Commanders: Original Vision, Crippled Default, Future ?

Ideas and suggestions for how to improve the Warzone 2100 base game only. Ideas for mods go in Mapping/Modding instead. Read sticky posts first!
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Iluvalar »

I dont hate your ideas, but we dont need all that complex stuff to fix the commanders.

there is a margin in which the commander is resistant enough to worth it cost as a wall. Or a demi-wall at the least, where it hp/efficiency make it a very bad target. While at the same time, it doesnt have the level yet to be plainly effective as a bonus giver. So it can survive until it become an annoyance.

All I need to know to fix it is (idealy starting from my commander test mod or NRS mod)
1) How much units are really in combat ?
2) What level do your commander reach ?
3) What kind of unit you plan to use ?

In an MP match of course.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Rman Virgil »

.
Stratadrake wrote:Well, one of the things that made commanders work in the single player campaign was a steady stream of relatively easy-to-dispatch enemies to train them with (scavengers, light body tanks, etc.). Cannon fodder of the same similar quality you'd expect to find in the RPG genre. You do not see the same things in live multiplayer, at least not from the other humans you're fighting against.

I guess I can agree that disguising commanders does add a bit of subterfuge into a mix that doesn't already have it - it would change the underlying assumptions about the game itself, and not necessarily in a good way. If the unique visual design of the commander turret is, in a sense, a necessary job risk then that's the way it has to be -- but there are many other ways in which combat can be improved.

For example, I always have had a gripe about once a unit is assigned to a commander, if you issue the unit any explicit orders he is automatically released from the command group. This is something that does not happen with numbered groups - a unit is always part of a numbered group until/unless you reassign the group number.

You can, say, order a numbered group to split up, flank a target from 3 different directions, then all open fire at once. But you can NOT do the same with a command group, or with mobile sensor artillery. Is that how it has to be, or can it be made better by changing it?

The commander turrets could also benefit from having a more powerful sensor system bundled with the turret. Direct-fire units can only shoot as far as their personal sensor range (which is 8 squares). Even the Mk1 command turret has a range of 12 squares, short and long alike, but as a direct-fire unit the only things he can ACTUALLY target are within 8 squares of himself, rarely any more than the combat units that he leads.

I also think that actual line-of-sight checks (i.e. obstructing friendlies/enemy units) should be some degree of mandatory on all direct fire units. This would not just improve the longevity of commanders, but improve the tactical value of any group that engages in combat. In RL you would not fire your weapon at a target if you would risk hitting a friendly that's currently obstructing your view of said target....

If you look back at medieval RTS games, even tactical RPG's where most combat is initiated on a hand-to-hand basis, a group of melee fighters is barely any more powerful than the men on its front perimeter - the only ones who will actually get to sink their weapons into opposing hides. Sure, you have magic and archery (analogous to the role of artillery and/or VTOL's), but exactly where you position your melee units in the heat of combat is a very important tactical concern. In Warzone this same concern does not exist at all beyond whether or not they are within range of a desired target. Every unit can attack any arbitrary target at any time regardless of what's around it - this is more than unrealistic, it also deprives the game of its potential for tactical "chess".

Adding an ability for one unit to "take the bullet" for another one it's guarding would give positioning greater tactical weight on the battlefield, plus it could be used to increase the longevity of priority units because they're less likely to actually take a hit if they've got friendlies nearby willing to lay down more than just suppressive fire for their sake.
Solid analysis and worthwhile ideas. :3

And while I share Iluvalar's PoV on implementing simpler modifications from the get go (and thoroughly play-testing in competitive MP) there is one new command behavior that has interested me since retail which I believe would provide the biggest bang for the buck if implemented on an incremental continuum of development- especially in conjunction with Iluvalar's straightfoward mod. You touch upon it at the end of your post. I've always refered to this new command A.I. behavior as Cover Me.

.
.

Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)

Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.
iap
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 16:08

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by iap »

I'm used to unassing unit and tell them explicitly to draw fire to them instead of the commander, and then if they survive - assign them again. But this is too much micromanaging.

If units could be independent and take orders from me, until the commander is giving another order - it would help a lot.
Also - If the commander will not need to directly point, but used as a sensor, it would be awesome.
But again, as I said, the pathfinding is the biggest problem. (Rman called it with a better name, but I don't remember and can't find the post...)
User avatar
Stratadrake
Trained
Trained
Posts: 197
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 09:43
Location: Pacific NW
Contact:

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Stratadrake »

Even the Mk1 command turret has a range of 12 squares, short and long alike, but as a direct-fire unit the only things he can ACTUALLY target are within 8 squares of himself, rarely any more than the combat units that he leads.
To clarify this, consider that the Mk4 command turret has a specified range of 20 squares, but as a direct-fire unit he's still limited to DefaultSensor1Mk1 range which, even with all upgrades accounted for, is only 12 squares. A Mk4 command turret can easily outrange Scourge missiles and Gauss cannons - but never actually gets the opportunity to show it :(

This part at least could be fixed by adding a sensor reference to the Brains.txt format so that the commander turret automatically includes a larger sight range....
For example, I always have had a gripe about once a unit is assigned to a commander, if you issue the unit any explicit orders he is automatically released from the command group. This is something that does not happen with numbered groups - a unit is always part of a numbered group until/unless you reassign the group number.
And to clarify this point, I've played one RTS (Outpost 2) where group numbering holds only so long as you're issuing orders to the group as a whole. The moment you issue even the most minor order to an individual unit it's immediately removed from the group - making the group feature itself virtually worthless as a long-term organizational tool since you cannot guarantee that group X will contain unit of interest Y. In Warzone the only times a unit is removed from a numbered group (aside from explicitly reassigning the group) is if they retreat for repairs, or if you assign them to a commander.

Line-of-sight and covering really merits a separate topic of its own - without it the matter of "positioning" and formations only extends so far as who is within range of what targets, and all you are concerned with is this pre-WW1, Napoleonic mindset where you simply rush in and dispatch enemies at close range.

I also believe that when a unit is ordered to attack at normal or long range, it should do its darndest to STAY at the assigned range and not let its target get too close for comfort. This doesn't just mean assigning arbitrary minimum ranges to units that do not need them - it means tweaks to the core AI. If a unit is forced to fight at shorter range (especially if line-of-sight is added as a consideration) then so be it - but when his standing orders are "long range" and I select a target at short range, I want the unit to take a few steps back first. I do not see enough of this.
Strata @dA, @FAC
User avatar
Shadow Wolf TJC
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1047
Joined: 16 Apr 2011, 05:12
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Shadow Wolf TJC »

I agree with Stratadrake. We need to give Commanders some sort of built-in sensor range functionality that overrides the default DefaultSensor1Mk1 sensor range. It could be assigning them a simple number (like, say, 2560 for a Command Turret IV) that may or may not benefit from Sensor Upgrades (whether or not it does benefit from those upgrades could have, alongside the Command Turret's HP, an important effect on whether or not we need multiple Command Turrets), or it could be to assign a particular sensor to them, even a custom one. It could even use the weapon's max range as its sensor range.
Creator of Warzone 2100: Contingency!
Founder of Wikizone 2100: http://wikizone2100.wikia.com/wiki/Wikizone_2100
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Rman Virgil »

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:I agree with Stratadrake. We need to give Commanders some sort of built-in sensor range functionality that overrides the default DefaultSensor1Mk1 sensor range. It could be assigning them a simple number (like, say, 2560 for a Command Turret IV) that may or may not benefit from Sensor Upgrades (whether or not it does benefit from those upgrades could have, alongside the Command Turret's HP, an important effect on whether or not we need multiple Command Turrets), or it could be to assign a particular sensor to them, even a custom one. It could even use the weapon's max range as its sensor range.
This would further incentivize to their use.... though I still hold your guys mods are still first in line on an incremental continuum of change and careful play testing.

.
.

Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)

Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Rman Virgil »

iap wrote: ........

But again, as I said, the pathfinding is the biggest problem. (Rman called it with a better name, but I don't remember and can't find the post...)
PathWalking is the problem and it occurs in ground unit groupings that have NO Commander linkage.

Think of it this way -

PathFinding is what happens when you tell a group of units to move from point A to point B. And as a clear example - PathWalking problems are what happens when having arrived at point B the units in the group attempt to negotiate not being able to occupy the same coordinate space.

.
.

Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)

Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.
iap
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 16:08

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by iap »

Path walking! It happens a lot with commaders. Whenever a unit get back from repair, or a repair unit trying to reach the commander or a direct fire unit trying to bypass artillery. But the most is when I order a commander to go somewhere but all of the assigned units are blocking it, this includes retreating.
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Rman Virgil »

iap wrote:Path walking! It happens a lot with commaders. Whenever a unit get back from repair, or a repair unit trying to reach the commander or a direct fire unit trying to bypass artillery. But the most is when I order a commander to go somewhere but all of the assigned units are blocking it, this includes retreating.
Yea... I found it especially frustrating when I was playing Black Project's super difficult "Hardcore Campaign Mod" where effective use of Commander Groups was critical to completing levels from the get go.

.
iap
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 16:08

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by iap »

So you see why I said that all the talking about stats and bonuses are important, but path walking is the most critical?

By the way, in another forum they call it short sight pathfinding, as opposed to long sight.
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Rman Virgil »

iap wrote:So you see why I said that all the talking about stats and bonuses are important, but path walking is the most critical?

By the way, in another forum they call it short sight pathfinding, as opposed to long sight.
Yes it is critical. :3

Those are good names.

My understanding is that it is one algorithm made up of 2 core components - one deals with the entire tiled world as a grid and other treats individual tiles as nodes. This is in RTS games. In FPS and RPG there is another component that uses nodes to create navigational meshes which eliminates most of the problem we are talking about here.

As far as implementing Nav Meshes in WZ - I'm not sure how feasible it would be especially when dealing with all the legacy maps. But if you were building a new RTS Nav Meshes would solve the problems we have been talking about and would also make possible amazing world shifts with associated gameplay - 3rd person PoV to 1st person PoV and such.

.
iap
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 16:08

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by iap »

I consider "pathfinding" an algorithm that uses A* of some sort. There is the concept of "stirring behavior" that is dealing with the actual current movement. So in WZ's case "pathwalking" is a better name for short sight stirring.
I do not want to give advise about what other people should do (I hated it when my ex girlfriend did it), so I can just hope that one of the devs will consider this a priority. I know that some work had been made to improve it on 3.1b11 but I didn't test it with commanders yet. :)
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Rman Virgil »

iap wrote:I consider "pathfinding" an algorithm that uses A* of some sort. There is the concept of "stirring behavior" that is dealing with the actual current movement. So in WZ's case "pathwalking" is a better name for short sight stirring.
Yup, variants are tailored to particular games on both the grid and node component sides of the algorithm.

I do not want to give advise about what other people should do (I hated it when my ex girlfriend did it), so I can just hope that one of the devs will consider this a priority. I know that some work had been made to improve it on 3.1b11 but I didn't test it with commanders yet. :)
I wouldn't dream of advising this group like I did Pumpkin, WZ Creators. Most of the changes to WZ that truly interested me to explore I did myself.... and the few that are left I'll come back to down the road when I may feel like taking a break from creating cinematics, soup to nuts.

Probably telling you what to do was a contributing factor in why she became your Ex. ;) I know exactly how that is. :3

.
User avatar
Stratadrake
Trained
Trained
Posts: 197
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 09:43
Location: Pacific NW
Contact:

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Stratadrake »

It's interesting to compare WZ to chess.

After all, in standard (Western) chess you have a force of 16 units, each with varying defined movement and attack rules. One of your units (the king) is mission critical. The rule of "check"ing your opponent is just a logical consequences of this - if you are in danger of losing your critical unit, you get a warning and if you don't take immediate action to protect him, the opponent can KO him on the next turn. So you either (1) destroy the attacking unit, (2) move your king unit to safety, or (3) interpose another unit to block the attack. The last of which only works against ranged direct-fire attacks (rook, bishop, queen) and can't block indirect-fire (knight) or melee (pawn) attacks. There is also a rule that you can never place your own king unit in danger - again, just a logical consequence of the king's mission-critical status, as if you exposed your king your opponent would surely KO him for the win.

It is a shame how none of these concepts exist in WZ in any form. You cannot interpose friendlies to take bullets intended for a commander - if the opponent wants to strike your commander down first there is simply nothing you can do to prevent this. You can flank him with a few repair units, but this won't protect against attacks of deadly focus (like a rush of VTOL Scourges).
Strata @dA, @FAC
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Commander Dev Continues - Still No MP Testing Support

Post by Rman Virgil »

Stratadrake wrote:It's interesting to compare WZ to chess.

After all, in standard (Western) chess you have a force of 16 units, each with varying defined movement and attack rules. One of your units (the king) is mission critical. The rule of "check"ing your opponent is just a logical consequences of this - if you are in danger of losing your critical unit, you get a warning and if you don't take immediate action to protect him, the opponent can KO him on the next turn. So you either (1) destroy the attacking unit, (2) move your king unit to safety, or (3) interpose another unit to block the attack. The last of which only works against ranged direct-fire attacks (rook, bishop, queen) and can't block indirect-fire (knight) or melee (pawn) attacks. There is also a rule that you can never place your own king unit in danger - again, just a logical consequence of the king's mission-critical status, as if you exposed your king your opponent would surely KO him for the win.

It is a shame how none of these concepts exist in WZ in any form. You cannot interpose friendlies to take bullets intended for a commander - if the opponent wants to strike your commander down first there is simply nothing you can do to prevent this. You can flank him with a few repair units, but this won't protect against attacks of deadly focus (like a rush of VTOL Scourges).
Salient analogies that point to why Chess as we know it has an active 1000 year history and is still very much alive as a world class game.

Chess also has mechanics analgous to 21st century warfare that are ironically completely absent from WZ 2100. Not bad for a game over a 1000 years old.

The sad thing is that such classic war play mechanics (as well true 21st century warfare tactics like "asymmetry") could be part of WZ by continuing the development already begun by WZ Creators 1997 - 99 but suspended to meet commercial release deadline constraints imposed by Eidos.

While there is currently a very real renaissance in the SP Modes of WZ (CAM & SKI).... none such can be said about MP Mode. If anything MP mode gameplay is at best stupifyingly stagnant (if not actually on a devolving trajectory). The reasons for that are transparent. Illuvalar encapsulated the state of MP recently in another thread, in a core related context, so I'm just gonna quote him here:
Iluvalar wrote:You really can't ask the players to reduce their chance to win in a competitive game. In a creative game like minecraft, you can give them fences, glass and different wood color, and they will do a lovely sheep farm even if they don't really need wool.

But warzone2100 was not that kind of game. You can't ask people to "not play easy". They will push the strongest strategies they can. What makes good players play more complex strategies was a very fragile equilibrium in the stats file that make more complex strategies more efficient at the end than simpler one.

Sadly, there is no more game designer in the main dev team that appear to be simply aware of what that equilibrium is made of. And there been a lot of changes in the game mechanic since then. There is apparently a strong belief in our community that a magic "balance" fairy will soon come around here and fix everything that is tagged as "easy to fix" while, in reality, nobody even know what it require to "fix" it at all...

Be ready when you play 3.1 to see more and more dumb strategies "mass produce and throw units" that will lead to a legitimate victory. There was a scary amount of control mechanics in the game that was slowly leading the players up to T3 that are now just erased or changed beyond recognition. When he forget why there is a constraint, the human tend naturally to remove it. That's what we see just now, with a mass of people praising the destruction of control points in your game. This game is morphing, soon it gonna be a creative game for people that like to play with tanks and you will be kicked if you don't role play and try to win for real in a game.
Commercial developers are very much aware of the double-edged sword of competive play feedback and its correlation to the typically intransigent MP vet egoic mindset.

.
Post Reply