My game testing thread

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.
Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: My game testing thread

#16 Post by MatGB » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:23 pm

A thought occurs, currently the odds of a planet being created in fields.macros are completely independent of planet density

Code: Select all

CREATE_PLANETS
'''      EffectsGroup
            scope = And [
                System
                Object id = Source.SystemID
            ]
            activation = Size high = 5
            effects = [
                If condition = Random probability = 0.5
                    effects = CreatePlanet type = asteroids planetsize = asteroids name = UserString("NEW_ASTEROIDS_NAME") % Target.Name % Source.Name
                If condition = Random probability = 0.6
                    effects = CreatePlanet type = OneOf(Barren, Desert, Inferno, Ocean, Radiated, Swamp, Terran, Toxic, Tundra) planetsize = OneOf(tiny, small, medium, large) name = UserString("NEW_PLANET_NAME") % Target.Name
                else = If condition = Random probability = 0.4
                    effects = CreatePlanet type = GasGiant planetsize = GasGiant name = UserString("NEW_PLANET_NAME") % Target.Name
                If condition = Random probability = 0.3
                    effects = CreatePlanet type = asteroids planetsize = asteroids name = UserString("NEW_ASTEROIDS_NAME") % Target.Name % Source.Name
            ]
'''
That probably ought to be changed in some way, the setting is exposed to FOCS and is used in a few other places. So if anyone fancies doing it that'd be grand.
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
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4608
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: My game testing thread

#17 Post by Vezzra » Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:50 am

MatGB wrote:A thought occurs, currently the odds of a planet being created in fields.macros are completely independent of planet density ... That probably ought to be changed in some way, the setting is exposed to FOCS and is used in a few other places. So if anyone fancies doing it that'd be grand.
Create a github issue?

User avatar
Cpeosphoros
Space Kraken
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:29 am

Re: My game testing thread

#18 Post by Cpeosphoros » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:00 pm

All contributions are released under GPL or LGPL v2 or later, or under appropriate Creative Commons licence, consistent with project guidelines.

user0169
Space Floater
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:02 am

Re: My game testing thread

#19 Post by user0169 » Sun May 01, 2016 5:12 pm

Instead of remove the complete feature of spawn new stars from a nebula, i see that it can be reduced. For now changed the value from 0.2 to 0.005.
Referring to large maps with a lot deep space that way only in a few cases there will be a new star. The other possibilty to vary from existing nebulae could be more advanced. But this also works and it seemd about balanced to me:

Code: Select all

    # pick 10-20% of all empty no star systems to create stationary fields in them, but at least one
    accepted = sample(candidates, max(int(len(candidates) * uniform(0.1, 0.005)), 1))
As far as i saw the AI is about able to handle such map in case of an elliptical galaxy what refers to colonization. Possibly there could be problems in other galaxy types. This easier could be checked if i had an option to reveal the map.

Generally i saw some behavour of the AI what seems not logical to me. Mainly i saw them to start their attacks with unarmed ships of troops and splitted power of armed ships. An prudent player uses this too easy to diminish them.Even in case of an aggressive AI they make an bit of a shy and defensive impression. This was different in a former version as far as i remember. It was a version where their camitals were called Imperial court instead of Imperial. Dont know the exact version atm. They dont use their advantage of having an outpost with a monster nest. Their monsters stay lvl1. They could be improved if they are able to let their monsters grow a bit.

The psycogenic domination looses some of its meaning by each new version. I would agree not to use it to the end of a starlene-jump but only inside of a system. A focus of it is a good idea but in my opinion 10% of chance is low. Possibly it could be an idea to use different ability to it and different resitances. But no immunity.

From the beginning there was one thought i had about the AI agression lvls. Atm if one chooses typical agression there could be one or two defensive between them but no agressive ones. The variation of the game could be improved if they occure be a probabilty. F.e. typical is chosen we would see typical, agressive/defensive, very agrr./def. by 40,20,10 %. If i find the file where this is programmed i would try to check it out.

LGM-Doyle
Programmer
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: My game testing thread

#20 Post by LGM-Doyle » Sun May 01, 2016 8:23 pm

Try client/AI/AIClient.cpp around line 200. It might be what you are looking for.

user0169
Space Floater
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:02 am

Re: My game testing thread

#21 Post by user0169 » Mon May 02, 2016 1:18 pm

Cant find this path. I have this; default/AI, where i cant find a lever. Even not here default/python/universe_generation/empires. I think it would make it more interesting if the AI-agreesion vary a bit.

Never played until Move 350, but now its also here definately over. The main opponent sitting with his complete fleet passively on his imperial capital. The others are busy with each other would not stand against an attck. Nothing much exiting will happen here anymore. Still wondering what will happen as soon as soon as i discover the last technology, but i dont have the patience for that. There are some possible events needed in such situation or the strong opponent should make some effort (Its the light-blue one).

There is the file where you can have a look what a map looks like with the previous discussed settings. I think its an advantage for large maps where in the default game in large maps are too many planets available and a game would be about over before meeting an opponent.

[intended to upload the .sav file but it seems not to work]

LGM-Doyle
Programmer
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: My game testing thread

#22 Post by LGM-Doyle » Mon May 02, 2016 3:10 pm

That directory and file are in the C++ source. Sorry, I assumed you were compiling from source.

In the source there is a 25% chance that each AI is the AI-aggression level one below the target. Since this is in the C++ source it is hardcoded and not something you can change from the FOCS or python files.

Just, FYI here is the table from AIClient.cpp.

Code: Select all

                // % Distribution of aggression levels
                // Aggression   :  0   1   2   3   4   5   (0=Beginner, 5=Maniacal)
                //                __  __  __  __  __  __
                //Max 0         :100   0   0   0   0   0
                //Max 1         : 25  75   0   0   0   0
                //Max 2         :  0  25  75   0   0   0
                //Max 3         :  0   0  25  75   0   0
                //Max 4         :  0   0   0  25  75   0
                //Max 5         :  0   0   0   0  25  75

user0169
Space Floater
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:02 am

Re: My game testing thread

#23 Post by user0169 » Thu May 05, 2016 2:55 pm

Im sry. I still have no idea where you find this. If i open the .exe i find what you see in the picture. This is not readable for me. In none of my directories there occurs a .ccp (?) For checking some changes i would need something written in a language like the python files or even a description how to find it by steps :D
Attachments
ccode.png
ccode.png (31.33 KiB) Viewed 438 times

User avatar
Kassiopeija
Dyson Forest
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:14 pm
Location: Black Forest

Re: My game testing thread

#24 Post by Kassiopeija » Thu May 05, 2016 7:35 pm

I'd be happy if Colony Ships (to be more precise, the Colony Module) is removed entirely. Colonization can only happen then via the Outpost combo, which would shift the focus a bit towards getting Supply up. Currently Supply, and all the stuff related to it like Space Elevator or Logistics Setting, doesn't have much impact on a game. I use them only very rarely.
That would make the game more territorial, and perhaps, if the AI can be taught to also use these items (plus, to errect outposts solely to generate range/supply) more hard because a player wouldn't find sole outward planets which can be easily conquered (usually my first targets and mostly bring in another race which can be uite gamechanging). Perhaps AI will then also stick their fleets more together...

slv
Space Floater
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:12 pm

Re: My game testing thread

#25 Post by slv » Fri May 06, 2016 4:35 am

Kassiopeija wrote:I'd be happy if Colony Ships (to be more precise, the Colony Module) is removed entirely. Colonization can only happen then via the Outpost combo, which would shift the focus a bit towards getting Supply up. Currently Supply, and all the stuff related to it like Space Elevator or Logistics Setting, doesn't have much impact on a game. I use them only very rarely.
That would make the game more territorial, and perhaps, if the AI can be taught to also use these items (plus, to errect outposts solely to generate range/supply) more hard because a player wouldn't find sole outward planets which can be easily conquered (usually my first targets and mostly bring in another race which can be uite gamechanging). Perhaps AI will then also stick their fleets more together...
I like the suggestion, the main trouble I see with it is playing as a Trith. On some settings its sometimes hard to find a habitable world in your supply range. Egassem has a supply bonus so they are more likely to find a habitable word (but still it may be not a trivial task). Also if you use them rarely then no change is needed, I guess. It won't actually change anything in your gameplan, only have your early game occasionally wrecked by the lack of habitable planets in range.

user0169
Space Floater
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:02 am

Re: My game testing thread

#26 Post by user0169 » Fri May 06, 2016 11:29 am

I'd be happy if Colony Ships (to be more precise, the Colony Module) is removed entirely.
This exactly would make it impossible to colonize a planet outside of the starlane supply.

Instead of use larger maps it also could make the space elevator etc. more important, is to reduce the starlane supply. F.e. set orbital construction as theoretical prerequisite without supply bonus.

But: In a real universe there are no "starlanes". I would propose to completely forget about the concept of starlanes. A planet should be reachable as soon as it is visible. It would be reached by one jump. The duration of the jump depends on the distance. This also would bring back sense to the observatory what was used in former versions. This would have a relation to reality. The supply could be measured in uu.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4608
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: My game testing thread

#27 Post by Vezzra » Fri May 06, 2016 1:48 pm

user0169 wrote:But: In a real universe there are no "starlanes". I would propose to completely forget about the concept of starlanes. A planet should be reachable as soon as it is visible. It would be reached by one jump. The duration of the jump depends on the distance. This also would bring back sense to the observatory what was used in former versions. This would have a relation to reality. The supply could be measured in uu.
This discussion is as old as the FO project (both of them: starlanes yes or no and the topic of "realism"). Let me refer you to wiki pages where the decisions on these subjects are stated, which despite of their age are still in full force today:

defaultuser
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: My game testing thread

#28 Post by defaultuser » Fri May 06, 2016 3:29 pm

Kassiopeija wrote:I'd be happy if Colony Ships (to be more precise, the Colony Module) is removed entirely. Colonization can only happen then via the Outpost combo
I don't like like idea at all. I prefer to preserve options rather than force players down a particular path. Colony ships are more expensive, so each player can use situational specifics to decide which to use.

User avatar
Kassiopeija
Dyson Forest
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:14 pm
Location: Black Forest

Re: My game testing thread

#29 Post by Kassiopeija » Fri May 06, 2016 7:40 pm

The minimal additional cost of a Colony Ship is negligible in contrast to its gain - if say, you can have another planet, which, in turn, brings in bonus production/research, new supply and perhaps another growth special or else.

Such "outside" or "far-away" planets can just be utilized much better by a player than the AI. If it's not generating enough own supply to be connected with your homezone, you can still get it to work by using Elevator/Log setting, but the AI won't do this, and end up with a planet contributing nothing significantly except +2 research and using its production to rebuild the complete palette of starports, genome bank, industrial center & solar collector etc.

Thing is the supply game is kinda too easy. I already play at minimum settings (starlanes, planet density) but even at that there's hardly any fuel problems or a need for additional supply-techs.

UncleFred
Krill Swarm
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:51 pm

Re: My game testing thread

#30 Post by UncleFred » Fri May 06, 2016 8:09 pm

Kassiopeija wrote: Such "outside" or "far-away" planets can just be utilized much better by a player than the AI. If it's not generating enough own supply to be connected with your homezone, you can still get it to work by using Elevator/Log setting, but the AI won't do this, and end up with a planet contributing nothing significantly except +2 research and using its production to rebuild the complete palette of starports, genome bank, industrial center & solar collector etc.
I am against restricting play styles because the AI can't (yet) take advantage of that play style. The colony ship fills a useful need in certain maps, especially in very early game, that the outpost ship does not. I am strongly agains removing it from the game. The AI developers have made amazing progress to date and I have no doubt that at some future point the AI will be able to maximize the use of colony ships.

Post Reply