Adjust the build skirt of naval factories

3

Identify a Problem

There are some odd naval pathing issues surrounding naval factories. We're fixing the issues with the roll off points as described in this pull request on Github. But there are some issues that we can't fix without impacting balance.

So here we are.

The problem for this topic is that naval factories can be build too close to one another. This makes it difficult for a naval unit to get out of the bay area when it is packed with naval factories. This is primarily noticeable for tech 2 and tech 3 naval units, but even tech 1 naval units are not immune to this issue.

Showcase the Problem

Essentially any form of packed naval factories cause a wide range of pathing issues. Whether that is in a block or in a line, they leave too little space for other naval units to properly navigate the waters.

current build skirt size
https://imgur.com/a/6fwM4E0

Find a Solution

We can increase the build skirt size, that way factories are guaranteed to be spaced properly.

150% of current build skirt size
https://imgur.com/a/AcfcfcK

200% of current build skirt size
https://imgur.com/a/G1LTVWr

This changes some behavior:

  • Naval units can properly path between naval factories
  • Naval units get less stuck around their built location
  • For some factions you can no longer build across a cliff, this is faction-dependent

5f05e377-aac6-4b5e-8281-5d24a302a6e7-image.png

Justify the Solution

The game should provide a user the tools to play the game properly. Naval factories do not fall in this category. We should fix that and we can only do that by adjusting the build skirt size.

A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned

6

IMO this would be a deal breaker for the change: For some factions you can no longer build across a cliff, this is faction-dependent

Any "normal" player would maybe make the mistake once or twice, building navy facs too close to each other and cause pathfinding issues, after that they know how to space them. I don't think making this idiotproof justifies the huge impact balance-wise it would result in.

1

@giebmasse said in Adjust the build skirt of naval factories:

Any "normal" player would maybe make the mistake once or twice

Well, the AI ​​will make this mistake for every naval factory.

We have this command to find a place where we want to build the next naval factory:
FindPlaceToBuild('T1SeaFactory', 'ueb0103', BaseCenterPosition)
and the engine search function just returns x,y,z.
Space between buildings is only provided by the unit skirt size.

So for the AI this would be the only way to get more space between naval factories.

I have tried several things the last 6 years to make a better spacing between buildings, but found no solution.

Actual i would really need this change for a better AI play.

0

I have concerns that this change would lower the quantity of naval factories that one can build per unit area, and in particular, that it may cause some small/narrow bodies of water to no longer be able to support any naval factories at all. I'd rather we reduce the space that disallows pathing that is consumed by naval factories (while keeping the current minimum spacing between facs) instead.

0

Rather the change be pushed to fafbeta so it can be seen how many maps this would actually impact. If this is just senton dudes mad they cant edgebuild from rock then I sleep.

Could even change my good friend senton - faf version to accommodate anything if necessary there

I also don’t think this is a minor thing btw, I’ve gotten BS and BC stuck and had to ctrl+k stuff or seen that i upgraded my hq on a factory too close to coast so now stuff takes forever to get out or even gets stuck on BS that came out 30 seconds ago.

0

Obviously how this affects naval play isn't restricted to setons.

0

is there a way to make it possible for engineers to build the factories from farther away?

can you expand the build skirt equally in all directions so that no faction gets an advantage for cliff-building?

1

@ftxcommando said in Adjust the build skirt of naval factories:

I also don’t think this is a minor thing btw, I’ve gotten BS and BC stuck and had to ctrl+k stuff or seen that i upgraded my hq on a factory too close to coast so now stuff takes forever to get out or even gets stuck on BS that came out 30 seconds ago.

This is something you can personally fix by placing navy facs building t2 or t3 further apart. Issue is that its completely unneeded for t1 navy facs and thats what you build most of, so thats gonna be quite a pain.

Ofc having to manually place your navy facs further apart isnt the most optimal thing, but in practice id say its not even that bad compared to t3 facs and gateways, where units get stuck because they collide with engies, unlike navy units.

Ofc pathfinding issues are shit but i dont think this is the right way to fix it.

3

Rather than blaming the factory for the issue - you might wish to simply consider the scaling of naval units. There is a LOT of room to decrease the size, especially of the largest units - and I can say, having done this years ago in LOUD, ships rarely have issues leaving the yard now.

2

@sprouto said in Adjust the build skirt of naval factories:

Rather than blaming the factory for the issue - you might wish to simply consider the scaling of naval units. There is a LOT of room to decrease the size, especially of the largest units - and I can say, having done this years ago in LOUD, ships rarely have issues leaving the yard now.

I wouldn't be too sure about this being so clean of a fix considering it will mean a need to rebalance all the navy units to compensate for their additional nimbleness. RIP cybran t2 navy.

It also takes a lot away from the navy fantasy, the units are supposed to be big and hulking like real warships. Making them smaller would imo take away a lot of fun that is associated with fielding this behemoths at t3 stage.

1

@arma473 said in Adjust the build skirt of naval factories:

is there a way to make it possible for engineers to build the factories from farther away?

can you expand the build skirt equally in all directions so that no faction gets an advantage for cliff-building?

I'm afraid that would remove the capability for engineers to assist the factory all together.

e321256e-06ca-421d-98dd-97c945b9dc78-image.png

The engineers have a similar occupation as that of the build skirt, it won't overlap with it. If the structure is in the center then they won't be able to reach it. The factory would need to be at the edge.

A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned

0

And to join in the discussion - this is a clear noob trap that makes the game feel broken. Not attending it (leaving the situation as is) means the game remains broken or remains feeling broken for the majority of players, including those fighting AI.

A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned

0

@e33144211332424 said in Adjust the build skirt of naval factories:

I wouldn't be too sure about this being so clean of a fix considering it will mean a need to rebalance all the navy units to compensate for their additional nimbleness. RIP cybran t2 navy.

It would have no impact whatsoever on 'nimbleness'. Performance characteristics would remain unchanged - turn rates et al. Cybran ships don't have any mobility performance benefits over other factions - certainly not related to footprint size - and not in the unit blueprints either.

As for the fantasy ? That's entirely in one's own mind. LOUD has reduced almost all naval units, except the smallest, by upto 30%, and not one comment ever mentioned a suspension of disbelief - but, while I'm sure that's an issue for some - it's not a tangible issue.

0

This would alter balance quite a bit as ships would miss each other a lot more as well as eg. Allowing for more dense BS formations.

0

@sprouto said in Adjust the build skirt of naval factories:

@e33144211332424 said in Adjust the build skirt of naval factories:

I wouldn't be too sure about this being so clean of a fix considering it will mean a need to rebalance all the navy units to compensate for their additional nimbleness. RIP cybran t2 navy.

It would have no impact whatsoever on 'nimbleness'. Performance characteristics would remain unchanged - turn rates et al. Cybran ships don't have any mobility performance benefits over other factions - certainly not related to footprint size - and not in the unit blueprints either.

As for the fantasy ? That's entirely in one's own mind. LOUD has reduced almost all naval units, except the smallest, by upto 30%, and not one comment ever mentioned a suspension of disbelief - but, while I'm sure that's an issue for some - it's not a tangible issue.

Smaller hitbox 100% affects how good unit is at dodging enemy shots. 30% reduction in size for a ship of Battleship or Carrier class is absolutely massive. If you are semi competent you can already dodge 50% of enemy shots at ease. With smaller hitbox it's gonna get even easier to do so.

The turn rates, speed, acceleration doesn't have to change at all. Smaller hitbox makes the unit better by simply making it harder to hit and thus more nimble. Even more when it comes to the shootouts at the range of 110-150 units that navy fights take place at.

1

The chance to hit is not determined by the size of the hitbox - but by the accuracy and tolerance values on the firing weapon. Again, the faction has zero to do with this - which I note you're not bringing up any more.

The only chance to 'dodge' comes from the ability to move out of that targeting solution - something that's more relative to the velocity of the projectile, and not the marginal velocity of the target - hitbox size can have a very tiny impact on that, provided the projectile is slow, and the ship moves very quickly (such as the UEF Cooper) - but that's about the only place that's going to be an issue.

In the real world, yes - the size of the vessel might have an impact on the ability to be targeted - but not in SCFA. I should point out that the hitbox - and the footprint - are two completely distinct and different things. Many of the ships have footprints much larger than the hitbox. This is abundantly true of most T2, and almost all the T3 units.

0

@sprouto
"The chance to hit is not determined by the size of the hitbox - but by the accuracy and tolerance values on the firing weapon. Again, the faction has zero to do with this - which I note you're not bringing up any more."

Please play a little bit more of competitive games before you take out your dev attitude for everyone to see. If you think I didn't already take weapon platforms and weaponry into consideration you are mistaken. Smaller hitbox makes stuff harder to hit, period. Unless you aren't simulating shit, but this game fortunately does it and it makes it so not even half of the shots fired in t2-t3 navy fights ever hits their target due to micro.

And no, factions have a lot to do with it considering how micro intensive t2 navy can be. And yes, cybran is gonna get fucked without any lube in the t2 stage if the models and hitboxes get smaller. It's gonna be rape in the daylight while everyone else is just happily clapping along to the rhytm of the butcheeks getting smashed. Those ships can't hit a barn even if it were placed in front of them.

So no, I'm not dropping it. I was just expecting the very least of knowledge about how t2 navy works.

"The only chance to 'dodge' comes from the ability to move out of that targeting solution - something that's more relative to the velocity of the projectile, and not the marginal velocity of the target - hitbox size can have a very tiny impact on that, provided the projectile is slow, and the ship moves very quickly (such as the UEF Cooper) - but that's about the only place that's going to be an issue."

If cooper is the only issue and all the other ships always get hit then tell me why is it that in proper microed t3 fight half the battleship shoots get's dodged all the time with just a little bit micro? Now tell me what will happen if they get even lower hitbox? They will have even easier time dodging the shoots. Won't they?

"In the real world, yes - the size of the vessel might have an impact on the ability to be targeted - but not in SCFA."

It's not about being able to be targeted, it's about abusing said targeting with micro and dodging the shots. Which already happens a lot. Vessels being smaller 100% make it even easier to abuse as it's easier to dodge the AoE of the enemy salvos.

" I should point out that the hitbox - and the footprint - are two completely distinct and different things. Many of the ships have footprints much larger than the hitbox. This is abundantly true of most T2, and almost all the T3 units."

Well, could have started out with this. That the footprint being smaller doesn't make any difference for the unit hitbox or size at all. You said "Decrease the size" which implies making the hitbox smaller, thus changing the balance of the game.

0

Please take the discussion about bigger or smaller boats to another topic 🙂 .

The point is that it is a possible (proven) solution to the problem we should be discussing instead: poor pathing of naval units because the factories can be (easily) packed too dense. That it is not the ideal solution is clear, so what is?

A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned

1

What if we'd introduce a second naval factory: one that is horizontally mirrored* from the other, but outside of that completely identical. It would allow you to still cliff build / assist and everything when we'd increase the skirt size, you'll just need to pick the correct factory.

Again, not ideal - but another possible solution 🙂

edit @FemtoZetta not without introducing a 2nd unit

A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned

1

Is it possible to have factories turn (180° not 90°) towards the middle of the map? It always felt to me like that's all that's needed so they don't get stuck between factory and land.