Follow orders - please follow **** orders

[sh1pman]

Changing the order assignment to "immediate" or keeping it as "queued" won't solve the real issue here, the override of manual orders by automatic "situational" orders, like attacking a nearby enemy. If you *manually* tell the ship to fly somewhere, and there are no other orders in its order chain, it should just fly there no matter what happens on the way. Same with docking. Auto orders should only override current orders if the ship is executing its standard behavior (mining, trading, defending position, etc), or as a part of another manual offensive order (attack another nearby enemy after the first target is dead)

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Having captured six sectors from the Xenon and therefore having done a lot of UI ordering about of 10 different fleets here is a situation that often crops up.

I order a fleet to fly to a particular position. Somewhere near a station that I am going to attack. I do this so that all of the ships can arrive at a point near to the station before I start the attack.
As the fleet moves it reveals enemy ships. I use shift key and mouse to highlight the fleet and tell them to attack. This is an order that I want them to obey immediately.

What happens? I see lines appear indicating that they are currenly going to continue travelling, following the first order. Then they will double back and attack.

So a simple solution would be to have another key say CTRL if I use this and highlight a set of ships this automatically clears the order queue and the new order is followed immediately.

Now it so happens that during a large battle I want to highlight smaller groups of ships to go off and fight another target. Again I want this to happen immediately, things change very quickly
during large battles.

Yes it maybe possible to select and clear all orders then select and issue the attack command. I would rather do it in one go though.

[GCU Grey Area]

So a simple solution would be to have another key say CTRL if I use this and highlight a set of ships this automatically clears the order queue and the new order is followed immediately.

Think a better solution is to have a high priority orders section added to the right-click menu. Rather than clearing existing orders, high priority orders from this menu would be inserted at the top of the orders queue, keeping the rest intact. The standard orders list we have at present is retained & functions exactly as it does now - these orders are added to the bottom of the queue. Think this setup would provide a decent amount of flexibility, while still being relatively convenient to use. Problem with a clear & replace approach to priority orders is that quite often my ships have fairly complex battle plans programed into them. They have long order queues & would not want to lose all of that every time I need to issue a high priority order.

[letsplay]

At the moment two entities give the ship orders: the ship AI itself and the player.
I would like my orders to take precedence, imediately and without deviation - until complete.
I guess the latest player order would always be at the top of the queque and all player orders above AI self-orders.
Or at least AI self-orders would not 'replace' or supersede player orders.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

It would seem that most people here find the queuing of orders to be a "little" clunky and could do with some improvement.
There are obviously a number of ways in which this could be done. Lets hope the developers give some time and effort to
making it easier for us to order our minions about.

[pref]

Your general attitude has been highly ignorant and confrontational - you have singled out an example meant purely as an illustrative case and used it to try to discredit the points I have been making overall.

As for the dock at default behaviour, and queing orders after it - there are other cases where this might make sense but there is always the option to clear current orders before issuing the new order(s).

You confuse disagreement with personal attacks, and take this debate to an emotional plane. Wonder why is that

Still waiting for any meaningful explanations about how AI generated orders with lower prio would create problems. Except for that one really bad example all you have provided are categorical statements saying everyone else is wrong and you are right.

[radcapricorn]

This has all been solved one way or another by various RTSs forever ago. An (incomplete) example:

Three stances:
- aggressive: attack and pursue enemies. But it's "aggressive", not "suicidal". Do not engage a cluster of KHK when you're in a Discoverer!
- defensive: don't initiate combat, but defend if attacked. This includes running away if outnumbered.
- evasive: avoid combat at all costs. See an enemy? Give a wide berth.

Under default behavior, observe stance at all times. Under direct orders, stance may be temporarily replaced.

Orders:
- move to (fly to): freaking MOVE TO. Regardless of what you're doing right now. Go. There. Pronto. If aggressive, turrets/missiles allowed. But no chasing enemies! If evasive, choose safest route. In any case, be there yesterday, or you're court marshaled, stripped, and put outta airlock. If target is moving, rendezvous. That means calculate intercept and go there, not where it is right now.
- attack into (space): go there. If encounter enemies, act as if you're aggressive. But still progress towards "there". Do not chase an N 1000km and 18 sectors in the opposite direction.
- protect X: protect the freaking X. Stay within 2 to 5 km and bloody defend it! If it's moving, move with it. Not 300km behind it, not five sectors in front of it. If it's using travel drive, use your own. Together with it, not after it already flew 200km away. Coordinate so you start moving together, and move at the same speed. If when this order is given you're 500km away from target, rendezvous.
- attack X: attack the freaking X. That implies "move to". Yes, "move to", including rendezvous. Yes, I know there are other enemies. That's why I'm ordering you to attack that specific one! Use turrets/missiles on other enemies if able, but focus on that target.
- withdraw from combat: GTFO. On the double. No, don't drop laser towers! Just get the hell away! Have a base? "Move to" there. Don't have a base? Get outta sensor range of enemies. No, not just these enemies. All enemies. Including ones that may pop into radar on the way. Be evasive until you're safe.
- patrol (area): put a set of waypoints in (area) and "attack into" each of those in turn.

Have no orders? Do whatever's your "default" job, but pay heed to your stance. If your stance is not "aggressive", and your job is to escort something, rendezvous with that something. If you are aggressive, weapons free on the way.

Player's a wing leader? Have quick commands issued to the whole wing:
- form on me - stop whatever you're doing and get back in formation.
- engage - break formation, pick targets of opportunity (preferably working in pairs)
- protect X: as above
- withdraw/RTB: stop whatever you're doing and get to safety.

Same commands should exists for AI-commanded wings.

Do not scatter wing all over the map. If "moving to" or "attacking into" and combat ensues, get back to formation before proceeding further.

---

One click on wing leader selects whole squad for commands. Second click on wing leader isolates leader only for a personal order.

Any order given directly overrides whatever else the ship/wing/fleet is doing. Want to queue up? There's a modifier key (i.e. shift). Gamepad users could have a dedicated button.

Those are just the ones I found lacking so far. Still haven't tried boarding or (shudder) massive battles.

[letsplay]

I can see there is no 'perfect' solution for all eventualities.
But just do what I ****** tell you, now without delay or deviation (until it is done) should be an option, as an absolute minimum.
Not rocket science as a concept, nor to program - I imagine.
Angels on the head of pin arguments notwithstanding of course

[pref]

This has all been solved one way or another by various RTSs forever ago. An (incomplete) example:
-snip-

I'd be happy if the basic scripts would work well - we have attack, defend pos/object, etc but ships are just disobeying even these. They just ignore any range while attacking, and even override manual orders.
Once basics are working it would make sense to build on it (though it wouldn't match an RTS style control entirely as this game needs to work IS too).

The command modifiers which we have for weapon usage could have more options for one, like specify target strength or type (fighter/capship/station for ex).
Maybe have an attack and chase radius where it makes sense which have sensible defaults.

AI recognising and constantly reevaluating opposition strength is a more complex (real AI, not just automation) task - i would leave that for later when the more simple issues are sorted sufficiently.
I could live with them blindly executing their orders and leaving strategical thinking to the player. Also player could have needs which don't fit the AI evaluation which would result in denial of orders and that is to be avoided at all costs.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

Cut the personal targeted commentary - the nature of your responses constitute personal attacks, it is possible to disagree without resorting to attempting to ridicule the other's position. Engaging in attempts to ridicule is tantamount to a personal attack.

You miss the overriding point - orders are just orders once they are in the queue, there is no distinction based on what issued them. The default behaviours only kick in (generate orders) for the empty order queue case and can be set to hold position which is in essence a passive idle command.

If you want your new orders to take precedent over what you are ordering is currently doing then you should have to make an affirmative action that your new orders take precedent. Currently, this is do able through the clear orders menu option in advance of issuing an order.

At no point should ANY order issued to a target manually automatically take precedent over the current queued orders without the player having to do an additional action to force it to take precedent. There are good reasons for this and a lot is to do with allowing for tactical flexibility.

When we are talking about wingmen, it is a slightly different situation to the independent/wing-leader order case. There are quite a few side issues in that particular case.

Ultimately though, the key problem with V2.0 is that the execution of various orders is flawed (more flawed than in 1.60) and the AI in general needs substantial work to get the game to play well without forcing the player to use community developed mods to fix AI/Scripting bugs that rightly should be fixed by Egosoft themselves.

[Alan Phipps]

Will you all please just cut out the personal commentary - all of you. Do you want this discussion locked?

[pref]

You miss the overriding point - orders are just orders once they are in the queue, there is no distinction based on what issued them.

That's not an overriding point, but the problem with the system.
Would be relatively easy to distinguish source of orders, and split the queue in two based on that distinction.
It would solve the issues with ships not obeying, and also overriding player orders.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

You miss the overriding point - orders are just orders once they are in the queue, there is no distinction based on what issued them.

That's not an overriding point, but the problem with the system.
Would be relatively easy to distinguish source of orders, and split the queue in two based on that distinction.
It would solve the issues with ships not obeying, and also overriding player orders.

I disagree - as for default behaviours overriding player orders, I have yet to see ANY evidence of this happening.

The only things that I have seen happen is two fold:

1. Orders (regardless of origin) can be assigned critical status (preventing cancelling) and in at least some cases the order hangs indefinitely and the resulting entity effectively gets blocked from executing any other orders.
2. Orders terminate prematurely or simply hang on some occassions for no apparent reason

These are not issues with the queuing system but with order execution implementation in itself.

The queuing system is fine as-is on the most part, and I fundamentally disagree that manual orders (regardless of nature) should automatically (i.e. without an explicit decision by the player) take precedence over any order in the queue regardless of the source of the existing orders and also regardless of the nature of the order being given (manually injected attack/follow/dock-at/fly-to orders should not be considered automatic override orders).

There is not (and should not be) any distinction between orders based on the order source, whether the order is issued by the player or the AI is moot. What is not moot though is the intent behind the order, the AI can work with it's own state to make that determination in regards to it's own orders but the player needs to declare their intent in some way - currently, the options are to edit the order queues manually or issue "Remove all orders and wait". If specific people are having major problems with the default behaviours getting in the way then setting the default behaviour to "Hold Position" should address that (it is also the default setting for default behaviours IME - the only exception being subordinates but that is a rats' nest of other issues).

[pref]

I disagree - as for default behaviours overriding player orders, I have yet to see ANY evidence of this happening.

It happens. Even without any relevant behaviour. Had several times ships with hold position behaviour adding themselves an attack order and chase down enemy ships when they were supposed to change equipment.
If you read replies in the thread it has also been mentioned several times that after telling the ship to wait and cancel orders, the ship resumes it's normal behaviour and overrides the player command.
All of this result from the game not differentiating between AI and player commands.

The queuing system is fine as-is on the most part, and I fundamentally disagree that manual orders (regardless of nature) should automatically

The queue system is nice indeed, and yes you have told a million times now you disagree. No clue why though?
Imo it's natural that manual orders should have higher prio then AI ones, and can't even figure a typical example where this logic fails.
You made it clear that you don't like the idea but that does not mean it's illogical or is a bad solution.
Much easier to add an additional sorting to the queue and perhaps color coding to tell player about source with dev resources then anything else that needs complex UI changes.

Ships just not obeying is not acceptable, and having to adjust the queue manually to make the ship obey is also wrong and really problematic in intense situations.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The queue system is nice indeed, and yes you have told a million times now you disagree. No clue why though?
Imo it's natural that manual orders should have higher prio then AI ones, and can't even figure a typical example where this logic fails.

That is why you don't understand, I have explained it many times and you still fail to understand - ultimately, I hope Egosoft ignore your request to mess up the current order queue system as you seem to want to be.

It is anything but natural that manual orders should automatically take priority, there should always be an explicit indication that the order in question is to take priority either by deferring or cancelling current orders. Currently, we only have the option to cancel current orders which while not ideal is also not a big issue IMO.

The principles adopted with the order queuing system as it stands is perfectly logical, easily understandable in terms of resulting behaviours, and has precedent with prior art. What you are proposing does not meet ANY of those points.

[pref]

I have explained it many times

Currently, we only have the option to cancel current orders which while not ideal is also not a big issue IMO.

No, you can adjust command priority in the queue manually. That is the feature i'm referring to, it already exists just AI should use it with a bit more respect towards player orders.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Currently, we only have the option to cancel current orders which while not ideal is also not a big issue IMO.

No, you can adjust command priority in the queue manually. That is the feature i'm referring to, it already exists just AI should use it with a bit more respect towards player orders.

The only time the order queue may get overridden is with reactionary orders (e.g. police/pirate scans - even then it is only a momentary interruption IME) default behaviours IME do not add new orders to the queue that override existing orders in the queue regardless of origin of said orders.

The queue order is given due respect IME, if players want their orders to take priority over any current orders then the quickest way is to use the "clear all orders"/"clear all orders and wait" menu options prior to issuing their alternate order. Yes, I know we can edit the position of individual orders in the queue but that is besides the point - it has little or nothing to do with the AI respecting queue order.

There are issues with at least some orders terminating prematurely for no apparent reason which is probably the issue you are witnessing. That particular concern is not related to the AI "respecting player orders" wrt queue management though.

[sh1pman]

I think I see the problem here. You just never encountered the issue that I, pref and others have. Doesn't mean the issue isn't there. Ships DO disobey direct orders sometimes. Saw it many times in battle and with guards, had to plan around it.

First, even if they have direct orders, if they're close to enemy, they sometimes generate an attack order. An undesirable attack order, which can get them killed. Removing that order and issuing another one has a good chance of being ignored, generating another attack order. Again, I SAW THIS, please don't tell me it isn't a problem, it clearly is.

Second, for immediate orders you suggest removing all orders and issuing a new one. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't, for example in battle (where they immediately generate attack orders after you remove their existing orders) and for ships with default behavior (if I don't want to remove it). Immediate orders for ship groups should be possible and convenient. They are useful, you won't convince me they aren't. I'll take them in any form, an "immediate" check box in the order menu will do just fine.

[radcapricorn]

Second, for immediate orders you suggest removing all orders and issuing a new one. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't, for example in battle (where they immediately generate attack orders after you remove their existing orders) and for ships with default behavior (if I don't want to remove it). Immediate orders for ship groups should be possible and convenient. They are useful, you won't convince me they aren't. I'll take them in any form, an "immediate" check box in the order menu will do just fine.

Nah, "immediate" should be just that: you click, you're done. No checkboxes, no preemptive cancelling, no fuss. You want your ship to get out of danger right now? Click, done. Otherwise, by the time you've finished fiddling with checkboxes, cancelling, queue juggling, the urgency's gone, the ship's dead. The UI for orders should be concise and centralized, not scattered between three different menus. Again, implicit immediate + explicit queuing of orders in games existed since forever ago, and works just fine. Roger just hasn't played much of other games, it seems. Or X4, for that matter

[consiefe]

I think I see the problem here. You just never encountered the issue that I, pref and others have. Doesn't mean the issue isn't there. Ships DO disobey direct orders sometimes. Saw it many times in battle and with guards, had to plan around it.

First, even if they have direct orders, if they're close to enemy, they sometimes generate an attack order. An undesirable attack order, which can get them killed. Removing that order and issuing another one has a good chance of being ignored, generating another attack order. Again, I SAW THIS, please don't tell me it isn't a problem, it clearly is.

Second, for immediate orders you suggest removing all orders and issuing a new one. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't, for example in battle (where they immediately generate attack orders after you remove their existing orders) and for ships with default behavior (if I don't want to remove it). Immediate orders for ship groups should be possible and convenient. They are useful, you won't convince me they aren't. I'll take them in any form, an "immediate" check box in the order menu will do just fine.

+1, I certainly experienced this over and over. This is the most annoying thing in the game atm. You can't manage a fleet with this. The only way to deal with it is giving a fly and wait order to the far corners of a sector or telling them to change sectors all together. That's mess.

Edit: After every update I keep coming here and everytime I see they once again failed to appease the rightful frustration. I don't want to play test it as I have better games for my limited free time. It's sad to see an X game in this state as it's unique in its kind.