Alteration to Kerm Spawning

[WhyteDragon]

The current metagame makes Battlecruiser Rushing kerm almost mandatory. If you don't, you lose Kermiculite -- and that's just about the brunt of it. If both teams do, the one who's better upgraded either makes the kill or gets Kermiculite. It decides the game in the first 13 minutes without much fail.

I would like to suggest making Kermiculite spawn in a much more dispersed way. The ideal situation for a cruiser command game is for both teams to get some Kermiculite in order to ensure it isn't completely one sided -- by spreading it out, it creates a situation where even if you simply guard the spawn with the battlecruiser it may be possible to find one that has spawned far out enough for you to pick off and secure at least a little bit of Kerm for your team. Moreover, it pushes the usage of small ships such that they are more mobile and capable of getting sight on miners that are a bit too far for the battlecruiser to see. And more than that, it prevents tactics like 'speed chomping' which allow a coordinated team to swiftly mine all the kermiculite in a mere five or ten seconds.

In short, I would suggest doubling or tripling the kermiculite spawning area and making the asteroids much more distant from one another. It gives a purpose for 'living to fight another day' if it is possible to sneak a bit of Kermiculite out of each spawn rather than it being completely one sided.

[Meanme]

Just to be clear, we're just enlarging the spawning area of the kerm? So all the pretty green rocks spawn a long ways from each other?

[WhyteDragon]

Just to be clear, we're just enlarging the spawning area of the kerm? So all the pretty green rocks spawn a long ways from each other?

In short, yes. Instead of there not even being a single ship's distance between each kerm asteroid, you put several battlecruiser's distance in between each such that you have to gather it rather than simply secure a very singular point on the map.

[Red-Rocket]

what about multiple spawns?
instead of one large one we could have 1 medium-almost large (5-8) one and 2 small ones (2-4) that are put randomly on the map. (or go above and below the feild or right and left depending on where BCs are located so that all 3 are nearly in between each BC
that way 2 CCs can go to their respective feilds (this will favor the better upgraded CC of course but is much more balanced then 1 CC monopolizing almost all green) and then one that could force innovation and planing with small ships which = more teamwork and communication which we prize in this game.

Also why not every now and then (maybe midway between each kerm spawn) a couple of moving kerm astroids could spawn as well (and even the other 3 minerals would make things dynamic) to keep miners who are the best at tackling those moving kerm astroids still alive in late game instead of being completely replaced by the chomper.

[WhyteDragon]

what about multiple spawns?
instead of one large one we could have 1 medium-almost large (5-8) one and 2 small ones (2-4) that are put randomly on the map. (or go above and below the feild or right and left depending on where BCs are located so that all 3 are nearly in between each BC
that way 2 CCs can go to their respective feilds (this will favor the better upgraded CC of course but is much more balanced then 1 CC monopolizing almost all green) and then one that could force innovation and planing with small ships which = more teamwork and communication which we prize in this game.

Also why not every now and then (maybe midway between each kerm spawn) a couple of moving kerm astroids could spawn as well (and even the other 3 minerals would make things dynamic) to keep miners who are the best at tackling those moving kerm astroids still alive in late game instead of being completely replaced by the chomper.

I do not feel as if multiple spawns is the correct way to approach the issue as then it becomes the team with more players that has the advantage rather than the team with the better players. By making it a spread field rather than separate fields, you are creating worth in securing it with a heavy force still. However, the moment you completely spread the fields out it no longer becomes a contest to fight. Each team goes for their own field and leaves it be. By making it a spread field you are drawing both team to the same area, which means a conflict is far more likely.

We are attempting to solve the issue of BC rushing Kerm being mandatory. We are not trying to remove it all together. I don't feel as if forcing or preventing any strategy is a good idea.

[DumbMarine]

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I've always seen the kerm field spawning as sort of a conflict-driving mechanic. Prior to it spawning, games could go a whole 10 minutes with zero conflict. One side usually gets all the kerm, yes, but usually the other side can get by with the flying kerm asteroids. It doesn't always work of course.

[Red-Rocket]

I do not feel as if multiple spawns is the correct way to approach the issue as then it becomes the team with more players that has the advantage rather than the team with the better players. By making it a spread field rather than separate fields, you are creating worth in securing it with a heavy force still. However, the moment you completely spread the fields out it no longer becomes a contest to fight. Each team goes for their own field and leaves it be. By making it a spread field you are drawing both team to the same area, which means a conflict is far more likely.

We are attempting to solve the issue of BC rushing Kerm being mandatory. We are not trying to remove it all together. I don't feel as if forcing or preventing any strategy is a good idea.

erm more players?
this is a 5v5, 6v6 game, yes leavers suck and hurts and gives disadvantages over all anyways. But i dont feel we should be Pro balancing towards uneven teams in the first place, and again, i can easily see 3 strong players taking 2 feilds against more but less experienced players
also with the multiple fields there is the medium field and i think many teams will try and secure that one first and see about the other 2, we could make the feilds close to eachother so you can still create tension and aggresion, a spread could also work dont get me wrong but how large is the feild before you either 1. to small and you would still create a mandatory objective 2. get to big that we lose the conflict.

[WhyteDragon]

I do not feel as if multiple spawns is the correct way to approach the issue as then it becomes the team with more players that has the advantage rather than the team with the better players. By making it a spread field rather than separate fields, you are creating worth in securing it with a heavy force still. However, the moment you completely spread the fields out it no longer becomes a contest to fight. Each team goes for their own field and leaves it be. By making it a spread field you are drawing both team to the same area, which means a conflict is far more likely.

We are attempting to solve the issue of BC rushing Kerm being mandatory. We are not trying to remove it all together. I don't feel as if forcing or preventing any strategy is a good idea.

erm more players?
this is a 5v5, 6v6 game, yes leavers suck and hurts and gives disadvantages over all anyways. But i dont feel we should be Pro balancing towards uneven teams in the first place, and again, i can easily see 3 strong players taking 2 feilds against more but less experienced players
also with the multiple fields there is the medium field and i think many teams will try and secure that one first and see about the other 2, we could make the feilds close to eachother so you can still create tension and aggresion, a spread could also work dont get me wrong but how large is the feild before you either 1. to small and you would still create a mandatory objective 2. get to big that we lose the conflict.

Okay. One team distributes all their forces among three fields.

Another team puts all of their forces on one field. They wipe it out and move on to the next. Halfway through they wipe that out as well.

I don't get the worth of it. Divide and conquer isn't really applicable in this situation IMO.

[Red-Rocket]

heh i think only a few very capable teams will be able to hit all 3 at the same time, it could also be a mind game element *are they stronger then us to take the big one?*

Im not sure how 3 fields could work exactly once we take it off paper and put it into effect, there is to many ways that it can go both right and wrong and break a game again. I think we could try testing both the Large Spread out field variant and the 1 large 2 small fields to see which is more popular, that or both still breaking a game.

[WhyteDragon]

Look, Rocket, even if you assume it's only two fields both teams will be going to take Kerm. Either they don't meet, and the catalyst for conflict ends up being pointless, they meet with all their forces, making having two fields completely pointless in the first place, or one team tries to secure both and another team hits those divided forces with much more power. In such a situation there is no benefit to splitting your forces. In any of these situations you are either asking for a metagame that should not be put in or you are changing absolutely nothing.

You can call it whatever you like, mindgames and whatnot, but this is kermiculite. In any game where people understand where that is, they will almost always go for it if you create a situation where you don't have to engage in a BC conflict, and the only reason I say almost is for very rare situations like stealing Kermiculite with infiltration.

It doesn't work IMO.