Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance
-
So I just got to point with fixing spread attack where some things are possible that are apparently controversial:
Now I dont know if my fixes will even go live from github once whoever decides things about FAF sees them and their potential, and these fixes may instead have that someone remove necessary code from base FAF that allows this, and possibly other mods depending on it, from functioning, causing this mod to go into oblivion instead and further ruining what I am trying to improve, but I managed to fix it (because it wasnt written properly in first place) and as a consequence, what is described here (as far as I understand it) is possible.aka I can queue multiple different units to different move orders of any different numbers and then select all of those units and queue attack orders that spread attack then mixes properly without failing, all units will continue on their queued move orders and then proceed to attack every target like spread attack normally does. In zlo's example, I can queue strats to fly around aa in different paths each, and then queue attack orders and press shift+g to turn them into spread attack while strats are still flying to move orders.
Not only that, but this can be repeated in queue as many times as player wants, I can again queue move orders after a queued spread attack and once again queue spread attack after those new move orders which are already after previous spread attack and so on. Each spread attack will only effect last group of attack orders and leaves everything prior alone. This allows player to plan attacks way easier instead of having to manually give those orders after strats got into position first. You might say this removes micro from the game, but in my opinion, it merely allows that micro to be done beforehand if player chooses to. Player still has to queue those attack orders (micro), they just now have ability to queue it before if they want to instead of having to do it on spot when they may have something else important to focus on. This is almost exact situation as being able to queue units of factory that isnt completed yet instead of only being able to do so after it is finished and I find it hilarious that it would even be considered OP.
While I think a lot of pro players will see this as overpowered for their own reasons, these controls that I fixed literally allow a player to do nothing more than what they already could do, except easier, they dont give any units additional abilities or allow them to do something they couldnt without them, a player can already do all of this manually, they simply allow player to better tell those units what to do within limitations of what those units already physically can do, nothing more. And I think that its objectively correct that players should be able to tell their units what to do as effortlessly as possible, because the point of this game isnt to fight the controls, but to fight other players.
Speaking of fighting controls, some pro players may have gotten very good at managing their attention and APM to fight bad controls and this may, to them, ruin an aspect of gameplay or remove value of their skill (at fighting the controls) cough
Heaven, even some strategies that are designed to rob your opponent of attention and APM by doing something that they have to "translate for a long time" the response orders to (even tho they came up with them in split second), a strategy that wouldnt work if your opponent could "translate quickly" the response orders to, you can see how it has nothing to do with who can "come up with orders" faster or with better ones, but how fast they can translate them into the game thru UI, sure coming up with them exists already, but translating them thru controls shouldnt even have a time component to it, let alone entire strategies or even needed clicking skills. So instead of who can translate orders faster or attack opponent in a way they have to spend more time translating orders to counter, I think strategy is supposed to be only about who is better at coming up with orders in first place, translating them into unit orders thru UI after coming up with them should be effortless.In general I think its time we separate player's controls and their "skill" in fighting those controls to tell their units to do what they want them to do, from balance equation and instead allow players to tell their units what to do in any way they want, because strategy is about that part, what should the units do, not how do I get them to do what I want them to do. And I think having to fight controls in fact reduces the strategy aspect of this game and we could see a lot more interesting things in games if players were spared the bad controls and could instead communicate properly with their units and thus have more time to come up with plans and better plans, and give out more plans in same time, when they wouldnt need to have a massive "time to translate their plan into orders". Instead of fighting on 1 front, player could be fighting on many, if only they could tell their units what to do easier instead of fighting the controls to get them to do something so simple that they could explain it in 1 short sentence "go here first and then bomb everything there" (which is what player can do with this spread attack fix). Are we really considering translation (not coming up with) of this simple sentence into unit commands a gameplay element and skill?
APM and attention resources imo arent supposed to be used up "trying to control your units", but trying to beat your opponent in strategy, the control of your units should be as easy as saying what you want them to do like example above. APM and attention should be used solely for coming up with those orders in first place. If you remember before advanced target priorities were a thing, bombers could fly into your base and take no damage from your aa and do their bombing freely simply because your aa was busy shooting at fighters, and you had no way of telling them to do otherwise other than manually telling turrets to shoot specific bomber (and likely missclicking on a fighter). I already used this example in infamous steam forum discussion, but this simply shows that bad controls lead to bad gameplay, should the player really have no way of saying "shoot the bombers first" to their units other than frantically spam clicking? Should it really be a strategy to send fighters with bombers, not to protect them from enemy fighters, but to distract enemy aa because other player has no way of telling those aa to ignore fighters?
Better controls may open different problems where units may suddenly become overpowered because they can finally be controlled properly and you may object to that, but like I had pleasure of explaining in Atlantis thread already, thats when you balance those units, instead of another problem with the game "balancing" them. Fix that problem first instead and then balance those units, because only then will you see them in their real form, the units you are currently seeing arent being used at their full potential because of those control problems. If fixing the controls reveals those units' real power by them becoming overpowered, thats when you balance them because only then do you know what they are really capable of. Not hiding behind double negatives to cancel each other out.
I know allowing any UI mods can escalate into players basically having AI microing their units up to point where player doesnt even press a button during a match so I have solution for where the line should be. For example there was a "russian hacker" story here on FAF where someone had a ui mod where units would automatically surround another unit, ex. labs surrounding a megalith. This was considered overpowered and bannable, because labs would otherwise have to be microed around the megalith manually, but this isnt a problem of ui mods, its a problem of labs countering megalith.
While I dont know the specifics of how that mod worked, this shows where UI mods can start "playing the game for you", because if this player had to tell his units to "surround the megalith" imo its fine, because this ui mod simply allowed that player to tell those labs what to do easier "surround that megalith", but if those units instead "automatically surrounded the megalith should it walk into range" it isnt. imo the line for UI mods that are allowed should be where the units themselves start automatically giving themselves orders depending on circumstances (aka "AI"), lets say a fighter that automatically stops attacking and gives itself a move order back to base if it flies too far from patrol waypoint.
This said in abstract form, where its easy to tell if its allowed or not aka a "rule" is: no UI mods that give units "AI" aka allow translations of sentences like "if this then this else this" or "in case of this, this" into orders, but only "this, then this, then this". There can be no decision making that unit itself does, but any order queue of any orders that player wants to give them or manipulate, they should be able to do effortlessly and is fine.
This game was designed from start to give players easier control over their units than other RTS games had thru its UI with the very strategic zoom and many features of orders and queues, they even tried to create something similar to the very thing I started this post with with coordinated attack, where you can queue move orders of different units and have an attack order that they attack at same time from different places. It is ridiculous that progress in better player control is being stalled like this for any reason.
Here are some interviews with linked relevant times where Chris Taylor himself states things about supreme commander's control system and what it is supposed to be:
Its not about who can click faster
With formation move as an example, you could say that not having formation move would add micro skill as you would need to manually give units move orders so they stay close together. Consider formation move a UI mod for example and say is it overpowered?
About player's control, queues and coordinated attack
I already showed factory queue above, if you replace this single attack target of coordinated attack (destroyer) with multiple targets, it literally is this very thing of queued move orders of different units that all then attack multiple targets (instead of 1).
Same coordinated attack from video aboveThere are probably other interviews mentioning things like this as well that I didnt find yet. You should still watch the whole playlist of those videos anyway because they are good.
Here is a video showing what properly working spread attack combined with Disperse Move UI mod can do. I dont understand how you can considered that overpowered. To me it is merely proper control of your units to get them to do what they could have always done.
TLDR:
Players should be able to give out explicit (no decision making by unit) orders in any way they want thru UI mods, and giving out orders should be as effortless as saying them. Balance should, instead of considering how bad controls are as a factor in balancing (micro) and thus banning any UI modification that improves that control thus tilting the balance which was based on that control being bad, balance units around their maximum potential that becomes more apparent as playerbase's controls improve thru UI mods and UI upgrades in general, allowing players to tell those units what to do easier and thus revealing the real power of those units to balance them based on.The player's control over their units thru UI should be improving by FAF itself, not banned from it as "cheating", the line between mods "playing the game for you" and not (aka allowed or not) should be where they are giving units orders automatically without player action (unit "AI" basically), and those letting player more easily give and manipulate manual orders and queues of any complexity being allowed. This is better explained above in bold text.
-
"I know allowing any UI mods can escalate into players basically having AI microing their units up to point where player doesnt even press a button during a match so I have solution for where the line should be. For example there was a "russian hacker" story here on FAF where someone had a ui mod where units would automatically surround another unit, ex. labs surrounding a megalith. This was considered overpowered and bannable, because labs would otherwise have to be microed around the megalith manually, but this isnt a problem of ui mods, its a problem of labs countering megalith.
While I dont know the specifics of how that mod worked, this shows where UI mods can start "playing the game for you", because if this player had to tell his units to "surround the megalith" imo its fine, because this ui mod simply allowed that player to tell those labs what to do easier "surround that megalith", but if those units instead "automatically surrounded the megalith should it walk into range" it isnt. imo the line for UI mods that are allowed should be where the units themselves start automatically giving themselves orders depending on circumstances (aka "AI"), lets say a fighter that automatically stops attacking and gives itself a move order back to base if it flies too far from patrol waypoint."
You can apply this same logic to any sort of micro element in a game. What if in sc2 some dude made a mod that auto splits your marines with a singular hotkey? You can make the same argument about how the problem is the marine balance not the control of the unit but in the end these unit controls are what separate the best from the good.
The appeals to authority of Chris Taylor are always annoying. Regardless of what he thinks about "the game not being about who can click faster" he is wrong. If I have two identically skilled players with the same level of game knowledge, the dude with double the apm will always win because he has the ability to put his macro knowledge into practice better and faster. Thinking apm is possible to remove as a factor from RTS is just fairytale BS.
What supcom DOES do is make apm not matter for an extremely long time. The game is heavily macro based and you can rise extremely far with very, very mediocre apm by RTS standards. However, the top will always be defined by apm and having modifications that remove that element just lowers the skill ceiling in the game.
In the end I don't care about whether such things as what you mentioned are integrated in the game. That's a balance/game team call. What I do care about is whether they are modifications or not. If they are ui mods, then whoever doesn't have it will be at a supreme disadvantage because they are effectively operating with 1 less unit ability or in other words, giving up apm for no reason other than a lack of out-of-game information.
-
yes it is not possible to remove unit controls or "translating orders time" as factor from RTS, it being a real time game, but it is possible to reduce its impact by improving the controls, so while you can have 2 players with same knowledge and the one with better apm wins, you should minimize the impact of whose apm is better to point where it matters as strongly as it can whose game knowledge is better and it is as irrelevant as it can be whose apm is better, so you can easily have 2 people with apm difference but the one with worse apm wins anyway because they have better game knowledge
I know whoever is not using ui mods is at disadvantage vs those that do and I think some ui mods should therefore be integrated into base game so everyone has access to those same better controls and thus no one is at disadvantage, however some UI mods are subjective and obviously shouldnt be forced onto those that dont want to use them (like ecomanager)
and it isnt about appeal to authority, it is about showing you what the game was, compared to others at the time and what it was set out to do (improve controls player has over units), and using examples of controls you dont even think are overpowered (because they were in the game from start and not future UI mods) being basically the same thing as what UI mods allow you to do (better controls that dont change units' abilities)
-
This would horrendously break balance, as the only thing making bombers not a completely broken counter to t1 spam is the fact that they're a nightmare to properly micro.
As demonstrated in your video with the glorified t1 bombers (t2) you can level pretty much any large area of units in a matter of seconds.
imagine doing this with 8 uef t1 bombers , and you'll probably seem them kill 3-4 times in mass, while without this they'd probs barely get 1:1 for mass before being shot down.
Also factor in the huge amount of time required to micro said t1 bombers, as opposed to with this mod. Such time that is now detrimenting you elsewhere.
t1 bombers are now broken.
The game is not about being who can click faster, its about decision making and allocation of time. That is why feints work, you focus enemy attention on 1 attack while you rush in on the otherside of their flank with a more stronger attack, and then you crush them.
How can you use such a strategy if they no longer have to focus at all to gain the full benefit of their units?
-
Also for what it matters Ftx it is same logic as the Marine example you gave, and FA designers & Coders went left where Starcraft went right.
-
@Psions said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
This would horrendously break balance, as the only thing making bombers not a completely broken counter to t1 spam is the fact that they're a nightmare to properly micro.
As demonstrated in your video with the glorified t1 bombers (t2) you can level pretty much any large area of units in a matter of seconds.
imagine doing this with 8 uef t1 bombers , and you'll probably seem them kill 3-4 times in mass, while without this they'd probs barely get 1:1 for mass before being shot down.
Also factor in the huge amount of time required to micro said t1 bombers, as opposed to with this mod. Such time that is now detrimenting you elsewhere.
t1 bombers are now broken.
this is exactly what I also explained in post about units being balanced around being used at their maximum potential (instead of around bad controls like currently they are), which is what this allows you to do, they become broken by being properly controllable like this, and then you nerf them until they arent broken anymore, this simply shows their real power
oh and btw that was 100 Janus, you can hardly compare that to 8 t1 bombers
-
"then you nerf them until they aren't broken anymore" and then in everyother use case they are useless.
Could you imagine if you did that in Apex Legends or Oveerwatch with an AI bot. Any character with fast movement speed would have to be removed, purely because the AI would dodge all of the enemy bullets.
Oh and all guns with decent accuracy would have to be banned because of aimbots.
Honestly, the the "maximum potential" balance idea is dumb. It would be better to balance around the "likely" potential a human is going to draw out from that unit, and if there is one specific individual that is breaking the game, because they are abornormally good at "drawing out" potential of that unit, then nerf it.
-
you see, like I said in my post, UI mods that dont do decisions for you should be allowed, not those that do, in your aimbot example, aimbot constantly makes decisions about where to move cursor based on where enemy is, this would be in FAF something that microes units for you by giving them orders by itself, not something that allows you to better and easier give those units specific orders
idk if you even read the post considering
-
Holy shit, If that isn't allowed in the game for whatever reason, I really hope its allowed in some mod.
I think you guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. That kind of mechanic is amazing, if they'd had that at launch, it would have sold a lot more games.
This guy has done a tremendous job working on that mod.
Sure, it would affect balance but that's a non trivial and exciting new game feature.
I hope it has a place somewhere.
If it were up to me I'd move to have this integrated into the core game immediately, and would deal with whatever balance issues that causes as they arise.
-
I know sc2 went a different way from FA. That doesn't mean that they both aren't utilizing the same toolkit. In the end apm will matter between equal players regardless of what you try to do. Either that or the game has no apm factor which just absolutely destroys the skill ceiling.
In the end it's a subjective call on what the balance/game team are willing to consider intended micro mechanics vs beneficial automation. There is no objective reason to say one is better than the other. On that note, it's absolutely something that wouldn't be allowed as a UI mod, same as mods/macros that reclaim things for you automatically. If it's found that you use it, then you get banned because it's an unfair competitive advantage.
These things are binary, either it's integrated into base game as a command or it's kept out of the game.
-
@FtXCommando said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
These things are binary, either it's integrated into base game as a command or it's kept out of the game.
Yeah, I agree, and I think you should integrate it.
Would be one of the most exciting additions to the game in years.
-
@Mach said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
APM and attention resources imo arent supposed to be used up "trying to control your units"
Being able to move and "control" something - be it your own player character or a bunch of units - Is a fundamental aspect of skill across the entire spectrum of video game genres and there is no acceptable reason why this game: a generic robot RTS who thinks it's a milsim, should be any different.
Imagine a shooter game where being able to aim required no effort, and it was only about where on the map you stood. Or what about something like War Thunder, wherein controlling a plane was not required and it only mattered when you decided you wanted to attack, and what. The game instantly loses all the depth that bought players to the game, and Supcom would be no different.
The decision making in supcom is not enough to carry the game on it's own. Most choices are a linear option of "do I match it or not" and meta strategies will continue to further dominate the game because a competent player can no longer use the full aspect of the games skill ceiling to counteract that. It's like if everyone in shooter games had an aimbot. The winning player will be the aimbotter that chose to use the gun that dealt the most damage. Without aimbots it's typically the player who has a mix of both better control of his character and smart positioning who wins, despite perhaps using a gun that is less powerful.
I think begging for a game with less micro tech and intricacies looks good on paper but will be the death of the game.
@Mach said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
Its not about who can click faster
Every dev team for RTS games in the modern era states this line because it specifically targets the "I am a casual player and I am disillusioned with starcraft" demographic.
This image is from the kickstarter campaign for Iron Harvest.
The game crashed and burned after players found it lacked any depth.
If they knew any better, they would have left that outdated line of thinking for turn based games.@Mach said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
some pro players may have gotten very good at managing their attention and APM to fight bad controls and this may, to them, ruin an aspect of gameplay or remove value of their skill
Can we please go one conversation without the classic "you only dislike my opinion because you're some kind of FAF 1%er who manipulates X to stay good"
It's cringe.
-
@biass said in [Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance]
Dude, you are playing the low APM RTS.
I don't know what the APM is for top players, I'm sure its much higher than mine, but I doubt its half of what the Starcraft guys are doing.
It does work, and it does make for a much improved game.
Pointing to some failed game in an attempt to refute the idea that games should have complex higher level features to replace near inhuman amounts of APM in more primitive games just isn't a good argument.
Given the context - you know - arguing in a forum for perhaps the most successful tactics > APM games ever made - I don't see how you think this line of reasoning is at all persuasive.
-
@moses_the_red said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
Pointing to some failed game in an attempt to refute the idea that games should have complex higher level features to replace near inhuman amounts of APM in more primitive games just isn't a good argument.
It isnt, thats why I stated the case about a completely different topic - that being listening to marketing statements - and you either misunderstood or attempted to quote me out of context.
Try again some other time.
-
it isnt even about apm difference however, because those players that have better apm will be able to use that apm easier as well, allowing them to do more than players with less apm just like they already can, but instead of wasting it on trying to control units, they can use it to tell more units what to do in same amount of time. Instead of for example having to tell bombers what to spread attack only after they get into positions already, player can queue what they should spread attack after move orders (same apm use btw) and at same time when those units are executing their already queued attacks, the player can be doing something else with their apm, instead of only then telling them then what to attack (due to not being able to queue them), like another attack at same time those bombers are doing their already queued attack, something that wouldnt be possible (and currently isnt for spread attack) if they had to control those bombers at that time simply because controls are trash and dont allow them to queue it before, while needing same apm as doing it on fly takes, once again factory queue example
so the skill ceiling of apm would still exist, with more apm you could be doing more than someone with less apm, it would just not be about who can fight controls better with apm, but who can do more and better with it, it would simply allow all players to do more real gameplay with their apm instead of 90% of it being trying to control units, instead of there being 1 fight going on at a time there could be several, and all because players had more time to do them by not having to waste 90% of it trying to tell units to fight in just that 1 fight
also aimbot comparison is kinda wrong considering I already explained that UI mods that allow you to tell units what to do easier are the ones that should be allowed, not the ones that tell units what to do on their own, like I already explained to whoever it was before, aimbot moves cursor on its own, like a UI mod that microes units automatically, not a UI mod that allows you to simply give/manipulate units' orders easier, aiming is a gameplay aspect of shooters, having to tell your units what to do at specific time because controls dont allow you to queue it, isnt a gamplay aspect of strategy, again factory queue example
-
@biass said in [Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance]
You were quoted in context, you're claiming that automation reduces depth in your post.
It doesn't, it just changes what the focus is.
In the same way that pathing doesn't reduce depth, being able to better communicate your intention to the UI doesn't reduce it either. It adds it by increasing the options that a player has at any particular point.
This RTS IS the low APM RTS. That hasn't reduced the quality of the game in any way or removed depth.
-
Like 80% of the reason this is considered a low apm RTS is because of a 500 m/s delay and a janky as fuck collision mechanic that prohibits any serious unit micro, not because of some deeply nuanced strategic depth.
Honestly maps like sentons or kusoge for 1v1 also bring out a ton of apm to even begin playing properly. I have no idea how you can compare apm between sc2 and faf considering the strategic zoom mechanic for adjusting angles + the factors I mentioned above making effective apm a lot different from actual apm. Basically, apm matters on maps where you need immense apm to even begin macro'ing properly because unit micro is already such an incredibly minor thing in FAF that there's no need to put much more effort into it other than basic kiting stuff.
This is why anything that begins looking at adjusting unit micro needs to be giving a serious look at whether it will absolutely lead to an INCREASE in unit micro ability, any sort of minimization should be blocked.
-
You were quoted in context, you're claiming that automation reduces depth in your post.
I quoted the specific line about "clicking faster", stated that it was a marketing term, stated why it should not be used and gave an example. It has NOTHING to do with previous statements on automation or depth.
@moses_the_red said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
This RTS IS the low APM RTS
The only base you have for this entirely irrelevant claim you keep repeating, is your artificially crippled gameplay experience that the vocal majority of users on this forum have consistently condemmed. The upper boundry for APM in this game is almost limitless, and your flat, one lane clone of a map you abuse for playcount is not indicative of FAF or supcom gameplay in ANY way.
If you want "the low apm rts" than I shall direct you over to the total war series. Just because we're not AOE or SC2 doesn't mean we're low APM.
something?
Can you please write in proper sentences? I can hardly understand what you're saying and I don't even know if what you said actually related to what I said at any point.
However:
@Mach said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
instead of there being 1 fight going on at a time there could be several
This is baseless, fighting in mutiple places at once is not a symptom of some arbitrary control issue, and making random UI mods will not fix it. It's simply a matter of people doing what is more efficient to do.
@Mach said in Very long post about spread attack, UI mods and why improving player's controls and UI is apparently and wrongly considered a bad thing in FAF, also balance:
having to tell your units what to do at specific time because controls dont allow you to queue it, isnt a gamplay aspect of strategy
You have not yet justified why this should not be the case, no matter how you try and make it look in your wording.
-
@moses_the_red this game is not a low apm game, and I agree with biass that your understanding of the game is warped by your personal experience. I don't know if it's within your capacity to, but try to imagine what "perfect" gameplay in FAF looks like, à la AlphaStar in StarCraft II. "Perfect" FAF would have insane APM, because you can also get always value from better micro. T1 Engineers are microed to pick up reclaim with optimal efficiency (move commands to centre mass of reclaim, followed by manual reclaim orders). T1 Artillery are individually microed to target fire groups of units. Transports are used everywhere, ferrying units and engineers. Redundant units and structures are recycled continuously. If anything, FAF has a higher APM ceiling on certain maps compared to StarCraft II, especially as the game goes on. Look at maps like Kusoge or Maridia for 1v1. You should be able to see the APM required to play the game optimally becomes incredibly high.
@FtXCommando, regarding the mod, and the move to ban it or integrate it, I don't see how this disperse move mod constitutes gameplay automation. At the end of the day, the amount of times you actually have to interact with the sim is unchanged. Lets consider some alternative ways to do the same thing, say, splitting 5 bombers and giving a move order. I could:
-
Select a bomber directly on screen and individually give move orders. This requires 5 actions to select each bomber, and 5 interactions with the sim itself: giving 5 move orders.
-
Deselect bombers from my initial selection by right clicking the unit portrait at the bottom and giving each group a new move order. This requires 5 actions to deselect the each bomber on my UI, and 5 sim interactions (move orders).
-
Give a move order with all bombers selected, deselect a bomber from my selection by right clicking the unit portrait, and give a new move order, repeating until all bombers are deselected. This requires 5 actions to deselect each bomber, and 5 sim interactions (move orders).
-
Split my initial selection of bombers into 5 groups using UI party, and selecting the each group and then giving move orders sequentially. This requires 6 actions (one to make the group and 5 to select each individual group), and 5 sim interactions (move orders).
-
Using the disperse move mod, giving 5 move orders and then pressing disperse move. This requires 1 UI action, and 5 sim interactions.
I don't see how this mod constitutes "gameplay automation" or how it's different from any other UI mod.
-
-
And to add to the discussion: if this UI mod is not allowed / banned because of the APM reason then so should 'Advanced Target Priorities' because of:
In the end I don't care about whether such things as what you mentioned are integrated in the game. That's a balance/game team call. What I do care about is whether they are modifications or not. If they are ui mods, then whoever doesn't have it will be at a supreme disadvantage because they are effectively operating with 1 less unit ability or in other words, giving up apm for no reason other than a lack of out-of-game information.
There are numerous situations that are only possible when ATP is enabled and in general will reduce APM. As an example: ignore pd over mass so that your run destroys a mass extractor, instead of 1 or 2 pd while allowing you to micro-move your units at the same time. Or: prioritize shields over everything else so that the moment you get under the shield it is instantly destroyed, without thinking about it another second.
edit: in my opinion they should both just be integrated. They add a lot of value to the game.
