Subspace Hockey/Football Zone Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Poll

Do you like Random Damage?

Yes
- 8 (29.6%)
No
- 14 (51.9%)
Dont care
- 5 (18.5%)

Total Members Voted: 27

Voting closed: July 14, 2017, 08:39:33 PM


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7]

Author Topic: Random Damage  (Read 1884 times)

Cereal n Milk

  • HZ Media
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 549
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #120 on: June 30, 2017, 05:26:09 PM »

CNM: Don't just look at things in terms of buff vs nerf.  If we make one thing stronger, we can make another weaker.  That's an implementation detail.  By picking the changes intelligently we can try to affect playstyles.

That's why I said this, I'm with you on that.

In a vacuum, I don't think it would change how people play defense. If you are trying to promote active defense, I think you will need some other changes to offset the large buff you are giving to crease sitters

I think the accompanying changes need to be a part of this discussion as well, whatever they may be.
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *****
  • Posts: 5363
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #121 on: June 30, 2017, 05:37:30 PM »

I think the accompanying changes need to be a part of this discussion as well, whatever they may be.
There's no way to make any decisions about balancing changes until we know what changes can accomplish the initial goals.  We can speculate on what balancing changes might be possible and relevant, but that speculation might go in a completely unrelated direction.  So IMO it'd be a pointless distraction and waste of time to discuss that at depth now.
Same goes for most of what Pose is talking about.  I think he's trying to analyze the whole picture at once, and that's not possible to do well with the information available at this point.


I'm going to lock the thread after I find time to write a summary.  We are a long way off from working on this, and this is not the place to resolve Pose's idiosyncrasies.
=)


But... I can't help but try to help.
i appreciate the feedback.  and even though i still feel mostly certain that ive actually been making a lot of sense in this thread and that ive not totally lost my god damnd mind
You've been making sense, but you've been standing on a lot of invalid assumptions and personal opinions to do it.  So even if what you're saying seems to add up, it's mostly not helpful to solving the problem.

Quote
tbh, in all of my experience w/ argument and debate, to state "in my opinion" usually comes across as an insecurity or lack of confidence in what one is saying; it should just be assumed that the speaker knows that what they are saying is an opinion and not a fact, regardless if they dont add a little disclaimer every time they make a statement.
(For contrast,) I discuss a lot of facts, so I make an effort to distinguish personal opinion.  It doesn't matter to me if that comes off as weakness to an incompetent reader; this is problem solving, not politics.
You've been misrepresenting/misunderstanding a lot of facts, so it is demonstrably unsafe to make assumptions about whether you are presenting facts or opinions.
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Arnk Kilo Dylie

  • Balancing Act
  • Executor
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 9569
  • There's some intention behind the placement.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #122 on: July 05, 2017, 05:45:31 PM »

Can this be confirmed? Having hard time since dud was introduced roughly 9 years ago.
Quote
Duds are not random damage.
Not sure why this bothered me enough to post (not trying to single you out 07), but I figure this can be clarified... "duds" and random damage have been in the game pretty much always (or as long as I can tell)--but the system that was introduced 9 years ago (lol time flies) was to call attention to how the game was intentionally this way. Compared to the normal damage distribution (where apparently there is always a chance to deal 1 damage), VRBL tries to make things less shitty, and I'm pretty sure it accomplishes that. Its initial implementation was very conservative by trying to make sure ships didn't suddenly have too much more overall/relative power that they didn't have before (which is why the "L1"/red dud damage was placed on yellow gun ships). From there things have been tweaked to make things somewhat less random but there is not a lot of flexibility because you VRBL uses static damage which is limited to 4 damage levels per ship, essentially. Also, duds are "random" but you may have just meant the "lagger" message?

The rule change accompanying it had the effect (if not the intent) of punishing laggers because lag effects were instantly recognizable by not seeing a message while also punishing people who lunged at heavy ships which (for better or worse) are designed to be resistant to checks.

Maybe I've never conveyed it well but at least now I believe that VRBL is "least worst" (better than static for the reasons that have been exhaustively mentioned, plus giving some extra incentive to be aggressive and less turtly) but that doesn't mean it's an ideal system. Really, I don't think an ideal system exists on Continuum, at least not one that doesn't really reduce the depth of the game or really change things--unless you can find a useful new way to get 6 varied ships.

Here's a random thought, bear with me:
What is the main problem with duds? I think it's agreeable that tanking someone and getting a quick opening on the goal because of that is not great gameplay (whether or not the defender was playing strategically soundly.) But is it as much of a problem to tank someone and then pass the puck off? I'd argue that's less problematic. So, in line with what can be done reasonably: debuff a ship that takes damage. Engine shutdown, energy drain to 0, all incoming bullets go to L4, reduce shot/pass speed, some combination. Lag makes all of them possibly not great/perfect in practice, but if it's pulled off, then there's a bit more middleground than there is today between killed and not killed. If a weird rule has to be put in place to force a reset or a time delay before goals can count then maybe that's something to consider too.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 08:13:14 PM by Arnk Kilo Dylie »
Logged

zero seven

  • RSFL Captain
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
  • :D
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #123 on: July 05, 2017, 06:30:53 PM »

Also, duds are "random" but you may have just meant the "lagger" message?

This is the semantics issue that Pose brings up.

General zone understanding seems to be that a dud message means the shooting ship hit the lower end of their VRBL. 

But my understanding is that the dud graphic shows up when a ball carrier is hit but not enough damage is done to kill them. The dud graphic showing up doesn't care what ship hit it and with what level, just that there's enough energy remaining to survive the bullet. This is what I want you to confirm.

A Jav Levi standing still with full energy (695) and the puck can be hit by 2 WB's/WZL's with max velocity at the exact same time and survive 100% of the time. It will show 2 dud message 100% of the time. It doesn't matter if the WB's got shitty random rolls and ended up w/ L1's or lucked out and hit L2's (334 * 2 = 668) every time. But because the zone understanding is that dud = lower end of VRBL it looks bad.

This creates a negative association w/ the dud graphic itself, implying its an result of VRBL. The random portion of bullet level distribution of course indirectly impacts how much damage is done for certain ships, but the direct relation 'dud = random = bad for game' is not accurate.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 06:40:59 PM by zero seven »
Logged
it's not as if i am the only person on my team with my brain.

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *****
  • Posts: 5363
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #124 on: July 05, 2017, 07:24:24 PM »

all incoming bullets go to L4
I like this idea, or something similar.  Any bullet after the first can get a bonus to its roll.  Less WTF but doesn't screw with the game.
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Arnk Kilo Dylie

  • Balancing Act
  • Executor
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 9569
  • There's some intention behind the placement.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #125 on: July 05, 2017, 08:11:19 PM »

General zone understanding seems to be that a dud message means the shooting ship hit the lower end of their VRBL. 
Not incorrect, I think?

Quote
But my understanding is that the dud graphic shows up when a ball carrier is hit but not enough damage is done to kill them. The dud graphic showing up doesn't care what ship hit it and with what level, just that there's enough energy remaining to survive the bullet. This is what I want you to confirm.
Correct, it shows up any time there is a non-lethal hit. I just wanted to make sure there was also understanding that the only thing that was "new" back then was that the game calls attention to this condition that was always there, instead of leaving you unsure if it was lag/miss or random damage.

Quote
A Jav Levi standing still with full energy (695) and the puck can be hit by 2 WB's/WZL's with max velocity at the exact same time and survive 100% of the time. It will show 2 dud message 100% of the time. It doesn't matter if the WB's got shitty random rolls and ended up w/ L1's or lucked out and hit L2's (334 * 2 = 668) every time. But because the zone understanding is that dud = lower end of VRBL it looks bad.
Unless I'm misremembering or something has changed, WB and Weasel both have a small chance to get L3 damage at max velocity, which means they can skewer any medium ship for fatal, or finish off a heavy that already took damage.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 08:13:59 PM by Arnk Kilo Dylie »
Logged

BlueGoku

  • Choke Artist
  • Ambassador
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
    • Center Ice
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #126 on: July 05, 2017, 08:48:19 PM »

Getting rid of that from WB and Weasel is probably not a bad idea
Logged
image

zero seven

  • RSFL Captain
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
  • :D
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #127 on: July 05, 2017, 08:55:05 PM »

Not incorrect, I think?
Unless I'm misremembering or something has changed, WB and Weasel both have a small chance to get L3 damage at max velocity, which means they can skewer any medium ship for fatal, or finish off a heavy that already took damage.

Working off the below Goldeye  provided data which shows wb and Wlz having 0% chance of L3. My understanding is that velocity bonus only increases your likelihood of a higher level bullet (that the ship is already capable of), can you also confirm that?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NhuLoMJ2lN329gxjdRjJ8Cwcg6e62G1qwruGwkrWZe4/edit?usp=sharing

I think your suggestions around 2nd check on puck carrier are all creative techniques that improve a flawed system and could merit discussion if static damage is proven to be bad.

But right now we have a paradigm that pits a player vs. random settings. Yes, as a player I know my odds of different bullet levels. Yes, as a player I know how to increase those odds in my favor with velocity. And those are of course factored in to every check / lunge decision made. But at the end of the day I'm taking a calculated risk that giving up my defensive positioning is worth the probability that I will land a check that does enough damage to kill the ball carrier.

With static damage I know what damage I'll do. I take the same risk, but know that it's just my judgement on how much energy the opponent has. It's player vs. player. No dice roll involved. Will settings still need to be balanced? Of course. But every dud message I see I'll know that I fucked up in how much energy I thought the opponent had, and I can't blame a dice roll for that miscalculation.
Logged
it's not as if i am the only person on my team with my brain.

Arnk Kilo Dylie

  • Balancing Act
  • Executor
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 9569
  • There's some intention behind the placement.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #128 on: July 05, 2017, 10:44:45 PM »

I think there's a .1% chance of L3 at base, actually, because apparently there is no "max level" setting--it infers it based on what has any chance like you said. And basically the way it works mechanically is that it takes a random number 0-999 and adds a number to that roll based on velocity (the details of which are slightly more complicated)

So I think the main takeaway I was trying to get across was that VRBL is "least worst" in my opinion--maybe static damage would be better in some ways but it will also be flawed. This debate is kind of futile to me basically. The solution is to kill Continuum so the game can move onto a system with no randomness AND beyond 4 damage levels.

P.S. Looking at that spreadsheet, it confirms that .1% chance. You might be looking at the offball damage %s which are different.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 11:07:03 PM by Arnk Kilo Dylie »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7]
 

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 22 queries.