Is it possible to controll how build & research requests are handled for officers and players (request, auto-accept, auto-deny etc. ?). Would be nice for experienced comms to be able to put it on auto-deny.
Yes, I have added Build & Research Requests to the Playerrequest Comm HUD in the top left corner.
Auto-deny, officer-only, and manual accept. (There is no auto-accept, of course, else trolls would spam the comm with it.)
Regarding the ignore panel: Its very massive and impressive, but would it be possible to make it more... userfriendly
? Like, maybe dropdown menu on ignore type (name, uid, index) instead of 16 buttons and dropdown for un-ignore? , or something like that?
Hehe, I may have added too many new ignore features, yes...
That should be possible, but working with Savage GUI is an absolute nightmare; for now, I'm just glad I managed to make it in the first place.
Question regarding the build & research system for players:
1. Can it be turned off in warmup, and turned on automatically by default, when game start (with commanders)?
Server-wide or individual as a comm setting? Both is possible, if coded accordingly.
Though I'm not entirely sure why it matters in warmup.
2. When one commander enables the feature of field comm requests for buildings and research in the auto-approve section, does it gets enabled for the other team aswell?
No, it is only enabled for the comm/team that has it enabled.
Much like every other request, they're team-based.
However, the server admin can turn off/on both request types manually at will.
(In fact, Research is on by default, but Build has to be turned on by Pulse. GK already has. If Jmz doesn't notice, just spam him until he does.)
Feedback:
- AO officer can build and instantly bypass and requests while in the field, I like that (it makes sense).
Yep, that's the idea behind it! A "Field Comm", if you wish.
- Nearby officer orders removes your own officer marker, which can make it hard to request things if it continously gets overridden. I suggest adding a seperate marker, which only urself and the commander can see, that does not get removed upon other people using officers marker.
Yes, I am aware, it's an unfortunate byproduct of having so many officers in the current meta. Officers may need to get used to being mindful around an AO that they know likes to use the feature. Groentjuh has notified me of potential improvements to consider.
- Might be worth mentioning, that it is currently hard to find the option for commanders to enable the build/ reasearch request feature. I dont think newbies will manage to find it easely. Another place, not so hidden in the UI, or atleast more distinct and intuitive for commanders to find, would be better. It defeats the purpose of beeing newbie friendly if it is so well hidden.
I put it where all playerrequests are handled by the comm, since it follows the same guidelines and reasoning, it's just another "player request". I'm open to suggestions, where else should I put it? Also, it's on by default for new clients, whereas old veterans may need to change it themselves (fortunately, they should know where it is intuitively).
- I think all officers on the team should be able to build & research if there is no AO officer or commander and the match have started.
Why has the match started without comms?
And yes, involving officers in some form is indeed a potential improvement, just need to figure out in which way and how much would be desired by the commnunity.
Is there feedback for players/officers:
- telling them gold/rs/resources is too low for requested tech/building (if it is too low, of course)
- telling them team havent reached sufficient tech level to meet the request (for example, suggesting lvl 3 lair, while lair is lvl 1)
Currently, there is no feedback other than "Accepted/Denied" like with every other request type - it matches the system for the most part.
I can add client-side feedback that checks by itself to not burden the server with it.
- Would be nice if AO can make workers from marked building aswell(provided its a spawnable building owned by the team) + feedback if worker limit is reached.
I considered it, but then decided against it for now as you'd need to be in the comm seat anyway to properly control said workers thereafter anyway. Still, it is possible as a potential improvement.
Author
