| 1 |
The automated version of this widget came up three years ago. Here is my main response, which I still agree with: https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/34463?postID=246201#246201
|
1 |
The automated version of this widget came up three years ago. Here is my main response, which I still agree with: https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/34463?postID=246201#246201
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
If you've found a way to predict projectiles with a widget, then you're doing something unintended and should make a ticket about the callouts you used. I'm not inherently against all forms of automated projectile dodging (see Attack Move for a clear example), but it has to be part of a gadget (for latency) and tailored to the level of dodging that seems like it will make the game fun. This might include reacting to incoming projectiles, but [url=https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/pull/4486]the PR[/url] adding this wasn't completed, and I'm not keen enough on it to do it myself.
|
3 |
If you've found a way to predict projectiles with a widget, then you're doing something unintended and should make a ticket about the callouts you used. I'm not inherently against all forms of automated projectile dodging (see Attack Move for a clear example), but it has to be part of a gadget (for latency) and tailored to the level of dodging that seems like it will make the game fun. This might include reacting to incoming projectiles, but [url=https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/pull/4486]the PR[/url] adding this wasn't completed, and I'm not keen enough on it to do it myself.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
We don't know a lot about the rules of full projectile dodging, just that it doesn't sound fun. ZK development is a dance of fun and design rules. We do things that seem fun, then derive some general rules from these actions, then use these rules to guide the search for things that seem fun in the future. The rules impose constraints that keep ZK feeling like ZK, but they also free us up to try a lot of things that aren't explicitly against the rules. If something new comes along that breaks or find an edge case with the rules, then the rules should be updated.
|
5 |
We don't know a lot about the rules of full projectile dodging, just that it doesn't sound fun. ZK development is a dance of fun and design rules. We do things that seem fun, then derive some general rules from these actions, then use these rules to guide the search for things that seem fun in the future. The rules impose constraints that keep ZK feeling like ZK, but they also free us up to try a lot of things that aren't explicitly against the rules. If something new comes along that breaks or find an edge case with the rules, then the rules should be updated.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Projectile dodging is tricky. On one hand, automatic dodging seems like a consequence of [url=https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3887234011192023190]Fight your opponent, not the UI[/url], but on the other hand, full dodging would seem to remove a lot of the existing ZK gameplay. Figuring out all the theory in advance sounds a bit abstract, so I'm going to wait until we have something that can be tested for a while in live games. The Impaler PR was meant to be that test case.
|
7 |
Projectile dodging is tricky. On one hand, automatic dodging seems like a consequence of [url=https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/334920/view/3887234011192023190]Fight your opponent, not the UI[/url], but on the other hand, full dodging would seem to remove a lot of the existing ZK gameplay. Figuring out all the theory in advance sounds a bit abstract, so I'm going to wait until we have something that can be tested for a while in live games. The Impaler PR was meant to be that test case.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
My feeling is that the rule change is going to end up looking like a clarification of this kind of statement:
|
9 |
My feeling is that the rule change is going to end up looking like a clarification of this kind of statement:
|
| 10 |
[q]If the widget only "enhances visibility" of information you as a player already have, then it should be fine. [/q]
|
10 |
[q]If the widget only "enhances visibility" of information you as a player already have, then it should be fine. [/q]
|
| 11 |
Basically,
what
exactly
is
the
information
about
projectiles
that
players
already
have?
A
consistent
set
of
design
rules
might
end
up
saying
that
players
don't
actually
have
access
to
the
precise
position
and
velocity
of
the
projectiles
they
can
see.
This
obvious
statement
about
human
limits
is
a
useful
limit
on
the
pre-existing
idea
that
widgets
should
be
able
to
see
everything
that
players
can.
It
seems
to
diffuse
the
inevitability
of
the
following
two
features:
|
11 |
The
key
question
is
this:
what
exactly
is
the
information
about
projectiles
that
players
already
have?
A
consistent
set
of
design
rules
might
end
up
saying
that
players
don't
actually
have
access
to
the
precise
position
and
velocity
of
the
projectiles
they
can
see.
This
obvious
statement
about
human
limits
is
a
useful
limit
on
the
pre-existing
idea
that
widgets
should
be
able
to
see
everything
that
players
can.
It
seems
to
diffuse
the
inevitability
of
the
following
two
features:
|
| 12 |
* AI that pinpoints artillery by extrapolating the simple ballistic trajectory. Eg, a widget that lets Impalers perfectly snipe otherwise unseen Tremors.
|
12 |
* AI that pinpoints artillery by extrapolating the simple ballistic trajectory. Eg, a widget that lets Impalers perfectly snipe otherwise unseen Tremors.
|
| 13 |
* AI that reads all projectile positions and moves units so they that don't take damage.
|
13 |
* AI that reads all projectile positions and moves units so they that don't take damage.
|
| 14 |
We don't even have to accept widgets that merely display this information to players, since it isn't the kind of information that players already have.
|
14 |
We don't even have to accept widgets that merely display this information to players, since it isn't the kind of information that players already have.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
So my idea for acceptable dodge AI is something that hampers its own perfect access to projectiles. It can be thought of as simulating a sort of uncertainty built into the senses of the units in the game. We might even want to simulate reaction times and computational limits. This leaves the feature in a bit of an awkward spot, since the people keen to write dodge AI are motivated by the challenge of making it as good as possible. The less enticing part is making it not break the rest of the game. I'm not keen enough to put in that work myself, and convincing dodge AI proponents that such work is necessary is a whole task in itself. So the idea is in limbo, which I'm fine with.
|
16 |
So my idea for acceptable dodge AI is something that hampers its own perfect access to projectiles. It can be thought of as simulating a sort of uncertainty built into the senses of the units in the game. We might even want to simulate reaction times and computational limits. This leaves the feature in a bit of an awkward spot, since the people keen to write dodge AI are motivated by the challenge of making it as good as possible. The less enticing part is making it not break the rest of the game. I'm not keen enough to put in that work myself, and convincing dodge AI proponents that such work is necessary is a whole task in itself. So the idea is in limbo, which I'm fine with.
|
Is it possible to use eye to predict projectile path