Reclaim Brush
-
Correct me if I’m wrong, but using attack move with commander to reclaim does not produce the same behavior as with an engineer. Since the ACU is prioritized as a combat unit it doesn’t reclaim things in its path. The only way to have an acu auto reclaim is to use patrol, which doesn’t work very well. So a reclaim brush that specifically issues only reclaim orders would be useful for allowing useful auto reclaim with your commander
-
No one counters the points you made because you didn’t make any of the points, you just decided to summarize them. You gave a sparknotes of 3 threads while coincidentally ignoring all the arguments related to how the entire fulcrum of the “need” for this feature is met by attack move (in terms of something to automate reclaim) and all the dudes saying that it’s different because it’s slower than manual reclaim have no idea what they’re talking about.
What is this feature for? To make the 2000s in LotS have an easier time closing the gap with Tagada? Nexus doesn’t even do manual reclaim that much and often just relies on coherent attack moves.
People below this level arguing about the difference between manual and attack move are delusional, as long as u get the mass and spend it you’re winning the game. Like you list “oh look at all the things people could be doing besides clicking rocks” when the whole POINT is that they should ALREADY be doing that because deciding to improve their skill by increasing their ability to click rocks is like choosing to chisel a rock by punching it. Doesn’t matter what low rated dudes “think” is the reason they are low rated.
To reiterate I don’t care about making reclaim automation more intuitive, as above the example with acus is incoherent with the rest of the interaction attack move has with mobile bp. But anything talking about making it better than attack move in terms of speed is a bad balance decision for the game.
-
I doubt that it makes the life for lower ranked players easier. Having three different reclaim-orders seem a bit overwhelming until it becomes a habit. Most of them just use patrol (referring to my experience as a trainer) and max. click wrecks or huge rocks (150+ mass) but that's about it.
I heavily assume it's going to be a thing for ~1000-1500 ranked players and honestly? The ones who manage to manual click should get the reward of having a slight advantage since they spend the time. e.g. Canis, while one dude micros the units and the other one gets bad trades for that but clicks the rocks, he should get the advantage. For me it's like a decision to either micro or manually reclaim since you have to think about the advantage each options give you at that certain point. Since many maps have manual reclaim and I prefer that over microing units early on, for me it's the decision to build less labs and focus on getting a more optimised starter-BO than most other people, giving me an advantage over time.I do agree that it has a smaller impact than most players think, but for high ranks the small details/advantages matter and shouldn't just get removed. Imo if the brush gets added, engis should autododge labs etc. since that also just consumes APM and if you lost one engi it doesn't hurt/it's only a small advantage if you keep it since you build 300 during the game. For me that's the same argumentation.
-
I clearly made many points. Sourcing some of my points/supporting details from those threads doesn't make my points invalid, nor does it mean that arguing against claims others made in those threads (that I didn't make) is arguing against the points I made...
Regarding, what the feature is for, see several of my previous points and explanations...
Some examples of what I personally would use this feature for myself:
In more competitive games (ie: in tournaments), I'd use the reclaim brush some of the time when I would otherwise do other things. It would replace some of my attack move orders and manual reclaim orders, as well as some of my other time use. However, it would save me time on manual reclaiming that I could then use for other micro'ing, strategic decision-making, looking at what I've scouted, etc. It would also result in my overall reclaiming being better (ie: I'd use it on some groups of t1 wrecks surrounded by trees that I otherwise wouldn't get efficiently because I wouldn't want to spend the APM on manually reclaiming them. So I'd otherwise use an attack move order that would result in me getting the wrecks more slowly because it would get many of the trees before many of the wrecks).
In more casual games, I'd like to use it to be better able to be more chill/relaxed with reclaim clicking without sacrificing as much quality compared to doing more intense high-APM/high-effort manual reclaiming, among other things. For example, in generic 1.3k+ games on canis, if 1 air player tryhards with manually clicking numerous 38 mass rocks early game, and the opposing air player does not, that often makes a significant impact on the game, and whether or not to do that in the 1.5k+ range often comes down to whether a player wants to play in a chill/relaxed/lazy way or a stressed/intense/tryhard way.
Regarding this being a desirable feature for new players, see points 1-6. That outweighs the tiny cost of the very slight increase in complication.
Regarding you wanting players with more time to do things to be rewarded for their high APM, see point 8.
Your argument regarding engis autododging/etc is a slippery slope fallacy. See my OP and point 5.
pfp credit to gieb
-
@penguin_ said in Reclaim Brush:
In more competitive games (ie: in tournaments), I'd use the reclaim brush some of the time when I would otherwise do other things. It would replace some of my attack move orders and manual reclaim orders, as well as some of my other time use. However, it would save me time on manual reclaiming that I could then use for other micro'ing, strategic decision-making, looking at what I've scouted, etc. It would also result in my overall reclaiming being better (ie: I'd use it on some groups of t1 wrecks surrounded by trees that I otherwise wouldn't get efficiently because I wouldn't want to spend the APM on manually reclaiming them. So I'd otherwise use an attack move order that would result in me getting the wrecks more slowly because it would get many of the trees before many of the wrecks).
The issue is that you get it wrong from the get go. In a competitive game the time you spend manually reclaiming (aside from the start) is bassically zero, so you're not freeing up any time for other things. The only impact something like this will have is an increase in general reclaim efficiency, but that is a balance thing and has nothing to do with the reclaim brush.
-
@penguin_ said in Reclaim Brush:
I clearly made many points. Sourcing some of my points/supporting details from those threads doesn't make my points invalid, nor does it mean that arguing against claims others made in those threads (that I didn't make) is arguing against the points I made...
Regarding, what the feature is for, see several of my previous points and explanations...
Some examples of what I personally would use this feature for myself:
In more competitive games (ie: in tournaments), I'd use the reclaim brush some of the time when I would otherwise do other things. It would replace some of my attack move orders and manual reclaim orders, as well as some of my other time use. However, it would save me time on manual reclaiming that I could then use for other micro'ing, strategic decision-making, looking at what I've scouted, etc. It would also result in my overall reclaiming being better (ie: I'd use it on some groups of t1 wrecks surrounded by trees that I otherwise wouldn't get efficiently because I wouldn't want to spend the APM on manually reclaiming them. So I'd otherwise use an attack move order that would result in me getting the wrecks more slowly because it would get many of the trees before many of the wrecks).
In more casual games, I'd like to use it to be better able to be more chill/relaxed with reclaim clicking without sacrificing as much quality compared to doing more intense high-APM/high-effort manual reclaiming, among other things. For example, in generic 1.3k+ games on canis, if 1 air player tryhards with manually clicking numerous 38 mass rocks early game, and the opposing air player does not, that often makes a significant impact on the game, and whether or not to do that in the 1.5k+ range often comes down to whether a player wants to play in a chill/relaxed/lazy way or a stressed/intense/tryhard way.
Regarding this being a desirable feature for new players, see points 1-6. That outweighs the tiny cost of the very slight increase in complication.
Regarding you wanting players with more time to do things to be rewarded for their high APM, see point 8.
Your argument regarding engis autododging/etc is a slippery slope fallacy. See my OP and point 5.
Ngl I have the feeling you simple didn't understand my point, especially "Regarding you wanting players with more time to do things to be rewarded for their high APM, see point 8."
-
Penguin show me one replay where game loss happened due to failure to capitalize on manual reclaim. I’ll even take the canis replays you’re talking about.
-
Lower rated players massively overstate the importance of manual reclaim. Anyone under, say, 1800 ladder can get away with zero manual reclaim outside of clicking 75 mass or more rocks manually on 99% of maps. I’m hit or miss if I feel like doing manual reclaim myself and I have never once felt I lost a game because I didn’t manual reclaim enough. I’ve had several top players give me feedback and not a single one has mentioned manual reclaim other than maybe one or two map specific meta stuff where one of the first engineers gets some reclaim orders while waiting on the next engy to come out since you don’t have anything else to do. And that was for some very high level map specific stuff that won’t win or lose games outside of the top 1% or whatever. Only other exception was doing a bit of manual reclaim with acu on dead land units to fix a stall.
People would be much better suited by pressing alt and right clicking a location with an engineer that at least vaguely makes sense to get reclaim and then using their brainpower and apm to figure out how much power they should be making to spend their mass. That’ll actually help them increase rating, not worrying about which of the 50 methods of reclaim they can use to get a bit more mass .5s faster.
-
Most arguments against seem to be that manual reclaim isn't that important (in terms of helping you win the game). If anything, that's another argument for the change (since it's not going to have much of a balance impact)!
I'd bet most people playing the game find it more fun to do things other than playing 'click rock not tree simulator'. Something that therefore reduces the APM required for manual reclaim (and therefore the need to do this) is likely to increase fun for such people. The change also removes a source of frustration with not being able to properly execute a decision - as mentioned above, if you want your ACU to reclaim an area, there is no suitable option at present. Unlike engineers, you don't have a sub-optimal attack-move order option, and if you do patrol then that can cause various issues/unintended consequences. It is also still sub-optimal to choosing the reclaim targets yourself, just not as sub-optimal as an attack-move order, so people wanting to eke out small advantages that make use of higher apm will still be able to.
So we have a mechanic that isn't fun, can at times be frustrating, and seems generally accepted by proponents of it posting here to not result in a decisive difference between games being won or loss. Other than this mechanic rewarding people with high APM, what's the benefit of banning a reclaim brush type option?
Also, why is it acceptable to automate/reduce apm with features like mex capping and mass fab automation, but not with reclaim?
M27AI and M28AI developer; Devlogs and more general AI development guide:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2373/ai-development-guide-and-m27ai-v71-devlog
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5331/m28ai-devlog-v150 -
The benefit is that it can matter at higher levels and it's an additional skill hurdle to overcome. It's the high rated players that tend to be in favor of keeping it, it's the low rated players that think it's some big deal gameplay nuance that they need to rehearse in sandbox to be good. I also think most of the arguments about attack move, manual reclaim, and this new brush being useful as a trifecta are BS and one will become a noobtrap. I see zero reason to make a new attack move that carries the efficiency of manual reclaim beyond soothing the hearts of dudes that have 0 clue why they actually lose games. Any argument about modernizing the game is already held by attack move or some sort of replacement of attack move with some other function that can then be more intuitive but keep the baseline notion of being less efficient.
I'd also say most of your arguments there apply just as equally to removing manual reclaim in general rather than adding a reclaim brush.
-
My impression from reading this is that it has zilch to do with winning/losing games and everything to do with whether the implementation is simple and easy to use or another command few want to learn.
Also, I don't understand the level of energy in this thread — it's not something that will really change the game (basically Ftx's argument IIUC).
-
@penguin_ said in Reclaim Brush:
This can be implemented in a way that's not laggy and doesn't add too much processing burden - It can be done in a sensible way
The command queue is seriously limited in how much orders it can take care of. We'll take the ringing feature as an example.
Do the following:
- Spawn in 10 t3 RAS SACUs
- Make a t3 extractor
- Move away from the extractor (you can teleport using alt + t)
- Continuously try to ring the extractor with storages and fabricators (in rapid succession, just keep clicking)
- See how much the game stutters by looking at how the SACUs move
This means that making 130 (10 * (4 + 9) = 130) orders cause a noticeable stutter. Let alone if these happen two or three times in a row.
Now imagine if a player uses several (say 10) engineers to create some reclaim orders over a large naval battle they had in front of their bay. The ocean floor is populated with air wrecks, hover wrecks and boat wrecks. It can easily be 200+ wrecks for the average during the late game. That means we'd need to make at least 200 individual orders over 10 engineers. We likely want some redundancy, so lets say that every wreck is part of a queue of at least two engineers. That makes for 400 individual orders. And now imagine you missed a bunch of those reclaim orders because you forgot the offset with the ocean so you redo it, causing another 400 orders.
Tada, you have significant stutters
.Let alone that:
- you'd need to make semi-efficient choices for the engineers to determine their reclaim. How do you determine that? And what does efficient mean?
- the input size (engineers or reclaim) will always be a relative large set (anything between 50 to 500 individual reclaim instances is not unusual after a late game fight). Processing such a large set is not recommended when you are on a strict budget (and we are - very much so. Game still slows down!)
- there would be several people trying to issue these type of commands at the same time (say, within a few seconds after a battle is over)
And then we're assuming that there are no players with malicious intend
.and it can have limitations to its impact on processing, if desired (ie: small max brush size, tick-based limitations, max order limitations, etc).
A user should not have to deal with arbitrary limitations because the game can't manage it. If that is the case then it shouldn't be part of the game to begin with.
It would be consistent with FAF's precedent/pattern of adding UI improvements/features that reduce click count and improve QoL for most users - some examples:
o (1) spread attack
o (2) spread move
o (3) templates
o (4) hotbuild
o (5) gazui
o (6) advanced target priorities
o (7) eco manager
o (8) supreme scoreboard's 1-click resource sending
o (9) easy ringing of storages/pgens/fabs
o (10) automated mass fabricator behaviori:Some of these cause significant performance issues: (1), (2) and (10) can flood the command queue quite easily, this can cause stutters during the late game. (7) is replaced by the automated mass fabricator because it could happily disable hundreds of fabricators, causing a jump in sim time. And (6) has some insanely detailed target priorities which turns out to be quite expensive on the sim, as I'm trying to tell you all in another topic.
These are not exactly great examples when we're talking about performance.
This is effectively the same as area commands which has already been heavily discussed on this forum here https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2054/beating-a-dead-horse-area-commands/12?page=1
and on the old forum which I will link when I find it
Edit: found em, have fun reading
https://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13632
https://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=8471&start=20d this video in one of the threads:Found a video in one of the topics:
I got to give it to them, it does look fancy
.A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned
-
@thewheelie said in Reclaim Brush:
The issue is that you get it wrong from the get go. In a competitive game the time you spend manually reclaiming (aside from the start) is bassically zero, so you're not freeing up any time for other things.
I didn't claim to play with optimal APM allocation efficiency XP. This could be discussed further, but it's really more tangential, as that was just an example of what I might personally use the feature for myself, not a point for why it should be added.
The only impact something like this will have is an increase in general reclaim efficiency, but that is a balance thing and has nothing to do with the reclaim brush.
No. See points 1-10.
@sladow-noob said in Reclaim Brush:
Ngl I have the feeling you simple didn't understand my point, especially "Regarding you wanting players with more time to do things to be rewarded for their high APM, see point 8."
You're welcome to rephrase it.
@Exselsior and some others
My primary motivations in wanting to add this feature are basically that it would be a nice QoL improvement, it would help shift APM to more fun things on average, and that a lot of people would like to have it added. I made a thought-out 10 point list that I posted in this thread. None of those points said things to the effect of "manual reclaim OP; rating is 200 points lower because bad at clicking rocks, need macro so it's balanced." Yet, most of the arguments against my 10 points basically seem to disregard what my 10 points actually said, and instead seem to argue against that type of argument that they didn't say...pfp credit to gieb
-
@penguin_ said in Reclaim Brush:
No. See points 1-10.
No. See my point
@penguin_ said in Reclaim Brush:
I didn't claim to play with optimal APM allocation efficiency XP. This could be discussed further, but it's really more tangential, as that was just an example of what I might personally use the feature for myself, not a point for why it should be added.
Your personal situation is irrelevant to the discussion and i merely used it as an example to make my point.
-
@penguin_ said in Reclaim Brush:
My primary motivations in wanting to add this feature are basically that it would be a nice QoL improvement, it would help shift APM to more fun things on average, and that a lot of people would like to have it added. I made a thought-out 10 point list that I posted in this thread. None of those points said things to the effect of "manual reclaim OP; rating is 200 points lower because bad at clicking rocks, need macro so it's balanced." Yet, most of the arguments against my 10 points basically seem to disregard what my 10 points actually said, and instead seem to argue against that type of argument that they didn't say...
my MAN the POINT is that all the FUN STUFF ur TALKING about are THINGS players are already INCENTIVIZED TO PRIORITIZE because the manual reclaim matters 0 AT THEIR LEVEL
So all your arguments entail is supporting the CURRENT status quo because that's the REALITY of the game.
If you actually took your arguments to the logical point, you would be advocating for removing manual reclaim in general because low rated players cannot comprehend that just because they watch a 2300 manual reclaim a lot on stream that this isn't the things that they need to mimic in their gameplay. The existence of manual reclaim in general is what RESULTS in them focusing less on fun stuff because they tunnel vision on dumb noise mechanics for their skill level. Does the reclaim brush make reclaim more fun? No? We're back where we're currently at.
-
No double standards please. Allowing (1), (2), (6), (7), and (10) but not this seems silly.
A reclaim brush can be implemented in a way that limits processing cost per unit time (just think of your own fabber behavior XP), and thereby avoids stutters.
Also, based on the numbers you listed, I think you're imagining a larger brush size than I am, and a smaller brush size would result in faster processing the way I'm imagining implementing this. Regardless, the brush size (or max brush size, if adjustable) could be tested in FAF develop and set to a sensible value.
Regarding the command queue; if it would be necessary, adding an arbitrary limit to the maximum number of units that the reclaim brush can issue to a unit would not be the end of the world. The user already has to deal with numerous arbitrary limitations to the game (ie: max number of concurrent message markers, attack move's odd arbitrary functionalities, templates' inability to properly handle t1 pd-sized objects at full density in combination with larger objects, the arbitrary values used by your new automated fabber behavior, an apparent arbitrary inability for many units to target priority ACU, an arbitrary unit cap, an arbitrary input lag, etc).
pfp credit to gieb
-
@FtXCommando @TheWheelie
No. Even if new players are already incentivized to prioritize fun stuff over manual reclaim, many of them often focus too much on manual reclaim for various reasons (they don't have to be good reasons, but this phenomenon clearly occurs). If a reclaim brush was added to the game, many noobs would consequently use it and spend less time focusing on reclaim (because it requires less time and fewer clicks than manual reclaiming the same stuff), and they'd spend more time focusing on fun stuff that they should be focusing more on anyway. That alone would make the game more fun for them, and it actually could help many noobs to improve a bit, and it would improve QoL and their perceptions about playing FAF in positive ways.
pfp credit to gieb
-
That's a lot of ifs ands and hopefully's. Just remove manual reclaim and accomplish the same purpose.
-
I don't see how this amazing reclaim brush will save you more time than just clicking ctrl + Rmb
-
Just need to disable the reclaim mechanic until you're 1k. No more issues for new players
