It seems like the rotation of the unit is included in the calculation for the proximity of the unit. Even though a unit may be closer to yours, if your unit has to turn around to target it, it appears further away.
Not sure why he would be confused, even without watching to that point yet. RAT is manually replacing the units behaviour and orientation with the Beacon ability, then cancelling it, leaving it in that altered orientation state with no beacon (you can see it from the orientation it isn't reverting to default one correctly).* I wish they'd give as the ability to hold left and drag to face units in desired direction after placing them. This would give so much more tactical depth, and would also work how the beacon is currently working* Then when the match starts, the server is realizing it has no proper beacon order state to follow, even though it was pre-orientated for it, and recalculates aggro based on the incorrect facing direction and allows you to thus manually alter the aggro-priority and targeting sectors. This works since the beacon cancel code is bugged and since the game clearly uses a forward facing aggro-bias maybe something like this (I personally think it is too simplistic, and should use visual cones + target optimization based on duration to reach firing range and the duration required to turn the turret towards the target + re-loading time): TARGET_PRIORITY= AGGRO_DISTANCE(UNIT, TARGET) × (BIAS_ADJUSTMENT + dot(UNIT_CURRENT_FACING, UNIT_FACING_TARGET)) Where: BIAS_ADJUSTMENT = 2 (this is just a guess based on unit's behavioral observations, but I think it is most likely this value) dot() = vector dot product function, gives the fraction that represents the angle between UNIT and TARGET UNIT_CURRENT_FACING = unit vector (normalized) of UNIT's current facing, this is the changing variable used for plotting the area, its range is (-π, π) UNIT_FACING_TARGET = This is the unit vector between the position of UNIT and target unit TARGET TARGET_PRIORITY = the result we are trying to plot and find by this reverse engineering effort AGGRO_DISTANCE = 100 a totally random range to help visualize the plot a bit better, in reality this is much bigger imho You can copy-paste this to Wolfram Alpha to get a visual presentation of the assumed aggro-range that would result from the above formula if Aggro range would be 100 and bias would be 2 and the unit was facing right PolarPlot[100*(2 + Cos[theta]), {theta, -Pi, Pi}] This plot shows how much more priority the unit gives to targets in front of it compared to those at the sides or behind it. The formula used increases the priority for targets within a forward-facing cone (0° direction) and decreases it gradually as you move toward its sides (±90°) and behind (180°). The plot is three times as "long" in front, and gradually tapers down to a normal length behind. The 2D plot translates this to a line that peaks in the forward direction (0°) and dips when targets are directly behind (180°). Which you have most likely noticed, units behind the unit tend to get ignore to a pretty big extend, this sort of thing is required due to extremely slow attack-turret turn speed being a valid consideration with most units (without something like this, some units would hardly ever shoot, and be stuck in rotating to face targets from different directions, the locking on to targets also helps with this) Hope this helps someone understand an educated guesstimation on what is going on
Yeah I think being able to cancel beacon is silly. If you want to control a unit with beacon, you should have to keep the beacon active. I am fine with being able to divert part of a unit with it if you keep it active, but being able to cancel it and still get control out of it isn't intuitive. You should have to buy extra beacons if you want to control more units and you should have to keep those beacons active.
So your only argument isn't intuitive? My argument is that it adds to the game in a way that enriches it and therefore it should stay. I think my argument is better.
@ThornEthics it being unintended doesn't matter. Dozens of games hace unintended mechanics that have been left in the game because they made it better. Dota is the classic example.
Personally I think the free turning of units should be patched out and only do it if you actually leave beacon like that. The facing and positioning is kind of baked into the game already and freely doing it is kind of bad design wise imo. I would assume that the interaction is unintentional. To expand on what RAT says in the video, not only should you be able to make decisions based on the mechanics of the game and the current board state, I also don't think you should be able to FREELY reposition units essentially without a cost or consequence. There is zero downside and zero cost to doing the beacon turn and it makes one of the main decisions of the game, flanking, sometimes pointless or impossible with no downside on the opponents end. It should definitely be removed. Long topic on the forums about it that expand on all of this.
* If you beacon trick, you are paying with this with even less time to strategize. It also add a layer of alternative usability. The idea that you can not tell that the opponent does this, is only valid for one round. * If you watch the board, the and try to be cheesy in the flanks, you always take a risk. Maybe when you put a unit in the flank, maybe the enemy in his dark turn put something there. Do we remove the ability of a opponent to put units near the flank to prevent potential cheesing (even by accident)? In other words, you are always behind a blind curtain for a round. * And if you watch your opponent and know he has beacon, you can see the units turn back on the round start, even when you did not flank. So you know that he is looking at protecting his flank. I noticed a lot of pushback to this use, is mostly people that are more casual (trust me, i am only a 1200 player that sucks), but you know that higher rank players will use every little point to their benefit. When you play against a elite player, in any game, they know every nook and cranny, some say its exploiting but its not. You have the same ability in your hands. Its like rocket jump in TFC... This was never designed in the game. People "exploited" this but because both sides where able to do it, it became a part of the game. And the devs kept it in, even with new version of the game as it added a lot more strategy to the gameplay.
It only worked on a group, when he got extended range. When he did it with the first flank, only two mustangs actually moved, as he did not have extended range on them yet. So you need to know the limitations. Turn + Range = what enemy targetted first, or not.
I am in the middle. Its a form of skillexpression an that is good. Maybe there should be a sightcone button? When you press ist, the Ranges get shown. They could reduce the forward aggro range a bit, to make it less strong. To use this, enemy units should be turnable in planning screen
I have played some games with the cost control specialist and I dont really understand why he is bad gain. You can buy the damage and health upgrade for a total of 200 credits and at round 3 your specialist has already paid of
buying the upgrades doesnt equal things out since enemy will also buy upgarades `? But there is a variety of opinions amoung +1700mmr players if cost control is good or bad.. same as for Elite Specialist which is basically the opposite
Because its not the same ... A 11% drop on a higher number, != a (what is it now) 13% on a lower value. The issue is that some classes are balanced to the point, that a few damage point means the difference between one shoting (example) crawlers, vs two shoting because you just lacked a few points of damage. From a economy point of view, if this was the old (pre-random drops) where most games lasted 8~11 rounds easily, yes, the economy benefits is worth it. But now with the random drops, most games are 5~7 rounds. 1. You are in a defense/attack for round 1...2. That means a enemy can (depends on the opponent and board) gain more XP on your weaker units, what means potential higher levels by round 3. 2. Now your round 3, but you may have only 3 to 4 rounds for benefits, so your economic benefit is 300 a 400. But going with a unit drop class, like a 3th round farseer, that is already a 300 economic bonus on the 3th round. And the benefit of a specialized unit that you can then deploy based upon the board. 3. The fear of a specialized unit may keep a enemy out of specific units. Like maybe the opponent does not go air, or sells out of storms because of your unit drop that may have a counter to his board / initial units. There is also a issue with damage/defense stacking bonuses. I remember seeing that the +17% one, only gains on the base unit but when you add a 50% percentage cards, the increase seem to be one the base unit, not the base+17. Example: * Base 5000 + 17% (850) = 5850 Total * Base 5000 + 17% (850) + 50% (2500)
the negative effects are multiplied and positive are added together. So cost control stats are always 0.87*(1+buff1+buff2+buff3). You shouldn't ever buy the atk defense upgrades with cost control (like pre r5). The way you play it is use your money to go into a composition that counters the enemy so hard that the stats dont matter at all. Cost control used to be really good but the new unit specialists are just op op so that makes cc mid tier
I'd say make it a non-beacon mechanic. I.e. you place a squad and orient it once after placement. This would entail, that the beacon only comes into effect once the battle starts --> units don't rotate during the prep phase. Currently i see 2 issues apart from the one Rat spoke of in the end: - Knowledge gap: Some people don't know of the interaction, and since there is no way to tell for newer players i'd say this is an unfair adcantage. - clunkyness: Doing this for more than one unit per turn takes up alot of time. So if you want to optimize your setup and pla to the best of your abilities **each round** you have to spend your turn with micro-management. Yes, the skillcap would decrease, as you can effectively split squads right now. But devs have to consider the useability and intuitivity of their product. I'm curious to see where the devs will land on this. And what their solution will be.
Funny that you upload a video about beacon abuse right after Chemtrails did a write-up on discord about unit targeting and why beacon trick should be removed. Nice Timing ;)
I learn most from you and i wanna say, i like your stuff, but i'd love a little music in the background or something? I think it would maybe help with the views.
thats an exploit that should be out of the game,basically you can never flank someone playing aggro because of it and makes an already OP strat even more OP.
