OpenRA

CombineC wrote: Come Play Medieval Warfare instead! its great!

Sleipnir wrote: Happy, I can't tell from your replies whether you are serious or whether this is satire. In case you are serious, all I can ask: what do you plan to do when the release comes in a few weeks?

Laugh if the stances made release then launch PUBG

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK units would not attack base structures automatically in the vanilla RA, only base defences and units. Therefor this feature has nothing to do with base-pushing, if it changes the base-pushing meta this is coincidental. In any case, I haven't tried the change but I'm pretty sure I'll cope with it somehow.

Saying it breaks the game, or makes it to hard to micro/macro whatever for top tier players is silliness.

I've played maybe 20 games, but still unsure on these stances people are going on about. I've only used A move and stop so far, i used to use return fire and hold fire but haven't needed to so far.

But i limit my opinion still, until more playtesting.

WhoCares wrote: I will try again to detail the idea i have regarding the stance in this reply and i hope better structured :

The new stances of the playtest in details :

• Hold fire :
  [tab]immobile : Stay passive whatever happens, ignore buildings
  [tab]Amove : ignore buildings

• return fire :
  [tab]immobile : Stay passive untill being shot at hold position, ignore buildings
  [tab]Amove : ignore buildings

• defence :
  [tab]immobile : fire on sight but hold position, ignore buildings
  [tab]Amove : ignore buildings

• attackanything :
  [tab]immobile : fire on sight and pursuit/move to engage close target, kill buildings
  [tab]Amove : kill buildings

The main change here is the implementation of the ignore buildings on 3 of the 4 stances. Wich left only one possible behaviour for the ones who want to set their units in auto attacking building and this stance is unconfiortable because it leads into suicidal units.

My sugestion is removing the ignore building/attack building trait from the stances themself and put it in a separate hotkey wich set the behaviour you choose for ALL stances.

Example having the "b" hotkey as "ignore building ON/OFF"

So i can set my units in

• Hold fire :
  [tab]immobile : Stay passive whatever happens, ignore buildings ON/OFF
  [tab]Amove : ignore buildings ON/OFF

• return fire :
  [tab]immobile : Stay passive untill being shot at,hold position, ignore buildings ON/OFF
  [tab]Amove : ignore buildings ON/OFF

• defence :
  [tab]immobile : fire on sight but hold position, ignore buildings ON/OFF
  [tab]Amove : ignore buildings ON/OFF

• attackanything :
  [tab]immobile : fire on sight and pursuit/move to engage close target, ignore buildings ON/OFF
  [tab]Amove : ignore buildings ON/OFF

I'll not say wich stance should be by default and if targeting building should be ON/OFF by default, but i can suggest to have 2 options in the menu to select that.

I remind that the targeting is still important even in HOLD FIRE because it affects the AMOVE.

As to finish this i'll ask you if this time i managed to demonstrate clearly the idea. I insist; I don't need you to agree with it, just know you understood me (that would be my reward).

This. Can't believe I read over this and forgot to endorse it is a very good idea and I hope someone reads and considers it. Much better alternative than what is happening now.

I have serious reservations about the changes to unit stance and a-move behaviour - After playing a few games on the playtest I have to say I honestly lost all interest in continuing to play games on it. The quote from the player I was playing against was something along the lines of "Surely they (developers) cant be serious about implementing these changes", and frankly i agree.

The stance bar however is a welcome addition, I just ask that it be can be turned off if not desired, minimised when not required, and is also able to be positioned in multiple position, as I feel it is an eyesore where it is. I would suggest that it could be placed in the 3 corners not occupied by the building tab, and also behind the building tab (peeking out).

Edit/addition: I could probably deal with what Whocares has suggested, can we playtest that?

3.Lucian wrote: The quote from the player I was playing against was something along the lines of "Surely they (developers) cant be serious about implementing these changes", and frankly i agree.

Can you please elaborate more on why you and other players think this is so ridiculous as to be a joke? Comments like this are written as if they think it is so obviously bad that they don't need to elaborate. It is not obvious, and you do need to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously.

It looks really bad when objections are phrased in terms of how they don't want to change their play style to adapt to the new gameplay, and it looks even worse when they then say that they are not even interested in even giving the changes an honest go. The posts by one person in this thread are a good example of this.

So far the discussion that has focused on specific gameplay impacts indicate that the changes are overall either good, or actually not a big enough deal to worry about. I can sympathize that it sucks to have to adapt and relearn when someone suddenly changes something that you are used to, but individual objections to "I dont like change" do not outweigh the overall project goals.

Can you please elaborate more on why you and other players dislike the change? Comments like this are written as if they think it is so obviously bad that they don't need to elaborate. It is not obvious, and you do need to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously.

I can only truly speak for myself, and only relay what I have taken away from discussions with other players.

What I dislike is summed up below
a. I don't understand the motivation behind the change
b. I personally haven't seen the need for the change
c. I think it's a step in the other direction from the point where we are at with fine-tuning unit and faction balancing
d. I think it's counter intuitive (specifically that you build units to attack things, yet you are introducing a hurdle to them doing so)
e. I think it makes playing the game unnecessarily more complex for everyone and at the same time more difficult for new players to learn
f. I believe it reduces a player's ability to attack multiple fronts effectively.

it looks even worse when they then say that they are not even interested in even giving the changes an honest go

Sorry, but I just didn't enjoy it, and enjoying it is a fairly big prerequisite in me putting in hours into playing the game, as well as the other bits and pieces, mapping, participating in streams, on the forum, in competitions, etc

I honestly gave the playtest a go with a completely open mind, and embrace positive change and development of this game, and have made suggestions on the git previously, however, I am not convinced that this is a positive change.

I also debated internally whether or not to voice my opinion on this because of these reasons:
1. I appreciate that the devs might just know whats best for the game, even if that is contrary to the popular opinion of the player base
2. I appreciate that you can compare this to previous changes that have been made where the players have cried the sky is falling, and the changes have been very positive.
3. I appreciate that so far, the "process" has produced a very compelling, competitive and entertaining game.
4. I trust that the input from players is substantial and has contributed greatly to the "process" and that the common sense of players will prevail.

the reason I have chosen to respond to this thread is
1. They could be wrong, and although I appreciate the sentiment of trying to do as much as possible to improve the game by adding to it, on some level the "KISS" (keep it simple, stupid) principle does apply.
2. As I stated above, I am not convinced this change is positive
3. I may not have a clear picture of the player/dev feedback loop and its importance
4. Happy pointed out that there has not been substantial player feedback in the negative for this change.

It's all well and good to complain, but I think it's far more constructive to offer an alternative, so here are my thoughts on how this could be incorporated into the game:

two a-move type commands: one like we are used to and the other ignoring buildings. - it won't break the game, still, gives us the new feature, adds another option for gameplay.

finally, I'd just expand on what I finished off my last post with: I think some of whocares suggestions are great as well I think and they should be examined.

Want me to elaborate. The UI is noisy. Everytime there is an A move their is a click noise. Every time their is a stop command there is a click noise. This update I don't think anyone asked for someone to stand behind them with a pen clicking it open and closed when a hotkey is pressed. I turned off cash ticks for this atleast make it another option. Your stances are causing problems. Everytime I put the stance on aggressive only the stop micro stops working. They ignore my orders and just charge ahead like the mammoth tank. As Lucian said switching between these stances is an actual chore considering when the default isn't the kill everything stance. Now because everyone keeps telling me to keep the team players in mind I will now. I don't think theyre going to be happy with having to change stances. I mean if theyre that bad their artillery will charge forward instead of killing buildings. I'm sure they will love the constant stance changes only good player can maintain. Now lets look at a noobs perspective. This game makes it so default if I attack something it will ignore buildings. But the other thing I can change it too does, shouldnt that be the default attack everything? I have no problem learning your quirky new stances but I have myself, players who despise it and the new players in mind not just myself. Oh and I played some more games, opinion didn't change.

Sleipnir wrote: Can you please elaborate more on why you and other players think this is so ridiculous as to be a joke? Comments like this are written as if they think it is so obviously bad that they don't need to elaborate. It is not obvious, and you do need to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously.

For once in awhile it would be nice if you guys elaborated why YOU think it's a good idea and convince US. Instead of dropping the Abomb and sitting back waiting for US to justify why it is bad and dismissing OUR opinions because they haven't got 2 hours to write up a complex boring essay.

The stance you are taking is the exact stance ppl who don't like it are taking ....

Why don't you guys sell it to us ? Explain to us in-depth why this a great idea ???? Beacuse at the moment it's not obvious to me, and you do need to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously.

JuiceBox wrote:

Sleipnir wrote: Can you please elaborate more on why you and other players think this is so ridiculous as to be a joke? Comments like this are written as if they think it is so obviously bad that they don't need to elaborate. It is not obvious, and you do need to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously.

For once in awhile it would be nice if you guys elaborated why YOU think it's a good idea and convince US. Instead of dropping the Abomb and sitting back waiting for US to justify why it is bad and dismissing OUR opinions because they haven't got 2 hours to write up a complex boring essay.

The stance you are taking is the exact stance ppl who don't like it are taking ....

Why don't you guys sell it to us ? Explain to us in-depth why this a great idea ???? Beacuse at the moment it's not obvious to me, and you do need to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously.

This, this! This is why people are getting so pissed off. Explain why it's good I also want evidence of your own ingame experiance cause it's not like ive ever seen a dev play in my entire 6 month career.

Infact the devs are commiting a logical fallacy by saying the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim but with someone else to disclaim - the burden of proof. Throwing the stance change at us and making us prove its bad is as usefull as if I was a dev saying artillery is OP and im deleting it from the game and its up to you to prove its not OP and shouldn't be deleted where the only fact I have to back it up deleting it is I'm a noob who gets rekt by it.

If this falls under the path of re-imagining RA while keeping it faithful to the original, I promise you that people aren't going to remember nor care about stances. The only reason people are liking this change is because of the new A-move, not because of the stance system. In the new playtest, the "Attack Anything" stance is niche situational, and "Hold Fire" / "Return Fire" are the exact same thing -- when would I ever want to tell a unit to "Hold Fire", but not "Return Fire"? When would I want my units to go crazy and attack anything?

The only useful stance is the default "Defense" stance that will smart-target anything that can fire back. The new stance system is not something I would consider fun, enjoyable, or necessary to use for a number of reasons, the main one being that it's there is too much overlap between the stances and the "Attack/Stop" moves. If I can get everything done with Attack-Move and Stop-move, why would I ever want to use something more complicated? What benefit is there for me telling my units to go to "Hold Fire" stance versus "Defend"? (actually, it might be a great idea to tell infantry units to go prone when they are in the defend stance). If there was a "Patrol" stance, that might actually be useful (it really should be patrol move, but whatever).

I suggested to the (defunct) balance council to combine "Return Fire (or Defend)" and "Attack Anything" stances rather than giving each stance its own attack move. If the unit is range of a unit that can fire back, then Return Fire / new Defense A-move. Else, Attack anything. In essence, this would just be improving the current "Stop" micro. You can keep the current stances for backwards compatibility so you don't have to rewrite dependent code.

The alternative would be to make each stance more unique and useful. For instance (and these suggestions are going to be outrageous, mind you), if infantry are in the "Hold Fire" stance, infantry gain +2c0 vision. If infantry is on "Attack anything," they will never go prone. If infantry is on "Defend," they will always be in a prone position. If they are on "Return Fire" ...well idk, because this stance is basically the exact same thing as "Hold Fire."

In summary, the new stances are cumbersome to use for existing players, and in most cases, there is no reason to switch stances. All of your positive feedback relating to the stances is related to the new A-move logic -- not the stance system itself. I've listed two possible ways for you guys to make the changes more useful, less cumbersome, and more rewarding for existing players. I can't speak for newer players, but if they were to come to me for a lesson, I'd tell them to ignore the stance system as is. What I am looking forward to in this next release is the ability to possibly use these stances as new conditions for future mods.

And as a side note to the brothers: The main mod is their game -- not ours. Any changes that are made are theirs to make, regardless of whatever feedback they get. Most of the time, the feedback they get is split anyways; just ask them about what happened when they put a 10c0 BuildRadius on the MCV. And as far as I know, our inputs are equal with the exception of SoS and AoA -- you two are just two "Nays" on a straw poll. So at least try to show some respect to the devs rather than lambasting them for a change that they thought would keep their version of RA faithful to the original .

Lmao I wondered when the balance council horn would toot for you omnom. Hows that imaginary badge you have?. Balance council most hilarious thing I have seen on this. Make a suggestion about balance council to include everyone . Only invite the people who are in the click anyway. Joke.

I haven't played the test yet omnom so holster your whistle for a second. I am simply stating that the argument from the Dev is that no1 is explaining in-depth why it is bad. I am simply stating that it's funny that the Devs equally do not explain intentions or motivation in depth to explain why it is good.

I think the core problem is the clear split from the community they have. When are you lot ever online mixing with the players that play on a day to day basis ??? I have played for over a year and never seen you guys or spoken to you guys???? How can you have a true feel of the ground if you guys are never on it ? If you did involve people maybe they wouldn't of gotten negative responses. It's not like we have to live with your changes there is an abundance of games to play other than RA. Maybe the tough shit it's happening approach isn't the best idea for a community that's small enough already. Just saying

The argument of its my game I'll do what I want is childish

Minor detail about the stances: I thought OpenRA is about keeping the game close to its original, while modernizing the gameplay. So adjusting the gameplay to make it more similar to the original doesnt really make sense.

Unless it turns out the original gameplay is actual better ofcourse than in the previous release. That is something we should test alot before concluding its worse.

In theoretical sense I really like WhoCares' suggestion. It seems to be a simple solution that creates a wide variety in stances. So on one side easy to use for newbies, but at the same time it provides a myriad in possibilities for the superfast-micro-expert.

noobmapmaker wrote: Minor detail about the stances: I thought OpenRA is about keeping the game close to its original, while modernizing the gameplay. So adjusting the gameplay to make it more similar to the original doesnt really make sense.

Unless it turns out the original gameplay is actual better ofcourse than in the previous release. That is something we should test alot before concluding its worse.

In theoretical sense I really like WhoCares' suggestion. It seems to be a simple solution that creates a wide variety in stances. So on one side easy to use for newbies, but at the same time it provides a myriad in possibilities for the superfast-micro-expert.

I thought the stance changes were in line with their project goals...faithful was the wrong word to use.

As far as the "variety" of stances -- why would I want to have a complicated solution when everything could be done with 1 stance? If everything can be done with 1 stance, then why bother making this game more confusing? The key to getting better at this game is to do all the simple tasks as quickly as you can, not to waste your efforts on actions that take too long for little to no reward.