Follow orders - please follow **** orders

[Berserk Knight]

Fun fact : They already have provisions for new orders getting added to the front of the order queue, in the form of the "immediate" parameter that can be passed.
It's just EgoSoft being stupid and not providing us with a second copy of the current orders that actually use that parameter.

Given their track record with the "attempting to have trade and ware exchange fire off the same button, but then wasn't able to figure out exactly when it should work as one or the other since there may be situations where someone might want the other one, so just disabled ware exchange completely" thing, I'm fairly certain they couldn't figure out which orders should go to the front of the queue, so they just decided not to use any.

If there are multiple ways you might want a thing to work, you put all of the options in and LET THE PLAYER CHOOSE which one they actually want to use in whatever situation they find themselves in.

[pref]

Fun fact : They already have provisions for new orders getting added to the front of the order queue, in the form of the "immediate" parameter that can be passed.
It's just EgoSoft being stupid and not providing us with a second copy of the current orders that actually use that parameter.

Given their track record with the "attempting to have trade and ware exchange fire off the same button, but then wasn't able to figure out exactly when it should work as one or the other since there may be situations where someone might want the other one, so just disabled ware exchange completely" thing, I'm fairly certain they couldn't figure out which orders should go to the front of the queue, so they just decided not to use any.

If there are multiple ways you might want a thing to work, you put all of the options in and LET THE PLAYER CHOOSE which one they actually want to use in whatever situation they find themselves in.

Pity. Think it's related that they also do not check if during execution of a command it should be cancelled in case of a behaviour order - like when attack takes the ship out of its operating zone. Or when a trade fails and they do not reissue other sell order(s) for the cargo that remains.

Best way would probably be a modifier for non immediate orders (like shift-click the command to add it below non immediate orders), but i assume that isn't so easy to implement..?

Unrelated question for you: is it possible to mod UI and not get in conflict with other mods touching UI as well? If i understood it correctly that was an issue after release.

I'll take them in any form, an "immediate" check box in the order menu will do just fine.

Think it would be inconvenient having to enter the details window for the ship. I'd rather we can just do this from the context menu really quickly.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

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.

I don't dispute there are issues with order execution just the obviously flawed root cause analysis that some are asserting.

I have seen something similar, and it is not a problem with the queue nor the default behaviours as I have seen it with a trade ship. This seems to be more to do with two things - reactionary behaviours and broken order execution under at least some circumstances. Default behaviours and the order queue have nothing to do with that in essence.

Regardless of the circumstances, "Remove all orders and wait" seems to do exactly that and I have yet to see a case where either reactionary behaviours or default behaviours take precedent over that nor at least the more passive direct orders (e.g. Fly To Position or Dock At Target). Once the direct order has kicked in, it normally executes flawlessly. I have had cases of premature combat order termination but typically only when ordering around more than say 50-100 entities - seems to vary at least a little, and ordering them around in smaller groups seems to work around it. Order too many entities to attack a given target and some are likely to stop dead in space some distance from their target and refuse to attack the target regardless of whether they are 1 group or several.

A case in point is I had 280+ drones launch from a station and refuse to RTB so I ended up retasking them on other activities such as exploration and Xenon population control in order sectors. Groups of up to about 50-60 drones would obey orders reliably, groups of about 100 drones would operate with varying degrees of success, but go much above 100 entities for a single operation and order execution often breaks down for a good number of them IME.

This seems to have been an issue introduced (or at least made worse) in 2.0, in 1.60 there seemed to be less issues. There seems to be no hard and fast rules behind when and why it occurs BUT number of entities involved does seem to play a significant part. There are numerous factors in play BUT I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the order queue system and order priority is not part of the underlying issues.

I have worked on various C&C simulation systems of varying types over the years and ALL of them operate on very similar principles to what X4 does wrt order queuing and processing. The take away from such systems is that there is probably one very simple answer to the complained about issue and that is for Egosoft to explicitly implement combat reaction control orders in both the global and entity settings (e.g. Free, Tight, and Hold). With the Hold option reactive fire behaviours would be effectively disabled, with Tight reactive attack would be restricted to being fired upon, and Free would be attack on sight.

Additional reaction control orders may be required such as Free-Defensive and Tight-Defensive, which would allow the relevant ship to fire at hostiles but not deliberately move to engage them. In the case of such reaction control orders only Free and Tight would be likely to take a target off-mission and possibly only if they are identified as a bigger threat to them than their primary mission target in the case of direct offensive orders - they can not complete a mission if they are dead. In the case of passive orders such as trading and moving around Free/Tight could in theory turn ugly for the ship engaging in reactionary behaviours. In the case of orders involving Patrols, Point Defence or Target Defence there would likely be distance constraints to the reactive behaviours. In the case of Hold Position/Wait orders, I would expect Free/Tight to behave the same as Free-Defensive/Tight-Defensive - i.e. either no movement or very limited movement.

Ideally, such reactionary behaviours would be customisable on a per order basis but the user interface could get horrendously complicated. Egosoft have already done something along these lines with the reaction behaviours regarding Police/Pirate scans thus there is already a precedent for Egosoft to implement something along the lines of what I have proposed in this post.

However, such improvements are likely to be moot unless Egosoft can fix the implementation of their existing orders. In the first instance, a quick short term fix might be for Egosoft to disable all reactive combat mechanisms for player owned entities at least. Such a disabling should not effect the Attack option regarding reactions to Police/Pirate scans though.

[sh1pman]

@Roger well, yea, order execution is also not great, but they’re working on it, from what I see in beta patch notes. Glad we’re on the same page about “response” orders. They really mess up ship management in combat sometimes. But “immediate order check box” is still something that I’d very much appreciate if they implement. Leave the order queue as it is, just add some functionality that lets me place my order to the top of queue, for a group of ships, quickly, and I’ll be happy. Make it stay at the top and not get overridden by something else, and I’ll be very happy. Pulling a group of drones from an enemy station won’t be a frustration fest anymore!

[CaptainSim]

I think we can all agree the current commands and orders system and the AI and wings is very broken and needs fixing. No?

Nope - not even close really.

The specific order behaviours may need rework but the general commands/orders system in itself is fine. The general concept of queuing orders is pretty much working perfectly and works well.

The only thing that needs rework is really the AI itself.

M8 my ships every now and then just straight up stop following me when they are in my wing and just sit there. I know you want to win an argument on the internet but this is broken, no?

These lines of argument are moot unless you're describing this behavior with FULL STAR employees. If there is a way to give yourself full star experienced employees immediately and observe how pilots and fleets behave with everyone being at FULL experience, then we've eliminated the most likely cause of the problem, and can move on to discussing AI behavior in response to your orders as a technical support issue.

[CaptainX4]

Nope - not even close really.

The specific order behaviours may need rework but the general commands/orders system in itself is fine. The general concept of queuing orders is pretty much working perfectly and works well.

The only thing that needs rework is really the AI itself.

M8 my ships every now and then just straight up stop following me when they are in my wing and just sit there. I know you want to win an argument on the internet but this is broken, no?

These lines of argument are moot unless you're describing this behavior with FULL STAR employees. If there is a way to give yourself full star experienced employees immediately and observe how pilots and fleets behave with everyone being at FULL experience, then we've eliminated the most likely cause of the problem, and can move on to discussing AI behavior in response to your orders as a technical support issue.

so if nly the lover level ai is broken thats not an issue. i think its your poor argument is moot

[CaptainSim]

M8 my ships every now and then just straight up stop following me when they are in my wing and just sit there. I know you want to win an argument on the internet but this is broken, no?

These lines of argument are moot unless you're describing this behavior with FULL STAR employees. If there is a way to give yourself full star experienced employees immediately and observe how pilots and fleets behave with everyone being at FULL experience, then we've eliminated the most likely cause of the problem, and can move on to discussing AI behavior in response to your orders as a technical support issue.

so if nly the lover level ai is broken thats not an issue. i think its your poor argument is moot

You're assuming what you need to prove. This is the "begging the question" fallacy.

[CaptainX4]

These lines of argument are moot unless you're describing this behavior with FULL STAR employees. If there is a way to give yourself full star experienced employees immediately and observe how pilots and fleets behave with everyone being at FULL experience, then we've eliminated the most likely cause of the problem, and can move on to discussing AI behavior in response to your orders as a technical support issue.

so if nly the lover level ai is broken thats not an issue. i think its your poor argument is moot

You're assuming what you need to prove. This is the "begging the question" fallacy.

no, that the ships stop following the follow or defend orders is there, its a fact, there is nothing to prove on it, and such misbehavior is far over what could happen out of missing skill especially for all my 3-4 star pilots. is it a bug? is it a poor design? who cares? its broken... btw, also a fact that if i send in a wing even 10 fighters to follow a ship, regardless of their varying skill level they all stop at the same time it cant be a design issue (in that case the misbehavior would appear at different random times) so bug is proven. Its rather you assuming that if something doesnt bother you its not there

[CaptainSim]

so if nly the lover level ai is broken thats not an issue. i think its your poor argument is moot

You're assuming what you need to prove. This is the "begging the question" fallacy.

no, that the ships stop following the follow or defend orders is there, its a fact, there is nothing to prove on it, and such misbehavior is far over what could happen out of missing skill especially for all my 3-4 star pilots. is it a bug? is it a poor design? who cares? its broken... btw, also a fact that if i send in a wing even 10 fighters to follow a ship, regardless of their varying skill level they all stop at the same time it cant be a design issue (in that case the misbehavior would appear at different random times) so bug is proven. Its rather you assuming that if something doesnt bother you its not there

You're confounding the issues here.

First, a bug is an objectively broken issue with the game. If you are claiming it is a bug that they don't immediately respond to your orders, or respond at all, that is begging the question. It could simply be that they messed up following your orders due to not being full five star employees. If the entire team stops it COULD still be a skill level issue, because if you send a team, the implied order is they must stick together as a team, and thus if one employee messes up all of them will stop to make up for his lack of skill.

We are not discussing whether the game has design flaws. That is a subjective matter, not an objective one. To one person the game may be perfect and be exactly what he wants, to another it may have poor design.

[CaptainX4]

You're assuming what you need to prove. This is the "begging the question" fallacy.

no, that the ships stop following the follow or defend orders is there, its a fact, there is nothing to prove on it, and such misbehavior is far over what could happen out of missing skill especially for all my 3-4 star pilots. is it a bug? is it a poor design? who cares? its broken... btw, also a fact that if i send in a wing even 10 fighters to follow a ship, regardless of their varying skill level they all stop at the same time it cant be a design issue (in that case the misbehavior would appear at different random times) so bug is proven. Its rather you assuming that if something doesnt bother you its not there

You're confounding the issues here.

First, a bug is an objectively broken issue with the game. If you are claiming it is a bug that they don't immediately respond to your orders, or respond at all, that is begging the question. It could simply be that they messed up following your orders due to not being full five star employees. If the entire team stops it COULD still be a skill level issue, because if you send a team, the implied order is they must stick together as a team, and thus if one employee messes up all of them will stop to make up for his lack of skill.

We are not discussing whether the game has design flaws. That is a subjective matter, not an objective one. To one person the game may be perfect and be exactly what he wants, to another it may have poor design.

so you say if all ships stop in the universe because of a poor design and the game becomes unplayable than its not broken, its just my subjective view? or, do you really think if an escort ship fails in a fleet induces all the escort ships to fail is an intended behavior? you are funny you know not

[pref]

It could simply be that they messed up following your orders due to not being full five star employees.

No, it could not be that. Skills do not make ships skip execution of orders.
They also do not cause orders to be added randomly to your ships.

[CaptainSim]

It could simply be that they messed up following your orders due to not being full five star employees.

No, it could not be that. Skills do not make ships skipping execution of orders.
They also do not cause orders to be added randomly to your ships.

Maybe, maybe not.

[pref]

Maybe, maybe not.

It's not a "maybe", the scripts are obvious and clear in this regard.
Even without knowing the scripts you can safely assume ES would not want to ruin gameplay with such a "feature".

[CaptainSim]

Maybe, maybe not.

It's not a "maybe", the scripts are obvious and clear in this regard.
Even without knowing the scripts you can safely assume ES would not want to ruin gameplay with such a "feature".

I don't assume anything, nor should you. The AI isn't a script.

[pref]

I don't assume anything, nor should you. The AI isn't a script.

nvm

[CaptainSim]

I don't assume anything, nor should you. The AI isn't a script.

nvm

It's not. It is more than a simple script anyway. I doubt you have access to look at the full AI programming algorithms. If you do that's a surprise to me.

[pref]

It's not. It is more than a simple script anyway. I doubt you have access to look at the full AI programming algorithms. If you do that's a surprise to me.

You assume too much xD

[CaptainSim]

It's not. It is more than a simple script anyway. I doubt you have access to look at the full AI programming algorithms. If you do that's a surprise to me.

You assume too much xD

Interesting. Where is the script file located? Are you claiming the complete AI is a simple script file? I'm shocked actually, but if you are claiming it I guess I believe you.

[CaptainSim]

It's not. It is more than a simple script anyway. I doubt you have access to look at the full AI programming algorithms. If you do that's a surprise to me.

You assume too much xD

Didn't get a response, this means you're full of it. You don't know the inner mechanics of the game, stop acting like you do. I don't know how else you can simulate employees messing up their trading and coordination tasks other than them occasionally ignoring or misinterpreting your orders. How else are you supposed to do it?

[Horux]

Didn't get a response, this means you're full of it. You don't know the inner mechanics of the game, stop acting like you do. I don't know how else you can simulate employees messing up their trading and coordination tasks other than them occasionally ignoring or misinterpreting your orders. How else are you supposed to do it?

Or he/she went to bed, or RL is more imporatant now?

How else can you simulate employees not being good at what they do must not be done by completly stupidity.
A trader could choose a not perfect trade, or he ist to late for the perfect deal, because he needs to long to decide.
Fighter pilots are slower in reaction time, less "creative" in how to fight the enemy.

Simulating it in a way, as you assume, is maybe more RL like, but even then only for employees too stupid to go at a straight line. In a game you always have to be only as close as RL as it brings fun the the majority of the players, or at least this much, that you get enough money to make the game profitable. A player may can live with a hard situation, if he believes training this situaion wil probably help him to get to the next step. But in this case, the player can train as long as he wants, it will not work because the "AI" is stupid. So if this is intended by design, then this is either evil or a flawed design. Because if is it really intended, then you will get the pay check, when people stopping to buy your games.