After reviewing some of the matches from Tournament 1, it seems afterburner wasn’t really used as much as we at the team had hoped.
We thought this feature would’ve been like the “chase” card for bigger bots, but didn’t see much of that.
I’d like to reach out and find out from you, the players, if this was intentional?
Is afterburner just not worth it, or was it more of a case of people just didn’t get around to using it / balancing it into their bots?
Please let me know your feedback about this, and hopefully we can make it better for Tournament 2! (especially with those pesky torpedoes to run from!)
Personally I just didn’t get around to fully applying it. With work being work my time was limited.
I initially added a pretty basic implementation for it but with the potential of self destruction I wasn’t willing to take the chance or at least didn’t see the benefit of it without being 100% sure of it’s workings.
I do however feel if used correctly could be really handy in both attack and defense.
Afterburner was just too expensive to use in round 1.
Just interested on defining expensive here - cost isn’t worth the payback?
I think it was too expensive in round 1. If you were the smaller player you could escape from a bigger player without the afterburner because you are much faster if you are smaller. If you were the bigger player you could corner the smaller player into gas-clouds or edge of the world without the need to use the afterburner.
I tried some algorithms to eat faster by using the afterburner, but the reference bots out-ate me. Maybe my algorithm was not good enough.
For round 2… Maybe it could help to dodge a torpedo.
I found that you burn mass too quickly with the afterburner, and like @kuifie says, you can just escape if you’re a smaller player.
Thanks for the feedback @timfoster , @kuifie and @ccanning2
We’ll look into balancing it a bit better so the payoff is worth the cost, especially with torpedoes in.