Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

Discussion about the project in general, organization, website, or any other details that aren't directly about the game.
Message
Author
User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5512
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#1 Post by Vezzra »

Tomorrow is the last Monday of February (Monday of the following week is already March 1st), which means it's time again for our online voice chat meeting.

So, at the usual time: Monday, February 22nd 2021, 7pm UCT or 8pm Vienna/Berlin time

And place: Jitsi room https://meet.jit.si/ThoroughNovembersConvertPossibly

In the thread of the last meeting (which didn't take place due to a lack of attendants), Cjkjvfnby posted something they want to talk about, so I'm putting it on the agenda for this meeting:
Cjkjvfnby wrote:Question I would like to start pushing is upgrade Python version from 3.5. At list build list of checks that should be done to initiate an update.
There are no other topics from my side, aside from the usual "anything else that comes to mind". Please post your suggestions for additional topics here if there is something you want to talk about.

See you tomorrow! :)

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#2 Post by o01eg »

  • Switching to Github Actions CI
  • Python parser
  • Godot client
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-10.2, boost-1.75.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 0.4.10.1.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
Cjkjvfnby
AI Contributor
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:55 pm

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#3 Post by Cjkjvfnby »

Define the list of actions required to upgrade the minimum Python version.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#4 Post by Ophiuchus »

  • how to solve targeting damage estimation and UI (e.g. flak, fighters, monsters...)
Some options:

Choice of estimation: choose-your-targets, predefined-targets

Damage Calculation: specialised-estimation-by-well-known-named-conditions, specialised-estimation-by-additional-focs-valref, generic-estimation-by-combat-against-target

Consumers are:
  • total damage estimation for ship parts and for ship designs for players in ship design view
  • damage estimation for ships and fleets in fleet window
  • total damage estimation for AI (ship design, fleet estimation, combat result estimation)
edit1:
What we talked: there are multiple issues.
  • the combat system became more complex - accurate damage estimations against ships were possible before (shot count, shot damage, shield), but not anymore. E.g. monster claws only do damage starting from round 3, so with four rounds it does only 50% damage of what the game estimates. Also the very good UI we have for fighters may have to go (?).
  • Description of weapon target conditions could automatically be generated, but it is easy to manually provide a better description per weapon part , so this is not really a problem
  • total damage estimates are very context/target dependent. automatic generic estimation could only provided by a combat simulator (which should be included in the game one day and exposed per API to different clients)
  • it might make sense to split damage estimations into ship/planet damage and fighter damage estimates
  • the simplest flexible variant to get better estimations is adding a field "combatDamageEstimation" valueRef to FOCS weapon and hangar (or launch bay?) parts where you can override the default estimation (no-of-bouts * no-of-shots * damage-of-shot)
  • total damage estimates for a ship or ship design may depend on the complete ship, not only on a part (e.g. combination of hangars, launch bays, and number of combat rounds). A context can be passed to the evaluation of a valueref so even fighter damage can be calculated there.
  • estimates for ship designs are based on a freshly created ship (full structure)
  • estimates for ships are based on that ship (so the value ref can use e.g. a low Source.Structure)
  • estimates for fleet sum up the estimates for the ships in the fleet
Also maybe one could refer to the Source.targetCondition in order to filter for Ship/Planet/Fighter (?)
Last edited by Ophiuchus on Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#5 Post by Oberlus »

If there is time, it would be great if I can get some feedback on the following incomplete draft for influence and stability mechanics:

STABILITY
Readiness to work for the empire and obey its rules. Not a consumable resource.

Low stability means people is unhealthy and/or discontent or rebellious, and thus less productive, if any.
High stability means people is either happy-and-healthy or dominated-and-healthy-enough to work at high efficiency.

Effects with fluffs that supply people's needs or gives them rights (negotiation), fool them to be happy or committed (manipulation), force them to work or behave (oppression), or are in line with their values (opinion), will rise stability. Conversely, effects that deprives people of freedom, rights or resources, or that go against their values, will decrease stability.

In-game effects from stability:
1. Certain facilities and policy effects require a minimum stability to operate or apply, e.g. shipyards need stability 1+, stargates stability 5+, industrialism 10+ (not implemented, easy).
2. Meter growth is proportional to stability/10 with and without Energy-Force Structures (currently implemented for standard growth with stability/5, and not implemented for EFS).
3. Stability<=0 sets supply, research, industry and influence outputs to zero (but not influence upkeeps/sinks)
4. Stability<=0 decreases defending troops over time (not implemented, needs design).
5. Stability<=0 and defending troops=0 for more than X turns (1-3) reverts colony to unowned or to owned by the foreign empire that was exerting the biggest “conquering” influence over the planet (no influence conquest mechanics for now, this is a placeholder).
6. Bonus to resistance against influence conquest from high stability (no influence conquest mechanics for now, this is a placeholder).

If we can get (4) to work, we would have a working placeholder for influence conquest, by allowing the convert influence points into offensive troops (influence points lower defending troops until a small troop ship is enough to invade the planet).


INFLUENCE
The power of the empire to make people do its bid, it conveys concepts such as loyalty, fear or abundance (to meet people’s needs, be it food, goods or anything else). The same that production is consumed in building stuff and research is consumed in unlocking techs, influence is consumed in meeting people’s needs and controlling them.

Certain effects with fluffs about ensuring people’s needs are met, propaganda, giving people certain rights, or exerting oppression on them, will either increase influence production or decrease influence upkeep.
Conversely, certain effects with fluffs about forcing the capabilities of people or reducing resources invested on meeting their needs will decrease/limit/forbid their influence production or increase the influence upkeep.

Influence in-game effects (sources and sinks):
1. Planetary focus set to influence increase influence output (what planets can do it and how much they produce depends on policies).
2. Some buildings produce influence. Some ships could too (TBD).
3. Adopting policies costs influence (to do: many effects should require policies).
4. Colonies cost influence. Number of colonies and/or distance to capital or closest regional center increase colony influence upkeep (depends on policies).
5. Ships cost influence. Number of ships or number and cost of hulls/parts increase ship influence upkeep (depends on policies).
6. To do: negative influence stockpile must have bad consequences that does not cripple the empire and that can sort itself out without player intervention.

We need something for (6) because not being able to adopt new policies is not enough of a deterrent for players to totally neglect influence production mid/late game after they adopt their chosen subset of policies. Possible negative consequences:
- Adopted policies are disabled (or automatically de-adopted). Issue: this could trigger a chain reaction if disabled policies were boosts to influence, causing bigger influence deficits and making the situation unsolvable.
- A subset of planets with biggest influence upkeep (never all of them at once, to avoid catastrophic effects) gets target population malus and/or stability malus (depending on policies) that increase over time while influence keeps in red numbers until some of those planets rebel out (from stability zero) or perish (from population zero) and then total colony influence is reduced and situation sorts itself out. Pro: it really makes sense that negative influence means unhappy people. Issue: several options to decide what planets to penalize, not clear which one is best.
- Shipyards stop working: I don’t see possible chain reactions or catastrophic effects. Assuming influence conquest does consume influence points, this could work for most of the game, as long as building new ships is necessary to win. The only weird, late game situation in which this could not work that I can imagine is when an empire could manage with their current army and focus on research victory.
- Ships won’t obey certain orders, making conquering new planets impossible, and making more difficult defending own planets. Issues: this needs detailed design; this could be excessive, not sure if it could bring empires to their knees.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#6 Post by Ophiuchus »

* a short feedback on current implementation topics
** influence on outposts: should 5(?) outposts count as a colony?
** influence species trait: should only apply to focus bonus (at least upkeep should happen afterwards, else we get negative influence for good_influence traits)

edit1: as I was interrupted, I could only ask about the outposts and only hear half of the answers. As far as I got it geoff is ok with having outpost cost being less than colonies also in upkeep scaling, we will start with 4 outposts == 1 colony.
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!

User avatar
Cjkjvfnby
AI Contributor
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:55 pm

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#7 Post by Cjkjvfnby »

This meeting has changed my life, I have pronounced the game name with a Russian accent for a decade.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=ru&tl= ... late&hl=en
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#8 Post by Oberlus »

Cjkjvfnby wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:23 pm This meeting has changed my life, I have pronounced the game name with a Russian accent for a decade.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=ru&tl= ... late&hl=en
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I guess I was saying something like Free-Onion (with the r sound).

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#9 Post by Oberlus »

Could anyone that attended the meeting tell me if you had time to discuss this?

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12932
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#10 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:10 am Could anyone that attended the meeting tell me if you had time to discuss this?
It was briefly discussed after almost 2 hours. The decision was that you should probably join the call next month if you want to propose a topic that substantial and complicated, but it can be first on the agenda then.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#11 Post by Oberlus »

Thank you. I expected it.
I wished to attend, but I had a meeting until 20:45 and I thought it would be disruptive to join you an hour after you begin. Next time should I join even if it's late?

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12932
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#12 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:39 am...should I join even if it's late?
Yes. Maybe post that you'll be late if you know it ahead if time so we'll know to wait.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5512
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#13 Post by Vezzra »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:39 amI thought it would be disruptive to join you an hour after you begin. Next time should I join even if it's late?
As far as I am concerned, I have absolutely no problem with people dropping in late. While most of the currently active devs and contributors are located in Europe (AFAICT), we are still scattered over several timezones.

It's unrealistic to expect that everyone can join on time and stay until the end. Some might join late, others leave early. That's to be expected.

However, as Geoff already pointed out, if someone wants or needs to be around for a certain topic (because they proposed it, have important input to give, or whatever), and can't attend the entire meeting, letting us know in advance when they will be able to join will be very helpful. :)

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#14 Post by Ophiuchus »

Cjkjvfnby wrote:Question I would like to start pushing is upgrade Python version from 3.5. At list build list of checks that should be done to initiate an update.
What was decided?
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!

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Online voice chat meeting, Monday February 22nd 2021

#15 Post by o01eg »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:42 pm
Cjkjvfnby wrote:Question I would like to start pushing is upgrade Python version from 3.5. At list build list of checks that should be done to initiate an update.
What was decided?
We need to update SDK from 3.5 to 3.6 python.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-10.2, boost-1.75.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 0.4.10.1.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

Post Reply