The Oolite NPC ecosystem (and other questions)

[Disembodied]

From a practical perspective, the basic AIs are probably only deserving of those ranks anyway: they aren't really capable of tactics better than "point weapon at target". At the upper end, a top accuracy AI probably deserves Competent - and I'm largely out of ideas for extra tactics to make them better than that anyway. Actually putting "Harmless" or maybe "Mostly Harmless" by all the ships doesn't feel right, though.

You're right - a plethora of "Harmless" pirates would look odd ... maybe though it's possible to finagle this for the NPCs, though? Part of the reason it's harder for the player to progress up the rankings is because the player is usually fighting solo: pirates often hunt in packs, against solo ships, so it's maybe easier to get a kill rating as a pirate wingman without actually being as good a pilot. If things were fiddled to give most common pirates ranks from "Poor" to "Competent", with a scant few here and there rated "Dangerous" (with superior ships, equipment, and accuracy). "Deadly" and "Elite" NPCs could be left up to OXPs to provide. "Harmless" and "Mostly Harmless" pirates could be very rare, too, and usually found operating solo. Most bounty hunters would probably be "Above Average" or "Competent", too.

Maybe the easiest way is to log the last ten (or perhaps lengthen the list with combat rank?) visited systems, and then only apply on-hyperspace reputation decrease if you enter a system not on that list. If you're hopping around a local area, you'll virtually never get that happening. A cross-chart trip and you'll be shedding reputation every stop.

Sounds sensible - better pilots should leave bigger reputation-ripples behind them!

I suppose what I'm trying to do is simulate for the NPCs the way that the player can tell the difference between a trader with escorts, a pirate pack, and a bounty hunter pack, just from the way they're flying - without having to go to the extent of actually capturing that intuitive test.

In this regard, would it be possible to examine the player's ship stats to help NPCs judge a player's possible role, since it's tricky to read out the NPC roles in the shipdata.plist? Even something basic, like energy banks/speed, could give a hint as to whether the player is flying something towards the warship end of things or not. Arguably you're less likely to have a player being a pirate or a bounty-hunter in, say, a Python. If the NPCs can cheat they can maybe peek at the cargo hold, too, and see how full it is, which might help too.

[cim]

pirates often hunt in packs, against solo ships, so it's maybe easier to get a kill rating as a pirate wingman without actually being as good a pilot.

Conversely the kills are then split N ways - probably biased towards the actual skilled pilots in the pack, and if you're not actually any good it only takes one unlucky hit with a missile. Not to mention if the pirates are outnumbering the traders to the extent where it's low risk for the pirates, the traders are likely to surrender with only token resistance. If anything it might work the other way - pirates having a far lower combat rating than their skill would suggest.

No, I think the problem is that the EFP ratings are ridiculous at the high end, and probably the best thing to do is not to draw attention to it: make people actually have to think before they realise it makes no sense in-Universe. So long as other aspects of reputation decay are tied to the player's rank, the NPCs probably don't need to be able to read it outside of combat.

would it be possible to examine the player's ship stats to help NPCs judge a player's possible role,

It works pretty well for determining "should I attack", but with the Cobra III being such a good multi-role ship - and now pirates have more access to the bigger freighters than before - about all you could do is say that the freighter pilots probably aren't bounty hunters. Probably. Even then the Anaconda - if you give it rather unfreighterish upgrades like military lasers and fuel injection - makes a pretty good battleship. I'd certainly rather use it for bounty hunting than a Cobra I...

[Cody]

Even then the Anaconda - if you give it rather unfreighterish upgrades like military lasers and fuel injection - makes a pretty good battleship.

<ponders the Anaconda as a Q-ship - nods>

[Disembodied]

No, I think the problem is that the EFP ratings are ridiculous at the high end, and probably the best thing to do is not to draw attention to it: make people actually have to think before they realise it makes no sense in-Universe. So long as other aspects of reputation decay are tied to the player's rank, the NPCs probably don't need to be able to read it outside of combat.

Yes - I think you're probably right ... keep the EFP rating player-only. Having someone with hundreds, even thousands, of combat kills under their belt is a little hard to credit!

It works pretty well for determining "should I attack", but with the Cobra III being such a good multi-role ship - and now pirates have more access to the bigger freighters than before - about all you could do is say that the freighter pilots probably aren't bounty hunters. Probably. Even then the Anaconda - if you give it rather unfreighterish upgrades like military lasers and fuel injection - makes a pretty good battleship. I'd certainly rather use it for bounty hunting than a Cobra I...

True, but a bounty-hunting Anaconda would be at the upper end of unusual ... a Q-ship, as Cody says! It wouldn't be tremendously dumb for the NPCs to see an Anaconda and assume it's a trader, or see an Asp (or a Caduceus, for that matter) and have a pretty shrewd guess that it's probably not a merchantman. It could weight the opinion, certainly, and should work for OXP ships as well as the native ones.

[cim]

True, but a bounty-hunting Anaconda would be at the upper end of unusual ... a Q-ship, as Cody says!

Right - so if you do go bounty hunting in your Anaconda, the locals are pretty quickly going to learn to recognise it, because it's pretty distinctive. If you want to look like a trader to draw them in, you'll need to either keep moving so your hunter reputation drops away with distance, or be a bit more convincing with the disguise (i.e. keep your trader rep above your hunter rep). If you keep the disguise up well, they might not figure it out at all.

But yes on the rest: role is only going to be one of the factors used to determine reactions. Ship strength is another, both in terms of "whether to attack" and "argh! run away!". Cargo capacity a little - an Asp won't be bothered by pirates for its cargo, but they will be rather interested in whether it's acting like a hunter or a parcel courier.

[Cody]

To say that I'm itching to get my hands on this stuff would be an understatement - rock on, cim!

[Smivs]

I've not commented on this recently as I'm busy moving home, but have been following the discussion and am very impressed by the way things seem to be developing - massive improvements to the detail of the game but without messing with any of the core values. It all sounds excellent, so well done.

[Disembodied]

Right - so if you do go bounty hunting in your Anaconda, the locals are pretty quickly going to learn to recognise it, because it's pretty distinctive. If you want to look like a trader to draw them in, you'll need to either keep moving so your hunter reputation drops away with distance, or be a bit more convincing with the disguise (i.e. keep your trader rep above your hunter rep). If you keep the disguise up well, they might not figure it out at all.

Might it be worthwhile factoring in the rarity of the player-ship, based on the likelihood of finding it in a shipyard (adjusted for tech level, and maybe price as well)? A Caduceus or a Wolf Mark II SE will stand out in the environment, and gain a reputation a lot faster than a Cobra III or a Python.

[cim]

A Caduceus or a Wolf Mark II SE will stand out in the environment, and gain a reputation a lot faster than a Cobra III or a Python.

True, but surprisingly difficult to determine from the shipyard data... Here's the price, Techlevel, Chance (and price*TL*(1-Chance) as a crude go at a score) for various ships.

Core ships
Python: 200k, 4, 0.5 = 0.4M
Cobra III: 150k, 6, 0.5 = 0.5M
Asp: 375k, 10, 0.5 = 1.8M
Boa II: 495k, 7, 0.325 = 2.3M
FDL: 485k, 8, 0.25 = 2.9M
Anaconda: 650k, 8, 0.125 = 4.6M

OXP ships (from the upper end of the power/price range)
Dragon M: 300k, 7, 0.5 = 1.1M
Cat Mk II (Staer9): 400k, 10, 0.5 = 2M
Z-Ships Asp Explorer: 450k, 10, 0.4 = 2.7M
Boa Clipper: 525k, 9, 0.325 = 3.2M
Wolf II SE: 620k, 13, 0.6 = 3.2M
Griff Prototype Boa: 560k, 7, 0.05 = 3.7M
Supercobra: 1622k, 9, 0.7 = 4.3M
Kirin CV: 1200k, 11, 0.3 = 9.2M
Caduceus Alpha: 1200k, 10, 0.2 = 9.6M

The Caddy and the Kirin are a bit higher, and if you solely focus on price the Supercobra too, but the rest are well within the range of the core ships. If you have to fly that distinctive a ship to be noteworthy for it, then it doesn't seem worth implementing.

[Disembodied]

True, but surprisingly difficult to determine from the shipyard data...

Hum ... right enough! Unless there were maybe only three broad bandings of ship type - "Standard", for any score below 3; "Distinctive", for 3 to 6; and "Noteworthy", for anything above 6. "Standard" ships have no modifier to reputation; "Distinctive" ships have a + (reputations are acquired faster, and persist for longer); and "Noteworthy" ones have a ++. Unless this is going to make a discernible difference to the player, though, it's probably not worth bothering about (which might actually be an argument for a broad-brush approach anyway ... too much subtlety might not be visible!).

[cim]

Unless this is going to make a discernible difference to the player, though, it's probably not worth bothering about (which might actually be an argument for a broad-brush approach anyway ... too much subtlety might not be visible!).

There's that, too. There's probably not going to be too much visible difference - in the core game, anyway - between trader-5, hunter-1 and trader-10, hunter-2 and trader-50, hunter-10: all are going to get interpreted as "trader" by the NPCs, and whether the pirates then attack will go on the odds calculation. The main difference is going to be for things where any sign of a particular rep is going to cause distrust, where you might need to wait longer to have all the stories be forgotten. For that, the boost in persistence from Elite rating is probably sufficient: you're not, without cheating or very carefully sticking to the safest systems, going to get one of these really distinctive ships before your Elite rating is reasonably high anyway.

[Disembodied]

... the boost in persistence from Elite rating is probably sufficient ...

True ... there are not many Jamesons flying Caddies!

[CheeseRedux]

Late to the party and all that – blame pesky Real Life™ – but on the subject of fleeing and aft lasers:

Philosophically speaking, I don't see why by definition Firing Laser = Not Fleeing. If I'm running away, I'll still make use of my laser in order to encourage my pursuer to break off. (I've no clue whether that actually works in the game; the important thing is that it works in my head.)

From the discussion I have the distinct impression that determining Fleeing status is tricky enough as is, so I don't think it's practical to attempt detection of Fleeing While Shooting vs Using Aft Laser As Aggressive Combat Tactic. Just wanted to bring up the point.

[cim]

(I've no clue whether that actually works in the game; the important thing is that it works in my head.)

Yes, that can work.

From the discussion I have the distinct impression that determining Fleeing status is tricky enough as it, so I don't think it's practical to attempt detection of Fleeing While Shooting vs Using Aft Laser As Aggressive Combat Tactic. Just wanted to bring up the point.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "no longer a threat" rather than "fleeing" as the thing the AIs are trying to assess here. If you're still able to shoot back, you're still a potential threat. They might break off anyway in that situation if there's a more serious threat about, but that's a different (and easier) part of the combat assessment.

[CheeseRedux]

My point is that someone running while firing is only a threat as long as the pursuers choose. If they keep coming, it only makes sense to use the laser to try to even the odds; As soon as they break off, the incentive to keep firing is greatly reduced. Yes, the fleeing party could try to realign the sights on the no-longer pursuing craft, but that takes time, at the very least.

If a retreating ship taking potshots is automatically classified as actively hostile, you can have situations where both (or all, if there are more) ships would prefer to break off, but the AI is prevented from doing so since it thinks itself under attack.