"Reverse Move" command for units

No, thread is based on op's first post. Although interesting article.

Tanks are front line fighters, they should be stronger snd have a small thing like reverse to give them a better chance against fast hit and run bots. Whats the point of giving a tank better range, when it has no way to keep distance on a fastrr unit? You cant give one unit all the the good stats and not the others, thats poor balance

This is not a complicated thing, pathfinding is nothing more than waypoints. Clicking the map puts down two points A (start) and B (finish). While in route from A to B, a reverse command is given simply allowing the unit to move on the same waypoint just flipped A (finish) B (start).

You list that like it's a benefit. Why do we want that?

People don't have a problem understanding it, its very simple.

There are two reasons why this is a bad idea (for PA)
1. It encourages micro. People don't want this to be like star craft, they want it to be more like TA or SupComm.

2. Its bad for balance and removes decisions. Before you had two options. Do you stop your units so that they can keep firing, or do you turn and run but sacrifice a few seconds of firing.

Realism at no cost is a good thing.

Assuming all people want this game to be like supcom is....well....ignorant. TA yes, supcom no.

Which after reading many and many of threads here i have realized that if it didnt exist in supcom, it has no place in pa. Sorry for not jumping on the supcom fan wagon.

Back to the small button issue: if adding one unit command is so micro heavy the devs need to remove "hold fire" and "fire at will" buttons from the game, cause just like my idea its a un needed unit command and adds micro.

Sigh. I didn't say it should be a copy of SupComm. I don't even like SupComm.

I don't know why I am repeating myself. Have a read and debate the points I bring up.

Now the questing is, can you respond to these points rather then getting angry that we shot down your post.

See my edit above: taking decisions away from the player? Are you kidding me?

1. I cant stand starcraft, but one button is not going to derail the macro inthis game.

2. Do i keeping moving forward and lose a bunch of units to kitting and speed?

Do i turn and run, losing ground against a unit i cant outrun.

Or do i use the advantage of my range, throw the tank in reverse to keep those units out of range but in mine.

Explain to me how its ok to use a fast, zero turn, kitting unit to it full potenial, and i cant use my tanks advantage being range to mine?

Im not mad, its just really sad how many good ideas are shot down just because one or two dont like it. Its a suggestion, if you like it great. If not say your piece and move on, dont troll the thread just to shut it down is all im saying.

Oh, so we shouldn't be using elements from SupCom? Man, you better get on Uber to rip out Strat Zoom, Strategic Icons and all the other features that worked well in SupCom then!

Mike

I vote no button. Smarter pathfinding, Yes. If you tell your units to drive in the opposite direction they should be capable of making the decision that reversing is faster. Especially if your units hit an object while trying to turn around.

Really interesting watch.
However my biggest gripe with the video is that it shouldn't be called "Depth of micro". It should be called "Complexity of micro".
Little of what he say describes or explains the depth that could be derived from the micro in Brood War.

Most if not all units are very unreliable in Starcraft unless you perform the correct micro.
Dragoon pathing is god damn awful and if the enemy comes in range of unmicroed Dragoons they wont open up immediately and the enemy might even move out of range before they decide to open up.
If you have a speed upgraded Zergling and order it to chase an enemy drone it will close the distance quickly but once it reaches the Drone it is likely to just stop without attacking the Drone at all.

I do think that Starcraftesque micro is better for e-sports. It makes the games more focused. However that is not the game I want to play.

Personally I don't like this as manoeuvring is given a cost which arguably reduces the options you have. If the the unit turns faster than its' turret then any manoeuvre that makes the unit turn means that the turret is not pointing at the enemy and it won't be able to shoot.
I think that slow turret turnspeed can be an interesting balancing factor but it is also microable as you can cut the time it takes to aim at enemy by making the unit turn against the enemy. Personally I would like to see the introduction of turn rate acceleration both for the unit and the turret. It means you have even more ways to balance turrets although it do complicate the aiming as the turret have to decelerate because otherwise it will pass the target once and then overshoot. With low turret turn rate acceleration and deceleration, the turret turn speed can be unlimited but the unit will still have trouble tracking fast targets.

It is complicated. And it might complicate micro too.

There are several possibilities for reverse on units.
1. If the speed of reverse is the same as forward then units will often drive in reverse to their destination. Is this something that is acceptable? Does it look good? The distance a unit could go in reverse could be arbitrarily restricted but that also makes it more complicated conceptually for the player, for the pathfinder and the programmer.
2. If the speed of reverse is slower and the pathfinder accounts for that then sometimes units will reverse to get to their destination and sometimes not. As a player it can be hard to know this. You might want the unit to turn but the quickest way is to reverse or vice versa. If you have a group of units then some units might reverse to the destination and others might turn risking the units to collide into each other.
3. If it is faster to turn around than decelerating and reversing, units might make turns anyway. I don't think the pathfinder will consider the circle the unit makes as it turns meaning that the unit might drive into nearby obstacles. It would be cool if they did consider the turning radius when pathing but it is much more complex for the pathfinding algorithms.
4. If reverse is just activated by a button then where should the unit drive? Will it drive straight backwards into rocks, buildings or water? What if some units in the group are facing in other directions than the main group? Should they just drive straight backwards anyway or should they adjust their direction to the rest of the group? What if they are supposed to drive away from just one target? What if they are supposed to drive away from many targets?

Anyway I think that PA should support a multitude of locomotion behaviours.
A unit being able to drive in reverse is just one of them.
A hover or gunship unit able to accelerate in any direction without turning is another for example.

lol is it? what's the turret turn rate nerfs for then?

Well, I thought so because I noticed like two people talking about turret tracking which was a topic of that link. I guess the OP wasn't related though.

You haven't provided any justification for that position. There are some areas where it can be helpful, such as tanks having turrets and artillery have range, these are things people understand it helps keep the learning curve lower, but it's not a global truism.

And there's always a cost.

Tanks that move in realistic fashion instead of having bizarrely high turn rates and such is a good thing. There might be some technical concerns wrt pathfinding, but if those are solved then the movement itself will hardly change it will just look better. Realism is usually desirable unless it conflicts with some design goal. You can't expect me to prove this since values and goals are just choices, not mathematical truth.

You shouldn't be so rude and angry if you can't even try to argue your point against all the people who raise concerns with the issues this brings.

Who?

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.