Orders and Navigation

Post your ideas on where the future evolution of Multiwinia should lead

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco

User avatar
MarvintheParanoidAndroid
level3
level3
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:37 pm
Location: UK

Postby MarvintheParanoidAndroid » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:35 am

TheRileyDuo wrote:It's the old question of whether it's a bug, or a feature!

Except it's not a question. It's a feature :P
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:42 pm

Will Skyfall wrote:--==<snip>==--

Hey! Wha'd'ya know! I never knew that. Interesting. I wish I had known that when I first started playing.

Will Skyfall wrote:At the same time, I am frustrated beyond reason by my Multiwinians' tendencies (at least in the current build) to take wide arcs to their destinations that lead through crossfires, or spend the first leg of a reasonably-simple move order walking away from their destination. Something is broken in the pathing engine that didn't seem to be broken before, and I can't help but feel that the ability to place waypoints would have enabled a frustrated user to compensate for the current problem.

This is a problem with pathfinding, which, quite frankly, sucks right now. My understanding is that there are nodes on the map that connect in a network. If a DG cannot go to their destination in a straight line, they go to the nearest node, then travel from node to node until they can get to their destination. There are clearly problems with pathfinding, as they often backtrack in weird ways, or take really strange paths. One can ctrl+click to go in a straight line, but this is not a complete solution.

However, the problem is poor pathfinding, not the lack of waypoints. Waypoints wouldn't really even fix the issue, as you would still have bad pathfinding. Fix the pathfinding, and the need for waypoints disappears.

Will Skyfall wrote:If Introversion is going to make a deliberate design decision to make units behave in a tactically limited manner (i.e. with a Lemming-like movement system and no waypoints), they need to also make sure that the mechanics of the game (AI, pathing, etc.) support that decision.

I concur entirely.

xander
Qjet
level1
level1
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:38 am

Postby Qjet » Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:53 pm

Hey! Wha'd'ya know! I never knew that. Interesting. I wish I had known that when I first started playing.


OMFG.

Also
officers are standing orders
think about it, when was the last time you deliberately killed an officer to trip a player up, that the player didn't rectify immediately.
Officers are really cool, and useful, way points wouldn't make them redundant.

Also there isnt enough information in a selected group of units and selected point on a map to deliberately understand the users wishes.
This is why we have waypoints.

Also xander, failing to acknowledge every one of your point... (deliberate lack of plural) is not a sign of saying "i must be wrong"

It's just, your idea of a good argument is irrefutable fact on a reductionist and holist view point. which means with a little brainwork there IS no compelling argument. it's basically not possible if you counter everything by stating it's contradicting your temporarily construed personal viewpoint on how MW works.
best example of this is saying that MW's are dumb.

the important fact about this is that this kind of argument isn't likely to make me rethink my position, then again, that's not your goal is it. So i don't really want to get into it.
As to the rest of my post, do you simply not have any response? Can I assume that you have conceded the point?
User avatar
martin
level5
level5
Posts: 3210
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby martin » Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:36 pm

xander wrote:However, the problem is poor pathfinding, not the lack of waypoints. Waypoints wouldn't really even fix the issue, as you would still have bad pathfinding. Fix the pathfinding, and the need for waypoints disappears.


I would have said that was exactly the problem, one MWs get to a waypoint they tend to take fairly logical routes, sometimes the routes are a bit circuitous but that looks more like a lack of waypoints again to me :/
Besides that, pathfinding algorithms are fairly easy to write, I can't imagine IV got it this wrong :P
GENERATION 22:The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
RabidZombie
level5
level5
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm

Postby RabidZombie » Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:33 pm

Hey, if worse comes to worse, simply set up a lattice of officers and use them as a way of implementing your own path finding.

Also, would this qualify as the game being this Game 2.0 shit?
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:18 pm

Qjet wrote:officers are standing orders
think about it, when was the last time you deliberately killed an officer to trip a player up, that the player didn't rectify immediately.
Officers are really cool, and useful, way points wouldn't make them redundant.

That is a matter of opinion. On the other hand, I never argued that waypoints would make officers redundant. I argued that officers act as waypoints, but in a way that limits the player -- i.e. (1) one must control territory to use a waypoint through that territory, (2) one must sacrifice a DG to create a waypoint, and (3) one must have DGs in the area to act as officers (or one must be willing to move a DG/officer to the right location to set up a waypoint).

Qjet wrote:Also there isnt enough information in a selected group of units and selected point on a map to deliberately understand the users wishes.
This is why we have waypoints.

My wish is to win. Perhaps there should be a button that says "win," which will automatically allow me to win? The lack of waypoints was a (4) design decision on the part of IV. It was a conscious decision. If the pathfinding worked properly, this wouldn't even be an issue, as all of your arguments in favor of waypoints degrade to "the pathfinding is broken, waypoints will fix it."

Qjet wrote:Also xander, failing to acknowledge every one of your point... (deliberate lack of plural) is not a sign of saying "i must be wrong"

I have numbered the points in this post, for your edification.

Qjet wrote:It's just, your idea of a good argument is irrefutable fact on a reductionist and holist view point. which means with a little brainwork there IS no compelling argument. it's basically not possible if you counter everything by stating it's contradicting your temporarily construed personal viewpoint on how MW works.
best example of this is saying that MW's are dumb.

You are clearly misunderstanding what I mean by compelling. As far as I can tell, you have made two arguments: first, that other games have waypoints, so Multiwinia should, too; and second, that the pathfinding is broken, and that waypoints will fix that issue. The first point is a red herring -- who the fuck cares what other games do? Multiwinia is not Starcraft, or Command and Conquer, or Total War, or whatever other game you think it should be more like. That argument is bullshit. As to the second issue, the problem is the pathfinding, which needs to be fixed. You offer one solution, but it is not the only solution.

Qjet wrote:the important fact about this is that this kind of argument isn't likely to make me rethink my position, then again, that's not your goal is it. So i don't really want to get into it.

I am willing to admit when I am wrong. You have yet to make an argument that I find at all convincing, and you really don't seem to have thought about what I have written. You have assumed, a priori, that waypoints are automatically better than any other solution to the problems that you perceive, and you are unwilling to listen to any argument that runs against that. I read your arguments, and I attempted to respond to them. The above paragraph basically summarizes that response. Tell me where I am wrong in your interpretation, or come up with another argument.

Finally, I would point out that the game is what it is. I don't have to have super great arguments to back up my point of view that Multiwinia does not need waypoints -- it already doesn't have them. On the other hand, you are asking that a major change be made. You damn well better have some really compelling arguments to support that. Again, you have failed to provide.

xander
Qjet
level1
level1
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:38 am

Postby Qjet » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:21 pm

...

my arguments
bad pathfinding
and MW needs waypoints.

the fact that other games have it is either here nor their, but the reasons the developers of those games added a waypoint system are just as valid for multiwinia.

saying MW needs waypoints because other games have waypoints is retarded. I think that was your objective. So from the moment i mentioned waypoints, and cited other games reasoning, you believed i said games WERE the reason. That's why im not getting into a reductionist retardfest with you. Because im not saying what you think im saying and we arn't going to get anywhere. Go edificate yourself in a corner somewhere.
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:24 am

Do those other games have officers to order troops around? No?
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:11 pm

I tend to play CTS and KotH more than the other modes so my argument against waypoints is limited to these maps for the moment.

In combat I tend to try to attack my opponent’s forces from as many directions as I can, particularly if the opponent has their MWs in formation. Fairly standard tactic.

So, for example if I have a large group of MWs there is no point sending them straight at a formation…I’ll try to split them into 2 groups and send them off at 90degrees towards the sides of the formation, then try to attack from the side…the opponent then has to decide to either break up the formation or face loosing it…if they turn to face one of my groups the other will flank the formation hitting it from the side or rear and destroying it quickly.

If my opponent isn’t paying attention to his formation both my groups will hit it from the side.

It only takes a wee bit of micro to do, doesn’t always work but is fun and I find it quite effective. If I could set waypoints it would take a lot of the fun out of it as I could simply plot a course around the side or back of the formation, from a safe distance, without having to worry about managing my forces.

So waypoints would make it much easier to flank formations (or anything else for that matter) which I think would be a bad thing…it’s dumbing down.

On a side note and judging by your last response to xander I’m not sure if you actually want a discussion on your idea Qjet…I mean you seem to be more interested in arguing with xander about he manner of his criticisms, rather than the actual discussion points. Probably best not to bother posting new ideas if you’re going to throw the toys out the pram when somebody disagrees…especially on these forums where there can often be quite rigorous peer review.
Doncommie
level1
level1
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:25 am

Postby Doncommie » Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:39 pm

Weirdly the pathfinding doesn't care about going downhill despite this usually giving you the same problems that uphill does. Multiwinians will happily try to walk along a heavy slope and end up with a load of them walking into the ocean.

On the deceitful vale one of the spawnpoints has a lot of trouble getting you to the spawnpoint next door. You either have to setup three officers to safely get Multiwinians through this section or micromanage them. If you send them direct they will walk down the hill and mostly fall into the ocean.

Image
Mas Tnega
level5
level5
Posts: 7898
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Mas Tnega » Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:56 pm

This still seems more like a "fix the pathfinding" thing...
Doncommie
level1
level1
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:25 am

Postby Doncommie » Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:06 pm

Well we are in the thread for it :)
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:12 pm

Qjet wrote:the fact that other games have it is either here nor their, but the reasons the developers of those games added a waypoint system are just as valid for multiwinia.

Then you have done a very poor job of explaining those reasons. Why don't you stop referring to other games, and simply explain the reasons why waypoints are good? So for, you have failed to do so...

Qjet wrote:saying MW needs waypoints because other games have waypoints is retarded. I think that was your objective. So from the moment i mentioned waypoints, and cited other games reasoning, you believed i said games WERE the reason. That's why im not getting into a reductionist retardfest with you. Because im not saying what you think im saying and we arn't going to get anywhere. Go edificate yourself in a corner somewhere.

This is how I interpret this paragraph: "I don't actually have any arguments in favor of my point of view, so I am going to call you names and pout." You sound like a petulant five year old. Grow up.

xander
Cyan.
level3
level3
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:37 pm

Postby Cyan. » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:24 pm

why not add it for those who wants to use it, if you don't want it and just waiting for pathfinding to be fixed that's fine too. I see no problem in adding it if some players would like it. I don't think other players will be in a huge disadvantage like xander said he never played startcraft with it.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:38 pm

Cyan. wrote:why not add it for those who wants to use it, if you don't want it and just waiting for pathfinding to be fixed that's fine too. I see no problem in adding it if some players would like it. I don't think other players will be in a huge disadvantage like xander said he never played startcraft with it.

Because it removes the need to capture territory in order to send units through that territory. Right now, officers fulfill the function of waypoints, but they do so with limitations, as discussed above. While playing the game, you trade DGs for waypoints/standing orders/whatever, and there are limitations on how you can use them.

Also, as I pointed out above, "because some people might like it more" is not really a good reason to change the game around -- we, as players, can't make any of these changes. You have to convince IV that making the change is worth their while, either financially, or artistically. Why should IV change the gameplay to suite any player's ideas about what makes a good game?

xander

Return to “The Future”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest