View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002681 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Unit Abilities And Behaviors | Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | Jan 28, 2011 6:10 pm | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Severity | trivial | ||||
| Status | closed | Resolution | not fixable | ||
| Product Version | 5.000 | ||||
| Summary | 0002681: Make auto-targetting prefer ships that are attacking, threatening, or near a command station | ||||
| Description | The AI already does this on their planets. Can our auto targeting selection also do a variant of this? Once case where this should really help out with FF immune ships such as raid starships going for command stations without needing excessive micro. (Some will be needed of course, as ships can still be distracted, but it will help out a bunch) Preferably first priority should be ships attacking the command station, then those that are in firing range of the command station, and then those that are near the command station. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Yes, I'm still tossing around ideas about how to make dealing with raid starships less painful, without ruining their usefulness. |
|
|
There is no way that is even possible. It would be ridiculous on the CPU, and would cause innumerable other bugs. |
|
|
Aw. Oh well, it was worth a shot. |
|
|
Would simplifying the request to only prefer ships that are actually actively firing upon a command station make this feasible, or will even that be too CPU intensive? |
|
|
Generally anything to "change autotargeting to... only when.." is a pretty much automatic no-go area. |
|
|
It just seems weird to me that preferred target logic is feasible for auto-targeting, but the simplified request isn't. Then again, preferred target logic does rely less on current state than finding those that are attacking a command station. |
|
|
Preferred target has nothing to do with current state. Ships never change their type. |
|
|
Well, none is less than some. I guess that is why it is tenable. Thanks for the feedback. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009792 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0009793 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => closed |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => not fixable |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:54 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0009792 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:55 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009794 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:56 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009796 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 5:57 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0009797 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 6:03 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009799 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 6:04 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0009799 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 6:08 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0009801 | |
| Jan 28, 2011 6:10 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0009803 |
