Auto radar targetting

Auto radar targetting

Discuss the source code and development of Spring Engine in general from a technical point of view. Patches go here too.

Moderator: Moderators

Is auto radar targetting a good thing?

Yes, it should stay
22
63%
No, it should be removed
13
37%
 
Total votes: 35

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Auto radar targetting

Post by Caydr »

I don't really understand the reasoning or technicalities of why Spring uses this by default, but please vote.
0 x

Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

I like the way it is.
But I agree now there is blibs on the main screen, it's would be less annoying than in ta to aim ennemi units.

But when you build the Targeting Facility, blibs should stop moving.
0 x

User avatar
PauloMorfeo
Posts: 2004
Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53

Post by PauloMorfeo »

Caydr:
Hahaha..haha..
I was coming to this forum to start this very same thread...

It has come to my attention 3 problems about auto-radar targeting:
1- People are complaining alot that they are usually fighting the blips never actually seeing the enemy. That happens because units fire farther than they're LOS and with auto-targeting, they endup fighting out of LOS.

2- It greatly increases the value of radar jamming, especially when defending a base... Atackers become in serious disadvantage.

3- What will the "Automatic radar targeting facility" be used for? It could actually become an useless building but...

However, removing auto targeting:
1- It doesn't really makes much sense the units detecting an enemy within radar and not firing at it.

2- It increases micromanagment... We will have to keep paying atention and give specific attack orders to the blips.

I voted for removing auto radar targeting but my mind is divided...
0 x

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

One can simply increase the line of sight of units, that would alleviate the micromanagement issue. In AA, many units have a larger LoS than they originally did.
0 x

Torrasque
Posts: 1022
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 23:55

Post by Torrasque »

As I said in another post, we could try to increase the los of units.
The blips move, but units always fire at the good position. It must be corrected too. (like that, targeting facility could be usefull, it'll stop the blibs moving, so your unit will be more precise)

We have to find a way to keep this feature, it reduce micromanaging. But the way it is now, I agree it's annoying to fight versus blips...so if no solution is found, I agree it must be removed

P.S It could be cool that voters said their opinion. What is bad, what is not. Like that we could easly found a solution wich please everyone
0 x

User avatar
Redfish
Posts: 289
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 16:12

Post by Redfish »

I'm still not sure if I'm against of for it. IMO playing the game is made a bit too easy. And most of the times your units are firing while u are wondering what they are firing at.
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7024
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

I vote: toggleable.

Off from time to time to be even closer to the old Total Annihilation I love and worship.

On from time to time because manually targetting radar dots is mindless micro, and because after playing some game, I realise that in fact radar dot are innacuratly placed so even by pounding radar dot for age you don't do as much damage as when you have real los which give you accurate aim, so even with auto-targetting LOS is still important, and auto-targetting isn't the unbalanced overkill some says.

And because every camp is forced to agree that freedom to chose is the only way to go on dividing issues.

No where's my other post about it. Ah here it is:
zwzsg wrote:
NOiZE wrote:I wish the blips we're only manual targetable until u get the targeting facility
I'm actually growing to like the actual system. Having to manual target every radar dot just is a waste of micro time in my opinion. I also think that in the first place, the problem is having nearly all units in TA have a longer weapon range than sight range. Long long ago when I played the campaign it just didn't feel good to send shots in the dark and watches wreckages appears in greyed area. I heard that the cavedog people had planned longer sight range but had to brutally limit the values in the /gamedata/los.tdf near the end of TA production because long sight used too much CPU power. Anyway, TA being 8 years old, what were originally bugs and engine limitation are now sacred rules no one can touch without having to endure the wrath of the online muliplayer elite, so changes as big as inverting los and weapon range is not an option. But yes, having a tickeable battleroom box to enable/diseable the auto-radar-targetting feature would be much appreciated.

Redfish wrote:... playing the game is made a bit too easy.
I think that's the whole point of the Total Annihilation philosophy. Make the interface and gameplay so easy to play that you can commands litteraly hundreds (the 500 unit limit barrier I have often hit in TA) of units and have massive battle, all the while while retaining complete control of even the tiniest details (such as hoping in a tank and manually setting the turret angle and elevation). The simpler to command units the more units you can command. There's always a point where you're getting too many things to do at once. That point should be set the furthest possible.

Spring being an internet game, played against other human, it can't be too "easy". The interface and unit behavior is here to help the player enjoy his experience and focus on strategy, it is not here to stand in the way and force the player into doing boring chores.

If you think the more micro the better the RTS, please leave immediatly and rejoin the hordes of Blizzard fan.
0 x

User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Toogleable, let's keep the Caveog idea of making everything alternable.

Too targetting makes aircrafts more or less useless because they are shot upon before even leaving their plant. No fink has been able to monitor my base after I got an MT up. Same thing for bombers. And since this engine handles planes in a different way (just to keep them from changing target every second is cumbersome), they are completely useless to use against any attempt of a base. Planes are by nature a lot weaker and it's quite interesting to see a Hawk bunch getting raped by some Samsons with radar coverage. The attacker is bound to lose every plane and be happy about it because they are blind and about of the same value as a Jeffy against an MT. Using planes at all is just awkward at the moment

I like the radar shadow, though.
0 x

User avatar
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
Posts: 1222
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15

Post by [K.B.] Napalm Cobra »

I say we change it to variable sized blobs opposed to the sprites they use now and toggleable.
0 x

User avatar
Neuralize
Posts: 876
Joined: 17 Aug 2004, 23:15

Post by Neuralize »

TOOOOOOOOOGGLES

*Wiggles a switch back and forth.*

Too bad we don't have the old posts.. I remember there being a decent discussion about this, and sound reason why such a conclusion was met.
Arr..
0 x

User avatar
Caydr
Omnidouche
Posts: 7179
Joined: 16 Oct 2004, 19:40

Post by Caydr »

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra wrote:I say we change it to variable sized blobs opposed to the sprites they use now and toggleable.
Yes, if both these things were done I think the game would be much more OTAish - which is a good thing in this case, considering that the alternative is "uber pwnge of everything everywhere angg devrorn loaf ¿"
0 x

Sean Mirrsen
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38

Post by Sean Mirrsen »

As I have noticed, units actually fire at the blips, not the units represented by the blips. It might work another way with missiles, due to the fact that when the missile reaches the blip, the plane appears in line of sight.
Btw, Hawks and Vamps should be invisible on radar, thus gaining an advantage. And who said we can't add jammer planes?
0 x

User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Hawks and Vaps are stealth already. I'm talking about bombers being completely obsolete.
0 x

Frog
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 20:09

Post by Frog »

You can always send in a radar jammer in a transport. No ?
Or can´t you adapt to new situations and tactics :D
0 x

User avatar
Gabba
Posts: 319
Joined: 08 Sep 2004, 22:59

Post by Gabba »

PauloMorfeo wrote: 3- What will the "Automatic radar targeting facility" be used for? It could actually become an useless building but...
It's not useless: it increases the accuracy of the blips.

---
In general I think that this automatic radar targeting is a great feature - though a toggle option in the battleroom would be nice.

A few ideas to help out the planes and the attacking player:
- jammer planes (as has been mentioned) - modders can probably do these easily
- enemy radars should always be detected and visible as blips, if in range of one of your own radars; their blip should even be of a different color. I mean, you can't jam an active radar! This will be realistic, and will allow your first wave of planes to take out the radar first - the planes will also take advantage of radar targetting.
- jamming an area disables all radar in the jammed area as long as the jammer is active - this forces you to choose between jamming and extensive radar coverage to defend your base.
0 x

10053r
Posts: 297
Joined: 28 Feb 2005, 19:19

Post by 10053r »

Hawks and Vaps are stealth already. I'm talking about bombers being completely obsolete.
Bombers are NOT obsolete. Just last night I built a base with tons of radar coverage and about 200 flak, plus a bunch of chainsaws (AA cross between a vulcan and a defender) and long range missle launchers (8 screen range anti-air). It is true that when I sent in 10 planes, they got shot down before they could do any damage. However, when I sent in a REAL bombing run (considering each base was making 12000E and 400M per tick, I'm talking like 50 planes), the flak just couldn't target fast enough. In all, it seemed to be identical to OTA. The gameplay hasn't changed.
0 x

Sean Mirrsen
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38

Post by Sean Mirrsen »

If your bombers get shot down too fast, use Peepers (or Finks) to distract the AAA. Worked in TA, works here.
0 x

User avatar
PauloMorfeo
Posts: 2004
Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53

Post by PauloMorfeo »

Gabba wrote:...
- jamming an area disables all radar in the jammed area as long as the jammer is active - this forces you to choose between jamming and extensive radar coverage to defend your base.
I don't know if that would be easy to implement but,
without thinking a third time about that, it seems that it would completely rebalance point 2:
PauloMorfeo wrote:...
2- It greatly increases the value of radar jamming, especially when defending a base... Atackers become in serious disadvantage.
...
Leaving just the problem about fighting blips to be solved.

And after all, it makes sense... If it jamms the enemies radar, why doesn't it jamms ours?
0 x

sylvinus
Posts: 18
Joined: 01 May 2005, 16:59

Post by sylvinus »

I'm against a toggle (come on one more ? others are more important before), but I 100% agree with the point of view of Torrasque
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7024
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

I'm totally for a battleroom with a hundred of toggles. Make sure they remember the state of previous use.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Engine”