Pathing around danger
Moderator: Oberlus
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.
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.
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Pathing around danger
4.10
If I set a colony ship to colonize a planet, it will path through bleeding deadly monsters. Can you please make pathing go around anything dangerous(unless the danger is the destination) If we hold down what ever button when choosing pathing, then that can override that and cause pathing to ignore danger. I think that will significantly make for less micromanaging in game.
If I set a colony ship to colonize a planet, it will path through bleeding deadly monsters. Can you please make pathing go around anything dangerous(unless the danger is the destination) If we hold down what ever button when choosing pathing, then that can override that and cause pathing to ignore danger. I think that will significantly make for less micromanaging in game.
Re: Pathing around danger
Already implemented. Hold shift or ctrl and then right-click or left-click in the systems you want the ship to go through. (can't remember what is the actual combination of keys, it's just intuitive so you'll find out if you care to try things out before comming to the forum to spam it with silly questions).
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Pathing around danger
@Oberious
Hey obnoxious troll hypocrite, you were saying elsewhere you want a steam-line game. Holding a key then then selecting a side system, maybe several, to path around a danger is unnecessary actions that contribute nothing to the fun of the game, just represent hassle and time wasted for the player. I am talking about a pathing system that paths around the danger automatically. And here you are saying the current micromanaging pathing system is sufficient enough. I want better. You continuously act like the game is absolutely perfect the way it is. So I guess you're saying there is no point in this forum.
Hey obnoxious troll hypocrite, you were saying elsewhere you want a steam-line game. Holding a key then then selecting a side system, maybe several, to path around a danger is unnecessary actions that contribute nothing to the fun of the game, just represent hassle and time wasted for the player. I am talking about a pathing system that paths around the danger automatically. And here you are saying the current micromanaging pathing system is sufficient enough. I want better. You continuously act like the game is absolutely perfect the way it is. So I guess you're saying there is no point in this forum.
Re: Pathing around danger
Yeah, we got that part.
What is a tad less clear is what you're doing to make it better.
In a way, yes, posting on the forum could be a way to help - but only if you also listen to what people tells you.
Oberlus isn't constructive anymore in this discussion, but he was/tried to be in the beginning.
If you can't listen to him (doesn't mean always agreeing with him), it's probably better to not react to his posts.
You're lucky that he's afaik honest as a moderator and (to my knowledge) never used the ban hammer to settle personal feuds, but if you start insulting people it won't matter anymore.
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Pathing around danger
If I get insulted, I insult back. My "insult" was specific description of behavior. Also are you saying Oberlus is a mod? Because they don't look it.
Manual options for setting a path around a danger is not a substitute for the game automatically pathing around the danger. BTW, I knew of the manual method before even posting this thread. I want a automatic method to reduce micromanaging, and I bet all of you would appreciate that too and would realize such if you got off your confrontational high horse.
Is this the whole, any suggestion I make I must code myself, bit again?What is a tad less clear is what you're doing to make it better.
Manual options for setting a path around a danger is not a substitute for the game automatically pathing around the danger. BTW, I knew of the manual method before even posting this thread. I want a automatic method to reduce micromanaging, and I bet all of you would appreciate that too and would realize such if you got off your confrontational high horse.
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13587
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
Re: Pathing around danger
The current system is essentially that it default sets the shortest route to the specified destination, and if you want something else, you tell it something else. Having it automaticlaly do different things in a context dependent way would require setting up a bunch of rules about how to evaluate that context, which is going to be complicated, fragile, and not very intuitive. A vaiable simpler to understand option might be to have the player be able to manually mark a system as "don't path here" and all fleet move orders would avoid that system. But I don't think it's a high priority.truepurple wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 7:34 pmHolding a key then then selecting a side system, maybe several, to path around a danger is unnecessary actions that contribute nothing to the fun of the game...
Given the level of enthusiasm your suggestions have found in others on the forums, probably that would be the most effective way to get most of what you want added or implemented.truepurple wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 7:58 pmIs this the whole, any suggestion I make I must code myself, bit again?
I suggest trying to ignore posted stuff you don't like, rather than engaging in off-topic and mostly-pointless arguing and insulting via internet forum posts...
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Pathing around danger
This idea is extremely simple and so intuitive that there is nothing to think about for the player. If something is present in a system that can possibly attack anything, the game chooses a path around that, like that pathing option doesn't exist. So scouts and what not would not trigger this, but visible enemy frigates of any strength present would. Again you hold down a key while choosing a path would override this and have you path through any danger. Of course this could be reversed so you hold a key to path around any danger, but I think pathing around danger would be used more, it could be a option in options which is the default and which requires holding down a key.Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:36 pm The current system is essentially that it default sets the shortest route to the specified destination, and if you want something else, you tell it something else. Having it automaticlaly do different things in a context dependent way would require setting up a bunch of rules about how to evaluate that context, which is going to be complicated, fragile, and not very intuitive. A vaiable simpler to understand option might be to have the player be able to manually mark a system as "don't path here" and all fleet move orders would avoid that system. But I don't think it's a high priority.
Context is irrelevant and still for the player to figure out, can something present attack what your sending, if yes, then path around like that path option doesn't exist for the auto pathing system. Simple for the players and should be simple to program too. Just a simple ignoring a path option for the program.
Re: Pathing around danger
Actually, no, that was not my suggestion here.truepurple wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 7:58 pmIs this the whole, any suggestion I make I must code myself, bit again?What is a tad less clear is what you're doing to make it better.
What you could do to help would certainly be coding a little bit in order to understand that it's not done at random but integrates many constraints, indeed.
And too that coding an idea takes more time that just throwing out ideas (which I also did when I first came here, it's not a problem per se).
But if you can't code no one is demanding that you do.
What you could do to help right now, though, is starting to listen to what other people tell you and maybe not dismiss what more experienced players write without trying to understand what they wrote (they certainly can be wrong, and what you say can be interesting, but that's not a given, it needs argumentation to prove it).
Stopping to present your suggestions - or whims - like they are demands would be a step up too.
Understanding that things are done the way they are mostly because of the existence of constraints that you mostly don't know (which is fine, you're a beginner) and don't care about (which is certainly less fine), not because people are entirely stupid. Not to say that your input can't be valuable, but it will be when you'll take these constraints into the equation, not much before that.
Learn the base of the game and of past design discussions, or at least
show a genuine desire to learn (there are thousands of posts, nobody can be expected to read them all, but on many topics the required readings can be reduced to a few thread pages, and people are usually ready to point you to where these threads are if you don't willingly or unwillingly antagonize them).
And understand that any proposition you'll make before that will probably be irrelevant (not necessarily bad, but irrelevant to what is possible in the game) so should be presented with some humility, not as the miracle that everybody's waiting for (there are miracles we're waiting for, like a good stealth mechanism, a way to have "tall" strategies, distributed Empires without the infamous Stockpile mechanism, good maneuvering options, or working and balanced Influence/Policies/Stability mechanisms, but I'm not convinced that you'll find a solution to them without first understanding the problematic).
Maybe take a few days off the forum to let things cool down and think about what made most of your interactions here confrontational.
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Pathing around danger
You keep on talking abstract, listen to what, that there is a manual way to set a path around a danger? AKA "Hold shift or ctrl and then right-click or left-click in the systems you want the ship to go through." I said, I already knew that before posting this thread!
My suggestion is a fully automated way to path around danger so you don't have to manually set a path around danger, to cut down on micromanaging. It is you who are not listening.
My suggestion is a fully automated way to path around danger so you don't have to manually set a path around danger, to cut down on micromanaging. It is you who are not listening.
Re: Pathing around danger
Your suggestion is not as simple or useful as you think as it is as geoff already said. Having an avoid-this-object marker would solve a lot of this. The more important topic is actually automated exploration which shares a lot with wayfinding.truepurple wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:36 pm My suggestion is a fully automated way to path around danger so you don't have to manually set a path around danger, to cut down on micromanaging.
E.g. you suggest there is a monster in the path and it is has weapons, default route should go around it.
Some reasons why you would want to go through that
- that kind of monster is mobile, or wont stop/attack you if you just pass by
- that monster is not able to penetrate your shields
- you dont care about that damage (e.g. you would repair afterwards or accept the losses)
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Pathing around danger
That;s why it would be a option that could be on or off with a press of a key, that would allow you to path around danger or ignore danger as you wish, you'd still save on micromanagement.
1. From what I've seen, the only monsters that don't attack, don't have attacks. Small snowflakes, small and medium krill etc. and thus won't be something that triggers path around danger. If there is a monster that has an attack, but doesn't normally attack, then they can be on the list of things to not path around.
2. If there is issues/difficulty with path around planning a path around a mobile danger, it could be set to stop the path and alert you of the danger instead. Or it could even just ignore mobile danger and just path around stationary danger, system guardians are powerful and a common part of the game, even if path around just pathed around them, that would still be a micromanagement saver.
3. The circumstances to path around danger are much more frequent than the circumstances you want to path through them from my experience.
4. It's a optional, Like I said, you press a key and you path through danger normally. Or the reverse, you path through danger unless you press a key while choosing the destination and then you path around danger. Or a option in menu for which way it works, whether pressing the key disables or enables pathing around danger normally. This would allow people to have it both ways as they like and need and even if you only use path around danger 3% of the time, this will still save micromanaging.
5. Autoexplore does not cover this. First, some people may wish to choose explore paths as they discover things. Since this game seems to lack planet lists like Mo2, you got check out what you find anyway., And exploring is by far not the only use of path around danger. If you are parked next to a system guardian in a game and routinely have to go around it for whatever reason, path around danger would be a blessing.
The amount of time I'd save having to repeatedly set paths around system guardians. that were created near my home system would be, not small.
So if it's both easy to program, and would save people any amount of time repeatedly setting paths around danger, what is there to object against? This is a no brainer, FO would be a better game with path around danger function.
1. From what I've seen, the only monsters that don't attack, don't have attacks. Small snowflakes, small and medium krill etc. and thus won't be something that triggers path around danger. If there is a monster that has an attack, but doesn't normally attack, then they can be on the list of things to not path around.
2. If there is issues/difficulty with path around planning a path around a mobile danger, it could be set to stop the path and alert you of the danger instead. Or it could even just ignore mobile danger and just path around stationary danger, system guardians are powerful and a common part of the game, even if path around just pathed around them, that would still be a micromanagement saver.
3. The circumstances to path around danger are much more frequent than the circumstances you want to path through them from my experience.
4. It's a optional, Like I said, you press a key and you path through danger normally. Or the reverse, you path through danger unless you press a key while choosing the destination and then you path around danger. Or a option in menu for which way it works, whether pressing the key disables or enables pathing around danger normally. This would allow people to have it both ways as they like and need and even if you only use path around danger 3% of the time, this will still save micromanaging.
5. Autoexplore does not cover this. First, some people may wish to choose explore paths as they discover things. Since this game seems to lack planet lists like Mo2, you got check out what you find anyway., And exploring is by far not the only use of path around danger. If you are parked next to a system guardian in a game and routinely have to go around it for whatever reason, path around danger would be a blessing.
The amount of time I'd save having to repeatedly set paths around system guardians. that were created near my home system would be, not small.
So if it's both easy to program, and would save people any amount of time repeatedly setting paths around danger, what is there to object against? This is a no brainer, FO would be a better game with path around danger function.
Re: Pathing around danger
While I'm most likely not the most proficient coder around here, AFAIK pathfinding isn't among the easier/simpler things to program, hence the assumption "easy to program" is probably not entirely accurate.truepurple wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 1:18 pmSo if it's both easy to program, and would save people any amount of time repeatedly setting paths around danger, what is there to object against?
Which means, like with a lot of other features that have been suggested in the past and would be nice to have, it all comes down to someone (who is capable of coding the feature in question) wanting it badly enough that they decide to implement it. That's the way this project has been working pretty much since I've joined almost 10 years ago (and very likely before that). Not uncommen for an open source project.
So, judging by the discussion above, this is a feature you'd like to see very much (which I can understand, it's certainly a nice feature I've often wished for myself). But if you can't implement it yourself (because you don't have the skills or the time or for whatever reason), you can only suggest the idea. From there on it depends on someone else willing to contribute to pick it up and implemet it. You can hope, but not expect or demand that anyone else considers a certain feature as important as you do.
My impression is that for the people here who reacted negatively you came across as a bit too demanding, that's all.
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Pathing around danger
Normal pathing in game is probably pretty challenging in games with different levels and stuff to get snagged on with 3d games, lots of games get it wrong. But the path ships take are very simple. And the solution to programming the paths to ignore danger is simply having another part of the program don't tell the pathing program that a dangerous occupied location is a valid path.
The game only needs to treat the dangerous spot as not there when it figures the path, problem solved. How can that be difficult to program?
As far as saying I come across "demanding" I can't help what people arbitrarily decide like that, it's nothing to do with me. Defending my beliefs with argument ≠ demanding to have my way, anyone who'd confuse those two things needs to reexamine their perceptions & conceptions.
The game only needs to treat the dangerous spot as not there when it figures the path, problem solved. How can that be difficult to program?
As far as saying I come across "demanding" I can't help what people arbitrarily decide like that, it's nothing to do with me. Defending my beliefs with argument ≠ demanding to have my way, anyone who'd confuse those two things needs to reexamine their perceptions & conceptions.
Re: Pathing around danger
In comparison, yes. However, how "simple" or "difficult" a certain algorithm (in this case, pathfinding) is to implement depends on your coding skills. For me even the comparatively "simple" current implementation of pathfinding in FO would already be quite a challenge (as I have no idea how that's done, I'd have to do a lot of reading and learning before), the more complex pathfinding in current 3D games is completely and utterly beyond my capabilities.truepurple wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:14 pm Normal pathing in game is probably pretty challenging in games with different levels and stuff to get snagged on with 3d games, lots of games get it wrong. But the path ships take are very simple.
But then, I'm only an average programmer.
In theory I'd agree, but then, as I said above, for me the current implementation would already test my skills to their limits, so what do I know?The game only needs to treat the dangerous spot as not there when it figures the path, problem solved. How can that be difficult to program?
As I said in my previous post, in the end it all comes down if someone who is capable of implementing a requested feature wants it badly enough that they implement it. Keep in mind that this is an open source project. All who contribute (in whatever form) do that in their free time and get nothing for it, so you can't demand anything from any of them. You can only make suggestions and politely ask, but then you have to leave it at that and wait that someone picks it up and implements it (unless you do it yourself, you're always welcome to provide patches ).
That is a rather bold statement, don't you think? If you get into an argument with someone and things start to get heated and confrontational, you always should ask yourself if the fault for that could at least partly be your part. It's just the mature thing to do. You can always ask yourself if e.g. you could have phrased some things better. Things that don't sound offensive to you might be perceived differently by someone else. Don't assume that just because something you said sounds completely ok to you, that everyone else perceives it exactly the same way.As far as saying I come across "demanding" I can't help what people arbitrarily decide like that, it's nothing to do with me.
True, but then, did you really only defend your beliefs with arguments? It may look to you that way, but to give you some personal feedback, to me you come across, how shall I put it, maybe a bit strongly? Also a bit demanding? Maybe "demanding" isn't quite the right term, it's difficult for me to phrase correctly as I'm not a native speaker.Defending my beliefs with argument ≠ demanding to have my way, anyone who'd confuse those two things needs to reexamine their perceptions & conceptions.
It's certainly not so bad that I would take any offense, but that's me (unless you get downright rude and insulting I won't take offense, others might be less laid back). But to take an example: your above statement "The game only needs to treat the dangerous spot as not there when it figures the path, problem solved. How can that be difficult to program?" is not you just making an objective argument, especially not after e.g. Geoff already gave you a reply where he pointed out some potential issues. Phrasing it like that at this point in the discussion sounds a bit like "Are you guys stupid? Don't you see how simple that change is and what a big benefit it would be?".
That's not particularly nice. And I'm willing to assume that's not what you meant. But, as I said above, people are different, and some might perceive that as a bit offensive (people in general don't like being considered stupid), and react, let's say, a bit less respectfull than they maybe should. Which in turn offends you, and you get a bit stronger in your reply, and so on. And if erveryone involved thinks "it's nothing to do with me" (implying "it's the others who are solely at fault here"), I hope you can see how that gets no one anywhere (except into a flame war).
All this has nothing to do who's right or wrong. It's a matter of how I make my arguments, of being respectful even when the other is wrong, and to refrain from name-calling/insults even if it were justified. And this is something I don't want to address only to you, truepurple, but as a reminder that can't be said often enough to everyone involved here in this discussion (and the other threads were things got too heated recently). Me included.
Insults, condescending/dismissive statements are never, in any way, helpful or constructive, even in cases where they might be justified, or more than justified. They will only ever escalate things and make people less willing to listen to each other, to accept other opinions and criticism. If you want someone else to listen to you, stay polite and respectful, no matter what. If you at some point come to the conclusion that you can't get through to someone, just stop replying to them. But making condescending/dismissive/insulting statements is just pointless. Can we all agree on that?
Re: Pathing around danger
Point taken myself, Vezzra. Perfectly explained.