The logic would look at the end point planet, to see if it has a route, and if so, leave it alone. Only routes that end on a planet with no route order would be changed. In this way, routing chains for long distance multi jumps would not be messed up.
|
You lost me there. It sounds intriguing, but can you explain it a bit more?
|
Have you ever played in a huge or large game? The "route" button is very useful in those large games. You click on the button and select a planet. All new builds have "route" in there move orders, and go to the target planet via the route button. You use this to automate all new builds to go to planet X. This is useful for the obvious reason that you don't need to go change every ships orders to get them to move to a planet.
ON the new turn, you just go to the "end of the routes" hit select all warships and merge. Bang, you have your new warfleet, and you spent almost no time past the setup of the routes.
Ok, now picture that you are at war with several races, and you have divided your empire into 4 routing "cells". Each "cell" has x number of planets routing all their ships to planet y. Planet y has route orders to send ships to planet z. You usually do this anyway for planets that are farther than a 1 year gating jump to the rest of the empire. You don't want to change the outlying planetary routes to planet y, or planet y's route to planet z.
The logic I spoke of is easily checked, I'd imagine, since planet z has no route orders. Or, at least it shouldn't. Heck, even if it does, it is *1* planetary change, not 100. It is the end of the line for all the routes in the empire.
So, I'm saying, it would be nice to be able to press "CNTRL ALT R" to readjust all the routes to planet z, to a new planet, without touching 60+ planetetary route orders. Infact, it would be nice to do it the realtime strategy way, and desiginate the "cells" as "CNTRL ALT 1" "CNTRL ALT 2" "CNTRL ALT 3" etc...but I am not sure if that is feasable.
In a perfect world, you could use "box select" to select a group of planets, press "CNTRL ALT 1" to set those planets as "group 1" press "CNTRL 1" to select group 1, press the route button, and target a planet to route all new builds from those planets to a target planet...Ofc, now I am dreaming... 
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Mon, 09 October 2006 17:40 |
|
|
|
1. Sort planets in descending order of minmum mineral mining rate, so you can see what planets are still pumping out all 3 minerals in late game.
2. Assign a "pop hold" level (25%, 33%, 50%, 100%) to each planet, and allow the planet report to sort by surplus population.
3. "Balance minerals" orders for freighters. Load minerals if higher min conc than the planet you are going to, drop them if lower than the planet you have come from. With repeat orders shuttling between 2 planets would work a treat.
4. Ability to designate a fleet in orbit of one of your planets as a "home" fleet, and have newly built ships added to the home fleet automatically.
5. Map viewing showing how long it has been since each planet was last scanned, from bright green (data is current) to dark red (never scanned).
6. Ability to queue research properly, rather than just current and next field. I'd like to put con-4, prop-2, con-5, weap-5 in the "research queue" and leave it for a few turns. Eventually you'd get a "you are about to complete your research queue" message.
7. A "boost" order for ships. Follows another fleet for 1 year (or maybe configurable, eg "boost for 3 turns"), transfers almost all fuel to that fleet and then return to starting point as fast as possible on the remaining fuel.
8. Is it possible to make a useable "patrol" order?
9. "Upgrade base design" order; finds all planets with base design X and adds based design Y to the top of the queue.
10. Planet names on map with population threshold, eg. show planet names where population >= 500k.
11. Fastest travel option; get to destination as fast as possible with available fuel, including changing speed mid-journey if appropriate.
That ought to be enough for now
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Mon, 09 October 2006 23:43 |
|
|
|
Re: various useful filter on the map...custom filter buttons would be the way to go...just need masses of filter options...including a set of magic formula options
(I would set it so the unselected top level items are unaffected(or any trees without any checks at all) (not shown in my example)
eg To show only:
scout based chaff visible with my own scanners,BCs visible with my own or my ally's scanners,Yellow planets with a value of at least -10 AND less than 5 years of stockpiled minerals, wormholes with 500ly of earth, all of my own minefeild and my enemies speedtrap minefields...
(silly filter but what the hell...)
[*]-Ships
[ ]-Scouts
[ ] Formula []
[*]-Warships
[*]-Chaff
[ ] Formula [Hull=Scout AND visible=own scanners]
[*]-Misc Ships
[ ]+Armed Pvt
[ ]+DDs
[ ]+CCs
[*]-BCs
[*] Formula [visible=own scanners OR visible=ally scanners]
[ ]+BBs
[ ]+DNs
[ ]+Armed Nubians
[ ] Formula []
[ ]+Capital Ships
[ ] Formula []
[ ]-Utility
[ ]+Miner
[ ]+Fuel Transport
[ ]+Colony
[ ]+Freighter
[ ] Formula []
[ ]+Bomber
[ ] Formula []
[*]-Planets
[ ]-Green
[*]-Yellow
[*]-Own
[*]Formula[Value>-10 AND (Any surface min/Mine rate)<5]
[ ]+Enemy
[ ]+Ally
[ ]+Unowned
[ ]Formula[]
[ ]+Red
[ ] Formula []
[*]-Features
[*]-Wormholes
[*]Formula=[distance(end point,planet(Earth))<500]
[*]-Minefields
[*]+Own
[*]-Enemy
[ ]+Standard
[ ]+Heavy
[*]+Speed Trap
[ ] Formula []
[ ]+Ally
[ ]+Unknown owner
[ ] Formula []
[ ] Formula []
[ ] Formula []
if you wanted to get really funky you could make they code for the tree independant of the data, and use the data properties for the steps adding a formula option at the end of each. allowing funky stuff like:
[*]-Features
[*]-Wormholes
[*]Formula=[distance(end point,planet(Earth))<500]
[*]-Minefields
[*]+Own
[*]-Enemy
[ ]+Standard
[ ]+Heavy
[*]+Speed Trap
[ ] Formula []
[ ]+Ally
[ ]+Unknown owner
[ ]-Standard
[ ]+Own
[ ]+Enemy
[ ]+Ally
[ ]+Unknown owner
[ ] Formula []
[ ]+Heavy
[*]+Speed Trap
[ ] Formula []
[ ] Formula []
[Updated on: Mon, 09 October 2006 23:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 10 October 2006 04:22 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 18:17 |
So, I'm saying, it would be nice to be able to press "CNTRL ALT R" to readjust all the routes to planet z, to a new planet, without touching 60+ planetetary route orders. Infact, it would be nice to do it the realtime strategy way, and desiginate the "cells" as "CNTRL ALT 1" "CNTRL ALT 2" "CNTRL ALT 3" etc...but I am not sure if that is feasable.
In a perfect world, you could use "box select" to select a group of planets, press "CNTRL ALT 1" to set those planets as "group 1" press "CNTRL 1" to select group 1, press the route button, and target a planet to route all new builds from those planets to a target planet...Ofc, now I am dreaming... :)¡
|
Oh! Now I understand! "For all planets, Search 'route to A' and Replace by 'route to B'"! Yes, indeed!
I remember last time I had to do it by hand, in a huge-dense team game... Even sorting planets by "routing dest" didn't completely eliminate the drudgery... 
[Updated on: Tue, 10 October 2006 04:24]
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 10 October 2006 04:36 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 18:22 |
Only thing i am no sure is what to do with same hull orbitals ...
|
Let the player define it?
| Quote: |
Is say 200ly close enough to be among "closest", also your definition of "surplus" is rather hard to grasp ... since lot of crap needed to be "taken into account".
|
"close" and "surplus" will change over time, and not be the same to every race and player. So, more or less player-definable, too, much like the "scanner effectiveness" selection, I'd guess.
| Quote: |
What is the diff with "Planet Value View"?
|
Planet Value doesn't tell you what planets are near or over their "holding" caps, or near full.
Planet Pop doesn't readily tell you which are the breeders at hold, and which the small near-full colonies... 
| Quote: |
Define "not displayed".
|
Similar to the "population" view, where uninhabited planets are just a dot and AR worlds are smallish color dots. That would allow a player to easily tell which planets passed the filter, and which ones didn't pass vs the ones which aren't his.
| Quote: |
I start to see why you dont like to write UI... requirements for UI from your pen ... are damn dark and mute.
|
I thought you didn't need so much detail yet? Just gathering ideas here, remember? 
| Quote: |
Have you evaluated MS Access as option? Maybe you should.
|
Nope, Notepad and Excel are more than enough.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 10 October 2006 04:59 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Staz wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 23:40 |
3. "Balance minerals" orders for freighters. Load minerals if higher min conc than the planet you are going to, drop them if lower than the planet you have come from. With repeat orders shuttling between 2 planets would work a treat.
|
Actually, you'll want to use "mining ratio". For example, you might be bringing Germ to a small undeveloped colony which happens to enjoy high minconcs but has few mines yet.
| Quote: |
6. Ability to queue research properly, rather than just current and next field. I'd like to put con-4, prop-2, con-5, weap-5 in the "research queue" and leave it for a few turns. Eventually you'd get a "you are about to complete your research queue" message.
|
Even something like "autoresearch energy, up to 6; autoresearch prop, up to 12..." would be interesting, yeah.
| Quote: |
7. A "boost" order for ships. Follows another fleet for 1 year (or maybe configurable, eg "boost for 3 turns"), transfers almost all fuel to that fleet and then return to starting point as fast as possible on the remaining fuel.
|
"transfer optimal fuel to fleet X, every turn (Repeat?), until you need the remainder to return to base"...
| Quote: |
8. Is it possible to make a useable "patrol" order?
|
The way I'd go about it would be:
1) Designate some ships/fleets as "patrol duty", targeting an enemy fleet, or perhaps an "interest area". 
2) If the enemy fleet splits skirmishers or sweepers or whatever *towards* the "patrols" (or towards the Interest Area), treat them as if it were "split fleet dodge" in reverse, i.e: target them with your "patrol ships" for interception *that same turn*
3) Otherwise, the "patrol ships" don't move, or move along their predefined path only, or travel towards the "interest area" if not already there.
4) Interesting things may happen if the enemy, for example, tries to punch thru your "patrol line" with a few of their heavies attacking one of your (presumably smallish) Patrol ships, but you had "secondary" Patrols of heavier ships "patrolling" the outer Patrol Line, thereby rushing to support their endangered comrades.   
4b) You could "patrol" your own Freighters! With a few dedicated Patrol ships giving cover to a whole trade route, then to be besieged by the combined effort of several "wolf packs" and... 
5) Hey, wouldn't that change the sedate, chess-like tempo of Stars! fleet movements into something more like *gasp* real-time space-opera shoot'em-ups?
| Quote: |
10. Planet names on map with population threshold, eg. show planet names where population >= 500k.
|
In general, I'd set up "Show [user definable param] if [user-definable condition(s)] is met" views.
| Quote: |
11. Fastest travel option; get to destination as fast as possible with available fuel, including changing speed mid-journey if appropriate.
|
Of course, that's what my own "fuel/trip" tool already does. Far from perfect, but...
[Updated on: Tue, 10 October 2006 05:39]
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 10 October 2006 13:01 |
|
| Kotk | 
| Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| gible wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 06:43 |
Re: various useful filter on the map...custom filter buttons would be the way to go...just need masses of filter options...including a set of magic formula options ... and getting funky
|
Aww. Your option tree sure scares pants off from most noobs. It looks like some sort of xml file again.  Even if we embed some scripting feature we dont leave it up to player to script his client. We just yesterday discussed these options with bdragon in freestars IRC. He was more interested of server side scripting... to allow custom scriptable game rules. Anyway ... if the one with best scripting ability will win game then its certainly NO WAY fun.
| iztok wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 09:18 |
Hi!
"Balance minerals" order:
WP-0 load/unload task: calculate average for every mineral on the surface of planets this fleets visits. Load/unload fleet to that average. 
|
Now that sounds like cool feature.
| m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 11:36 |
What to do with same hull orbitals:
Let the player define it?
|
How "player defines it"? What are his options? If player has it not defined what to do?
| Quote: |
"close" and "surplus" will change over time, and not be the same to every race and player. So, more or less player-definable, too, much like the "scanner effectiveness" selection, I'd guess.
|
Please describe the whole feature once more because i am completely lost there. 
| Quote: |
Planet Pop doesn't readily tell you which are the breeders at hold, and which the small near-full colonies...
|
OK got it. You want the cap colummn in planet summary report visualized. But its only relewant to own colonized planets. How to display opponent or empty planets at such view?
| Quote: |
"not displayed":
Similar to the "population" view, where uninhabited planets are just a dot and AR worlds are smallish color dots.
|
These "dots" are actually 9 pixel pictures!!!
| Quote: |
I thought you didn't need so much detail yet? Just gathering ideas here, remember?
|
ME? I have seen lot of good ideas here. Ideas are ideas and BS is BS. "powerful", "smart", "good looking", "wicked", "flexible", "customizable", "tweakable" etc. are just empty words (overused in tv shop) and not ideas. How its so hard to get.
| Quote: |
Actually, you'll want to use "mining ratio". For example, you might be bringing Germ to a small undeveloped colony which happens to enjoy high minconcs but has few mines yet.
|
I think you mix/merge/mute idea with idea there ... "support planetary development" (to get that little crappy planet up) is different task than "balance minerals" (to gain rapid fleet building). I like Iztoks suggestion the best there so far.
| Quote: |
useable "patrol" order:
2) If the enemy fleet splits skirmishers or sweepers or whatever *towards* ....
3) Otherwise, the "patrol ships" don't move ...
|
So conditions in waypoint? Then other guy wants conditions that "if opponent sends patrols to skirmish my sweepers this turn then send BB-s this turn" and further "if that fleet attacks that planet this turn then gate in that security force this turn otherwise sit in shadows". etc. Baaah!!! I vote against any tries of removal the unserainty/surprize/paranoia ... "i see that fleet but what it will do?". Its cool. No other game has it. Replacing it with MM of filling tons of formulas and conditions for each fleet and waypoint? 
| Quote: |
5) Hey, wouldn't that change the sedate, chess-like tempo of Stars! fleet movements into something more like *gasp* real-time space-opera shoot'em-ups?
|
All RTS miss feel of deciding ... role playing overburdened logistic guy there ... who supports that sole ultimate strategy in given situation. Also like i now see it changes player into overburdened formula filler
| Quote: |
Obviously that "queue" window would need to be labelled with the names of all planets it's actually affecting, or be a different color, or something...
|
It cant be exactly "a queue window" because all planets may have very different queues on right hand and different abilities to build on left hand. Dock with driver may build scout or throw packets, ultra without driver may build scout or BB but no packets, one without orbital can basically only build orbitals.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 10 October 2006 15:28 |
|
|
|
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 03:52 |
| Quote: |
9. "Upgrade base design" order; finds all planets with base design X and adds based design Y to the top of the queue.
|
Planets can be sorted by orbital. So actually what you want is to be able to select multiple planets there and affect their all ques? Or how?
|
I was actually thinking of something in the ship (base) designer. Select a base design and hit the "upgrade" button; select any other base design (from a drop-down) and hit "OK". New base added to queue of any planet with old base type. You can then sort the planets report by production queue to see which planets are affected, and which base production are green/blue/red.
SSNG had a similar feature AFIK, but it worked for ship designs too. Upgrading ships is a *much* more difficult task (returning ships to bases, splitting fleets, etc), so I've only suggested bases which should be easy using this approach.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 10 October 2006 18:27 |
|
|
|
| Kotk wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 06:01 |
Anyway ... if the one with best scripting ability will win game then its certainly NO WAY fun.
|
I agree, but having the ability to script stuff player-side could make no end of difference. This might be gotten around by having clients submit all player scripts to the server and making them available to all other players in the game, but the potential for scripts to be too particular about their operation or custom clients simply not uploading scripts would be an issue.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Wed, 11 October 2006 05:30 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 19:01 |
Even if we embed some scripting feature we dont leave it up to player to script his client. We just yesterday discussed these options with bdragon in freestars IRC. He was more interested of server side scripting... to allow custom scriptable game rules. Anyway ... if the one with best scripting ability will win game then its certainly NO WAY fun.
|
Are filters of the sort "show <selectable parameter list> IF <selectable parameter list> IS <selectable condition list (i.e. HIGHER THAN, LOWER THAN, EQUAL TO, ...)> [user-set constant]" considered "scripts"?
| Quote: |
| iztok wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 09:18 |
"Balance minerals" order:
WP-0 load/unload task: calculate average for every mineral on the surface of planets this fleets visits. Load/unload fleet to that average.
|
Now that sounds like cool feature.
|
When should that "average" be calculated? After production has taken its toll, I guess?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
What to do with same hull orbitals:
Let the player define it?
|
How "player defines it"? What are his options? If player has it not defined what to do?
|
As explained elsewhere, options include the rest of SB designs, so an "upgrade path" would need to be defined (or for the nitpickers, the design ID of the "upgradeTo" design needs to be defined). In case of doubt, gray out the upgrade order.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
"close" and "surplus" will change over time, and not be the same to every race and player. So, more or less player-definable, too, much like the "scanner effectiveness" selection, I'd guess.
|
Please describe the whole feature once more because i am completely lost there.
|
Display/list/print planets whose <distance to selected> is <less than> [user-input constant] AND <selected mineral available> is <more than> [another user-input constant]
Too complex perhaps?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Planet Pop doesn't readily tell you which are the breeders at hold, and which the small near-full colonies...
|
OK got it. You want the cap colummn in planet summary report visualized. But its only relewant to own colonized planets. How to display opponent or empty planets at such view?
|
As always: opponent (or own which don't pass the threshold) get smallish colored "dots" and empty get gray or white dots.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
"not displayed":
Similar to the "population" view, where uninhabited planets are just a dot and AR worlds are smallish color dots.
|
These "dots" are actually 9 pixel pictures!!!
|
Hey, whatever it takes for them to be seen on 45'' HDTV displays...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Actually, you'll want to use "mining ratio". For example, you might be bringing Germ to a small undeveloped colony which happens to enjoy high minconcs but has few mines yet.
|
I think you mix/merge/mute idea with idea there ... "support planetary development" (to get that little crappy planet up) is different task than "balance minerals" (to gain rapid fleet building). I like Iztoks suggestion the best there so far.
|
But there's bound to be planets in all stages of development involved. Why deny the smallish colony a G/pop run if there's freighters doing the route anyway?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
useable "patrol" order:
2) If the enemy fleet splits skirmishers or sweepers or whatever *towards* ....
3) Otherwise, the "patrol ships" don't move ...
|
So conditions in waypoint?
|
Nope. The "patrol" order itself is the condition, otherwise it wouldn't be very different from standard "target" orders.
| Quote: |
Then other guy wants conditions that "if opponent sends patrols to skirmish my sweepers this turn then send BB-s this turn"
|
Yep, everybody would be able to send escorts on "patrol" duty to protect anything, even the attackers.
I wonder if this would be any less sane/fun than having, say, ten puny DDs safely sweeping minefields just 10ly away of 1500 nubians...
| Quote: |
and further "if that fleet attacks that planet this turn then gate in that security force this turn otherwise sit in shadows".
|
Nope.  Absolutely no gating allowed. Patrol fleets move in real space and risk minehits, fuel and engine issues (including w9 engines exploding at w10, and CE kicking in)
| Quote: |
I vote against any tries of removal the unserainty/surprize/paranoia ... "i see that fleet but what it will do?". Its cool. No other game has it. Replacing it with MM of filling tons of formulas and conditions for each fleet and waypoint?
|
I don't see the need for "formulas" and "conditions" but there might exist a risk of automating too much, which should indeed be avoided.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
5) Hey, wouldn't that change the sedate, chess-like tempo of Stars! fleet movements into something more like *gasp* real-time space-opera shoot'em-ups?
|
All RTS miss feel of deciding ... role playing overburdened logistic guy there ... who supports that sole ultimate strategy in given situation.
|
Provided the Patrols didn't become too automated / unpredictable / random, chess-like strategizing should still be paramount.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Obviously that "queue" window would need to be labelled with the names of all planets it's actually affecting, or be a different color, or something...
|
It cant be exactly "a queue window" because all planets may have very different queues on right hand and different abilities to build on left hand. Dock with driver may build scout or throw packets, ultra without driver may build scout or BB but no packets, one without orbital can basically only build orbitals.
|
Hence the "quotes" Indeed, as others have noted, the "queue window" might be the wrong approach to the matter.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Wed, 11 October 2006 10:49 |
|
| Kotk |
| Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| [email |
m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 12:30]Are filters of the sort "show <selectable parameter list> IF <selectable parameter list> IS <selectable condition list (i.e. HIGHER THAN, LOWER THAN, EQUAL TO, ...)> [user-set constant]" considered "scripts"?
|
no, i know them. There if-then-else feature requests are types that evolve into "lets add goto too" or "why not to make it more SQL-like" sorts. One day they are "why you didnt embed python right away?" feature requests.
| Quote: |
When should that "average" be calculated? After production has taken its toll, I guess?
|
no ... just like that. May have some lazyness factor. say +-500kt isnt worth to level. Otherwise it evolves ... "mining has added its toll" and "owerlapping balace minerals circles, other transport orders are paid their toll" and so on.
| Quote: |
Display/list/print planets whose <distance to selected> is <less than> [user-input constant] AND <selected mineral available> is <more than> [another user-input constant]
Too complex perhaps?
|
Yea ... even if i exclude the bog of "have made their tolls" ... then i think how these "[user-input constants]" are entered and how it interacts with "multiple planets are selectable" suggestions elsewhere. Also ... does it print on default printer or lets user to select? I have never seen persuasive prototype of such a feature. So ... you got to make some prototype or at least diagrams and screenshots. 
| Quote: |
But there's bound to be planets in all stages of development involved. Why deny the smallish colony a G/pop run if there's freighters doing the route anyway?
|
Because carrying pop is not "balance minerals" task. Imagine that a fleet "balanced" 10MT of iron between 3 planets 33%/33%/33% however one of them will maybe build BB after 20 years or so ... meanwhile iron carried there is simply ... out of production lines. Besides, what country transports oil, passangers and soliders with same train/ship?
| Quote: |
Nope. The "patrol" order itself is the condition, otherwise it wouldn't be very different from standard "target" orders.
...
Yep, everybody would be able to send escorts on "patrol" duty to protect anything, even the attackers.
|
Naa ... better implement the battle in freestars. Or maybe even improve it. Its lot less complex algorithm.
| Quote: |
I wonder if this would be any less sane/fun than having, say, ten puny DDs safely sweeping minefields just 10ly away of 1500 nubians...
|
US army has had rather convincing losses in Iraq and Vietnam. That is sane and also fun because there are only few thousand square miles, sattellites, night goggles, tanks with aim bots and helicopters with ai missiles on other side and knife level of technology on other side. Compare it with 400 square light years (10 ly in each direction).
[Updated on: Wed, 11 October 2006 11:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Wed, 11 October 2006 17:40 |
|
|
|
I think adding in too much user-scripting is a bad idea. Most of what it could do could be done through simple dialogs or more detailed fleet orders/battle orders and that way not give too much power to those who are better scripthackers - it's already bad enough that beancounting micromanagement freaks have a big edge, let's not make things worse or change the essence and atmosphere of the game.
Stuff like bifurcating option trees sounds like a good thing and a better option than user scripting.
I like the improvements to patrol behavior...
[Updated on: Wed, 11 October 2006 17:41] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Fri, 13 October 2006 05:38 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 16:49 |
if-then-else feature requests are types that evolve into "lets add goto too" or "why not to make it more SQL-like" sorts. One day they are "why you didnt embed python right away?" feature requests.
|
Glad my own suggestions are simpler than that.
On second thought, the "distance less than X" part of my proposed "nearby minerals available" view can be dropped altogether, since there's the zoom and pan controls to limit area of display, anyway. Which turns the whole thing into just one more of the new/enhanced proposed views.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
When should that "average" be calculated? After production has taken its toll, I guess?
|
no ... just like that. May have some lazyness factor. say +-500kt isnt worth to level. Otherwise it evolves ... "mining has added its toll" and "owerlapping balace minerals circles, other transport orders are paid their toll" and so on.
|
So, at end of turn, then. But that was not what gave me the best results when I was tinkering with the idea. The "lazyness factor" becomes in fact a predictor for "minerals available" plus "minerals mined" minus "minerals spent" for the next turn.
| Quote: |
does it print on default printer or lets user to select?
|
Comma-separated file. As any planetary dump. Not a "print" at all.
| Quote: |
Because carrying pop is not "balance minerals" task. Imagine that a fleet "balanced" 10MT of iron between 3 planets 33%/33%/33% however one of them will maybe build BB after 20 years or so ... meanwhile iron carried there is simply ... out of production lines. Besides, what country transports oil, passangers and soliders with same train/ship?
|
The only difference I see between pop and mins is math used. Rest is same. And you could be surprised about mixed-cargo trains.
| Quote: |
better implement the battle in freestars. Or maybe even improve it. Its lot less complex algorithm.
|
Please explain about that "new" battle in Freestars? Are you sure it will be less complex?
| Quote: |
US army has had rather convincing losses in Iraq and Vietnam. That is sane and also fun because there are only few thousand square miles, sattellites, night goggles, tanks with aim bots and helicopters with ai missiles on other side and knife level of technology on other side. Compare it with 400 square light years (10 ly in each direction).
|
But this is sci-fi here. And we have a one-year timescale. Your knife-fighters equate 98%-cloaked DDs, but that won't always be the case.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 15:06:09 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
barely pays anything as it is) but I'm trying to help... 
Then client can detect ... two orbitals whose upgrade order with each other is not defined are not allowed to be simultaneously in same que as autobuild orders. 
What "new" battles. 
Doh?!? The very same battle like it is now in stars! is not implemented in freestars. With improving it i meant: "without some annoying bugs/crashes/limits in it." Why to daydream of sci-fi algorithms that probably spoil the game and not implement the vital ones? 
My mother country has currently ally of US in military conflicts. 