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 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic: Random Damage  (Read 2187 times)

Poseidon

  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 763
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2017, 04:07:07 PM »

steve cheese, do you agree with the question i proposed and with what 07 illustrated in his tables?  so far we are 4 for 4 in agreement, and if you include doobie, 5 for 5.  this is the best i can do since it doesnt look like im gonna get a poll made in the main forum that is able to ask the correct question

-------------

for the record, i think through this discussion ive reached the final draft of how this poll could best be worded.  this still seems a little convoluted but there is a lot that has to be incorporated to make this accurate.  but if anybody can think of a better way to word it plz share:

Should bullets that kill any specific ship the majority of the time (at any energy) instead kill said ship every time, even if implementing this possibly means that we will have less emphasis on velocity-based damage?  YES or NO

could have a post below describing a lil more about the velocity aspect and how it might be tricky to fig out the math and keep it factored in
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 05:14:55 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

VnV-Nation

  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2740
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #61 on: June 28, 2017, 08:13:58 PM »

Biggest benefit of random damage IMO is that it allows you to adjust the odds based on relative velocity.  So you're more likely to get the heavier bullet if you're lunging at an oncoming puck carrier rather than backing up with them.

Also, I think the fact that you're not guaranteed to tank (e.g. jav getting hit by spid) when you expect to is a good thing. 
The fact that you're not guaranteed to kill when you expect to is less of a good thing, but that is easily addressed by not letting each ship go below the expected level.

When you consider velocity as a way to counter attempts to tank, that's pretty cool imo.


Are there any better arguments for velocity based checks out there...?
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #62 on: June 28, 2017, 08:30:53 PM »



Are there any better arguments for velocity based checks out there...?
Touche, but you could try actually attacking the argument...

BOS's real desire is bullet buff, and the proposal he's suggesting to try out is to completely overhaul all bullet damage settings based on arbitrary multiples (3x L1's to kill a Jav - why the fuck would we use this as target?) and doesn't factor in the millions of other energy relationships that already exist between ships.
Those other relationships are a status quo.  They have not been endlessly tuned, and there's no need I know of to maintain them.  Ultimately they just boil down to nerfs and buffs, not any particular ideal.
That said, I think that scenarios -- like "2 wb shots and one spider shot within 0.5s should kill a jav 100% of the time" -- are the best constraint available to decide where the bullet levels should be.



Pose, I've stopped reading most of your posts here.  Your points were received a long time ago and you're still blabbering.  I don't know what to tell you except that you should probably give it a rest so you stop frustrating everyone.
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

Poseidon

  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 763
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #63 on: June 28, 2017, 09:06:22 PM »

thats fine, i understand. its most all pointlesss and me shrugging off mob mentality attacks anyways. rly all ive wanted is a decently worded poll in the main form regarding this issue so that we can understand how the community at large feels. if u read the above post where its bolded, thats the poll question. can we make this happen?
Logged

VnV-Nation

  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2740
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #64 on: June 28, 2017, 09:12:46 PM »

For me, I don't like the idea of a lunging player having an advantage over somebody playing man defense. Is lunging considered good play? Does the community in general agree that a lunging player should have an advantage?
Logged

zero seven

  • RSFL Captain
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2514
  • :D
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #65 on: June 28, 2017, 09:16:16 PM »



Are there any better arguments for velocity based checks out there...?

It's individually customizeable by ship, less limited than base bullet level.

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: 5431
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #66 on: June 28, 2017, 09:37:52 PM »

thats fine, i understand. its most all pointlesss and me shrugging off mob mentality attacks anyways. rly all ive wanted is a decently worded poll in the main form regarding this issue so that we can understand how the community at large feels. if u read the above post where its bolded, thats the poll question. can we make this happen?

I disagree with that being a decently worded poll.  I think you even boiled it down into the wrong tradeoff.

I also don't believe that aspect is a poll-worthy question at all.  Look at how much trouble you've had understanding how the thing works, and you end up asking a different question than the next person would ask.  How is someone who hasn't taken the time to understand these things supposed to form a useful opinion?

I'm all for polls, but they're not worth much if you ask the wrong question.  For example, my question to the BOD was "which is better for the league and zone, traditional or draft?" whereas my poll in pub was "which do you prefer, traditional or draft?"  The BOD hopefully takes time to analyze it, discuss, and consider as much as they can; I'm not expecting that from every person who stops in HZ Talk.

I honestly don't know what the right thing to poll here would be.  There are several parts in the tradeoff to be evaluated: philosophical objection to RNG use, effects on ship balance, impact on playstyle incentives, etc.  Polls are not good for evaluating complex tradeoffs.  I'm open to just about everybody's opinions and analyses, but I believe a poll is not the right tool here.



For me, I don't like the idea of a lunging player having an advantage over somebody playing man defense. Is lunging considered good play? Does the community in general agree that a lunging player should have an advantage?
This is a mechanic that (obviously?) benefits players who leave the crease, and more generally, rewards players making riskier check attempts.  Riskier check attempts means more transition attacks in case of the steal and one less defenseman in case of a miss or dud.  That's an objective I think most HZers I've seen discussing settings have agreed on for a long time, but if people think I'm wrong about that we can certainly look into that more.
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

Poseidon

  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 763
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #67 on: June 28, 2017, 11:19:05 PM »

edit: Goldeye, the poll doesn't really matter.  everybody who has answered the question i posed in this thread has answered YES, and these are seemingly some of the people in this zone who have given this the most thought.  it seems we all feel that duds (as ive defined them) aren't worth whatever benefits they might bring, and that they result in a more boring, conservative, turtle'ing style of gameplay and increase the chances of luck being a factor.  all that matters is your opinion;  the poll would only function to try to influence your decisions.  so:


All implications considered, do you, Goldeye, think that a bullet which drains full energy from any specific ship 78%-94% of the time (before factoring velocity bonus) should instead drain full energy from said ship a full 100% of the time?




Quote
I honestly don't know what the right thing to poll here would be.  There are several parts in the tradeoff to be evaluated: philosophical objection to RNG use, effects on ship balance, impact on playstyle incentives, etc.  Polls are not good for evaluating complex tradeoffs.  I'm open to just about everybody's opinions and analyses, but I believe a poll is not the right tool here.

im gonna skip all the bullshit i was gonna include here and skip to the point:

at the heart of this, there is a very simple and important question that i think the general HZ'r understands enough to make an informed decision on:  should a bullet that takes full dmg most (78%+) of the time instead take full damage 100% of the time.  People just dont like when a ship survives a bullet on a small minority of random chances, and for good reason. anyone answering this question would already be considering the potential effects it has on ship balance and playstyle, i think your selling everyone short by thinking otherwise, and at its core, its not as complicated as you are implying.  and for the record 5/5 people who answered that question in this thread have answered in the affirmative.   

i really do think a poll is merited in this instance. i think its pretty obvious to everyone that by removing duds (as ive defined them), the playstyle of the zone in general would become less conservative and turtle'y and luck-based, and that L2 ships would benefit the most because they suffer the most from duds.  L1 ships dont expect the kill as often, and L3 ships dont dud as much.  its doesnt take much to understand these points, they are pretty intuitive.  plus these things could be spelled out in a post below the poll for good measure.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 01:39:24 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

pob

  • big eater
  • New Car
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #68 on: June 29, 2017, 07:21:29 AM »

In my opinion, it's the small chance of getting a much weaker bullet than normal that causes the worst wtf moments/garbage goals:
Off-BallWarbirdJavelinSpiderLeviathanTerrierWeaselLancasterShark
L170%0%10%0%10%70%0%0%
L230%7%32%6%32%30%10%13%
L30%8%42%7%42%0%23%24%
L40%85%16%88%16%0%67%63%
On-BallWarbirdJavelinSpiderLeviathanTerrierWeaselLancasterShark
L151%0%10%0%10%49%0%0%
L249%7%11%6%12%51%10%13%
L30%8%22%7%23%0%23%24%
L40%85%58%88%55%0%67%63%
(I hope this is the right data I've pulled from hzbullets)
Logged

Poseidon

  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 763
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #69 on: June 29, 2017, 01:00:18 PM »

yes that is the correct data. depending on your ship it ranges between a 6%-22% chance that your bullet wont take full-energy-on-ball dmg which in every other instance would otherwise result in a guaranteed kill(excluding vs ship 2,4), not factoring in velocity i suppose, which also has a randomness factor itself.

this allows the impact of dumb luck in our zone to be HUGE, and thus negatively affects the game in many ways.

--------------------

and Goldeye, just so this doesnt get lost and to clarify what im asking you in my above post...

All things considered, do you think our settings should be adjusted such that a bullet which drains full energy from any specific ship 78%-94% of the time (before factoring velocity bonus) would instead drain full energy from said ship a full 100% of the time?

im really still not sure where you stand on this... and where u stand on this is the single most important aspect of this thread!
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 01:40:54 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

zero seven

  • RSFL Captain
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2514
  • :D
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #70 on: June 29, 2017, 02:55:52 PM »

Velocity bonus is not random. It is continuous and proportional to the velocity of your bullets compared to the rink and enemy ship. You can find explanations here and here if you search forums. It also does not provide a bonus on top of the random bullet level, it increases your probability to skew towards the higher end of the available bullet levels to the ship. It can only have a positive impact on damage delivered. For the purposes of your question, its relevant

Your wording continues to be terrible. I will try one more time to help you form a coherent argument w/ the intent of reducing the amount of time wasted translating your rants.

1. State the Problem
Spider and Terrier have bullet damage calculations that result in an expected on-ball damage output of ~535 (average of all L1/2/3/4 probability). 535 is greater than the max energy for Warbird, Spider, Terrier, and Weasel (max 400 in this group). The expected result of a Spider or Terrier bullet on a WB/Spid/Terr/Wzl is overwhelmingly that the puck carrier will die. With current settings there is approximately a 20% chance that Spider or Terrier will produce an L1 or L2 bullet on-ball, both of which do less damage than 100% of WB/Spid/Terr/Wzl energy. The difference between an expected kill and the frequency of the dud that happens instead has significant negative impact on the game, with "luck" trumping perceived skill and timely duds often resulting in scoring plays, amplifying negative impact on competitiveness.


2. Confirm Support
Should Spider and Terrier kill a WB/Spider/Terrier/Weasel with puck 100% of the time?

3. Establish Decision Tree

If No - stop.
If Yes:

A. Is it possible to change settings so that above is true?

If No - stop.
If Yes:

B. Does settings change require changing bullet calc. from random to static?

If Yes - open new discussion about feasibility / impact.
If No:

C. What settings change would produce desired effect?
D. What impact do those settings changes have (unintended consequences)?
E. Does the improvement to bullet damage outweigh the impact from the settings change?
F. How do we test and implement?




You already have what you believe to be confirmed support.
A. and B. have already been determined in this thread.
I've given you an example of C. and also D., but otherwise you have the data to determine your own settings tweaks that minimize unintended consequences.
E. and F. would require more input once you've finished the rest.


Goldeye has already stated his willingness to hear out settings tweaks, you just need to do the work.
Logged
it's not as if i am the only person on my team with my brain.

BlueGoku

  • Choke Artist
  • Ambassador
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 8412
    • Center Ice
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2017, 03:27:08 PM »

Question:

Will removing damage result in an increase in goals scored or a decrease?
Logged
image

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2017, 03:37:40 PM »

Question:

Will removing damage result in an increase in goals scored or a decrease?
Do you mean removing random damage?  A change to static only damage will throw off the balance no matter what, and we'd need to balance that out.  Presumably, we'd want it to result in fewer unexpected duds, and that'd presumably mean more shots & goals.  But I don't think that's a very appetizing way to get more shots & goals...


07 - Thanks for working with Pose.
FYI: I don't think expected / average damage is useful. We're talking about no more than 3 bullets, so it's almost always the actual odds that matter.  E.G. If we gave WB a 90% chance of L1 and 10% chance of L4, the expected value would be higher than 90% L1/10% L3, but the result would mostly be the same.
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

Poseidon

  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 763
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2017, 03:40:00 PM »

you are right in correcting me about velocity dmg, i thought its chance to increase the odds of your roll to the next bullet level were probabilistic and not static.  that's good to know, as ive had a hard time finding an answer to that even though ive asked a few times.  however i haven't been going out of my way to dig up this answer because i already know it doesn't have much impact on how i feel about the basic premise.  while i like the idea of a velocity based bonus, im cool with it having to be completely nixed  if thats what it takes in order to have certain bullets kill certain ships 100% of the time given the limitations of what we can do with settings (which seems to not be the case, however).  so i haven't been putting much focus on the issue of the velocity bonus.

however, the rest of your post i find very convoluted and unnecessary. you are treating me like an idiot, when in reality with almost every post you are basically saying the same thing i do but in a far more complicated way, and there are cases of semantics where the average person would easily be able to infer a certain implied meaning but you seem to have trouble doing that.  you are turning every single post i make into something that looks like it came straight from my lab workbook from biology class and it just isn't appropriate for the conversation.

i dont need your help.  you are over complicating something that i have intentionally simplified - the question ive asked goldeye.  goldeye already knows what is possible and what isn't and understands the impact of changing the settings.  this is all inherently implied in my question, ESPECIALLY since i added the phase "all implications considered".  i am trying to glean an opinion from goldeye regarding a basic premise of how damage works in HZ, it does NOT require convoluted dichotomization.  i mean, come on man. im trying to be nice but this is ridiculous.

let me clarify, YET AGAIN.  every time you seem to ignore what i keep insisting is my main goal.  since my 3rd post, i have repeatedly stated that my most important point was having Goldeye answer my question so i could understand where he stands.  there is no point in moving forward with trying to figure out the settings or what to tweak if goldeye isnt down with the basic goals with what we are trying to achieve, and thus far i haven't gotten a clear indication from him.  that's all ive wanted basically all thread long, but i keep running into posts like this most recent one from you that distract from my simple goal.  you say he "has stated his willingness", yet I still dont know how goldeye would answer this question.  if you can reference where he has answered it, please show me, that's the best way you could help me at this point.  this question is not that hard to understand and ive worded the way it worded intentionally to highlight specifics of this discussion, so i will repeat it.  07, please pay extra attention to the part that says "all implications considered" and understand that this is asking goldeye to answer this question while he keeps in mind how it would affect the overall settings, balance, playstyle, etc. of hockey zone - all of this things which he already has knowledge of thus making it unnecessary for me to have to spell them out point by point as you are implying i need to do:


All implications considered, do you, Goldeye think our settings should be adjusted such that a bullet which drains full energy from any specific ship 78%-94% of the time (before factoring velocity bonus) would instead drain full energy from said ship 100% of the time?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 03:50:15 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Poseidon

  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 763
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2017, 03:42:18 PM »

lol, ya'll are ridiculous.  for real.  he isn't working with me, he is convoluting things ive already clearly stated - if you really want me to spell this out in a long post i can.  i honestly feel like you arent even reading my posts but just assuming he is somehow correct in his attitude. but the real problem is you still haven't answered the question!  am i wrong in thinking that you already fully understand the implications involved in this question, or is there some other reason why you wont answer it?  ill repeat again!!!



All implications considered, do you think our settings should be adjusted such that a bullet which drains full energy from any specific ship 78%-94% of the time (before factoring velocity bonus) would instead drain full energy from said ship 100% of the time?


« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 03:46:36 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #75 on: June 29, 2017, 03:53:59 PM »

All implications considered, do you, Goldeye think our settings should be adjusted such that a bullet which drains full energy from any specific ship 78%-94% of the time (before factoring velocity bonus) would instead drain full energy from said ship 100% of the time?

I don't get why you're asking this, and I don't really have an answer given the way you are trying to generalize it.
The closest answer I can give:
I think there are ancient expectations that ship A kills ship B in one bullet (even though this has never really been the case), and that our objective should be to accommodate most of those expectations (for less frustration / more enjoyment), rather than maintain a particular existing balance.

The way you are approaching this is contrary to how the engineering and programming types here like to deal with these problems, and it'll make everyone happier if you stop trying to drive it in the way you are.  07's post and structure is essentially the right way to approach this.  If you efficiently covered the same stuff without the structure, then it'd be fine, but it really seems like your efforts are missing the mark...

Pob's statement boils it down excellently:
In my opinion, it's the small chance of getting a much weaker bullet than normal that causes the worst wtf moments/garbage goals:
We should fix wtf moments.
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

BlueGoku

  • Choke Artist
  • Ambassador
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 8412
    • Center Ice
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #76 on: June 29, 2017, 03:55:29 PM »

Do you mean removing random damage?  A change to static only damage will throw off the balance no matter what, and we'd need to balance that out.  Presumably, we'd want it to result in fewer unexpected duds, and that'd presumably mean more shots & goals.  But I don't think that's a very appetizing way to get more shots & goals...

Yes, that is what I meant. Removing random damage.

I guess another way of framing it is, has random damage ever resulted in a positive on the defensive end? Certainly the odd time where a d or mid dud a BK or something, but for the most part, random damage has been of most benefit to offense and has primarily been associated with goal scoring.

My point is that rejigging everything so that we see less duds will result in less goal scoring, not more. I'm not sure I agree that should be the focus, unless other changes are made in tandem with this change (like rebounds).

Does it suck getting scored on because the jav dudded your crease sitters? Yes. Does it suck trying to score on a team that stacks the crease and has a semi decent goalie? Yes, and removing random will only make it worse.
Logged
image

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #77 on: June 29, 2017, 04:00:40 PM »

I guess another way of framing it is, has random damage ever resulted in a positive on the defensive end?
Sometimes L2 ships kill javs and L1 ships kill L2s, especially with the velocity boost.

Quote
My point is that rejigging everything so that we see less duds will result in less goal scoring, not more. I'm not sure I agree that should be the focus, unless other changes are made in tandem with this change (like rebounds).

Does it suck getting scored on because the jav dudded your crease sitters? Yes. Does it suck trying to score on a team that stacks the crease and has a semi decent goalie? Yes, and removing random will only make it worse.
Again, that claim about rejigging is not necessarily true.  It depends on the implementation.  We could increase L1 against L2 dud rates and L2 against L3 dud rates (that is, desirable duds), as a way to balance out decreasing the other dud rates (undesirable duds).
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

Poseidon

  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 763
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #78 on: June 29, 2017, 04:09:03 PM »

Quote
The way you are approaching this is contrary to how the engineering and programming types here like to deal with these problems

well, spot on, we def agree on that!

i feel like my question is pretty simple to answer yes or no.  its all ive been after all thread.  everybody in this thread has a real problem seeing past slight discrepancies in semantics in situations where the attempted implication should be obvious.

maybe ill make it simplier and phrase it as 07 did:


All implciations considered, should we change settings so that a Spider and Terrier kill a WB/Spider/Terrier/Weasel with puck 100% of the time?


are you still not able to answer this one Yes or No??!
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #79 on: June 29, 2017, 04:11:51 PM »

All implciations considered, should we change settings so that a Spider and Terrier kill a WB/Spider/Terrier/Weasel with puck 100% of the time?
Yeah, I think that will be beneficial to gameplay, though I do wonder if keeping it a maybe under 90% (to encourage using VRBL to guarantee the kill) would be beneficial.
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
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
 

Page created in 0.141 seconds with 22 queries.