CC Various Gameplay Suggestions

[Dreadnought]

I made a post a LONG while ago about it...I would recommend this setup
http://www.cruisercommand.com/forum/vie ... ?f=8&t=246
(Though with less asteroids in the big feild)

[slapshot]

I made a post a LONG while ago about it...I would recommend this setup
http://www.cruisercommand.com/forum/vie ... ?f=8&t=246
(Though with less asteroids in the big feild)

your post is all about increasing the amount of kerm, and thus devaluing it's "rareness" - which is bad, and furthermore suggested having the two additional fields be between each BC and the kerm spawn, thus always assuring that 1 field is closer to any given BC, and make it harder to deny kerm - this is not about increasing the quantity of kerm at all, which is why it's different.

[Dreadnought]

I made a post a LONG while ago about it...I would recommend this setup
http://www.cruisercommand.com/forum/vie ... ?f=8&t=246
(Though with less asteroids in the big feild)

your post is all about increasing the amount of kerm, and thus devaluing it's "rareness" - which is bad, and furthermore suggested having the two additional fields be between each BC and the kerm spawn, thus always assuring that 1 field is closer to any given BC, and make it harder to deny kerm - this is not about increasing the quantity of kerm at all, which is why it's different.

Drop 4 asteroids from the big field, and each small field will just be 2 asteroids, bam case solved for increasing total kermiculite...

"Harder to deny Kerm" Isn't that the point with increasing the amount of kermiculite fields? Also you have to remember things can get weird if both battlecruisers are together as the kerm usually spawns off to the side instead of between them, the other 2 small kerm fields can fill random empty spaces on the map as well O.o

The most important part is that it places an emphasis on Hangar ships controlling green, right now you bring your BC to kerm no amount of ships at that point in the game can directly fight it, everything has to retreat. In this case the BC cant be in 3 places at once...get greedy and push to the main field with the BC and leave a miner at the small one? snipe their small kerm field with your miners? more tactical decisions are made with this system without increasing RNG of randomly spawning kerm fields (besides 2 BCs right next to eachother, but usually anything goes at that point)

[WhyteDragon]

I would say there's a lot of difference between the soul of the two ideas.

In your suggestion, by placing the kermiculite in a straight line, it still essentially becomes a 'straight charge' by the BC towards the large kerm field, which while it has served CC well for a long time, has now only results in the side that brings their BC to the kerm field winning, or alternative both sides bringing their BC and resulting in the game ending.

Drop 4 asteroids from the big field, and each small field will just be 2 asteroids, bam case solved for increasing total kermiculite...

"Harder to deny Kerm" Isn't that the point with increasing the amount of kermiculite fields?

No, not at all Draed. This does not serve the purpose I would hope by making 'more than one field' at all. Ultimately, pulling one or two kerm off would simply serve as a cheap means of forcefully giving each team kerm by putting heavy priorities upon a singular field, and a 'minor given field.'

Whereas, alternatively in even three split setup, it's entirely possible a greedy and well coordinated team could make good shifts in order to try and capitalize upon all three kermiculite fields -- especially a team that's earned themselves a very strong early game lead. And because each of the fields would be of equal value, it could feel worthwhile doing so rather than just securing 'a lesser amount.' However, the main point behind this is that it creates 'options.' If three fields spawn at a relative distance, it no longer becomes a mad center dash still -- you have to consider where the enemy team will go, where you can safely go, and where you should bring your combat strength to achieve the best efficiency. While it does allow both teams to more readily secure kerm, what it would most be about is creating more than the singularity you're forced to capitalize upon to win.

I think believe it will offer slightly more dynamic gameplay.

[Dreadnought]

Is this what you mean whytedragon? O.o

Kermiculite Spawns.png (104.48 KiB) Viewed 607 times

[Siretu]

For the record, it was never like "The old times" in your picture. It was always on a line, like in "As of now"

[WhyteDragon]

Three points with a position that is still by all means overall 'central.' By example, something like the following.

Though perhaps with a slightly larger distance.

The main difference compared to yours being that two are clearly smaller and meant to be next to the battlecruiser, whereas the three are meant to be a collective battlefield with a short distance between them. I do not like the idea of two smaller packets just instantly spawning next to the BC -- this is just 'giving' resources in a sense.

And yes, they are a little close. However, the intention would be to put them far enough such that a single BC can't just sit in the center and have instant dominance over all three. It would give the possibility of firing over all three perhaps, but not immediate vision or presence.

Another obvious comparison would be that in yours, the draw distance for the two smaller fields would be based upon the battlecruisers positions as well -- so in theory, if two battlecruisers were next to each other, all the fields would just spawn on top of each other. This is ultimately no good either, since it just reverts in essence -- rather, in mine the center point is calculated and a spread is made based upon that. The same method of determining the randomized position of kerm spawn would be used, except it would create a set of three fields based on it instead of one.

[DinoChicken]

It seems as if though WhyteDragons and Dreadnoughts (3rd) ideas are the same, other then distribution. I would like to have a field closer to you and one closer to the enemy and one in between. I would prefer WhyteDragons idea on all the fields being equally distributed. I also want to mention that the fields should be spread far away from each-other, and I'm not sure how you would create the fields if both battlecruisers are very near each-other, I would probably recommend 1 spawning on top of the 2 battlecruisers, and the other 2 randomly placed distantly away on other parts of the map as a form of retreat options for both battlecruisers.

[slapshot]

I'm not sure how you would create the fields if both battlecruisers are very near each-other

This is something that I would like changed as well, have it spawn far away from both in that case