Auto Repair for units and structures

Are we just arguing for arguments sake now?


As for the topic, I agree that normal units shouldn't have access to self regenerative ability's but we do need to find a way for players to perform maintenance of their bases without having to assign a number of engineers to the task who really should be to valuable to waste on repair duty's over their original purpose of base construction.

While I am not sure about my idea of letting a factory manually repair itself, I do however feel like the idea of having engineers be able to repair themselves as they would any other target is a good one, along with the idea that a repair tower might be a good choice.

I feel like this would give engineers the ability to maintain themselves when necessary and bases the same opportunity for the cost of using their repair beams.

Cutting down on base and engineer micro and allowing the player to focus on other matters like the economy and fighting the enemy.

Why would the "orginal" duty of a engineer be base construction? It might as well be repairing. Saying that one task a engineer can peform is more important then another isent true. Why not make buildings that build themselves so that we dont have to "waste" engineers on it and can use them for repairs instead? If you dont want to "waste" engineers repairing, then dont repair and use damaged units.

Repair patrols will be fine as long as they add the option to limit what a engineer will do while patroling (only repair for example).

Well you build engineers to also build, but this doesn't mean that they should be the only way of repairing, and certainly they are not designed for the role of maintaining a base?

Of course not!

I take your case in point of referencing much Wikipedia referencing- of course everyone has an opinion, hence we're here giving poor Neutrino masses of text to skim and roll his eyes at. Poor bloke, he's earning his wage on this one.

Unfortunately I don't have the time (on this occasion!) to quote every last thing I'll reference, so I'll attempt to approach what I can and prod it with a stick. As is my nature. Poke!

I'll never, ever and most certainly haven't in the past expected that, as I handed over money, that I'll be in some kind of bargaining position (short of, as said, forking out unseemly (or at least sums I'm not in possession of) to have Kickstarters or other programmes entitle me to "expect" certain things or grant me a veto over what happens.

Rather, I like to think that as I've invested in it, no matter the amount, I can at least display my opinion (bum references excluded). Especially being as something that, as has occurred, could potentially cause eyebrow twitches if I don't at least dispense my two pence worth on a mechanic that I'd at least like to see implemented properly, if at all.

Yes, yes- Appeal to the people, etc- I know. I'm not saying what I prefer is necessarily the right course of action for everyone, though the debate that's occurred in this thread is enough to highlight that it's a contested subject. Is it right to appease one side and not the other? Compromise? That's Uber's call and not mine. Unfortunately with the differences in gaming styles there's going to be head-butting as everyone plays a different kind of game, to some degree.

Also yes- the mechanic shouldn't be so strong that whole strategies should be based around it, as otherwise something is horribly, terribly wrong. Indeed, specifying the "Maintenence" over "Repair" does make a difference, so I thank you for the clarification there. I know I'd dread to have to base my playstyle around people who take serious liberties with repair mechanics En-masse or otherwise.

Uber have indeed decided to make a niche game- however I think the possible issue could be that as so many have noticed, having team members from TA as well as SupCom has, I'd hazard to guess, meant that we're expecting a certain kind of game. With this, there are expectations on certain mechanics as well- sure it's not exactly the equivalent of having super units, but most who have played both and loved them to bits would still baulk at the ramifications of poorly introduced mass or less specific forms of self-repair. Hence, my poking.

Hmm. Straw man, not something I've heard before- rather Aunt Sally, but I get your point. For some inexplicable reason (I personally blame fatigue after work as my scapegoat) I felt compelled to type words. Not all were correct at the time. I'll hush.

Lastly though- yes, we probably do agree on more than may at first be apparent- I'm not campaigning for a complete lack of the mechanic being introduced, rather I'm highly concerned it be implemented correctly- if it can't, then I sincerely hope it just gets scrapped. That isn't to say that tuning can't be done, but it's just not something that I feel entirely comfortable about seeing introduced. The scope of having, as previously said, battles being changed due to one mechanic, isn't something that I can sit back and watch happen comfortably.

And sure, I know I shouldn't toss money about when there's a risk it won't go the way I like it, that's the whole glory of chance and taking a risk. However, if I'm not the only one who's backed it and feels the same way, then I still don't feel the harm in voicing a concern or opinion on it. Many assumptions were no doubt made- when there's TA and SupCom team members (as said), certain things do, at times, enter the "assumption" category. I'm guilty of having plenty, but I won't, as said, demand anything at all. I'm just another backer, regardless of the amount- even if things don't go my way, it won't stop me playing PA when it's available, everyone grits their teeth with some mechanics or other issues, nothing is perfect.

Actually there's another lastly- yes I know, there's people coming in the thread not reading everything, it's something that happens on many forums- not least due to the page count being over- say, single figures. Low single figures. Roughly 2, perhaps. It irks me to see it happen, but there isn't a forum mechanic that forces new readers to a thread to read through the whole thing. But that's another debate.

Considering that they are the only unit that can maintain a base it seems to be one of the roles they are designed for, wouldent you agree?

Indeed but would it not be good to try a move into a new idea of base maintenance over an older system that might not be as suited to the role as another?

It might be better, it might be worse and we won't know until we test it.

I don´t like this idea much,because after 5 minutes of no fight you damaged unit is starting repairing itself?!
Which unit survive 5 minutes after taking so much damage,if you not going to recall it to your base?!

I would say:

after 15 second of no fight(taking damage) unit repair 1% of his HP per second.

Unit:
500/500HP....Fight!!!
500/386HP....after fight
500/386HP....15 seconds after fight
500/386HP....1% of 500HP=5HP per second
500/386HP....The unit needs 114seconds to full self repair
500/500HP....(114 seconds later) repairing completed

Commander:
50000/50000HP....Fight!!!
50000/36359HP....after fight
50000/36359HP....10 seconds after fight
50000/36359HP....2% of 50000HP=1000HP per second
50000/36359HP....The Commander needs 13,6 seconds to full self repair
50000/50000HP....(13,6 seconds later) repairing completed

P.S:got my mail today

Should I bother citing all the locations where your contributions were neither thorough or articulate?

This being the only time you'd referenced my point about the time delay, via the analogy, I must say that I am rather confused as to how you thought this was already explained. Is "because ayceeem says so" supposed to be a legitimate point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Especially if those folks aren't in the $10k level or aren't working at Uber already.

They shouldn't be, not with all the credentials they have. :roll:

The words assumption and assertion are not synonymous, and I used only one and not the other.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/assumption?s=t
http://thesaurus.com/browse/assertion?s=t&ld=1094

I stated that it's impossible to make any assertions. Since assertions are not the same as an assumption, I didn't then say we can't make any assumptions, so your claim is a straw man, and there isn't any legitimate point to "confront".

All I can say is that when there is evidence that people will complain about anything on the internet, we can't just use the evidence of complaints alone to determine if there actually is an issue.

And to this I'll quote John Mavor's words from yesterday's live feed:

Everyone seems to think, seems to assume...when they hear about a concept that inherently that concept won't be balanced.

Much like other topics, there's a lot of stuff they'd like to do which may or may not pan out as being useful or work the way they'd like it. They aren't willing to outright dismiss some ideas because they'll require time playing the game to tell if they are useful or detrimental.

I'd argue it's a greater source of insult and frustration to say that we shouldn't even add a feature because we don't trust Uber to remove it if it doesn't pan out or can't be balanced. That really says more about what we think about them than even the topic itself.

This is beautiful. Testing may show that the mechanic can't be implemented in a useful way without making it OP. It may show that people just top off all their stuff all the time anyway making it moot. It may show that we don't need as many engineers and folks use the free time to spend scouting and developing their strategies.

We won't know for sure till we can test, and that won't be till we at least get an alpha.

The answer to this question is in whether or not anything of significance can be determined without testing. If all the arguments relied on a level of implementation that hasn't been designed, then the arguments are indeed just for the sake of arguments.

Thing is though that some folks are still rejecting the high-level concept outright regardless of specific implementation, so the discussion was moved to implementations in order to try and justify the concept. That may not have been the correct course of action because nothing conclusive can come from a discussion of specifics at this stage.

How would you suggest discussion with the folks rejecting the concept outright?

Why not?

As multi role units engineers are jacks of all trades, but master of none.

They are the best choice for doing everything, but the worst for doing one and I feel that we need some alternatives in the area of repairing a base.

Which is what engineering towers such as Hives and Kennels would be good for. Maintaining a base would be easy if you could build those and tell them to prioritize repairing over assisting.

Perhaps its it better to think of them as having only one ability - to dispense resources. They dispense at a fixed rate, regardless of what they are doing (building, repairing etc).

Halo shields. They're called Halo shields, man. You don't need half a page to describe frickin' Halo shields. And no. That's a TERRIBLE idea.

The thing about regeneration is that it's a bonus for the winning party. The losing party just lost his units. Not only does the winner get free scrap, more map control, and the simple fact his units aren't dead, and now you want to add free healing to the mix? What the heck. Players don't need any help with snowballing their opponent.

Btw, percentage repair per second is a very stupid idea. A nuke silo or experimental should take longer to repair than a t1 bot.

Indeed, but as long as you understand my position I will be happy enough, even if you don't agree.

My original reference to your time delay proposal was this:

At which point, you went on a tangent about assertions.

I guess I have to rephrase myself then:

"chronoblip, don't give me that coy sophistry of "We know nothing about the game so it's impossible to make assertions!". It's clear that this project is based on the building blocks of all the RTS games that came before it. Just like how all new ideas in human history are built on older ideas or have a point of reference. Anyone with a healthy RTS library behind them can make pretty safe assertions on how the next one will be like; Uber Entertainment are not reinventing the wheel here; Planetary Annihilation is just another iteration of the kind of game we all already know; except the maps are spheres and you get to hurl asteroids at each other! It's also clear that those in proposal of this thread's idea are coming from a background of playing other RTS games and are thinking about it in the context of existing games. To state that this project is nothing like anything else and so is 'impossible' to know anything about is dishonest and you know it."

Now read that paragrath again like it's new. There. Happy?

This is an RTS game. One with the most familiar formula to everyone with a passing interest in them, no less(you build bases, train units, harvest resources, send units against the enemy). Auto-repairing doesn't need testing in Planetary Annihilation because there already exists a litany of RTS titles to reference. All the titles that tried to be 'new school' eventually died out; no one is respecting them. This isn't a new concept and you're not making a revelation. So you don't get to use the accusation that a bunch of meanies on the internet are being hasty to reject things.

$2,229,344 in approximate pledges disagrees with you.

Wait...you're agreeing with his assessment that it's people assuming? I thought it was wrong to use that word. Either it is assume, or it isn't.

So which is it?

I had a further thought on this statement since my last post, and realise that this isn't even true. "Active engagement with the development team on an ongoing basis." is a vague statement, and isn't automatically synonymous with "final word". In fact, another statement from a developer on this forum was this:

(Refute this statement now, developers.) You've been posting this lie already in one other thread I know about. Stop posting lies.

When all you're doing is cherry picking the insults and nothing else, your point of view is always going to look rosy.

I'm coming into this topic very late after many pages here. I tried to skim through and read responses that weren't just arguing.

My thoughts are that the auto repair for structures isn't necessarily a bad idea to reduce some micromanagement as the OP intended (not for units however). It shouldn't replace engineers or dedicated repair structures necessarily, but just enable the structures to do light repairs so that if they didn't take much damage or don't sustain an attack often enough to be destroyed they will eventually repair to full, thus reducing the load on and need to create many elaborate repair patrols. That AA gun out in an out of the way area helping to protect your flank from air units won't need an engineer to come out and repair it when a plane crashes on it from time to time.

I saw one person mention early on that they though it should cost energy and maybe even mass. However my thought on this was the cost should be that the structure itself would operate at a reduced capacity when auto repairing. Factory builds a little slower, power plant has slightly reduced power output, turret fires slower. Basically the structure is diverting some of its units and energy to repairing itself and that is reflected by its reduced function. This gives you incentive to still have some basic repair patrols in key areas to help accelerate recovery from attacks. We should also have the option to turn off auto repair if we want, for example if our energy needs are really tight at the moment so we can't have that power plant or two operating at reduced capacity.

[edit]
I forgot to address the people who say this type of mechanic rewards lazy poor players. But the reality is it rewards everyone equally. What we need to focus on is how it effects gameplay on both the strategy & tactics fronts and to some extent I would like to see the game more weighted toward strategy decisions and less on custom tactical battlefield management. For example I would rather the game AI could be configured to where artillery units attempted to stay at range themselves, perhaps by designating a fall back point. That kind of thing is a strategy decision made before the engagement. Instead of the SC & FA method of having to baby sit those units to use them effectively. I'm trying to manage an economy, plan a war, and play architect. I don't want to friggin have to individually drive the artillery units too. And don't tell me that kind of thing would take the fun or tactics out. You could still have fast units circle around and harrass the retreat or stealth units waiting in ambush, etc to delay them until your main force can catch up if they break through the front lines. Those are good tactical decisions. Not your ability to micromanage poor AI better than your opponent. I guess my point is we can't do absolutely everything. The game has to relieve us of enough that we can focus on real strategy and tactics.

I greatly appreciate the mentioning of the beautiful things. This is nice and polite, I dip my cap to you, sir.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm through with this thread. I can faithfully retire from here (though I can always come out of retirement, eh?) knowing I've poked the good poke. I'm not a huge hobbyist in the realm of verbal (written?) sparring- especially when having Wikipedia rolled over me in almost comic style. That caused sad face, as my brain hurts at late hours when reading long words- fatigue makes my brain go squishy squish, rendering coherent thought and written words to jumble into pretty, kaleidoscopic migraines.

Anyhow, I digress.

My final say on this is thus- I'm happy to see this implemented. However. (I can hear chronoblip's eyebrow twitching. This is amusing).

I'm sincerely hoping that this is thoroughly tested when it comes to Alpha/Beta. I know, Uber are big and ugly (in a good way!) enough to know if it looks like it's working or not. But I'm allowed to quiver at the nightmares that could potentially be had.

.....And thus, I prostrate myself upon the mercy of the gaming gods to gift Uber's PA developers with a divine vision- the best solution that causes rays of light fall upon the finished product, wielded like Conan the Barbarian's mighty sword- held aloft from the roof of their lair/headquarters/uber-cave as doves flutter from random windows and choirs sing in harmony.

This is, of course, assuming said Dev's don't just think it's a really trippy dream, forget about it and inadvertently bring about the apocalypse. (Hey, it is 2012, remember. The Mayan's could've seen this coming! :shock: ).

I'll still be checking this thread though to see how the argument/debate is going on, though. No, I'm not quitting. That implies the possibility of not returning to once again poke at things. And oh, there will always poking. Always. The poking. Oh yes. (Why do I imagine that being said in Brackman's voice? Added creepy much?).

The Mayans were damn good astronomers. They foresaw the next time that earth would cross the galactic plane, which is basically the galactic equivalent of an hour. So be sure to set your watches for the next one!

Your assertion was that there aren't other activities involved in playing the game which could legitimately take the attention of the player, and so if a player does not want to maintain their base it's because they are lazy as opposed to being distracted or busy doing other things.

We don't know if people are going to be overwhelmed by the amount of information they'll need to keep track of, or if they'll be bored because there isn't enough and there's too much taken out of the hands of the player. To make a conclusive statement about that we'd at least need to see the UI solutions they have for allowing the player to maintain situational awareness. Until then, arguing that a player is lazy if they don't do something is just trolling.

This I already stated in what you called a tangent. I was very much addressing your point directly by stating that the support for your argument was not appropriate, so your conclusions using that support were also not appropriate.

Let's go even further and add that on top of that you were asserting that the auto-repair was free. Since this is a mechanic that hasn't actually been tested or implemented, and we don't have any confirmation from Uber as to that level the specifics of how they want to implement, the logic behind that sentence was indeed fallacious, because you were asserting something as true which hasn't been defined yet.

Looking at my post I specifically stated:

Only a buttbonnet would make assertions about things which are impossible to make assertions about.

You still claim I said something I didn't, so I am not sure why I should then take your "appeal to tradition" seriously.

This is a publishing method. One with the most familiar formula to everyone with a passing interest in them, no less(present an idea, get funding, make the game). Crowd-funding doesn't need testing in producing video games because there already exists a litany of publishers to fund you. All the developers that tried to be 'new school' eventually died out; no one is respecting them. This isn't a new concept and you're not making a revelation. So you don't get to use the accusation that a bunch of meanies in the board room are being hasty to reject things.

Interesting, just change a few words and your own logic argues against the idea for using a brand new method for funding games. What it might mean is that those pledges support the idea of doing something new, despite the fact that we don't know if it's going to work.

To quote Bob Berry from the trailer video:

"We don't know if we are making it yet...it's up to the fans."

If the folks at Uber were using the same mindset as you, they may not have ended up making the game at all, because they wouldn't have tried something that may or may not work. Some kickstarter projects have failed and fallen to the wayside. Some are successful. There are no guarantees.

To then assert that people just want more of the same that they're already getting? That's a complete contradiction to what Bob then goes on to say (in response to making an RTS game):

"Are you ******* crazy? RTS game? Who's going to publish that? Who's going to fund that?"

If people wanted more of what we already have, then there wouldn't be a problem selling the idea to a publisher, because the publisher doesn't want to take risks on anything new. That's why we see re-hashes of many of the same games year after year and people complain about nobody trying anything new, because re-using existing ideas is safe and nobody has to take any risks.

So no, those votes don't disagree with me at all, because from the get-go Uber has been taking risks and asked us to take a risk on them. Part of that is trying out ideas which may or may not work, but at least if they don't work they can explain why in detail instead of just "well we didn't try that".

Both, because he and I aren't talking about the same thing. I've drawn a rough flowchart to show what I mean:



You see, his problem is that people immediately assume it's imbalanced. My problem is the specific conclusion, or assertion, you are making in response to having already made that assumption and continued on in the flowchart. They're not the same thing, so there isn't a contradiction.

Are you calling out neutrino?

What exactly do you think I am lying about? That the level to which the developers find information in the forums useful is directly tied to both the presentation and content of that information?

Perhaps you shouldn't claim that your own arguments have been thorough and articulate without caveats for the times when you've been insulting. You set up the bar, all I did was walk you into it.

I completely agree with this, and I think this is a completely fair and sensible expression of your concern to Uber. Take care while you're gone!

Would there ever be a condition where someone has built "too many" of those towers and are able to offset too much incoming damage, or would that be a viable defensive strategy?