Reclaim Brush
-
@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
-
@penguin_ said in Reclaim Brush:
@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.
Ngl none of all the ppl I trained or checked focused on manual reclaim lol
-
My point is that manual reclaim isn't worth spending apm on in the first place for 95% of the player base, so another option in place of attack move isn't necessary and will just add more confusion - patrol vs attack move vs some area reclaim order.
Not only would we now have 4 ways to reclaim (patrol, attack move, reclaim brush, manual) there are performance considerations for the brush which have been brought up before. Auto clickers are banned for UI mods which this would fall under, and should stay that way. Regardless of the benefits I don't want half baked ui mods crashing games by suddenly having a million reclaim orders on individual trees in broken tree groups.
Which means it would have to be a core game feature rather a UI mod implementation. I'd much rather the game devs spend their time on more useful things than this which is at best a minor QoL improvement for some people. Hell, not to sidetrack this even more, but there are UI mods like advanced target priorities that would have 100x the impact and I would argue strongly for adding to the base game long before yet another way to reclaim things.
-
No double standards please. Allowing (1), (2), (6), (7), and (10) but not this seems silly.
I wasn't involved with FAF when (1), (2), (and (9)) were integrated. (6) and (7) are UI mods, they are not integrated. (10) is a response to (7) to guarantee stable performance for something that was already possible. I'm not sure why it is in your list.
Calling me out for having double standards is inappropriate and closely resembles a personal attack. Don't do that.
but not this seems silly.
Using this argumentation (we have
x, so why notytoo) means we can allow anything. I'm quite confident that it is a logical fallacy, but I can't find the name. It is also what got us to the performance we had in May 2021, before I started my performance crusade.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.
A brush means painting. Painting means you can include any amount of reclaim you desire. To quote you from your first post:
Imagine it like a brush in a visual editor (ie: paint), where you manually apply a circular brush, but instead of painting the terrain, it shows a visual circle where the brush would give manual reclaim orders within if used there.
If that is not your intend then you should've been more clear on what this actually means in practice. Add a picture with a clear interaction. The video and topics that Sheikah linked talks about a more generic area reclaiming, which is what the majority of us will be thinking about.
The user already has to deal with numerous arbitrary limitations to the game
Same logic used earlier that I think is a logical fallacy: just because there are already existing issues doesn't make it more legitimate to add more of them.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to have a feature like this. But if we're not careful then we just introduce more stutters. It is also the same reason why my example here is on hold because I haven't figured out how to do it properly yet.
-
J Jip referenced this topic on
-
And on another note, we already have a solution made by @Strogo that makes manual reclaiming a lot less painful:
I'd love to integrate that at some point, but I recall there were some issues with it. All of the changes Strogo suggests with that UI mod are improvements to existing features, he doesn't introduce new features.
-
@maudlin27 you are alloweded to automate mex capping only because you could automate it via doing a simple key binding.
-
It seems like you want the brush to not be as efficient as maual reclaim, but then the whole "people don't need to manual reclaim anymore" falls flat, as they will still see the pros do it and think it is important. If it's not supposed to completely replace manual reclaim it's just redundant because it provides a middle ground to two options which both have their role. We don't need another option that is a bit of both. One of the extremes will always be the better option.
Regardless of the above, I feel this feature would just collapse because of the processing power requirements that it will have.
You claim that is possible to implement it in a way that is not laggy, while still providing better pathfinding to the reclaim targets than attack move. Yet when looking at the details all evidence seems to point to the contrary. At this point you need to go into more details how you think you can solve this and why it would still be a good feature even with the limitations you need instead of handwaving the problems away with "we'll limit the number of commands somehow". -
Not gonna get implemented. As it was already mentioned it does nothing to adress the actual issue which is that people think that manually reclaiming is the correct way to spend their APM in the first place. Just use attack move (I can get behind making it easier to use, more modern or w/e).
If we were to implement this it wouldn't have positive impact for most players while it would, in my opinion, be detrimental for high level play as Pros would be able to utilize this feature to quickly grab the mass after any attacks thus massively nerfing raiding. -
Not to mention it would make the game lile 2x harder if it were as efficient/very close to manual reclaim because your economy would become even more volatile.
On the other hand if it were close in efficiency to the attack move then the feature would either have no point or would replace the attack move. -
When engis reclaim on attack or patrol move, they stop between reclaims.? Engineer reclaims, does nothing, reclaims, does nothing, reclaims etc? While on manual reclaim they reclaim, reclaim, reclaim etc. So even when not considering advantage of choice of order on manual reclaim, manual reclaim is faster as long as player has apm for it.
Advantage in the beginning of the game can snowball into big advantage, it is not so important from what rating exactly people have necessary apm in average. It favors click spam like some game on smartphone where you do nothing but click as fast as you can. No tanks, units, nothing but clicking.I can understand consideration of gamespeed. And at some extent the added complexity of new command. Althought having extra command seems easyer to learn, than to learn how to spam hundreds of clicks very fast.
There is also possibility to modify actual attack move/ patrol. Removing that "do nothing" part should make it more effective. Without negative effects. Drawing a ring, or corridor of effect when placing it could make it easyer to learn and make it more "moderne" (maybe with option to remove it). And then placing shift attack moves( as some players do), would cover an area. There could be a reclaim choosing inside the actual reclaim circle/radius, eventually. So that engineer chooses higher than x mass reclaim before the small reclaim. But only around itself in the limit where it does not need to move to get it. So that althought it adds some calculations to game, it would be always very limited. Eventually recalculated when engie moves and stops on attack move. This also should add effectivenes, with minimal performance setback.
I would like the option, that engis just stop, when mass bar is almost full, rather than running into unbroken trees, but this is kind of out of the scope of this discussion... -
on top of tagadas point, on maps where there are many rocks (10-30 mass) inbetween broken trees, I would assume such a mod to prioritise the rocks, enableling a player to massively increase the reclaim rate on such maps, which will change the meta on such maps. the reclaim is hidden in trees for exactly that reason.
Any changes that add prioritisation are not acceptable from a balance perspective since they will break the meta/balance on some maps."Advantage in the beginning of the game can snowball into big advantage, it is not so important from what rating exactly people have necessary apm in average. It favors click spam like some game on smartphone where you do nothing but click as fast as you can. No tanks, units, nothing but clicking."
this only matters if a) you are actually able to capitalise on the extra mass instead of just overflowing it, having no e , not noticing youre having idle facs/engies... (classic <1.5k issues)
b) you dont get a dissadvantage from not spending the time on sth else (e.g. not noticing youre suiciding 19 tanks into 20).
on high level there only rarely is actual coockie clicker reclaim after min 3 or so (youve nothing else to do before that anyways so clicking reclaim actually saves you from boredom there...) -
Very conjectural to presume that <1500 people are not able to use mass
Anyway that was what I meant by saying "necessary apm". -
If they knew how to use mass they wouldn't be below 1500. Sorry that's the truth no matter how you spin it.
