| 1 |
One
of
the
most
consistent
things
I've
noticed
about
new
players
is
that
they
don't
want
units
to
act
by
themselves
in
most
cases.
Maneuver
vs.
Hold
Position
seems
to
be
an
exception,
but
even
in
this
case
they
prefer
that
units
leash
fairly
tightly.
New
players
don't
have
a
feel
for
efficiency,
so
they
would
much
rather
be
quite
inefficient
rather
than
slightly
disoriented
by
a
behaviour
designed
to
remove
that
inefficiency
for
them.
Every
default
unit
behaviour
is
another
thing
to
learn,
another
barrier
between
going
from
units
seemingly
wandering
around
randomly
to
feeling
in
control.
So
I
do
not
think
behaviours
like
those
proposed
here
should
happen
at
[url=https://zero-k.
info/Forum/Thread/31189?postID=226780#226780]Level
0
customisation[/url].
|
1 |
One
of
the
most
consistent
things
I've
noticed
about
new
players
is
that
they
don't
want
units
to
act
by
themselves
in
most
cases.
Maneuver
vs.
Hold
Position
seems
to
be
an
exception,
but
even
in
this
case
they
prefer
that
units
leash
fairly
tightly.
New
players
don't
have
a
feel
for
efficiency,
so
they
would
much
rather
be
quite
inefficient
than
pay
the
price
of
being
slightly
disoriented,
and
this
tradeoff
seems
inevitable
for
behaviours
designed
to
remove
inefficiency
by
adding
an
automated
action.
Each
extra
default
unit
behaviour
is
another
thing
to
learn,
another
barrier
between
going
from
units
seemingly
wandering
around
randomly
to
feeling
in
control.
So
I
do
not
think
behaviours
like
those
proposed
here
should
happen
at
[url=https://zero-k.
info/Forum/Thread/31189?postID=226780#226780]Level
0
customisation[/url].
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I don't think there is space on the UI for this to exist at Level 1 either. The leading suggestion is to disable the behaviour on Hold Position, but then all constructors would have to be set to Hold Position by default. I am wary of having mixed states built into the defaults to this extent. Besides, what about armed constructors? The obvious answer is another state toggle, but I'm quite happy with how few state toggles are shown by default already.
|
3 |
I don't think there is space on the UI for this to exist at Level 1 either. The leading suggestion is to disable the behaviour on Hold Position, but then all constructors would have to be set to Hold Position by default. I am wary of having mixed states built into the defaults to this extent. Besides, what about armed constructors? The obvious answer is another state toggle, but I'm quite happy with how few state toggles are shown by default already.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
This sounds like a fine feature for Level 2. I recall Caretaker patrol existing at Level 2 already.
|
5 |
This sounds like a fine feature for Level 2. I recall Caretaker patrol existing at Level 2 already.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
[q]Also bonus question: is it possible for constructors to do the constructing on the fly - when passing something damaged for example to repair it on the way while in range? [/q]
|
7 |
[q]Also bonus question: is it possible for constructors to do the constructing on the fly - when passing something damaged for example to repair it on the way while in range? [/q]
|
| 8 |
Any unit AI can be written, if that is your question. Mechanically though, constructors cannot "fire on the move". Movement essentially costs BP. I don't want to take on the mess of a UI required to properly deal with constructors firing on the move, let alone what would happen to how the game plays.
|
8 |
Any unit AI can be written, if that is your question. Mechanically though, constructors cannot "fire on the move". Movement essentially costs BP. I don't want to take on the mess of a UI required to properly deal with constructors firing on the move, let alone what would happen to how the game plays.
|
Default idle constructor behavior