New 1.0.4.8 Public Beta Update Available

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Bartje

How does the Auto Retirement impact the game?

Does the AI now propose retiring / scrapping certain ships that are worthless / not doing anything / just costing money?

I notice AI's sometimes have ships sitting around doing nothing that are costing lots of maintenetance; I have the same problem with this. Would be great if we had a minister / AI setting to just scrap or suggest scrapping them.

Did anyone else notice this?

A bug cropped up in 1.0.4.6 that didn't exist prior (it was not in 1.0.4.5) where the AI would not auto build military ships, period. And would auto retire your your military ships and spaceports (your ships will suddenly get a "retire at nearest spaceport" command, and your spaceports will just retire immediately.
1.0.4.7 (which is a hotfix version) disables AI auto retiring of your ships, potentially as a temporary solution.

I reported it here: tm.asp?m=2468152

[Bartje]

OOh ok, I didn't see that! Good to hear!
 

Keep up the good work guys!
 
Thanks Taltamir!

[VarekRaith]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The automation will certainly be tweaked further as time goes on as well, we realize there are still some unusual cases where it's not working as well as it should.

I think the basic problem is that the game is overriding the player's orders. That is something that is supremely irritating: If the player orders something, even if it seems silly, the thing should DO it. At least then when things go wrong, the player has no one to blame but himself. No one likes it when the computer tries to be a smart-ass. Orders should be considered EXTREMELY EMPHATIC if the player feels the need to give the same order twice in a row, since it means the unit is clearly not complying with them in a satisfactory manner.

No, that isn't the problem at all, please read page 2 of this thread where it is discussed ad-nasium.
While it is certainly frustrating to repeatedly try and tell your troopship/colonyship to invade/colonize a planet 1 inch away and have it repeatedly cancel that order to go to another system to refuel (which has happened to me, and would be solved by the proposed solutions previously mentioned), the suggestion of disabling automation is HORRIFIC and would ruin the game via tedious micro-management. Auto-refuel (when on manual) has been implemented by popular demand and has made the game VASTLY better. It needs tweaking here and there, but it should not be disabled. The reason is because WEAPONS DON'T WORK without fuel. As such, a ship without fuel is a dead ship if combat is initiated.

Let me once again quote myself:

Solution:
1. Make an exception for a ship manually ordered to invade a planet where it does not break to refuel if it can reach the planet on the current tank.
2. Make an exception for a ship ordered (manually or automatically) to colonize a planet where they do not break to refuel at all unless it would shorten the trip.
3. If attacking AI is off then ships should not auto engage beyond their weapons range (or maybe slightly beyond it, but not on the other side of the system).
4. There should be an override where you can tell a ship to ignore auto-refuel and auto-engage commands, be in complete puppet mode. You should be able to switch it on and off on a per ship/fleet basis. It should be a checkmark in the rightclick menu of a ship, showing either an empty box or a checked box next to puppet mode so you immediately know if it is on or off, and can toggle it at will.
5. A ship on auto should not engage a much more powerful enemy in the same system all by itself. (check weapons damage of enemy vs shields... if they can kill you way too quickly, don't engage alone)
6. I know there was another one but I forgot it... if someone can point me at an issue mentioned in this thread that isn't solved by the above suggestions I would probably recall it.

The knee jerk reaction of "OMFG auto sucks it should all be manual and micromanagement!" is entirely uncalled for. Automation is great, and it has been improving with each version. There are still some kinks to work out which can be done with specific solutions rather then broad strokes that would do more harm then good (disabling auto refuel entirely will do more harm then good... I remember the game before auto refuel, it wasn't as good as it is now)

Some more suggestions I since though of:
6. Low on fuel should be triggered via a percentage of current fuel value rather then an absolute numerical value, if this is already the case, then a bug exists where a ship with over 80% fuel will go refueling and needs squashing... 10% is a good idea. maybe make it 5% even.
7. Fleets should maintain cohesion in the face of fuel shortages. let a few ships run out of fuel and just sit there with the fleet, when a certain percentage of the fleet's firepower has depleted its fuel, then have the whole fleet retreat as a whole to go refuel.
8. Non-fleet ships which can destroy all enemies in range before running out of fuel should continue firing even when reaching the auto refuel thresh-hold.

+1 [&o]

[deanco2]

Taltamir, all those solutions to the problem I encountered (which ruins the game for me) are not in the game yet.  The fact that you are proposing solutions indicates that even you, who likes the new automation, have issues with it.  Now, those solutions you propose may, or may not, be implemented.  (Note, I am not saying here that no one on the dev team cares about my problem, that no one cares enough to fix it.  Codeforce have demonstrated they intend to support the game, time and time again.  When I say that they may or may not be implemented, I mean, there is only so much time, so many assets, and that implementing those changes may be difficult and/or time consuming from a programming standpoint.  Thus, priorities must be set.)  I cannot be sure that the issue will be resolved to my satisfaction.  So, I'm going back to 1.03.

[nammafia]

I think the AI should determine whether the entire fleet should go refueling or only the needed ships based on the strength of the opponent. If the remaining ships can't destroy the opponents then all should go refueling together.

In version 1.0.4.5, I sometimes found that the pirate star bases keep regenerating their shield when it drops to nothing. I can destroy them but only after losing a few more ships. Is this a bug?

In 1.0.4.5, I also found that a human independent colony military ships are treated as pirate and the ships instantly appear after I destroyed the last batch. Is this also a bug?

I play as human in a 1400 star systems with only 5 other AI. Pirates to normal and independent colony to scattered.

[Spacecadet]

As suggested a few versions back, put Fleets under manual control and control them yourself.
To do otherwise is asking for the exact problems you are discussing above.

Auto behavior example:
If I have a Fleet sitting around and a ship needs to refuel, it'll take off and refuel. Fine, no problem.
Oh, and since it's on auto, the Fleet's going to be be-bopping around doing quasi patrol missions.
Ships that go off to refuel won't return to their previous position, so eventually your Fleet may be spread out at different refueling points, and all your ships may not be at the same relative fuel level.
Now it's time to attack something - I accept the target and go about my business.
Not all my ships are together now, and in flight, some of them run (too) low on fuel and either need to divert for fuel or drop to snail speed.
Result = Fleet piecemeal massacred.


Manual control current version:
First, I find a nice fueling point near the front and park my Fleet there.
They're under manual control, so they're not hopping around my Empire - I have other ships for Patrol duties.
If a ship needs to refuel it doesn't have far to go, it's right there so all my ships are basically together - at least they're in the same System.
Attack time - I get a target (or even choose my own [X(] ), select my Fleet, tell them to refuel (unless they're all topped off) - and then I send them to attack.
Result = your Fleet arrives as a group with full firepower.

Is this the answer?
Are things perfect?

Not necessarily, but there are at least options until things get resolved.

I'd prefer not to have to babysit my Fleets, but unless I want to throw away my ships, this is how I need to handle things right now.

[Stardog]

Matrix/Erik

What's in store for Us in the upcoming 105 Update??.. Any new items &/or add ends ??..

What of MATRIX & CODE FORCE's future plans for DW ?..

Any clues or hints.>?


WM

[Bartje]

I too am hanging at their very lips [:D]

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: deanco2

Taltamir, all those solutions to the problem I encountered (which ruins the game for me) are not in the game yet.  The fact that you are proposing solutions indicates that even you, who likes the new automation, have issues with it.

Certainly. I said I myself have experienced those issues. But it was worse dealing with ships running out of fuel and getting blown up without shooting back when we had no auto-refuel at all. It needs a few tweaks, not scrapping the whole thing.
Codeforce is very open to suggestions and erik already stated that some of those fixes would make it into 1.05 in this thread: tm.asp?m=2472039

[Barleyman]

ORIGINAL: Stardog
What's in store for Us in the upcoming 105 Update??.. Any new items &/or add ends ??..

I bet it's resizable interface windows!

[Gertjan]

Thank you for another update and continued support. I havent had the time to play the most recent update yet. You are going to fast (I must admit I was on a short holiday)

[Erik Rutins]

Hi guys,

Just uploaded the 1.0.4.8 Public Beta, with one more bug fix since 1.0.4.7.

Regards,

- Erik

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi guys,

Just uploaded the 1.0.4.8 Public Beta, with one more bug fix since 1.0.4.7.

Regards,

- Erik

wow.. that was quick!

[Astorax]

What was the fix?

[Igard]

It's getting hard to keep up with you guys.

Erik, would it be possible to highlight or post a separate message outlining the changes/fixes? It's easier for those who are experiencing bugs to see what's been fixed.

Thanks again.[:)]

[Erik Rutins]

Sorry, the only change from 1.0.4.7 is item 13 in the bug fixes list, the one where fleet retrofitting could get stuck.

We expect 1.0.4.8 to likely be the final official version barring any severe issues showing up in the feedback from the public. A lot more is coming in 1.0.5 but we want to get this out there first to take care of some of the loose ends in the 1.0.4 official update.

[TypoNinja]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Game Balance Changes:

1. Capped maximum total corruption at a colony to 75%, including a 50% cap on Empire-level corruption (the rest comes from local and distance factors).

This appears to be addressing the issue of corruption killing your empire as it grows, however I have to wonder if the drop from 80 to 75% is sufficient?

Also, without tweaks to local and distance factors (My capital is currently at 77% for example) We're just going to end up with an empire full of 75% corruption. This will not help. merely push back the size of the empire before it grinds to a halt under its own weight.

I think its the empire corruption value which is killing the system here and making it scale poorly, base everything on local factors/distance to capital, without a global value. This will mean that a colony will always make you more money than not having that colony, but as your empire expands each new one will make you less as it gets further and further from your center.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: TypoNinja
This appears to be addressing the issue of corruption killing your empire as it grows, however I have to wonder if the drop from 80 to 75% is sufficient?

In our testing, yes, and the 75% cap is harder to reach. This is not the only piece of the puzzle either - the AI/automation improvements and how the private sector handles itself when in the red are all much better as far as their effect on the economy as of these beta updates.

[jscott991]

I'm the biggest opponent of having any corruption in the game at all, but if the devs refuse to balance the economy using more player-friendly means, then even I have to admit that 75% is probably a better cap than 70% and so on. It does seem to allow most empires to continue to produce money even with 300 or more worlds. 70% would probably put too much money in the game. There are much better ways to accomplish this same result, however.

I also would really like to strongly request that each beta patch iteration STOP creating its own save folders. Its really quite ridiculous to have a 6, 7, and 8 when only minor bug fixes are being introduced and that directory (which is located in a really stupid place) is now hopelessly cluttered.

[Canute0]

I also would really like to strongly request that each beta patch iteration STOP creating its own save folders. Its really quite ridiculous to have a 6, 7, and 8 when only minor bug fixes are being introduced and that directory (which is located in a really stupid place) is now hopelessly cluttered.

noone prevent you to delete all the older savegame folder.
And when a new beta patch comes out its allways better to start a new game, except you want check if a situation at an old safegame still get stuck or this kind.