Intelligent unit / defense

[Link]

And especially singleplayer sucked most due this fact. I could take out high armored bunker with tanks just luring enemy rockets shoting from bunker on to one of my red guard soldiers running around and taking no damage. Now if you want tell me that THIS is fun discussion is over for me.

If we are talking about things that made single-player suck in Generals/ZH, then superweapon spam and the AI being extremely bad at beating defences were far bigger issues than what you described. The former was a freewin button once you had a decent economy and the latter removed all the threat the AI posed once your defences were set up. Combine the two and you have a very dull way to reliably beat the majority of both games.

[stephanovich]

Nah units only auto-attacked enemies within their range. But they never chose the targets themselfes where they could do most damage. Tanks attacked infantry, infantry tried to shot commando, gattlings shot tanks, bunkers shot infantry. That all was sensless. Due to this most players didnt even try to get a well combined army but just spammed one type of unit (like 10 quad cannon - because quad cannons were effective against all kind of enemy)

etc.

You do realize I said C&C3 and not Gens right?

[hellodean]

You do realize I said C&C3 and not Gens right?

yeah i was thinking he'd miss understood aswel, im pretty sure your right with c&c3

[EA_Agm]

Attack the rocket troopers instead of red guards. Attack the commando instead of the red guards. Attack the Aurora Bomber after it throw its bomb instead of raptor.
Theres enough to handle at your own
BUT
If your whole fucking army focus one dumb soldier instead of enemy tanks it really sucks. I dont get the point why you have such a problem with this. It makes unit handling more easy.

This is completely arbitrary though. If the units/defenses are smart enough to differentiate between tanks/infantry, then why shouldn't they also be smart enough to distinguish between high value and low value targets such as raptors vs auroras?

YOU may think it's fine to leave that up to the player, but someone who is worse at playing than you are will say that they find it too hard, and want the game to do it automatically. Moreover, what if the counter system is such that raptors and auroras have totally different armor types? For example King Raptors are as immune to missile fire as infantry are. So if you don't want a bunker full of rocket infantry firing at a red guard instead of tanks, then you also don't want it firing at King Raptors instead of Auroras or Comanches etc. So why not automate that too?

Your desire for semi-automation is completely arbitrary. Meanwhile if we say we want units to be "dumb as rocks", then that's an end point of a spectrum, and not as arbitrary - it's a more natural design that puts control in the hands of the player.

[Golan2781]

This is completely arbitrary though. If the units/defenses are smart enough to differentiate between tanks/infantry, then why shouldn't they also be smart enough to distinguish between high value and low value targets such as raptors vs auroras?

Raptor vs. Aurora isn't a clear decision of weapon type. It can depend on a lot of factors, like viable targets for each and how important they are to you. Picking a priority target here is a matter of making a clever/tactical decision. Picking a priority target from a group of a heavy piece of armor and a regular soldier is a matter of not being a complete retard.

Moreover, what if the counter system is such that raptors and auroras have totally different armor types? For example King Raptors are as immune to missile fire as infantry are. So if you don't want a bunker full of rocket infantry firing at a red guard instead of tanks, then you also don't want it firing at King Raptors instead of Auroras or Comanches etc. So why not automate that too?

Come on, don't go around picking strawmen again. The classifications of tanks, infantry, aircraft etc. were clearly used as stand-ins for vulnerability classes, i.e. armor types. Your Raptor vs. Aurora/Comanche example is exactly what's been proposed.
On a sidenote, many games with jet-aircraft absolutely require auto-priorities precisely because aircraft move so fast you cannot reliably give an attack order. I admit that even my own 1337 skills often weren't enough to handle this in Gen1, either, without half my mobile forces picking up a move command or my static AA not being able to react in time unless the enemy has his jets fly in circles.

Your desire for semi-automation is completely arbitrary. Meanwhile if we say we want units to be "dumb as rocks", then that's an end point of a spectrum, and not as arbitrary - it's a more natural design that puts control in the hands of the player.

Thing is, they aren't dumb as rocks, not by a long shot. Units can pick targets freely when idle, they can move to pursue, pick their own path, you can even already order them to be not-quite-as-stupid with guard mode. The proper use of the later, I'm sure you know lots of example when guard mode is a very stupid thing to do, being a nice parallel to how automated behavior doesn't just take all work out of your hands.

[EA_Agm]

Raptor vs. Aurora isn't a clear decision of weapon type. It can depend on a lot of factors, like viable targets for each and how important they are to you. Picking a priority target here is a matter of making a clever/tactical decision. Picking a priority target from a group of a heavy piece of armor and a regular soldier is a matter of not being a complete retard.

My point with the quote below is that it's NOT a clever tactical decision*. It is a fact that a King Raptor is effectively immune to missile fire. Quite literally, missile fire is LESS effective against a King Raptor than an infantry unit, thus picking any target instead of a King Raptor is ALSO a matter of not being a complete retard. So again, why not automate that on the same grounds? I fail to see the distinction between rockets from a bunker automatically attacking an infantry unit instead of a tank, and rockets automatically attacking a King Raptor instead of an Aurora. Both infantry and KRs are immune to rocket fire, and the fact that an Aurora and a KR are in the same unit class doesn't necessarily mean that they're any different between an infantry and a tank, in terms of the behavior being discussed here.

*What makes this mechanic clever is how you can exploit the unintelligent behavior of uncontrolled units/defenses to improve the effectiveness of your attacks. The attacking player is thusly rewarded for paying attention to his attack, while the defender does not pay attention to his defense. It's quite simply not fair that the defender's defense is as effective as the attacker's attack if the defender is being lazy and wants the defense to be as effective as if he were controlling it himself.

Same goes for the thread i started once about airplanes. Airplanes shouldnt shot 8 missiles at once. They should shot 2 or 4 or 8 missles - players choice. its really dumb if airplanes shot 8 missiles on a simple solider ( 1 shot enough ) if there are lots of solidiers they could take out.

This is ridiculous, now you want to automate overkill control too? Overkill is when you deliver too much firepower on a target. It's a WASTE of a raptor attack to kill an infantry unit instead of something like a tank or building. That's the point of it - so that you have to choose which targets are most appropriate for the attack type of that aircraft. Besides, if a KR could kill 6 different infantry easily, it would make it RIDICULOUSLY overpowered.

Further, you can already tell a KR to fire only one missile at a time with good control, but it's very hard. An excellent skill differentiator.

I admit that even my own 1337 skills often weren't enough to handle this in Gen1, either, without half my mobile forces picking up a move command or my static AA not being able to react in time unless the enemy has his jets fly in circles.

No offense meant, but I could quite easily, and regularly, laser lock multiple incoming migs in CCG/ZH. It was actually very easy :P

[Golan2781]

My point with the quote below is that it's NOT a clever tactical decision*. It is a fact that a King Raptor is effectively immune to missile fire. Quite literally, missile fire is LESS effective against a King Raptor than an infantry unit, thus picking any target instead of a King Raptor is ALSO a matter of not being a complete retard. So again, why not automate that on the same grounds? I fail to see the distinction between rockets automatically attack an infantry unit instead of a tank, and rockets automatically attacking a King Raptor instead of an Aurora. Both infantry and KRs are immune to rocket fire.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd read my entire post, specifically the second paragraph, which addressed this issue. The first paragraph you are quoting did naturally not address this issue because the quote it was directed at did very specifically not even mention this issue at all, not even King Raptors.

What makes this mechanic clever is how you can exploit the unintelligent behavior of uncontrolled units/defenses to improve the effectiveness of your attacks. The attacking player is thusly rewarded for paying attention to his attack, while the defender does not pay attention to his defense. It's quite simply not fair that the defender's defense is as effective as the attacker's attack if the defender is being lazy and wants the defense to be as effective as if he were controlling it himself.

Right, thanks for using the word "exploit". It's not a bug, it's a feature, I know (no sarcasm there, really). Thing is, it's a stupid and frustrating feature, like the free and infinite flying decoys from US supply drop zones.
The situation isn't meant to be fair, an AA defense is meant to defend against air, not take potshots at tank target dummies. You can still send decoys against it, like first sending in a group of raptors at a low-priority target and having the second group follow close behind but striking a high-priority target. It's quite simply not fair that the attacker's attack is as effective as the defender's defense if the attacker is lazy and doesn't even bother sending a proper decoy.

No offense meant, but I could quite easily, and regularly, laser lock multiple incoming migs in CCG/ZH. It was actually very easy :P

I applaud your skill, then. If the enemy used his jets properly to strike quickly, I really could not do this reliably or with my soldiers wandering off because I had to give it too early to be safe.

[EA_Agm]

I'd really appreciate it if you'd read my entire post, specifically the second paragraph, which addressed this issue. The first paragraph you are quoting did naturally not address this issue because the quote it was directed at did very specifically not even mention this issue at all, not even King Raptors.

Ok, I'm confused. Here is the quote that my Aurora vs Raptor example was directed at:

Yeah of course you have to do things better than your enemy.

Attack the rocket troopers instead of red guards. Attack the commando instead of the red guards. Attack the Aurora Bomber after it throw its bomb instead of raptor.
Theres enough to handle at your own

He saying that the player will still need to make a decision to attack an Aurora over a Raptor. In this example, he is implying that even if a defense automatically targets a certain class of units, that the player still has the opportunity to determine which unit within that class should be manually prioritized. My point is just because two units share the same class, doesn't mean they can't be as different from one another as two units in different classes. My use of the King Raptor is an illustration of this point. Distracting a rocket-based defense with a King Raptor is as "annoying" as distracting a rocket defense with an infantry unit.

Thus my point is that if Nervmich has a problem with defenses picking the wrong targets, he should also have a problem with rocket defense picking a Raptor over an Aurora. He is contradicting himself if he feels that rockets should not attack infantry instead of tanks, but that it's ok for them to attack Raptors (in this case, King Raptors) instead of Auroras. Why is one ok, but the other is not?

Right, thanks for using the word "exploit". It's not a bug, it's a feature, I know (no sarcasm there, really). Thing is, it's a stupid and frustrating feature, like the free and infinite flying decoys from US supply drop zones. The situation isn't meant to be fair, an AA defense is meant to defend, not take potshots at decoys. You can still send decoys against him, like first sending in a group of raptors at a low-priority target and having the second group follow close behind but striking a high-priority target.

I used the word exploit in the context of its meaning in the English language, not in the context of a bug or feature. The same context as "Exploiting a weakness in the enemy's strategy", so I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

But I'm not sure you understand how game design works. A principle of game design is that players are rewarded for input and control. In the context of a competitive PvP match, it means that players with BETTER input and control should be rewarded for it. That's how good game design works - you reward players who play the game better than players who do not.

So in the case of defenses, defenses should be LESS EFFECTIVE if they are not being controlled by the player, just like units should be LESS EFFECTIVE if they are not being controlled by the player. If you automate them, you are diminishing the difference between control, and lack of control, which is bad game design.

[Golan2781]

Ok, I'm confused. Here is the quote that my Aurora vs Raptor example was directed at. (...)

I did read this and did address it in the second paragraph of Post#15. I'd appreciate if you'd address the relevant parts of my posts instead of entirely unrelated ones.
You are using a different type of class as he is. For him, the classes are very clearly in terms of vulnerability, for you they are in terms of movement here. Note that he is NOT talking about the King Raptor, which is an anomaly in the jet-aircraft class in that it does not share the common vulnerabilities, therefore making the differentiation very important here.

I used the word exploit in the context of its meaning in the English language, not in the context of a bug or feature. The same context as "Exploiting a weakness in the enemy's strategy", so I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

In the English language, exploting has the same meaning in the context of bugs and features. The problem is, the situation isn't exploiting a lack of strategy or tactics but a flaw in unit behavior.

But I'm not sure you understand how game design works.

This is yet another time that you direct such a statement at me without any basis or relevance; I do consider this as an insult. If you do it again, I will put you on my ignore list indefinitely.

A principle of game design is that players are rewarded for input and control. In the context of a competitive PvP match, it means that players with BETTER input and control should be rewarded for it. That's how good game design works - you reward players who play the game better than players who do not.

A principle but not the only one. There are tons of senseless ways to increase control pressure, we've actually discussed a few of them in the StratZoom thread if you remember.
It is also very important for game design not to add needlessly complicated or difficult elements as doing so has a high risk of frustrating players. Such elements would quickly be considered Fake Difficulty (the specific issue is a case of Artificial Stupidity) which should be avoided wherever possible as it will greatly reduce the playerbase. There is no use having perfect PVP if only five people are willing to play it.

So in the case of defenses, defenses should be LESS EFFECTIVE if they are not being controlled by the player, just like units should be LESS EFFECTIVE if they are not being controlled by the player. If you automate them, you are diminishing the difference between control, and lack of control, which is bad game design.

Thing is, they still are. I've given an example of this and you've actually quoted it.

[EA_Agm]

This is yet another time that you direct such a statement at me without any basis or relevance; I do consider this as an insult. If you do it again, I will put you on my ignore list indefinitely

And I'll put you on my ignore list if you want to argue with me over semantics. I guess I should have used the phrase "take advantage of" instead of "exploit". I guess I'll use exploit in another context "I wanted to exploit the time I had available to me"... In otherwords "take advantage of". I hate arguing semantics with people. It's such a god damn waste of time...

which should be avoided wherever possible which should be avoided wherever possible as it will greatly reduce the playerbase

In your opinion..... in my opinion, lack of depth and skill differentiators reduces the player base too. StarCraft and StarCraft 2 have LOADS of fake difficulty, yet are the most actively played RTS games in existence. So why has their artificial stupidity and fake difficulty not resulted in diminished player bases? Perhaps because artificial stupidity and fake difficulty does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim? Unless you can point to another RTS game that has been more successful than SC/SC2 which is "dumbed down" so speak, then you actually no evidence to back up your claim.

There is no use having perfect PVP if only five people are willing to play it.

Exactly. Nobody is willing to keep playing an easy/shallow game And besides, there's no point in PvP if there isn't a variety in skill differentiators. Having a better build order or strategy is only a small (and very easy) fraction of what creates the skill spectrum in CCG/ZH and other RTS games. Dexterity, unit control, "taking advantage of" weaknesses in the AI etc, playing faster, are all HEALTHY dimensions of skill.