Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » Idea: Automating MM
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Mon, 16 October 2006 12:22   |
|
| Kotk | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 16 October 2006 11:25 |
That would be ok unless minerals were tight and every single kT mattered. 
|
Every single kT matters ...? You mean less minerals than resources?  Then you collect the minerals for your nubian at one place and build it there while rest of the planets do alchemy for next one.  Why to spread minerals to 3 places and build 1/3 of nubians at each of them ... 
| Quote: |
I wouldn't know about that "counter all", as what I'm proposing is quite simpler than that. 
|
You talk about new feature "if something (small enough to kill it?, without bigger guys that follow?) splits out of there (and comes into reach near here?) this turn then (split out also? and) go and intercept it this turn, otherwise stay here"? Does sound like either "counter all" or bog of new exploits, cheats and bugs to me. Depending on implementation.
| Quote: |
Also, please note that current countermeasures to skirmishers and sweepers exist, just they're not automated.
|
Imagine then the situation how multiple sweepers/skirmishers/patrols meet multiple sweepers/skirmishers/patrols in simple 2 players alliance versus 2 players alliance lay/check/sweep/skirmish border situation. Now again ... what monotone and repetive work there (boring MM) you want to automate?
| Quote: |
As long as we're talking about reducing MM and reusing the seemingly broken / unused "Patrol" waypoint task, combining the two makes sense.
|
Yes. We have useless "patrol". Yes. We dont have no "automate skirmishing" algorithm. Yes. Skirmishing takes some (quite complex and interesting) MM in stars! | Quote: |
One interesting aspect of possible "Escort" duty would be dealing with cloaked attackers. Quite possibly the "escorts" shouldn't be able to intercept fleets they can't detect, even if the attacked shipping "detects" them when the cloakies rendez-vous. 
|
Escorts MUST be merged to or follow step by step. Otherwise its not escorting. Its "ambush baiting". We are automating it? Truely boring MM indeed.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 17 October 2006 07:08 |
|
 m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Mon, 16 October 2006 18:22 |
Every single kT matters ...? You mean less minerals than resources? Then you collect the minerals for your nubian at one place and build it there while rest of the planets do alchemy for next one. Why to spread minerals to 3 places and build 1/3 of nubians at each of them ...
|
Obviously you would be doing mineral balancing before reaching that point. 
As with everything, you can always choose the "lazy" formulas vs the "stringent" ones. Perhaps it'll be best to build just the easier ones into the game engine and let each player fine-tune their results. 
| Quote: |
You talk about new feature "if something (small enough to kill it?, without bigger guys that follow?) splits out of there (and comes into reach near here?) this turn
|
Perhaps I should have been more accurate: <If anything enters the "interest zone", target it.> The current "Patrol" order cares little about relative strength, and the "interest zone" is a circle of player-defined radius. It could be interesting to allow other shapes, such as rectangles, though. And it could also be interesting to allow some further picking of targets by "battle preferences", say "unarmed", fighter, battleship... 
| Quote: |
then (split out also? and) go and intercept it this turn, otherwise stay here"?
|
Rather: <stay put unless something needs to be pursued>, the same tradeoff as current "patrol" orders. Splitting out skirmishers from a main "patrolling" fleet could be interesting/fun, but was not what I suggested.
| Quote: |
bog of new exploits, cheats and bugs to me. Depending on implementation.
|
Indeed. Whatever non-trivial feature (new or not) is implemented, it will need thorough testing.
| Quote: |
what monotone and repetive work there (boring MM) you want to automate?
|
For instance: <set aside 20 skirmishers on the ready just in case the enemy sends some of their own.>
On the client side, though, and without affecting game engine at all, there could be a <distribute THIS bunch of ships/fleets to attack/escort THAT bunch of ships/fleets> option, with actual targeting driven by class, or combat rating, or battle orders or whatever the player chose.
| Quote: |
Skirmishing takes some (quite complex and interesting) MM in stars!
|
Of course. But not all facets of it will be enjoyed by every player.   Specially if some of the rote or error-prone moves can be automated / simplified.
| Quote: |
Escorts MUST be merged to or follow step by step. Otherwise its not escorting. Its "ambush baiting". We are automating it? Truely boring MM indeed.
|
"Step by step escorting" has already been mentioned as desirable for automation, wasn't it? If not, it should.
"Ambush baiting", indeed. I wouldn't trust automated decisions there for the most time, but perhaps some players would, at least some of the time. And as long as we're talking about "patrol" derivatives, makes sense to at least mention it.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 17 October 2006 14:34 |
|
| Kotk |
| Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 17 October 2006 14:08 |
Obviously you would be doing mineral balancing before reaching that point. 
As with everything, you can always choose the "lazy" formulas vs the "stringent" ones. Perhaps it'll be best to build just the easier ones into the game engine and let each player fine-tune their results.
|
Exactly my point! When there are more minerals than resources then not every single kT matters. When less then it does not exactly matter if you build one nubian at each planet or 3 at one.
Lazy one i think is doable to add into client. Probably good enough for most cases. It may one day even go into server. If someone wants some especially clever adjustments however ... then free to code and tweak one of the (not currently too abundant or feature rich) clients to make it. 
| Quote: |
Perhaps I should have been more accurate: <If anything enters the "interest zone", target it.> The current "Patrol" order cares little about relative strength, and the "interest zone" is a circle of player-defined radius. It could be interesting to allow other shapes, such as rectangles, though. And it could also be interesting to allow some further picking of targets by "battle preferences", say "unarmed", fighter, battleship...
|
Accuracy never hurts! Especially when you are introducing completely new abstractions for game engine like "interest zones" and avoid being specific about them. 
Takes serious server side mods ... i dont know who wants to implement. As for some client-side-only skirmishing aider ... probably i dont have time.
| Quote: |
Indeed. Whatever non-trivial feature (new or not) is implemented, it will need thorough testing.
|
Remembers me of another widespread way "how to be specific". Describe the set of tests that proves your requested feature is implemented and does not contain flaws. If you feel even that takes too lot of effort then such "feature" is better to dump. | Quote: |
"Step by step escorting" has already been mentioned as desirable for automation, wasn't it? If not, it should.
|
Escorting and also Supporting (with fuel) were suggested and i thought ... are OK ideas and not too complex to implement (or to test).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 17 October 2006 14:54 |
|
| LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 00:46 |
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.
|
I agree with this. It would also be nice if you could give the planet orders to load any orbiting freighters (by fleet ID, without orders) with pop over a %. This is useful earlier when exporting pop to lots of different worlds.
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 00:46 |
2. The reverse. Drop pop on this planet up to this % of Planatary Cap. Range should be up to 300%, at least, for IS.
|
Yes.
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 00:46 |
3. Pull the stupid &%(#))%$ caps off the current transport orders. Currently the max you can automate is 4000kt.
|
I'm pretty sure I've already done this.| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 00:46 |
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.
|
I think you can do this in Stars! already| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 00:46 |
5. Ability to add SB's in the default production Q. Please!
|
This feature could mess up the way current jump games work, however, making it an option should be possible. Skipping items that block the queue is a bit more complex, although probably not too hard, hmm, adding block skipping as an option for an item in the production queue would clean up the code a bit. It would also need an option to not decrease the amount based on the amount built (so 500 auto factories doesn't become 490 after building 10). Both would have to be rule options in case some one wanted to play a jump game that didn't allow those features, but that's not too hard.
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 00:46 |
6. The Ability to change the default Q, and it changes on every planet that has the default Q setup.
|
Client side issue, but one I'd like to see.
For routes, I'm planning on the server being able to take a route to/from every world, not just the ones you own. Also, I want to clear the 'Route' order if it arrives at a world that doesn't have a next route.
Just thinking now, it should be possible to have route orders to/from points in space too, that would require a change in how routes are done, but shouldn't be that big a deal. Not a top priority however. Combined with some SFX with 'refuel anything else (allied) here' orders, that could help dealing with some Xdude sized games...
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Tue, 17 October 2006 15:03 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
Most of these are client side issues.
| Staz wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 17:40 |
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.
|
As noted elsewhere, it's possible to overcloak newly built ships this way, so, I'd want this to be able to be turned off by the host, because it messes up intel gathering somewhat.
| Staz wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 17:40 |
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.
|
One of those things I'd like to see, but may mess up how some games are played.
| Staz wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 17:40 |
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.
|
Another good idea.
| Staz wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 17:40 |
11. Fastest travel option; get to destination as fast as possible with available fuel, including changing speed mid-journey if appropriate.
|
And minimize fuel usage while doing so... Mostly a client issue, but routes should probably use this too.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Wed, 18 October 2006 03:25 |
|
|
|
| LEit wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 07:54 |
For routes, I'm planning on the server being able to take a route to/from every world, not just the ones you own. Also, I want to clear the 'Route' order if it arrives at a world that doesn't have a next route.
Just thinking now, it should be possible to have route orders to/from points in space too, that would require a change in how routes are done, but shouldn't be that big a deal. Not a top priority however. Combined with some SFX with 'refuel anything else (allied) here' orders, that could help dealing with some Xdude sized games...
|
Being able to set arbitrary waypoints would simplify this a lot, and also allow other funs stuff too. Allow them to be attached(or not) to anything in the same location and all sorts of interesting fun can be had. Use them for routing. Give them unload orders to "tax" each passing freighter transferring the mins to whatever the waypoint is attached to.
I'd like to see routing able to define multiple routes for different ship types too. Perhaps even be able to act as signposts(routing) for allies too (in the same way that battle orders need to be broken down to give each token different orders.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Fri, 20 October 2006 08:03 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| LEit wrote on Tue, 17 October 2006 21:03 |
| Staz wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 17:40 |
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.
|
Another good idea.
|
I assume this would be an instance of a generic waypoint order to "follow" a fleet with a "repeat" pattern, useful for refueling, warfleets, escorting, and what-not.
Speaking of which, somewhere in the fleet report the client should flag those fleets yoked to a "repeat" waypoint order.
| Quote: |
| Staz wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 17:40 |
11. Fastest travel option; get to destination as fast as possible with available fuel, including changing speed mid-journey if appropriate.
|
And minimize fuel usage while doing so... Mostly a client issue, but routes should probably use this too.
|
Definitely. And also for multi-turn trips seek the right coordinates so that, say, 200ly can always be traversed by a Warp10 ship in two turns exact...
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Fri, 20 October 2006 08:13 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 17 October 2006 20:34 |
| Quote: |
As with everything, you can always choose the "lazy" formulas vs the "stringent" ones. Perhaps it'll be best to build just the easier ones into the game engine and let each player fine-tune their results.
|
Exactly my point! When there are more minerals than resources then not every single kT matters. When less then it does not exactly matter if you build one nubian at each planet or 3 at one.
Lazy one i think is doable to add into client. Probably good enough for most cases. It may one day even go into server. If someone wants some especially clever adjustments however ... then free to code and tweak one of the (not currently too abundant or feature rich) clients to make it.
|
Provided no unwary soul is deceived into believing the "lazy" math is "the" math, or the only/best way to do Balancing, of course.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Perhaps I should have been more accurate: <If anything enters the "interest zone", target it.> The current "Patrol" order cares little about relative strength, and the "interest zone" is a circle of player-defined radius. It could be interesting to allow other shapes, such as rectangles, though. And it could also be interesting to allow some further picking of targets by "battle preferences", say "unarmed", fighter, battleship...
|
Accuracy never hurts! Especially when you are introducing completely new abstractions for game engine like "interest zones" and avoid being specific about them.
Takes serious server side mods ... i dont know who wants to implement. As for some client-side-only skirmishing aider ... probably i dont have time.
|
But the "interest zone" already exists. It's just that current Patrol orders define it as a circle of user-defined radius centered on the ship. Thus, some thought should be given to implementing it (in "original" or "extended" form).
| Quote: |
Remembers me of another widespread way "how to be specific". Describe the set of tests that proves your requested feature is implemented and does not contain flaws.
|
I long for the time when Freestars reaches that blessed stage.
BTW, I vote for some kind of server-side data dumping which allows at least semi-automated check of test vectors & results...
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Fri, 20 October 2006 14:43 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 19:14 |
"Lazy" algorithm was simple to describe (iztok did it) and probably is simple to implement and test. Additionally m.a. makes noise about his "best" and "ultimate" algorithm that takes into account everything but posts it nowhere. So what to do?
|
"simple to describe" need not mean "simple/worth to implement"
And no, I don't have the "ultimate" algorithm, or at least not yet fully coded. What I have is something which at least can take into account more variables than the "lazy" as described and *sometimes* offer pretty good results.
| Quote: |
Distance is common abstraction in stars! Think how planet, packet, ship or minefield scans. No "zones" used there.
|
So, what you call the area covered by all possible lines emanating from a ship at a given warp? Or the area covered by a scanner or a minefield? A "thingie"?
| Quote: |
Using same abstraction is effortless.
|
You bet. And a "box" is *much* easier/faster to test than a "circle".
| Quote: |
Also i am not sure if there was any plan to implement that patrol order at all, probably there was not.
|
While I wonder why the Jeffs included it at all, it could definitely have its uses.
| Quote: |
I mean alternative way to describe feature is to describe the tests for that feature BEFORE someone ever seriously considers to implement it. So we are in that blessed stage.
|
You mean as in:
-- Patrol ship keeps station if SHIP A remains outside defined area.
-- Patrol ship keeps station if SHIP A enters defined area but is not covered by Battle Orders
-- If it was covered, Patrol ship targets SHIP A if it enters defined area. Movement phase will process Patrol ship as if its target was defined earlier. In Other Words: Patrol ships move LAST, but move.
-- If SHIP A and SHIP B enter defined area, either:
target the one covered by Primary Battle Order
target the most attractive of those covered by PBO
target the nearest of those equally attractive
target the one with lowest ID of those equally near
self destruct if chosen target turns out to belong to Kotk
Notice the many similarities with "current" Patrol order. Where minor details differ, prioritize "current" Patrol order.
There, tests and pseudo-code all in one.
[Updated on: Fri, 20 October 2006 14:51]
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Thu, 16 November 2006 15:01 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| mazda wrote on Tue, 14 November 2006 12:23 |
| m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 19:43 |
And a "box" is *much* easier/faster to test than a "circle".
|
Not being picky (well I am), but I also fail to see the "simple logic" behind this statement.
Depends on your definition of a box I suppose.
If you restrict yourself to a rectangle whose sides are parallel to the co-ordinate system being used then ok.
However I might want to draw any old rhomboid, or even a triangle.
|
Well, I was indeed thinking on *simpler* math than circle / distance - based, so, yes, a "rectangle with parallel sides".
Other means for defining arbitrary regions of space beyond circles, "simple" boxes, and perhaps triangles, will definitely need more math (which wouldn't be that bad for modern processors) and more sophisticated UI (which might become more complex than it's worth).
But they would definitely not be unthinkable for a game of interstellar strategy, would they?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Idea: Automating MM |
Sat, 18 November 2006 18:19 |
|
|
|
Well, if you can pick between a circle with radius n and a delineated box drawn on the map similar to waypoints, perhaps trhat would be the best bet? You'd do fine with just using the circle, but the box could be nice for setting up specific border interdiction zones. Also, have a map disoplay to show patrol areas, this could help a lot. 
Re: the research queue, this would greatly help out players who miss a turn or two. Of course, useful patrol orders would help a lot here also. The fewer minor things the player has to worry about with each and every turn, the more the player can concentrate on strategy instead of maintainance.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 03 12:18:00 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Distance is common abstraction in stars! Think how planet, packet, ship or minefield scans. No "zones" used there. Using same abstraction is effortless. Also i am not sure if there was any plan to implement that patrol order at all, probably there was not. 
Condition above met. See solution. 
