| 1 |
Good job overall.
|
1 |
Good job overall.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
I'd like to propose few improvements:
|
3 |
I'd like to propose few improvements:
|
| 4 |
1) Add banisher to the new gadget. It may well hit planes so makes sense to "fire willy-nilly", they also may overkill
|
4 |
1) Add banisher to the new gadget. It may well hit planes so makes sense to "fire willy-nilly", they also may overkill
|
| 5 |
2) Add special code to handle Racketeer "overkill". It's annoying that they all seem to shoot one target, even though it's sometimes known in advance that target will stay disarmed, even if less racketeers shoot at it.
|
5 |
2) Add special code to handle Racketeer "overkill". It's annoying that they all seem to shoot one target, even though it's sometimes known in advance that target will stay disarmed, even if less racketeers shoot at it.
|
| 6 |
a) So for units in LoS (where the actual GetUnitRulesParam(uId,"disarmed") is known) it will be desirable to keep amount of shooting racketeers to the required minimum.
|
6 |
a) So for units in LoS (where the actual GetUnitRulesParam(uId,"disarmed") is known) it will be desirable to keep amount of shooting racketeers to the required minimum.
|
| 7 |
b) For units out of LoS but in withing the radar coverage, which UnitDef has been seen, it might be desirable to follow procedure from a) but with slight overkill, say 1.2 factor, to take into account possible radar wobble.
|
7 |
b) For units out of LoS but in withing the radar coverage, which UnitDef has been seen, it might be desirable to follow procedure from a) but with slight overkill, say 1.2 factor, to take into account possible radar wobble.
|
| 8 |
c) For units on Radar of unknown type it may be desirable to preserve old behavior. It may be a glaive, could be a detriment, who knows...
|
8 |
c) For units on Radar of unknown type it may be desirable to preserve old behavior. It may be a glaive, could be a detriment, who knows...
|
| 9 |
d) If type is known again, targetting priority should probably be given to static defence units, commanders, long range and assault things and less to more common stuff like raiders.
|
9 |
d) If type is known again, targetting priority should probably be given to static defence units, commanders, long range and assault things and less to more common stuff like raiders.
|
| 10 |
3) As for shielded units/units under shield. It's really impossible/hard to predict what kind of shield configuration it will be, when projectile start hitting shields one after another. So I would guess that if we know in advance that a target unit has shield/can be covered by nearby shields, then the behavior should be same as with fast units, i.e. everyone should shoot the target.
|
10 |
3) As for shielded units/units under shield. It's really impossible/hard to predict what kind of shield configuration it will be, when projectile start hitting shields one after another. So I would guess that if we know in advance that a target unit has shield/can be covered by nearby shields, then the behavior should be same as with fast units, i.e. everyone should shoot the target.
|
|
|
11 |
\n
|
|
|
12 |
\n
|
|
|
13 |
Added later: ducks are also good to have OK prevention behavior
|
Zero-k v1.3.1.8 - Overpowered Missile Update