Unit skirmish button!

Yeah, I don't need to prove your idea wrong, you need to prove it right.

And mods are mods, they can and will do whatever they want, not that I would say that people having mods is wrong, and assuming so is just funny to do.

And betting, really? Uhh.... yeah I play vanilla PA, so? The game isn't even finished so why would it even matter to your point?

And uhh, yeah people will obviously mod this in, and good for them, that's what mods are for.

So the point of you post was to what? Declare that I can't stop you? Ok then, go for it, I wasn't stopping you anyway.

Agree in toto. And I think that the way @exterminans put it down, pretty much kills the discussion.

I go to the beach

He shouldn't. There is no reason why attacking units shouldn't be automated to a similar extent. As soon as that is done, battles are either decided by army size and composition or by superior micro on either side of the battle. This makes heavy micro an option for important battles instead of a necessity for trivial ones. Not paying attention in such an encounter is an option which will work out most of the time but that might backfire if either player intervenes manually. How does that not add to gameplay?

If we have to resort to hyperbole I could as well tell you to go play a shooter or something else mostly focused on pure mechanical skill.

While proper automation certainly would help with that, it is by no means my reason to advocate a feature like this. Even on single planets I'd rather prefer smart unit AI.

I actually think it should be an option for every unit, same as a smarter attack-move command. Depending on the encounter, such a feature could be beneficial or detrimental to either side. Thus players need to make a choice on whether to use it or not and the outcome may be different depending an that very choice. I guess most of the time smarter unit AI will be beneficial to players, making it that more important to correctly gauge situations where it wouldn't be. IMO it's decisions like this which should determine who is the superior player.

And how exactly does the fact such a feature hasn't been implemented yet prove you right? Is every feature that's not in the game yet automatically a bad idea unless someone has definite proof it will be a viable addition to the game?

I personally think that Zero-K is a fun game though that greatly benefits from features such as the topical one. While that is not definite proof this is a good idea to begin with, I can only encourage you to give it a try and judge for yourself if a certain degree of automation is as bad an idea as you make it out to be.

I am perfectly fine with the idea of people modding those features in if they won't make it into vanilla PA. We can only hope the interfaces provided allow for adding smarter unit AI. That won't solve the "problem" for players averse to the idea though unless they get modded PA banned from the competitive scene altogether or simply refuse to face players using such mods.

If there is also to be a smart-attack feature, I concur. Assuming a skirmishing mode to be as far as Uber are willing to go - and I even doubt them to go that far, with Neutrino wanting a macro game yet despising automation - I would want it to be a more localised mechanic.
Have an example: Bots are rumoured to be in a bad state right now. Give those poor guys an innate skirmishing ability and the vision range, speed and weapon arcs to make use of it. Set them to roam and now you can churn out economically viable raiders that do not take all your attention to fulfill their role. Or have them patrol contested areas to have actual skirmishers able to soften up advancing armies without you having to worry about hemorrhaging units for no effect if you do not babysit them.
They would still not be the right tool for a siege or field battle but they would be able to excel at what they are supposed to.

I'm anxious to see how the want to shift the focus more towards macro without adding some more automation. If there really were only a skirmishing mode without adding further smart unit AI, I'd probably prefer some few units filling the particular niche of skirmishers as well.

I just want to see an 'evasion' analog to maneuver / roam.



On the left is in-game roaming behaviour, which is clearly most beneficial to short-range units.
On the right is what people seem to be vehemently against, despite the fact that it doesn't need to have a level of automation any greater than the options we already have.

The irony here is that you've got the entire issue backwards.

With only roam/maneuver as an option: Those T1 tanks or dox need to be microed, or else they will let the infernos hug them. The infernos can automatically try to put themselves in optimal range, the tanks and dox cannot.
What happens without micro from either side: infernos can chew through their intended counters.
What happens with micro from both sides: the tanks or bots can kite the infernos down.

With an added evade/retreat option: If the tanks or dox are given the option to evade, throwing nothing but infernos at them (shockingly) doesn't work. Infernos are now less useful against the units that supposedly counter them, and play more of a damage sponge / anti-building role as intended. They can be balanced around this now too, instead of needing to take their advantage in unmicroed altercations into account.

I don't see why we should have one type of automation that benefits certain unit types, and then dismiss the idea of including the contrasting option that benefits the rest.

The thing is, right now, you are doing the opposite, you select a group of infernos send them forward with an attack move order and forget about them. Your opponent has to micro his tanks not to hug the infernos, u just won a huge advantage cause you can be doing something else and he has to be microing the engagement. Even if you lose you win, and that mechanic is fine by you.

Now if we had the skirmish button you could not do that, you would have to send a mixed group of units, fast ones to counter his fast units, heavy units to punch trough. Your army composition would actually matter. Scouting becomes more important cause if u use the wrong composition of units you will get shredded. You will still be microing, but more in a real commander fashion u would be scouting using formations, Small localized power.

It seems that there is a resistance to change and that is normal, but this kind of automation is not a win all scenarios, but yes if only build a blob of the same units u will probably lose without micro, but if you send a mixed group of units you don't have to micro the attack. And that is not the case right now when the burden of micro is skewed in favor of the attacker

Right! And that's why I put forth an argument with examples, which I still haven't seen addressed beyond thoughtless disregard such as this.

Saying that your ideas work doesn't prove anything, show some proof of what you are saying, otherwise your words fall short.

All you have done is complain that we haven't addressed your idea, when all you are doing is repeating what you have said before as if the idea it's self is worthy of note.

If you forget to command your units, then they deserve to be lost, simple as.

Why don't you suggest an improvement to the current commands, rather then having the unit's command themselves, then you might actually be getting somewhere.

Well, it looks like there is going to be two distinct schools of thought on how to construct Total Conversion type mods for PA. Count me in on the Total War side of things. I will not be playing any mods that require micro on a Starcraft level.

Man you are being very close minded, you are asking for proof that the concept works, and people direct you to games in which that feature is implemented and works like a charm, and then you say but those games aren't PA. So my question is how does someone "prove" this to you?

U keeps using this phrase "let units command themselves". This command doesn't make units completely autonomous, if in your opinion it does, then so does the attack order (already implemented) in which units advance automatically stopping to destroy enemy targets at maximum range before advancing.

Again you are not putting forward any argument other then your personal dislike for automation, and because it would make the "average player" better at countering your current strategies.

On the other side of the court people are giving reasons for why it would be a good addition, mentioning examples, of how it could or would work, drawing comparisons with other games. Telling you why, in their belief, it would fit a large proportion of the player base.

You obviously don't understand the concept of a null hypothesis.
'burden of proof' arguments only work when a claim is being made against a null hypothesis. Prove that X exists, prove that relationship Y holds, these types of arguments are made against a null hypothesis.
In this case, we are arguing that X mechanics are subjectively better than Y mechanics. There are 2 important aspects here: one, we're not arguing against a null hypothesis but against existing mechanics, and two, the whole thing is subjective. There can be no proof.
There is no default position when we're discussing game mechanics, it's a subjective decision between several options. A discussion about options like this is also subjective, so you need to make arguments for why you think Y is better than X, and in what situations.

Basically, this conversation:
a few people playing road hockey
person A: "do you think ice hockey is more fun than road hockey?"
person B: "I think so, because skating is fun."
igncom1: "Saying your ideas work doesn't prove anything, show some proof of what you're saying"

Do you see how silly this sounds?

Yes, because no one has made any arguments against them. I'm saying it's a good idea and providing my thoughts, and few people have provided counter arguments besides "automation is bad" or "but my infernos!", which I've provided counter arguments for.

It's not about forgetting. It's about needing to issue thoughtless commands continuously, which means you can't spend that time doing other things. It isn't hard micro, you only have to back units up slowly, but it takes a considerable chunk of time and it's necessary to do it manually.
I've already told you why I strongly believe that's a bad thing.

I have. That's what I'm doing. Look at that little diagram again; I'm proposing a different engagement option alongside maneuver, roam and hold position. The proposed engagement option would be retreat / evade. Instead of putting enemies in range, it would be to avoid the range of enemies.

I have played zero-k, and all it does it prove my problems with it.

Anything to reduce the APM floor for this game. Anything. I heavily favor this.

I'm saying this as a former Platinum SC2 player when Platinum was the max ranking, then Diamond player when that was the max ranking. What made me quit SC2? The ridiculous APM floor, aka, ridiculous clicky-clicky where I felt if my opponent could click faster than me, I would lose. That's not fun to me.

It's feels wrong to have units be able to automatically move around and engage targets, and is frustrating to have forces move around without a previously made command, often causing them to be baited into situations where they get killed.

That's why we have the patrol command.

I get a command like patrol, but we don't have commands like hold position and roam, TA had them but we do not.

Setting up these modes of AI for unit's would require a complete instalment of all of these features that frankly wouldn't help all that much anyway.

The only unit's that would need to be retreating would be non-combat unit's anyway, and even if you did for some reason want combat unit's to retreat, that should remain a manual command, not something you can go ahead and ignore.

9 times out of 10 this will only end up as a frustrating feature that makes the unit's do things that the player isn't expecting them to do, and frankly isn't worth the hassle.

We have hold position and roam.

Below the energy toggle and above the infinite build queue toggle.

Fair do's then.

Uhhh... bro, you should take a look at the command sidebar sometime.
maneuver is the default behaviour, actually.

Notice how these units are moving around on their own, to put eachother in range?

And I can think of tons of uses for evade / retreat as an option. I'd definitely have it enabled on all my combat fabbers and scouts, and I would probably enable it on my dox as well. Dox get chewed up by tanks anyway, might as well give them a chance against infernos, and help them raid by avoiding bombers. I'd probably enable it on snipers and shellers too.

EDIT:

You may want to turn on 'hold position' when you don't want your units to get baited in this way.

I think these behaviour modes are great, because they let you to make decisions about unit behaviour without micromanaging them constantly, without automating combat completely and without negating micromanagement entirely.

I was on the fence about this option when I started reading this post, but now I'm leaning toward some level of unit automation being a good thing. The problem with this view in the current state of the game, is that it is harder to appreciate it for what it will become, and why it is essential for the long term vision of the game. I'll explain what I mean:

Currently, the game is limited in scope. Planets are fairly small, systems have very few planets, and player participation is capped to 10 players total per game. Add to this the current server and client performance limitations on running stable, playable (no lag), games without crashing, which further limits the scope of games that many people are able to play. Due to these factors and possibly because most current players are still learning and experimenting with general game mechanics (and because of this prefer very short 10-20 minute games), large/long games are very rarely created. Certainly the average game today is not even close to the huge games that were originally envisioned, promised and marketed to us in the kickstarter videos. This forces creation of the kind of game that is more similar to most other RTS games in existence at the moment.

What is important in a traditional RTS is high APM and lots of unit micro management. That kind of thing is fun and seen as necessary for small, faced paced games. However, even in small to medium sized games of PA by today's standards, you run into situations where units are essentially ignored, because a player is off doing something else. There are two reasons for a player ignoring their units....either they aren't very good, or they are good and legitimately putting their attention into other things. Of course, ignoring units tends not to happen to a good player much in a small game, and this is generally perceived as intended and a necessary developed skill by today's standards. And I would agree with this for games of the currently average scope.

Considering where this game mechanic breaks down is a little like considering the importance of Einstein's theory of relativity over Newton's laws of Physics. Newton's laws are perfect for small scale applications, but expand them out to a larger scale, and they no longer work. I personally do not enjoy the feeling of what I see as taking advantage of other players' inability to pay attention to their units. In one case, either that means that I am probably going to crush my opponent (which can be fun, but ultimately not very satisfying), or that means that I'm taking advantage of a good player in some way that ultimately results in a lower quality experience, because it doesn't accurately demonstrate their level of skill.

The following example further demonstrates the latter point I made above: It's a fairly large game (large planets and many of them), with multiple players/teams, and a great player is off focusing on a planet that he is expanding to and there is significant contention for it. Meanwhile a fairly inexperienced player comes along and decimates his base on the main starting planet, because he is unable to coordinate the micromanagement that it takes to both conduct an offensive on the secondary front, while defending his home base properly on the main starting planet. The fact is that no amount of skill will be able to make up for larger scale games becoming impossible to manage. At that point, taking advantage of a player who can't pay attention to his forces is kind of like crushing an opponent that has disconnected from the game. It's just unsportsmanlike in my opinion. Using this example, I think it becomes very hard to argue against the need to automate unit behaviors beyond what is currently in the game. Area commands only go so far in this regard to alleviate this essentially broken game mechanic.

Lastly, I believe that Elodea's SC2 unit automation video is a good example, because it illustrates very clearly the need for balancing your forces and the fact that, even in the current build, units have specialized purposes. That is a good thing and it's by design. For example, Inferno's were never meant to effectively destroy ranged units. Their intended purpose is to quickly destroy fixed/slow/high HP ground units, like buildings/turrets/Commanders, and also to provide some protection for your lighter ranged units against other ground based direct fire units. Unit composition of your armies is still a HUGE factor in PA, as it is and should be in every RTS game. Your forces are always more effective when they are mixed. In this way, ranged/air units were intended to protect Inferno's from being slaughtered, for example. I don't believe that will change with some simple automation of some unit behaviors that will help guard against the meaningless slaughter of your units (and ultimately your base), or even your attacking force, just because they are left unattended. I also believe that it will enhance tactical play at all levels, even for small games, for both the skilled/experienced players, as well as the casual gamers (which are the vast majority).

However, for those that still disagree with me after this very long post, there is an alternative that could serve to satisfy everyone, and that is to make that level of unit automation a configurable option in every game. This option could be represented in the game lobby as a check box, alongside the ones currently there for Dynamic Alliances. After all, this is still a Beta (or Gamma, or whatever they are calling it), right? Many of these behaviors exist for the AI already, and shouldn't be that hard to implement as a player option. So, let's test it out and see what happens? Isn't testing this type of stuff what Beta is for? If it doesn't work, or most people don't like it, then scrap it all together. No harm done. How can you argue with that? That should end the debate.