Atrik

@MarcusAureliu#s the hotkey used is the very basic : session.attack It's F by default since a27, for "Force Attack". It's likely you'll want to use this when (alt or shift) sniping to avoid units to start gathering if you miss-click (in a forest for example). However it's not as good as it used to be with a26 "Ctrl" for "Attack" since now this isn't going to make an "attack move" in case you miss-click, so units will walk into suicide instead......... It would be interesting to know if someone was able to restore "Ctrl + Alt" sniping behavior from a26, which was: attack target if possible, else attack move. @roscany A gui button is likely to be added if this is implemented. But players that don't use mouse nor keyboard are kind of an exception.... Also as previously stated, it's not going to impact you that much relative to now. The current method of sniping will still be optimal in most cases. This would be like an alternative for less spamy clicks, but less efficient, and most use cases will be to avoid baiting and for pathing in general.

If this feature do provides an alternative to alt of shift spam clicks for targeting ranged units, it is not the only problem it solves. Alt and especially shift clicking with small selection (8 units for ex) would likely still be often more optimized. This, instead provides a solution to frustrating scenario where you need to make hundreds of clicks just to avoid catastrophic outcomes: Hero dance, is often asymmetrical micro for the player doing it, because defender needs to make tones of clicks very very fast just to avoid 0 damage dealing of your entire army. With box targeting, you can react to it with a single command instead (you might need to repeat it every few secs, but it's not as spammy). Overkills, when foes are placed in a way where your entire army will shoot at a single unit, there was no way to prevent it but making a full sniping cycle. With box targeting you can avoid this, just by hovering units you intended to shoot at, and not the single most closest enemy. Pathing, a lot of times, using attack move leads to weird army behavior where half of your units just move away the intended direction to chase a meaningless unit, like a cav, a female, a unit that just spawned out of a barrack in the back of the enemy base you are attacking.... Box Targeting allow you to define where do units need to go and fight instead. Basically all cases where you feel like your units get side-tracked for arbitrary reasons, you have a feature to avoid these situation. @ffm2 @roscany, I don't think this feature is adding complexity, to the contrary: It's a single command that solve multiple micro issues that previously required to learn to detect them, a lot of tricks to mitigate them, or responses when they occur. It also make perfect sens to use the existing "Force attack" hotkey, so it's not even adding a new one. This input is begging to be added, it's 5 line of codes in input.js (a few more for visual and audio effects)

I added the sounds @guerringuerrin, but for the cursor maybe @real_tabasco_sauce can help because when I try it, it impact unrelated stuff... It feels very good to handle. To test it : BoxTargeting.zip It will allow "Force Attack" Hotkey (F by default) + Selection Box to make your selection attack units hovered! I've reset the poll and assigned old votes to "no". Hoping to help this topic mature with this demo.

Thanks for posting this @Ginnungagap, means a LOT to me, you've been testing it since the nub poc, and your suggestions helped so much to bring it where it is now.

I was thinking of something that isn't even optimized, as user can already use the box selection tool to define which and approx how much units would be targeted. So basically making smaller selections if you want to really get the most out of it. I think this would make sens because in a battle, you might also gain value by choosing exactly where your ranged aim at (for example you want to weaken one of the flank for combo a cavalry charge, or because it is the closest to a fort that the enemy might retreat too at some point etc...). As for hero dancing, you would be 'immune' if you already issued a CHEAT and units in the box are still alive, or you could make a quick response with a fresh one. So I do think it mitigate it heavily. I guess AIMBOT would be feasible but indeed, more complicated, and too similar use case as patrol. Also if the main concern is that CHEAT doesn't mitigate hero dancing or any baiting, I think this isn't true. The main goal of CHEAT is to be able to make a single order to respond to baiting instead of being forced to make 300 alt clicks because someone is hero dancing.

I'm just setting low expectations on how this thread could end up because of the previous one, indeed @Ginnungagap, @guerringuerrin. Ideally this thread will instead answer game-play questions. There is also the question that I might be able to make the js do this, but if such a feature would ever be considered to add to vanilla, then a dedicated engine function might have to be developed, for a single command to be made instead of the js issuing 1 command per unit in selection.

After a quick test, I think it wouldn't be hard to create a CHEAT (Controllable Hover Entities Area Targeting) selection box targeting feature. The goal here would be to be able to use box selection while holding a hotkey to order selection to target specified enemy units. This would look like this: Select your army Hold down targeting hotkey Box select hover enemy units Then your selected units would be assigned to target all units found in the box selection. This would nicely mitigate aggressive pathing where for example : Half of your army get baited into splitting instead of attacking enemy army because a single unit happens to be behind your army Your entire army projectiles are thrown to a single enemy (overkill or hero dancing) Allow to assign ranged units to fire at back-line units, easier then with ALT hotkey Overall making micro-management funnier then having to make 300 click to avoid hero dance, yet making hero dancing still very good, but just easier to counter micro it. Micromanagement will obviously still be intensive, just you remove the part of spam clicking ALT, and replace it with a better fitted feature for targeting and spreading fire. I'd like to give one more illustration of how micro-management would look like with this. When playing xbows units, if you are retreating, but at some point, turn back to fire a volley, all units will shoot at the single most closest enemy. You CANNOT be fast enough with ALT clicks to spread shots, resulting in massive overkill. With this box targeting, you could make the volley spread on more enemies units following your units. In my opinion that this would be far greater approach to have a user-controllable feature then having solutions like : randomized targeting by @real_tabasco_sauce Or autonomous re-targeting by @real_tabasco_sauce.

I would say the same thing, and probably you would too, if someone made lame assumptions on historical right? One will never try it if he is imprinted into thinking he'll not like it (he'll convince himself he doesn't if ever he tried it anyways), and he'll have the freedom to do so. I also have the freedom to say that speculations are stupid and explain that it's dumb to refer to something you don't have knowledge about. And it is. @TheCJ @WiseKind please don't take my comments for personal attacks. They just explain why it's not working to argue in those threads.

If you were wise, you should know that talking about a subject you haven't investigated might lead to saying bs. Reading what other people in the same case (that didn't investigate) say doesn't count. This thread refer to a specific feature within a specific mod every single comment or almost. Now if you continue to debate with countless references to this feature, chances that you are spreading misinformation are probably absolute, and you won't really know better yourself in the end. Epistemology 101.

The quote you use of @guerringuerrin actually clearly and accurately describe the opposite. That's the main reason these tread have little value, is that people keep referencing a mod speculating on what it does or how, creating almost-myths.

https://github.com/Haroldgomez777/0ad-maximalists-map/commit/74ce381f5c65e51357e53a40d6034a7bf713168b it works!!!!

(but I was making a joke) Epic @Seleucids

Across all domains, the very opposite is true. New power tools enrich any discipline. Obviously it stands true to 0ad where teaching yourself to make a repetitive task, isn't hard or challenging, but just take space for you to think, or try new things. You or others admitted this was the main unfair advantage that it provides earlier. If ever you switch off the auto-trainer, you retain the new technics you had the brain space to try out : so the learning curve actually got UNflattened. For the other points, I already replied elsewhere so I'm done here with the thread.

The problem is that now, anybody using it is a cheater, and that, also the mod is disgraced beside being a very good mod, that add legitimate improvements to interface with the game... I think/hope that's not you aim for, but you can see why having a definition that both fit the intent and have a very define description could be worth considering over your wider definition. Also, if a mod is labeled cheat then very very few players would be interested into getting it, despite that they could actually like it. Cheats are often used when you are about to drop a game and you want quick satisfaction, mods get you to explore new ways to play it. I try to only promote moderngui to players who describe a wish for a feature that is specifically in the mod, and if another smaller mod have a similar feature, then I'll promote it instead, but I know for a fact that players who heard for the first time that a mod is a cheat is very unlikely to ever try it (permanent effect) compared to a player who heard about it as a mod will very likely do. I'm kinda over it now if some people want to call it cheat, I'm just replying to you @TheCJ since you seems more in a constructive approach, I don't want to get to personal about this @#$% anymore