Forgive me, it seemed mostly irrelevant. So here it was;Puppetbones wrote:Did you even read the paragraph underneath that? O.o
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.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).
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?
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.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.
... satisfied?
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.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.
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.
As I have yours in my recollection.whytedragon wrote:I've already refuted your arguments for mobility, so I would rather not repeat / copy/paste old posts.
...
[/quote]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:Feel free to elaborate on this, WhyteDragon.whytedragon wrote:More fields with a smaller number of asteroids.
- 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.
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.
. These notions, especially the one about making chompers more powerful, were shown to be misunderstandings quite awhile ago.
