View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002130 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Interface Ideas - Unit Selection, Management, and Orders | Dec 23, 2010 9:13 pm | Jan 4, 2011 9:06 pm | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | not fixable | ||
| Product Version | 4.054 | ||||
| Summary | 0002130: Preemptable auto-attack orders | ||||
| Description | It seems that if something that is lower priority is auto targeted, and then something else of a higher priority comes along, ships will continue to fire at the lower priority object until it is dead. This is not just a theoretical concern, Astro Turret Trains used cause this problem, and a lot of tougher units (such as special forces rally gaurdians) are not auto-attackable for this very reason. As such, if an attack order has been given to a unit _automatically_, it should still try to search for other higher priority targets and switch to them even before the current target is dead. Note, this ONLY applies to targets of separate inherent priorities (like astro turret trains vs. a fleet ship), not to other, non-inherent factors that can alter targeting (such as preferred targets, armor type bonuses, distance, etc). This should make the code to check this a lot less intensive, as you only have to check when a new priority target comes into the system, not all the time. Also, of course, this ONLY applies to attack orders given automatically. A manual attack order should follow through to completion as the user has explicitly told the ship it wants that target dead. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
The CPU costs would be enormous. Making ships more reactive is something we always look into, but it's fraught with challenges and not something that can be discussed very effectively at a theoretical level: it's all about balancing out the various code branches and their throttles, etc. In general the game is designed to minimize these sorts of situations, and it's not something I plan to sink code into anytime soon, we've just gone through a big round of targeting stuff not that long ago. |
|
|
Again, it would only have to check when something new comes into the system, and only consider changing if it is of a higher inherent priority. But yea, even that could get kind of expensive. |
|
|
If you saw the code, you'd know why I was reluctant. It's very good code, quite clean at this stage, but it's absolutely immensely complex. |
|
|
Sorry for bumping a closed topic, but would it be possible to have some sort of "max ships per game turn pacing" for checking whether to re-target on a new ship entering, similar to how there is a "max ships per game turn pacing" for auto-targeting already? |
|
|
Not easily, no. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 23, 2010 9:13 pm | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:13 pm | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:16 pm | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:21 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006987 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:21 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:21 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => not fixable |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:21 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:23 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0006989 | |
| Dec 23, 2010 9:24 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0006990 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
| Jan 4, 2011 9:01 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0007488 | |
| Jan 4, 2011 9:06 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0007493 |
