I largely agree with megatron on the issue; The current targeting method makes bombing a stealthed target extremely micro-intensive. And as others have stated, in a large game of supcom there is a lot going on at once, and as a result it's impossible to micro all your units. In my opinion, large-scale gameplay should be the focus of this game, so microing a unit shouldn't be a /requirement/ for it to function; at most, microing a unit should give the player an advantage over a non-microing player.
Now, regarding this change. As I understand, the two main reasons behind the change are as follows (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. It's ridiculus that one can target a unit, and that the attacking unit will follow the targeted one all over the map, without radar or LOS intel on the unit.
2. Stealth needs a buff, in order to make stealthed armies (or navies) a match against shielded armies or navies.
Now, first: Since the change incurs a lot of frustration, one should ask oneself if the change is really necessary. I will concede that a cybran army or navy with stealth is (in a 3603-situation) probably not as strong as a uef shielded army. However, the deceiver and stealth boats give cybran other options not present for uef (or aeon, sera) players (i.e. stealthed raiding parties across large maps, hidden TML- or firebases, etc). If they have that extra possibilities, isn't it fair that they are weaker on other fronts?
If the community decides the change is in fact necessary, I still feel that it should be implemented differently. Some viable options have been presented in this thread:
1. If you lose intel, move to last known position of unit. If the unit is in intel again, reinstate attack order.
2. On loss of intel, calculate probable trajectory of unit, engage intercept course (Jean-Luc Picard ftw). When intel is reacquired, reinstate attack order.
3. Give the intel loss a lag-effect; i.e. only lose attack order if intel is lost for an extended period (possibly dependant on unit type, distance to target, speed).
Option 1 or 2 seem to be best at first glance, since they only reward stealthed units if the stealth is used properly (i.e. your stealth works in your favor if you move your units to an unpredictable position after you have been scouted). However, even if the targeted unit just stands still the scenario will most likely be
- unit is scouted
- attack order is issued
- bomber moves towards target
- bomber loses intel due to scout plane killed, but continues towards target
- bomber regains intel (own radar or LOS), but it's too late to drop the payload
- bomber passes over target and is shot down by defenses without doing any damage
Maybe the best solution would be a combination of 2 and 3? This makes stealth work as intended, but it is rendered ineffective by regular scouting, where a short temporary loss of intel will not get your attack units killed in vain.
In conclusion, my suggestion would be to either
- Revert to 3603-behaviour, because the frustration the change incurs is greater than its advantage; or
- If we must have a different behaviour, make attack units set an intercept course on loss of intel AND have them remember their targets for a couple of seconds.
My two cents,
--
Rien
P.S. Even if I sound critical in this post, I want to emphasize that I greatly reward all the work you (Ze_Pilot and others) do on the FaF project. You keep my all-time favorite game alive and I'm grateful for that. It's impossible to get concensus on every change in the game, so I'd understand if you'd ignore my input
Statistics: Posted by Rienzilla — 17 Aug 2012, 10:46
]]>