Planet display glitch (plus some more)

[Dinkelsen]

Planet display glitch
I have had this bug since I started testing, but for some unknown reason thought that there was already a post about this. Couldn't find that post anymore, so I start a new one.

Some planet types look like this (dark side transparent) It is always the same planet types. Gas giants, barren (moon-like) planets, garden worlds (not in the picture) Other planet types are alright, the ones you see in abive image, ocean worlds, arid worlds. These are from my memory I can check all planet types if you like.

My system:
Desktop PC with Windows 8.1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 graphics card

Encounters strangeness
Sometimes I need to resolve a battle where I don't believe I should have to. As you said in the thread: Leaving system causes auto-resolve?:

It's not actually leaving the system that forces the auto resolve -- it's ending the turn without taking active control of a battle that your ships have no choice but to fight.

I get the feeling that this is not true, or not always true. I played a game as Orthin yesterday and these guys seem to have a better initiative than the Asdar I played earlier. My Ashdar ships always had to defend themselves (the option when an unresolved battle is presented to you) but Orthin ships sometimes had the "Attack" option. As you said somewhere else I can't remember, having better initiative gves the option of engaging the enemy or not.

In my last game, I *always* had to resolve battles, no matter if I had the "Attack" or "Defend" option for me. This was true for my scouts (which were far better at fleeing than the Ashdar ones) as well as battlefleets. I once decided not to engage a fleet of an empire I hadn't met since, so I moved my fleet from the star without choosing to "attack". At the end of the turn the battle autoresolved and the other fleet was destroyed.

The same situation for my scouts at the beginning of the game. I was offered the option to "Attack" with my scouts and chose to run away. One turn later the battle autoresolved and my sout was destroyed. (I then traced back some steps and was able to save it by choosing "attack" and fleeing)

P.S.: Right clicking to assign movement orders is great!

Regards,
Dinkelsen

[Arioch]

Attacks are optional; if you choose not to attack, the battle won't happen. Defending is not optional; if you don't resolve it, the battle will be auto-resolved.

There is no difference in "initiative" between the different factions. Pirates will almost always attack you (unless you negotiate with them), but other factions' fleets may not necessarily attack your ships if you outnumber them.

[Dinkelsen]

Attacks are optional; if you choose not to attack, the battle won't happen. Defending is not optional; if you don't resolve it, the battle will be auto-resolved.

That is what I thought how it should be. But what happened was:

- my fleet /ship) arrives at a star, there is a pirate fleet present
- I get an "unresolved battle notification" (the icon with the explosions at the right)
- I click on it and get the option "Attack"
- I choose not to attack and move my fleet elsewhere (issue move orders and the fleet visually leaves the system)
- I press "next turn"
- the battle I chose not to participate in is autoresolved. (usually I lose a scout here)

There is no difference in "initiative" between the different factions. Pirates will almost always attack you (unless you negotiate with them), but other factions' fleets may not necessarily attack your ships if you outnumber them.

Oh, I thought I read a post by Sven where he said that different species had different initiative values - the post was about smaller ships being able to evade larger ships and Sven said there was only a global initiative value per faction. Having the "Initiative" was meant to be able to decide if the faction wants to engage in combat or not. But I might have misinterpreted the post as well.

Regards, Stephan

[sven]

Planet display glitch

Some planet types look like this (dark side transparent) It is always the same planet types. Gas giants, barren (moon-like) planets, garden worlds (not in the picture) Other planet types are alright, the ones you see in abive image, ocean worlds, arid worlds. These are from my memory I can check all planet types if you like.

My system:
Desktop PC with Windows 8.1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 graphics card

Alright! Our first NVIDIA-based shader glitch. Sadly, I don't have a 650 GTX to test on, and, there's a chance that this may be related to Windows 8 in some way as well.... But -- I can think of a few simple changes that might reasonably fix this. So, I've posted them to 'dev'. Would you let me know if you're still seeing these errors in builds >= r12021?

Many thanks.

[sven]

The same situation for my scouts at the beginning of the game. I was offered the option to "Attack" with my scouts and chose to run away. One turn later the battle autoresolved and my sout was destroyed. (I then traced back some steps and was able to save it by choosing "attack" and fleeing)

I suspect this is another example of the problem I was discussing with Gryfalcon last night on the "Current Bugs" thread. Basically, there are a couple different issues related to encounters, autoresolves, and retreat mechanics that can combine cause some very confusing situations.

For example, if you encounter pirates with your scout, you'll have the option to attack them before completing the pirate's dialog options (this is a bug). However, if you then hit "end turn", the encounter dialog auto-resolves, with the usual consequence being that the pirates declare war on you. After they've declared war, the pirates attack, and then that attack then also autoresolves. It's very confusing -- but, I think the underlying mechanics are actually working as they ought. The problem is that there's a lot going on during end-turn resolution that the player isn't being notified/warned about. Hitting next turn when you still have negotiations ongoing with an NPC is generally dangerous, but, there's currently nothing in the game UIs to warn you about the likely consequences of leaving such conversations unfinished.

[Gyrfalcon]

I suspect this is another example of the problem I was discussing with Gryfalcon last night on the "Current Bugs" thread. Basically, there are a couple different issues related to encounters, autoresolves, and retreat mechanics that can combine cause some very confusing situations.

Most of my complaint about that mechanic is that, once I've retreated the ships, I expect that they've escaped their pursuers by entering superluminal space and can't be caught. Although the UI is confusing as well, particularly that the Attack option becomes a Defend option if you pick "Die slaver scum" in the dialog.

[Arioch]

When you give movement orders to a fleet, they haven't actually left the system until the next turn, and so can still be attacked. This is a UI clarity issue; a fleet that's under attack probably should not be allowed to receive movement orders.

Another confusing situation is when a fleet has both Attack and Defend options. There are times when this may make sense, but I think most times it doesn't.

Just as a note, I have a GTX 645 (driver 344.75) and I haven't seen the "transparent nightside" graphical issue.

[Dinkelsen]

Alright! Our first NVIDIA-based shader glitch. Sadly, I don't have a 650 GTX to test on, and, there's a chance that this may be related to Windows 8 in some way as well.... But -- I can think of a few simple changes that might reasonably fix this. So, I've posted them to 'dev'. Would you let me know if you're still seeing these errors in builds >= r12021?

I just tested build 12026 and the glitch is not there anymore. All planets I checked rendered correctly.

Another thing, when I bombard a planet, there are usually 1 "billion" casualties, but the planet population is given in "millions".

Regards, Dinkelsen

[Gyrfalcon]

When you give movement orders to a fleet, they haven't actually left the system until the next turn, and so can still be attacked. This is a UI clarity issue; a fleet that's under attack probably should not be allowed to receive movement orders.

I think the Retreat option should represent attempting to disengage from combat. If I'm successful, my ships are far enough away that combat can't continue. If I can't disengage, combat should continue on that turn unless there is some kind of time limit. Whether or not disengagement also means that the ships have to be out of Einsteinan space is up to y'all, but I find the idea that I can still be fighting after (apparently) successfully withdrawing is, at best, counter-intuitive. Certainly, the way it looks now, Retreat seems to be my crew warming up the jump-drives and leaving the field of combat entirely.

Another confusing situation is when a fleet has both Attack and Defend options. There are times when this may make sense, but I think most times it doesn't.

I do find the system a bit confusing, as it seems that, if I'm invading your system, Attack should be my only option and Defend should be your only option. However, since the attacker gets to go first, it gives them a significant advantage, particularly with early game missile boats and small fleets. Once I have shields and am sending a dozen cruisers, it doesn't matter so much.

Actually, having a Defend button at all is confusing as the usual choices offered by invaders are surrender or die. People then choose to defend because they think they can make the invaders die instead. Particularly in space combat, it seems that the invaders would have to choose to get close enough that I could defend which, given the distances involved, pretty much guarantees that they intend to attack. Although that does raise the question of what you do when aliens are lurking on the edges of your planetary system.

[Arioch]

When two opposing fleets are in the same system, each has the opportunity to attack the other. If neither chooses to attack, then no battle takes place. If one attacks the other, then the second fleet is forced to defend; it cannot choose to avoid combat. Once in combat, either side may choose to retreat, but this takes a turn, during which the other side will have the opportunity to get at least one shot off. The reason for this is so that fleets cannot simply ignore each other. There are currently balance problems with this in the early game, with the power of missiles and the vulnerability of colony ships and scouts, but that is something that I think can mostly be solved through tweaking the tactical systems (nuclear missiles are much too powerful, for starters).

When two fleets are in a system that one side owns (that is, has an inhabited planet in), the invading fleet cannot choose to attack the home fleet directly; it must attack one of the planets in the system. This is to give the defender the opportunity of including any planetary defenses in the battle (otherwise, they would be useless), but the invader chooses which planet (if there are more than one) to attack. This seems sensible to me, as a defender cannot force an invader to attack him. If the invader does not choose to attack, then the home fleet may choose to attack the invading fleet directly -- but to do so it must move beyond the range of any planetary defenses, and so must give up that advantage. If both sides have inhabited planets in the same system, then neither side can attack the other without directly attacking a planet.

I think these rules are sensible, but I can see that the way the UI presents them may be unclear and confusing, and this is something that we need to work on.

Another problem with the current UI is that the player is offered the opportunity to attack targets that he is not yet technically at war with. This is something that we will resolve when the diplomatic system proper is introduced into the game. Until then, the game behaves as if you are at war with everyone (even if, in some encounters, you technically aren't).

I think the simplest solution to the current problems with initiative and first-turn advantage (near-impossibility of retreating safely in the early game, and the backwards-seeming incentive for choosing "Attack" in a battle that you intend to retreat from, because the attacker moves first) is that the defender should be given the first move in tactical combat. The attacker already has the advantage of choosing the time and place of battle; it makes sense that the defender should be able to move first. This will mean that the attacker gets only a single shot at a retreating enemy; a vulnerable ship like a colony or transport probably won't survive if the enemy has long-ranged weapons or is fast enough, but a scout should be able to get away in most cases. This will make planetary defense installations even more powerful than they currently are, since they will be able to fire first, but I think that's easier to balance through weapon/ship tweaks. I think it's also somewhat more realistic.

[Dinkelsen]

I think these rules are sensible, but I can see that the way the UI presents them may be unclear and confusing, and this is something that we need to work on.

I agree that the rules are sensible and I think I know where I took that "wrong turn" in my mind. When I got the "diplomacy window" where I could declare war to the pirates, I dismissed it as an information window. I did not want to declare war to the pirates (why should I?) and as that was my only option, I chose not to click and put the window away. I did not know that I *had* to take an action and that it *had* to be the declaration of war. (Maybe if I was not allowed to dismiss or close the window without chosing an option, it would hgave been easier to understand)

About the defender taking the first turn in tactical combat, I have been thinking about that over the day, but I am not sure if I liked this option. It would benefit my defensive playstyle, but would it benefit the game? Usually the attacker gets the first turn and I think that is ok, after all its the attacker that initiates the attack so he has the momentum. If the only reason to give the defender the first turn is that it shopould be able for early game scouts to flee, a special equipment could be made that allows that option (long range scanners, fast charge hyperdrive, something like that)

The first turn could also go to the side with the fastest ships (taking an average) it would also benefit a scout cruiser. I also pondered about braking the strict turn sequence and letting the fastest ships move first no matter to which side they belong. Then the slower ships switching sides until there are no more ships left. But I do not know if that is a desirable sequence.

Regards, Dinkelsen

[sven]

If the only reason to give the defender the first turn is that it shopould be able for early game scouts to flee, a special equipment could be made that allows that option (long range scanners, fast charge hyperdrive, something like that)

This strikes me as a fairly clever solution. Right now, retreating usually takes effect at the start of the turn following the retreat order. But, if there's a special that allows it to instead take effect at the end of the turn when the order is issued, then ships with that special would only need to survive a single round of enemy attacks to escape a system. (I've actually experimented with mechanics like this in the past -- so this would be an easy one to code up.)

[sven]

also pondered about braking the strict turn sequence and letting the fastest ships move first no matter to which side they belong. Then the slower ships switching sides until there are no more ships left. But I do not know if that is a desirable sequence.

Heroes of Might and Magic (one of my favorite turn-based tactical games) handles turn order in this way. I think it's a good system -- but, it makes for a very different kind of tactical game. It's also more or less incompatible with the idea of unit grouping -- and the ability to group ships in your fleet, and order them to do things simultaneously, is a feature I'm planning to explore more as we keep on working on the tactical game.

[Gyrfalcon]

Once in combat, either side may choose to retreat, but this takes a turn, during which the other side will have the opportunity to get at least one shot off.

That makes sense. What I'm seeing is that I hit Retreat, survive the missile barrage, see my ship zoom off, and THEN get blown up. Either that's a bug or it's a design choice I don't like, depending on whether y'all are doing it on purpose or not.

[sven]

That makes sense. What I'm seeing is that I hit Retreat, survive the missile barrage, see my ship zoom off, and THEN get blown up. Either that's a bug or it's a design choice I don't like, depending on whether y'all are doing it on purpose or not.

If you notice this happen again, would you upload a save? I've changed some stuff in the latest build, so, I believe situations where retreating ships are destroyed after leaving combat should be very rare indeed.