Cruiser Command

Cruiser command is a cooperative map between two teams. Simply put, each team controls one battlecruiser and the goal is to kill the opponent's battlecruiser.


It is currently Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:00 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:42 pm 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:00 pm
Posts: 241
Location: Baden-Württemberg, Germany, EU
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
WhyteDragon wrote:
It produces 145GWs of energy per second as a base before everything is said and done, correct? All I was suggesting was making that a number number; by example, say, 175GWs or 200GWs. The exact opposite of everything you said would be the case since the relative amount of energy gained through upgrades and power docking would be smaller. Furthermore, it would also put a larger emphasis on Core Activity, since having a higher battlecruiser energy generation, compared to that gained from powerdocking, means that altering core output has a higher influence upon energy generation.

Ok, that is true. Higher base generation makes every bonus from resource-intensive upgrades or powerdocking less meaningful.
From that perspective it would be a good thing.
Then again some small-scale harassment on the BC would also lose in impact, as the energy spent on restoring the shields is more quickly regained.


Quote:
However, what I do fail to see is how this addresses the problem you put forth of 'offense always being at an obvious advantage.'

The defending team starts the battle significantly lagging behind in shields power, usually.
It can even be that bad that the defenders's BC blows up without ever having gone shield-stable. Simply due to low hp, not giving them enough time.
So in an actual scenario, it's quite realistic the attackers would go into the battle with about 200gw into shields, allowing them to quickly tank all damage with energy. The defenders can have 0gw in shields, making them suffer 50 more damage every second of the battle.
Given how precious BC hull hp is in the current 10K start, that is a significant advantage that will be somewhat mitigated by having shields regenerating less and having more BC hull.

Quote:
Plus, you'd probably also have to change the repair kit and minelayer heal values by a relative amount in order to compensate them such that it doesn't because absolute crap to heal hull.


Well you could consider Slapshot's "Advanced Repair Kit" suggestion from a while ago.
There's tons of possibilities to have repairing scale with your BC hull.
Could make minelayers repair 0.1% hull per projectile.
Could have repair kits scale up in repaired amount by 5% per hull upgrade.
It can be dangerous in adding a linear bonus to a system mostly based on flat and regressing bonuses, but usually the BC hull upgrades don't get out of hand.

Quote:
... if anything, by looking at your complaint, I feel more as if 'another dimension of combat' may be necessary in order to make the battles more engaging. Whether that be by making small ships more relevant in battlecruiser fights, another weapon type, or whatever other suggestions have been made in the past...


Yes, I do think that.
Ideally, something that doesn't require minerals.
Something that can bring the team at the disadvantage on a slightly more equal footing, to keep the game more interesting during the match.
I spent some time on the issue, but couldn't really think of any well working idea.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:35 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
Degra wrote:
Ok, that is true. Higher base generation makes every bonus from resource-intensive upgrades or powerdocking less meaningful.
From that perspective it would be a good thing.
Then again some small-scale harassment on the BC would also lose in impact, as the energy spent on restoring the shields is more quickly regained.
Honestly speaking, I don't see small-scale harassment making such a huge impact that it will heavily disrupt a battlecruiser's energy generation unless it was abysmally low. If anything, it's more causing the team to have more issues to deal with.

Degra wrote:
The defending team starts the battle significantly lagging behind in shields power, usually.
It can even be that bad that the defenders's BC blows up without ever having gone shield-stable. Simply due to low hp, not giving them enough time.
So in an actual scenario, it's quite realistic the attackers would go into the battle with about 200gw into shields, allowing them to quickly tank all damage with energy. The defenders can have 0gw in shields, making them suffer 50 more damage every second of the battle.
Given how precious BC hull hp is in the current 10K start, that is a significant advantage that will be somewhat mitigated by having shields regenerating less and having more BC hull.

Isn't that what a surprise attack is supposed to be?
And no doubt it would give a little more of a buffer time to react, but... frankly speaking, will adding some extra health really solve anything in the end? Because you said...
Degra wrote:
BC battles are almost purely won on how much damage you can deal to the enemy BC before they reach stable shields and how much damage you can tank with your own shields. BC laser upgrades and hardened shielding upgrades is what decides BC engagements to the largest degree.
...by this argument, all you're doing is delaying the inevitable. You are not solving anything.

Degra wrote:
Yes, I do think that.
Ideally, something that doesn't require minerals.
Something that can bring the team at the disadvantage on a slightly more equal footing, to keep the game more interesting during the match.
I spent some time on the issue, but couldn't really think of any well working idea.

Ideally it would be something skill oriented. However, since position, movement, and most such things are extremely limited due to the battlecruiser's size, and speed is limited due to energy which is more often better spent on shields and weapons...

It's in a very awkward situation right now. "Skill" is more something reserved for small ship battles, and that skill translates into upgrades. Very little "skill" is required to effectively win a battlecruiser fight, as more often all it requires is effective teamwork and having more upgrades.

In reality there just aren't enough "skill" elements you can associate with the battlecruiser. It moves too slowly, it's too big a target, energy management at the moment is a little too one dimensional... I understand it's actually supposed to be a ship that requires 'effective teamwork' to utilize properly, but I feel as if minimal teamwork is actually required.
  • The power guy makes sure shields hold as well as possible, and increases engines if the other team does. Occasionally he changes the core output so they don't blow up.
  • The navigation guy keeps the battlecruiser parallel to the enemy battlecruiser and holds down broadsides. Occasionally he points the battlecruiser in the enemy's direction to chase or fire missiles, and performs silly zigzags across the mapwrap. Sometimes he points away from the enemy's direction instead to create distance.
  • There will almost never be a science guy because a drone is almost always on science.
  • There will almost never be a weapons guy because a drone is almost always on weapons.

... operating the battlecruiser is really simple. If you even care to set power in advance, even without anyone on the weapons or science console you could still effectively run it by yourself. The roles are actually very linear and don't require too much thought. I understand there will be cases in which extrapolating from what I put above will be necessary, but the above is what I honestly feel will occur about 80% of the time.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:29 pm 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
suggestion to add "skills" to BC fights.. make a team have to figure out exactly which tier(s) the other team went, and then have some beneficial counter to that tier (that isn't really effective vs other tiers) - now this works better for tiers where it isn't immediately visible on small ships (i.e. t2 util), or something like t2 offensive when a wraith cloaks or shoots a missile, but it could be very skill-based to try and figure out which upgrade path they went such that you could counter it precisely (i.e. pretend there is an extra shield effectiveness tier, like double shield strenght, but it comes with the drawback of having the hull take double damage, and the best counter is chronitons on destroyer, or an equivalent BC weapon/missile) - now scale it up and make each tier unique in terms of what advantage it offers and how to counter it such that it isn't always "max lasers and win" - and to add a level of meta to it, make it such that if I were to upgrade to this mythical shield tier, I would choose it over the other equivalent mythical tiers because I know that there isn't very much X mineral on the map, and countering it effectively requires mineral X (yes, the other team could do the same - but it would be an additional level of skill to know and plan accordingly, and also a risk of failing if you jump the gun and go for it before finding a huge field of mineral X)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:54 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
slapshot wrote:
suggestion to add "skills" to BC fights.. make a team have to figure out exactly which tier(s) the other team went, and then have some beneficial counter to that tier (that isn't really effective vs other tiers) - now this works better for tiers where it isn't immediately visible on small ships (i.e. t2 util), or something like t2 offensive when a wraith cloaks or shoots a missile, but it could be very skill-based to try and figure out which upgrade path they went such that you could counter it precisely (i.e. pretend there is an extra shield effectiveness tier, like double shield strenght, but it comes with the drawback of having the hull take double damage, and the best counter is chronitons on destroyer, or an equivalent BC weapon/missile) - now scale it up and make each tier unique in terms of what advantage it offers and how to counter it such that it isn't always "max lasers and win" - and to add a level of meta to it, make it such that if I were to upgrade to this mythical shield tier, I would choose it over the other equivalent mythical tiers because I know that there isn't very much X mineral on the map, and countering it effectively requires mineral X (yes, the other team could do the same - but it would be an additional level of skill to know and plan accordingly, and also a risk of failing if you jump the gun and go for it before finding a huge field of mineral X)

Slap...

You missed.

The entire point.

All you're doing is adding even more weight to upgrades than before. What you are suggesting is ADDING more problems.

There will still be superbly little skill involved in utilizing the battlecruiser.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:27 pm 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
WhyteDragon wrote:
All you're doing is adding even more weight to upgrades than before. What you are suggesting is ADDING more problems.

There will still be superbly little skill involved in utilizing the battlecruiser.


I was hoping to do something that requires more scouting of the enemy BC early on (more than science pings, and more than "stay away so you dont die" type of stuff.. also make bad upgrades have consequence (or for it to even be possible to have a bad upgrade) - aside from kinetics right now, I don't think there are any "bad" upgrades, regardless of what the enemy has/doesn't have.. the worst you can do is upgrade a ship you don't have (yet) or get a free ship with a full hangar..

and as far as using the BC, the skill would be in not revealing your "trump card" or tech path early, while still utilizing it - the best I can come up with right now would be saving iron curtain UNTIL you see the enemy BC fire off a yamato, and then timing it perfectly - i.e. you scout the yamato loaded, research iron curtain, and then gain an advantage by using it properly

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:42 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
slapshot wrote:
WhyteDragon wrote:
All you're doing is adding even more weight to upgrades than before. What you are suggesting is ADDING more problems.

There will still be superbly little skill involved in utilizing the battlecruiser.


I was hoping to do something that requires more scouting of the enemy BC early on (more than science pings, and more than "stay away so you dont die" type of stuff.. also make bad upgrades have consequence (or for it to even be possible to have a bad upgrade) - aside from kinetics right now, I don't think there are any "bad" upgrades, regardless of what the enemy has/doesn't have.. the worst you can do is upgrade a ship you don't have (yet) or get a free ship with a full hangar..

and as far as using the BC, the skill would be in not revealing your "trump card" or tech path early, while still utilizing it - the best I can come up with right now would be saving iron curtain UNTIL you see the enemy BC fire off a yamato, and then timing it perfectly - i.e. you scout the yamato loaded, research iron curtain, and then gain an advantage by using it properly

That's not skill.

That's just 'not doing stuff.'

'Not doing stuff' is not more fun.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:47 pm 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
WhyteDragon wrote:
'Not doing stuff' is not more fun.


hiding stuff for future use.. certainly can be fun - look at poker or other card games for example, it's awesome when you lay down your winning hand - it's not really not playing it, but rather hiding it and adding more deception (and thus requiring more scouting from the other team)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:19 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
slapshot wrote:
WhyteDragon wrote:
'Not doing stuff' is not more fun.


hiding stuff for future use.. certainly can be fun - look at poker or other card games for example, it's awesome when you lay down your winning hand - it's not really not playing it, but rather hiding it and adding more deception (and thus requiring more scouting from the other team)

There are so many broken parallels in there.
1) Poker may have deception, but the difference is that Poker is about bluffing. This would be just holding your information. It's like playing poker over the internet -- it has some of the novelty of Poker, but it pales drastically in comparison. Poker is successful for being what it is for being suspenseful due to the stakes of bets and for being a activity being more directly involved with people interacting. The cards are simply a tool utilized to facilitate this interaction; while the tool isn't bad, it is most definitely not the attraction. If you think otherwise, try looking at all of the other gambling games.
2) There is no 'active method of deception' other than 'showing or not showing.' There is no active method of discovering for the opposing team, and therefore is simply by chance of being shown or not. There is no control over that factor given to the player and therefore is no more interesting than, say, exactly what everyone said the Tiers were supposed to do for upgrades.

And even beyond all of that, it will STILL not make battlecruiser fights more interesting because it's not actively engaging the player in any new ways. At all.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:38 am 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
WhyteDragon wrote:
It's like playing poker over the internet -- it has some of the novelty of Poker, but it pales drastically in comparison. Poker is successful for being what it is for being suspenseful due to the stakes of bets and for being a activity being more directly involved with people interacting.


CC is way more interacting than online poker.. there are WAY more options than call, raise, and pass - and suspense over the stakes of winning or not can be quite high sometimes as well (whenever there is actually a close game..) - plenty of other card games and gambling games have a "surprise" element to them where deception as to what cards you hold is key.. online games as well - heck, go for ladder sc2 - there is a TON of skill in scouting an anticipating what your opponent will do that is required for higher-level gameplay, yet often overlooked in lesser games

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Reducing the overall effectiveness of the battlecruiser
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:10 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
slapshot wrote:
CC is way more interacting than online poker.. there are WAY more options than call, raise, and pass - and suspense over the stakes of winning or not can be quite high sometimes as well (whenever there is actually a close game..) - plenty of other card games and gambling games have a "surprise" element to them where deception as to what cards you hold is key.. online games as well - heck, go for ladder sc2 - there is a TON of skill in scouting an anticipating what your opponent will do that is required for higher-level gameplay, yet often overlooked in lesser games

That's ladder, not cruiser command. That's not even the same game... you're freely switching your comparisons for convenience sake midway through.
Poker is good for person to person interactions on opposing teams. CC doesn't have that, so there's no real worth to the comparison -- the stakes are self made in CC, so you may as well compare it to buying a lottery ticket or a spontaneous bet on an outcome.
Ladder has scouting, yes, but CC has no method of properly scouting what the enemy has since, as you put it, "it's like poker and can be hidden until the last moment." So the comparison is absolutely moot since it's self-defeating.

Again, I reiterate -- nobody cares about naturally scouting the current existing tiers, even though they're 'supposed to rock paper scissors one another' as I heard long ago. I see no reason for people to care about scouting the new upgrades then, as much as the current mechanisms will allow.


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group