Storm you dont need to get so infuriated! We need to strik a fine line between exsessive micromanagment (Like Space Hulk) and a game that plays it self (like Dungin Seigh). Not to say that DS and SH wherent good game's!
If anything DS was the most pure form of Cyber crack ever, and SH was the most frigtning and intense stratigy game... seince, well forever!
For anyone who dosent know what space hulk is, you should realy look into it! Awsome game, very scary and hard!
Target Selection
Moderator: Moderators
I have all the reasons in the world as you people come up the most blatantly striking retarded ideas I've ever had the unfortune to read through and the worst part is that you don't even get why they are bad.
Again, there's a clear difference between micromanagement reducing features and shit that makes the AI do everything instead of the player.
Think about it, at the end of road you're heading down on, you will get your ass kicked by Stephen Hawkins because his AI is better than yours. Stop reducing the game into a fucking heap of misery already.
Again, there's a clear difference between micromanagement reducing features and shit that makes the AI do everything instead of the player.
Think about it, at the end of road you're heading down on, you will get your ass kicked by Stephen Hawkins because his AI is better than yours. Stop reducing the game into a fucking heap of misery already.
-
HellToupee
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 01 May 2005, 01:27
Nothing about this feature is about AI playing for you, you still have to give it attack orders you have to give it a unit type priority.Storm wrote:I have all the reasons in the world as you people come up the most blatantly striking retarded ideas I've ever had the unfortune to read through and the worst part is that you don't even get why they are bad.
Again, there's a clear difference between micromanagement reducing features and shit that makes the AI do everything instead of the player.
Think about it, at the end of road you're heading down on, you will get your ass kicked by Stephen Hawkins because his AI is better than yours. Stop reducing the game into a fucking heap of misery already.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
Please explain how this is the AI playing the game for you...Storm wrote:I have all the reasons in the world as you people come up the most blatantly striking retarded ideas I've ever had the unfortune to read through and the worst part is that you don't even get why they are bad.
Again, there's a clear difference between micromanagement reducing features and shit that makes the AI do everything instead of the player.
Think about it, at the end of road you're heading down on, you will get your ass kicked by Stephen Hawkins because his AI is better than yours. Stop reducing the game into a fucking heap of misery already.
As far as I'm concerned it isn't even an AI thing! Simply a question of which enemies the game determines a unit will attack after its current target is destroyed. The game has to do this anyways, as far as I know the game first targets enemy units that are firing at the unit, then goes to random (maybe not even this? I haven't studied the behavior of individual units in great detail, usually if I send individual units in I micromanage them anyways, heck if I send in a massive Brawler raid I micromanage it!)
I think this shifts a little bit more focus onto strategy. You can now plan multi-part, multi-unit attacks and use each unit type effectively, rather than having to either use all of your units as a group and be inefficient, or trying to juggle 9 groups of different units at once in the middle of a battle and be more inefficient (not to mention that this turns it into a "war of the clicks" which IMO is one of the worst things that can happen in a RTS).
ahum... er..
it IS the war of the clicks... beleive me!
my poor mouse is a withness!
Yeah, letting the ai choose between the target a type of unit attacks is for noobs.
I dont think its a bad idea, for an AI player. maybe you should learn more about that.
Playing the game IS about being able to issue the best attack order wisely.
i mean, telling brawlers to kill the AA naval ships instead of the big warships..
and most importantly knowing when NOT to do so, and go for this or the other instead...
letting the Ai decide too much of the gameplay enters in the "cheat" category, or its for ppl that is new to the game and want to see and learn.
(replays are better for this imho).
I would like an ai that once it "sees" the other player building nukes, stops all queues and starts building an antinuke, perfectly positioned.
That is the player's job.
I dont thik that kind of features get into the game anyhow.
it IS the war of the clicks... beleive me!
my poor mouse is a withness!
Yeah, letting the ai choose between the target a type of unit attacks is for noobs.
I dont think its a bad idea, for an AI player. maybe you should learn more about that.
Playing the game IS about being able to issue the best attack order wisely.
i mean, telling brawlers to kill the AA naval ships instead of the big warships..
and most importantly knowing when NOT to do so, and go for this or the other instead...
letting the Ai decide too much of the gameplay enters in the "cheat" category, or its for ppl that is new to the game and want to see and learn.
(replays are better for this imho).
I would like an ai that once it "sees" the other player building nukes, stops all queues and starts building an antinuke, perfectly positioned.
That is the player's job.
I dont thik that kind of features get into the game anyhow.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Well, although not necessarily going as far as Storm, I do think that many of the ideas that have come up (and even some which have been implemented) really cut the player out of the loop for a lot of the controls of the game. While this reduces the learning curve earlier players have to take to become proficient in the game, it also reduces the variability at the top of the playing field.
I think that you need to strike a balance between making the learning curve easier, and delegating (but not removing) certain tasks to free up time, while still allowing areas for players to refine and become "good at".
I think this idea, in its pure form, crosses that line. I think that if the idea were refined somewhat, it could become feasible.
Examples that are sort of "sitting on the line" are the ghosted buildings and the autotargetting radar dots. It is quite contestible as to whether those ideas are good for Spring (making it easier for the player) or worse for Spring (diluting strategy, and making it a more bland game).
I think that you need to strike a balance between making the learning curve easier, and delegating (but not removing) certain tasks to free up time, while still allowing areas for players to refine and become "good at".
I think this idea, in its pure form, crosses that line. I think that if the idea were refined somewhat, it could become feasible.
Examples that are sort of "sitting on the line" are the ghosted buildings and the autotargetting radar dots. It is quite contestible as to whether those ideas are good for Spring (making it easier for the player) or worse for Spring (diluting strategy, and making it a more bland game).
lmao, this doesnt need engine changes *points to GroupAI interface* go write a dll to do this for you, and whoc ares what the interface for its use is, you can define it yourself in the code, and if you dont like the feature dont assign the GroupAI.
As for in the AI, TAI::Tactical Agent or giving a base unit/task force an attack command (instead of blindly following attack order, it instead sees whats the best way of doing it (move round the corner and surprise or something) In thsi case it'd be queue up similair buildings in the viscinity till another order is issued.)
As for in the AI, TAI::Tactical Agent or giving a base unit/task force an attack command (instead of blindly following attack order, it instead sees whats the best way of doing it (move round the corner and surprise or something) In thsi case it'd be queue up similair buildings in the viscinity till another order is issued.)
Why not just have the player chose if he/she wants micromanage to his/her hearts content or turn on some form of ai/ministries to assist the player. Now you might want your units as dumb as a doorknob, shoot at anything that moves or with some basic form of ai guiding it with predefined target priorities. Why not give them a priority toggle? Random attack, AA-first, Ground defensive structures, mobile attack units, etc. Now instead of tons of frenzied clicking I just let the AI do the work for me. I know what my units should do, but now I can do the same thing in a few clicks instead of 20. Get what I mean? It├óÔé¼Ôäós more like an aid instead of an actual ├óÔé¼┼ôsuper smart ai├óÔé¼┬Ø. Unless of course if you love the clicking then you could always turn the feature off. People who micromanage are always more efficient with each unit then those who macro. So you don├óÔé¼Ôäót really lose much. I├óÔé¼Ôäóm one of those people who like to lose a bit of efficiency to make it more convenient. That├óÔé¼Ôäós maybe not the way you like to control your units, but it├óÔé¼Ôäós the way I like to do things and the way I find it fun. And as somebody else said: I don├óÔé¼Ôäót want to baby sit my units all the time during heavy conflicts.
Auto radar targeting ads a new strategic element to the game. Now mobile radars are a form of support units for your attacking squad or a vital defensive structure for your base. Radars are even more important as losing one would be like firing in the dark.
Auto radar targeting ads a new strategic element to the game. Now mobile radars are a form of support units for your attacking squad or a vital defensive structure for your base. Radars are even more important as losing one would be like firing in the dark.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Where is the logic in that?
If I have the option to make my units automatically do a whole bunch of stuff for me, I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot just because I think that micromanagement is important.
The point of keeping it standard is that everyone is forced to adhere to those standards. I mean, what is the point of me getting really good at controlling my units, and knowing how to balance the control of an assault with expansion and defense, when I can just switch on an AI and have it do it for me? Do I stand a chance of competing with someone who has that AI doing it for them?
Things like this threaten to disturb the very precarious balance that Spring takes between intuitive controls and brain-dead gameplay.
If I have the option to make my units automatically do a whole bunch of stuff for me, I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot just because I think that micromanagement is important.
The point of keeping it standard is that everyone is forced to adhere to those standards. I mean, what is the point of me getting really good at controlling my units, and knowing how to balance the control of an assault with expansion and defense, when I can just switch on an AI and have it do it for me? Do I stand a chance of competing with someone who has that AI doing it for them?
Things like this threaten to disturb the very precarious balance that Spring takes between intuitive controls and brain-dead gameplay.
That is a moral dillemma that cannot be solved by you or this thread. Such a thign can eb coded and implemented and could ahve been doen already, and you can do nothign about it. The only way of keeping the standard as you put it would be to get rid of the GroupAI interface and face having my job made a heck fo a lot harder.
One solution would be to allow you to view which GroupAI the enemy has running. This could prevent people from coding arbitrary things to play the game for them. However this could lead to misinformation with regards to the description and name of the groupAI in question.
One solution would be to allow you to view which GroupAI the enemy has running. This could prevent people from coding arbitrary things to play the game for them. However this could lead to misinformation with regards to the description and name of the groupAI in question.
Please, I hope I understood it wrong... Can every player have a different AI programmed to do different things independant to other players?
Really. That was the most stupid thing I've ever heard up to this day about game designing. I just recently said that Spring is heading to a state where anyone can be shoveled by Stephen Hawkins just because he got a better AI. This is the most profound, luridicoulous idea ever in the whole wide world because it cleverly and directly pushes the AI as the most important part of the game. Download the latest update and you'll rule people mercilessly (unless they have a custom code). This will be the battle of AIs and not ever again about skill. The whole gameplay, the entire fucking GAME has been thrown out the window. There is no hope left.
I could write at least fifty paragraphs about this shit. How much it absolutely sucks and why in the name of everything Holy, it is the most macabre retarded idea ever made, but wise from my previous encounters with the infuriating incompetence of these forums, I won't even bother. I'll go help Gnome creating a different game expanding from MiniSpring and laugh at the steadily decreasing activity of the game because of the constant self-degrading of it within...
Please tell me I misunderstood. This must not be true.
Really. That was the most stupid thing I've ever heard up to this day about game designing. I just recently said that Spring is heading to a state where anyone can be shoveled by Stephen Hawkins just because he got a better AI. This is the most profound, luridicoulous idea ever in the whole wide world because it cleverly and directly pushes the AI as the most important part of the game. Download the latest update and you'll rule people mercilessly (unless they have a custom code). This will be the battle of AIs and not ever again about skill. The whole gameplay, the entire fucking GAME has been thrown out the window. There is no hope left.
I could write at least fifty paragraphs about this shit. How much it absolutely sucks and why in the name of everything Holy, it is the most macabre retarded idea ever made, but wise from my previous encounters with the infuriating incompetence of these forums, I won't even bother. I'll go help Gnome creating a different game expanding from MiniSpring and laugh at the steadily decreasing activity of the game because of the constant self-degrading of it within...
Please tell me I misunderstood. This must not be true.
Storm, I always look forward to jousting with you on the forums. Here's my take, which I'm sure you'll disagree with. 
On the issue of additional game automation, I am of the opinion that if it is possible to trivially program a computer to do it well, then it isn't interesting for a human to play. It isn't interesting to click manually on every AA tower, or every fusion plant. Why SHOULDN'T I be able to tell my bombers to seek and destroy fusion plants? They will be stupid about it, but in the same way that it isn't interesting to manually tell my kbots how to navigate around rocks and wreckage, it isn't interesting to tell my brawlers that there is a fusion plant *here* and *here* and *here* and *here* and *here*. I should just be able to say kill this object, and then have the default behaviour be that the units will seek out similar objects over non-similar ones for their next targets. How does that destroy gameplay?
For that matter, how have ghosted buildings destroyed gameplay? They haven't, and I haven't heard you yelling to get them yanked back out again since their introduction.
Let's step back a bit... What makes TA different from other games? It has a vision. If you read the supreme commander article, you can see that Chris Taylor shares this vision. The vision is this.
Epic gameplay. Huge armies crashing wave upon wave of troops into each other. Strategic, not tactical decision making, which means that you only drill down to the most basic elements of the battle when it is strategically valuable to the entire operation theater. In most cases, you say things like, "make this kind of unit. Send them here. Use this production strategy. Scout there. Combine this unit and this unit in a novel fasion."
Some people like clicking like weasels on crack. We suggest they play starcraft, or even better, warcraft 2. For those of us who share this grand vision, however, I don't want to be bothered with details. Any time you can trade details for overview without losing strategic flexibility, you should. Changing out "target randomly after the next target" for "target similar objects if you can after the next target" is a GOOD thing, because it does exactly that.
Don't let the fogies get you down, Felix.
BTW, Storm. How come you are pro minispring, but anti epic map? The only change that minispring does (besides making trees and grass LOOK taller) is allow epic map creation. I don't understand. You flamed and fumed about the evils of epic maps, then came out pro minispring. It doesn't make sense.
On the issue of additional game automation, I am of the opinion that if it is possible to trivially program a computer to do it well, then it isn't interesting for a human to play. It isn't interesting to click manually on every AA tower, or every fusion plant. Why SHOULDN'T I be able to tell my bombers to seek and destroy fusion plants? They will be stupid about it, but in the same way that it isn't interesting to manually tell my kbots how to navigate around rocks and wreckage, it isn't interesting to tell my brawlers that there is a fusion plant *here* and *here* and *here* and *here* and *here*. I should just be able to say kill this object, and then have the default behaviour be that the units will seek out similar objects over non-similar ones for their next targets. How does that destroy gameplay?
For that matter, how have ghosted buildings destroyed gameplay? They haven't, and I haven't heard you yelling to get them yanked back out again since their introduction.
Let's step back a bit... What makes TA different from other games? It has a vision. If you read the supreme commander article, you can see that Chris Taylor shares this vision. The vision is this.
Epic gameplay. Huge armies crashing wave upon wave of troops into each other. Strategic, not tactical decision making, which means that you only drill down to the most basic elements of the battle when it is strategically valuable to the entire operation theater. In most cases, you say things like, "make this kind of unit. Send them here. Use this production strategy. Scout there. Combine this unit and this unit in a novel fasion."
Some people like clicking like weasels on crack. We suggest they play starcraft, or even better, warcraft 2. For those of us who share this grand vision, however, I don't want to be bothered with details. Any time you can trade details for overview without losing strategic flexibility, you should. Changing out "target randomly after the next target" for "target similar objects if you can after the next target" is a GOOD thing, because it does exactly that.
Don't let the fogies get you down, Felix.
BTW, Storm. How come you are pro minispring, but anti epic map? The only change that minispring does (besides making trees and grass LOOK taller) is allow epic map creation. I don't understand. You flamed and fumed about the evils of epic maps, then came out pro minispring. It doesn't make sense.
Storm, relax. What they're talking about is smarter units. Instead of giving a unit single commands, they're giving the unit a mission.
Take a seal team. They're given a mission to destroy enemy power plants. While they're given primary objectives, the mission also includes the corollary objective of any encountered plants.
This is the same idea, but instead of assigning each radar tower, they're given the mission of destroying all they can find before they're destroyed.
Take a seal team. They're given a mission to destroy enemy power plants. While they're given primary objectives, the mission also includes the corollary objective of any encountered plants.
This is the same idea, but instead of assigning each radar tower, they're given the mission of destroying all they can find before they're destroyed.
These sorts of AI behaviours combined with such thigns as satellite view and base commander AI will make epic maps more viable as playable maps.
What you suggest is possible but highly innapropriate and unlikely. Who in their right mind would code such an AI without either failing to anjoy the game at all or running into problems requiring the globalAI interface. Whatsmore the sort of people who would sue that sort of thing are those who cba coding them or woudlnt udnerstand how. Aside from human superiority over AI, it would be obvious to the other player whats happening, unelss the coder spent a lot of time making the AI seme human which is pointless.
As said by mr.blair, "reform or die"
If people dont embrace new cocnepts because they conflict with ideals of the old guarde then thsi engine will get nowhere and will forever simpyl remain as "3D OTA".
What you suggest is possible but highly innapropriate and unlikely. Who in their right mind would code such an AI without either failing to anjoy the game at all or running into problems requiring the globalAI interface. Whatsmore the sort of people who would sue that sort of thing are those who cba coding them or woudlnt udnerstand how. Aside from human superiority over AI, it would be obvious to the other player whats happening, unelss the coder spent a lot of time making the AI seme human which is pointless.
As said by mr.blair, "reform or die"
If people dont embrace new cocnepts because they conflict with ideals of the old guarde then thsi engine will get nowhere and will forever simpyl remain as "3D OTA".
3D OTA's fine by me!!! i like ghosted buildings but i'd dislike (players) giving their units missions (although it would be usefull for AI) Ghosted buildings ENCOURAGE tactics (microing force firing at the shapes :D)
My favourite games have both TACTICS and STRATEGY (MICRO and MACRO) TACTICS are how you tell a semiprofrom a pro, if 0 micro was involved *shudder* build orders would win matches. UGH i like both DO NOT TRY TO DO THIS AS ITS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME!
besides it would take frecking ages and i'd prefer this game/client to be improved and a AI to be created! 
*glares at alantai* if you posted less there would be more AI creation going on (although i'd miss your wit!)
My favourite games have both TACTICS and STRATEGY (MICRO and MACRO) TACTICS are how you tell a semiprofrom a pro, if 0 micro was involved *shudder* build orders would win matches. UGH i like both DO NOT TRY TO DO THIS AS ITS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME!
besides it would take frecking ages and i'd prefer this game/client to be improved and a AI to be created! *glares at alantai* if you posted less there would be more AI creation going on (although i'd miss your wit!)
Ok.... I'm Kindo f with Storm here. But there are some bits a agree with everyone else on...
Basicly, being able to write an AI to assign to a unit to make it do somthing compleatly unatural...
IE: Making a group AI that makes tha tgroupe automaticly patrool the whole map in teh quickest possible time working out from your base so you can find your enamys with a few clicks insted of having to search manuly.
... compleatly Sux.
Or if one was written that:
Told a groupe of transports to pick up teh nearst crawlying bomb and then search for teh enamy comander and then drop all crawing bombs on him...
..That would sux. That would remove the fun from the game. Im so with you on this storm.
However... At teh mo, Id have to click each and every unit i wanted somthing to attack one at a time to make them do it... So if say I wanted to kill all teh radar towers in sight id have to manyly use shift to make my units move on to the next one. Thsi would take up valuble time thatI could be useing to tell a different unit/groupe to attack somthing else.
In the same way you can Ctrl+Z to select all units of the same type, it should be so that you can auto que all of the units of that one type on screen in one click. This removes no Stratagie. There is no computer going, well i'll attack this then that, just saves you a whole lot of clicking. And It only does the exact same units... not any unit of that type... tahts heading to AI teritory.
All we need is to be able to use a button so that when you say attack that radar tower, tif theres two in your view and your holding that button it will auto que the other tower for you (and any others on screen, which is of course risky, maybe you only wanted to destroy those two...). Once they are both destroyed it wont go... oh look a mobile radar i'll kill him, as taht would be an AI choice.
All it will do afterwards is do what any normal unit does... IE kill the nearst hostile unit.
That is basicly the be all and end all answer to this. because theres no way It would be fair to have the AI play for you. It would be like 1 Vs. 100
aGorm
Basicly, being able to write an AI to assign to a unit to make it do somthing compleatly unatural...
IE: Making a group AI that makes tha tgroupe automaticly patrool the whole map in teh quickest possible time working out from your base so you can find your enamys with a few clicks insted of having to search manuly.
... compleatly Sux.
Or if one was written that:
Told a groupe of transports to pick up teh nearst crawlying bomb and then search for teh enamy comander and then drop all crawing bombs on him...
..That would sux. That would remove the fun from the game. Im so with you on this storm.
However... At teh mo, Id have to click each and every unit i wanted somthing to attack one at a time to make them do it... So if say I wanted to kill all teh radar towers in sight id have to manyly use shift to make my units move on to the next one. Thsi would take up valuble time thatI could be useing to tell a different unit/groupe to attack somthing else.
In the same way you can Ctrl+Z to select all units of the same type, it should be so that you can auto que all of the units of that one type on screen in one click. This removes no Stratagie. There is no computer going, well i'll attack this then that, just saves you a whole lot of clicking. And It only does the exact same units... not any unit of that type... tahts heading to AI teritory.
All we need is to be able to use a button so that when you say attack that radar tower, tif theres two in your view and your holding that button it will auto que the other tower for you (and any others on screen, which is of course risky, maybe you only wanted to destroy those two...). Once they are both destroyed it wont go... oh look a mobile radar i'll kill him, as taht would be an AI choice.
All it will do afterwards is do what any normal unit does... IE kill the nearst hostile unit.
That is basicly the be all and end all answer to this. because theres no way It would be fair to have the AI play for you. It would be like 1 Vs. 100
aGorm