AI War Beta 5.047-5.049 Archived Memory

[TechSY730]

Quick check here, anyone else seeing this:

Hovering over a unit brings its popup on top of any controls shown in the lower left of the screen, obscuring those controls. Expected behavior is for that popup to locate itself to the 'north' of said controls, not layered on top of them.

Example uploaded: my OCS's controls obscured.

Or maybe I'm nuts and just never noticed this.

Not a huge deal, as IIRC, the popup should go away if you stop hovering over the button.
Still you make a good point, it would be nicer from a GUI design standpoint to prefer "north of the button" for the ship type descriptions in the build menus.

[doctorfrog]

Yeah, I just tested it with a base version of the game, and that's the default behavior.

It's bad behavior because it requires that you click on something, then move the cursor off of that something to see the menu, or what its current status is.

But the fact that I never noticed it until now must mean that it isn't that egregious a UI offense.

Also in smaller resolutions, this would be the desired behavior if it risks putting the popup too far 'north...' though it could still appear no higher than the top of the screen.

Still, I could create a Mantis here, support it if ya want it changed:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=9049

And, gosh darn it, my custom civ color Mantis is still unassigned, give me a one up on it if you haven't yet, will ya?
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=5084

[keith.lamothe]

And, gosh darn it, my custom civ color Mantis is still unassigned, give me a one up on it if you haven't yet, will ya?
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=5084

FYI, plenty of things go from "new" to "resolved", the assigned status often happens by way of accident because one of us comments on it or whatever

Though I hadn't planned to do the custom color thing just due to the complexity involved in doing a color picker (or even just driven from a manually edited file), etc.

[Volatar]

And, gosh darn it, my custom civ color Mantis is still unassigned, give me a one up on it if you haven't yet, will ya?
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=5084

FYI, plenty of things go from "new" to "resolved", the assigned status often happens by way of accident because one of us comments on it or whatever

Though I hadn't planned to do the custom color thing just due to the complexity involved in doing a color picker (or even just driven from a manually edited file), etc.

Giving RGB sliders doesn't SOUND complex. Is it?

[Mick]

And, gosh darn it, my custom civ color Mantis is still unassigned, give me a one up on it if you haven't yet, will ya?
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=5084

FYI, plenty of things go from "new" to "resolved", the assigned status often happens by way of accident because one of us comments on it or whatever

Though I hadn't planned to do the custom color thing just due to the complexity involved in doing a color picker (or even just driven from a manually edited file), etc.

Giving RGB sliders doesn't SOUND complex. Is it?

Software features always sound less complex when you're not the one implementing them. 

[doctorfrog]

And, gosh darn it, my custom civ color Mantis is still unassigned, give me a one up on it if you haven't yet, will ya?
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=5084

FYI, plenty of things go from "new" to "resolved", the assigned status often happens by way of accident because one of us comments on it or whatever

Though I hadn't planned to do the custom color thing just due to the complexity involved in doing a color picker (or even just driven from a manually edited file), etc.

The colors are already in a (sort of wonky) RGB format in the settings.dat, but AI War doesn't respect changes made to them beyond the current restricted set of colors.

Also my post was mostly to try to drum up popular support for custom colors, I wasn't trying to call you out (in case that's what it looked like). I've learned from dealing with developers and admins in general that it's sometimes better to "consensus build" for a feature than demand it up front. 

[Wanderer]

OMG, those new 25% homogeneous waves are downright NASTY when coupled with Tigers.  200 ship wave to 1000 ship wave in a blink of an eye.  Swept me like a broom.

[keith.lamothe]

OMG, those new 25% homogeneous waves are downright NASTY when coupled with Tigers.  200 ship wave to 1000 ship wave in a blink of an eye.  Swept me like a broom.

You're welcome

[Wanderer]

OMG, those new 25% homogeneous waves are downright NASTY when coupled with Tigers.  200 ship wave to 1000 ship wave in a blink of an eye.  Swept me like a broom.

You're welcome

LOL.

Alright, goofing around with that a bit more is it possible to see the AI's multipliers for different ships somewhere?  Tigers = Bombers realistically and I'm getting like 5:1 in waves.  Yeah yeah they die eventually, long after they've rolled you like a bum in an alley though.  One wave: 450 ships.  Other wave, 2000+ Tigers.  That just doesn't seem right.

[TechSY730]

OMG, those new 25% homogeneous waves are downright NASTY when coupled with Tigers.  200 ship wave to 1000 ship wave in a blink of an eye.  Swept me like a broom.

You're welcome

LOL.

Alright, goofing around with that a bit more is it possible to see the AI's multipliers for different ships somewhere?  Tigers = Bombers realistically and I'm getting like 5:1 in waves.  Yeah yeah they die eventually, long after they've rolled you like a bum in an alley though.  One wave: 450 ships.  Other wave, 2000+ Tigers.  That just doesn't seem right.

All Neinzul units get a 2x multiplier in waves. Considering that Neinzul units aren't all that much weaker than normal ships, I think bumping that down to 1.5x may be a good idea.

[keith.lamothe]

Alright, goofing around with that a bit more is it possible to see the AI's multipliers for different ships somewhere?

It's not visible in-game but can be computed from the wave-calc-log line "after applying UsefulnessInAIWaveMultiplier if any, numberUnits : "

But for reference the wave-eligible types with non-one values for UsefulnessInAIWaveMultiplier:

Fighter: 1.2 (bonus types are typically at least 20% stronger than triangle ships, so this prevents "pick fighter" from being a nerf)
Frigate: 1.2 (ditto)
Bomber: 0.8 (the same would apply, but we all know how much we love all-bomber waves)
YounglingCommando: 2.0
YounglingTiger: 2.0
YounglingVulture: 2.0
YounglingWeasel: 2.0

I could cut the Tiger down to 1.5, but the whole self-attrition thing does cut a lot into their potential usefulness in an AI wave.

[TechSY730]

Quick concern about the new Golem (hard) acculmulation growth over time logic. Is there any cap to this? Because, otherwise, people who play really, REALLY long games may find themselves faced with a near uncounterable situation. I know there are a few people here who like to play 100+ hour games.

[keith.lamothe]

Quick concern about the new Golem (hard) acculmulation growth over time logic. Is there any cap to this? Because, otherwise, people who play really, REALLY long games may find themselves faced with a near uncounterable situation. I know there are a few people here who like to play 100+ hour games.

Good point, I'll cap the minimum at 250 (which it would hit at the 20 hour mark).

[TechSY730]

Quick concern about the new Golem (hard) acculmulation growth over time logic. Is there any cap to this? Because, otherwise, people who play really, REALLY long games may find themselves faced with a near uncounterable situation. I know there are a few people here who like to play 100+ hour games.

Good point, I'll cap the minimum at 250 (which it would hit at the 20 hour mark).

The term involving the time part is capped at 250, not the accumulation "cutoff" as a whole, right?

EDIT: Also, any plans on differentiating the timings, accumulation rate, and or accumulation cutoffs of Golems (Hard) from Spirecraft (Hard)? I though you were going to do that, as originally the release notes only talked about the Golems (Hard) modifications, but then it was updated to reflect that Spirecraft (Hard) is getting these changes too. (I know the exo-waves due to Golems has a higher chance of "centralization", but that doesn't change the timing, so these two will still release their exos in lock-step)

[keith.lamothe]

Quick concern about the new Golem (hard) acculmulation growth over time logic. Is there any cap to this? Because, otherwise, people who play really, REALLY long games may find themselves faced with a near uncounterable situation. I know there are a few people here who like to play 100+ hour games.

Good point, I'll cap the minimum at 250 (which it would hit at the 20 hour mark).

The term involving the time part is capped at 250, not the accumulation "cutoff" as a whole, right?

The minimum effective AIP for determining per-minute-accumulation of golems/spirecraft exos will be min(250,(50 + hours/10)).