Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

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
sjolley
Space Krill
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:49 am

Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

#1 Post by sjolley » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:27 pm

I just loaded FreeOrion 04.1 RC2 and find a couple of items that puzzle me. I notice that you can't remote terraform (even if you have the tech) plants that should be able to be terraformed, but only have an outpost on them. You have to send a colony base/ship there first. The second item is I can't send a colony ship/base to a gas giant or asteroid belt even if I have learned Orbital Habitation. Are these expected behaviors? If so the descriptions on these techs should be changed.
Last edited by eleazar on Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: clarified title

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#2 Post by Bigjoe5 » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:40 pm

sjolley wrote:I just loaded FreeOrion 04.1 RC2 and find a couple of items that puzzle me. I notice that you can't remote terraform (even if you have the tech) plants that should be able to be terraformed, but only have an outpost on them. You have to send a colony base/ship there first. The second item is I can't send a colony ship/base to a gas giant or asteroid belt even if I have learned Orbital Habitation. Are these expected behaviors? If so the descriptions on these techs should be changed.
I guess that's another thing the new outpost feature broke. Now that zero-population colonies don't have population, the effect to set next best planet environment is meaningless.

I'm starting to think more and more that outposts should have species associated with them, as there's a lot of content that seems to rely on them, and it will require quite a bit of effort to make sure stuff doesn't seem broken.
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

sjolley
Space Krill
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:49 am

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#3 Post by sjolley » Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:20 am

I guess I didn’t follow the reasoning to drop outposts to 0 population. I believe I saw somewhere that the argument was you shouldn’t be able to grow a whole colony from just an outpost. I would have set them more at a much lower number for population such as .01 or something smaller, so that any growth would be rounded down to no growth each turn. (I am assuming that the populations is rounded in that statement. :) ) That would have had the same effect and not broken so much else. (I think)

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12282
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#4 Post by Geoff the Medio » Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:09 am

sjolley wrote:I can't send a colony ship/base to a gas giant or asteroid belt even if I have learned Orbital Habitation. Are these expected behaviors?
The existence of "Orbital Habitation" probably wasn't considered, but asteroids and gas giants are supposed to be uninhabitable now for humans (and likely various other species).
Bigjoe5 wrote:I'm starting to think more and more that outposts should have species associated with them, as there's a lot of content that seems to rely on them, and it will require quite a bit of effort to make sure stuff doesn't seem broken.
Old content is going to have to be rewritten... It's unavoidable when adding and reworking game mechanics. There are properties of planets, ClockwiseNextPlanetType and CounterClockwiseNextPlanetType, which don't presently have parsing, but will soon, which could be useful for less automatic terraforming implementation, and which don't depend on a particular species.

Regardless, I'm inclined to leave these issues in v0.4.1 unless there are major objections.

Zireael
Space Dragon
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:33 pm

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#5 Post by Zireael » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:13 am

Not bugs, but wishes:
I'd like for aggressiveness settings to actually relate to something. And for neutral (not-at-war) empires to be unable to park fleets/go through systems you own.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#6 Post by Vezzra » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:03 pm

Zireael wrote:I'd like for aggressiveness settings to actually relate to something.
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by that. Because they definitely acutally do something...
Zireael wrote:And for neutral (not-at-war) empires to be unable to park fleets/go through systems you own.
Well, ATM there are only two diplomatic relationship "states", "peace" and "war", so we don't have something like "neutral" now. There are more planned of course (you've seen that in the ongoing discussion on fleet aggressiveness).

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#7 Post by eleazar » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:34 pm

I see these errors message in RC 2, revision 5079

Code: Select all

ERROR Client : Cyclic key expansion: POP_PER_PRODUCTION in: /Users/jbjerk/Desktop/FreeOrion.app/Contents/Resources/default/eng_stringtable.txt.
ERROR Client : Cyclic key expansion: INFRA_PER_PRODUCTION in: /Users/jbjerk/Desktop/FreeOrion.app/Contents/Resources/default/eng_stringtable.txt
I'm not sure if it means things are working as intended or not, but messages like: "increases target industry ... by the greater of .2 per 5 units of population, or .4 per 8 units of infrastructure" -- is surely not the clearest way to communicate what's happening.

Zireael
Space Dragon
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:33 pm

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#8 Post by Zireael » Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:54 pm

Vezzra wrote:
Zireael wrote:I'd like for aggressiveness settings to actually relate to something.
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by that. Because they definitely acutally do something...
Another thread (linked to below) suggests that they are misleading, so I don't know...

Vezzra wrote:
Zireael wrote:And for neutral (not-at-war) empires to be unable to park fleets/go through systems you own.
Well, ATM there are only two diplomatic relationship "states", "peace" and "war", so we don't have something like "neutral" now. There are more planned of course (you've seen that in the ongoing discussion on fleet aggressiveness).
Should "peaceful" fleets be able to go through my systems, then?

User avatar
em3
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#9 Post by em3 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:03 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:Old content is going to have to be rewritten... It's unavoidable when adding and reworking game mechanics. There are properties of planets, ClockwiseNextPlanetType and CounterClockwiseNextPlanetType, which don't presently have parsing, but will soon, which could be useful for less automatic terraforming implementation, and which don't depend on a particular species.
Or, remote terraform could use the species of the originating planet if destination planet has none.
[...] for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane. - Randall Munroe, title text to xkcd #556

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#10 Post by Vezzra » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:38 pm

Zireael wrote:Should "peaceful" fleets be able to go through my systems, then?
As far as I've seen from my playtesting 0.4.1 so far, things work this way ATM:

If you're not at war (=at peace) with an empire, your fleets don't engage in combat at all, regardless of aggressivness setting. If you're at war with an empire, your fleets are engaging in combat if at least one fleet in a given system is set to "aggressive". If all fleets in a system are set to "passive", no combat is triggered, even if the empires involved are at war.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#11 Post by Vezzra » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:05 pm

Did another round of playtesting, found two issues in RC2:
  • Apparently the size of the thumbnail images in the finished designs list is not the same for predefined and player defined designs for the basic small hull type. I didn't check this for other hull types, maybe this applies to them as well.
  • We have several techs in the tech tree that enhance detection range, however, I didn't see any that increase detection strength. Apparently there haven't been added respective techs after the detection mechanics had been changed. This is a problem, as there is currently no way to ever detect universe objects who's stealth is greater than your default detection strength.

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#12 Post by Bigjoe5 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:21 pm

eleazar wrote:I see these errors message in RC 2, revision 5079

Code: Select all

ERROR Client : Cyclic key expansion: POP_PER_PRODUCTION in: /Users/jbjerk/Desktop/FreeOrion.app/Contents/Resources/default/eng_stringtable.txt.
ERROR Client : Cyclic key expansion: INFRA_PER_PRODUCTION in: /Users/jbjerk/Desktop/FreeOrion.app/Contents/Resources/default/eng_stringtable.txt
I'm not sure if it means things are working as intended or not, but messages like: "increases target industry ... by the greater of .2 per 5 units of population, or .4 per 8 units of infrastructure" -- is surely not the clearest way to communicate what's happening.
No, but it's a heck of a lot easier to maintain while still conveying what's actually happening. As you've pointed out, I like changing effects more than I like updating stringtable entries. This way, if we decide that we want to scale population or infrastructure resource bonuses by a certain amount, we don't need to redo all the stringtable entries, but can just modify a macro instead. I definitely wouldn't want to see descriptions like that in the finished game, though...

As for the Cyclic Key Expansion, I think that's a bug in the parser. There is no such cyclical reference. However, I've noticed that when I use the same macro key twice in the same entry, the second one doesn't get parsed, and remains as [[WHATEVER]].
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12282
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#13 Post by Geoff the Medio » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:29 pm

Bigjoe5 wrote:As for the Cyclic Key Expansion, I think that's a bug in the parser. There is no such cyclical reference. However, I've noticed that when I use the same macro key twice in the same entry, the second one doesn't get parsed, and remains as [[WHATEVER]].
There is a bug of that nature with stringtable entries. I had to rewrite some code for content file macro substitution to avoid it, but didn't bother at the time for the stringtable substitution.

Sai
Pupating Mass
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#14 Post by Sai » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:46 pm

I was unable to enter any text in my game (for instance for renaming or designing ships). Restarting the client fixed this. I presume it might be because I tried to alt-tab, behaviour which seems to not be supported in the client (as it simply does not work, I see my menu bar, but FreeOrion stays on top otherwise).

Beyond this, whenever I hover over items in the production list, there are lots of green (PASSED).

Finally I found it very confusing that things like The Imperial Palace were available for building on my home world, later on I found out they had already been built there!

Oh, and maybe a way to change the seed of the game, because all games I so far created seem exactly identical thus far.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12282
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2

#15 Post by Geoff the Medio » Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:08 pm

Sai wrote:...I tried to alt-tab, behaviour which seems to not be supported in the client (as it simply does not work, I see my menu bar, but FreeOrion stays on top otherwise).
If you want to see other windows while running FreeOrion, run in Windowed mode.
Beyond this, whenever I hover over items in the production list, there are lots of green (PASSED).
And? Why is this a problem?
Oh, and maybe a way to change the seed of the game, because all games I so far created seem exactly identical thus far.
Add or remove a star. Reproducible galaxy generation is intentional, mainly for making reproducible testing possible.

Post Reply