Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Feature requests or ideas
User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Gargals turned hostile against me after being friendly, all at once. Oh?! Strange. Ok, let it be. Weirdos. %|

But now, ten (or so) turns later they blamed me in hostility against them!

I believe, there was the same problem some time ago, when hostile action was attributed to me, stacked long ago and never cleared. But I thought, it was fixed in the last patches already?

Autosave in question sent to support.

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Zaimat »

I could not find this from the provided saved game. I see Gargals are Hostile but there is no message in last turn events, tried also 1 turn after. (Please see support email to confirm if right saved game.)
Smiling_Spectre wrote:I believe, there was the same problem some time ago, when hostile action was attributed to me, stacked long ago and never cleared. But I thought, it was fixed in the last patches already?
Yes, that fix was related to loading a game and in some rare case dialogue was left in queue from previous session.
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Now it was Lesgoon. I killed Tantiks with Kamzak's help, and killed it as is, then Lesgoon said about "not respecting our relations" and broken alliance.

Am I missing something obvious?

All saves sent. Last turn was 355, and I saved it, so previous autosave must be just before cancellation.

I included logs also. It have some strange errors - maybe can be ignored, but just in case.
---edit---
Oops, seems, it was too much for google. :/
552-5.2.3 Your message exceeded Google's message size limits. Please visit
552-5.2.3 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answ ... nswer=8770 to review our
552 5.2.3 size guidelines. 139si5016990yks.148 - gsmtp
horizonerrorreports@gmail.com
Ok, oldest backups removed...

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Zaimat »

I looked at your saved game and I confirm that this is not related to wrongly attributed hostility. The lezgoon ai "emperor" in this instance is cancelling the alliance on purpose.

The reason for it is there are some controversies (reasons/excuses for the AI that can trigger negative feelings) and because their "emperor" wants to take action/agrees with them.

The controversies in this instance are the following factors:
- You are not at war with one of their enemy (Barbecks)
- You are not embargoing their enemy (Barbecks)
- You are aiding their enemy (Barbecks)
- You are encroaching on their territory (having 2 or more colonies within their borders)

All of these things they seem to dislike.

{PS: don't worry about google message, we also receive the archive directly on our server}
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Zaimat wrote:I looked at your saved game and I confirm that this is not related to wrongly attributed hostility. The lezgoon ai "emperor" in this instance is cancelling the alliance on purpose.

The reason for it is there are some controversies (reasons/excuses for the AI that can trigger negative feelings) and because their "emperor" wants to take action/agrees with them.

The controversies in this instance are the following factors:
- You are not at war with one of their enemy (Barbecks)
- You are not embargoing their enemy (Barbecks)
- You are aiding their enemy (Barbecks)
- You are encroaching on their territory (having 2 or more colonies within their borders)
A-ha! That's the info I needed! :D Thank you!

Maybe you can implement some of this info in game? I mean, in visible form? Because right now I am playing my diplomacy "by ear", so to speak. :) War/embargo/aid sometimes appears in declarations, but, I suppose, actually it works always, regardless of declarations of it? And encroaching seems not mentioned anywhere . :/

Also: does this factors works _always_, or only for alliances? I.e., can it be that I triggered war not because any hostile actions, but by lack of it - regardless of missing warnings about it? If it's always counted, it would totally explain my strange fluctuating diplomatic relations. :)

Oh, related question: I have "trespassing" warning from another nation. And it causes by my ship, orbiting around my planet, but in the system that they counts "theirs". Question is: will I improve relations by removing the ship, or planet will count too, so it's useless?

User avatar
keller
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 267

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by keller »

Maybe you can implement some of this info in game? I mean, in visible form? Because right now I am playing my diplomacy "by ear", so to speak.
I agree with this. A couple of sci-fi games implement this so that when you check your relations you not only see the state of your relations (freindly,peaceful, hostile , ect) but also see a detailed list of what factors are causing friendly or hostile attitudes towards your race. This would really be a nice addition to Horizon should you decide to implement it.
keller~

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Zaimat »

I'll move this to suggestions section.
Smiling_Spectre wrote:Maybe you can implement some of this info in game? I mean, in visible form? Because right now I am playing my diplomacy "by ear", so to speak. :)
There is a fair amount of feedback for most things but I agree there could be more and it would be fun to know more on the AI reasoning/thinking behind actions such as in your example when they do cancel an alliance or declare war. Although I'm not sure whether all this info should *always* be available at the player's fingertips before without any effort (it could probably be based on intelligence reports or spying).
War/embargo/aid sometimes appears in declarations, but, I suppose, actually it works always, regardless of declarations of it? And encroaching seems not mentioned anywhere . :/
Not sure what you mean.. Pacts are only active when displayed in diplomacy/relations.
Also: does this factors works _always_, or only for alliances? I.e., can it be that I triggered war not because any hostile actions, but by lack of it - regardless of missing warnings about it? If it's always counted, it would totally explain my strange fluctuating diplomatic relations. :)
Controversies are always checked but they don't result directly in deterioration of relations, they help the AI "Emperor" in making reactive decisions.

The AI "emperor" has advisors who are basically feeding him information and options (diplomacy options) every turn. So in your example the choices could be "asking you to stop helping their enemy" or "asking you to embargo their enemy" or "cancelling their alliance with you".

The dialogue options are weighted on different things like racial affinities (normal mode) or philosophy (classic mode), their strength, your strength and many other factors like if they decide to declare war they check if war is a good idea, whether it fits with their "emperor" overall plan, etc.
Oh, related question: I have "trespassing" warning from another nation. And it causes by my ship, orbiting around my planet, but in the system that they counts "theirs". Question is: will I improve relations by removing the ship, or planet will count too, so it's useless?
Trespassing is based on strength factor, if they feel threatened by the strength of your fleet (if their sensors detect them) inside their borders (whether contested or not) it will affect tolerance and they will complain. Trespassing controversy is limited to neutral/hostile relations only. So removing a fleet they fear will stop affecting tolerance (and remove that controversy) if relations are in that range. Controversies are cumulative, the more there are the worse relations *can* be affected.
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Zaimat wrote:There is a fair amount of feedback for most things but I agree there could be more and it would be fun to know more on the AI reasoning/thinking behind actions such as in your example when they do cancel an alliance or declare war. Although I'm not sure whether all this info should *always* be available at the player's fingertips before without any effort (it could probably be based on intelligence reports or spying).
Well... As you haven't any intelligence implemented right now, it is not trivial task, so looks too far for me. :)

I thought about something simpler. Like, amount of available info is directly affected by their visibility and relations. Like, no direct connection=no info, remote connection/bad relations=war-related info (trespassing, enemy connection, etc.), alliance/my invading fleets=full info. Also, of course, any opponent's suggestion/threat must immediately reveal their intentions in this aspect, I suppose. :)

But it's too rough, and I still have no idea about the game structure inside, so feel free to ignore me. :)
War/embargo/aid sometimes appears in declarations, but, I suppose, actually it works always, regardless of declarations of it? And encroaching seems not mentioned anywhere . :/
Not sure what you mean.. Pacts are only active when displayed in diplomacy/relations.
Sorry. I mean, if I see declaration "Hey, you, stop helping our enemy!" - it's the direct cue. :) I got it initially as trigger: "We asked you to stop, you refused, relations deteriorated. End of story". Actually, looking on your word, it's actually permanent force that works always. And threats are only sign of this force, not force itself, so they are not affecting anything much.
Controversies are always checked but they don't result directly in deterioration of relations, they help the AI "Emperor" in making reactive decisions.
Aha, got it. Thank you.
Oh, related question: I have "trespassing" warning from another nation. And it causes by my ship, orbiting around my planet, but in the system that they counts "theirs". Question is: will I improve relations by removing the ship, or planet will count too, so it's useless?
Trespassing is based on strength factor, if they feel threatened by the strength of your fleet (if their sensors detect them) inside their borders (whether contested or not) it will affect tolerance and they will complain.
Wait-wait-wait, I lost you here. :)

Again. What is considering "trespassing" then? How "borders" are checked? Is it system with enemy planets on it, so "trespassers" are fleets that enters this systems? Or is it something more subtle?

Also, what about shared systems (my initial question)? Is my protected world counts as "trespasser", or it's only ships?

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Zaimat »

Trespassing is entering their borders (dotted circle) without appropriate treaties. Aggressive races are more prone to react negatively than passive races, also the strength of your fleet vs. theirs is also what affects their reaction when it happens and there is no treaty. A non-combatant ship or a tiny scout trespassing is not likely to cause them fear or negative reaction.
Smiling_Spectre wrote:Also, what about shared systems (my initial question)? Is my protected world counts as "trespasser", or it's only ships?
It would be considered trespasser also.
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Smiling_Spectre wrote:Also, what about shared systems (my initial question)? Is my protected world counts as "trespasser", or it's only ships?
Zaimat wrote:It would be considered trespasser also.
Aaah, I am doomed!!

(Actually, they are doomed... but it's their problem. ;)

Great thank you for your detailed explanations, Zaimat!

Side-question, BTW (sorry, if it's not suited here). You are mentions "relative fleet strength) here and there. But never mentioned sign of this comparison. Can you tell me, how it works? :)

For example, as far as I could estimate it, in MoO2 fleet strength worked against you while you are in peace, worsen relations. But immediately reversed sign if war is started already. :) And in great (but flawed, unfortunately) Space Empires 3 it always worked against you, so it's virtually impossible to make peace with anyone after some point in game. :( How it works here? :)

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Zaimat »

Zaimat wrote:Side-question, BTW (sorry, if it's not suited here). You are mentions "relative fleet strength) here and there. But never mentioned sign of this comparison. Can you tell me, how it works?
Relative fleet strength is an aggregate value of each ship. So in the case of trespassing if your fleet is stronger than theirs or the relative strength crosses a certain threshold they will feel threatened. Whereas if they have a strong fleet they won't feel threatened even if you have several ships.

Having large fleets (as well as strength through expansion, etc) does not directly cause deterioration of relations but the AI "emperor" for other races in close proximity will become concerned and plan for war or strengthen their fleet as well if not allied. Difficulty level also has some effect on their behavior (more aggressive).
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Aha, got it. And if I am in war, it works toward peace, I hope? :)

Thank you again! :)

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Well, sorry for being so rarely here. It's because I have not much free time, and most of it divided between family, home work and other activities.

But I had to draw your attention to this "hostility" question again. :)

Two situations:

1. Kort'hanz are "hostile", but not in war. They have scout in my system, and game offers to attack them. I refuse. Nevermind, at the start of the next turn I am receiving Kort'hanz demand of "Stop attacking our ships!" Can be old "delayed response" problem, I dunno, because turn before they attacked my planet and lost one ship there. Ok.

2. Lezgoon are hostile too. I foolishly sent my non-combatant invaders thru sector with Lezgoon fleet - and flee, of course, when prompt appeared. Lost 6 ships from 10. :/ But at the start of the next turn I received Lezgoon warning of "How do you plan to improve relation, if you are attacking our ships". What?!

While first one can be, or not be the glitch, second looks like plain bug for me.

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Zaimat »

#1 - It's possible their response was delayed if they had something more urgent to communicate. But it's usually immediate.
#2 - If you had all non-combatants, not sure why. I wouldn't think it's possible.

If you can send issue a report (or if sending manually need the previous turn or two saved/autosaved games, and I can review how/why it occurs).
Smiling_Spectre wrote:Well, sorry for being so rarely here. It's because I have not much free time, and most of it divided between family, home work and other activities.
Quite understandable, glad to see you back!
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Report sent.

Game crashed (as usual) after I carelessly left the computer and it got blocked (stupid Win8!). So I had to replay turn in question. Second time only Lezgoon was upset, even if my only related actions was pressing "End turn" button, and killing some Tantiks. :)

It was five turns ago, basing on remaining length of demand.

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Zaimat »

I reviewed the report and saved games.

The threat messages about "Stop Hostilities" is a warning that if relations continue to deteriorate there will be war. Anything that causes relations to deteriorate can trigger these messages even if indirectly (e.g.: sending non-combatants in their sector).

It's not the same as "Stop attacking our ships" which is a direct warning for action taken in attacking them.

So for situation #2 the threat is "Stop Hostilities" - a valid message for the situation.
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Smiling_Spectre
Advisor
Advisor
Posts: 193

Re: Wrong attributed hostility - again?!

Post by Smiling_Spectre »

Hmm. Fine difference. Ok, got it, thank you! :)

(It seems, it's inevitable all-around war here. *sigh* As every captured planet lead to "stop expansion" warning, and eventually to war that forces me to capture even more planets! :)