Curse

Necromas · Jan 15, 2011, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Okay, implimentation-wise they'd be anything but simple, but I want 3 new "formation" type buttons to control the AI characters in the party.

Yes I know AI is one of the hardest things to change in a game.

Tight formation: Characters tend to stick close to the group, generally behave like they do now, will specifically try to remain in earshot range of the rest of the party. Heroes set to passive will kite a lot (when it would be appropriate) and hang back.

Loose formation: Characters will try to avoid getting within adjacent range of each other unless necessary (meleeing the same foe, using touch skills on an ally, terrain). Will scatter from consecutive AoE. Heroes set to guard will kite more.

Scatter!: Characters will try to stay even further apart from each other, and will scatter quickly from any AoE. Can be used as sort of a panic button.

Oh and make the AI take movement speed and things like wells, wards, and AoEOT spells into account when deciding whether or not to kite and where to run when kiting.

*lemming* · Jan 15, 2011, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Haven't there been a lot of hero control command threads in here recently?

End · Jan 15, 2011, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Haven't there been a lot of hero control command threads in here recently?

Yes. And theres alot of speculation saying it's already in the works to come with the 7 hero update.

Gabriel of Ravn · Jan 15, 2011, 10:43 PM // 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Haven't there been a lot of hero control command threads in here recently?

Pretty sure I saw formations similar or exactly like this in 1 of those threads.

RedDog91 · Jan 15, 2011, 10:53 PM // 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by End

Yes. And theres alot of speculation saying it's already in the works to come with the 7 hero update.

speculation with no basis...
people just make speculation about what they want so that they can complain about it when they don't get it.

AndrewSX · Jan 15, 2011, 11:01 PM // 23:01

Seen other threads about it...but here it's exactely as i'd like to see it implemented(some instant command to all party).

End · Jan 15, 2011, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedDog91

speculation with no basis...
people just make speculation about what they want so that they can complain about it when they don't get it.

Apart from the fact that they mentioned they are working on stuff to go along with the full hero parties.

While they don't say what...

we do have mentions of them wanting to polish the full hero parties.

We do know that having 7-12 flags for heroes will be cluttered and look bad

The obvious way to deal with the clutter is formation flags with a single tab to select a hero here or there for areas where exactly placement is needed (like lining heroes about against a wall in foundry)

While it's not guaranteed. There's no reason to think it's not going to be included.

Cuilan · Jan 16, 2011, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Instead of having to babysit bots, they should be able to tell what's going on like a person. Since that will never happen I don't see a point in a scatter button, the idiots will run into another mob or AoE.

novawhiz · Jan 16, 2011, 12:19 AM // 00:19

Whats the point of new hero controls now? kinda late for that, no?

HigherMinion · Jan 16, 2011, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by novawhiz

Whats the point of new hero controls now? kinda late for that, no?

Not with the upcoming update of seven bots doing the work for you. It's just become relevant again, and I think this is a decent idea.

However, in the introduction to heroes, Anet said they would be able to learn their builds, if you force them to use skills in situations, etc. I never saw this to be the case, of course.

I think the AI is as good as it's going to get; the Aggressive mode is terrible, there are only two viable modes to put your heroes in, but I want those two to be optimised and how they use their skills (e.g. ER prot eles not casting enchants on themselves to fuel Ether Renewal; which is odd considering they always try to meet the secondary requirement to gain as much benefit from a skill as possible...)

gremlin · Jan 16, 2011, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Personally I hope players keep posting threads about improvements to GW right up to the time GW2 arrives on the scene.

Firstly because unless you keep hammering away at it the company tends to think its gone away.

Secondly because it have a knock on effect in GW2.

Point is many games where the player controls an ai party have single key commands for special occasions.

When GW was a multiplayer game and henchmen just a stopgap for when players were hard to find they were not needed.
However formation and actions commands should have arrived with Nightfall and the hero system.

So do it now or next week or next month or even next year but do it

I would also like my heroes and henchmen to stop fleeing towards the enemy.
If your scared or taking damage running combined with away is the option.

All too often the ai for enemy and allies alike moves them in stupid directions.

Horus Moonlight · Jan 16, 2011, 02:50 AM // 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by End

Apart from the fact that they mentioned they are working on stuff to go along with the full hero parties.

While they don't say what...

we do have mentions of them wanting to polish the full hero parties.

We do know that having 7-12 flags for heroes will be cluttered and look bad

The obvious way to deal with the clutter is formation flags with a single tab to select a hero here or there for areas where exactly placement is needed (like lining heroes about against a wall in foundry)

Oh and to stay on-topic, I would like to see this (haven't bothered to search if this suggestion has come up before).

While it's not guaranteed. There's no reason to think it's not going to be included.

Basing a conclusion on such flimsy evidence is speculation. There are multiple other conclusions that can be drawn from "polishing" heroes and subjective clutter.

While formation commands are a possible addition that could be added to the 7-hero update, there's no evidence that is even remotely credible to say it will be included.

[EDIT] Oh and to stay on-topic, I would like to see this happen (I haven't bother to search if this suggestion has come up before).

Rites · Jan 16, 2011, 04:00 AM // 04:00

hey didn't baldurs gate II have party formation tabs? i for one think this is a great idea.

Just Sai · Jan 17, 2011, 12:02 AM // 00:02

void main()
{
object oPC = GetEnteringObject();
if (!GetIsPC(oPC)) return;
SendMessageToPC(oPC, "AHH RUN!!");
ClearAllActions();
ActionForceFollowObject(oPC);
}

End · Jan 17, 2011, 12:11 AM // 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus Moonlight

Basing a conclusion on such flimsy evidence is speculation. There are multiple other conclusions that can be drawn from "polishing" heroes and subjective clutter.

While formation commands are a possible addition that could be added to the 7-hero update, there's no evidence that is even remotely credible to say it will be included.

[EDIT] Oh and to stay on-topic, I would like to see this happen (I haven't bother to search if this suggestion has come up before).

If you'd read up you'd see that I was giving points backing up speculation after noting plainly that it was purely speculation. Then someone said it was baseless speculation. I pointed out the base to said speculation. Soooo you saying it's speculation is...pointless? Since it was again clearly stated to be speculation. I bolded it so you might actually see it this time. I figured writing it plainly would be enough....

Either way shouldn't this be closed by now?

in favor of say...this?

Horus Moonlight · Jan 17, 2011, 01:39 AM // 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by End

If you'd read up you'd see that I was giving points backing up speculation after noting plainly that it was purely speculation. Then someone said it was baseless speculation. I pointed out the base to said speculation. Soooo you saying it's speculation is...pointless? Since it was again clearly stated to be speculation. I bolded it so you might actually see it this time. I figured writing it plainly would be enough....

Either way shouldn't this be closed by now?

in favor of say...this?

Where in my post did I state that you did not say it was speculation? Honestly, if you think that was the gist of my post I don't even know what to say. Let's see if I can write it more plainly: Your supposed base to said speculation (lol @ the paradox of speculation with base) was flimsy at best. Thus your conclusion that "there's no reason to think it's not going to be included" was equally flimsy.

At this point I think you read the first sentence and went ahead to write some half-assed retort about the wonderful word "speculation".

End · Jan 17, 2011, 01:53 AM // 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus Moonlight

Where in my post did I state that you did not say it was speculation? Honestly, if you think that was the gist of my post I don't even know what to say. Let's see if I can write it more plainly: Your supposed base to said speculation (lol @ the paradox of speculation with base) was flimsy at best. Thus your conclusion that "there's no reason to think it's not going to be included" was equally flimsy.

first off...all speculation has a base otherwise it's just a wild guess

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

Main Entry: spec·u·late
Pronunciation: 'spe-ky&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: -lat·ed; -lat·ing
intransitive verb 1 : to theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speculating

2. To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence.

The evidence here is insufficient evidence to be a certainty soooo it's speculation.

Quote:

(lol @ the paradox of speculation with base)

based on that I see no paradox? or you don't understand what paradox means?

Now for the rest of your post...if the base wasn't filmsy then it wouldn't be speculation. The only base for saying it's not going to happen is that anet hasn't said they are going to...which being anet means absolutely nothing. Soooo whos argument here is flimsier?
I don't see the point in saying it has a flimsy base when it is solely speculation involving one possibility. My argument here isn't even that it will happen, the argument is that this could very well already be in the works so there's no point discussing it.

Quote:

At this point I think you read the first sentence and went ahead to write some half-assed retort about the wonderful word "speculation".

I think you should get a clue

Horus Moonlight · Jan 17, 2011, 02:52 AM // 02:52

My bad; I equated basis to credible basis so my mistake on that part. Apropos to your need to bring out the dictionary, I find it funny that you chose to put a distinction between speculation and guesswork.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary

Speculation
noun
1 the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary

Guess
verb
estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct

Quote:

Originally Posted by End

Now for the rest of your post...if the base wasn't filmsy then it wouldn't be speculation. The only base for saying it's not going to happen is that anet hasn't said they are going to...which being anet means absolutely nothing. Soooo whos argument here is flimsier?

Nice to see you didn't get my arguement yet. I have not argued that formations aren't going to happen. I argued that your conclusion "there's no reason to think it's not going to be included" has a flimsy basis, which it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by End

I don't see the point in saying it has a flimsy base when it is solely speculation involving one possibility. My argument here isn't even that it will happen, the argument is that this could very well already be in the works so there's no point discussing it.

Except there is more than 1 possibility, each being equally likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by End

I think you should get a clue

You should take your own advice.

End · Jan 17, 2011, 03:50 AM // 03:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus Moonlight

My bad; I equated basis to credible basis so my mistake on that part. Apropos to your need to bring out the dictionary, I find it funny that you chose to put a distinction between speculation and guesswork.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wild

11. Based on little or no evidence or probability; unfounded: wild accusations; a wild guess.

1) do you know how hard it is to find a solid definition for wild guess?

2) Wild guesses normally denote no evidence or "speculation" with less of a foundation.

Quote:

Nice to see you didn't get my arguement yet. I have not argued that formations aren't going to happen. I argued that your conclusion "there's no reason to think it's not going to be included" has a flimsy basis, which it does.

and my argument is that you have no argument cause I have said it does have a flimsy base but every other argument has just as flimsy a base. And have said before but you don't seem to catch that. I'm not even trying to argue against you. I'm trying to point out that your arguing against nothing because I have previously said there is little base to any of this.

Quote:

Except there is more than 1 possibility, each being equally likely.

Indeed, but it's a waste of time discussing something when for all we know

1) it may already be coming
2) it may be obsolete with a more refined system
3) there's already tons of discussions on the matter

Quote:

You should take your own advice.

Just for fun: