Getting better Q&A

Team Strategies go here, if you want to share that is...
User avatar
compguygene
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by compguygene »

I think a lot of what you are seeing with the tight triple binds is what I and many others do. We have keys bound similar to this. a,s,d, left f right and k,l,; right and j left. This allows you to roll your fingers from your pinky to your forefinger and get a perfect, tight triple every time. It is very handy to camp in a tight space until enough tail has been used to get out. Personally, I have noticed the need to vary the size of triples and have been practicing more single binding to triple, when I want a variable size.
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy :)
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by Word »

blondie wrote:Most players habitual triple is tighter than me and uses between .1 and .4 rubber. Am I missing out on something?
Perhaps that has to do with the internet connection? I just press all the buttons almost at the same time (while the bike on the screen is still busy with the the previous action) so the outcome is really defined by how fast those signals are transmitted to the server and how the server's settings always cause a certain "minimum size". You see what happens when one gets a "lag-jump" every now and then... :-)

User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by vov »

@blondie: sounds like you are just doing it more rubber efficient. If anything, all the others are missing out on something. :D
If I'm rather slow (~30 in fort/sumo) and do my usual doubleR-R-L then the 180 is tight (no benefit in open areas) and uses that bit of rubber on the adjust (which would be as "tight" as the 180 but rubber physics bounces you off). If you're not desperate for speed, saving rubber is always nice.
And if you need max. acceleration or just a really deep dig in open spaces, you can make a wide box and use some rubber instead. Double as wide box so the dig does not get counted as an adjustment and thus gets closer to the wall (physics: cycle_rubber_mindistance_unprepared and _preparation)

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by blondie »

yeah, rubber conservation is a big thing for me

Poke once said to me in sumo bar, "There's no point in saving rubber if you never use it." His criticism is correct: not using rubber actually reduces the amount of rubber you have over the course of a round. If you have used 1 rubber, you gain it back. You had 5, you used 1, you gain 1, so you have 6 total. I was saving and saving and saving, and therefore had much less rubber (a basic resource, as I argued earlier in this thread) over the course of a round than other players. I was spending fewer resources than other players, and arguably this means I was doing less good things. Of course, that assumes other players are using rubber effectively and not wasting it, which is never universally true for a round of sumo/fort.

Rubber conservation for me extends beyond triples, although it would be going rather far to call it a philosophy. I value being able to escape any seal if I need to and being able to seal with 2.5-3 rubber twice in short succession.

That said, rubber is by far the secondary reason I use slower triples. The first is vision. The way my camera swings with my triple allows me to have a 360° view of the grid. It also swings back around enough before I exit the triple, allowing me to prepare for what I am now driving towards. I noticed that a lot of players had a blindspot immediately after their triple if they were using the default turn speed. The tight triple also curtails the act of the 360° swing, making it a lot harder to see anything. You can't increase turn speed to erase the blindspot without completely losing vision and you can't slow it down to increase vision without enlarging the blindspot. So, for me at least, a slower triple was the perfect (i.e. only) solution.

as far as context goes, I prioritized absolute consistency over adaptability. That was a sacrifice I made, but I found that people's mechanics can break down in tense matches and rounds, and with so many things to think about, it's hard to have triple radius be an active mental process. My choice was to just be completely mechanically consistent, the way I triple is complete muscle memory at this point, and I never think about it. I believe the benefits of that outweigh a contextually ideal triple in the long run.

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by blondie »

question: why are there not more questions?

a lot of people should have them. If one never asks the question, that explains why one never answers the question, and therefore why one doesn't improve as a player. Every death and every mistake is a question.

similarly, if one only seeks answers from oneself, then one only asks questions one already knew the answer to, and also that limits one's improvement.

the downside of self-reliance

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by Lucifer »

In a free for all team environment, what's the best approach for two-player teams?

Do you split up and treat it like a standard deathmatch, or do you work together to go after individual/pairs?
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by Word »

Depends on your skill and that of your enemies, and if you're able to concentrate on more than one guy. In Dog Fight clanwars, we often waited until one of us managed to core dump his opponent and then we sandwiched the remaining one together :-)

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by blondie »

I think in almost every situation it's better to split up.

I think this because I think it is in most cases very unlikely that:

2x = efficiency of getting a kill 2v1

where x = efficiency of getting a kill 1v1
and efficiency is defined as some combination probability of getting the kill and the speed at which you get a kill.

Then consider that the increased opportunity for opponents to get kills when you both focus on one player, as your overall coverage is diminished, and it looks very clearly that splitting up both maximizes your expected points per round and minimizes your opponents'.

Olive
Match Winner
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by Olive »

How can one utilise the center of the grid effectively in a fortress match?

usually both teams simply rush for the opposite zone, abandoning the midfield completely. Without doubt something is overlooked.

Cannot really elaborate at the moment unfortunately, but here's some food for thought:
- sweeping from the midfield
- boxing/trapping
- building up speed
Olive a.k.a ZeMu, MoonFlower & chicken.

User avatar
compguygene
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by compguygene »

Olive wrote:How can one utilise the center of the grid effectively in a fortress match?

usually both teams simply rush for the opposite zone, abandoning the midfield completely. Without doubt something is overlooked.

Cannot really elaborate at the moment unfortunately, but here's some food for thought:
- sweeping from the midfield
- boxing/trapping
- building up speed
I really thought about this post during Ladle 90 in Wild West's 2nd match against Death by Sparks. I was playing position 2, the score was 92-80, so we just needed 4 kills to win. However, 92-80 is close enough that if we screwed up, the other team could win the round and beat us. I realized that the way the other team was playing, if I just focused on getting kills in the midfield, we could likely end the match. Within 2 minutes I had killed 3 players in the midfield just using classic deathmatch tactics. It really helps that I have been playing more of that lately. Then echo got a sweeper while attacking.
I think this is a great example of the midfield game actually being important. Also, during our matches agains Oops and Death by Sparks, often times I was able to help us get that 1 or 2 player advantage by killing a player or 2 and staying alive. Sometimes I died too, but usually attacking in the midfield produced valuable results.
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy :)
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by blondie »

there is no doubt there is strategic value to the midfield, the problem is opportunity cost. The strategic value of being near a zone is just higher in most cases.

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by Lucifer »

blondie wrote:I think in almost every situation it's better to split up.

I think this because I think it is in most cases very unlikely that:

2x = efficiency of getting a kill 2v1

where x = efficiency of getting a kill 1v1
and efficiency is defined as some combination probability of getting the kill and the speed at which you get a kill.

Then consider that the increased opportunity for opponents to get kills when you both focus on one player, as your overall coverage is diminished, and it looks very clearly that splitting up both maximizes your expected points per round and minimizes your opponents'.
My experience is that it's better to work together. That's part of why it's a "team" game. ;)

In any case, it's easier to gang up 2:1 every single time, and you can make core dumps a lot more efficiently. If you attack a team, it's better to go 2:1, because the other player will come in and try to save his teammate (part of team play), and you can knock out the teammate, and then turn to the survivor pretty easily.

Maybe there should be a server we can play this on.... ;)
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by blondie »

obviously whether it will be right or not depends highly on your level of coordination with your teammate and the level of awareness of your opponent. The amount of teamwork required to make 2v1 killing efficient is neither common nor trivial, and killing the 'teamwork' darling is usually the right way to go.

Teamwork in Armagetron is more about understanding how your teammate's actions in separate part of the arena is affecting what is going on in your locale, and less about two same-colored cycles driving around together trying to do something all at once. Teamwork is more about understanding each other's roles, proclivities, strengths and weaknesses, as well as how your opponents will respond to those attributes, than it is about geometrically overpowering or outmaneuvering someone 2v1. A partnership can have exemplary teamwork even if their cycles are nowhere near each other. Often being too close together or trying to achieve the same goal is a sign of bad teamwork rather good.

The sequence from the film presents an ideal scenario that doesn't really bare out in any settings that permit some ability to reverse direction, i.e. every notable mode of Armagetron, save Nexus9 No Rubber and hex/octa axis craziness, which obviously has inherently different geometric principles.

User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by vov »

Depends on the settings and how well you work together I would say. On some dogfight-y plays you may risk teamkills and hugs, on long tails and high rubber boxes are harder so the opponent can just turn back.

PS: does anyone have Nexus9 settings to add to my game collection? It's on my wishlist. :D

User avatar
compguygene
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Getting better Q&A

Post by compguygene »

.I am pretty sure sinewav has them when he shows back up we can ask him for them.
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy :)
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

Post Reply