Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

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.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Toastmartin
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:39 am

Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#1 Post by Toastmartin » Mon May 02, 2016 8:39 pm

Hi,

i just did a game with trith (latest test version) and noticed that the xennophobic fenzy can account for POSITIVE effects on the max population (see srceenshot). The source for that was an eaxaw-colony 4 lanes away.
But when conquering said xenophobic worm, they did NOT suffer the frenzy despite enemy humans being 2 lanes away. Seems like conquered xenophobes dont suffer from xenophobia any more. And seems like my fellow trith are profiting from it in some cases (not all).
Attachments
trith2.png
trith2.png (790.31 KiB) Viewed 599 times
trith.png
trith.png (1007.09 KiB) Viewed 599 times

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4657
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#2 Post by Vezzra » Mon May 02, 2016 8:52 pm

Toastmartin wrote:i just did a game with trith (latest test version) and noticed that the xennophobic fenzy can account for POSITIVE effects on the max population (see srceenshot). The source for that was an eaxaw-colony 4 lanes away.
But when conquering said xenophobic worm, they did NOT suffer the frenzy despite enemy humans being 2 lanes away. Seems like conquered xenophobes dont suffer from xenophobia any more. And seems like my fellow trith are profiting from it in some cases (not all).
Nothing of that seems right... Xenophobic Frenzy should not yield positive effects, and it should not matter for the xenophobic effects if a planet with xenophobes has been conquered. Can you create a github issue?

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

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#3 Post by MatGB » Mon May 02, 2016 10:35 pm

Yeah, I'm playing Trith at the moment and have noticed similar, it seems to only be related to if the target population is otherwise negative, there's some sort of double negative effect happening, I was trying to see if I could fix it but I'm not getting anywhere.

If you do open an issue, can you add in that the Self Sustaining bonus is opening up worlds to habitability when it shouldn't as well? That's something I introduced when fixing a different issue with self sustaining and forgot to go back to it.
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: 4657
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#4 Post by Vezzra » Tue May 03, 2016 7:06 am

MatGB wrote:If you do open an issue, can you add in that the Self Sustaining bonus is opening up worlds to habitability when it shouldn't as well?
Wouldn't it be better to create a separate issue for that?

Toastmartin
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:39 am

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#5 Post by Toastmartin » Tue May 03, 2016 9:08 am

Sorry, dont know anything about github. Would probably produce more work by doing wrong/asking more questions than if somebody else did it.
While we're at it: It would be cool, if the planet affected by xenphobic frenzy and harassment would state the name of the other planet that is causing it. So that I know where to send my ships (or develop scanners) to "solve" the problem ..
Is it intentional that trith can inhabit any planet with subterranian- and orbital habitation (without Cyborgs)?

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

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#6 Post by MatGB » Tue May 03, 2016 10:18 pm

Toastmartin wrote:Sorry, dont know anything about github. Would probably produce more work by doing wrong/asking more questions than if somebody else did it.
Fair enough, my cold has me so bunged up I'm avoiding it for similar reasons.
While we're at it: It would be cool, if the planet affected by xenphobic frenzy and harassment would state the name of the other planet that is causing it. So that I know where to send my ships (or develop scanners) to "solve" the problem ..
Yes, it would, problem is that currently the formula is worked as a count of all affecting planets, I'm actually thinking of changing that a bit.
Is it intentional that trith can inhabit any planet with subterranian- and orbital habitation (without Cyborgs)?
No, that would be the thing I mention above, I changed the way Self Sustaining works when I redid the habitation priorities to match what the description said it did, but can't gate it (not sure if it should be gated, the Growth specials have the same affect). It needs fixing, but I'm not sure how.

Part of me thinkgs fixing it best is to stop SS species getting the biological habitation bonuses, but that opens another can of worms.
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: 12268
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#7 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed May 04, 2016 9:30 am

MatGB wrote:Part of me thinkgs fixing it best is to stop SS species getting the biological habitation bonuses, but that opens another can of worms.
I thought that was how it already worked... or at least used to...?

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

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#8 Post by MatGB » Thu May 05, 2016 12:25 am

Geoff the Medio wrote:
MatGB wrote:Part of me thinkgs fixing it best is to stop SS species getting the biological habitation bonuses, but that opens another can of worms.
I thought that was how it already worked... or at least used to...?
Definitely doesn't currently, and I don't remember it ever doing so but there was a gap in my playing at the time they were introduced.

SS is supposed to replace the Growth specials but they get it automatically at the beginning, it's probably a bit over the top as is. On the other hand, reduce it to equivalent to 2 growth specials instead of 3 and most of the problems go (the Poor malus is the same amount).
Mat Bowles

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

Toastmartin
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:39 am

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#9 Post by Toastmartin » Thu May 05, 2016 3:49 pm

regarding possible population: While playing with lafena I could colozinze even hostile planets with only planetary ecology and subterrinian habitation (see screenshot). Ok, it as a blue star, but that seems exessive.
Intentional? How exactly is the formula for the pop including specials, racials, and tech?
Attachments
lafena.png
lafena.png (890.4 KiB) Viewed 501 times

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

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#10 Post by MatGB » Sun May 08, 2016 3:34 pm

Toastmartin wrote:regarding possible population: While playing with lafena I could colozinze even hostile planets with only planetary ecology and subterrinian habitation (see screenshot). Ok, it as a blue star, but that seems exessive.
Intentional? How exactly is the formula for the pop including specials, racials, and tech?
Intentional, it's not an exact formula but I started work on a spreadsheet last year that I never finished: I think it's still accurate as I don't recall modifying anything recently.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Each planet has a size (Tiny is 1, Huge is 5), most effects give a bonus that's multiplied by planet size. So a Very Bright star gives phototrophes a +3 bonus multiplied byt the size of the world.

Note that that's exactly the same as what Self Sustaining creatures get on all worlds, and the same as what other metabolisms get for having all three Growth Specials.

At some point I want to give all this another pass, but I'm very happy with the basic flavour, I think Phototrophes might benefit from a bit more variety, I genuinely don't think they're unbalanced (exception: on No Specials and Young Galaxy they have a fairly strong advantage but that's a user defined setting).
Mat Bowles

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

Toastmartin
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:39 am

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#11 Post by Toastmartin » Mon May 09, 2016 7:14 pm

ok, cool. The last piece I need to undestand the whole pop-complex: What exactly do the racial braod tolerance and narrow tolerance do?
narrow: home is good, one step in the circle is poor, rest is hostile?
normal: home is good, one step in the circle means one step worse (good, adequate, poor, hostile)?
broad ????

dbenage-cx
Programmer
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:08 am

Re: Bug? Xenophobic frenzy

#12 Post by dbenage-cx » Mon May 09, 2016 8:48 pm

Broad basically gives an extra poor in each direction.

Comparison of initial Barren:

Code: Select all

Type     | Narrow  | Normal  | Broad
--------------------------------------
Swamp    | Hostile | Hostile | Hostile
Toxic    | Hostile | Hostile | Poor
Inferno  | Hostile | Poor    | Poor
Radiated | Poor    | Adeq    | Adeq
Barren   | Good    | Good    | Good
Tundra   | Poor    | Adeq    | Adeq
Desert   | Hostile | Poor    | Poor
Terran   | Hostile | Hostile | Poor
Ocean    | Hostile | Hostile | Hostile
Any content posted should be considered licensed GNU GPL 2.0 and/or CC-BY-SA 3.0 as appropriate.

Post Reply