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

auto prioritization

9 posts, 533 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
2 years ago
Currently it seem that when there is not enough resources to use all build power at a given priority, all build power is reduce proportionally. I think unit AI could be smarter.

I think it should prioritize:
Starting nano frames.

Projects that have a higher manual priority

Energy generating buildings when energy is depleted. (increase energy income if that is the limiting factor)
Metal generating buildings when metal is depleted. (increase metal income if that is the limiting factor)
Build power when excising both metal and energy. (increase build power if that is the limiting factor. When excising this consumes 100% of build power assigned to it anyway...)

Projects that require the builder to move before starting the next project, or don't have a next project. (movement consumes build power without using resources.)
Projects that are move complete. (projects are useless unless they are finished.)
+1 / -0
2 years ago
I forgot to mention that repair should be low priority as it does not consume metal. I would rather build new units and repair my damaged units once I can build more energy.
+0 / -0

2 years ago
You would need a setting in order to switch auto-priority, as the desired behaviour may differ, depending on the situation. That again might clutter up the game interface.
I think the current prio settings already come very close to optimun if monitored regularly.
For example you can have the default build prio for your eco-buildings at high. Cons building them should automatically build on high prio then, no matter what the cons prio settting is.
+0 / -0
2 years ago
I agree that prioritization could be done manually, which I sometimes need to do. I usually make 2 cons, one builds metal extractors while the other one builds solar. On some maps, the starting metal sights are higher, so I am stalling due to energy. It would be nice if the solar con automatically got priority due to building what the economy requires, instead of managing this manually.
+1 / -0
My main concern is that cases where you would not want to have that auto-pro behaviour would need some kind of control to change it. For example if a player puts the lab on high prio for a moment because they need troops, auto-prio would prevent any troops from being built as long as any mexes are under construction (assuming the usual m-stall). Of course one could easily manage this by setting mex con priority to medium for the moment. On the other hand that is exactly the kind of player action that auto prio should make obsolete.

Edit: If we are only talking auto-prio energy over metal in case of e-stall I see no potential for gameplay problems. Still this would be one more rule that has to be explained to people learning the game.
+1 / -0

2 years ago
quote:
when there is not enough resources to use all build power at a given priority, all build power is reduce proportionally.

Nanoframes with priority get resources first. In each of the three priorities, they are given proportionally though. Example:
[Spoiler]

quote:
I think it should prioritize:
Starting nano frames.

Starting nanoframes doesn't cost anything so there is little point prioritizing it because you don't save anything by having them available earlier. You also don't want to leave your previous project unfinished.

quote:

Projects that have a higher manual priority

Already supposed to happen. If it doesn't, make a bug report.

quote:
Energy generating buildings when energy is depleted. (increase energy income if that is the limiting factor)
Metal generating buildings when metal is depleted. (increase metal income if that is the limiting factor)
Build power when excising both metal and energy. (increase build power if that is the limiting factor. When excising this consumes 100% of build power assigned to it anyway...)
Projects that require the builder to move before starting the next project, or don't have a next project. (movement consumes build power without using resources.)
Projects that are more complete. (projects are useless unless they are finished.)

This would create a very opaque system, which makes it harder to control. Most of the above aren't really true (for example building more buildpower makes sense when excessing both, but maybe you already have enough builders and some are just idle; things may be useless unless finished but if you deprioritize expensive stuff it will never finish). Maybe it could exist as a system which toggles manual priority on things (which is still opaque, but at least then the UI shows what priority things are and mechanics are kept simple). I think it would be difficult to make a system that works well enough to become the default but an option that could be improved incrementally sounds fine.

quote:
repair should be low priority as it does not consume metal

Repair should have controllable priority. It is currently tied to regular build priority though because most of the time you have more energy than metal so this doesn't really require any consideration in practice. Maybe cons should have energy-only (misc) priority, but then that's UI clutter, idk.

+1 / -0

2 years ago
I did not know that repair disrespects priority. Repairs should be made with the priority the respective constructor has set, as that would likely be the behaviour most people would expect within the current priority framework.
+0 / -0
2 years ago
The list of priorities are in order, that is why I listed manual as 2nd on the list. It should overwrite almost all others. Only starting nano frames are above it. I want this higher as it consumes little reassures and I sometimes place multiple nano frames “q” as decoys to absorb attacks while my commander is being attacked.

The priority of more completed projects should be worked a little more. I am not sure if it should be remaining or percent. Maybe it should apply only after 90%, though the last 90% of a super weapon still requires a significant amount of resources.

+0 / -0

2 years ago
I get the idea, but imo that would be advanced behaviour better left to a (custom) widget or turned off by default. As PLrankAdminSprung wrote, such a logic would make things very opaque.
+0 / -0