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 12:52 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Does this sound like a good idea?
Yes 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No 100%  100%  [ 4 ]
Shuddup and take my :g: (Very Yes) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 4

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:43 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
...

.. okay, I'm sorry, but this actually really bugs me, so I'm going to become that guy again for a moment. So yeah -- sorry.

...

Puppetbones wrote:
So now to the scouting issue: yes scouting is easier in sc2 then in CC but I don't think it's as unfruitful as you say it is.
whytedragon wrote:
hardened shields? Essentially invisible. Energy Production? Essentially invisible. BC laser damage? Essentially invisible.

Not exactly. For example if I see penta burst I can be pretty sure money is being invested in laser damage, not kinetics. That can be countered. Although it could be my enemy is bluffing and actually going kinetics. There is sort of a mind reading element there. And some of the other things you mentioned - hardened shields, energy production, can be deduced. If you click on the enemy BC, you can see hull, shields, and energy (and roughly the rate of change in energy). Let's say I am playing my proposed version and I were to see (via shields number) that the enemy has well upgraded fusion core, a little bit of hull upgrades, and while scouting their resource mining I see that they have high miner/chomper count and relatively moderate amount of :y: and :b: mined, I can assume they are lacking in hardened shields, repair bots, probably dont have utility tier upgrades, etc. I could be wrong but it's likely a correct assumption...

Alright, let me pull up a direct list since this seems to be coming directly into question. Lets ignore the tiered upgrades for a second since that really only boils down to three of them, and even without further additions they can currently be scouted.

Upgrades Visible By Scouting
  • Fusion Core (BC, x6)
  • Improved Hull (BC, x??)
    ---
  • Reinforced Hull (Small Ships, x8)
  • Enhanced Thrusters (Small Ships, x4)
    ---
  • Yamato Cannon (BC)
Number of scoutable upgrades/preperations; 25 (5 Unique) + uncertain number. (Improved Hull is usually a 'last resort' upgrade regardless so it's hard to really count that in.)

Upgrades Visible Upon Usage
  • Kinetics (BC)
  • Kinetics Tracking (BC, x3)
  • Triple Burst (BC)
  • Penta Burst (BC)
  • Broadsides (BC)
  • Engine Boost (BC)
  • Warp (BC)
  • Tractor Beam (BC)
  • Iron Curtain (BC)
  • Energy Transfers (BC, Choice)
    ---
  • Mining Scan (Miner)
  • Plasma Leech (Wraith, Can be Hard to See)
  • Photon Condenser (Corevette)
  • Quantum Leech (Destroyer)
  • Chroniton Torpedoes (Destroyer)
  • Core Overdrive (Chomper)
  • Gravitic Pulse (Chomper)
    ---
  • Missiles (BC, x??)
  • Hanger Bay (Small Ships x12)
Number of hard to see upgrades through scouting: 31 (17 Unique, 12 Variably Unique) + uncertain number. (Missiles are often a last resort grab as well, though I suppose that depends upon the server you're playing on. Moreover, since it's a consumable, scouting it through it being used is essentially worthless.)

Upgrades That Are Mostly Invisible
  • Kinetics Damage (BC, x5)
  • Laser Damage (BC, x10)
  • Enhanced Stabilizers (BC, x5)
  • Dialectric Sensor Recovery (BC)
  • Hardened Shields (BC, x4)
  • Nanobot Miniaturization (BC, x3)
    ---
  • Improved Mining Laser (Miner, x6)
  • Wraith Damage (Wraith, x4)
  • Corvette Damage (Corvette, x5)
  • Photon Rush (Corvette)
  • Mine Damage (Minelayer, x5)
  • Upgrade Quantum Bombardment (Destroyer, x4)
  • Vessel Energy Upgrade (Small Ships, x3)
Number of essentially invisible upgrades: 56 (13 Unique) -- and moreover, these are often times the largest mineral dumps in the game.

There are essentially 18 (5 Unique) upgrade levels you can truly 'scout out' on your own merit. And only 3 unique ones actually belong to the BC, while one of them hardly even counts as an upgrade and the other is pretty much never even used until you have everything else.

There are 31 (17 Unique) technical upgrade levels you might get a glimpse at if the other team lets you. In reality, 4 of them overlap in terms of scouting potential meaning you can only really get a glimpse at 14 sets of them. In reality, a lot of these you may not even get the chance to see before it makes the difference required to swing the game, especially since so many of them actually belong to the unique factor. And, most importantly, a lot of them are very niche.

And then there are 56 (13 Unique) upgrade levels that are pretty much invisible, since you won't be able to get a good grasp over due to how quickly they resolve. And moreover, among these, they include all of the damage dump upgrades in the game which are used with a high frequency.

The vast majority falls under pretty much impossible or pointless to attempt scouting visually. Even the ones you can scout visually are difficult to.

---
Assuming that someone has not invested into kinetics because they have penta feels bizarre to me. It's a 70r upgrade with no real prerequisites -- it's a convenient entry level battle mechanic for the battlecruiser with a low preparation cost, and comes fast.

I also do not understand why when a team mines Yellow and Blue, you seem to suggest that they should be lacking in both hardened shields and repair bots -- BOTH are yellow and blue upgrades. I feel like it's an unrealistic assumption to to draw it off, especially considering the nature of scaling costs. The issue is the term 'moderate' is vague -- it's hard to determine ratios like you can in SC2 since the number of miners you can invest into your two geysers is, at best, 6. Moreover, even if you can estimate the rough change in energy, I severely doubt you're going to be able to peg the fine differences between +140 energy per second and +160 energy per second when you're literally forced off the information in less than a half second.
SO. With all of this in mind, do you really think that you can accurately manage to pin point the number of available resources they've invested based upon the number of missing asteroids in their fields while simultaneously calculating the rate of which their energy grows in order to determine the number of small ships they've used in order to powerdock while also calculating their level of hardened shields by observing the damage dealt by a wraith laser and also tallying their invested small ship hull and energy production?

Because if you can you're wasting your talents. Go become a world class mathematician and change the world!

Sure, you can utilize the rate of which your own team mines as a rough reference, but there are so many issues with that -- mining rates of a team aren't comparable due to the varying skill levels of miner and chomper users. It's just not possible to make those sorts of estimations, which would be required for you to make the kind of guestimates you were in your quote.

...

... okay, finished. Sorry for the rant.

...


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:25 pm 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:56 am
Posts: 271
Wiki edits: 22
Offline
Time to add that hacking console that can do basic easy stuff of picking an enemy upgrade and seeing how far its upgraded.
"Give me the status on their laser upgrades" -LASER 9/10- "F*CK!!!"

And more advanced techniques with it giving a constant stream of what they are upgrading.
"They really like upgrading minelayer damage, thats weird, we haven't seen any minelayers"

lol and science console is the counter, "they are trying to hack our upgrades console guys, here let me change that"

"Show me their status on the boost upgrade" -GO F*CK YOURSELF- "wat...?"

on a more serious note, whytes right, its hard to see the most important upgrades which are laser and kinetic damage (SS damage is important as well, but they dont kill BCs) and many games are decided on who has more laser/kinetic upgrades. (I havent played in a long while, but there has been no significant patch that has changed lasers and kinetics significantly so I dont think much has changed)

_________________
You merely adopted Cruiser Command. I was born in it, molded by it.

One day a wise man introduced me to this game. "It shall protect your virginity, my lad" he said.

Dont touch me you filthy casual.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:37 pm 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
whytedragon wrote:
.. okay, I'm sorry, but this actually really bugs me, so I'm going to become that guy again for a moment. So yeah -- sorry.


Go right ahead.

whytedragon wrote:
Moreover, even if you can estimate the rough change in energy, I severely doubt you're going to be able to peg the fine differences between +140 energy per second and +160 energy per second when you're literally forced off the information in less than a half second.


First of all, I didn't need to know the energy production to figure out anything I mentioned in the last post.

Secondly, when I said you can click on the enemy BC and roughly see rate of change in energy, I was thinking more along the lines of simply whether it's increasing or decreasing, not seeing the difference between +140 and +160. For example, if the enemy BC is moving and/or you know is putting energy into shields via the fact that they are taking damage and shields are holding, and you were to see the energy still increasing, you can guess they have good energy output. For the purposes of battle, I don't need to know specifically whether they did this via powerdocking or what ship they used in powerdocking etc, I simply need to assess whether my BC has the capability to beat theirs and whether I should engage or flee. Doing many mathematical calculations is not required.

I'll show what I mean that figuring out what your enemy has isn't always as hard as what you make it seem.

So I played a couple of 1v1 games with a Korean.

The first game I decided to hit him somewhat early (at about 16-18 minutes) with upgraded lasers, since in Korea the first real engagement that's not just long range kinetics spamming is usually much later, so I could maybe catch him off guard. I indeed did catch him off guard and managed to get his hull down to about 4000 before he got away. I proceeded to chase him down in what turned out to be quite the high speed BC chase. All the while he was staying just out of range of my lasers and spamming kinetics at me. I continued to chase him though because I knew he was going to run out of energy before me because of the constant kinetic spam and I wasn't firing a shot. But, after quite a lengthy chase, I ran out of energy first. Now, without clicking on the BC or making any calculations, I can pretty sure as hell guess he had enhanced stabilizers and/or powerdock or some way to keep energy while moving...doesn't matter exactly what. And probably without any calculations from him, he could tell I had upgraded laser damage quite a bit for that early in the game simply due to the damage dealt when I first attacked him.

The second game, my AI miners were severely bugged early on -- not mining any minerals, sitting doing nothing, etc. I was now well behind. So I decided to laser rush again at first kerm spawn because that was probably my only chance. So I did roughly the same thing as the first game, but rushed at about 12 minutes in and got a tracking beacon on him. This time he didn't have a chance to get much kerm for energy or enhanced stabilizer upgrades, and with the tracking beacon I could easily take shorter routes and cut him off. So this time he countered by running and gradually gathering kerm to deal core damage to me via missiles and yamato. He managed to knock my core down to 20% within a brief engagement, so I was forced to quit chasing and pour energy into that since I had no kerm for purging. He could then long range spam kinetics and kill me with bleedthrough. So again, no mass calculations needed, I simply knew he wouldn't have kerm for the upgrades he needed to get away from me and he knew I would not be able to recover from a severe core damage.

The bottom line of this whole thread for me is:
1. It would be really nice to be able to scout what the enemy is doing either via what they are mining or by changing models as Slapshot said.
2. Then it would be nice to have a counter available.
3. Then it would be nice to be able to deliberately mine the resources you need for that counter.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:48 pm 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
scout what your enemy is mining.


This would be a worthwhile and interesting mechanic, but at the same time, unsuitable for a miner (Really the only ship that can do this right now)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:46 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
Sorry Slap, I have no idea what you meant in that last post

Dreadnought wrote:
on a more serious note, whytes right, its hard to see the most important upgrades...


That's what I was saying...whytedragon said that many upgrades are "essentially invisible" which I thought meant more like "outright invisible", not "hard to see". If what he meant was "hard to see", then lol we are agreeing and arguing at the same time.

Anyway, since it seems like the asteroid distribution idea is shot down, I would now compromise and side with Slap on the fewer starting asteroids and unit model alterations from upgrades. Any thoughts, Erik?


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:13 pm 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
Sorry Slap, I have no idea what you meant in that last post


I like the idea of having a worthwhile job of scouting enemy miners to determine what they are mining, but I am not sure how to implement it

via the BC -> doesn't seem like "scouting" much, also the mechanic doesn't exist

via a miner (with mineral scan) -> not really worth sacrificing mining time to go scan them, plus risky

via a wraith -> more interested in shooting at the miner, not what it's mining, also the mechanic doesn't exist

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:02 am 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
That's what I was saying...whytedragon said that many upgrades are "essentially invisible" which I thought meant more like "outright invisible", not "hard to see". If what he meant was "hard to see", then lol we are agreeing and arguing at the same time.

What I mean is that it's so difficult to detect that, for all intents and purposes, it may as well be invisible.

We can make estimations and guesses upon how advanced the other team is in terms of upgrades -- often times it's fairly easy to guess whether the other team has superior upgrades or not -- but I honestly do not think that given the current mechanics, EVEN if you were able to understand what resources they're collecting, you could directly know what upgrades they got.

Puppetbones wrote:
Secondly, when I said you can click on the enemy BC and roughly see rate of change in energy, I was thinking more along the lines of simply whether it's increasing or decreasing, not seeing the difference between +140 and +160. For example, if the enemy BC is moving and/or you know is putting energy into shields via the fact that they are taking damage and shields are holding, and you were to see the energy still increasing, you can guess they have good energy output. For the purposes of battle, I don't need to know specifically whether they did this via powerdocking or what ship they used in powerdocking etc, I simply need to assess whether my BC has the capability to beat theirs and whether I should engage or flee. Doing many mathematical calculations is not required.


This is just power. It's not going to indicate whether or not you can win a fight.

And, arguably, you could (potentially) scout out weapons. And, okay, this is a lot more helpful.

However, neither of these factors are heavily influenced by scouting out resources. In fact, you could actually say it's entirely independent. In reality, it all comes down to this.
Puppetbones wrote:
I don't need to know specifically whether they did this via powerdocking or what ship they used in powerdocking etc
If you don't, then what is the purpose behind all of this extra effort being put into scouting for the exact upgrade details, like you originally suggested?

There are a lot more examples I could go into based upon what you've posted, but I think I'd only be repeating myself. What you've prompted for, originally, is a methodology to better extract the exact data of what the enemy team has upgraded in order to generate counter play.

However, then in turn, you have now gone and essentially called it a 'moot point.'

Maybe this applies only in context of 'how things currently work.' But at the same time, given how it's already possible to figure out what the enemy team has through these simpler methods you've provided, I feel like all you've proved is that it's simply far more effective to probe using small ships or engagement to get a feel for the enemy team rather than meticulously attempt to create a methodology of upgrade detection.

And, if that's really the case, why aren't we expanding upon that rather than going through all of the painful trouble of introducing a parallel system that seems more frustrating and difficult to execute? Why not try and figure out a meta that more heavily focuses on gaining information through probing at each other with attacks and small ships?

Let me make one thing clear fast.

The reason I disagree with you so much on this topic of conversation is because I feel like, even I might be communicating it wrong, the point isn't that you can't figure out what the enemy has with the current setup or the one you propose. The point is that you cannot scout what the enemy has or is preparing for. Scouting implies the prediction of a tech path and production that requires a significant degree of resources into a particular chain of assets that enable you to create a new asset. I.E. Investing in mutalisks requires you to build up towards something. This is telegraphed through the user's resource collection, level of tech, branch of tech, and visible upgrades. There are factors leading up into it that you can read. CC doesn't reflect that sort of style -- all resources are equally useful so mining them all is effective, you require no clear buildup into a lot of upgrades, tech level only becomes relevant to the overall maximum level of your upgrades in most cases, and a lot of the upgrades as I previously stated are hard to see.

So please don't mistake me as saying 'you can't figure out what an enemy team has.' No, it's obvious you can 'figure it out' because in essence you can see that if you're losing there must be a reason. But the only methods of comparison you put above were by means of comparison. You figured that all out by means of pitting your own upgrades of that type against theirs. That's not scouting -- that's slamming your head against their head to see whose is stronger.

As for whether or not that really qualifies as countering is mostly irrelevant, but rather than countering I would simply call that either 'pressing the advantage' or 'running from the advantage.' Not a true 'counter.'

... the more I think about this idea, the more I worry that it's ultimately just the creation of three map wide kermiculite fields. Depending on whether or not this was just three sectors containing each resource type, this could really just fall down into the issue of 'each team camps one resource and denies it from the other team as best as possible. All of the resources are so precious that I worry that this will make it such that because it's easier to locate particular sectors, it'll also mean that it will create a situation where nearly every game will have that potential of never being able to do anything with upgrades because you can't find that third resource type.

I'll be honest, I like the splash part of fields. It's part of that sort of 'salvaging feel' as a miner -- it gives a certain worth to every little field you come across because even if it's not the one you're looking for, it still might have value. While on the other hand, knowing precisely where each particular mineral type is on the map, it also means there's less of an investigation as a miner. It's no longer a journey through space, sweeping through the various asteroids trying to find 'just that right one.'

You find one bunch and then you know forever where to get the rest of it.

...

Also, if creating a methodology of upgrade detection was not what you're suggesting, then I'm sorry, but your choice of using starcraft 2 countering as an example only served to act as a complete form of misdirection. And if that is the case, then I'd like to directly hear from the beginning what exactly you're trying to push for, because clearly I don't understand if that is the case.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:14 pm 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
@Slapshot
Okay I get what you're saying now. I was thinking scouting what your enemy is mining could be done by 2 ways:
1. Knowing where resource types are on your side of the map, and thus knowing where they are on the other side due to symmetry. Seeing the location of the enemy miners then tells you what they are mining (would probably be usually done with wraith miner ping).
2. Mining lasers would be the color of the asteroid, so you wouldn't have to send a miner and scan to see what they are mining. A similar mechanic to this is already in place: when you scan asteroids enemies can see their color as well.

whytedragon wrote:
This is just power. It's not going to indicate whether or not you can win a fight.


Yes...I know...I used this example because core output is specifically what you mentioned...there is more to a battle than just energy.

@whytedragon
whytedragon wrote:
However, neither of these factors [weapons and energy] are heavily influenced by scouting out resources. In fact, you could actually say it's entirely independent. In reality, it all comes down to this.

Puppetbones wrote:
I don't need to know specifically whether they did this via powerdocking or what ship they used in powerdocking etc


If you don't, then what is the purpose behind all of this extra effort being put into scouting for the exact upgrade details, like you originally suggested?


As I said before, similar upgrade types require the same resource types. :b: and :y: tend to be hull, energy, shields, or powerdocking. So if I were to know that my enemy has mined a lot of :b: and :y: I know they are going to be strong in at least some of those areas. (either fairly strong in all or very strong in some, and more average in others) And, as I said before, scouting resources does not tell everything. I still don't know exactly what those resources are being spent on. However, it gives me a big hint and tells me what to look for upon scouting the BC, which will likely seal the deal. So let's say I scout the enemy BC and see that their energy is higher than expected but shield hitpoints capacity is not upgraded, then I know it's not fusion core but that it's powerdocking. This is useful because I now know that shields are low and severe damage could be done if I attacked suddenly before they could raise shields EVEN IF shields have been upgraded, and I also know that they have multiple chompers, which depends on the game situation on how that should be dealt with but still often useful information.

Now you could argue that for this particular example I did not need to know the resources mined; I could have just seen the no fusion core upgrade from the shields hitpoints and the energy being high, but if I had not known about the resource mining I would not have been looking for that and probably not noticed during the quick glance of BC stats when I clicked on it.

whytedragon wrote:
As for whether or not that really qualifies as countering is mostly irrelevant, but rather than countering I would simply call that either 'pressing the advantage' or 'running from the advantage.' Not a true 'counter.'


What you said in the paragraph above this quoted paragraph is not what I am calling countering. I didn't say much about countering in this thread because I thought that deserved a thread of its own, but I guess I will mention it at least:

By countering, I'm obviously not talking about certain units countering other units like in sc2. I compared sc2 to CC in the areas of intentionally mining specific resource types and scouting your enemy, but not in countering as you seemed to think I was. The only similarity in countering between sc2 and in CC is that you can spend less resources on a specifc something(weapon type, ugrade, etc) that can beat a specific something that takes more resources. For example, if I know my enemy has well upgraded shields and plenty of energy, I can counter by bleedthrough in some way, by kinetic bleedthrough and/or Destroyer Chroniton Torpedoes. If they have good shields and hull, maybe I could counter by targeting core and/or energy (leaks).

whytedragon wrote:
... the more I think about this idea, the more I worry that it's ultimately just the creation of three map wide kermiculite fields. Depending on whether or not this was just three sectors containing each resource type, this could really just fall down into the issue of 'each team camps one resource and denies it from the other team as best as possible. ... You find one bunch and then you know forever where to get the rest of it.


WOAH WOAH WOAH...if you think I meant having 3 large regions of all 1 resource type, that would be more than a huge misunderstanding...and it would make many of your comments make much more sense to me. I think you should re-read middle of post #9 and end of post 10. And if you thought each mineral smiley in that picture I drew with the mineral smilies was an asteroid cluster, that is not the case...I intended each of those to be ONE ASTEROID...so if you were in a small-ship that was in the center of that picture, the entire (or most of that) picture would fit on your screen. I did NOT intend 3 large splash regions.

To be crystal clear, I colored in a couple of pictures of a rough estimate of what the entire minimap might look like. The first picture has smaller deposits of resource types while the second one has large more segregated regions. I was thinking somewhere in this range would be good.

Attachment:
CCminimap1.jpg
CCminimap1.jpg [ 70.58 KiB | Viewed 2270 times ]


Attachment:
The attachment CCminimap2.jpg is no longer available


Attachments:
CCminimap2.jpg
CCminimap2.jpg [ 68.42 KiB | Viewed 2270 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:34 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
As I said before, similar upgrade types require the same resource types. :b: and :y: tend to be hull, energy, shields, or powerdocking. So if I were to know that my enemy has mined a lot of :b: and :y: I know they are going to be strong in at least some of those areas. So if I were to know that my enemy has mined a lot of :b: and :y: I know they are going to be strong in at least some of those areas. (either fairly strong in all or very strong in some, and more average in others) And, as I said before, scouting resources does not tell everything. I still don't know exactly what those resources are being spent on. However, it gives me a big hint and tells me what to look for upon scouting the BC, which will likely seal the deal.

Also small ship hull, small ship energy, small ship items, dielectric sensors, energy transfer, nanobot miniaturization... not to mention that the small ship selections vary.
Moreover if you even bother to even consider a small splash of red, suddenly that equation gets mostly thrown out the window.

Let me just say the several reasons why I find this argument so flawed.

1) Even assuming that for whatever reason you mine only those two resources, in reality there are nearly twenty different things it can easily be invested into. That's a wide net to cast.
2) It does not include red, one of the more desired resources, which is used in nearly everything. Literally all weapon upgrades, damage upgrades, mobility upgrades, missiles, and offensive small ships require it. And that's a lot of the available assets.
3) There's simply too large an effective sample set -- sure, you can rule out hull, core, and transfer through inspection, but energy is harder to figure out (as can powerdocking) and most of the others can't really be scouted.
4) Also, I feel like it's weird to also call out on 'expectations.' What if they simply were pushing their core more effectively than your team, had utility tier 3 upgrade, or did not heavily utilize the science transfers? What if they were able to approach the engagement more energy effectively? That could also easily push them above the 'expected' energy they should have. You're using the term 'expected' without really giving any sense of what should be expected. Can you really expect any particular value? Moreover what about energy consumption, or what if all of those energy bonuses were only immediately gotten, making their energy production actually a lot higher than what you would expect but not reflecting it?

By ignoring these points I feel like you're avoiding the issue by looking only at the more favorable sample set.

And moreover, to assume that a team would really mine almost exclusively two resources in ridiculously unrealistic.

Puppetbones wrote:
What you said in the paragraph above this quoted paragraph is not what I am calling countering. I didn't say much about countering in this thread because I thought that deserved a thread of its own, but I guess I will mention it at least:

You already have.
Puppetbones wrote:
So I played a couple of 1v1 games with a Korean.
All the stuff after that.

Puppetbones wrote:
For example, if I know my enemy has well upgraded shields and plenty of energy, I can counter by bleedthrough in some way, by kinetic bleedthrough and/or Destroyer Chroniton Torpedoes. If they have good shields and hull, maybe I could counter by targeting core and/or energy (leaks).
Objection -- a counter is something that is more effective against a particular aspect.

Neither Chroniton Torpedoes or Kinetics Bleedthrough are 'more effective' if an enemy gets hardened shields. It's still just as effective as it would have been before. It is not a counter because, by all means, it is equally as effective whether or not the opposing team decides to get the upgrade.

Counter play in CC is pressing a small ship advantage if the opposing team has invested heavily into economics. They have fewer resources in order to defend themselves than they normally would if they had invested in battlecruiser upgrades or small ship upgrades.
Counter play is focusing on kinetics if the enemy team has a lot of offensive small ships attacking you. It acts as a proper defensive measure in protecting your units, but it requires either you or the enemy team to commit to an attack for it to come into effect -- hence, because you're being attacked, it acts as a counter.
Counter play is investing heavily in enhanced stabilizers and engine boost when you just got kermiculite, but can't press an advantage because your enemy team has superior combat upgrades. It allows you to buy time until you can put your resources into effect while disabling the enemy team from effectively dealing with you properly. You used this one as an example too.

And you know what?

These are typically things you want to understand in the moment, and respond to in the moment. Yes, there's an element of prediction to it, but a lot of it comes through interacting directly with the enemy team in skirmishes and engagements. In a lot of your 'applied examples,' you often resort to situations where some sort of engagement occurs or simply leave out the situation. Like the above mentioned one -- 'if you know your enemy has upgraded shields.' And the only reason you've given me believe that you would know are reasons that I believe I can poke holes in.

I would be better pressed to believe that you thought they had shields because shields were simply meta to grab. But at that point, scouting at all is a moot point.

Puppetbones wrote:
To be crystal clear, I colored in a couple of pictures of a rough estimate of what the entire minimap might look like. The first picture has smaller deposits of resource types while the second one has large more segregated regions. I was thinking somewhere in this range would be good.

[What they were.]

Isn't this ultimately just doing mostly what the game already is, except taking out splash? At best it also effectively means you have 'larger, more spread out fields,' but I'm not even getting that from your picture as you're literally utilizing the existing fields as points of reference.

... plus, the splash part about asteroid fields is what makes them nice...

I mean, in reality, of your three goals...
Puppetbones wrote:
1. It would be really nice to be able to scout what the enemy is doing either via what they are mining or by changing models as Slapshot said.
Models I don't think is a bad idea, as that's a reinforcement of scouting by conflict which will keep the game active, but as for the other... can't you already do this? Maps are still mirrored, and asteroid clusters are still predominantly one particular type of resource. If you've scouted the mirror field in your design, whether it's splash or not, you should understand what they've mined from it.

Puppetbones wrote:
2. Then it would be nice to have a counter available.
I believe counter play is already available to an extent as well. Rather, you yourself even used examples of countering in your Korean game example. And, if we are to effectively take from point #1 that such scouting should already be possible to an extent, if we were to go by your arguments it should also already be possible to 'predict' upgrades and therefore counter.

Puppetbones wrote:
3. Then it would be nice to be able to deliberately mine the resources you need for that counter.
Again, already technically available. Why does having splash minerals in fields make it impossible to deliberately mine the resources you need for the counter? Does having multiple colors in a field eliminate that possibility in some way? If all we're doing is literally taking the splash out of asteroid fields, then it's not like you gain any more information about an area by searching one asteroid field. You only know about that field, and that field is clustered together already. The only difference having splash makes is that even if you have the absolutely shitty luck to run into four fields that aren't the resource you're looking for, you're not completely screwed as you would be in a no splash design.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:47 pm 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
1. Knowing where resource types are on your side of the map, and thus knowing where they are on the other side due to symmetry. Seeing the location of the enemy miners then tells you what they are mining (would probably be usually done with wraith miner ping).
2. Mining lasers would be the color of the asteroid, so you wouldn't have to send a miner and scan to see what they are mining. A similar mechanic to this is already in place: when you scan asteroids enemies can see their color as well.


1. knowing where the enemy miners doesn't really translate well into knowing what they are mining - even if I was awesome at figuring out exactly how the mirror worked and was able to pinpoint where the enemy miner would be on "my half", they could be within range of all 3 colors at that spot - how should I know where their laser beam is drilling? and even if I could tell, would I be able to calculate it for 3 miners during a single ping? heck I wouldn't even be able to tell if a miner is actually mining or if they are just flying past an asteroid field because it DOESN'T have what they want

2. I kinda like this, but it might also ruin the "Q-beam", and not sure what color you would use for "enemy ship" or similar.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 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 1 guest


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