i can see why you might suspect that but actually i just removed the whole prioritization bit. still targets buildings. the only inconvenient thing i see with it as it is now is that it won't consistently target units inside of buildings. if the enemy infantry unit is on the north side of the building and your selected friendlies are south of the building, it may not be easy to target the infantry inside the building.
youd just need to check if the last closest targeted entity has lower priorty and overwrite regardless of distance. edit: anyway FN, i wonder if you dont turn targeting in something you feared in the other thread. if the function gets that smart, spamming it on the whole map with as much players as possible selected becomes an option (again) - atm you simply cant do that in a sane way, you only get decent results in relatively small areas with only a few players selected. in my perception selection-targeting was only reimplemented as convenient substitution for actually clicking the enemy unit and not to force comms into a target-monkey roll again ... ... if you really want that you could aswell scrap a-box drawing as a whole and simply make a target button with cooldown that gives targets to everyone (or automatically give targets each x seconds as long as you are in comm-mode or whatever) speaking of which, wouldnt it be a decent comm ability? "for all friendlies target the closest enemy each second for 15 seconds" cooldown is 60-120 seconds, available only if radar is built - other forms of comm direct targeting get removed, numbers adapt according to usage in relation to the other awesome comm abilities that some time hopefully make it into the game.
yeah, it would be easy enough to re-implement infantry>bldg priority. going off of what you just wrote though, my implementation would be a decent compromise. for example, when you receive a commander target you'll have a good reason to suspect that it is the closest target to you. you can't see the red boxes that the commander drops, but at least the commander can be more helpful with his warnings. flasche, more and more your design philosophy seems to mimic that of young children's games. i'll have to expand on this in more depth later.
well I am happy with how targets work atm. if your algorithm isnt supposed to be smart then the current implementation is better by a tenfold purely for efficiency - if it turns smart it raises the problem of recreating target monkeys and you could aswell do what i wrote later on. i dont know how this is a kids game approach but well its a kids game anyway so thank you.
nope. in a child's game, the players often roleplay fake weaknesses to make the game fun for the other. in adult games, players try to play better than their opponents in order to win. Whereas children play for fun in and of itself, winning and working together to win is more fun for adults. Empiresmod without a doubt falls into the latter category.
Since when were women incapable of being adults? I'm half Austrian but still not nearly half of the misogynist as you are.
for now lets just say that you incorrectly believe that the same techniques for balancing weapons are required for, let alone capable of defining the commander's abilities.
Are you saying that women can't play with women? Man, your hate for gays is worse than i thought. They are people too!
squad leaders have squad powers. non squad leaders do not. commanders have commander powers and players who are not the commander do not have commander powers. There is a pattern here. The pattern is in a hierarchy of power. squad members < squad leaders < commander The game provides squad members the utmost possible convenience in using their weapons while maintaining weapon balance. The BEHR's counterpart is the NFAR. These weapons are easy to use, and do not have any prohibitions on them save those necessary for making them require a modicrum of skill in order to be terribly formidable instead of merely effective. They are balanced against the power of their counterparts and inferior to the power of their hierarchical superior (squad powers). The hierarchy of power, however, is not linearly tiered. Each element in the hierarchy has a role and is designed to be as effective as possible at carrying out that role. The abilities and powers of each element may be dispersed arbitrarily, yet they are never inhibited arbitrarily for purposes of balance. The squad member can f-w-w targets within their line of sight, spotting them for the team but not assigning a permanent target to them. The squad leader can do one up, and assign a permanent target within their line of sight with a static visual aid to 4 other teammates. The commander can assign targets to any teammate or group of teammates from anywhere on the map to any other location within a radius of a friendly unit, regardless of line of sight. They are the top down, handler of the game for their team. The commander's logistical tools are game defining to say the least. They have the most information of any member of the team, and are therefore best suited to organizing the team (or relaying what targets to prioritize/locations of vulnerabilities to the field commander). This may seem like a jump right now, but here goes: The commander ought to be balanced against the enemy commander, not the enemy team. The primary reason targets were removed was because players were ineffective at the commander role while the person playing as the commander of the enemy team was actually using their powers. This was the first step in making the commander role less significant, moving the game from an FPS/RTS to more of an FPS/rts. Removing targets contained a logic to it and was consistent with the hierarchy. The current implementation that you like so much, however, puts the commander and the squad leader into conflict over their position in the hierarchy. Your ignorance of this conflict is evident in the ability you suggested. The button that would automatically assign targets to each player. This overrides the sphere of squad leader authority/jx and interferes with the team. The commander role needs to be clearly distinguishable from the others in its power and its style, otherwise there is less for empiresmod to distinguish itself from the countless other generic team based fps'es. This is absolutely critical for the mod, now more than ever if it is to survive. We need to preserve that which makes our game unique.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that targets earned the "rts" half of the fps/rts hybrid. However, how do you solve the problem of shitty coms on pubs? A crummy com already ruins a team, so wouldn't this make that problem worse? Isn't that worse for the mod?
by removing the commander role. ask chris1312232515, he has been lobbying for that for years. no but seriously, if the game as it is currently is going to require the commander to assign targets to their infantry, it should be less difficult to target the things that matter. instead of having to draw the box then catch the closest enemy unit before they run outside of it, why not relieve the commander of at least part of the tedium? why not let the comm just draw boxes, instead of narrowly tailoring each box? they may do so if they wish to target certain units, but otherwise a more intelligent prioritization of targets should be implemented.
I think it's a balance between the FPS and RTS part of the game. If you make targeting as wallhack v1.0, I don't think it's too good for the FPS part of the game. Tbh I don't think there's any major issue with the current targeting system, especially if we consider targeting itself isn't a significant part of this game. If the comm wishes to target a certain enemy, they can do it easily now, I think this is good enough already. If they don't want to target a certain enemy, designating a random target tbh won't hurt too much.
