Hockey/Football Zone Forums (Subspace | Continuum)

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Team Forums: If you need a RSHL, MSHL, or RSFL team forum, forum PM Kilo Dylie with the name of your team, and who will moderate the board.

Poll

Do you like Random Damage?

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

Total Members Voted: 25

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


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: Random Damage  (Read 3261 times)

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #100 on: June 29, 2017, 07:47:14 PM »

Quote
Also, you probably shouldn't put words into Bos's mouth.  I'm not cool with you saying things like this when we all think you're describing yourself.

"1) I was questioning the 10% number Poseidon used in his post but then that was my mistake.  I missed the post where Goldeye was thinking theoretically of having a level 2 only kill a spider or terrier at 90% of the time.  So my apologies to Poseidon on this one."

i've been dealing with similar stuff as the situation that's higlighted above all thread.  its frustrating, so i got frustrated. and i didn't mean to attack BoS - my statement was made gently and really without much malice - it seems like he took it this way as well.

Quote
Figuring out what we think will happen only goes so far as to educate us about the possibilities, and decide what we want to spend time trying.

thats what im trying to do - further the discussion as to what is worth trying.  some points i feel so confident about that i think it justifies the term "will" - even if its not 100% certain. pretty much everybody else does this in similar situations.  you should know what i mean, and why is everything in this always devolving into petty arguments about semantics?  this isn't about winning the argument, its about trying to accurately communicate my opinion and have each party reply in a way that adds to the discussion and furthers the thread of reasoning.  im not trying to win a debate competition, these are views that i have and feel strongly about and im trying to explain why

i dont understand why you are so preoccupied with attacking me along w the rest of these peeps instead of just replying to the points i am making.  they are valid points that warrant consideration.  i realize that my posts are sometimes not concise enough and that people dont read through all of them and actually try to understand everything im saying, and this results in people making false assumptions which snowballs the whole thing, and thats my bad and im trying to reign it in some, but there is definitely a degree of mob mentality going on here, and having trolls like thrill and musiq hanging around doesnt help.



« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 07:49:52 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #101 on: June 29, 2017, 07:57:50 PM »

i dont understand why you are so preoccupied with attacking me along w the rest of these peeps instead of just replying to the points i am making.  they are valid points that warrant consideration.  i realize that my posts are sometimes not concise enough and that people dont read through all of them and actually try to understand everything im saying, and this results in people making false assumptions which snowballs the whole thing, and thats my bad and im trying to reign it in some, but there is definitely a degree of mob mentality going on here, and having trolls like thrill and musiq hanging around doesnt help.
I'm criticizing you because these conversations are frustrating and tiring. You keep trying to do things to further your point and make mistakes, like neglecting to factor in things I've explained, trying to reduce the problem incorrectly, and making questionable assumptions or assertions.

Add to that your very verbose posts and it is just a pain to get through it all having to correct you at every step.

I'm not sure why it happens or what to suggest.  IMO if instead of trying to push your position, you spend more time trying to figure out what is the correct position, you can probably avoid a lot of this.
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

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #102 on: June 29, 2017, 08:00:15 PM »

as much as it sucks to have everybody ignore the points you are making and attack you instead, since i actually care about this i will continue to try put these points forward so we can further the discussion as to what is worth trying out settings wise.  this is as concise as i can make them:

- a 10% velocity bonus incentive doesnt seem like enough.  it seems doubtful that having a lunge increase the total-energy drain chance from 90% to 90-100% will have much affect on the way people incorporate lunges into their playstyle.  do we not agree on this?

- having a 10% chance to dud as an L2 ship IS likely enough of a negative incentive to encourage people to play more conservatively, and also potentially sit on the crease and try to prox the shot instead of going for a kill (aside from levi).

- having duds of this nature disproportionately benefit levi's, as dud's matter little to them when they can instantly shoot a second bullet (and levi's have less duds in gen).  thus levi's are given even a greater buff relative to other ships when it comes to just sitting on the crease and shooting bullets, on top of the fact that their bullet is double wide and already amazing for CR sitting.  do we want this kind of buff for a levi?  personally, im opposed to it.


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

Quote from: Goldeye
I'm criticizing you because these conversations are frustrating and tiring. You keep trying to do things to further your point and make mistakes, like neglecting to factor in things I've explained, trying to reduce the problem incorrectly, and making questionable assumptions or assertions.

alright homie, ill legit try to take what your saying into consideration, even though i am genuinely not sure what yr talking about in regards to false deductions and the like.  but i guess that is all part of any discussion. if im being completely honest, and this is just from my point of view, excluding when i thought VRBL was probabilistic and not static, the only times anybody has "corrected" me have been concerns over trivial aspects of semantics, aside from when you tried to correct me with the SSBM example but in reality you 100% misunderstood what i was saying.  maybe a lot of the problem has to do with being on a forum, as its not my strong suite and i function best in discussions where people can quickly bounce things off of one another and keep things focused.  but the prob is your never on continuum or i prob wouldnt even be making most of these posts.  also i purposefuly (and imo, with good reason) try to avoid structuring these types of discussions into programmer/mathematic kind of language (see: zero seven), which obv just angers people in a place like this

but can we take it from the above points im making - do you not feel like they are legit concerns?  also if you have just reached a point where you arent even considering what im saying anymore, then just say so and ill give up.  it would be unfortunate because there is something at the heart of this whole convo that im trying to get at and i feel like i havent had an opportunity to fully communicate it because you dont really respond to my actual points, so i can never understand what is lacking.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 08:25:57 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #103 on: June 29, 2017, 08:25:29 PM »

We've established this is something to improve on, and that it needs to be solved deliberately and balanced carefully.  This cannot be accomplished without a thorough revamp.  We've figured out a good approach to use and what factors need to be considered, and that's a good outcome.

Talking about arbitrary and theoretical numbers is pointless; it's getting ahead of where we are.  To that end, yes I'm done with this for now. 
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

Thrill HZ

  • Spaceship Commentator
  • RSHL Captain
  • Out of Control
  • *
  • Posts: 9305
  • All stat requests go through my agent, BlueGoku
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #104 on: June 29, 2017, 08:30:07 PM »

Okay, no trolling: If you want legitimate feedback, you are terrible at posting. Ideas aside, the actual writing of your posts is just awful and its gets in the way of anything that could possibly be a good idea. This is actually 100% constructive criticism if you're actually trying to fix this little problem you've been having. Your phrasing is really, really bad and you shovel in 120381208 lines of nonsense with every point you try to make. It takes actual effort to figure out what your points are because the way you structure your ideas and posts is really poor.

You say your points are well thought out, well, if that is the case you do a pretty poor job of conveying them because they are not written out very well. Not only that but your communication in general comes across as condescending and belittling, and I have to tell you, it's really bizarre to see condescending comments from people who are bad at writing. It looks absurd.

If you want my opinion you need to either consciously edit all of your posts for at least 30 minutes like they are college essays or communicate your points orally to someone who can write them out better and let them organize it into a nice post for you.
Logged
thrill is super awkward and likely rubs it out to himself in the mirror

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #105 on: June 29, 2017, 08:30:28 PM »

Quote
We've established this is something to improve on, and that it needs to be solved deliberately and balanced carefully.  This cannot be accomplished without a thorough revamp.  We've figured out a good approach to use and what factors need to be considered, and that's a good outcome.

i agree.  something has come out of it, it seems, and im glad.  i guess ill just iterate my only real point in this entire thread and leave it at that:

the benefits of having certain bullets dud on only 0-20% of occassions are never going to outweigh the detriment that this causes to the gameplay. 
hopefully through settings testing and the like this will eventually become obvious.  though it seems like to most everyone in this thread, it already is.
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #106 on: June 29, 2017, 08:33:03 PM »

Quote from: psycho t
If you want my opinion

u srs?
Logged

Thrill HZ

  • Spaceship Commentator
  • RSHL Captain
  • Out of Control
  • *
  • Posts: 9305
  • All stat requests go through my agent, BlueGoku
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #107 on: June 29, 2017, 08:59:56 PM »

I don't give a shit if you change anything, it doesn't matter to me if people continuously put u off, I think you're a twat. But the responses you have been getting that seem confusing to you are not a coincidence and I just explained it for you. You're welcome.
Logged
thrill is super awkward and likely rubs it out to himself in the mirror

Fur of Fur

  • Samba Lagger
  • Donator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2891
  • Hockey Zone Watch.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #108 on: June 30, 2017, 05:20:58 AM »

Pose I have one beef, when you make your statements as true or plausibly true as they may be, you can only state - "in my opinion 10% duds are negative to the gameplay" you cannot categorically state that it is or that everyone has this view - this makes me and maybe others very frustrated.

The views in this thread are in my opinion various shades of
grey, I'm not seeing a black and white line of 2 camps to drive changes here.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, I actually find it interesting and view it as a classic HZ model mindset given your hiatus period, but from what I have seen you have done no empirical analysis here and are objecting to a philosophy while attacking numbers like you magically know they are wrong.

Have you ever considered a career in politics, you could probably do some good focusing such relentless energy into valuable causes... Unfortunately for you HZ is full of assholes and somewhat Intellectual nerds who won't fall inline for a wall of text that tries to promote what is a false support base for an unknown consequence drastic solution.

Play a season or two and bring us a constructive appraisal, i.e. when I played 10 years ago... I liked X and disliked Y, now I find X and Y to be like this... Etc etc. No matter what the settings actually are, the consequences to the Hz meta game are complex and game style mindsets are driven by the players too. Teams do not all play one optimum way, maybe there is a perfect way to play...but you always have some players who like to create sit or lunge or hold puck or pass lots quickly or bk... The settings ( in my opinion ) should ideally should promote multiple playstyles and tactics as variety makes HZ interesting.. or we end up with everyone on ship X as it's the only viable overpowered tactic.

I do believe it's complicated as even in this thread, 2 experienced players and goalies totally disagree on the consequences of what looks at a glance like a small adjustment.... Ultimately we need a lot of testing and do not have an active player base to test it so easily these days. Settings are changing and we have always moved slowly to allow people to adapt and keep a close eye on the consequences of said changes and reduce the risk of a totally broken season.
Logged
"I like Fur, and I would expect some good slapshot outlets from him on defense." - Thrill 2011

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #109 on: June 30, 2017, 07:33:18 AM »

Dear Fur of Fur:

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, its nice to have somebody iterate some similar type of sentiment.  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.  and there are about 20 other instances in this thread alone where the entire point i made was lost to some trivial qualm regarding some type of semantics issue.   anyways,  like most aspects of my approach in discussing things on this forum, my style of debate and the way i present and organize my thoughts doesnt seem to lend well to this format or maybe to the internet in general.. especially with a group of people that seem borderline autistic and have an extremely difficult time dealing with context and semantics or any aspect of the argument that can't be represented as a convoluted table or graph of some sort (i kid, i kid..).  a lot of it is prob my fault and i need to be better about compromising and adjusting to certain ways of discussing and such, as well as being more aware of how i might be coming across to people - even if my intentions are different
and honestly i really do think that i did a good job in one of my posts up there of explaining why some of these settings that allow for duds do indeed disproportionately cause detriment to the gameplay - given that one feels that an increase in luck being a factor and more conservative styles of gameplay being a detriment.  did anybody actually take the time to read and understand that post?  probably not.  i guess its my fault for my style of writing on here or for coming on too hard or typing too much, etc.  but its tough to avoid some of these things because i actually do have a point that i think is important and its really difficult to fully explain all of the details of it without typing a lot of words and covering a lot of angles. 


----------------
because i have faith that you are actually trying to understand me, i will try to give you the gist of what i mean, as this subject is important to me as an HZer and ive really given it a lot of thought.  the whole goal here is to arrive at an agreement as to what would be the best initial settings to proceed with testing. for me, this is the culmination of this entire thread.  its basically just the simple notion that the solid majority of checks that happen in RSHL are not resulting from lunging, but instead just normal positional defense, and prob a good majority of checks only happen when a ship is moving at between -50% to +50% velocity. i think most everyone could agree with this. 

then there is the notion that, with our current settings as an example, the probability of draining the entirety of a ships total energy is increased by means of velocity-bonus from 78% to 78-100%, or even in a more recent theoretical proposal by goldeye we have the chance being changed from 90% to 90-100%... and that this all seems pretty obvious that it isn't gonna be enough incentive to have any major impact on the way people approach lunging or how they approach their playstyle in general. maybe if the velocity-bonus increased the probability from say, 50% to 50-100% then there would be enough incentive (but a whole new set of problems w settings), but only 10-20%? its just surprising to me that this notion isn't self-evident enough to people and that it would require testing of some sort and that any type of conjecture is too flimsy to consider.  is this idea of there not being enuff velocity-bonus incentive to significantly alter gameplay not as obvious to you as it is to me?   

and finally tying the all together, what does seem pretty blatant is that if, in order to create space for velocity bonus, a ship at its base dmg will dud a small minority of the time (10% in this most recent example), then this WILL have a significant affect on the gameplay (depending on how well the velocity-bonus scales from 0-100%, of course - another convo nobody would have with me) - much morso than the full-100%velocity-lunge bonus would.  people will play more conservative for fear of dud, luck will become a bigger factor, and duds will become a constant source of frustration for players and could potentially be the difference of a game being won or lost.   again, this is pretty glaringly evident to me - and i would think most everybody else would feel the same? 
so we obviously have this issue here where these kinds of duds create a disproportionate detriment to gameplay because the dud penalty is far more impactful than the velocity bonus incentive/reward (but not for every ship/bullet/target combo, only some!).  if you stop to give it some thought,  do you not find this to be apparent as well?!


so its difficult to understand why these points aren't obvious enough to people to the extent that all of these notions should already be accounted for when the next test of new settings gets underway.  that is the ultimate end goal for me in regards to this thread and this subject - to have ppl understand why the best settings to test right now should do away with these specific types of duds ive been harping on (though L1 ships and etc would act diff and still dud and L2 vs L3 ships and etc).

the irony of all this is that aside from goldeye and C&M, the other 6 or 7 people who indicated an answer about this dud situation all seemed to more or less agree with the points i just made.  yet, regardless of this, there has been no mention that maybe when we test the settings they should account for this and remove some of these certain duds from the game
--------------------------------


F o' F, i typed all of this to you because there has been literally nobody in this thread that would actually have this discussion with me.  instead i have been just pointlessly attacked or at best challenged about some trivial semantics aspect of my post which ultimately has no bearing on the real ideas im trying to consider.  so i hope you read through this, and if you dont agree with these things i am saying, hopefully you will at least understand where my frustration has been coming from. 

also for the record, ive played 8 seasons of rshl!  poseidon wasnt the only alias ive used.  though ive only had 5 seasons with 200+ minutes ice time

and thanks again for trying to meet me half way and help me understand what the fuck has been going on in this thread.

<3

« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 07:54:00 AM by Poseidon »
Logged

VnV-Nation

  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2742
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #110 on: June 30, 2017, 10:51:24 AM »

Thrill makes a valid point, nobody wants to read a wall of text with bad punctuation.
Logged

Cereal n Milk

  • HZ Media
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 677
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #111 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
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #112 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: 9555
  • There's some intention behind the placement.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #113 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

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #114 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: 9555
  • There's some intention behind the placement.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #115 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: 8634
    • Center Ice
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #116 on: July 05, 2017, 08:48:19 PM »

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

Arnk Kilo Dylie

  • Balancing Act
  • Executor
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 9555
  • There's some intention behind the placement.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #117 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 ... 3 4 5 [6]
 

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 27 queries.