View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0023997 | AI War 2 | Gameplay Issue | Oct 17, 2020 3:50 pm | Oct 21, 2020 7:31 pm | |
| Reporter | Strategic Sage | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 2.617 Calming For The Nerves | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 2.618 Astro Reserve Tuning | ||||
| Summary | 0023997: Should Stationary Flagship Mode Default to Off? | ||||
| Description | Right now it defaults to On for standard flagships which is causing some frustration with players who don't know what's happening. I can see it both ways because if it defaults to Off, will they even know it's there as an option? Steam discussion here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/573410/discussions/0/4835136555195119542/ | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| related to | 0022390 | resolved | Chris_McElligottPark | New Fleet Movement Modes |
|
|
I'd prefer it if it defaults to off. It's very rare that moving a transport flagship along with my fleet will cause issues, and there's no indication to new players that they need to press control to move the flagship unless they read the tooltip. The first thing I did for any transport I wanted to use was disable this setting, particularly since it also blocks movement on the galaxy map sometimes. |
|
|
I agree as well. Most of the time I want my flagship to follow a move order as I don't want my reinforcement have to travel so far. Also I like to grouped up at a wormhole before entering the battle. |
|
|
Looks like nobody read the release notes or the tooltip and therefore didn't realize that you have to hold Ctrl to move stationary flagships. This was implemented at your request Strategic Sage. Might've been better to keep the discussion in the original ticket. https://bugtracker.arcengames.com/view.php?id=22390 As a fleet panel option, it's pretty much useless if it's not on by default for some units. If it was a stance like Hold Fire it'd be different. I think the current implementation can be made viable with a few tweaks though: https://bugtracker.arcengames.com/view.php?id=22390#c59267 |
|
|
I did read the notes multiple times but somehow missed that. I thought it was worth starting a new ticket particularly when we have users not liking part of the implementation on Steam. I don't understand what you mean when you say it would be useless if not on by default. What units are you referring to there? My main concern here would be that a lot of users such as the one on Steam aren't going to read detailed patch notes, even if they are better at comprehending them I was at that part, and they aren't going to know to look at the fleet panel controls for that tooltip. |
|
|
Regarding the patch notes, 100% agreed. I think Chris should've waited and done a small private beta for this, and then written release notes for Steam so people are aware of the control changes. However if the change is gonna be made I think we have to think of it beyond the initial chaos that will result from the change. What would make more sense if this was in since early access? Otherwise we can leave the game's controls in a permanently crippled state. (Unless we do a transition phase when at first it's off, then it's on by default. That might've been an option, too.) When I say it's useless if not on by default, I mean that you're not gonna go in every fleet's panel to switch it to Stationary Mode every time you're about to attack a planet. Since fleet panel options are long and awkward to change, you need them to have reasonable default for different kind of units. Ultimately each player could have options to select what they want as a default for Unarmed/Armed fleets, but constantly changing this in-game is too much maintenance I think. That's why I favored a stance btw because you can change it quickly depending on the situation. But that's not the road Chris picked, or he implemented the thing before he could read that specific suggestion. |
|
|
Don't assume everyone plays heavily with hotkeys. I'm mostly use the mouse with only using the hotkeys on rare commands. I use the mouse even to change speed of time. |
|
|
It's impossible to know, but I think I would have the same concern if it was in Early Access. Having one type of flagship default to one movement control but other types default to a second way, defaulting to using Ctrl-move when that is likely to lead to a bunch of accidentally sending fleets through wormholes you didn't intend to send them through, etc. is not best in my opinion. I don't think it's going to be needed for almost any players to change the mode every time they attack a planet either. Those who don't want it on by default aren't going to need it except for in the tougher fights, which is not most of the battles you're involved in. Going into the fleet panel to, at a minimum, swap ships to other fleets and often for other reasons is a common enough gameplay activity that I don't think the amount of changing move orders adds horribly to it. I'm pleased that it was implemented regardless, but in the long run I think a global setting - I don't like adding more in general but I think it's justified here - that would set the default stance to off unless users chose to make the default as on at their discretion would be a superior choice. |
|
|
@smidlee a stance would fit your use case better then, since those have buttons (attack-move and the like). But I doubt you play without using Ctrl to send units through wormholes, it's kind of core to the game. So using Ctrl to also move unarmed flagship isn't that big of a stretch IMO. Adding yet another global option is a last resort IMO. "Options are bad" is a well-know programmer's proverb. There's an invisible but real cost to options, they make the code heavier and heavier to maintain and increase the risk of new bugs whenever you try to change anything. The combinatorial explosion just makes it impossible to test every new change with every set of option, resulting in unhappy people because their preferred option just got broken. Basically what I'm saying is let's try to make this work with tweaks before burying it under yet another option. Tweaks have already been suggested that might very well make the default work very well: https://bugtracker.arcengames.com/view.php?id=23995 |
|
|
The game has a beta branch you can opt into, I think it should probably have been pushed there first. |
|
|
The mostly I use CTRL is to lay down turrets. I actually don't CTRL to click on wormholes. I have my hand resting around 1-4 keys and thumb on space. I even hotkey unload and load on the mouse. I normally hit tab, planet , number then click the spot I want each fleet to move to. It's no big deal. I just have to remember to click this off every time I get a new flagship. |
|
|
I wish this wasn't added, or at least that it wasn't default. Ctrl clicking, selecting the flagship separately (as suggested), or disabling it on every single flagship is extra work and wear on my wrist to accomplish what I previously did. If I ever use this feature, it seems like it will be exceedingly rare, perhaps once per 10-50 hours in-game. |
|
|
Serious question for people who are of crawlers mindset and don't like the feature on the whole - how do you handle tough planet assaults etc. that you think is better than using this type of feature? Other than playing on difficulty low enough to simply overwhelm the opposition with sheer numbers on Pursuit, I'm at loss to figure out how you would deal with flagships constantly getting crippled without doing the current workarounds for that risk which are far more work than Ctrl-clicking or whatever. I think perhaps understanding what you do differently could help with better implementations. . |
|
|
I know you won't like my answer but I level up for flagships so they can take a few hits. In the situations where I'm outnumbered I want my flagship close by to avoid the long line of reinforcement across the map. When my fleet is strung out I take more casualties. Cloaked Flagship is easier to avoid damage. Difficulty doesn't matter. It's all about having a challenging game. If I'm playing a level 9 AI I will choose the cloak fleet. If not I won't. If I used pause I move up the difficulty a little. If I don't pause I will move it down a little. Chris has made a comment about playing a more relax game on lower difficulty or a hard grind difficult game. |
|
|
That's a good answer. My response is that I don't think you should be required to level up your flagships because game controls don't allow a level of control that would allow you to avoid it. I also don't think that really matters that much in a lot of situations - I've leveled up my flagships quite a bit and still gotten them smashed quickly in some fights. There's a point beyond which that simply doesn't do any good and you can't have your flagship in the middle of the brouhaha or it's going to get crippled and you don't have any reinforcements at all. |
|
|
When one of my flagships do get crippled I send it through the wormhole where it can be quickly repaired by my combat factory I placed at the wormhole. One advantage of using multiply flagships over a single flagship is of one gets crippled the others will still send out reinforcement. I also like to use one flagship (hopefully cloaked) with bombers to go around knocking out guard post if I get enough of them. |
|
|
I don't think cloaked flagships should be part of the discussion as everybody agrees they are overpowered. They pretty much have a big nerf target painted on their aft. I mean, until the nerf comes you could always have cloaked flagships default to follow orders, just like the armed ones. In real difficult battles though, the AI usually has tons of decloakers that nullify their advantage. One thing I like about these new controls is that they enable a strategy which was way too heavy to implement before. Instead of having to evac your flagships at snail speed when they are crippled and losing precious building time, with these new controls it's suddenly feasible to leave them in the next system over next to the wormhole, and periodically bring in waves of reinforcement without leaving your view of the battle by pushing the number key of the fleet and right-clicking where you want them. Waves are usually more efficient than a trickle, and it's a big win overall since your flagship never stops producing. BTW, letting your flagships get crippled contributes a huge amount to the building of the counterattack so it's not a trivial matter. |
|
|
That's the disadvantage of having all your eggs in one basket. Majority of the time when one of my flagship gets disabled it's at the wormhole when big guns are at the planet. I simply bring back through the wormhole to get repaired by the combat factory flagship waiting for it. The other flagship(s) are still pumping out reinforcements. I usually at least have two main fleets and often a bomber fleet when I get enough of them. Bombers are too slow without a flagship. When there are not big guns I have to quickly knock out I pick a spot where the flagship can quickly unload without getting overwhelmed away from range of turrets. Take too many casualties having my ships string in the wormhole when the wormhole is guarded. |
|
|
Also AI will attack and destroy any flagship in the neighboring planet which is why as soon as I clear out a spot I'll bring my combat factory through wormhole. |
|
|
I think the point is that splitting up the flagships doesn't eliminate the problem. Having any flagship get crippled still boosts counterattack and stops reinforcements from that ship until you get it repaired, plus that's more metal going to the repairing instead of the reinforcements. I think your answer to the question I asked is clear though; it's basically 'I don't concern myself that much with a flagship getting crippled'. I find it surprising that a skilled player would take that approach, but that's why I asked - people just view the game differently and enjoy it in different ways than I do. |
|
|
Hey folks, thanks for the discussion here. I have been kind of waiting and seeing regarding some aspects of this feature. I know that folks don't often read the release notes, and so I implemented a whole bunch of visual cues, and also the tooltip features, to make sure that people are most likely to find out this feature exists. Features that are for convenience often don't get found until someone gets REALLY frustrated and moves to find the feature. This is always my worry, because if they are that frustrated they may just stop entirely. I implemented this feature in a default-on fashion specifically because I wanted people who did not read release notes, or who come to this a few months or years from now, to find that it exists. This seems to solve a problem that a lot of people have with the game in terms of frustration, but if there had been an option in settings to solve this I don't think most people who complained about it would have found it. However, by introducing a comparably minor frustration (this ship won't move, why won't it move, why does it have a shield icon over it?) and the visual feedback and tooltips that lead someone to figure out that this new feature exists, my hope is that it is self-teaching. Even if the majority of people who comment say that they don't want to use it, given the amount of frustrations people have had in the past, I think that potentially having this on by default is a good teaching moment for new players, or even existing or returning players. Having options to make it default to off for YOU, if you play a lot of campaigns and don't like it defaulting on, seems relatively reasonable. Having this interfere with movement on the galaxy map is confusing to me, although I think maybe the problem is with ships that are on multiple planets and trying to join up. I will have to look at that. Some of the other comments like things about Ctrl maybe not being the optimal hotkey also make sense. To be clear: I don't intend to try to force something like this down everyone's throat. The option to not use it was there from the start, and for a few campaigns that one might play over the weekend I don't think the absence of a player-wide toggle is a crisis. But I also wasn't really expecting this sort of backlash from some of the folks who are frustrated with the feature. Overall I think that there are people who are going to be frustrated no matter what, here. I think that, realistically, based on human behaviors and attention, that is just the nature of it. So how to we frustrate the fewest people is one question, or how do we frustrate them in a temporary way that leads to an epiphany that solves their frustration is the other question. If this were just an off-by-default automation setting, we would have to presume that someone who is frustrated with their flagship behavior would happen to think "maybe the devs thought of this and there's a setting for this." For anyone who has been playing the game for a long time, too, they would have to think "maybe NOW there is a setting, even though there was not last week." My experience is that people almost never do this. The players who discover it would likely do so while looking for something else, or by being told by another player. Tips of the day and journal entries and so on can help, but most will get missed. From that perspective, I see the "hey, I can't function for a moment until I slow down and read a thing, what is this icon?" moment as being a teaching moment that just isn't possible any other way. And potentially it leads people to look for other settings. As to whether or not this should automatically turn off for transports that are loaded, or other various scenarios... I mean, context-sensitive stuff is great in one sense, sure. And it's not hard to code. But it really interferes with muscle memory, is my thought. If these contextually sometimes do what you want without the hotkey, and you have the feature enabled, then there will be times where 3 out of your 4 selected ships are loaded and those 3 show up and the 4th does not, leaving you frustrated and confused, and possibly losing an engagement. Even if that doesn't apply to you personally, it will apply to some people. Sometimes features can be "too helpful," especially when it comes to things that are on a screen you can't see at the moment (a distant transport; is it loaded or not? Do you always perfectly remember?). I am open to discussion and suggestions, and I appreciate the discussion that has been happening so far. And I realize there are some edge cases and bugs I need to fix already. I'm curious what the reaction is to my particular perspective here, from folks who are advocating the feature be off by default. |
|
|
Totally agreed about a default off being impossible to discover for most. That's why I tried to defend your idea despite the implementation not being the one I would've chosen. This said I don't think it was a good idea to push it unannounced on the player base like this. It's a released game expected to be stable. You need an in-game announcement or a beta. Many people are likely to just assume it's a bug and throw up their hands in frustration. Even experienced players failed to figure out the Ctrl hotkey. This said, if the feature stays *exactly as-is* I do vote for default off, because I honestly wouldn't use it except perhaps in fights where I get my ass kicked and reload. It's too heavy to turn it on or off through the fleet panel, and having to systematically press Ctrl removes enough fluidity that it's worse than the (real) problem it tries to solve. |
|
|
Thanks for weighing in Chris, appreciate your thoughts and perspective here. The main part I would differ is that ships not moving isn't in my opinion a comparatively minor frustration. You've probably seen it, but I'll reference the Steam discussion here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/573410/discussions/0/4835136555195119542/ Before the mode was added, people were frustrated about flagship movement the way it was but I don't think that's as bad as people feeling that they can't play at all because their flagship won't move. I think the visual clues, tooltips, etc. are good but when somebody tries to move a transport and it just won't move, that's much worse because it feels like a game-breaking bug instead of just annoying controls. I think the only reasonable way IMO to keep it at default-off is to have a big pop-up message that comes up every time somebody loads a save from a previous version of the game - previous to the patch that put stationary mode in place. A 'don't show this again' check could be put in place but something like that which is big, imposing, and can't reasonably be ignored should happen or a lot of players will continue to have the same issue. I don't agree with the criticism that Ctrl-moving is worse than the problem it solves - Crtl-wormhole movement has been in the game, and Classic, since forever and I've yet to see any complaints about that, there are a lot of regularly used commands that aren't any worse on the hotkey side, etc. Context-sensitive isn't an issue for me but I'm more than willing to go with flow on that. I do think though that having Ctrl-movement as the default for flagships, but not for fleet ships is not intuitive, and that it works better as a mode that the player can activate or not at their discretion. |
|
|
You made it default on to make it frustrating to the player so he would have to dig into tooltips to learn why the transport isn't moving just so he learn about a feature he wouldn't care about the begin with? That's sound counterproductive to me. I would think most players would want to use a transport as a transport. The example given in the steam forum was the person didn't have a cloak transport but wanted to go deep striking with cloak ships. So he wanted the transport to stay in friendly territory while they went to knock out targets. BUT what if the person did have a cloak transport which is very likely when players learned of this tactic as they would just start the game with the cloaked fleet. I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't want a cloaked transport not to transport cloaked ships. It's like the saying "if it's not broke don't fix it. There have been a lot of good suggestions that made the game better and more accessible, this was not one of them. |
|
|
Strategic Sage wrote " I think your answer to the question I asked is clear though; it's basically 'I don't concern myself that much with a flagship getting crippled'. " I'm going to give you the same answer someone gave me "It depends" Sometimes I'm willing to sacrifice a flagship in order to get my bombers close enough to destroy a target. |
|
|
@Strategic Sage I play with such high power levels that flagships get wrecked very rapidly unless they are part of spirefleet (and sometimes even those get trashed). I just take it as a normal thing and adjust my tactics to compensate for it - cloaked transport shennanigans, factories on a nearby system/edge of gravity well with engineering battlestation there to help build (all the other battlestations are nearly useless because they die almost instantly in battle), and sending crippled flagships to a nearby system to repair. The game is mostly on difficulty 9, but not lower than that, and with strong minor faction allies on my part. Difficult individual planets are not really such a common thing for me - most things get smashed by spirefleet or minor factions, to the point where almost all ai planetary defenses are a speedbump. The maps tend to have relatively few connections and have 160 planets, so the very, very long trip to the enemy homeworlds (maybe 30-60 jumps) along with the many exowar ships running around smashing isolated planets that could be used to bridge that gap is the real ai defense here. |
|
|
Thanks. That's another experience in the same vein, and it definitely tracks that people who play the game completely differently and value pretty much an opposite approach to it from mine would view this is a non-issue. |
|
|
Cheers, folks. * The new "stationary flagship" status now defalts to off, and for all savegames prior to this one will have them all set to off. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2020 3:50 pm | Strategic Sage | New Issue | |
| Oct 17, 2020 4:02 pm | Metrekec | Note Added: 0059284 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 4:05 pm | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059285 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 4:26 pm | Asteroid | Note Added: 0059287 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 4:26 pm | Asteroid | Relationship added | child of 0022390 |
| Oct 17, 2020 5:12 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0059289 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 5:38 pm | Asteroid | Note Added: 0059290 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 5:58 pm | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059292 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 6:11 pm | Asteroid | Relationship deleted | child of 0022390 |
| Oct 17, 2020 6:12 pm | Asteroid | Relationship added | related to 0022390 |
| Oct 17, 2020 6:36 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0059295 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 7:10 pm | Asteroid | Note Added: 0059298 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 7:17 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0059299 | |
| Oct 17, 2020 7:48 pm | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059301 | |
| Oct 19, 2020 12:44 am | crawlers | Note Added: 0059312 | |
| Oct 19, 2020 4:07 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0059322 | |
| Oct 19, 2020 4:32 pm | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059323 | |
| Oct 19, 2020 4:37 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0059324 | |
| Oct 19, 2020 4:44 pm | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059325 | |
| Oct 19, 2020 9:22 pm | Asteroid | Note Added: 0059327 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 5:59 am | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059329 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 6:10 am | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059330 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 9:32 am | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0059331 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 11:01 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0059332 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 12:28 pm | Asteroid | Note Added: 0059334 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 2:12 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0059338 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 4:23 pm | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059342 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 4:27 pm | Smidlee | Note Added: 0059343 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 5:03 pm | crawlers | Note Added: 0059345 | |
| Oct 20, 2020 5:13 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0059346 | |
| Oct 21, 2020 7:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Oct 21, 2020 7:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Oct 21, 2020 7:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Oct 21, 2020 7:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 2.618 Astro Reserve Tuning |
| Oct 21, 2020 7:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0059356 |
