Hockey/Football Zone Forums (Subspace | Continuum)

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: 25

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


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

Author Topic: Random Damage  (Read 3262 times)

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2017, 08:40:32 PM »

So there is no point in discussing or implementing anything with static damage anymore.  Check.
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2017, 09:38:23 PM »

Pose, you really would be a lot easier to deal with if you typed less and read more.  You're on the right track but you keep repeating what you and others say, and it seems to really frustrate people.  This is the third post where we have both said that raising the minimum damages would be good.
... That's not continuous.  1357 rv gives you an L2, but 1358 gives you an L3.  That knife-edge transition is bad game design in a game where nearly all of the mechanics are continuous.

TBH I don't know of any good objections to random bullet levels as long as the minimums are satisfactory.

eh i could say the same goldeye!  i was stating that i know that what we currently have is not continuous and that is my prob, not that i think we currently use a continuous system.  the SSBM example was used to illustrate that if they used the system we currently use instead of a linear system, they would think its rly lame and takes away from the game!  aka they wouldnt want a DUD on their velocity-based smashes when they are expecting a kill.  by "same concept" i meant the concept of trying to have everything be 100% predictable, even if we are only working with 3 or 4 tiers of dmg instead of maybe the 8-12 or so that smash has.

but.. again, moot points for me cause i dont rly care about randomness if it deals w/ a bonus (by means of velocity) and not a punishment (by means of duds).  i understand that they are interrelated but i think we have a total overkill of duds atm. i realize that you agree.  but we haven't established to what extent. so really, this for me is a conversation more specifically about the total elimation of DUDS than it is about minimums, because minimums might not get raised enuff to adequately stop the duds. and you didnt reply to my most important point.  do you think an L2 bullet should kill ship 1, 3, 5, 6 every time, regardless of velocity? 

i feel like if you answer that ill understand better if we are on the same page about minimums

for sake of this discussion, my definition of DUD: Dud - a bullet that doesnt kill on a minority of random off chances, used to create a system where a greater emphasis can be put on velocity based random damage.

duds fuck up the gameplay and encourage a more turtle-style defense, more boring gameplay, and constant frustration. in order to remove this duds, we need to sacrifice a good deal of the space created by duds for velocity-based damage


edit: trimmed sum fat  sry if its 2 long i rly tried




« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 04:46:11 AM by Poseidon »
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2017, 09:54:50 PM »

but its random if a dud will happen... no?  making it.. random?  am i missing something?

goldeye for the sake of this conversation i hope you will use my definition of dud, as that is what we are all talkign about, and not whatevtf was just stated above me.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 10:01:24 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2017, 10:02:14 PM »

 zs, we're not trying to create a new math theorem here, we're trying to have ships fukin die when it makes sense for them to

so i hope you'll agree that for the sake of this argument, the way that i defined "dud" is more relevant
Logged

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2017, 10:24:18 PM »

zs, we're not trying to create a new math theorem here, we're trying to have ships fukin die when it makes sense for them to

so i hope you'll agree that for the sake of this argument, the way that i defined "dud" is more relevant

No.  You are out of your depth. 
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2017, 11:04:13 PM »

no, you are caught up in your depth.  we are trying to discuss a basic premise.  the math theorems can come later. 

that or yr just looking for another opportunity to be an obnoxious ass when im trying to keep the convo relevant
Logged

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2017, 12:07:13 AM »

You win, continue in your relevance.
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2017, 12:28:05 AM »

ill clarify:  zero i understand what you are saying and why you are saying it and its good info to have, but i feel its a distraction from the conversation at hand as what is frustrating here is that there are times when we, as hz players, know that a bullet which would kill the majority of the time sometimes randomly duds and doesnt result in a kill.  this is so shitty with regards to certain bullet and ship combinations that it doesnt justify its aim in creating more space for velocity based damage.

does anybody disagree that this is the basic issue at hand that we are hoping to somehow resolve or at least compromise a little more on?
Logged

Blessings_of_Sins

  • RSHL Referee
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 940
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2017, 01:18:42 AM »

EDITED AS REQUESTED BY POSE
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 06:52:43 PM by Blessings_of_Sins »
Logged
RSFL Season 1: X-Factor, RSFL Season 5: BIG
MSHL Season 4: Baby Seal Killers
2008 Mini Tournament: Barker's Beauties, TWHT Season 2: R&P
RSHL Season 24: Salty Puckers

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2017, 03:26:21 AM »

non goalie wtf you talking about gtfo u need 2 stop drop and go read real poseidon story

and wtf, nobody's on the same page, or if they are theres no evidence of it in this thread.  we got doobie spouting off random insults. we got goldeye vs'ing my reading comprehension but not comprehending what im saying.  thats prob my fault for typing 2 much but still.  then we got superdan who jus has no idea whats going on and then zero seven comes in tryin 2 pythagorem theorem a dud as if it has anything to do with the real point of this thread.

i mean jesus christ... just read the thread man.  Doobie> "So there is no point in discussing or implementing anything with static damage anymore.  Check."  its pretty obvious that we aren't all on the same page, i mean that comment from doobie implies the total fucking opposite. and you and goldeye dont even understand the point im trying to make.  so i dont get why you are vs'ing me about this.  i understand the situation, you dont have to explain to me what adjusting minimum damage would do, as is obvious if u read my posts.  rly kinda curious if your just trolling me. im sry im internet yelling vs you but youre giving me PTSD from TW thread all over again
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 05:03:49 AM by Poseidon »
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2017, 04:53:15 AM »

and BoS, you obviously arent totally understanding.  so allow me to explain:

if we adjust the minimum damage as such where an L2 bullet will always kill ships 1,3,5,6, (which is the whole point of this thread for me) then there will be no more room for velocity based damage - at least in that particular situation, though we can still use it with other bullet/ship combos.  SURE THIS IS ABOUT MINIMUM DMG BUT ITS IS WAY MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DUDS AND HOW IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE VELOCITY DMG IN SOME INSTANCES. so the whole phrasing of your statement is whack and doesnt address the real issue im trying to discuss. 
Logged

Blessings_of_Sins

  • RSHL Referee
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 940
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2017, 05:10:11 AM »

EDITED AS REQUESTED BY POSE
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 06:52:51 PM by Blessings_of_Sins »
Logged
RSFL Season 1: X-Factor, RSFL Season 5: BIG
MSHL Season 4: Baby Seal Killers
2008 Mini Tournament: Barker's Beauties, TWHT Season 2: R&P
RSHL Season 24: Salty Puckers

Blessings_of_Sins

  • RSHL Referee
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 940
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2017, 05:16:10 AM »

EDITED AS REQUESTED BY POSE
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 06:52:59 PM by Blessings_of_Sins »
Logged
RSFL Season 1: X-Factor, RSFL Season 5: BIG
MSHL Season 4: Baby Seal Killers
2008 Mini Tournament: Barker's Beauties, TWHT Season 2: R&P
RSHL Season 24: Salty Puckers

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2017, 05:23:17 AM »

yes, we are totally on the same wavelength now and i agree with everything you just said.  this is the discussion ive been trying to have since my 3rd post.  i didnt read your long post cause im going to bed but it seems like we've reached a mutual understanding. also u had alrdy started typing and u missd the quote when i edited the funny part in )=
Logged

Steve Cheese

  • Donator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *
  • Posts: 3496
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2017, 12:49:31 PM »

Rich kids win again
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2017, 01:15:20 PM »

zero seven you have told me nothing new.  i know all of these things.  i have already highlighted understanding of literally pretty much everything you just wrote, and in some instances have typed identical fucking sentences.  i already took the time to look at the graphs and tables and i understand how bullet dmg works.  there is nothing in my recent posts that suggests otherwise.  i am actually an intelligent person with a pretty acute sense of math and the like and a transcript to prove it, regardless of how you and doobie treat me. 

it is a question of semantics and you are getting caught up in a word (DUD) that i already took the time to define specifically for the context of this discussion, just so i could avoid having to type all of this bullshit.  i am trying to keep it simple at the moment so we can see if we agree on some basic premises, like ive said about 3 times.  why in the fuck would i want to convolute the convo and type "durr hey guys we really need to fix that minimum damage being brought up to a level such that each L2 (i mean this in the classical sense) bullets will always drain a terminal amt of damage from all ships xcept 2 & 4" every time when i can condense it into one word.  it is not a stretch to define dud the way i am defining it. 

when a bullet takes 100% energy of a certain ship you shoot a majority of the time, the times that it doesnt are a dud.  thats the connotation, thats how its inferred and implied pretty much always, and it makes sense, for the purposes of this convo, to keep it that simple.  allow me to illustrate my understanding and provide proof for my above statement to appease your dense mind:

referencing the tables, you can see that ships 1,3,5,6 all have under 500 energy.  you will also see that L3 and L4 bullets do over 500 energy dmg on-ball.  you will also see that the "L2" ships, spid and terr, have over a 50% chance (thus, majority) to shoot either L3 or L4 on-ball (78% for terr, 80% for spid).  thus a spid or terr will take a full 100% of ship 1,3,5,6 energy ~80% (~91% for ship 1) of the time.  those times that it doesnt, we call a DUD. 

and for the record, DUDS HAPPEN RANDOMLY - THERE ARE % CHANCES FOR WHAT TYPE OF BULLET YOU SHOOT, THUS ONE CAN EQUATE DUDS TO RANDOM DAMAGE AS THE DAMAGE THAT WILL OCCUR IS NOT PREDICTABLE.  ARE YOU REALLY THIS DENSE?

what is really holding the discussion back is your insistence on trying to complicate things.  save it for later.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 01:40:11 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2017, 01:38:16 PM »

Bos and zero seven the effort is appreciated... But please don't waste any more of your time.
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2017, 01:41:49 PM »

doobie emerges out of the shadows with another fail credibility assassination attempt
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2017, 01:56:21 PM »

legit, the whole last page was ppl cluttering the thread trying 2 explain things to me that i obv already know, in some instances repeating back to me what ive already said as if they were schooling me. 

as ive stated i think 3 times previously, all i want to know is:

Do the people who make the decisions in this zone think that ships 1,3,5,6 should have 100% of their energy removed from an on-ball L2 ship bullet every time (meaning going from ~80% chance to 100% chance), even if that means having to sacrifice velocity-dmg in this instance? 


edit: i dont come on this fucking forum looking to have extreme point by point arguments or type all this words.  i really am just asking a simple question and people are coming left and right complicating it so i indulge in defending myself, and the whole of it is just totally unnecessary. and i realize im to blame sometimes for playing 2 much defense and not letting things slide and instead just trying to keep it focused, so ill try to be better about that
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 02:07:17 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Steve Cheese

  • Donator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *
  • Posts: 3496
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2017, 02:30:11 PM »

NO THEY DO NOT THINK THAT.  THEY HAVE SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES ALREADY
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
 

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 27 queries.