Merowingg wrote: I also think the players are lazy.
The players aren't lazy...
It is just difficult to micromanage, macromanage, or whatever is it's name.
But maybe you were playing whit some "random zombies" that were playing WZ at 03:00 AM.
Merowingg wrote: I also think the players are lazy.
That is the reason of why I don't use commanders...zerosum wrote:Commanders are good on the paper, but at the end they cause more problems than they solve. They're expensive, behave strangely and even worse, they make the units attached to them as smart as a vegetable. The only pro I would grant them is that they get XP faster than lambda units.
The factory rally-point is not really interesting for me because I tend to use 2 (or more) factories to gain time. The repair facility rally-point would be good, if I didn't find units stuck at the station waiting for God knows what. Many times, I have detach and retake control of units manually to get them out of the queue, repair them, and re-attach them to commander. Not really efficient.
To finish, attaching units to a commander leads previous group assignment to get lost (apart from artillery group, but I never attach them to commander), so that I have to re-select the units and re-assign them to a group after being attached to a commander.
Wow. You seem a little on edge about laziness, don't you?Merowingg wrote:and we do not want things to be difficult! we want games where we pres "W" button all the time and a characters go through the game authomatically! in RTS, lets say W and T, as target, well we do not want to go beyond with easyness do we?
+1zerosum wrote: It's not about making the game easier or not, but rather about allowing to focus on important actions while delegating less important stuff to the machine: there's nothing wrong with that in my book. The problem with commanders being that you need to check them every now and then whereas there is probably more interesting / important things to do.