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

Post edit history

Scorcher amove behavior

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
12/15/2022 1:00:11 PMAUrankAdminGoogleFrog before revert after revert
12/15/2022 12:58:43 PMAUrankAdminGoogleFrog before revert after revert
Before After
1 The unit AI is more about being predictable than optimal. Attack Move causes Scorcher to jink around near max range because otherwise there wouldn't be a simple way to tell Scorcher to jink around near max range. If you want Scorcher to dive in, then issue a Move command. Making it dive in against some arbitrary set of targets would also hurt its predictability. 1 The unit AI is more about being predictable than optimal. Attack Move causes Scorcher to jink around near max range because otherwise there wouldn't be a simple way to tell Scorcher to jink around near max range. If you want Scorcher to dive in, then issue a Move command. Making it dive in against some arbitrary set of targets would also hurt its predictability.
2 \n 2 \n
3 Generally Attack Move mean "move so that you are shooting stuff, but try to preserve health", not "move and shoot stuff optimally". Optimal depends on the rate that you, the player, want to trade your units health for enemy units health. Optimal is for the player to decide. 3 Generally Attack Move mean "move so that you are shooting stuff, but try to preserve health", not "move and shoot stuff optimally". Optimal broadly depends on the rate that you, the player, want to trade your units health for enemy units health. Optimal is for the player to decide.
4 \n 4 \n
5 Attack Move works the way it does because the common tactical choices cluster around "keep at max range" and "rush in". If we just had Move then the "rush in" choice would be much cheaper than "keep at max range" in terms of player attention, which would warp tactics space towards it. Also keep in mind that there is a lot of nuance around these clusters that will encourage players to manually control units for the best outcomes. Attack Move isn't meant to be a replacement for manual keeping at max range, it is just there to give players a simple way to keep at max range that is on par with a simple Move command to dive in. 5 Attack Move works the way it does because the common tactical choices cluster around "keep at max range" and "rush in". If we just had Move then the "rush in" choice would be much cheaper than "keep at max range" in terms of player attention, which would warp tactics space towards it. Also keep in mind that there is a lot of nuance around these clusters that will encourage players to manually control units for the best outcomes. Attack Move isn't meant to be a replacement for manual keeping at max range, it is just there to give players a simple way to keep at max range that is on par with a simple Move command to dive in.
6 \n 6 \n
7 If the current Attack Move behaviour for Scorcher is rarely useful then it could be tweaked. Perhaps it should jink around a bit closer to its target, to strike a better balance between safety and damage. If Attack Move doesn't implement a reasonably good "keep at max range" tactic then it may as well not exist, so the behavior should put Scorcher somewhere at a reasonably common/desirable point around "keep at max range" in tactics space. 7 If the current Attack Move behaviour for Scorcher is rarely useful then it could be tweaked. Perhaps it should jink around a bit closer to its target, to strike a better balance between safety and damage. If Attack Move doesn't implement a reasonably good "keep at max range" tactic then it may as well not exist, so the behavior should put Scorcher somewhere at a reasonably common/desirable point around "keep at max range" in tactics space.
8 \n 8 \n
9 I don't like state toggles, especially for combat. The position and type of an issued command is a much more fluid way to control units. We have state toggles that work, but I don't want to go down the path of adding behaviour tweaks for individual units. It feels a bit undiscoverable, and the work could be better spent on improving the default for everyone. 9 I don't like state toggles, especially for combat. The position and type of an issued command is a much more fluid way to control units. We have state toggles that work, but I don't want to go down the path of adding behaviour tweaks for individual units. It feels a bit undiscoverable, and the work could be better spent on improving the default for everyone.