Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Factory destinations

25 posts, 738 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (25 records)
sort
Lynx
9 months ago
I have an idea. At the moment you can only set a single destination for units built in a factory. Might it be an idea to facilitate setting more than one destination to allow alternate units to be sent to multiple destinations?
+3 / -0
9 months ago
this idea is allot like the multiple cheaper secondary factory idea googlefrog had.. but googlefrog has gone missing
+0 / -0

9 months ago
Don't worry, GoogleFrog will be back. I believe that idea is still on the radar as well.
+1 / -0


9 months ago
Most of the models for the idea are done too. What remains is shieldfac, and that's a full remodel - alas, one that will require some corrections before it can be called done
+5 / -0

9 months ago
quote:
this idea is allot like the multiple cheaper secondary factory idea googlefrog had.. but googlefrog has gone missing

What's all that about?
+1 / -0

9 months ago
Do you mean the ability to set a different move command destination for each control group created by the factory. that would be awesome.
+1 / -0


9 months ago
quote:
What's all that about?

Second factory of the same type within ~caretaker radius of a proper first fac of this kind can (and by ui default, is) replaced by a "buildpad" kind of thing that has 10 bp, 200 cost, and the same build options - but becomes inactive if the primary us lost.

It is tankier than Caretaker but cannot non-factory stuff caretaker does such as repair, terraform, etc.


This makes facspamming much less of a noobtrap, and allows you to create per-queue rally points among other things.
+1 / -0
Lynx
9 months ago
Is that better than just single factory with multiple destinations and alternate built units between those multiple destinations?
+0 / -0

9 months ago
That doesn't solve it. sometimes I build 3ronin 1reaver spam. Sometimes I want 2Thug 1outlaw spam. Alternating directions for units makes those 2 situations both wierd, with reavers only going one way and outlaws alternating. sometimes I pull something strange and WACKY like 1 knight 5 glaive. with this last one generally what I want is an assault force in 1 direction and a raidforce in another direction. so I want all knights at 1 rally and glaives at another. I don't want to have some menu to say X unit to location and Y set of units to location2. I have no easy way to do this than check back every 30 seconds and micro them the right way from a more neutral rally point.
+2 / -0


9 months ago
I don't see the discoverability space on the UI for this feature. Other than the idea being very niche I am not opposed.
+2 / -0
9 months ago
The only way I see to do something like that would be a separate rally widget.

You would define a zone requiring a group of units with specific composition, it would give build orders to nearby fac(s). You could have several zones with some sort of priority system, maybe a queue system between zones/groups.

Being a widget separated from the facs themselves, it could have its own separate UI.

However, that's the initial "budget is infinite" UI design phase. In practice, it would be hard to design well and require significant efforts to code, probably more than would be available.
+0 / -0

9 months ago
USrankSteel_Blue i am afraid to say that at some point, there is no alternative to just deal with the ui as is and learn to work around your problems / accepting the way it is and that your opponent has to deal with the same issues :/
+0 / -0

9 months ago
Here's an actual contributing idea: Gates. Define a circle and if a unit hits certain conditions it gives it new orders. GLAIVE go to HERE. Granted how little the ferry route gadget gets used I don't have high hopes, but it may fit some people(the same number of people ferry route fits). So you have your factory waypoints and you set a gate circle just ontop of/in front of the fac to divert a cirtain unit type. Ofcourse besides the fact that it needs some pop-up menu to configure what triggers the gate and after that setting the gate's rally points and if people want reavers or something going to 2 different locations it's perfectly elegant!
+0 / -0

9 months ago
I mean you could write a factory unit sorter even without special gates, it'd just be a massive pain to set up and an even more massive pain to write a usable ui for.
+1 / -0
quote:
Is that better than just single factory with multiple destinations and alternate built units between those multiple destinations?

Yes.

- Lessens the impact of fac spam
- Creates a decision (resilience and parallelism vs repairs and flexibility)
- Makes your base more interesting and alive - A E S T H E T I C
- UI is entirely straightforward
- Easy to discover vs hidden power-user feature almost noone will use because few will know it exists
- Allows you to sort queues, not just types

Fac-chad vs virgin sorter.jpg
+2 / -0

9 months ago
"Easy to discover vs hidden power-user feature almost noone will use because few will know it exists"

you mean like mexes?
+2 / -0
9 months ago
That secondary fac stuff will completely change how small teams are played.
+0 / -0
quote:
That secondary fac stuff will completely change how small teams are played.

If this is because it will allow you to switch to your ally's tech for 200 metal (rather than 800) - then this can be easily disabled by only counting your personally owned factories when checking whether a subfactory will be built or activated.

You can of course squad up, but you do that right now as well.
+0 / -0
9 months ago
It's because you can dual fac spam at a cost of 200 metal and save the second free fac until you see what enemies are playing in order to counter their picks. Or you can just dual fac spam and use the free point on air. Without having to waste time or metal on building an airfield while still spamming out of dual facs, early TB's are going to be insanely good. Scorcher+Scorcher rush with a single TB is going to absolutely obliterate everything I can think of throwing against it very early on, pretty much forcing the meta to be an early TB on both sides.

Scorch+Scorch+Gnats might be even worse, but I'm not really well acquainted with Gnats.
+0 / -0
Right: read the part of my comment that addresses this, then.

P.S: early TB's are quite good, and there's nothing that prevents them from happening right now.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (25 records)