Lua request.

[quantum]

There is no clear line between trainer widgets and widgets that automate tedious chores.

Imo, anything that can be done well by a widget is simple and mindless enough that gameplay would be enhanced by offering the possibility to automate it.

If you want to reward APM, you can easily disable some LuaUI functionality in your mod.

[LordMatt]

Well, widgets that give you more information, or information in a more usable form (e.g. Idle cons widget, IceUI, or a commander warning) are obviously fine. A widget like the custom formations widget provides a feature that TA has sorely missed and is fairly common in RTS games. The widget suggested by the OP is over the line for the following reasons: When part of your base is destroyed, you attacker has expended effort to make that happen. He expects you to have to 1) notice that you have lost these buildings, 2) decide whether or not to rebuild them, 3) expend the effort to requeue the structures. The first two are actually the most important, as the widget takes away these game decisions from the player. An important part of playing TA well is being able to keep an eye on your entire base and fix problems when they arise. The best players do this the best, and it contributes to their success at the game. Less good players should not have tools that give them an advantage by making game decisions for them. Something that does that is a trainer in my view.

The plan B widget was another example of something over the line, for the same reason. It made game decisions for the player (whereas I had no problem with a widget that gave you a keyboard shortcut to do the same thing as the plan B widget, provided you had to choose to use the keyboard shortcut).

[tombom]

Well, you could make a mod option to only allow lua inside that mod when you play that mod if things got too out of hand. Then the mod authors could ensure that the lua used when playing that mod does not wreck the gameplay. Hopefully it doesn't come to that though and people will refrain from making trainer widgets.

Already exists, you have to put some text file in the mod's root (apologies, I can't remember the name right now) and it won't load LuaUI stuff from outside it.

[KDR_11k]

Matt you said there's a decision to rebuild stuff. This widget won't ask you to decide, if the decision really never has the answer "no" it's not a decision, if there are situations where you won't want to rebuild why do you think the widget is cheating? It won't know if it's a good idea to do so, it'll just do. All this would do is change the default behaviour from "no" to "yes".

Besides, you said that noticing the damage is important, what if the widget just told you "you lost X building"? That'd also be just an information widget but it'd replace half the important steps you list.

Also you complain about simply requeueing, should things like factory waypoints be removed because it removes the attention necessary to order your units away from the fac?

[Gota]

Your all looking at this from a wrong perspective,all but LordMatt of course.
He was just raging at me as usual,i guess he didnt expect some to actually read my post and try to think whether such a thing might inhance gameplay or not.
You can alway alter it to reconstruct only core buildings that do not hurt raiding like storages solar/fusion fieldsfields,labs walls and so on.
I also said it will be an advanced construction kbot/vehicle that will only be available at a stage when you are already palying with T2/T3 armies,not much raiding there anyway...And your "pure" BA can just not allow that lua.

[Google_Frog]

1) notice that you have lost these buildings,
2) decide whether or not to rebuild them,
3) expend the effort to requeue the structures.

Regarding step 2 the buildings the player has tagged with this widget would mean they have always decided to rebuild it, it wouldn't reduce choice because they are choosing to always rebuild. Step 1 is just an information widget.

[LordMatt]

Matt you said there's a decision to rebuild stuff. This widget won't ask you to decide, if the decision really never has the answer "no" it's not a decision, if there are situations where you won't want to rebuild why do you think the widget is cheating? It won't know if it's a good idea to do so, it'll just do. All this would do is change the default behaviour from "no" to "yes".

To take that idea to it's logical conclusion: "I always want to win the game, there is never a time I don't want to win, therefore a trainer widget that wins the game for me always is fine." Where do you draw the line between this and what you suggest? As I said before, I draw it when the computer starts making critical game decisions for the player.

Besides, you said that noticing the damage is important, what if the widget just told you "you lost X building"? That'd also be just an information widget but it'd replace half the important steps you list.

I wouldn't have a problem with this, but it probably would be less useful than carefully monitoring your base, in all but isolated cases.

Also you complain about simply requeueing, should things like factory waypoints be removed because it removes the attention necessary to order your units away from the fac?

Stop building straw men.

Regarding step 2 the buildings the player has tagged with this widget would mean they have always decided to rebuild it, it wouldn't reduce choice because they are choosing to always rebuild.

Part of what makes this game hard is that you have to make these decisions in real time, in the heat of the battle. If you don't like that, play a turn based game.

[NOiZE]

IMO it would be best if mods could define which widgets are allowed.

[Gota]

cat they already.

[KDR_11k]

To take that idea to it's logical conclusion: "I always want to win the game, there is never a time I don't want to win, therefore a trainer widget that wins the game for me always is fine." Where do you draw the line between this and what you suggest? As I said before, I draw it when the computer starts making critical game decisions for the player.

Sure, if you can write a widget that will always win the game, go ahead (might get you some nice research funding). The mod designer will learn what he's doing wrong. Realistically no widget can defeat a player, it can at best do things the player wants to do anyway but cannot or does not want to input.

It's not a critical decision, it's just something that's tedious to input. The widget would not do decisions for you, it'd just accept an order the engine currently does not support ("Area Rebuild"). If you decide to apply that to the wrong buildings or don't apply it that's your decision and the widget won't take it away. It's mostly an extended form of area repair that doesn't stop repairing when something is destroyed. Could easily fuck you up because it rebuilds something when you wouldn't do it because you need the resources or so.

I wouldn't have a problem with this, but it probably would be less useful than carefully monitoring your base, in all but isolated cases.

Automation is ALWAYS less useful than manual action.

Stop building straw men.

Says the guy who just talked about an "I WIN!" widget

Part of what makes this game hard is that you have to make these decisions in real time, in the heat of the battle. If you don't like that, play a turn based game.

This still doesn't apply any less to factory queues or the repeat button than a rebuild widget. Besides, you keep talking about "decisions" but isn't "I want this rebuilt if it's destroyed" a decision? It's just one you make at a different point in time (before it's destroyed, not afterwards).

I mean, seriously, we could already do this with a con set on repeat and all the buildings in its build queue but that's just tedious to input and I doubt you'd appreciate it when we pause the game to input our commands (which I consider a perfectly legitimate action, it's just annoying for everyone but not against the rules).

IMO it would be best if mods could define which widgets are allowed.

That's done by disabling non-mod widgets and including all widgets you want to allow. Already possible.

[tombom]

As I said before, I draw it when the computer starts making critical game decisions for the player.

As KDR said, if the answer is always the same it is not a critical game decision. It's perfectly possible for a mod to decide it wants to keep out certain widgets so if it ruins BA somehow they can exclude it.

[LordMatt]

It's not a critical decision, it's just something that's tedious to input.

Sure it is. You might lose the game if you don't make it. You are less of a player if you have the computer make it for you.

Stop building straw men.

Says the guy who just talked about an "I WIN!" widget

I did so only to ask the question of where to draw the line between useful things and cheating (which you ignored).

This still doesn't apply any less to factory queues or the repeat button than a rebuild widget.

There is a fairly wide gap between repeating the same unit build over and over and noticing and rebuilding damaged structures in your base.

[Google_Frog]

The computer is not making the critical decision to rebuild the building. The player is making the decision to always rebuild the building if it's destroyed.

[BrainDamage]

what if what he suggested is already possible without writing a single line of scripting and well within the engine and mod possibilities?

this works in most of *A mods (and nay mod that contains units capable of resurrection)

1) build a couple of units capable of resurrection (necro bots for ex)
2) toggle their movement mode to roam
3) toggle their command queue mode to repeat
4) select the resurrect command an issue an area order as big as your base
5) watch them resurrecting automatically anything which has been destroyed and left a wreckage ( 80% of the stuff )
6) ????
7) profit!

it uses only area orders and repeat button, it's no more no less different from setting nanoturrets in BA in roam-repeat-patrol so they auto-repair/reclaim/assist anything under their range, their own "intelligence" sux, so I had myself to manually their current task to do something else but it's usually working 70% of the times so I don't have to control them manually every time to target something... (same applies for resurrection bit)

[KingRaptor]

Really, while widgets that play the game for you are certainly bad, auto-rebuilding destroyed stuff is really minimal as far as automation goes.

[tombom]

There is a fairly wide gap between repeating the same unit build over and over and noticing and rebuilding damaged structures in your base.

No, there really is not. As has been constantly repeated to you, such a widget is already possible by turning on repeat and queuing up stuff over the top of your buildings. This widget would do very little and it's really ridiculous how you're claiming it's a trainer that's equivalent with something that wins the game automatically.

BTW, as to drawing a line, there isn't one. If a widget can win the game for you then it's a problem with the mod, a widget does nothing much except issue commands that you can issue and display information. As has also been pointed out, a mod can already restrict the LUA used.

This whole argument is silly because whatever the result is, it doesn't stop somebody making it...

[Forboding Angel]

BAAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!!!!!

Actually I would very much like to have a widget/gadget such as this.

[CarRepairer]

lol

1) on SIMPLE_EVENT do EXISTING_ACTION
2) ???
3) iwin

[bobthedinosaur]

as long as there are not any cheats of resources or units they didnt earn i dont see what is really wrong about being extremely automated, as long as it is advertised what luas the players are using. that way if a player does not want to game players using uber lua they can play a more traditionally game. altho it is not very sportsmanship like i say push the envelope with uber lua, but just dont be sneaky about it.
ladders and other more competitive games could always restrict the use and disqualify use of certain luas. that is if there is a way to see what every one is using, which might be the main problem.

edit: sorry, my bad. just noticed the date, bad rez. but i think it does address the moral arguments over the use of lua scripts for game performance, which maybe should be another thread.

[Forboding Angel]

This needed to be read, because some of us want this gadget/widget to be made. Just make it a farking gadget so lordmatt can stop whining while the rest of us get what we want.

The arguments against it thus far have been the pathetic grasping at straws.