New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make UnitStances more coherent and logical #15566

Open
reaperrr opened this Issue Aug 26, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@reaperrr
Contributor

reaperrr commented Aug 26, 2018

There are still some issues with the AutoTarget.UnitStances, partially because there hasn't been a coherent consensus about what exact stances are needed and how exactly each of them is supposed to behave.

The current state looks like this:

  • HoldFire = completely passive, does not even react to attacks unless player order actor manually
  • ReturnFire = doesn't react to nearby enemies automatically, unless attacked, but then even chases the enemy across the map until either of them dies, if AutoTargetInfo.AllowMovement is set to true (which is the default and therefore quite common)
  • Defend = reacts automatically to enemies in scan radius, but does not follow them, even if AllowMovement is set to true.
  • AttackAnything = reacts to and attacks anything, and follows target if AllowMovement: true

While this is what stances worked like in the original:

  • Sleep (not chooseable by player) = like our HoldFire
  • Sticky (not chooseable by player) = like our ReturnFire, except it sticked to its position and never followed targets
  • Guard = like our Defend, in other words auto-acquired targets in weapon range, but wouldn't move towards them or follow them
  • AreaGuard = middle-ground between Defend and AttackAnything:
    • didn't auto-attack non-defense buildings (just like our Defend),
    • but scanned for enemies and actively engaged them in a larger radius, about ~twice its weapon range (or a custom value), but only followed targets until they were out of the guarded radius, and then aborted attack and returned (approximately) to the original position

Suggestion: Changing ReturnFire to behave like the original Sticky (not follow targets) and AttackAnything like AreaGuard (limit radius in which targets are followed) would probably adress the most common complaints about stance behavior, namely that these two stances behave too aggressively.

We might want to keep an equivalent of the current AttackAnything (or even something more aggressive) for the AI, though.

@matjaeck

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matjaeck

matjaeck Aug 27, 2018

Contributor

See also this comment that outlines ways to improve the attack anything stance / how chasing could be triggered.

Contributor

matjaeck commented Aug 27, 2018

See also this comment that outlines ways to improve the attack anything stance / how chasing could be triggered.

@GraionDilach

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GraionDilach

GraionDilach Aug 29, 2018

Contributor

Changing AttackAnything to drop building targeting would involve a lot of flak though, since apparently RA players don't like how the other stances don't attack buildings already and "defend should acquire buildings" anyway.

Contributor

GraionDilach commented Aug 29, 2018

Changing AttackAnything to drop building targeting would involve a lot of flak though, since apparently RA players don't like how the other stances don't attack buildings already and "defend should acquire buildings" anyway.

@matjaeck

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matjaeck

matjaeck Sep 2, 2018

Contributor

Changing AttackAnything to drop building targeting would involve a lot of flak though, since apparently RA players don't like how the other stances don't attack buildings already and "defend should acquire buildings" anyway.

There have been legit concerns about the effects of the disruptive stance changes but at least IMO both casual and competitive players have adapted. While still controversial, it turned out that the changes did not "break" the gameplay or worsened it.

It would be more appropriate to be cautious about further disruptive changes and to stay in touch with the community than to prepare for what you call flak of the RA community. These are disruptive changes that need to be communicated properly and concerns from the players who will have to adapt again are nothing but legit. Please try to improve communication in this regard and increase the visibilty of this topic, for example with a dedicated forum thread linked to the PR based on this issue and #15567.

Edit: I want to clarify that my suggestion to improve visibility and communication of this topic was not raised to criticise @GraionDilach but a general point I wanted to make here.

Contributor

matjaeck commented Sep 2, 2018

Changing AttackAnything to drop building targeting would involve a lot of flak though, since apparently RA players don't like how the other stances don't attack buildings already and "defend should acquire buildings" anyway.

There have been legit concerns about the effects of the disruptive stance changes but at least IMO both casual and competitive players have adapted. While still controversial, it turned out that the changes did not "break" the gameplay or worsened it.

It would be more appropriate to be cautious about further disruptive changes and to stay in touch with the community than to prepare for what you call flak of the RA community. These are disruptive changes that need to be communicated properly and concerns from the players who will have to adapt again are nothing but legit. Please try to improve communication in this regard and increase the visibilty of this topic, for example with a dedicated forum thread linked to the PR based on this issue and #15567.

Edit: I want to clarify that my suggestion to improve visibility and communication of this topic was not raised to criticise @GraionDilach but a general point I wanted to make here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment