Added overflow algorithm for repair stations#4544
Added overflow algorithm for repair stations#4544Monsterovich wants to merge 1 commit intoWarzone2100:masterfrom
Conversation
|
Secondly, I'm against changing the behavior of retreating for repairs. And thirdly, I don't see a problem in the fact that you need to build repair shops in the right place in the right order for effective play. After improvements from @gantsevdenis |
It literally works in the screenshot.
The behavior that we have now is completely flawed. Because the algorithm searches for the nearest station and doesn't consider its capacity. As a result, there is an unending crowd of units at one station, while other stations remain unutilized. Therefore, people build stations near and parallel to the flow of units. See: #3686 (comment)
This situation is unlikely on low oil because the flow of units is initially small. Also show me this edge case, I think it can also be circumvented if the stations distribute the units correctly. We could add a switch in the UI that would disable overflow checking for individual stations.
On the contrary, retreating to base in extreme cases preserves the army, because there are cases when one station cannot handle so many repairs, and the army crowds around this one station without being able to move and is often killed by the enemy as a result.
To reiterate, the only approach people use is to build repair stations nearby and preferably parallel to the flow. Other options will lead to crowding issues and manual distribution between stations. |
|
Why is this option for building repair shops bad? At low, experienced players will not build 5 repair shops in one place, usually 1-2. I do not want hidden mechanics to decide for me how to save my units. If a repair shop is overloaded, an army accumulates next to it. This is normal. I will see it and take action. But the situation that suddenly units, instead of waiting for their turn for repair, go to the other side of the map does not suit me at all. |
|
If this behavior is good, then I can't imagine what bad behavior must look like. |
When there is a large flow of units, I build five stations side by side, and everyone does the same. For obvious reasons. Everything else works worse, you have to manually redirect units to free stations or to the base, etc.
This sucks and it's not normal. I have already explained why. Stations cannot be built far apart from each other and be as effective as five stations built close together. |
This is a hypothetical situation. In real games, people either build more stations, or build them closer to the base, or we can make an overflow switch, as I've suggested. BTW, without this patch, you will get a crowd of units at that one station. Both cases are bad because there is simply not enough repair capacity. No one would do that in a real game. |
Yes, this is a bad situation that your patch makes terrible. |
You're either a troll or you don't know how to play. Why are you making up unrealistic situations? You know perfectly well that all players build repair stations at or near their bases, also for obvious reasons. We can make an overflow switch for repair stations. It would even work for your hypothetical cases (that you have invented yourself). |
|
I still want to see a detailed answer with an example of when your patch makes the game more enjoyable.
After Denis' patches, units retreat to a random repair shop located in the group. |
That's how it works now. 
Okay, I might not build them like that in a real game. Let's spread them out across the base. The units will still go strictly to one nearest facility regardless of how crowded it is. I can even take a regular low oil map with a similar structure, except that the unit flow isn't as high there. 
You will have to use the mouse to move units to other facilities because the algorithm doesn't care about crowding. Guess how people make their repair facilities? 
+2 behind those three as a fallback (I do that sometimes too, but it's risky because it can create crowding. My patch would help with this.) 
10 out of 10 players did this because of the weird distribution algorithm (well, one player didn't build repair facilities, but used cyborgs at the base). I picked the last demo I played. |
|
skill issues must not be handled with changing of the entire game. I would suggest you to improve yourself at the game first, because right now your suggestion is based on your personal experience or expierence of players of same level and it looks like "i want a button to win me the game". People place their repair facilities this way because it is right way, like using anti-personnel weapon to kill cyborgs. It's obviously that if you do some things wrong they don't work out and you lose, but it is your personal problem, not a proper reason to change the game. Imo this PR must go thru approval process because it affects mp balance and i'm sure many of players will not be pleased to know that their units gonna go to command center instead of waiting near repair facilities. |
Following this logic, we should remove automatic retreat for repair. This is for noobs with skill issues. Players should manually select units with low HP and click "retreat". /sarcasm Remember the patch that improved transporters? That's not necessary either; people should click on each transporter. /sarcasm
Because now it's the best option, which has the fewest problems due to the algorithm.
It doesn't affect the balance in any way. Retreat is an automated part of the interface, the same as assigning groups to units in factories — there is no difference. This won't change how people built stations before; on the contrary, it will open up other possibilities that are currently unavailable due to an imperfect distribution algorithm. |
Atm units don't retreat in base if there is no free repair facility, so PR definitely affects unit behaviour and the balance as the result.
five facilities together work better because 2+ facilities can repair one unit pure math.
Preservation of damaged army will not help you, no difference between losing this units near repair facilities or in base.
people build repairs near bases if they are planning to sit on base. Usually in other situations people build repairs near frontline, leaving some space to retreat. Again, pls don't judge the game by your personal experience which you are lacking. |
|
How about adding a distance check, so the unit will not overflow to the next repair facility if it is too far away |
I have already explained that the problem of crowds at stations is much worse than all other cases. We can make a switch between different behaviors. But this does not affect the balance in any way. In theory, I can even make this patch behave in such a way that it will only work on client-side.
It doesn't matter whether they repair one unit or a few individually; that's not the point at all.
Well, that's ridiculous. In any RTS, saving every unit is important. |
It can be done. But how many tiles should this distance be? |
Units are already being redistributed to nearby repair shops. Watch my second video or gifs from Denis' patch. |
At that point, we might as well just slightly increase There are several issues with the approach in this PR:
|
Hm. This value needs to be increased to ~24-32 tiles to cover the case on my screenshot. Oh, and it has its own drawbacks too, because units will be randomly distributed and therefore may be distributed inefficiently. In my patch, they go to the nearest station if it is not crowded. We can make the overflow function optional for each repair station (switch button or such). |
|
As someone who actually plays low-oil vanilla map games this is a welcome change, Especially if it applies to repair units and not just repair facilities. The "potentially undesirable behavior" that people are worrying about basically already happens with the current algorithm in such games, Except it's worse because it just happens due to map layout and unit positioning instead of from units maximizing repair station usage. The idea that you're "supposed" to build repair facilities "-in the right place in the right order for effective play" is an NTWbrain argument not something backed up by a gameplay system that distinguishes good strategy versus bad strategy, Rather it is an adaptation to an unseen, unintuitive, and therefor frustrating algorithm. It also doesn't explain how this change would enable effective usage of facilities facilities that are not "-in the right place in the right order" or how players who use the current "right" place/order will actually be worse off. |
|
Could the distance a droid is willing to travel for repair be based on their speed? So faster droids will be willing to travel longer distances. There could be buttons on repair stations/droids to set what damage level they prefer (red, yellow, or any). This way player can set stations nearest to front line as red, and stations further back as yellow, or vice versa. This way the player gets some control over how it works, you can sort of pull different damage levels to different areas. Also buttons on HQ/CC that toggles whether it's allowed destination for broken droids and if so what damage level. I might want red bar droids to go back to base but not yellow, resulting in yellow staying in the fight until either a repair station has capacity or they reach red bar and go running back to base. Also, instead of droids heading directly for a given repair station, have them head to a nearby spot so there's some room for droids to move around. Or have a red map triangle that acts as a waiting area for the station, and after they get repaired they head to the green triangle. While at the waiting area, if another station nearby gets capacity they can go there instead of the one they're waiting at. And maybe stations could prioritize fastest to heal first in order to clear the backlog quicker and free up space for more needy droids. |
7 participants
The rebased version of #3686