Minor annoyances...

from Sins Forums
Here are a few small things that bug me, hopefully the devs will add them to their to-do lists:

1- Cap ships auto-bombard after everything else (or almost everything) has been destroyed in the gravity well, but if a single vessel like a scout enters the well the entire fleet gets distracted and runs after it - not even catching it in time to destroy it. This is very undesirable. It means you you have to manually select each cap ship and tell it to bombard, every single time. I suggest a change that gives all ships, but especially bombardment capable craft a sort of "default attack priority list", with planets being at the top of that list when there are no significant threats in the well. A scout should not distract an entire fleet from bombarding a planet.

2- In the same vein, many times ships will sit idly by their cap ships while they bombard when there are still enemy targets in the well to destroy. They should be set to destroy all enemy building and ships by default.

3- It's the distant future, yet ships still don't know how to avoid static defense items when moving through an enemy sector. It would be great if ships would simply go around the attack radius of cannons rather than flying right though them, or at least have this as an option.

4- I'm still seeing the problem where a single ship from a fleet will sit on the edge of the gravity well doing nothing, even if a battle is raging only a short distance away. If you mouse over the ship it says that it's going to jump to another sector, but it never does. Sometimes it doesn't even say it's jumping, it just sits there.

5- If you build more than five frigate factories in a system only the first five produce the frigates, no vessels come out of the others.

6- The voice over "Our Planet is under siege" occurs when almost any type of any unit comes into the well, event if it isn't attacking anything. This is more than a little annoying.

7- Sometimes the AI will continue to spend money on Pirates even though the Pirates have been destroyed and you and a single AI are the only players left. This is an obvious bug that needs to be addressed.
59,784 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
3- It's the distant future, yet ships still don't know how to avoid static defense items when moving through an enemy sector. It would be great if ships would simply go around the attack radius of cannons rather than flying right though them, or at least have this as an option.
End of quote


I can agree with all of them except for this. I don't think it should be up to the game to avoid threats in hostile systems. If you're going to go trapsing through heavily defended enemy territory, I think there 'should' be a reason to keep an eye on your ships.

Besides, turrets are already borderline useless as a deterrent due to their relatively short range. The last thing I want to see is them being even easier to get around.
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
1. Give it an attack order.. pay attention.

2. Huh?.. ships don't sit by while there are things to kill unless your fleet orders are messed up.

3. Pay attention...

4. Set engagement rage to grav well, which is default. You hit a key on accident probably.
Well actually there is some weird issue with ships ignoring and resetting orders..

5. Interesting. Should be fixed if true.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
2. Huh?.. ships don't sit by while there are things to kill unless your fleet orders are messed up.
End of quote


Actually, I get this one a lot, myself. Ships will auto-acquire targets just fine until the cap's start bombarding. After that, all of the frigates and such simply jump into formation and shut down, even while there are still targets to shoot at.

It's not a big deal and it's easy enough to issue the order myself but it is a little odd that they simply stop acquiring targets like that.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
I agree with the scout problem. For some reason scouts seem to have a very high attack priority, which is very annoying. Scouts should be ignored, unless they are in firing range or there is nothing else to attack. They don't pose a threat and usually survive, even if driving through a well guarded by a 300 supply army.

What I completely disagree with is the avoiding static defenses suggestion: Even from a realism point of view it doesen't make sense for ships to avoid turrets, since their damage potential is not high enough to warrant longer ways. In fact, I am pretty sure that turrets usefulness would increase if enemy ships stayed out of their range.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
1. Give it an attack order.. pay attention.2. Huh?.. ships don't sit by while there are things to kill unless your fleet orders are messed up.3. Pay attention...4. Set engagement rage to grav well, which is default. You hit a key on accident probably.Well actually there is some weird issue with ships ignoring and resetting orders..5. Interesting. Should be fixed if true.
End of quote


innociv:
While I will simply "agree to disagree" with you on point one, though I feel your comments are elitist and argumentative, I will argue further my third point as you seem to have not experienced points two, four and five.

In the entire history of warfare, no commander has ever had to order his units to to avoid static defenses, only not to avoid them. Why you would argue that Sins should go against such simple logic is beyond me, especially since your curt response failed to give any indication of why you would disagree with my point.

Simonster has a valid concern in that turrets do not do a significant amount of damage but I don't think that argues for not giving the ships the common sense to avoid unnecessary harm. I believe the core issue with turrets is their pitiful rate of fire and range, even when upgraded, that limits their usefulness.

As I said in the OP, avoiding static defenses could at least be an option to toggle.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
In the entire history of warfare, no commander has ever had to order his units to to avoid static defenses, only not to avoid them.
End of quote


This isn't warfare. This is a game. In the entire history of RTS gaming, no game has yet to play itself for the player. Not to my knowledge, at least. Sins is already 'very' lenient with micromanagement. It does most jobs for you but if you want them done better, get close and pay attention.

Again, I just think it's odd that you list 'paying attention to your units in hostile territory' as an annoyance. The game assumes when you click somewhere that you want to take the fastest possible route. If this isn't the case, hold shift and set some waypoints. That's what they're for.

Anyway, I make it a policy not to argue against options so if that's what people want, then it's no skin off of my back. For my part though, I wouldn't be interested in playing with people who let the game play for them.
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
I'd just rather focus on fleet building and attack strategy rather than hand guiding my units through a pirate zone filled with turrets. There are better and more interesting things to do with your time than manually watch useless sectors and guide your units through them by hand. I'm talking about making the game better and smarter - not making it easier for the noobs. Those few seconds you save not having to guide moronic units through a sector could be better used elsewhere.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Well it's like, why play the game at all? Why not have it just be a movie you watch?

The AI does a lot for you already.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
I would suggest that any bomber pilot facing attack from the ground would recieve orders to avoid certain defensive emplacements on the ground, in the form of zig-zag waypoints. Certainly, in an arena like Viet Nam, where the American ROE's were influenced largely by politicians sitting in Washington DC, there were some very complicated/improbable/unhelpful orders regarding exactly how and when strike packages should arrive on target. If you were a "Wild Weasel" pilot, you might be forced to detour around several SAM sites before you got to the one you were supposed to bomb. It wouldn't do to have your entire Alpha Strike "focus fire" on the first SAM they saw -- in Viet Nam, they didn't have unlimited ammunition like in Sins.

I digress.

The point I wanted to address was the cap ships bombing. I've given up on creating fleets. I just drag a box around whatever ships I want and away I go. When it comes time to attack the planet, I just order all of my ships in the gravity well to open fire on the planet. Only the ones that have DFA (Death From Above) weaponry will actually open fire. These guys tend to separate themselves from the rest of the fleet after a couple of seconds. The Non-DFA ships will ignore the order to glass the planet, and they will go off chasing that risible scout. In this case, those weeny enemy ships come in handy for separating the DFA's from the non DFA's. Now, I have two organically-formed battlegroups. I just make sure the DFA's are doing their nefarious duty and then the rest is easy-peasy TEC'sy.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't agree with the static defense thing either especially when you can shift+rlck an attack cue and then let that be while you move on to another planet. Very little micromanage there and to me it is preferable to the AI deciding on targets. I definitely agree about the cap ship auto break off thing. The rest of the fleet it makes sense but if the cap ship is bombing a planet no reason why it needs to break off and go tearing off to attack a scout or some such. Even "real" ships for that matter. I should have to order this imo. Maybe have a toggle for the cap ship that once bombing starts it doesn't stop until you order it to. Nothing fancier than that imo as I think micro managing the cap ship is part of the strategy of the game. And as someone else already mentioned the game is light on micromanaging anyway.

I have seen your #2 as well and that is aggravating I agree but again I think the shift+rclk handles that just fine. With that you can immediately move on to other things.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
Well it's like, why play the game at all? Why not have it just be a movie you watch?The AI does a lot for you already.
End of quote


That's more than a little bit of an exaggeration.

I agree that there should be more options for AI tactics like avoiding enemies, avoiding static defenses, avoiding enemy planets when planning a phasing route, etc.

The point is not to make the computer play the game for you but it gets more than a little ridiculous when I have 12 fleets with many different kinds of ships, 40-some-odd planets I have to run, about 15 of them with shipyards and I have to keep switching between each one just to make sure they avoid the defenses, that they're attacking, and not just sitting there, and that each planet is building what I need it to.

Micromanagement is fun up until the point when it becomes a chore. After that, it just starts detracting from the gameplay.
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
The only thing ship AI needs improving on is the autocasting of abilities, many of them, IMO.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
5- If you build more than five frigate factories in a system only the first four produce the frigates, no vessels come out of the others.
End of quote


Actually, I've had 6 Frigate factories building at the same time from the same planet.

What you've encountered might be a slight oversight in the code.

Let's say for example you have 1 factory. You create a queue at that planet, say 10 frigates, and production starts. You then build another factory. When the new factory is complete, it should start building frigates. But this is not the case.

I've had 4 factories producing, then added 2 more factories to assist. But I realized the 2 new factories just sat there. I cancelled the entire queue and recreated it, and then all 6 were producing.

The oversight is that when you create new factories, but already have an existing queue, the new factories are not added to the production list. There should be a check made in the code for whenever a factory is built to see if there is an existing queue for it work on.

At least that's what I found. I've pretty much confirmed this several times, but it may not be 100% accurate.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
The only thing ship AI needs improving on is the autocasting of abilities, many of them, IMO.
End of quote


I agree with this. I find that at I have to disable autocasting on a significant number of cap ship abilities because of their inability to use them effectively.

Actually, I've had 6 Frigate factories building at the same time from the same planet.What you've encountered might be a slight oversight in the code.Let's say for example you have 1 factory. You create a queue at that planet, say 10 frigates, and production starts. You then build another factory. When the new factory is complete, it should start building frigates. But this is not the case.I've had 4 factories producing, then added 2 more factories to assist. But I realized the 2 new factories just sat there. I cancelled the entire queue and recreated it, and then all 6 were producing.The oversight is that when you create new factories, but already have an existing queue, the new factories are not added to the production list. There should be a check made in the code for whenever a factory is built to see if there is an existing queue for it work on.At least that's what I found. I've pretty much confirmed this several times, but it may not be 100% accurate.
End of quote


In the specific case that I noticed the issue, I had 5 frigate factories with the sixth being built. There was a queue or maybe 60 ships being built, and when the sixth factory was finished the second factory was building two ships and the sixth was building none. I don't know if the build time was faster due to the sixth factory or not, because I didn't pull out a stop watch. Also, I should have said the first five in my OP - I'll make that change.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
I have added points six and seven to the OP.
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
Don't know if anyone noticed it with 1.04 but units won't leave frigate factories alone now and correctly auto attacks them. But it spawned a new problem, capital ships don't want to start autobombing planets any more T.T At least a good majority of the time anyway.

My most recent game I've had to keep specifying to the capital ships I wanted them to start bombing. Which I guess if they want to do it that way it fixes the capital ships from breaking off to attack other insignifcant ships problem.  :p 
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
One question on the subject of cap ship scout problem does turning off auto attack cancel this tendency?
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
I don't know marty, but if it does that ain't a solution in my opinion :)
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
1- annoying yes, but easily corrected. we already have options to select engagement ranges and auto-attack for ships and fleets, you can try disabling the auto-attack and set engagement range to local area or hold position. Although an additional option to dictate target priorities would be nice.

2- I too have encountered this annoyance, nature of the beast i guess. In my experience, fleets move and behave around the lead fleet (flagship). If the flagship move, the fleet move, if the flagship stop, the fleet stops. I have never seen a fleet break formation and spread around the entire grav well during any battle. You can try and experiment with the fleet formation button and set it to loose or something like that, it might makes a different.

3- Have you ever played a RTS in which this have been possible?? The closest I have seen is the option to assing movement waypoints that go around the defences. And sins already have this option.

4- I get this a lot of times when i order my ships to attack a target, and that target jumps away, the ships will sit on the edge of the well, like wanting to pursue, but never jumps nor engage new targets, I have to order a stop order for them to respond. Also a few times I have encountered a bug with the auto-join fleet option, a new ship is built just as the fleet is jumping to another planet. The ship auto-join the fleet, but for some reason its starts going back and forth between the fleet and the point where all new ships auto assemble after being built. I resolve this by having all ships in the same grav well,and remaking the entire fleet. Again it just annoy one, easily corrected.

5- What RogerSmith13 said, also annoying :)

6- Yes its annoying, but I guess the only option would be to turn it off completly, but that would suck.

7- Yep its a bug.

Sins have tactical combat, that means having to micromanage your units in combat, just like in many RTS. If you simply want to build a fleet, give it a move order and it to start attacking and capturing/destroying enemy planets without any further attention from you and without any annoyances (sp?). Well, I don't think Sins is the best game suited for your taste.
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top
7) is not a bug, the bounty is awarded when the target's ships/buildings/planets are destroyed. It's not only linked to pirate attacks ;)
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
2. Huh?.. ships don't sit by while there are things to kill unless your fleet orders are messed up.
End of quote


1)I get that one sometimes. My orders are not messed up, unless they are not followed.

2)sc456a, thanks for the post. You've stressed some actual issues with out sounding like an 'internet tough guy'.


P.S. Awesome game Development guys keep up the good work. //~_^\\





Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
I love reading these forums and all the superior attitudes that you get. The guy was merely saying what he does not like about how this games pathfinding works and he gets a bunch of people yelling at him because he doesn't want to have to micromanage single units that have 'basic pathfinding' algorithms.

I think it is disgraceful that in this day and age that pathfinding algorithms are still being 'b-line to our destination'. Considering how god awful the AI was when the game was released - it just goes to show that Stardocks' AI programming department lacks.

People who want to enjoy the game are met with 'I have no job, and I play this game 24/7 - my micro and macro is 500 APM and no one can beat me' responses and Stardock won't fix blatently bad annoyances because it will take too much money and time. (Business 101: Don't spend money if you are already earning money.) Though, I think it is funny that games like TF2 get 'removal of uber-charge damaging during setup to REMOVE GRIND' and games that require you to micro units every waking second of your life have the mentality that 'micro grind is awesome'.

Moral of the story: A game is only as good as its annoyances. Because a constant annoyance (whether it be a grind, a pop-up, a voice over or pathfinding) will always be a turning point for many gamers after playing the game.
Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
Zero:
What amuses me and saddens me at the same time is when people say something like "no other RTS has good pathfinding, why should Sins"? Why should we as gamers not be asking for better games? Thanks for your support:)

Annatar11:
It is a bug, but maybe you misunderstand. I'm talking about the AI raising the bounty on a human player after the pirates have been killed off. The AI will spends thousands on bounty for pirates that no longer exist.
Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
Annatar11:
It is a bug, but maybe you misunderstand. I'm talking about the AI raising the bounty on a human player after the pirates have been killed off. The AI will spends thousands on bounty for pirates that no longer exist.
End of quote


No, I don't misunderstand. That pirates don't exist anymore is irrelevant, because there are 2 uses for bounty. One use is to sic pirates on that player, the other is that players who destroy the bountied player's units collect a share of the bounty. As such, placing bounty can still be used as an encouragement for other players to attack the bountied one for extra cash, regardless of whether or not pirates still exist to raid.

If the AI does this 1v1, I would say that's poor AI decision making, but it's still not a bug ;)
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
REALLY POOR decision-making, then. :)

Actually I don't think Ironclad expected that many players will try to take out the pirates before taking out the AI in 1v1.

Moral of the story: A game is only as good as its annoyances. Because a constant annoyance (whether it be a grind, a pop-up, a voice over or pathfinding) will always be a turning point for many gamers after playing the game.
End of quote
You and I aren't reading the same story then. I shoot for a game that's fun and hope the annoyances aren't too annoying, and they'd have to be pretty bad for me to stop playing something that with the exception of one minor flaw is otherwise great fun. Plus, what every person finds annoying is not necessarily the same - music is a great example of that.

-- Retro