OpenRA

So you'd instead like being unable to select your army at all when there is an engineer in the midst?

anjew wrote: ↑Regarding selection changes, I feel that an engineer should have a higher selection priority than harvesters. As it stands you can never box select an engineer as every unit has a higher priority.

netnazgul wrote: ↑ So you'd instead like being unable to select your army at all when there is an engineer in the midst?

Not trying to derail this thread but can we please have an option in settings menu to disable auto exclusion altogether, a hotkey to hold down while box selecting units to disable auto exclusion, or apparently a way to customize what is and isn't excluded since people seem to have diverse feelings on what should and shouldn't be effected?

https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/14694

netnazgul wrote: ↑So you'd instead like being unable to select your army at all when there is an engineer in the midst?

That's not what I said

anjew wrote: ↑an engineer should have a higher selection priority than harvesters

I was only pointing out that you can't box select an engineer near just about any unit. If you try to box select an engineer in your ore field you will only select harvesters

anjew wrote: ↑

netnazgul wrote: ↑So you'd instead like being unable to select your army at all when there is an engineer in the midst?

That's not what I said

anjew wrote: ↑an engineer should have a higher selection priority than harvesters

I was only pointing out that you can't box select an engineer near just about any unit. If you try to box select an engineer in your ore field you will only select harvesters

I didn't realize there were multiple priority levels in the exclusion logic. IMO there should only be 2 levels.. Combat units and Non-combat units.

@avalach21: agreed

I disagree. Priority levels allow more micro-level options. For people who are really good at micro, having only 2 prioty levels is almost as bad as a slap in the face to micro-ers as the stance changes were (mainly the assault-move and new logic). The game since then became more about macro than micro. Over time I'm less and less willing to play this game anymore because of the road it's going down.

I know some of you may not see it, but I'm very active in this game/community and a lot of people aren't happy with a lot changes from somewhere between 2017 and now. But they just go with the flow and install each new release.

CG: How does (having only 2 selection priorities while box selecting) allow more micro potential to "skilled players"?
i.e. Tanking with harvesters is hard to do, and a skill to learn, since selecting them is impossible without groups or shift clicking. But why not box select all non-combat units together (minelayers, harvesters, engis, mcv, supply truck) if there are no combat units around?

Feeling you just disagreed because you disagree how openRA as changed in general. Please be more explicit, so its more understandable what exactly isn't good about having only 2 selection priorities.
It might also be that you mixed up selection classes (=one unit type selected on double click) with selection priorities (only applies on box select)...?

Yeah, I'd also like an elaboration on that "more than 2 priority levels" thought. For now I just assume not requiring players to pin-point and click every other unit on the screen instead of box-selecting them is somehow a slap in the face of those who like to do exactly that.

I was only pointing out that you can't box select an engineer near just about any unit. If you try to box select an engineer in your ore field you will only select harvesters

I haven't thought that there are more than 2 priority levels, and as SirCake says I don't think it will do any good if there is, because the degree of implicit game mechanics is quite hard on new players as it is now, especially with the lack of proper documentation on stuff.

I do like however the suggestion to have a modifier (ctrl, alt, shift) to a box selection that negates priority levels and allows selecting all the stuff.

Is there a working playtest with the AA chrono tanks and phase transports? I have a feeling that they'll be OP, but want to give it a test before drawing conclusions.

SirCake wrote: ↑CG: How does (having only 2 selection priorities while box selecting) allow more micro potential to "skilled players"?
i.e. Tanking with harvesters is hard to do, and a skill to learn, since selecting them is impossible without groups or shift clicking. But why not box select all non-combat units together (minelayers, harvesters, engis, mcv, supply truck) if there are no combat units around?

Feeling you just disagreed because you disagree how openRA as changed in general. Please be more explicit, so its more understandable what exactly isn't good about having only 2 selection priorities.
It might also be that you mixed up selection classes (=one unit type selected on double click) with selection priorities (only applies on box select)...?

.

.

Please forgive me, I'll have to get back to you on that. It's quite a lengthy answer and I'm tight on time.

I got plenty of feedback and saw some no-brainer changes (chronotank Anti Air was clearly too much) so I went ahead and released playtest B! This also allows me to put a couple things in that I forgot, including fakes building off of fakes.

The front post has been updated, but here are the changes from A to B:

* Removed Chrono tank and Phase Transport Anti-Air

* Phase Transport Cloaking speed reduced from 9 seconds to 6.

* Chrono Tank PortableChrono time reduced to ~9 seconds (250 ticks).

* Shock Trooper price increased from 300 to 350. Removed the damage changes

* Telsa Tank speed lowered from 113 to 99. (Same speed as MGG and MRJ)

* Fake structures can be built off of other fake structures

oh, and also

* Removed kill bounties

Sorry about that last one. We really need testing on this issue so I decided it's time to throw it in. Kill bounties are closer to the chopping block than they've been before and it's time to take this idea seriously.

If you are a supporter of kill bounties, we need to hear that (a) you've tested several games without them and (b) you have a better argument for keeping them than 'Don't fix what isn't broke'. Without feedback that gives a proper support for keeping them, there is a good chance we'll see kill bounties removed in the near future.

___

As always, feedback matters. Leave your thoughts here or join the conversation on Discord.

Smitty wrote: ↑
* Fake structures can be built off of other fake structures

oh, and also

* Removed kill bounties

.

.

Mind if I steal those ideas? I like the changes btw.

I like them aswell!

Down with Kill Bounty finally!

yay plz no more kill bounties

Smitty wrote: ↑ If you are a supporter of kill bounties, we need to hear that (a) you've tested several games without them and (b) you have a better argument for keeping them than 'Don't fix what isn't broke'. Without feedback that gives a proper support for keeping them, there is a good chance we'll see kill bounties removed in the near future.

There's a massive post filled with reasons why they should be kept but I'll make a short list here. http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... es&start=0

It's a very good read, all 8 pages.

- "Rewards players for having a superior fight. Incentive not to just waste units and micro them correctly." - Me

- Stronger micro is rewarded with a small cash boost.

- Cash income for late game when eco is dried up. Allows somewhat good army rebuilding.

- Feedback from the last playtest with this was that players reported feeling they had less money in their pocket. OMnom made a good point of not removing bounties until there is another alternative form of cash.

- "Bounties become a lot more significant as a money source on low eco maps." - Lucas

- ""Provides dopamine and prevents the action from drying up in-between heavy engagements. Also supports late-late game." -Gatekeeper

- "In essence it does one thing and that is to boost the progression of the game. If it hurts the game it has to do with the game balance itself. The bounty system has been ingrained in the RA eco system, it pushes the game progression. Pulling it out cold would simply slow down the game but more importantly IMO make the RA mod less distinguishable, less fun." -Soscared

- "I also don't know why we are striving for perfect balance (which isn't possible anyway). I like the more fun aspects of the game, such as bounties, or the wonky way combat works. I like how yak crashes are hit or miss. I like how a demo truck can blow up in your own base. Removing these more fun aspects will just make it another generic RTS." - Orb

"you have a better argument for keeping them than 'Don't fix what isn't broke'."

Here's my arguement for why they should stay. Where is your argument for removal than just put it on the chopping block and force is to justify it's existence because it isn't liked up top?