[quote who="kingmorgan" reply="13" id="3617239"] The video shows the effect, Cubit is right to say it needs to be programmed to account for this situation. [/quote] Cubit's solution sounds good but it's not possible, because of dynamite. If dynamite were changed, Cubit's solution could work. That's up to the devs.
[quote who="Cubit32" reply="11" id="3617215"]I think a fix would be for the hologrammed tile next to claimed demolished tiles to also appear to be empty and to appear to be turning into a farm at the appropriate time. [/quote] Holograms can't show completed buildings as constructing or empty tiles. This is because dynamite only blows up completed buildings.
Is there a Heisenberg v pbhead game 1 stream? I'm informed that Heisenberg won the first game by Cubit and by Soren on challonge, and this makes me very curious.
Buildings don't show "off" to opponents anymore. But the animation doesn't play either (a bug!). Upgrade lab has changed timers. Second founder in 1v1 starts with zero debt. All three of these were surprises to at least one person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaqhEtg5qiM Second game at 11:00, Yerand takes the founding location at 40k. He can't claim or squish all the aluminum tiles because then the auction system will create another one. That's unfortunate, because I would have squished all of them except for one, then claimed the last, if not for knowing the auction system. Cubit never looks at the spot, so I can't really say if this was
[quote who="Offworld_Blues" reply="32" id="3616660"]That said, founding sooner generally isn't viable simply because there's not enough time to process enough of the map to make the decision by the time a more theoretically optimal found time comes up, even ignoring the difficulty of figuring out what that number would be. [/quote] Everyone seems to agree on this, no matter what other opinion they have.
[quote who="InSyncOTC" reply="30" id="3616647"] Veivi, so you are absolutely fine with match outcome being determined by a single gambling act? [/quote] That's not even the slightest bit close to anything Veivi said or implied.
[quote who="Soren_Johnson" reply="24" id="3616635"] If you have problems with specific maps, please post the map seed (and map settings) so I can take a look at it. Reveal Map is supposed to fix most of this, but I am sure everyone would agree there is some limit where the 2nd spot is not worth playing out. [/quote] Blackmagic vs GalacticWino game 1 is about as bad as it gets. First of all, the Science spot, with water, aluminum, and iron. Then, iron diagonally across the ma
Veivi, suppose we have Cubit vs Seilore, and we give both players a button that says "you win this game with 80% probability". Seilore would click the button, but Cubit would not. I think this is Galactic Wino's point: when you found with high debt, then random events influence the game a lot more. So when the perfect-play point is 60k, Cubit wouldn't take the 60k because it's too vulnerable to random chance, and then Seilore would be able to snap up the found at 40k. High debt ca
[quote who="Soren_Johnson" reply="3" id="3616618"] Cubit and Seilore played 2 games, right? [/quote] Seems like what I watched was 3 practice games...Cubit just removed the video from his channel. My bad.
Here's my notes on what I would have done in Cubit's shoes. I wrote the steps in real-time and filled out the reasoning afterwards. None of this is intended to say that any of these steps are superior to Cubit's (some of my steps are explicitly mistakes), it's simply where our strategies would have deviated. Game 1 take 1 water at level 2, so Seilore can't get those profits I wouldn't have mutinied that aluminum back, I would have bought a power
I'm the guy who has never played a single multiplayer match.
[quote who="GalacticWino" reply="14" id="3616589"] Quoting Jaiwera, reply 13 "30ms" is a misconception created by misplays No, 30ms is my completely non-scientific guess at the time difference in who clicked first to found in our 2nd game. I literally watched the expansive HQ being built and t
I usually don't care about small problems, even when they're obvious, like adjacency losses. Making small misplays is bad, but usually it's a single huge misplay that loses the entire game. In this case there were several misplays by both players, first offering up an opening, and then failing to take advantage of that opening. I don't remember much, but pb noted most of them in his stream. I'll take some notes when I watch Seilore vs Cubit. I was really nerve-wracked in g
[quote who="blackmagic1" reply="8" id="3616536"] It's easy to say that when you're watching from home. you get a full view of the map with commentary whereas the players are scanning, checking the black market, and checking offworld prices pre-found. I didn't know it was at 20k because the debt counter is a lot faster than in beta 10 than in beta 9 so i'm used to more time to make a decision. My first time playing beta 10 consistently was yesterday. I didn'
Actually, I think it makes a lot of sense to slow the game down during the found phase. Each second in founding involves far more thinking than a normal game second. Why not give more time in recognition of that fact?
30 milliseconds? In the first match, I felt that both of you deserved to lose completely because you founded so late, it was such a horrific start. 21k debt and 1 claim trade for a vastly superior position? You're willing to pay 20k debt for a new claim, and an extra tile at level 1 is worth ten times as much as an extra tile at level 5, so how much is that founding position worth? First player gets the only aluminum, only water, a brilliant steel triangle, and some water adjacency, so at
Oh my god, my bracket prediction turned out correct, but there was so much behavior out of my expectations, that I'm feeling so much less confident in my predictions than before. Great commentating pb, you were spot-on in almost every instance.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Pbleadhead/videos
[quote who="lowercase1" reply="49" id="3616451"] [/quote] You're in! See https://forums.offworldgame.com/474887/page/1/#3616450
Some real diversity in the predictions.
[quote who="YerAnd" reply="32" id="3616254"] We've had a training session with DeathTacticus and came up with an idea (well, he did): each player should have a right to ask to change the map once per match (sometime early probably, before sol 2 or something). That would help avoid those situations when a game is just lost on found for one side. I think it's a decent suggestion, shouldn't be too hard to rehost a game twice per match (at most) [/quote] That sounds
[quote who="InSyncOTC" reply="19" id="3614825"] Maybe it has something to do with every map having 'Soren' spot (adjacent iron and water) and seldom anything else, which grants Soren an auto win. Just a thought... [/quote] Doubt it. Probably just a consequence of newbies staying away from Scav, since it's the most difficult to play with its early-game cash crunch and the necessity of actually using the BM. It would be more informative to see Scav win/pick rates p
Before market volatility numbers are tweaked, the curve should at least be changed to something more reasonable, like exponential, or at least quadratic. On an exponential curve, if you sell 100 units, the price will always go down by a fixed %, adjusted by # of players, no matter what the current price is. It makes significantly more sense than the current system, and there's only one number to remember instead of several.
[quote who="blackmagic1" reply="12" id="3614709"] Wanted to bump this thread again to revisit the point about scavenger needing a buff. Particularly in Quickmatches scavenger can just be awful. The double fuel cost have really killed scavenger play particularly when there's a weak or bad black market (ie. no claims and no adrenaline boosts). There are lots of maps in quickmatch where there are 2 founding locations: one with iron and one where your only choice is to go scav