Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 119 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What color is the sky?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: April 01, 2019, 03:15:35 PM »

I mean, the guy is probably right that some of the suggestions will get listened to prior to release.  Not necessarily that big of a deal though.
Posted by: iceball3
« on: April 01, 2019, 05:23:31 AM »

Okay. Go ahead with "suggestions".

See ya in 2025
You read steve's post, right?
Even if everyone listened to you, all it would do is give steve less to do on his free time. The time he's specifically not coding. He can't spend every waking moment developing the game.
Posted by: waresky
« on: March 29, 2019, 04:49:27 PM »

Okay. Go ahead with "suggestions".

See ya in 2025
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 29, 2019, 04:01:43 AM »

.... it's a forum. It's not like this is the "suggestions" thread where everyone's supposed to post suggestions, or the "questions" thread where everyone's supposed to post questions.

I'm pretty sure Steve doesn't say "oh I'll spend an hour replying to questions instead of working on the game", he probably checks the forum in his free time, etc, and I'm pretty sure he knows what suggestions are feasible for now and for later and to filter out the suggestions to leave for later.

What's the purpose of a "suggestions" and a "questions" thread if they were empty?

I understand you're irritated, but this is probably another way for people to express their excitement.

I'm also sure Steve has received many seeds to new ideas for Aurora over the year through questions and suggestions on this forum. I hardly think it is useless information or is wasting anyone's time.

Yes, many, many ideas :)

I tend to take a lot of short breaks while programming so browsing forums is a good way to fill that time. It isn't a distraction.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: March 28, 2019, 07:21:18 PM »

.... it's a forum. It's not like this is the "suggestions" thread where everyone's supposed to post suggestions, or the "questions" thread where everyone's supposed to post questions.

I'm pretty sure Steve doesn't say "oh I'll spend an hour replying to questions instead of working on the game", he probably checks the forum in his free time, etc, and I'm pretty sure he knows what suggestions are feasible for now and for later and to filter out the suggestions to leave for later.

What's the purpose of a "suggestions" and a "questions" thread if they were empty?

I understand you're irritated, but this is probably another way for people to express their excitement.

I'm also sure Steve has received many seeds to new ideas for Aurora over the year through questions and suggestions on this forum. I hardly think it is useless information or is wasting anyone's time.
Posted by: Rye123
« on: March 28, 2019, 04:13:13 PM »

.... it's a forum. It's not like this is the "suggestions" thread where everyone's supposed to post suggestions, or the "questions" thread where everyone's supposed to post questions.

I'm pretty sure Steve doesn't say "oh I'll spend an hour replying to questions instead of working on the game", he probably checks the forum in his free time, etc, and I'm pretty sure he knows what suggestions are feasible for now and for later and to filter out the suggestions to leave for later.

What's the purpose of a "suggestions" and a "questions" thread if they were empty?

I understand you're irritated, but this is probably another way for people to express their excitement.
Posted by: waresky
« on: March 28, 2019, 01:59:28 PM »

Sorry..am REALLY become hating these posts. Questions? Too many. useful? Useless. Am hopes Steve going forward without folow hundreds of "questions" or "suggestions". And stop. Too many ppl questioning..too long take Game to born.

Wtf ppl wanna? This isnt a Messengers chat. How many looser time.

@Steve : good job. Whatever u want. Every time.

(My english isnt understandable? amen. The point its CLEAR : stop suggestions. )
Posted by: Drakale
« on: March 27, 2019, 10:19:41 AM »

New AI seem really interesting. Just a small point I'd like to make, it would be nice if there was some variation to the AI decision making, like most of the time it will do the logical thing but once in a while it will make a bold decision, or even a mistake. Main point is to make it not totally predictable so it's harder to manipulate it. Possibly way harder to program that in than it's worth but it would be nice.
Posted by: Jovus
« on: March 26, 2019, 09:27:35 AM »

The AI was prioritizing its defence mission. While it couldn't hit the player ships at that range, the calculation was that the player force was stronger and therefore it should not engage in a deep space engagement as would take heavier casualties. By holding position, it increased its chance of defending the planet. It is still relatively primitive but as I encounter more situations and add code to deal with them, the AI should get better at weighing its options.

I cannot praise this kind of analysis enough. Even if it might have won, the AI would have substantially weakened itself, thus hurting its long-term goals. This is exactly the kind of choosing strategic victory over tactical victory that marks a good commander.

(Not every AI needs to be a good commander, of course.)
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 26, 2019, 05:08:34 AM »

Interesting to see in the latest AAR that the precursors didn't turn round and attack the player ships. In that encounter it looked like the AI could tell its ships and missiles were substantially faster than the hostiles and that its AMM was able to defeat the incoming missiles. Are you still working on how the AI iterates its threat assessment or is that working as intended?

The AI was prioritizing its defence mission. While it couldn't hit the player ships at that range, the calculation was that the player force was stronger and therefore it should not engage in a deep space engagement as would take heavier casualties. By holding position, it increased its chance of defending the planet. It is still relatively primitive but as I encounter more situations and add code to deal with them, the AI should get better at weighing its options.
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: March 26, 2019, 03:37:09 AM »

It should be tonnage or HTK-based.  Losing one fighter out of a wing of 5 is a huge loss.  Losing one fighter in a wing of 500 is no big deal.  Likewise losing a battleship should be scarier than losing a destroyer.

I've set it up so the AI analysis of the 'threat' of a hostile ship is an independent function, which is influenced by the situation and its knowledge of the ship. This function will be called when required by other parts of the code. The AI will track the capability of different ships using an internal version of the intelligence window. For example, assume a player TG of four ships of different classes. The AI has previously observed all four classes in action and knows the respective armaments are 10cm lasers, 25cm lasers, size 5 missile launchers and AMM launchers. The AI will radically change the different threat levels posed by those ships depending on the range.

In general, at 20m kilometers, the AI will take out your missile ship first, at 200,000 km it will probably take out the 25cm laser ships and at 20,000 km the 10cm laser ship will be the priority target, etc. The priority of secondary targets will also depend on the range. In some situations at longer ranges, the AI might instead decide to eliminate the escorts first. There are other considerations as well, such as speed and sensor capability, but I don't want to give too much away :)

I can add to the intelligence of this 'threat' function over time without it affecting other parts of the code (except for returning a 'smarter' decision).

All of this is still relatively early, so the results of play testing should improve the AI considerably. With the speed and flexibility of C# I have a lot more scope to improve the AI compared to VB6.

Interesting to see in the latest AAR that the precursors didn't turn round and attack the player ships. In that encounter it looked like the AI could tell its ships and missiles were substantially faster than the hostiles and that its AMM was able to defeat the incoming missiles. Are you still working on how the AI iterates its threat assessment or is that working as intended?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 23, 2019, 02:00:13 PM »

Will AI be bound to the same rules and require new module to gather info on player?

The AI uses the same intelligence gathering methods as the player, which mainly involves using normal sensors to observe behaviour and weapon fire.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: March 23, 2019, 01:32:43 PM »

While Steve hasn't explicitly said so, generally NPR operates mostly on the same rules.
Posted by: Shuul
« on: March 23, 2019, 05:05:28 AM »

Will AI be bound to the same rules and require new module to gather info on player?
Posted by: King-Salomon
« on: March 23, 2019, 02:31:38 AM »

If an enemy fleet is far enough away that you only have active sensor contacts on their ships but not their missiles, will you still get that information?

the C# changes in the wiki

http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=C-Alien_Contact  there you will find "Alien Weapon Detection"
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54