Degenerative Changes

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Post Reply
Message
Author
TBeholder
Space Floater
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:28 pm
Location: chthonic safety

Degenerative Changes

#1 Post by TBeholder »

So now the question is: not even where FreeOrion goes now, but - will it go anywhere?

There are a lot of changes, but the most obvious are distinctly degenerative ones - that is, reducing possibilities both for data modding and eventual improvements other than "rebuild everything from scratch":
  • Farming was removed completely.
  • Combat system based on classic tactical rock-paper-scissors was removed altogether. Weapons are literally reduced to one number.
  • Now there also cannot be such thing as e.g. evasion once a ship is noticed, because non-starline speed is also removed (obviously, it should not be speed, but the primary effect is the same: either A can run away from B or not), diff for which would be one page long or so.
And it's not like "oh, but it improves in other places". Let's look at the obvious?
  • Most outrageous annoyances in GUI remain:
    1. Windows closing when you merely look up "Planet Suitability". But only if you don't have Pedia (who named that? A pedowikian?) - if there already is one, it will be reused. Despite the fact that Production already have one Pedia window (for the current product) opened - but it's very speshul.
    2. All-important object window closes when anything is open from it. And it have no hotkey, and cannot be assigned one, only opened from pseudo-tray.
    3. Clicking on a planet in the object list shifts the view, but does select it in the system sidebar
    4. Sidebar with lots of empty space eating half of the meters in the low row). When this is fixed manually, it sometimes restores.
    5. Loading a game resets all the manually adjusted windows to their default near-unusable state (my personal "favourite" is tiny SitRep).
    There are grand total of two Fleet standing orders - you can't even tell them to leave alone neutral planets.
    Speaking of which, when they do fight, they randomly shoot at everything in the whole system in panic, but somehow hit every time.
    Scripting is done in two places at once - Python and "totally not a script, except it's of course a script - and more tangled than actual PL would be, because we can't use sensible ways to do things, like functions, because we pretend it's not really a script" nonsense in TXT.
    Tech tree in default ruleset remains laughably socialist and laughably semiliterate.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Degenerative Changes

#2 Post by Geoff the Medio »

TBeholder wrote:All-important object window ... [has] no hotkey, and cannot be assigned one, only opened from pseudo-tray.
Should be simple enough to implement. Edit: done /Edit
Tech tree in default ruleset remains laughably socialist and laughably semiliterate.
It being too "socialist" is a new complaint about the tech tree... could you elaborate on what you mean? I'd tend to think of community structure type issues being more a factor of what species is on a planet, rather than what techs they've researched.

User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead and Programmer Emeritus
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: FreeOrion Roadmap

#3 Post by Dilvish »

TBeholder wrote:will it go anywhere
Well, it doesn't seem to be going in the direction of Ayn Randian rock-paper-scissor-playing farmers, that is true. :lol:

A few of your complaints are indeed regarding UI convenience characteristics that are on the 'to-be-improved' list, but are not deemed to have any particularly special priority over more substantive issues; there is certainly no shortage of work to be done. Some of your beefs though are just weirdly stale-- for example, this comment about the content files being "totally not a script, except it's of course a script" is apparently the shade of some argument from your time here five years ago, but in all the years I've been contributing, 'scripts' is exactly what we've been calling the (majority of) content files. Perhaps that's an argument you halfway won, way back when, but you checked out just a bit too soon to realize it.

Also, whence comes the bitterness? Did you make a big donation to someone based on some promise of X, Y and/or Z? A lot of us are enjoying the way the game is progressing, what's up with dumping a bottle of stale piss all over our marbles? It sounds like you're a programmer, so if some of the UI deficiencies bother you, fix 'em up! Lot's of folks will say "thanks!" (even if some might complain about how you did it).
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

TBeholder
Space Floater
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:28 pm
Location: chthonic safety

Re: FreeOrion Roadmap

#4 Post by TBeholder »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
TBeholder wrote:All-important object window ... [has] no hotkey, and cannot be assigned one, only opened from pseudo-tray.
Should be simple enough to implement. Edit: done /Edit
Yup. It required copypasting two lines from existing hotkeys, which was obvious.
That's kind of my point here: tiny changes that would make interface more convenient were self-evident and not made for years, while things that reduce possibilities for further development - repeatedly.
Isn't conducive to seeing the project's state as healthy.
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Tech tree in default ruleset remains laughably socialist and laughably semiliterate.
It being too "socialist" is a new complaint about the tech tree... could you elaborate on what you mean? I'd tend to think of community structure type issues being more a factor of what species is on a planet, rather than what techs they've researched.
Not quite new. :)
Dilvish wrote: Well, it doesn't seem to be going in the direction of Ayn Randian rock-paper-scissor-playing farmers, that is true. :lol:
...of Ayn Randian... <click> laughingtrack.wav :|
Dilvish wrote: Some of your beefs though are just weirdly stale-- for example, this comment about the content files being "totally not a script, except it's of course a script" is apparently the shade of some argument from your time here five years ago, but in all the years I've been contributing, 'scripts' is exactly what we've been calling the (majority of) content files. Perhaps that's an argument you halfway won, way back when, but you checked out just a bit too soon to realize it.
Well... I did simplify it a little, for a summary. :oops:
But my point here is - things that are now in txt supposedly because they are "easy"... turn out to be not anywhere as simple as "labeled adjustments for meters to display", often clunky and turning "autogenerated-effects-descriptions" on shows a lot of amazingly messy pieces - and not only in Robotic Shield Interface.
Dilvish wrote: Also, whence comes the bitterness? Did you make a big donation to someone based on some promise of X, Y and/or Z? A lot of us are enjoying the way the game is progressing, what's up with dumping a bottle of stale piss all over our marbles?
To let you tell me why it's wrong, of course. If any.
I just plainly show how the situation looks to me. No more, no less...
In context of myself being a pseudo-random example of someone not dug in too deep to see the forest beyond the yesteryear leaves. I can't claim immunity to the same pitfalls, just that right now obviously am now.
And in the end, it's purely about mine (but then, possibly others who did not ask this question - why not?) doubts of whether it's a good idea to as much as approach said forest close enough to see the leaves. ;)
I see it progressing thusly: when once was a beta with some placeholders (adding some clutter, but not obviously buggy or as much as confusing) for interesting stuff, now there's a beta that gets even somewhat-working stuff cut out.
See your own mission statement? Do you think the project moves toward it or from it?
If you are fine with the observed trend, or prefer to dismiss my observation out of hand as "not liek u" - well, it's your project, of course.
I only want some clarity on the part of big picture that depend on you and not me - because from outside and right now the big picture looks like it needs clarity.
Dilvish wrote: It sounds like you're a programmer, so if some of the UI deficiencies bother you, fix 'em up! Lot's of folks will say "thanks!" (even if some might complain about how you did it).
I hoped for this response. :)
It brings up my second point fully:
I would have started with quietly making a branch, fixing half of my nitpick list and trying to make a generic solution to some bigger shortcomings or at least a good stopgap - simply due to being the sort of a critter not attracted to "hello" threads.
If not misgivings about whether it would be anything more than adding a blind tunnel to a dead-end road.
I could revert a specific thing annoying me there, or another while trying to improve something else.
But if the mentioned trend is persistent, it's likely to end up like this: after a few trivial fixes, improving the project would require either branching off from, say, this point then cherry-picking and pulling forward a branch, or changes that amount to the same. Then master gets increasingly less compatible with it and worse as a source to cherry-pick from at the same time. While a good look at the result and the list of commits can chase away other potential developers before they get to see that branch. I can only speak for myself, of course, but won't even register on the forum and moved on if discovered FO searching github today rather than drifted in and out 5 years ago - do you think it's possible that a dozen of others (and better than me) already did exactly this, and another will tomorrow? Then ultimately this whole process could be highly counterproductive, compared to... anything, really. Even picking up a completely stopped project alone would have much better prospects than this approach. And there are ones merely slowed down - that are much farther away from "worth playing" (as in, for the sake of playing, rather than to satisfy short-term curiosity with experiments) state - but they move toward it, not away from it.
Hence the simple reason behind my question: I want to know whether there is any point for me to spend time on FO at all, or it indeed rolls where it seems to roll, so just... let it roll.
I unfortunately was distracted by other things 5 years ago, but had no reasons to ask this question back then. It looked very promising, even with all the warts and ugly placeholders.

User avatar
adrian_broher
Programmer
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:52 am
Location: Germany

Re: Degenerative Changes

#5 Post by adrian_broher »

This thread is Adamant-tier.
Resident code gremlin
Attached patches are released under GPL 2.0 or later.
Git author: Marcel Metz

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: FreeOrion Roadmap

#6 Post by MatGB »

TBeholder wrote:[It required copypasting two lines from existing hotkeys, which was obvious.
That's kind of my point here: tiny changes that would make interface more convenient were self-evident and not made for years,
Self evident to you, but not to me, some people rarely if ever use hotkeys, so coming up with more extra ideas for where they should be simply wasn't on the radar, as no one else had proposed it, but multiple other things do get proposed every month, maybe it's not self evident, or even that useful, to others?

You're making the cardinal error of assuming you're the standard use and the way you do things is normal. Plus, you're being arrogant and rude which isn't conducive to civil discussion.
while things that reduce possibilities for further development - repeatedly.
Case not even made, let alone proven.
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Tech tree in default ruleset remains laughably socialist and laughably semiliterate.
It being too "socialist" is a new complaint about the tech tree... could you elaborate on what you mean? I'd tend to think of community structure type issues being more a factor of what species is on a planet, rather than what techs they've researched.
Not quite new. :)
So you made a mention once before of something you personally disliked years ago, and that means we should all bow down to your greater wisdom in all things? Give me a break.
Dilvish wrote: Some of your beefs though are just weirdly stale-- for example, this comment about the content files being "totally not a script, except it's of course a script" is apparently the shade of some argument from your time here five years ago, but in all the years I've been contributing, 'scripts' is exactly what we've been calling the (majority of) content files. Perhaps that's an argument you halfway won, way back when, but you checked out just a bit too soon to realize it.
Well... I did simplify it a little, for a summary. :oops:
But my point here is - things that are now in txt supposedly because they are "easy"... turn out to be not anywhere as simple as "labeled adjustments for meters to display", often clunky and turning "autogenerated-effects-descriptions" on shows a lot of amazingly messy pieces - and not only in Robotic Shield Interface.
I've never been given the impression the scripting was meant to be 'simple' or 'easy', simply that it was meant to be doable by anyone without learning a specific language or needing a dev environment.

Given that I'm able to contribute significantly to the project, and my 12 year old kid is constantly creating new species and monsters for her own games then, well, case proven, the scripting setup works as intended and can do interesting and complex things when desired. Like, say, the Robotic Interface Shields (which I probably need to look at for balance/cost at some point given we changed all the others)
And in the end, it's purely about mine (but then, possibly others who did not ask this question - why not?) doubts of whether it's a good idea to as much as approach said forest close enough to see the leaves. ;)
I see it progressing thusly: when once was a beta with some placeholders (adding some clutter, but not obviously buggy or as much as confusing) for interesting stuff, now there's a beta that gets even somewhat-working stuff cut out.
Example please?
See your own mission statement? Do you think the project moves toward it or from it?
If you are fine with the observed trend, or prefer to dismiss my observation out of hand as "not liek u" - well, it's your project, of course.
I only want some clarity on the part of big picture that depend on you and not me - because from outside and right now the big picture looks like it needs clarity.
Probably, there's always a chance that a step back to look at the overall would be helpful, but the macro stuff sometimes isn't as important as dealing with a lot of micro stuff, the completely different rendering engine, completely reworked backend, the massive cost/benefit balancing programme and the massively reworked and improved AI have maybe gotten us all a little distracted, I'm sure when we've finished our current fairly significant tasks some of us will take another step back and look at other things..

For me, personally, when I got involved the big picture issues were that the UI sucks and certain game effects, especially hulls, were completely unbalanced in a way that meant an optimal strategy was fairly obvious to a player after just a few games. I couldn't do much about the UI except make suggestions, but I could do something about the balance problems so that's what I got on and did, lots of, and am still doing it.

The UI's been improved a lot over the last two years, but maybe it's been improved in the direction that someone like me prefers and not yourself.
It brings up my second point fully:
I would have started with quietly making a branch, fixing half of my nitpick list and trying to make a generic solution to some bigger shortcomings or at least a good stopgap - simply due to being the sort of a critter not attracted to "hello" threads.
If not misgivings about whether it would be anything more than adding a blind tunnel to a dead-end road.
Both strike me as a bad approach, I never bothered with a "hello, I'd like to do this" thread, I just joined discussions and gave feedback and slowly got more involved. But I also find out of the blue major suggestions of changes that haven't even been discussed really weird, I know I'm an edge case user, the idea that any one person can know for sure what, for example, the UI needs is just wrong to me, UI choices can really annoy and be offputting to someone who is used to and prefers different methods.
I could revert a specific thing annoying me there, or another while trying to improve something else.
But if the mentioned trend is persistent, it's likely to end up like this: after a few trivial fixes, improving the project would require either branching off from, say, this point then cherry-picking and pulling forward a branch, or changes that amount to the same.
The first week of playing after food was removed I hated it.

Now the idea of going back is just, no, please no. A galaxy spanning strategy game shouldn't need to worry whether a colony on a perfectly adequate world is able to provide basic food, plus we've now got so many species that eat completely different types of things and have radically different metabolisms, I much prefer a universe where I can have lithovores and phototrophes working together than one with 15 different human analogues with different shaped eyebrow ridges.
Then master gets increasingly less compatible with it and worse as a source to cherry-pick from at the same time. While a good look at the result and the list of commits can chase away other potential developers before they get to see that branch. I can only speak for myself, of course, but won't even register on the forum and moved on if discovered FO searching github today rather than drifted in and out 5 years ago - do you think it's possible that a dozen of others (and better than me) already did exactly this, and another will tomorrow?
We've seen, over the last two years, a substantial increase in the number of regular contributors to the codebase, we have an AI team now, and I spend as much time reviewing content patches as I do trying to write them.

Undoubtedly many potential devs haven't chosen to contribute, but quite a few more have, so I suspect we're on a net gain with the current progress.

But as you're very keen on very broad generalities and rather averse to specfic details it's hard to be more sure about what you think would be offputting.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: FreeOrion Roadmap

#7 Post by Geoff the Medio »

TBeholder wrote:...while things that reduce possibilities for further development - repeatedly.
That you dislike a simplification of the game mechanics - such as removal of food - is not very compelling when various others claim to like it. The relevant game logic was complicated, and the consequences of its interaction with other mechanics, such as sudden planet starvation, weren't fun.

There are many ways to make things more complicated, removing one complication because it wasn't working is a good thing. If something better is suggested, it can be implemented.
Geoff the Medio wrote:It being too "socialist" is a new complaint about the tech tree...
Not quite new.
A single line of techs being funny is not the same as a complaint that the whole tree is overly socialist...

In general, if you can't accept that you won't get to make all the design decisions, and sometimes things will be made or kept simpler, then you probably won't enjoy working on FreeOrion. That's fine... But it's not really a valid complaint to say that FreeOrion doesn't do specific thing X the way you would want it done. In particular, FreeOrion is not a simulation, and we try not to add extra complexity without reasons.

Post Reply