Adjust extractor capping

[Garanas]

This PR is based on #3483 which is based on this forum topic.

The current implementation is best described by looking at the changes of this PR, but for clarities sake:

• Assuming all engineers can build the first viable storage will queue that storage to build.
• Anything that can build but not that storage will assist one of the engineers.

Sadly, the function IssueBuildMobile has some unexpected behavior: instead of giving all the units the same order (as you'd expect when doing a similar action as a player) it gives the orders to the nearest engineer to each structure. E.g., if you have all your engineers to the north of an extractor then only one gets to build all the storages. If you have them surrounding the extractor then four engineers start building each of the storages individually. Both are not acceptable.

Instead - we now queue the same order for all valid engineers. In turn, they all build the same storage. But they do not share the same build queue, e.g., manipulating the build queue (by removing a storage from the queue) is not possible when having multiple engineers selected, and it doesn't do the job when you only remove it from the queue of one engineer. Long story short: you'd need to give all the engineers a new order to cancel the storages.

@KionX Can you find out what the table (last argument) of IssueBuildMobile is supposed to do? It needs to be either { } or { {x, y} } where x and y are some number - but it doesn't appear to be doing anything.

[speed2CZ]

why not IssueBuildMobile(builders, location, msid, {}) ?

[Garanas]

Because of:

Sadly, the function IssueBuildMobile has some unexpected behavior: instead of giving all the units the same order (as you'd expect when doing a similar action as a player) it gives the orders to the nearest engineer to each structure. E.g., if you have all your engineers to the north of an extractor then only one gets to build all the storages. If you have them surrounding the extractor then four engineers start building each of the storages individually. Both are not acceptable.

[speed2CZ]

Interesting, thanks

[KionX]

Last argument is named ListOfCells, format is { {x, z}, ... }, used by game, set also inside brain:BuildStructure.
The purpose is unknown. Not sure, but think this parameter is broken in IssueBuildMobile.

[Garanas]

Thank you for looking into it - that means that it wouldn't fix the issue described in my post (instead of all engineers doing the same order, the nearest are chosen and the rest is ignored).

A few more ideas after WhenDayBreaks approached me:

• 4 clicks to mass fab cap a T3 extractor
• 2 clicks to mass storage cap a t3 fabricator
• 2 clicks to t1 power gen cap a radar
• 2 clicks to t1 power gen cap a t2 artillery

(see down below)

These are not as volatile as capping a pgen with energy storages and they're regularly used, but then through templates.

[Garanas]

It is working - see also the list of things you can now cap down below.

Behavior

The things we can cap and the number of clicks:

• 2 clicks to mass fab cap a T3 extractor
• 1 click to mass storage cap a t3 fabricator
• 1 click to t1 power gen cap a radar
• 1 click to t1 power gen cap a t2 artillery

When there are engineers of multiple factions in a selection the faction with the most engineers is chosen as the 'main builders', engineers of other factions (or units that can't build storages, poor ACU) assist one of the chosen engineers.

Note that a choice here was made: instead of looking at the tech level of the engineers or the build power, the one with the most engineers is chosen. In turn the code significantly easier / robust - if people want the highest tech engineer to take the lead then please make a post and provide rationale as to why it is better.

Performance

And of course: the approach is significantly more optimized in terms of table allocations. I don't think it will have a noticeable impact on the game performance, but everything helps.

Question

And last but certainly not least: do we want the ability to queue the capping of a structure while it is building? E.g., that you can click a t2 mass extractor while it is building and queue up its storages?

Answer: turns out it is not possible. The blueprint field is not set when repairing something - we need that in order to determine the viability of capping.

[Sutrinc]

Will it be possible to disable the assist order somehow?
This was the original disadvantage.

[Garanas]

The assist order with the extractor? For what reason?

[Sutrinc]

Of course not. assistance to engineers .

You wrote
When there are engineers of multiple factions in a selection the faction with the most engineers is chosen as the 'main builders', engineers of other factions (or units that can't build storages, poor ACU) assist one of the chosen engineers.

Maybe you can do it as an add-on. Everyone will be able to edit the code as they like.

[Garanas]

We have three situations:

• When all engineers are of the same faction, they can all build the same storage. No assisting happening.
• When you have engineers of two factions, one must assist the other as they can't build the same storages.
• When you have engineers of one faction and units that can't build the storage (kennel drones, ACU) then they must assist an engineer as they can't build the storages themselves.

(See below)

What are you proposing we do different?

[Sutrinc]

in all three situations, there is no order to assist.

Builders who cannot build buildings do not receive orders at all.
we select a group with a large number of types of builders, and build buildings.

[Garanas]

I'm not sure if there is a general consensus for that - what are the opinions of other people? I could also make this a game option (as part of the options menu) but it feels strange to add this (to assist or not to assist) as a separate option.

[Garanas]

And how about capping T1 Point Defense?

[Sutrinc]

I think no consensus is possible. There will be endless arguments.
If you can do that separete option, it'll be fine for everyone.
It will be great. awsome

I would immediately build a cannon in the construction menu with capping. for default.
And did not make additional options. and radar or t2 artillery with pgen.
because it is cheap.

[Garanas]

Adding options for the sake of options isn't favorable either. There is no rush for this PR as I am trying to finish it before Monday, lets see what other people think on the matter.

I would immediately build a cannon in the construction menu with capping. for default.
This is quite a different feature and will not be part of this PR.

[Sutrinc]

Good. but I would make an option now. and did not return to this anymore.
Unless, of course, it's not entirely difficult.

[Sutrinc]

By the way.
an assisting order is a bad idea.
if you link the commander to the engineer. then send the engineer to the other side of the map, then the commander will follow him. it will be bad.

and other engineers will go too. that's exactly what they wanted to get away from.

[Tagada14]

I see no reason for adding such an option, if you select your ACU with engineers and double click the mex to make storages then it means you want the ACU to make the storages so it should be assisting.

[Tagada14]

Another issue with the assistance of engineers is the problem when you have a couple of engies assisting a mex already and when you issue a new assist command on the mex with a new engineer (that was not assisting the mex) sometimes it queues the storages even though it shouldn't.
Edit: Can't reproduce this, I guess it's just the fact that when the game lags you sometimes click twice.

[Sutrinc]

The task was to remove the order for assisting.
It turns out that you could do nothing at all. )))))

[Garanas]

There is no task - and if any - it is to improve the current situation. And that is what we're doing here.

[Sutrinc]

I don't know the language well. the translator suggested so.

[Sutrinc]

and then. everything remained as it was.
it's a pity

[Garanas]

That is fundamentally not true - the assist order is gone when you have a bunch of builders that can all the build capping structure. As stated in a previous post

[Sutrinc]

))))))
asked to remove the order for assistance.)) you worked for 2 weeks. we discussed 2 weeks. As a result, the order for assistance remained. and there is no way to remove it again. )))))
That's just funny. ))))))
you're strange.

[Garanas]

And the order for assistance is removed for the typical case - the one that is used 99% of the time when you have a group of engineers that can build the same structure that is used for capping. I'd say you got exactly what you wanted.

[MrRowey]

this covers these 2 issues #1869 #1871

[Garanas]

Good find - it mentions the following list:

• (ok) build 4 T1 pgens around T2 Radar structure (when not upgrading)
• (ok) build 4 T1 pgens around T3 Omin structure
• (ok) build 4 T1 pgens around T2 Artillery structure
• (nok) build 4 T3 pgens around T3 mass fabs
• (nok) build 4 T3 or 16 T1 pgens around T3 Artillery structure
• (ok) build 8 wall sections around T1 Point Defense structure
• (nok) build 4 or 8 T2 mass fabs around capped T3 mex

When discussing this feature with WhenDayBreaks we decided against using larger structures (anything with a larger footprint than a storage) because the amount of APM you save with that is minimal and the implementation requirements become significant.

Do you want me to look into capping a t1 point defense?

[Garanas]

I've added support for a T1 point defense and I've made sure that it is harder to accidentally cap structures multiple times due to lag.

[Garanas]

Now we'd need to change the option description in the game options 😄 .

[ChessBerry]

Great stuff being done here as always and after playing around with it a bit on faf develop, I got some suggestions as well.
I'll just link my forum post to avoid having the same discussion in two different places:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2714/the-function-of-automatically-building-mass-storage-around-the-miners/34