View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001909 | AI War 1 / Classic | Bug - Other | Dec 8, 2010 1:58 am | Dec 8, 2010 6:15 pm | |
| Reporter | LintMan | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Summary | 0001909: Orbital Mass Drivers cannot target AI Carriers | ||||
| Description | I assume they should be able to do this, but Orbital Mass Drivers cannot target AI Carriers. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
nor can bomber stars and siege stars |
|
|
Very good points, for 4.047: * Decoy Drones and AI Carriers can now be targetted and damaged by siege starships and bomber starships. ** Thanks to Spikey00 and Lancefighter for the reports. * AI Carriers can now be targetted and damaged by Orbital Mass Drivers. ** Thanks to LintMan for the report. |
|
|
Targeting carriers is probably disadvantageous actually. Carriers are probably not as strong as a thousand mk 2 ships. |
|
|
Ok, I do see why that would be a pain to the players when controlling the rate of carrier "opening" makes such a big difference. I'm reverting out that change (as soon as the svn clears through, anyway). But I'd like some kind of consensus from the players soon on what they want done about this, so we can either have the change or just keep flagging duplicates of this report as wont-fix ;) It's one of those tricky cases of "sometimes we want it autotargeted, sometimes we don't". |
|
|
CPU issues will arise too, not just balance issues. If the carriers are all opened at practically the same time because that's all that's left for siege starships, mass drivers and bomber starships to shoot, it then has to start pathing them etc. |
|
|
And memory issues exist, too. It will literally crash the game if all those carriers are opened at once, depending on the number of carriers. At best it will just make the game start grinding slowly, but at worst it's a crash. |
|
|
What about something like 'heavy weapons only target carriers unless a) given the order to engage one specifically, or b) the number of hostile mobile military on that planet is less than ~ 100?' Obviously there will be issues with overkill etc, but that should take care of most of it, if its not too difficult to implement. |
|
|
Because of the crash risk mixed with their danger, perhaps everything should always autotarget carriers and barracks, but carriers should be temporarily invulnerable when there are more than 2000 AI units on the planet. The alternative of "just shoot them anyway" isn't really strategically viable, since it's likely to crash your game as much as anything else, and that's not the sort of "risk/reward" relationship we're generally going for. ;) |
|
|
well, of course, if there are 2000 carriers..... ;) |
|
|
AI counters your strategy by melting your CPU! ... er, yea, that wouldn't fly. I'd suggest just making them invincible but have a self-attrition when less than 2000 AI ships are on the planet, but have it set a flag on the planet that's cleared once per cycle so that only the first carrier in the unit loop is self-attritted. Self-attrition instead of insta-die is preferable due to confusion during wormhole transitions of "do I need to dump a carrier on this planet or are the drones already coming?". Dunno. |
|
|
What about making them self destruct/deploy minions one at a time if there are less than x ai units? |
|
|
And if there are 2000 carriers it should just skip to the "You Lost!" part ;) Anyway, the rollup count it uses for determining AI unit count should ignore carriers and anything not free-to-attack, though I forget if we've got one like that laying around. |
|
|
Lance, I prefer the gradual deployment thing too, but Chris doesn't want these bleeding ships ;) |
|
|
Well, I don't think 2000 carriers is at all likely now that the wave multipliers are gone (and even then, that would take 2 million ships -- or maybe 4 million, I don't remember to pass that point). I'm not keen on having them self-deploy more slowly, because with large numbers of carriers that would cause just as many performance problems and it would be really hard for players to predict. But I have this cool new "temporary invincibility" branch of the code that makes ships autotargeted like normal, but ships hold their fire against the ships as long as the invincibility is there. The nice thing about that is that player ships can respond to 1-2 carriers (or even more) in a fully-automated fashion, with even the heavy ships (bomber starships, etc) doing their bit as they should. But, at the same time when there are huge numbers of carriers or ships, players can't accidentally melt their CPU by shooting the wrong thing. |
|
|
"I'm not keen on having them self-deploy more slowly, because with large numbers of carriers that would cause just as many performance problems and it would be really hard for players to predict." Not trying to wallop the deceased equine, but why would it necessarily increase the time-complexity with the number of carriers? I'm assuming we have or could have an appropriate rollup-count that would make the "each carrier checking ship count" part really small, and the first carrier could just deploy as many ships as it needed to, thus bringing the count back up so that further carriers that cycle would not enter the deploy-branch. Anyway, I think the temporary invincibility thing can work too, just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding something. |
|
|
The CPU load isn't from the carriers checking for ejections (which would be trivial with our existing rollups even), but from the fact that they would likely eject too many units. If they just eject units over time, then they have to keep track of not only how many ships are there, but also have to account for ships that are "in progress" for coming out. Since ships don't emerge for about 4 game turns at best. That could be overcome, but I simply don't like the idea of them trailing ships all over the place, and with unpredictable ones doing the trailing-out. And then you STILL have the issue that either carriers are not autotargeted, or they drop a metric ton of ships when they die, which means nothing is really solved. Or you're making them invincible all the time, which is even worse, they just become ship-leakers, then. |
|
|
Ok, that makes sense, particularly the "doesn't really solve the problem" thing ;) |
|
|
;) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2010 1:58 am | LintMan | New Issue | |
| Dec 8, 2010 2:50 am | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0005587 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 10:14 am | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005604 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 10:14 am | keith.lamothe | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 8, 2010 10:14 am | keith.lamothe | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Dec 8, 2010 10:14 am | keith.lamothe | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
| Dec 8, 2010 3:08 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005659 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 4:59 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005682 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:04 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005687 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:07 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005688 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:46 pm | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0005695 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:49 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005697 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:53 pm | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0005700 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:54 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005701 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:56 pm | Lancefighter | Note Added: 0005702 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:56 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005703 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:56 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005704 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 5:59 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005705 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 6:05 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005707 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 6:09 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005710 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 6:12 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0005712 | |
| Dec 8, 2010 6:15 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005713 |
