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 1:01 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: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:56 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
I'm gonna start with the first 1/4 of whytedragon's post where he brought up 4 flaws that I'm ignoring.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


Ugh...I have been patient with responses like this so far but it's really irritating me now. The reason I gave the example of blue and yellow was because that was going off of what you specifically brought up. For the sake of keeping the post short, I left out other examples because I thought that by giving a specific example that would imply that there are many other examples of different situations and that I don't have to mention every single one of them, but apparently I do. Throughout this entire thread, as soon as I hone in on one specific aspect everyone says "well that doesn't tell you everything, it could be this, or this, or this..." YES THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER AND OVER: it's a 1-2 punch...that's what the comparisons to sc2 where showing...you can scout one thing, which gives you hints but NOT EVERYTHING...then you scout some more and narrows it down even more...and probably 3rd or maybe even more scouts will seal the deal.

So in rebuttal to this specific quote (whyte's words in yellow):
- Also small ship hull Yes, but with Slap's proposal of model changes from upgrades this would be easy to see.
- small ship energy Again, easy to see with model changes.
- small ship items The total cost of all small ship items purchased in any game I have ever played is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the entire spending budget.
- energy transfer Okay this is a little larger than a drop in the bucket...maybe a spoonful...still small and not a large impact.
- dielectric sensors This is a singular upgrade, not something you would spend large sums of resources buying multiple levels of...a spoonful in the bucket.
- nanobot miniaturization. Lumped in with hull. Usage is different; harder to detect early game, I will admit.
- small ship selections vary For powerdocking? Not from what I've seen. Chompers are by far best for powerdocking because yellow and blue are the least needed late game, chompers provide the best energy production for resources spent and hangar space taken, and they are useful for quickly picking up needed resources late game when asteroid fields start spawning.

whytedragon wrote:
Moreover if you even bother to even consider a small splash of red, suddenly that equation gets mostly thrown out the window.


Well, in the specific example I gave, I was implying a "small splash of red". The example was heaps of blue and yellow and a little red...in other words yellow and blue were noticeably being mined much more than red. Many upgrades require at least a little of all 3 resources, so the little bit of red mined would just be spent in the yellow and blue heavy purchases. I suppose it's possible that with that little red that was mined they decided to go red heavy purchases...in which case they have very few upgrades and a ton of unusable resources. You would not be punished for expecting a yellow and blue heavy build and trying to counter, as you would flat out have so much more upgrades it's gg.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


I already refuted this...or perhaps better explained myself in saying that not ONLY blue and yellow were mined in that specific example. The specific words I used in the example in the last post were "if I were to know that my enemy has mined a lot of :b: and :y: ..." I did not say that is all they mined...just that they mined a lot of those 2 resource types.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


Again, by giving one example that answers your specific questions, I did not think I would have to come up with an example for every single possible scenario that will ever occur during the entire course of all the CC games that will ever be played and have ever been played...but apparently I do.

So let's say you notice the enemy mining lots of red. (and apparently since this is not clear when I say this, they are mining blue and yellow too, but obviously focusing on red) Now you know that that red is being spent somewhere in the areas of, as you said: "Literally all weapon upgrades, damage upgrades, mobility upgrades, missiles, and offensive small ships require it." Noticing a trend? Weapons and mobility. However, these upgrades do require some amounts of blue and yellow, and that's what makes this work. Weapons cost heaps of red, but also a fair amount of yellow, and not much blue needed. Mobility costs heaps of red, and a fair amount of blue, not much yellow needed. So you could be really scrutinize the yellow and blue mining and see where they are going. Now, in past posts I would have left it here because I have already implied other examples, but I can see that if I do just leave it here this will be considered a small sample that favors my argument, so I will continue. So let's say you notice very heavy red mining supplemented by some yellow and little to no blue. You now know that they are trying to beef up economy or weapons, and a simple scout will tell you which. Let's say you notice penta burst (fairly early). It's safe to assume that lasers are being upgraded because: 1. why would you NOT upgrade the main BC weapon...yes they could spend some red on missiles and yamatoes too but BC main weapon is the meta...and between the combination of scouting and "meta grab" as you called it, you have found this information...not by meta grab alone. Penta burst alone does not mean that they are upgrading laser damage; but supplemented by the information on their red mining you now know. 2. I know earlier you said that penta is just 70 red and one could easily purchase that and then go kinetics, but think about it: why would anyone do that? Kinetics are far better against small ships, so why would I get penta early when all I will shoot is ss and go kinetics later. Makes no sense. Okay, now lets say you see heaps of red mining supplemented by some blue and little to no yellow. You now know it's not economy focus or weapons beefing. You've narrowed down to a few specific purchases. A visual purchase scout and information on their kerm mining will give you what you need from there. (I really hope I don't have to be more specific than that; for the sake of post length) And now let's say you notice heaps of red mining with a little of each yellow and blue. You now know that they have the possibility for both weapons and mobility upgrades, but not enough for maxing out. Additional scouting and kerm mining information will give you what you need.

I'm going to leave out heavy blue mining type scenarios and relatively equal between all 3 type scenarios because, for christ's sake, I'm hoping my point is at least understood now and that I don't have to mention all possible scenarios.

One last example I will make:
Early blue and yellow focus, red (and green) late. (so the point of this is demonstrating how a change-up could be accounted for) Seeing the blue and yellow mining early game tells you that they probably have upgraded ss hull and you will likely see some ss energy upgrades. Also, probably util tier 1, plus money to replace lost miners. So this tells you that going out and ganking enemy miners to stifle their economy is probably not a good idea, as they will likely have good hull, enough energy for turbo boost, and ultimately lost miners can easily be replaced. It's still worth scouting to see if these things are indeed what they are spending money on though, because it is possible they are going early BC upgrades in order to win an early engagement. So upon further scouting you notice less of the ss upgrades than you expected, so you can kinda guess where they are headed. Okay now the kerm spawn happens and you notice they are bold enough to immediately move their BC over. They could be bluffing, but they are probably confident in their BC upgrades. Upon closer inspection, using methods I have previously stated, you notice heavy fusion core upgrades. Now it's all clear. So anyway, they mine much of the kerm and after that you notice heavy red mining too...and now the scenario transitions into the lengthy example of scenarios I gave above...except you now also know that fusion core has been upgraded since early on and that they will have superior energy.

I said this was gonna be my last example, but I can already hear the responses "you picked one small favorable sample...yellow and blue are crucial early game resources and red and green are late game" etc etc. So dammit, I will give one more:

You spawn near blue and red and to get yellow you must stray a bit from the BC. So early game is gonna be heavy on blue and red, unless the BC is moved. Let's say the enemy does not move the BC early. So now you know they are probably going for ss speed to go out and get that yellow. So you could counter by moving your BC near needed resources for ganking miners, adn you know tactically that you should try to get between the stray miners and their BC before attacking, perhaps equipped with a frequency nullifier, thus I guess "countering" their mobility investment.

So there you have an early game example without enemy mining heavy yellow.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


I think I've explained this already in this post. The sample net can usually be narrowed significantly by followup scouting.

whytedragon wrote:
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?


Interesting, because earlier you called me out for picking a favorable sample set when I gave the blue-yellow-energy example. Now you're saying that it's the hardest to figure out. I would lean more towards that it is hard due to the number of factors that influence energy, and that right here you are picking a sample favorable towards your argument, just as you did with the spotting the difference between +140 energy gain and +160 example. I will admit that energy scouting is still a bit difficult with the proposed changes, but easier than it is now so I don't see the problem.

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


I simply looked at the sample set you brought up, which was meant to point out an area where scouting is still nearly impossible with this proposal, not favorable. Again, I was hoping I would not have to bring up every single example I could possible think up, and that using the example most favorable to your argument and directly answering your questions would suffice.

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


Not in the following 2 scenarios, which would be fairly common with the proposed changes:
1. You spawn primarily near 2 resource types; getting the 3rd is difficult early on.
2. Counters to what your enemy has use primarily 2 resource types.

whytedragon wrote:
Objection -- a counter is something that is more effective against a particular aspect.


Okay, I had a looser definition than you then. I would include this as countering as well as purchasing a certain, less expensive set of upgrades than the set of upgrades your opponent has that is yet more effective.

So now after your 3 countering examples, you again seem to say that scouting during BC vs BC engagements makes this entire proposal a "moot point". I previously said why this is not the case...but to summarize: A lot happens quickly during engagements and scouting what they have is extremely difficult if you don't know what you're looking for. Knowing roughly what resources they have mined tells you what to look for.

So now on to your response to my minimap images: It's becoming clear I don't understand your usage/definition of "splash", so I cannot properly explain but I will do my best. So when I said "larger more spread out fields" that was just me communicating extremely poorly again. The larger part is true, but my more spread out I mean that there is a longer distance between fields of a certain resource type.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


No, because with the current game it's simply too difficult to know what each clump of asteroids contains. The only scenario you could tell what they have mined by seeing what asteroids they have mined is if they have mined the same thing as you. As soon as they start mining from fields you haven't mined from yet, you can't tell what they are mining and if they do not mine even one asteroid field that you mined, you can't tell what they have mined because there is no way you could have noticed, let alone remembered, exactly what that field contained on your side. If you are actually able to remember what each clump of asteroids contains in the current CC setup (because they often contain at least a little of all 3), and then mirror that to the other side, then I will tell you what you told me earlier: You are wasting your talent.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


All I would say is that I refuted your point in #1 and that I have read #3 and I disagree with you there too. In order to counter you need #1 and #3. Also, as I said before, there is some countering already in CC, I think there should be some more, and that this deserves a thread of its own.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


Okay I think I get "splash" now. The reason this makes it impossible to deliberately mine the resources you need to counter is because:
- with the current setup, you cannot keep track of what your enemy is mining, and thus making it harder to scout what they have, and thus making it harder to know what you're even countering. You have to know what they have before you can counter it, which in many cases as you yourself said, is nearly impossible.
- the splash means that often you will find little bits of the resource you need, but not enough. So many times in games my team needs that one resource type, someone finds it, everyone rushes over just to find it was just 1 or 2 asteroids. So everyone runs around for quite awhile looking for more, both creating a boring chore that requires little thought and often getting the resources too late to counter because either the situation has changed or the game is over.

whytedragon wrote:
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.


Um...no, some simple scouting at the beginning of the game (which already usually happens) would prevent this. It would be really easy to keep track of where a certain resource type is. Someone could just scout a field, ping the minimap and say "yellow" and viola!, you've got it for later when you might need it.

Alright, now to Slapshot:

Okay, your #1...as I said before, as soon as I hone in on one thing everyone says "this doesn't tell you everything..." etc etc. Of course this doesn't tell you everything, and is a bit unreliable, and thus encourages actually moving a small-ship over and perhaps causing engagements. It does help you out a bit though.

and for #2, when I orginaly posted this idea a few posts back I mentioned that the mining boost ("Q-beam") color could be entirely different from the asteroid colors, like purple or something. Although, now that I think about it, perhaps mining a ship could be an entirely different color and mining boost ("Q-beam") could make the beam brighter rather than changing the color. I remember the mining laser as being one of the things that looked weird to me when I first played CC because the Q-beam, the beam that mines faster, is actually a lot dimmer than the normal one.

------------------------------------------------

Okay, so back to whytedragon:

I gave this some more thought and something occurred to me:

What if resource types were littered all over, like Rainbow Asteroids mode but without the green. (Kind of like what you proposed). This would fulfill 2 of the 3 things I wanted, not as well as my idea, but since it appears no one likes my idea I would be willing to compromise to this. Let me explain:

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.

If the enemy goes for a certain resource type, they will go around mining that, leaving the ones they are not going for. Scouting the area and seeing what they left behind will tell you what they are going for. However, it requires a miner to see what resource type(s) is being left behind.

2. Then it would be nice to have a counter available.

This is the one that would not be fulfilled (as I said before is not fulfilled by asteroids)

3. Then it would be nice to be able to deliberately mine the resources you need for that counter.

I think this is easy to see...with what you need being all over it's easy to mine it, but would have some problems late game once asteroid count dwindles.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:53 am 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
It isn't meant to be an attack on you, Puppet. This is simply how I argue, and I understand it can be a little aggressive and offensive. So if I offended you, I'm sorry.

This is just how I am.

... anyhoo--

...

Regarding the counter point about how most of those upgrades could been seen should there be model displays...
... then what's the point of narrowing it down based upon their resources? If ultimately you're going to figure it out by clashing with the enemy and seeing what they have, isn't it redundant to try and narrow it down by looking at the resources they have if in order to discover what they actually have, you have to actually go and fight them anyways?

Also, I didn't bring up the variety of small ships available because of 'power docking differences.'
Minelayer only cost a minor amount of red. They can be considered supportive, offensive, or defensive ATM. They have many different usages and playstyles.
Chompers only cost a minor amount of red. They can be used for power docking primarily, and some economy.
Miners cost no red. They are a cheap alternative, can be used to stimulate economy when one or two miners are already dead, and can easily be salvaged -- and they also produce extra energy so even if they don't count as strong powerdockers, they still do help significantly in the long run. Two miners are comparable to a chomper in production.
Subjugators are also in there, are equally powerful for powerdocking, and has a very different implication in combat than a chomper.

... the only of those four ships mentioned that doesn't power dock well is the miner. All the others are easily comparable. And moreover, I would argue that each.

And even more than that, you're saying that it's a collection of things that narrow it down -- but again, and I've said this before many times as well, there are too many things to narrow it down. This is why I'm constantly saying you're overestimating the information you can obtain through resources mined -- because it can only be used to eliminate only a small number of things. In order to compensate for that gap, you literally had to point of 'model changes' or 'visual representations' -- this does not supplement information deduced through determining what they mined. This is its own method of detection that outright tells you the information even if you haven't scouted what resources are mined. It makes scouting out resources mined redundant and pointless, as it is a direct tell of the upgrades they have available.

I mean, I feel like that's exactly where we're not getting each other. I don't understand why you think that scouting minerals mined is helpful when, in the end, the only way you can ultimately deduce everything is through fighting with them. Even if you can narrow it down, it always, always comes down to obtaining the information by actually fighting or directly scouting them. Not the resources. And, ironically, fighting usually gives you (as you said in a post) all the information you need to know -- doesn't matter 'what upgrades' they have, only the effect.

So again. Why is it necessary to cross out one or two upgrades when by engaging, you get the complete picture anyways -- and ONLY from engaging can you get it, no matter how many smaller pieces of information you collect?

And please don't tell me you can deduce everything without engaging, because frankly speaking you have led so many of your examples for narrowing it down to ALWAYS conclude based upon it.

...

Regarding the specific examples;

So what if the trend towards red is damage/mobility?

That could mean kinetics. That could mean lasers. That could mean economy. That could mean corvettes. That could mean wraiths. That could mean minelayers. That could mean destroyers. And, as the Koreans do, that could mean missile. Could even mean a focus on economic or offensive tiered upgrades. And I would argue that each of these have significantly different implications.
Even if you point out either yellow or blue to be in more excess than the other (again, I find this unrealistic still as it's so rare that you aim for 'excess in one resource for CC', but I'll play with it) it still brings into question exactly what sort of method they're being implemented into. Speed be BC mobility, small ship fleet, small ship mobility, chomper enhancements, suicide bombers, infiltration, small ship missile attacks--

And, as a note, before you go into your numerical reasoning, you immediately fall back upon the scouting the actual team again. Which, by the way, means it ultimately becomes useless that you scouted resources as you find out through directly interacting with them anyways.

However, let me respond to the numerical points in turn.

1 & 2) Why would you not upgrade the BC main weapon? Or why would you get both Penta and Kinetics? Timing. Sometimes you buy what you can. You have a fairly limited time until the first kermiculite, so sometimes you simply have to work around that. Moreover, for kinetics to become effective against small ships you still need several tracking upgrades, which takes even more time, which means you can't make it BC effective with bleedthrough upgrades right away, so suddenly a quick penta for at least some kerm BC vs BC presence becomes helpful. Furthermore, there's also the possibility that you want to invest more of your resources into small ship damage due to a larger fleet available to you. It can work -- in fact, it has in the past for me and other teams.

... and again, after this, you know what you say?
That it's possible for them to get multiple upgrades of particular types.
Again, if you can't know without clashing, what's the point?

Let me also clarify something fast.
When you say focus on a particular resource, if you're meaning something like 20 yellow compared to 150 blue and 400 red... then your miners are doing their jobs wrong. This sort of mining is exactly what loses games.
A focus in most CC games would be something closer to 150/250/400. I only say this because, for whatever reason, you seem to mostly eliminate a resource entirely as a focus. I feel like this is also really important to point out because of the scaling nature of upgrades in terms of cost. Maybe you examples would work if all upgrade costs were flat, but that's not the case, because a focus on one particular upgrade path quickly exhausts resources. Which, in term, means generally a splash is taken in preference.

Just another reason why upgrades are unpredictable.

... moving on to your 'last' example fast, guess what you immediately fall back on once again.
Directly scouting what they're using their resources on.
Again, what is the damn point of scouting the resources then. It never comes down to figuring it out based upon their resources mined, but to actually looking at what they have. You can never look at a single damn thing they mine and still figure out what they have. If you cut out the step looking at what they'd mind, you always arrive at the exact same conclusions. It's an unnecessary middle man.

And then moving on your actually last example fast...
Puppetbones wrote:
You spawn near blue and red and to get yellow you must stray a bit from the BC. So early game is gonna be heavy on blue and red, unless the BC is moved. Let's say the enemy does not move the BC early. So now you know they are probably going for ss speed to go out and get that yellow.
I feel like this is oversimplification due to a variety of assumptions.
Why couldn't they be investing in a fast offensive tier upgrade, leading into piranha missiles?
Why can't it be focusing on utility offensive upgrades in supplement to speed, or for the sake of attacking?
And moreover, why would there be a situation where all miners sit on the exact same field unless they were stupid AIs?

...

In regards to your counter point to 3)...
Again. There is no point to scouting minerals if you can ultimately deduce the exact upgrades through directly interacting with the enemy team.

In regards to your counter point to 4)...
No, I did not call it the 'hardest to figure out.' I I simply pointed out there were many different possibilities. At absolutely no point in 4) do I even compare it to others. You did that all by yourself.

As for who brought it up first, I can almost certainly say that it was brought up by your utilization of Hull/Core/Shields as an example. So please don't pin it on me.

Puppetbones wrote:
Not in the following 2 scenarios, which would be fairly common with the proposed changes:
1. You spawn primarily near 2 resource types; getting the 3rd is difficult early on.
2. Counters to what your enemy has use primarily 2 resource types.

To 1) -- you've essentially denoted what every cruiser command player hates seeing in a cruiser command game. I don't know why you'd be advocating it.
To 2) I still see absolutely no reason why you'd only mine two resource types in such a situation. Why? Upgrade scaling cost.

Now, regarding the whole countering paragraphs...

I also find this to be a strange sentiment -- because, again, as you earlier said,
Puppetbones wrote:
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.

Which is why I'm confused. Such implies you're not looking for anything. It only matters if you're winning. So, if the only purpose of giving you scouting resources is to give you an 'idea of what to look out for,' but you don't need to look out for anything in particular in a BC battle other than whether you're winning or not...

Isn't it all moot, just as I said?

... also, what splash means is a small amount of extra color onto an otherwise monotone palette. So, in this case by example, one red asteroid in an otherwise entirely blue asteroid cluster.

Puppetbones wrote:
No, because with the current game it's simply too difficult to know what each clump of asteroids contains.

... why? Aside from those splash asteroids, which only account for a small amount of extra resources, nothing's different.

Puppetbones wrote:
As soon as they start mining from fields you haven't mined from yet, you can't tell what they are mining and if they do not mine even one asteroid field that you mined, you can't tell what they have mined because there is no way you could have noticed, let alone remembered, exactly what that field contained on your side.
Again -- not as different as you make it out to be. Fields are primarily one color most of the time. Even if we run under the assumption that it's a field that contains many colors, I still do believe a majority of the fields in the game are mostly monotone -- so at worst you consider these to be 'wildcard fields.' However, even then, the vast majority of fields you should be able to determine what's going on.

Puppetbones wrote:
All I would say is that I refuted your point in #1 and that I have read #3 and I disagree with you there too. In order to counter you need #1 and #3.
And I would say I have refuted your refutation.

Puppetbones wrote:
Okay I think I get "splash" now. The reason this makes it impossible to deliberately mine the resources you need to counter is because:
1) with the current setup, you cannot keep track of what your enemy is mining, and thus making it harder to scout what they have, and thus making it harder to know what you're even countering. You have to know what they have before you can counter it, which in many cases as you yourself said, is nearly impossible.
2) the splash means that often you will find little bits of the resource you need, but not enough. So many times in games my team needs that one resource type, someone finds it, everyone rushes over just to find it was just 1 or 2 asteroids. So everyone runs around for quite awhile looking for more, both creating a boring chore that requires little thought and often getting the resources too late to counter because either the situation has changed or the game is over.
In response to 1), again I think you're exaggerating. It's one to two asteroids in a cluster. At best 25%, probably closer to 15%.
In response to 2) ... I don't know what sorts of miners you're playing with, but if everybody is clustering on the same field, your mining is probably being handled very poorly. Moreover, isn't that the entire point of mining scan? You're creating issues where there really aren't any to begin with.

Puppetbones wrote:
Um...no, some simple scouting at the beginning of the game (which already usually happens) would prevent this. It would be really easy to keep track of where a certain resource type is. Someone could just scout a field, ping the minimap and say "yellow" and viola!, you've got it for later when you might need it.
I've had games where you could search pretty much an entire half of the map and still not find the resource you're looking for. So, in all due respect...
Bullshit.

...

Gonna top off with this fast.

Rather than going back and forth arguing like this, to be honest, all my arguments on this can really be summarized to two points.

Having the middle man of scouting resources just seems so entirely pointless. Pretty much every time, you have to rely upon the decisive capability of scouting through interacting with the enemy team. If you look back through your examples, you'll find this as a consistent theme. And this is exactly why I said it would be vastly superior to simply rely on and improve these sorts of interactions for scouting. Improve upon those, rather than making a parallel system that ends up ultimately being vastly inferior.

And moreover, I don't believe that changing the asteroid colors would make that big a difference in terms of scouting resources, even if it was helpful by comparison to scouting directly. Aside from the splash resources, the system already mostly works like this to begin with. I personally find the splash colors to be a nice addition that helps prevent a team from being entirely screwed due to the minimum dual resource requirement of most upgrades and ships. When you further consider that several upgrades and most small ships cost at minimum three different resource types, purposefully promoting a situation where it's potentially very easy to be denied a singular resource type feels like all you're doing is creating an exceedingly player hostile experience.

...

Okay, so to the new rainbow suggestion. I do feel like this is actually a more favorable compromise at this stage. However, since rainbow mode is already a thing, even if it does have the green... doesn't it feel redundant to literally change the entire game to a mode we essentially already have?

I mean, if the kermiculite is that big an issue, why not just ask Siretu to take it out and then your game mode would exist?


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:31 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:56 am
Posts: 271
Wiki edits: 22
Offline
(Looks at posts on page 3) O_O

_________________
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: Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:39 pm 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
Okay posts are getting longer and longer so I'm gonna try to answer your main points concisely and not worry about little things like Penta ---> Kinetics. I will just let your point stand in those things.

You keep asking over and over what the point of scouting resource mining is when ultimately you need to see the upgrades themselves to know everything. And I have been answering, but obviously not getting my point across well.

To summarize:
Knowing what resources they have mined helps eliminate many possible purchases. If they don't have the resources to buy it, then they have not bought it.

You say upgrade scaling makes this not work, but I think the exact opposite...because of upgrade scaling, getting high levels of a certain upgrade is impossible without mining high amounts of the primary resource(s) needed for it. Anyway, if I know the approximate amount of resources mined, I can visually scout their purchases, and make conclusions on what else they have or haven't upgraded. In the examples I might not have made this last sentence clear. If, for example, I know the enemy has mined about :b: 400 / :y: 400, and I see nearly that much in the upgrades I spotted, I now know that they do not have other upgrades that cost high yellow or blue, and thus I know some weaknesses I can exploit. You see, in this case, the large number of possible purchases is actually to my advantage. I guess let me get this across: by knowing what they have and what they've mined, you know what they don't have; you know weaknesses. In the reverse case, where (still on the example of :b: 400/ :y: 400 mined) you only spot about :b: 75 / :y: 100 in purchases, you know that is going somewhere that you are not looking. You know it's not ss (upgrades), you know its not core, and you can probably know its not utility. So now you can start asking yourself: Do they have the kerm for things like shields or higher tier upgrades? If this leads you spotting that they have high shields, that's quite useful. If not, then that narrows it down even more; probably small-ship purchases, maybe extra miners. If this leads you to finding out they have bought extra miners, then this was quite useful because you already know their ss is not upgraded well, so ganking them will be easy.

You see, neither knowing what resources have been mined nor direct scouting during engagements or ss flybys alone tell you everything you need, but together they can. Let me go through the example again, but this time without the information on resources.

So upon some early-game-ish ss engagements and scouting, you notice few ss upgrades (via unit model changes) At this point, that doesn't tell me much. Maybe they spent it on BC upgrades? If so, what? Maybe they spent it on buying more ss, but the thing is I'm in hostile territory and I don't have time to scrutinize everything. I mean it could even be technical difficulties and they just haven't mined hardly anything. But, if I try to say: figure out what extra small-ships have been purchased, I probably won't be able to get a glance at the BC's numbers. Anyway let's just say it was shields and hull and I missed the opportunity to find that out because I was too busy looking at their ss. If I knew this information, I could spot that weakness of energy, and thus target that by causing energy leaks and damaging core (so they have to pour energy in to fix it) and follow up with kinetics, and in a sense bypass the shields and hull upgrades by disabling shields due to lack of energy, and then dealing massive damage to hull damage from kinetics.

So to recap:
Scouting resources DOES help you narrow down purchase choices, thus telling you what to visually scout for, ultimately leading to you spotting what is going on and being able to counter. It's a 1-2 punch; that's why actually seeing the upgrades themselves (either through engagements or flybys) is mentioned in all my examples.

whytedragon wrote:
Which is why I'm confused. Such implies you're not looking for anything. It only matters if you're winning. So, if the only purpose of giving you scouting resources is to give you an 'idea of what to look out for,' but you don't need to look out for anything in particular in a BC battle other than whether you're winning or not...

Isn't it all moot, just as I said?


No, you can spot enemy strengths you need to "bypass" (lack of better word) and enemy weaknesses you can exploit. The only time it's just about whether you're winning or losing is if you're in the middle of a BC engagement and you need to know whether to pursue or flee. And then once one team realizes they need to flee, it's back to mining resources and purchasing upgrades, and with your scouting information you know what to go for. Also I think you seem to be limiting visually scouting upgrades to only BC vs BC engagements, and I'm not sure why.

whytedragon wrote:
I've had games where you could search pretty much an entire half of the map and still not find the resource you're looking for. So, in all due respect...
Bullshit.


You're not even talking about the proposed asteroid/mineral setup, you're talking about past games in the current setup. Basically I said that the proposed setup would fix this problem that exists in the current version and then you responded by saying the problem exists in the current version. I'm guessing you had a point, and I would like to understand it, so can you clarify?

whytedragon wrote:
why? Aside from those splash asteroids, which only account for a small amount of extra resources, nothing's different.

...

again I think you're exaggerating. It's one to two asteroids in a cluster. At best 25%, probably closer to 15%.

...

Aside from the splash resources, the system already mostly works like this to begin with.


Earlier you also proposed that instead of asteroid changes we just try a new metagame based on scouting. You know what, I will just go ahead and try. I'll play a few games and closely scout and see if I can gain useful information and if this change even needs to be implemented. Even though we don't have changing unit models I think i can still see if it works or not. I will also try going for specific resources needed for specific purchases. I'll come back in a few days and post the results.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:46 pm 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
Dreadnought wrote:
(Looks at posts on page 3) O_O


Yeah, it's heatin' up out here, boss.
(Reference)


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:17 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
The only reason I'm repeating it is because I get an answer that leads me right back into the question.

Puppetbones wrote:
Knowing what resources they have mined helps eliminate many possible purchases. If they don't have the resources to buy it, then they have not bought it.
But ultimately, it's all ended up being fruitless, hasn't it?
If it has the potential to be power docking, shields, core, or economy, those are all very different directions.
And moreover, knowing you can eliminate level 4 hardened shields or a full chomper power dock is mostly irrelevant. Low level upgrades are cheap enough that high numbers aren't required, to the point where 1 asteroid serves somewhere around 60 of a resource alone. Many of the early upgrades cost less than that, creating a situation where even if you can't max it, it should be a really simple matter in order to at least get a few low levels of it. And this sort of leads into the whole scaling upgrade cost...

Puppetbones wrote:
You say upgrade scaling makes this not work, but I think the exact opposite...because of upgrade scaling, getting high levels of a certain upgrade is impossible without mining high amounts of the primary resource(s) needed for it.
Exactly -- so why on earth would you spend nearly 200 yellow and 100 blue for two extra core upgrade when you could get two chompers instead?
Why would you spend 70 blue on one shields upgrades when you could use it alongside red you have for stabilizers, small ship speed, a small ship utility, energy, or other things?

By purposefully completely depleting yourself an entire resource by maxing out a tree you're actually being inefficient with your resources. It's a situation where ideally, it's nice to splash into those other resources and prevents the minmaxing you're suggesting. Tell me, what's stronger--
Level 10 Lasers
or
Level 9 Lasers with broadsides?

Level 6 Core
or
Level 5 Core and a Chomper?

Level 4 Wraith Damage
or
Level 3 Wraith Damage and Ionic Transfer?

The model you're suggesting is a trap for players that creates a less effective game strategy for them. The realistic model is a spread of upgrades which typically shies away from the minmaxing you're suggesting. Even though minmaxing would be possible by your suggested build, it's unrealistic to aim for as a captain due to the scaling time and cost required in order to obtain it.

And yes, this does imply a certain level of resource splashing in terms of what you mine, but that's exactly why everyone does it in real games.

Minmaxing is not a winning strategy. In order for your model to function, the scaling cost would either have to be reduced or removed.

...

To be more visceral about this, lets say there was 400b and 400y.

Lets say you do spot 75/40 in purchases. Lets say hull. Discovered by interaction with them.
Okay, out of more 'core' upgrades that leaves Miners, Chompers (will assume some splash available), small ship energy, core energy, shields, and tiered upgrades.
You go to check their BC and find out they have an extra 250 in energy max. Discovered by interaction with them.
You then see that miners, while escaping, don't lose energy. So they have small ship energy. Discovered by interaction with them.
At this point it's probably down to about 200/200 cost. This means that there's 200/200 resources still missing.
So, with a radar ping, you suddenly discover that they have an extra ship out. And by going over, you see two more miners than there should be. Discovered by ineracton with them.
320/320 now. So in theory, the enemy team should have 80/80 leftover.
... but that's all you know.
They could or could not have shields, depending on how much Kerm they have. It's a wild card. In fact, it's also entirely possible that some of their mineral packets were destroyed, or their asteroid values were reduced due to small ship fight lasers hitting asteroids.

So, in the end, through all of this discovery through interaction, all we can truly say is that they have the potential to have hardened shields. And moreover, this is an inspection done probably over the course of 2-4 minutes, at which point resources will have vastly changed again.

While you're doing all this investigation, the scenario is constantly changing. By scouting out what resources they had mined does not mean that you are given to know what resources they will have mined by the time they've completed their upgrades. It's literally a ridiculous catch-up game, on top of 90% of the information you're receiving being determined by the interactions you use to discover what upgrades they actually have.

It's all just so damn pointless. Why would you want to purposefully spend 5 minutes on in game time scouting to determine that 10%? It's dozens of times easier to just discover by fighting -- it's more intuitive, it doesn't require you to keep a checklist of things they and don't have while all the while that checklist is rapidly changing alongside the resources they have available to them, and it's doesn't require you to be a detective hunting to find out exactly what they mined when you could be shooting lasers up their butt or actually getting resources for your own team.

I mean, your literal argument for that this works is that you use a completely different method of scouting for N-1 parts of a process of N length. Doesn't that feel off to you at all?

It's not 'fun.' It's like giving someone a grocery list and a total fund in dimes, nickles and quarters, and when you grab all the items and get your change you have to figure out what item you're supposed to grab last based on the price. The entire process would just generally be a lot smoother without having to look for that last hidden item, or having to tally up all of those small coins.

And moreover, this is only looking at a team focusing upon two resource types which, as I previously said, I find to be highly unrealistic. And going back to the splash concept, this is because it's just not as effective to minmax. The moment you throw in all three resource types in roughly equal quantity, the entire equation just becomes bonkers -- just how many steps would you have to take in order to completely determine the upgrades chosen by a team with 500/500/500/100 resources?

Like, seriously, I'd like to see a written out example if you think it's possible.

You say that it's only 'together' that they can, but I think that's wrong. It's only because of discovery through interaction that the mathing method is even partially viable. Scouting through interaction is independent from scouting resources gained.

In the end, what you're actually relying upon is discovery through interaction. The mental math method just ends up being a tiny little supplement, and that's really why I don't see why the entire game should be changed to adapt to that.

Puppetbones wrote:
Also I think you seem to be limiting visually scouting upgrades to only BC vs BC engagements, and I'm not sure why.
Maybe I am a little bit. However, it's one of the very few situations in a game where you can actually obtain information about certain spendings. You only really see destroyers in a BC vs BC engagement. You only can get a judge of hardened shields in BC vs BC engagements. Yeah, yeah, you already declared how you can possibly determine whether a team has those or not, but that's a painstaking catch-up game.

The main reason I'm using BC vs BC as the primary examples is because you learn about the opposing team through fighting them. And, in reality, a lot of BC effectiveness can also come down to things like power management, small ship management, navigation management... there are a lot of tools that go beyond upgrades. Plus, a lot of things you wouldn't normally see such as broadsides, engine boost, small ship dock, effective shield power, effective laser power, can't really be measured through a wraith quietly swinging by the BC before getting shot down.

Puppetbones wrote:
You're not even talking about the proposed asteroid/mineral setup, you're talking about past games in the current setup. Basically I said that the proposed setup would fix this problem that exists in the current version and then you responded by saying the problem exists in the current version. I'm guessing you had a point, and I would like to understand it, so can you clarify?
I'm sorry, but I actually laughed.
No. Your version would absolutely not fix that. That is precisely why I'm speaking in context of the current setup, as yours only further makes it an issue.
Ask anyone. You yourself even said so, albeit indirectly.
If you have a map filled with only rainbow fields, will you have a lower or higher chance of finding the resource you're looking for than if all fields were uniformly one color?
Puppetbones wrote:
3. Then it would be nice to be able to deliberately mine the resources you need for that counter.

I think this is easy to see...with what you need being all over it's easy to mine it, but would have some problems late game once asteroid count dwindles.

Splash is basically a a small, slight push towards that direction. It's like making 1-2 asteroids in each cluster part of the rainbow setup. So don't even start on that. :P

Puppetbones wrote:
Earlier you also proposed that instead of asteroid changes we just try a new metagame based on scouting.
No, I did not. I said if we were going to push for more scouting, we should push in that direction rather than trying to reinforce resource counting. If you properly quote me saying otherwise, then please go ahead -- however, even if that is the case, that was not my intention.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 4:32 pm 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
Okay let me quote myself

Puppetbones wrote:
because of upgrade scaling, getting high levels of a certain upgrade is impossible without mining high amounts of the primary resource(s) needed for it.


Nowhere did I say someone would max out on a specific upgrade over lesser level upgrade supplemented by other upgrades. This is more useful for late game when you already have much of those other upgrades, and thus start upgrading high levels. It's not an "or", its an "and".

whytedragon wrote:
And moreover, this is an inspection done probably over the course of 2-4 minutes, at which point resources will have vastly changed again.


I disagree. You often go over to enemy miners to harass, why not scout while you're at it? All you would have to do is notice what's being mined and what has been mined (~10 seconds), notice small ship upgrades (<10 seconds), think it over, plan what to look for next (<10 seconds), and then do whatever visual scouting you want (~20 seconds, already near enemy ships). At this point, the time it takes about equals (or even less than) the lag of minerals getting returned and refined.

whytedragon wrote:
It's all just so damn pointless. Why would you want to purposefully spend 5 minutes on in game time scouting to determine that 10%?


If you're thinking that you would have to scout every 2 minutes or so...I would ask why. I would think 2, maybe 3 tops, of these scouting trips per game would suffice.

whytedragon wrote:
It's not 'fun.' It's like giving someone a grocery list and a total fund


I think you're exaggerating the amount of math that would have be done. I would argue that in many cases, you don't need very specific numbers...you could even use terms like "moderate amount". A little precision maybe lost, but as you pointed out above this, you can't get incredibly precise anyway. That's why I've usually used the word "about" before numbers.

whytedragon wrote:
And moreover, this is only looking at a team focusing upon two resource types which, as I previously said, I find to be highly unrealistic.


Okay I'm gonna say this one last time. When I said they have 400/400, I did not say 400/400/0/0. I didn't even imply it. And in an earlier post I specifically pointed this out where you said I was only using examples of games where only 2 resources types are mined, and I said that I was just focusing on those 2 for the sake of clarity and a shorter post. Anyway, the particular example you were talking about in this quote works no matter what the value for red (or green) is so long as there is a reason to inspect blue and yellow spending.

whytedragon wrote:
just how many steps would you have to take in order to completely determine the upgrades chosen by a team with 500/500/500/100 resources?

Like, seriously, I'd like to see a written out example if you think it's possible.


Well for one you know they don't have enough to max out on main BC weapon: a common late game path. That alone made the scout worth it. Done.

If you want more detail, the easiest thing would be to go after the kerm. With only 100 kerm, they're not gonna have the best late game upgrades. That alone made the scout worth it. If you want to follow up and see what they have, that's even more useful.


Again, the resource scout doesn't have to tell you everything, it just needs to be worth it by pointing you in the right direction. And a scout doesn't cost much. As far as resources/stats, it might cost 50-100 energy extra to scout while you're out and about instead of that going to BC. And the time is small as I said, and, considering how much down time there is in small-ships, I would say sometimes scouting has no time cost whatsoever.

In fact, I'm going to use kerm from this example to support some of my claims. Notice that kerm is an easy resource to scout how much your enemy has mined, and that amount alone helps point you in the right direction regardless of the other 3 resource types. You see, you don't need a game where the enemy mines only 1-2 resource types. You just need to find a resource that's outstanding (either large amounts or small amounts) and then scout it out. If it's quite even among all 3 (or 4), then you can expect the enemy to not have significant strengths and weaknesses (in upgrades).

whytedragon wrote:
In the end, what you're actually relying upon is discovery through interaction. The mental math method just ends up being a tiny little supplement, and that's really why I don't see why the entire game should be changed to adapt to that.


I think there is some exaggeration again but it's still a fair point.

whytedragon wrote:
I'm sorry, but I actually laughed.
No. This would absolutely not fix that.
Ask anyone. You yourself even said something earlier that contradicts this.
If you have a map filled with an entirely rainbow field, will you have a lower or higher chance of finding the resource you're looking for than if all fields were uniformly one color?


I think this would be about the same either way. One would have a more consistent flow and the other would be easier to focus on getting large amounts of specifically what you need. One would promote a steady crawl of the BC movement, the other would promote occasional, rapid movements with stopping time in between. Where it differs is scouting what your enemy has mined, which is far more fruitful with fields of uniformly one color.

And where exactly did I contradict myself in saying that the proposed idea would work (or not work)? I'm confused.

whytedragon wrote:
Splash is basically a a small, slight push towards that direction. It's like making 1-2 asteroids in each cluster part of the rainbow setup. So don't even start on that. :P


Yes it is a small slight push towards that direction...and that's the problem. Let me explain.

With my original proposal with fields primarily one color you can intentionally mine certain resource types by moving the BC over and naturally human and AI miners would respond (and each of them could be commanded over, too). Also scouting enemy resources is easy.

On the other end of the spectrum, a rainbow-like distribution would often have at least some of each resource readily available...at least early on before much of it gets mined. This is also easier to target certain resource types than the current setup because checking certain boxes in AI miners wouldn't make them so retarded. And it's also easier to scout than the current setup, as I have explained before.

Bottom line: the two extremes are both better than the current setup, and I think that the extreme on fields being primarily 1 color is slightly better than the opposite extreme.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:07 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
I'm not sure it it's an unwritten rule to post twice in a row, but after re-reading some recent posts from whytedragon, something was made much clearer to me. I would say this quote sums it up:

whytedragon wrote:
The mental math method just ends up being a tiny little supplement, and that's really why I don't see why the entire game should be changed to adapt to that.


The mental math method is indeed a small supplement, but that's not the only effect of this. It's not even nearly the most prominent. But I see how you might be forgetting the other effects because this little one has been nearly the only one discussed lately.

So I'm gonna summarize/recap the main effects.

Having larger fields dominated of one resource type rather than many small ones would:

1) Allow you to target specific resources and mine them.
- You will have to scout for resources less frequently because once you find a field, it lasts you quite some time, at least for that resource type.
- Once a field is found it can be easily targeted either by human miners simply flying over to it, or by moving the BC over to it and perhaps even recalling AI miners and then releasing them again.
- As a side effect, this promotes a mobile gameplay.

2) This allows you to scout enemy resources.
This part has been hard for me to get my point across, so I'm gonna try a different angle: looking at it as past tense, present, and future.
- Past: You will be able to scout resources that have already been mined very easily and can roughly estimate the amount mined. How this part specifically can be useful has been the primary topic of the discussion lately. This is also the only one involving any numbers. See how small the "mental math method" is now? Thus the reason I said whytedragon is exaggerating.
- Present: You will be able to see what the enemy is currently mining. Wraith radar pings are a low cost low reliability way to do this. Wraith (or anything else) direct scouting is a high cost high reliability way (really still very low cost but high compared to radar ping). Through direct visual scouting, or contact with the enemy, you can reliably see where all the miners/chompers are currently mining, and if you for some reason you don't know what color the field is, just look at the mining laser color (note this is using model changes). This is useful because it helps point towards their next step in purchases.
- Future: If you catch their BC moving, you can see where they are moving it to and what they are mining next. This allows you to predict even farther into the future.

The way I see it, scouting resources is a less definitive way then actually seeing the purchases themselves, but it's a much earlier warning/prediction. Scouting resources also tells you what to look for during brief (Small-ship) flybys and (BC or ss) engagements.

------------------------

A couple more points I would like to make:

1) Whytedragon and I have been debating the amount of positive effect in certain small areas that would come out of this change. Now even if whytedragon is right and I am wrong and that the positive effects are less than I think, it's all still positive effects. So far the only substantial negative effects mentioned from what I can recall were all misunderstandings, like chompers being super effective. The only negative thing I can recall is whytedragon saying he likes the salvaging feel of mining, which is really more a personal preference and quite small compared to the positive effects. But, DO CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG. This point has been a big reason why I have defended this so stubbornly.

2) This is inspired by mechanics that already exist in the game. You (whytedragon) say scouting and knowing resources mined is pointless? So you're telling me you've never gained any useful information based on knowledge of approximate enemy kerm mined? To get very specific information, you're gonna need to followup scout yes, but the kerm mined information alone is useful. If it's useful for kerm, why would it not be useful for other resource types? Secondly, you seem to be skeptical about this idea making it easier to mine specific resource types...but a similar mechanic to this idea already exists: late game asteroid field spawning. Since it's a decently large veins of one resource type, it's easy to go after what you want, even though there are not many fields out there. So how would having this same mechanic but with more fields make it harder to mine what you need? When I see it work in game for myself and the only objections I get to this is "Bullshit." and "I'm sorry, but I actually laughed.
No. Your version would absolutely not fix that...yours only further makes it an issue.", doesn't convince me at all. The first sentence of this paragraph is another reason why I have defended this so stubbornly, so again tell me if I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:10 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
Going to ignore the first post since it's pretty much a combating argument of 'nuh uh,' to my 'uh huh.' Moreover, you deign to put words in my mouth at times as well. By example;
whytedragon wrote:
And moreover, this is only looking at a team focusing upon two resource types which, as I previously said, I find to be highly unrealistic.
Puppetbones wrote:
Okay I'm gonna say this one last time. When I said they have 400/400, I did not say 400/400/0/0. I didn't even imply it.
Please read it again, because guess what? Neither did I. Focus, I said. I still find even something like 400/400/100/20 to be unrealistic. Hell, I even think I had to tell you that in an even older post.

Moreover some of the counter arguments are practically asinine.
Puppetbones wrote:
Well for one you know they don't have enough to max out on main BC weapon: a common late game path. That alone made the scout worth it. Done.
Pardon me if I don't pull out my slow golf clap for your powerful skills of deduction. Sorry, but I think it deserves me being mean on this one, as all you've managed to point out is that if they decide to attack you right now, they will not wield a certain value of that weaponry type relative to yours. They could have everything else, but at least you know that right?

You know, by comparison, you could have just made a rough estimate based upon how many miners they had out and whether or not they were using a chomper relative to your resources and you could have pretty much arrived at the same conclusion with far less effort.

So yeah. I could make a long post in response to all of your quotes, but they'd literally be repeats of all my old ones.

Going to focus on the three things in your second post.

Puppetbones wrote:
1) Allow you to target specific resources and mine them.
- You will have to scout for resources less frequently because once you find a field, it lasts you quite some time, at least for that resource type.
- Once a field is found it can be easily targeted either by human miners simply flying over to it, or by moving the BC over to it and perhaps even recalling AI miners and then releasing them again.
- As a side effect, this promotes a mobile gameplay.
To point 1; blah blah blah repeated argument of fields already primarily being like this with only minor splash, not as big a change as you make it out to be. I've said all of this before and again, so I'm not going to bother repeating myself as clearly this is running in a circle.
-To point 2; see argument for point 1. Literally everything I've already said.
-To point 3; Yes/No. You could argue it's more mobile because you move the BC to get a field, but... blah blah blah repeated arguments of fields... oh, you get it by now.
However, in terms of miner activity, it's less mobile. 'Find a field of the type of your choice and sit on it' -- whereas by contrast, having every field have the potential for a small reward of what you're looking for means hopping between them more frequently as they serve more than one immediate use.
Another argument could also be put forth that 'oh, what if you can't find the resource you're looking for?' This could be called mobile, but not mobile gameplay. There's no 'game' essence to it -- you fly in circles looking around until you luck out. This puts more emphasis on RNG based game play, as suddenly not only do you have to rely upon the luck of finding a field, but also the luck that that field of only a single element will be the one you're looking for.
Mobile gameplay is creating a situation where you move around because it's beneficial. Not 'could be' or 'might be,' but is. And while there's still RNG in the current system, it also creates a system where each discovery is not moot, and therefore both the initial discovery and the return trip are more likely to be useful.

So, no. This is not good mobile game play. What you're suggesting is more pushing towards luck and happenstance.

Puppetbones wrote:
2) This allows you to scout enemy resources.
This part has been hard for me to get my point across, so I'm gonna try a different angle: looking at it as past tense, present, and future.
- Past: You will be able to scout resources that have already been mined very easily and can roughly estimate the amount mined. How this part specifically can be useful has been the primary topic of the discussion lately. This is also the only one involving any numbers. See how small the "mental math method" is now? Thus the reason I said whytedragon is exaggerating.
- Present: You will be able to see what the enemy is currently mining. Wraith radar pings are a low cost low reliability way to do this. Wraith (or anything else) direct scouting is a high cost high reliability way (really still very low cost but high compared to radar ping). Through direct visual scouting, or contact with the enemy, you can reliably see where all the miners/chompers are currently mining, and if you for some reason you don't know what color the field is, just look at the mining laser color (note this is using model changes). This is useful because it helps point towards their next step in purchases.
- Future: If you catch their BC moving, you can see where they are moving it to and what they are mining next. This allows you to predict even farther into the future.
To point 1) -- I would argue that this is actually the most painstakingly frustrating part. I posted several reasons earlier, such as mineral loss due to mining, but there's also the issue of asteroid size, incomplete mining, and so on.
Suddenly, your 'basic glance' of 7 mined asteroids has to become an estimate based upon 7 partially mined asteroids of different percentages and sizes.
To point 2) admittedly this could be the most helpful of your points. However because of the favored strategy of rainbow mining I don't particularly see it as overly helpful either.
To point 3) same poke as above in essence.
In short, generally only serves use if a team has a hard focus on a singular resource type. And, as I have said in previous times...
That's a bad idea.

Puppetbones wrote:
1) Whytedragon and I have been debating the amount of positive effect in certain small areas that would come out of this change. Now even if whytedragon is right and I am wrong and that the positive effects are less than I think, it's all still positive effects. So far the only substantial negative effects mentioned from what I can recall were all misunderstandings, like chompers being super effective. The only negative thing I can recall is whytedragon saying he likes the salvaging feel of mining, which is really more a personal preference and quite small compared to the positive effects. But, DO CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG. This point has been a big reason why I have defended this so stubbornly.
Miner mess ups.
Color camping.
Resource rarity.
Mundane exploration.
Splash upgrade hostility.
There could be more, though I'd have to find them.

Puppetbones wrote:
2) This is inspired by mechanics that already exist in the game. You (whytedragon) say scouting and knowing resources mined is pointless? So you're telling me you've never gained any useful information based on knowledge of approximate enemy kerm mined? To get very specific information, you're gonna need to followup scout yes, but the kerm mined information alone is useful. If it's useful for kerm, why would it not be useful for other resource types? Secondly, you seem to be skeptical about this idea making it easier to mine specific resource types...but a similar mechanic to this idea already exists: late game asteroid field spawning. Since it's a decently large veins of one resource type, it's easy to go after what you want, even though there are not many fields out there. So how would having this same mechanic but with more fields make it harder to mine what you need? When I see it work in game for myself and the only objections I get to this is "Bullshit." and "I'm sorry, but I actually laughed.
Yes, I have gotten significant knowledge off of knowing how much Kerm the enemy mined.
None of it, part of it, or all of it.
And only because I know if miners came to the scene, a singular point on the map for a singular resource that is the most important in the game.

Never have I ever bothered to meticulously calculate the number of kermilicute asteroids that just so happened to spawn across the wide, potential field it can, along with their sizes and the %s that have been snagged away by my opponents.

Why don't you ask me how often I check how much Yellow people mine?

Also, "Since it's a decently large veins of one resource type, it's easy to go after what you want, even though there are not many fields out there,"?
It's to my understanding that even those late game fields, although primarily are of one resource, still have splash. And even if they didn't, there is a hefty difference between how the early and late game function in terms of mining. 1) They're not symmetrical spawns. 2) Chompers are readily available at that stage, so the moment they're found they're pretty much instantly consumed. 3) Map population with small ships is much larger during the late stages, meaning they're more easily found. 4) It requires a certain number of minerals to have already been harvested, meaning the economy's already had a kick start. 5) Lategame resources typically require more slanted (particular) resource requirements due to the scaling value. We've established that much in our argument. So, at this stage of the game, it's more forgivable as you don't require all resources as desperately.
... and all of that being if.

And even all that aside, all of my previous arguments still apply. You have provided absolutely 0 reasoning as to why this makes it better during the lategame. "Because they exist and work" is all you've given me. Not particularly good reasoning.

And in regards to what reasoning I gave you, since you seem to have overlooked it somehow...
whytedragon wrote:
Your version would absolutely not fix that. That is precisely why I'm speaking in context of the current setup, as yours only further makes it an issue.
Ask anyone. You yourself even said so, albeit indirectly.
If you have a map filled with only rainbow fields, will you have a lower or higher chance of finding the resource you're looking for than if all fields were uniformly one color?
Puppetbones wrote:
3. Then it would be nice to be able to deliberately mine the resources you need for that counter.

I think this is easy to see...with what you need being all over it's easy to mine it, but would have some problems late game once asteroid count dwindles.

Splash is basically a a small, slight push towards that direction. It's like making 1-2 asteroids in each cluster part of the rainbow setup. So don't even start on that. :P
"It's easy to find a resource if you have all of it everywhere."
"But that suddenly gets hard lategame, that time when all the fields turn more monochrome."

Straightforward reasoning, and you yourself seemed to agree with it.

So, since you asked, I will say it.
"You're wrong."


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:58 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
Alright, first thing I'll start off with:

whytedragon wrote:
Moreover some of the counter arguments are practically asinine.
Puppetbones wrote:
Well for one you know they don't have enough to max out on main BC weapon: a common late game path. That alone made the scout worth it. Done.

Pardon me if I don't pull out my slow golf clap for your powerful skills of deduction.


Did you even read the paragraph underneath that? O.o

Also, my apologies if it seemed asinine, but it is a reoccurring theme that half the content in my examples is overlooked somehow. I felt you had forgotten that there is a basic advantage to scouting enemy resources, and then if you want to followup you can get more. So I put the basic one first and the more detailed on after, summarizing because at this point I would be repeating myself.

whytedragon wrote:
whytedragon wrote:
Your version would absolutely not fix that. That is precisely why I'm speaking in context of the current setup, as yours only further makes it an issue.
Ask anyone. You yourself even said so, albeit indirectly.
If you have a map filled with only rainbow fields, will you have a lower or higher chance of finding the resource you're looking for than if all fields were uniformly one color?
Puppetbones wrote:
3. Then it would be nice to be able to deliberately mine the resources you need for that counter.

I think this is easy to see...with what you need being all over it's easy to mine it, but would have some problems late game once asteroid count dwindles.


Splash is basically a a small, slight push towards that direction. It's like making 1-2 asteroids in each cluster part of the rainbow setup. So don't even start on that. :P

"It's easy to find a resource if you have all of it everywhere."
"But that suddenly gets hard lategame, that time when all the fields turn more monochrome."


Okay I could get really pissy here, especially since you yourself even said last post: "you deign to put words in my mouth at times as well"...which is exactly what you did there. But I'm thankful you finally cleared this up.

Anyway, I do find it interesting that you would think the end game would have monochrome asteroid fields, because that's not what I was thinking (hence the putting words in my mouth). I figure it would be more like random isolated asteroids scattered about, so thus finding more than 1 or 2 of the color you are looking for is hard. Asteroids start spawning at <50 asteroids on the map (Last I checked), so nearing 50 asteroids in the entire map would not leave large monochrome fields. The only time I could see monochrome fields being formed is more mid-game-ish, and there the problem would be more that all the fields are the same type, not each field varying in color.


I've already refuted your arguments for mobility, so I would rather not repeat / copy/paste old posts.


Anyhoo (I like that word, mind if I steal it from you?),

Besides some minor errors and contradictions not really worth mentioning, the rest of your arguments seemed fair and convincing.

...

I also noticed, I think yesterday, that there were 3 votes on the poll all voting "No" ...

So, you know what, I'm just gonna drop this idea and make a compromise and a new proposal:

- Rainbow Asteroids gets changed to WhyteDragon's idea:
whytedragon wrote:
More fields with a smaller number of asteroids.
Feel free to elaborate on this, WhyteDragon.

- We introduce Slapshot's model changes idea (Might want to make a separate thread for this)

- and:
whytedragon wrote:
a check that prevents asteroids from spawning next to the battlecruiser


...

I would also like to further discuss Slapshot's idea of fewer asteroids at the start.


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 2 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