Top10 Player's Ressource Strategy

[TheGnoo]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to share with you my thoughts about the current ressource strategy of the top players (well, those that my elo allows to match against...)

It seems that on most maps with ressources (except meeting point but this is basically an Elimination map), the best strategy is to ignore ressources and push the ennemy, and starts scoring after a specific event:

- An opponent dies or NbAllyBots > NbEnemyBots
- I think mrchris added an additional event if he pushed enough, maybe like "X enemies are at Short or Mid Range from borders" ?

I don't like this strategy and tried to counter it with another one, which could be defined as "Grab some ressources but get pushed as a consequence, and then try to hold 4mn without dying".
Sometimes it works : 811535, sometimes it doesn't.

Anyway, I think I can get easely countered if your event that allows you to start ressourcing improves a bit, because the price of ressourcing in early game is very high, I get pushed quite a lot.

So don't you think we should do something about it and reward more ressourcing strategies, or do you like the meta like this ? I think it could be a good idea because this looks a lot like elimination games right now.

[GFX47]

It doesn't feel right to me either.
I see several possible solutions for that:
1. Shorten the matches timeout to increase scoring priority in strategies
2. Add a passive bonus when scoring like refilling all shields of the team or or a short period of Invisibility, etc
3. Add an active bonus bar that increments when scoring, each segment allowing to trigger a team based capacity like the examples above or a bot based capacity like faster aiming for sniper or shield boost for shotgun, etc
4. Make the final score impact the earned XP and/or the exchanged ranking points (I'm not sure it's doable with ELO though)

[Revenge]

It doesn't feel right to me either.
I see several possible solutions for that:
1. Shorten the matches timeout to increase scoring priority in strategies
2. Add a passive bonus when scoring like refilling all shields of the team or or a short period of Invisibility, etc
3. Add an active bonus bar that increments when scoring, each segment allowing to trigger a team based capacity like the examples above or a bot based capacity like faster aiming for sniper or shield boost for shotgun, etc
4. Make the final score impact the earned XP and/or the exchanged ranking points (I'm not sure it's doable with ELO though)

Sounds like a cool feature. I don't have an opinion to add on it just yet. But sounds cool.

[LuBeNo]

From a player perspective IMO the best is: Score one if the other team doesn't score then deactivate scoring to only fight. Activate it again if the other team reaches for resources or if you outnumber the other team. I didn't implement this, but always scored first and could often hold position long enough to win the game. (Currently I am busy with wiki and real life. So I play less.)

I don't know if game rules need to change. The match timeout [for resource games / it should remain for elimination because there would be many draws otherwise] would definitely do its job. I don't know about refilling the hp or other boosters. Could complicate the game. It would be good to carry resources to short range of base and score if sniper shield is 0-25.

[mcompany]

First off, I'd like to say that ignoring resources is definitely not something that is really viable on SYP (the two closest resources are nearly free, and the units start so spread out that getting the middle resource early is super important), Kingmaker (after getting the resource close to the battle, you can easily afford to get pushed), or LR (on any even battles, getting the middle resource super early is a blessing). The major problem is that it is virtually impossible to account for these maps correctly without awful side effects due to a lack of directional sensor and/or no options to check relative something else(AKA the refactoring update) as LR will end up with you slowing yourself down by picking up the resources on your side (and if you get pushed, you basically give the opponent free resources), Meeting Point pretty much makes your squished between a death trap if you score without properly holding off the enemy, and Mind Game starts so close together that killing early is usually easier and better. As far as Seven Wonders goes, most of the time it doesn't matter a ton whether or not you you choose to push instead of score because if you can suppress an enemy push well enough you won't you much ground by only scoring with one bot.

Giving that, I think that the amount of players ignoring resources is probably just because it is much easier to do correctly (without map specific side effects), and not because it is necessarily better. And messing with the rate that players score too drastically could screw most of the balance of the game pretty badly.

It doesn't feel right to me either.
I see several possible solutions for that:
1. Shorten the matches timeout to increase scoring priority in strategies
2. Add a passive bonus when scoring like refilling all shields of the team or or a short period of Invisibility, etc
3. Add an active bonus bar that increments when scoring, each segment allowing to trigger a team based capacity like the examples above or a bot based capacity like faster aiming for sniper or shield boost for shotgun, etc
4. Make the final score impact the earned XP and/or the exchanged ranking points (I'm not sure it's doable with ELO though)

1. So roll back to what it was before: 3 minutes? Honestly, I'd be fine with that, but as The Gnoo already said, scoring too early can easily have a very steep cost, so I'd worry that it wouldn't really change anything on any maps besides rush maps (SYP, KM, and LR), and even then, it might be fairly rock-paper-scissors esque
2. Please no.
3. Once again, just like for 2, I feel like this might break scoring too much
4. Honestly, I doubt that will do anything. If anything, to gain more resources, they'd need more of the enemy's space, meaning they'd have to push harder before trying to rush a score... which is basically the opposite of what is wanted

[MrChris]

I don't think reducing the time limit is a good idea.

Also, fighting is a lot more fun than resource collecting.

-- - I think mrchris added an additional event if he pushed enough, maybe like "X enemies are at Short or Mid Range from borders" ?

Muhahaa. Suck it. Even this is difficult to get right and doesn't always work against evenly matched players because if you start resource collecting then they can quickly push and kill your other units.

At the end of the day it's all about how good at attacking/pushing you are. AI collecting strategies are simple and can be easily copied by any player, whereas attacking/pushing strategies are harder to figure out just by looking at how an opponent's AI behaves.

Just to be clear: if you are weaker at attacking than me and you come up with a novel resourcing strategy then I will just easily copy you.

[pier4r]

Sorry but I don't see the need of changes. The response is improve your fighting just to hold the enemy and score once.

Like lake rush town or kingmaker: score the middle resource then hold.

Going back to 3 minutes would change a lot of tactics.

Giving bonuses as well.

Changing XP or elo based on the score is terrible (one eliminates the opponent and collects everything).

Moreover the 'i score and I don't fight much' tactic won't be doable with random maps, so the answer is:

Fight better.


Notice that the ones that go for pure elimination have a big disadvantage. If one scores once and then fights, even losing ground but without collapsing, the time will expire before the opponent can collect resources.

[TheGnoo]

I hate you for that reason mrchris, you're a god damn alien that can mutate every single match by taking the good ideas in AIs and make them better.

@Lubeno You're right, but how is it possible to detect the fact you have secured more ressources ? Interesting question, I think it could be possible, I'll think about it.

@pier4r, but between two top players, the problem is the same: if you want to win, you have to fight better. I think it would be cool if AIs that focus on the objective are more rewarded than those who only fight.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinions guys !

[darktheatre]

how about after score ,scored team got some buff... of course for next release

[TheGnoo]

I personally think that could be a nice idea: like healing 25% HEALTH to all ally bots or something like that, maybe just the scorer.

[mcompany]

@pier4r, but between two top players, the problem is the same: if you want to win, you have to fight better. I think it would be cool if AIs that focus on the objective are more rewarded than those who only fight.

The thing is, the objective isn't some super easy task, no one can just walk up to a resource and score, so in a way, fighting is very much an on task thing to do, and those who fight too much almost always has a hard time winning against someone who scores once and then delays for the rest of the time. So, in a way, most of the top AIs are actually focusing on the objective, but they really have no choice but to fight to complete it

I personally think that could be a nice idea: like healing 25% HEALTH to all ally bots or something like that, maybe just the scorer.

Once again: please no

[Athelinde]

I love the idea of 25% health to the scorer. It could add a whole new level of strategy, trying to get the most damaged bots to score.

[Jeffrey Harpen]

First off, I'd like to say that ignoring resources is definitely not something that is really viable on [...] LR (on any even battles, getting the middle resource super early is a blessing).

Deeply true and not funny at all: 813054

[GFX47]

I love the idea of 25% health to the scorer. It could add a whole new level of strategy, trying to get the most damaged bots to score.

Me too. At least the idea to decide which bot should score depending on the bonus.

[0x1de]

I don't see the problem with the current system. It's a trade-off.

[mcompany]

I don't see the problem with the current system. It's a trade-off.

Same here. I really don't want to have to deal with virtually 100% safe scores when scorers already are sometimes fairly hard to deal with

[sollniss]

Me too. At least the idea to decide which bot should score depending on the bonus.

If it's %-values I would always let my MG score because I would get the maximum efficient HP out of it. I don't think it really matters though because scoring quicker >>> healing.

[pier4r]

@pier4r, but between two top players, the problem is the same: if you want to win, you have to fight better. I think it would be cool if AIs that focus on the objective are more rewarded than those who only fight.

Not necessarily. I need to fight better as much as to collect one resource and then that's it. It is super hard, but it is not impossible and it is fun.

Fighting is the nice part of the game with a mix of "knowing when to collect".

[Miojo]

I see no problem with current state. Any health/shield/attack buff would make syp only winnable with stupid hardcoded movements.

Rushing to resource when it is not safe is not intelligent and should not be.

If you add resource score awareness to bots we might see some new strategies with res grab