Assigning defence priorities

[Olrox]

But the topic here is defense priorities.

Still I can envision some dual-use weapons (lancer cyborgs come to mind) where you may want a squad in a strictly AA role and another in general shoot-anything mode.

Not a terrible critic but rather a small inoffensive quote, please don't be mad at me

But I do think that all weapons could have priority settings, and that isn't that off-topic since having such thing would solve those defense priorities situations
In this case you've mentioned, of multi-role units, I can't imagine a way to avoid UI changes if we want to make one target have more priority than another one, if the unit's good against both of them. In this case, IMHO, both of them should have similar priority (in the case of the lancer, any vehicle would have top priority).

Anyway, what do you think of my idea? Good/bad/need more thinking? I'm not experienced with any sort of coding, let alone with the source itself, so I'm really clueless about it being good or not

~Olrox

[Zarel]

IMHO it would be better if the micro-AI just selected the best targets for you depending on what the weapon is good at.

I like that.

Dude, that's the exact same thing I said my second post, and you had plenty of problems with it then:

• Z: Target priorities are currently calculated automatically for units; we are planning on using the same system for defenses.
  
  s: Yeah, we know. Hence this thread. Having some control over who shoots at what would be nice

Why does it matter who says it?

But I do think that all weapons could have priority settings, and that isn't that off-topic since having such thing would solve those defense priorities situations
In this case you've mentioned, of multi-role units, I can't imagine a way to avoid UI changes if we want to make one target have more priority than another one, if the unit's good against both of them. In this case, IMHO, both of them should have similar priority (in the case of the lancer, any vehicle would have top priority).

Erm, to prioritize one target over another when the two are otherwise identical, you click on the one you want to attack first.

I don't see any UI changes necessary, so I don't understand your proposal at all.

[Olrox]

Erm, to prioritize one target over another when the two are otherwise identical, you click on the one you want to attack first.

I don't see any UI changes necessary, so I don't understand your proposal at all.

I think we could have something like, using flamer as an example:

Check all the units inside the sensor range, if a tracked tank enters the radius and stays within it for at least 2.5 seconds or so (maybe .75 times the weapons' reload time?), and gets at firing range, the turret attacks the target regardless of type. If, before this time passes, a more suitable target (hover or cyborg) enters the sensor range, the turret simply ignores the tank, unless the "more suitable targets" doesn't get into firing range within another set period of time - in this last case, the weapon fires at whatever is at firing range.

Might seem a bit complicated, but probably would solve any problems I can think of. What do you think about it?

Nobody commented on that

That's what I could think of, the decision is really up to you devs, so I'll just stay out of the way

[Zarel]

I think we could have something like, using flamer as an example:

Check all the units inside the sensor range, if a tracked tank enters the radius and stays within it for at least 2.5 seconds or so (maybe .75 times the weapons' reload time?), and gets at firing range, the turret attacks the target regardless of type. If, before this time passes, a more suitable target (hover or cyborg) enters the sensor range, the turret simply ignores the tank, unless the "more suitable targets" doesn't get into firing range within another set period of time - in this last case, the weapon fires at whatever is at firing range.

People rarely realize how much time a second is. In many games, it's a pretty long time. In Warzone, 2.5 seconds is more than enough time for a hover to enter and leave a flamer's firing range, and Warzone is a pretty slow-paced game. Heck, the flamer could reload and fire again in the time you propose it waits (and many other weapons could, as well). Heck, the flamer would die against nearly anything other than a truck by the time it waited 2.5 seconds (seriously, a five-unit scouting group could probably kill your average flamer in 2.5 seconds). Delaying attack is a bad idea for all but the slowest loading of weapons. And even for those, most people would rather attack instantly than "wait to see if something better comes by".

When adding features that no one else has, it's important to first ask yourself why no one else has that feature. For the best ideas, the answer is usually "no one else has thought of it before". But techniques like delaying are thought of fairly often, and they're discarded mostly because they add more frustration for the user than they alleviate.

[Olrox]

People rarely realize how much time a second is. In many games, it's a pretty long time. In Warzone, 2.5 seconds is more than enough time for a hover to enter and leave a flamer's firing range, and Warzone is a pretty slow-paced game. Heck, the flamer could reload and fire again in the time you propose it waits (and many other weapons could, as well). Heck, the flamer would die against nearly anything other than a truck by the time it waited 2.5 seconds (seriously, a five-unit scouting group could probably kill your average flamer in 2.5 seconds). Delaying attack is a bad idea for all but the slowest loading of weapons. And even for those, most people would rather attack instantly than "wait to see if something better comes by".

"Heck", then I hope you can make something better. I'll definetely get away from the forums for a while, the situation everywhere is getting very delicate, nobody can say anything without taking one in the face anymore...

See ya.

[Zarel]

You asked for feedback; I provided it.

[Dylan Hsu]

In most cases, defense priority doesn't even make a difference if someone puts one unit type in front of another. Hardpoints aren't that tall and most shots hit the front lines. Now, if the front line comprises several unit types, defense priority makes sense, but even then, the structures die so quickly... I'd also imagine people wouldn't all agree on exactly what takes priority over what else, and even if an agreement was reached, the computation might be lengthy.

[stiv]

Why does it matter who says it?

It is the difference between dismissive hand-waving (you) vs discussing how things might work (Per)