Cruiser Command

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


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 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 12, 2015 3:28 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
Did you even read the paragraph underneath that? O.o

Forgive me, it seemed mostly irrelevant. So here it was;
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.

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).
But yet it points you in no direction. The only instances in which you proposed particular directions in the past were in situations where you could pinpoint several upgrades that they may potentially have. In this one, not only can you not do that, you can't even properly get a read on what sort of path they've invested in.

And this is precisely why I originally asked to see an example utilizing this sort of resource distribution -- whether you didn't provide one or could not, the reality still remains that it's extremely stiffling in order to properly discover what they're doing with a wide variety of resources. What you have provided is not an example that gives justice to all your previous ones, it is an evasion that pushes the argument away from the issue. And that is exactly why I found it to be ridiculous.

In reality, as I've said countless times, I find it to be very rare in which a team will willingly push towards a singular resource type to be surpassing another by hundreds. In the very short term there may b a small lead in resources, I.E. trying to save up for a chomper or tiered upgrades, but these are all very short term situations that will not have a significant long term impact. And, what that has ultimately led you straight to, is Kermiculite.

And you know what happens with Kermiculite?

whytedragon wrote:
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.
So, in essence, all I'm really taking off of this is that "all you really need to scout is Kermiculite since that's what all the BC upgrades revolve around." And if that's the case, there's really no need to adjust fields in order to justify resource scouting as it will have no influence on kermiculite mining.

... satisfied?

Puppetbones wrote:
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.
Then perhaps I'm mistaken as to saying this, perhaps because this is a rarely played mode, but I was under the assumption that even in rainbow mode, the newly spawned fields followed the same scheme as in the regular mode.

However, even if that's not how it works it is not to my understanding that in the late game there would suddenly be singular asteroids. This may occur to a certain extent due to 'incomplete field mining,' but otherwise I see no reason why the underlined section should be occurring in excess -- especially when you consider how AI Miners pretty much gather everything they find.

So yeah. Rather than saying I put words in your mouth, I simply associated the late game with late game mechanics -- the spawning of fields when missing a certain number of resources. And I think that's a reasonable assumption. Especially when considering, comparatively speaking, the point of what I said was that there would be more monochrome-like fields than at the initial stages of the game relative to the start of the game which would literally have 0 monochrome-like fields due to rainbow characteristics.

So yeah, maybe it was a misinterpretation. However, arguably, I would say my point still stands. If the early game is easy and the late game is harder, more so relative to the current setup, and the only particular differences would be the initial rainbow field, then I fail to see how it should be interpreted otherwise.

Again, this relies upon the fact that fields are in fact more monochrome based when re-spawned due to asteroid insufficiency. However, even failing that, I would still believe my point holds true. I see no reason why it would be harder to find the resources you're looking for in a rainbow setup. To me, that's utter nonsense.

whytedragon wrote:
I've already refuted your arguments for mobility, so I would rather not repeat / copy/paste old posts.
As I have yours in my recollection.

...

Puppetbones wrote:
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.
[/quote]
To be fair, those 3 No votes were there pretty much from the moment I started posting. But anyways--

Model changes I'm all for. It's basically more information communicated through the actual game.

And as for what I was implying for more fields with fewer asteroids, basically imagine if all fields were a quarter of their size, but there were four times the number of fields. This would result in a more even distribution.
I.E., compare the inverse of making only one, large field. You could call this a very inequitable distribution. As you split that one field into more fields, asteroids become more evenly distributed.
... that's basically what the proposition was.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:46 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
whytedragon wrote:
... satisfied?


At this point close enough.

whytedragon wrote:
...but I was under the assumption that even in rainbow mode, the newly spawned fields followed the same scheme as in the regular mode.


Ahhhh, no that's not what I meant. I was talking about just before asteroids start spawning, hence the "nearing 50" term. And you are right, the same scheme follows with spawning asteroids as in regular mode.

So that's a fair misunderstanding.

...

whytedragon wrote:
In reality, as I've said countless times, I find it to be very rare in which a team will willingly push towards a singular resource type to be surpassing another by hundreds. In the very short term there may b a small lead in resources, I.E. trying to save up for a chomper or tiered upgrades, but these are all very short term situations that will not have a significant long term impact. And, what that has ultimately led you straight to, is Kermiculite.


That was very revealing to me, because that is not the way I usually play (or atleast try to). I think this might be where we aren't getting each other.

Another older quote that was revealing:

whytedragon wrote:
Puppetbones wrote:
1. You spawn primarily near 2 resource types; getting the 3rd is difficult early on.


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.


I actually like games like this. Because, shoot!, now you have to mobilize to find that other resource or decide to go off of the 2 you have. Also kick starts ss harassment.

Puppetbones wrote:
I've already refuted your arguments for mobility, so I would rather not repeat / copy/paste old posts.
whytedragon wrote:
As I have yours in my recollection.


And I have refuted your arguments refuting mine, in my recollection.

My point is all I could see this ever doing was going in circles.
...And going in circles is mobile so therefore my point stands. Sorry.

...

And a couple of questions for your proposition:

So it's not quite like Rainbow Asteroids without kerm then? Still monochrome fields, just much smaller so similar to Rainbow?

Also, you mentioned mineral distribution, but what about asteroid distribution? In other words, will it look the same on the minimap?


By the way, due to this thread's length, Siretu may not be keeping up, so if he doesn't respond to this new proposition in, say, a week maybe you should make a new thread? (I'd rather you did it since it's your idea)


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:03 am 
User avatar
Creator
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:00 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: In the SC2 Editor
Wiki edits: 115
Offline
Soooo, I kind of lost track around page 2-3...

There's this trend in our community to lose track of the point trying to argue a point. While I was reading post after post, I started forgetting that this was a thread about asteroid distribution.

I think I understand Pupperbones' point. However, I think it's already kind of implemented. I mean, asteroid fields are already mainly one mineral. I want to keep some small variation so you don't get completely drained of one color just because you cant find the field containing it.

As I see it, you just want to decrease the variation. You want to increase the percentage of a field that contains the main mineral. If this is the case, I think it would be more productive to discuss if it's worth just increasing the percentage of this.

I personally think that if I add models and stuff for upgrades and keep it as it is, it will be fine.

In addition, I think the entire debate of scouting is a bit ridiculous. Even in a best case scenario with dielectric sensors and a smart person sitting on science 24/7 pinging and interpreting the pings, I don't think you'll get valuable mineral scouting from it. 90% of the time, your team will get the resource they're low on and aim to be very balanced on resources. Even if a team is going very red heavy, you'd have to remember exactly where they've been the last 10 pings and try to account for miner movement and how much they could've mined while using the mirror to account for mineral content.

At best, it's a full-time job for little-to-none extra benefits. Most likely, it'll not change anything, except make teams more resource-starved and games feel more luck-based, due to losing because of lacking a single resource.

As for bigger fields, I think that is also a bad idea. I completely disagree that it increases game mobility because it'll will make miners just stay at the same place and make chompers incredibly powerful. Both bad ideas, in my opinion.

_________________
Never ignore coincidence. Unless, of course, you’re busy. In which case, always ignore coincidence.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2015 3:11 pm 
User avatar
Yarrr
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:33 am
Posts: 494
Wiki edits: 126
Offline
... feels like, for the most part, you've pretty much summarized most of what I wanted to say Siretu.

So yeah. Glad to know I'm not being crazy. At least... not in how I view things.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:54 am 
User avatar
Member
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:08 pm
Posts: 75
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
I think the current system works well, though I like an idea suggested that asteroid respawns would be more frequent/larger later on in the game.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:40 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
Siretu wrote:
As for bigger fields, I think that is also a bad idea. I completely disagree that it increases game mobility because it'll will make miners just stay at the same place and make chompers incredibly powerful. Both bad ideas, in my opinion.


Yeah...you skipped over quite a bit ;) . These notions, especially the one about making chompers more powerful, were shown to be misunderstandings quite awhile ago.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:48 am 
User avatar
CCA
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:13 am
Posts: 363
Wiki edits: 0
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
Yeah...you skipped over quite a bit ;) . These notions, especially the one about making chompers more powerful, were shown to be misunderstandings quite awhile ago.


problem is that the poll question/first post don't make that clear.. rest of the thread is mostly irrelevant and discussion/brainstorming about effects/etc. (and no editing it won't help either) -

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:57 am 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:32 am
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Offline
Fair enough.

By the way (this is directed at Slap, Siretu, Dreadnought, and anyone else reading): What do you think of WhyteDragon's asteroid distribution idea?


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:58 pm 
User avatar
Creator
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:00 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: In the SC2 Editor
Wiki edits: 115
Offline
Care to recap? I cant find it.

_________________
Never ignore coincidence. Unless, of course, you’re busy. In which case, always ignore coincidence.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Asteroid/Mineral Distribution
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:38 pm 
User avatar
CCI
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:56 am
Posts: 271
Wiki edits: 22
Offline
Puppetbones wrote:
Fair enough.

By the way (this is directed at Slap, Siretu, Dreadnought, and anyone else reading): What do you think of WhyteDragon's asteroid distribution idea?


idk, I forget what yours and whytes ideas were in the first place

_________________
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  
 

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 3 guests


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

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