Micro AI scripting/modding

I don't understand, why everyone is so sure that the micro AI script will win a battle for him?
It won't make any decisions for you, it won't turn your units into superheroes, it will do the only one thing: make giving the orders easier.

We already have a "patrol" option in RTSs, but I don't like how it works. I don't want a plane to fly back in forth in a strait line, I want it to roam randomly over the given area.
We already have a "hold position" option, but I don't like how it works. I want to select a squad and tell it "defend this area, expect the enemy from that direction", with the squad positioning itself accordingly and behaving rationally.

So how exactly the ability to issue such orders will make me superior to others?
There is no way it'll become a "competition between scripters". Programmers are not magicians, and scripts are not spells, they won't win a game for you.

Any type of modification that isn't built into the game should not be used. Period.

(This would be reffering to a ranked match)

So using Gaz's UI mod in FA:Forever ranked games would be considered 'bad' in your opinion?

The anti-mod hysteria here is unwarranted.

I would be interested to know what you would change, how you want it changed, and why the options in TA weren't enough.

I can't remember the exact terms in TA, but you had a toggle for every unit for both movement and firing.

Movement
- Hold Position (no movement)
- Defend (would chase units for a bit but then back up to the defend point)
- Roam (would continue chasing a unit until it is killed or lost)

Firing
- Hold Fire (would not fire)
- Return Fire (only fire if shot at first)
- Fire at Will (would shoot at anything in range)

I am not sure of the exact intricacies of each of these, but it gave pretty good flexibility. Please correct me if I got any of these wrong.

As for patrolling, from what I gathered when they were talking about AI in a livestream, the ability to patrol/defend/attack a specific area may be a new feature that is being worked on. It will be interesting to see what develops and how it will be implemented.

Finally, the issue that was pointed out earlier about things like switching off buildings a tick before you would lose power are potentially game changers. These sorts of scripts could run in the background and ensure that you never crash your economy without ever having to worry about it. The element that I like about real-time strategy games is having to spread your attention over multiple fronts. What is the point of focusing on defending if a script will already do 90% as well as you could ordering your units manually. Then you ignore the battle completely and just keep macroing.

Being aware of what is occurring on your battlefield and responding to the element of your army/base that currently needs your attention the most keeps things interesting. If your base is monitoring itself and your army is monitoring itself and you don't have to think unless you are ordering your army to attack theirs then you have lost a significant portion of the game. Sure, you have the grand strategy, but then you might as well be playing a turn-based game.

Well hopefully if there are any client side mods that most people like the. Uber could incorporate it into the game, but besides that anything that gives even the slightest advantage that another player doesn't have access too (this does include mods) should not be allowed. I believe in a completely fair playing field.

I'm pretty sure that a script shutting down all your structures means your economy still crashed. After all; those structures have still been paid for and they're not doing anything.

It just gives you time to fight the problem (what happened to my power output?) instead of first being forced to deal with the symptons (damnit my critical systems went down because my stupid radar is draining all my power)

The problem is most likely something very interesting (a surprise raid, a pitched battle, enemy bombing run) whereas fixing the symptons of a power outage are probably very boring (moving to a base far removed from the action to shut down some buildings)

It's great to spread your attention, but I like to keep as much attention as possible on the interesting parts of the game, and that's usually where my units are closest to my enemies'. So anything that allows me to focus more on that part of the game would be a good part imho.

Then we should forbid hotkeys as well. I don't use hotkeys, somebody else does, he has an advantage over me, it's unfair, let's remove hotkeys. Oh, also my screen is just 1280x1024, while someone else might have 1920x1080, or even a multiple-screen setup. Multiple screens are a paramount of unfairness, we should forbid it, and lock the resolution to 1024x768, that way it'll be fair!

Should I continue?

You keep going right on down that unnecessary slippery slope

Actually, you are making a valid point. One I try to make occasional in discussions about perceived and actual imbalances and their relevance in the global context.
The easiest way to deal with mods and their variances is, that in the server lobby all chosen server side and client side mods are visible and are either loaded automatically or player chosen. That way all have the chance for the same starting situation. (not a new suggestion, I know )

It all depends on the balance of the game, really. In Starcraft, micro-scripts would ruin the game. In something like PA, if it's designed right, all automation will come at the cost of strategic flexibility.

ex: I program my units to target point defenses first. Now I have to wrestle that script into submission if I want to do a commander snipe or take out all of my opponent's mass - sorry, metal extractors.

I set up a script where factories will auto-pause when I run out of energy. Well, thanks, but in this scenario it really might have been more helpful to turn off all of my support structures .

The question is: are these scenarios common enough to balance the huge advantages that automation gives you?

I would like to, if scripts are noticeably good that people actually complain that it gives a winning edge...

...for Uber to add it into the game as an actual unit feature. Build it in.

To do that, scripts have to work in the first place.

That being said, I do like the idea of scripts being allowable/disallowable by pre-game option, and scripts being shareable, and scripts that do amazingly powerful things to be added as game-feature for the unit.

It is up to the player to find use for scripts in a given scenario. If you can turn them off and on easily then there is no loss of strategic flexibility.
You might even be able to incorporate buttons in the UI so that you can turn on the script for some units only.

I think this is actually the most common way to do it. Scripts that give extra buttons with special control options for units.