Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 For the past few turns now, I've been trying to get two of my fleets to engage an enemy fleet in combat. I have no political agreement with the empire owning the fleet, and both of my fleets are set "X." I've tried many things to initiate combat. Sensor sweeps, moving my fleets away from and back to the warp point in question and so on. Nothing works. I currently have email in to Pete. I've been told by an old far... by someone who has played Supernova for a long time that this does occasionally happen. He also suggested that the lioness crews, feral and new to space combat, get confused when they hear the attack command and pounce the holographic bridge displays... Has anyone else had a problem like this? It might be nice to have a "shoot" command which, when issued to a fleet, would overide any and all other triggers for fleet combat for the fleet in question that turn, and would cause the fleet to open fire at any non-"us" fleet adjacent. Thoughts? -Sha'thar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Setting the PAP to War helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locklyn Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Setting the PAP to War helps. Not always, since Pete seems to have to handcheck every possible combat (an inherent flaw in the engine which is why a lot of combats take a lot of time) the human factor also plays in. I've had several instances where the PAP is set to War, The fleet NENC is appropriate yet no battle takes place at sightings and Pete won't rerun battles after turns unless something is seriously wrong which means that sometimes enemy ships get a lot further into your territory than they ever should have. It is a problem but only one among many. Personally I think the Alien Fleet sightings should be separate. I think that you should be notified when someone BOMBs you, not peruse your turns to see if you have fewer installations this turn than the last, an RN ing ship should not be able to take more fuel with it than it actually can carry and thus screw up all orders etc etc... /Locklyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 And do not forget flying ground fortresses as also seen in the latest instance of MMBs battle reports. Forts moving to WPs without even a tug. That is just plain wrong and should be dealt with asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locklyn Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 And do not forget flying ground fortresses as also seen in the latest instance of MMBs battle reports. Forts moving to WPs without even a tug. That is just plain wrong and should be dealt with asap. One of the main problems are just that there many exploits that Pete "quickfix" and then they break down again but they land deeper down in Petes "to do list" and only some people know about it and abuse it instead of everyone getting to abuse it evenly. Flying Ground Forts, Moving Legendary Characters about without fleets etc etc etc. Even when you report an exploit/bug/error you can check some turns later and find that it still hasn't been fixed because Pete hasn't gotten around to it. I mean after four and half years of gaming we still have a incorrect and outdated rulebook , an erronenous Naval Combat Primer that seems to die of neglect so apparently Pete keeps spending all time between turns fixing problems from the last turn or creating things that should have been in the game from the beginning, like espionage, without being able to get to larger issues or game evolutionary issues which is a shame because sooner or later people tire of Building Mk XIV Big Stick to invade Planet Druidia, take their airsupply and build even more Bigger Sticks...and that is a game survival problem. If the game is intended to keep on being entertaining for people it has to evolve. It also needs better documentation and some sort of public bug/exploit thread so at least every one gets a fair shot at the flying fortresses Cheers /Locklyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Uriel Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 I often agree with Locklyn on game issues, and this time is another one. I've actually given up posting the occassional *bump* message in the naval primer, nothing seems to result from it. But all that being said, I still enjoy the game. This game actually forced me to learn how to use excel and delve into macros, which has helped somewhat with my job. Now that is funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locklyn Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 I often agree with Locklyn on game issues, and this time is another one. I've actually given up posting the occassional *bump* message in the naval primer, nothing seems to result from it. But all that being said, I still enjoy the game. This game actually forced me to learn how to use excel and delve into macros, which has helped somewhat with my job. Now that is funny. *sigh* Yup, I learnt excel as well through my alliance to get through this game since there are no utilities at all to help us with the game, you have to do all yourself or get yourself into an alliance that has the sheets for you. Then there are nice people like cestvel who create utilities that really should have come with the game. Btw, remember doing production queue changes on p a p e r ? Cheers /Locklyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodookus Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Having recently become privy to the "flying ground bases" bug, I plan to use it. My thought process is that the more a bug is used, the more that people will complain about it. The more that people complain, the higher on the "priority" list this item moves, which in turn gets it fixed faster. In the mean time, I will have some seriously large groundbases placed at WP's and enjoy the 9x defensive bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locklyn Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Having recently become privy to the "flying ground bases" bug, I plan to use it. My thought process is that the more a bug is used, the more that people will complain about it. The more that people complain, the higher on the "priority" list this item moves, which in turn gets it fixed faster. In the mean time, I will have some seriously large groundbases placed at WP's and enjoy the 9x defensive bonus. Perhaps that is the way to go indeed, a pity though. Perhaps we should start a known bugs/exploits thread so everyone can share in the fun? /Locklyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Sounds good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr Posted May 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Flying Ground Fortresses? Gads, I do want to exploit that -just once-. A dropped position apparently had "The Fleet of Doom" on convoy route to a world. This was fine as we were allied. But since "there's no one home" now, I need to take care of that fleet which has appeared at the only WP in or out of the system, and which he had set to Z... But since we're posting so much about these bugs, perhaps that won't happen. Which in its own way would be good too... -Sha'thar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 And do not forget flying ground fortresses as also seen in the latest instance of MMBs battle reports. Forts moving to WPs without even a tug. That is just plain wrong and should be dealt with asap. Yep. And some players seem to be taking advantage of this (or trying to). For example, I just saw a large fleet of Defense Satelittes (each consisting of 1 - 1000 ton weapon and nothing else) move from an enemy HW to a nearby WP. I have complained to Pete and requested that he fix this on the turn, pointing out that if they ships had not moved, the SENS sweep that saw them would have triggered a battle, and they would have been wiped out with few if any losses to the fleet holding the skies over the HW. The player moving the ships obviously tried to do a fast one, hoping to move the ships before the sensor sweep so they wouldn't be noticed, and could be used later. Cheating at it's finest. And Pete has yet to fix this problem. Meaning I have to keep ships at multiple spots in the system to track every attempted "cheat" move, so I can report them to Pete for correction. Not very fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 I have no emails in my inbox discussing battles that did not run as expected. Drop a note to pete@rollingthunder.com with your empire #, the empire # you expected to fight, the fleet names and numbers involved and the turn date. By far the most likely occurrence is that I saw a potential battle and manually kicked it because you were fighting what appeared to me be an ally. I jump in sometimes to help players out as there are quite a few potentially devastating engagements that are better off not run. Likely an error on my part in this case. Towing fortress and orbital code is getting revamped to work in a much better way from this end. I've retroactively moved them back to where they came from in such cases and have added dead ships back into action, so it's not something to fret about. I'm not likely to revise the naval combat primer yet again, because it's already very accurate in its current state. The proposed CIDS vs ftr/drone generation code isn't live, but by and large the document as it stands is fine. I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this, preferring to spend my time on code issues that need work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 I have no emails in my inbox discussing battles that did not run as expected. Drop a note to pete@rollingthunder.com with your empire #, the empire # you expected to fight, the fleet names and numbers involved and the turn date. By far the most likely occurrence is that I saw a potential battle and manually kicked it because you were fighting what appeared to me be an ally. I jump in sometimes to help players out as there are quite a few potentially devastating engagements that are better off not run. Likely an error on my part in this case. Towing fortress and orbital code is getting revamped to work in a much better way from this end. I've retroactively moved them back to where they came from in such cases and have added dead ships back into action, so it's not something to fret about. I'm not likely to revise the naval combat primer yet again, because it's already very accurate in its current state. The proposed CIDS vs ftr/drone generation code isn't live, but by and large the document as it stands is fine. I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this, preferring to spend my time on code issues that need work. I hope this was a general message to all Pete. Because if you've misplaced the mail I sent you, your reply, and my reply to your reply already, I'll be very frustrated. Still, since I'm on some pain medication for some dental work, I think I'll get over it. Eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 I hope this was a general message to all Pete. Because if you've misplaced the mail I sent you, your reply, and my reply to your reply already, I'll be very frustrated. Still, since I'm on some pain medication for some dental work, I think I'll get over it. Eventually. Right - not referring to your issue, have those emails no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.