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 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: Random Damage  (Read 3260 times)

pob

  • big eater
  • New Car
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #60 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

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #61 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

BlueGoku

  • Choke Artist
  • Ambassador
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 8634
    • Center Ice
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #62 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
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #63 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

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #64 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

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #65 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
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #66 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: 8634
    • Center Ice
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #67 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
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #68 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

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #69 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
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #70 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

BlueGoku

  • Choke Artist
  • Ambassador
  • Out of Control
  • *****
  • Posts: 8634
    • Center Ice
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2017, 04:12:40 PM »

Sometimes L2 ships kill javs and L1 ships kill L2s, especially with the velocity boost.
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).

Fair enough. The impression I get from skimming this thread is that not everybody is on the same page. Pretty sure a few people have specifically pointed to a jav dudding a christmas ship as something they want to see eliminated.
Logged
image

Fur of Fur

  • Samba Lagger
  • Donator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2891
  • Hockey Zone Watch.
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2017, 04:36:54 PM »

For me jav and Levi 1 dud is fine, but if a wb tags it then a spider hits it, I dont expect to see 2 duds. Sure if 2 wbs hit maybe it can survive depending on Velocity Of those checks after all it is a power forward.

Extreme maybe not possible change - kill ball carrier energy recharge to zero ( seriously reduce thrust cost ) at least the dud meta management game will be more obvious even if we keep random. But this would take a lot of testing.
Logged
"I like Fur, and I would expect some good slapshot outlets from him on defense." - Thrill 2011

Cereal n Milk

  • HZ Media
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 677
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2017, 04:41:37 PM »


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?


No. I think this will incentivize more crease sitting. With the increased minimum damage, there is little reason to lunge rather than crease sit as your chances at getting a kill would be the same. I am in favor of tweaking the numbers to change the dud rate, however.
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2017, 04:44:13 PM »

Figuring out the 2+ bullet scenarios is tricky.  Opinions will vary.  My preference is L2+L1 having middling odds of killing a jav and low odds of killing lev, especially as .  L2+L2 = high odds (but maybe not guaranteed, as Blue points out, that is an incentive for hapless cr sitting), and etc. 

As a starting point for RBL, we tried to maintain average value.  I think to get to better numbers we should list a ton of scenarios and decide what sort of result we want for each.  Then we can add a sheet that lists the odds for each scenario and fiddle numbers to find good results.


No. I think this will incentivize more crease sitting. With the increased minimum damage, there is little reason to lunge rather than crease sit as your chances at getting a kill would be the same. I am in favor of tweaking the numbers to change the dud rate, however.
Whoa, from the mouth of a goalie.
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 #75 on: June 29, 2017, 04:58:03 PM »

Game is too slow paced. Do something to increase the pace of the game. Don't think this does it adequately. Honestly more people should lunge even in the current settings cuz the game is so slow paced that you can recover before anything meaningful happens. Assuming it's one person lunging and not a team.
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 #76 on: June 29, 2017, 05:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Goldeye
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.

fuckin a, thank you. im stoked you've answered that because that's all ive really been after for the duration of this whole, rambling thread.  that even includes the poll i tried to initiate, as the only reason i wanted to have that poll in the first place to was understand better how you would respond to its results and thereby gain a more concrete understanding of where the person with all the power stands on this issue. 

now i have something to work with, and will address your comment.  i hope you'll read this, as these points are very important to me and have been for years and i feel like a lot of people in this thread who have the same concerns would agree with them.  i am really trying to get to the heart of the issue here.

Quote
though I do wonder if keeping it a maybe under 90% (to encourage using VRBL to guarantee the kill) would be beneficial.

The issue at hand:  Is encouraging the use of VRBL beneficial enough to justify the consequences of having bullets dud 10% of the time at certain velocities?

First, from a gameplay perspective, how does VRBL affect playstyle?  when you think about HZ, and particularly play in the midfield/nearer to center ice, it is usually optimal for the defense to move in calculated ways so as to force the offense into a more vulnerable position.  this is rarely done with high velocity lunging, as this sort of lunging creates a do or die situation for the defender, which is already high risk/high reward in that they either create a turnover where their velocity often allows them to automatically get ahead of their opponents(reward), or they whiff and create an opening for the offense(risk).  lunging can result in a very good play when done right, however, it accounts for a pretty small minority of the actions generally taken by defenders. 

if you think about it, the vast majority of checks do not come from high velocity lunges.  i would estimate that ~85% of checks in rshl happen from a defender who is moving somewhere between -50% to 50% velocity.  defenders moving in a range between 50-100% velocity account for a very small percentage of total checks - do you approximately agree with these numbers? if not, what would your estimate be?  i think this is an important aspect of this discussion, because if what i am saying is approximately accurate, then we would be punishing the vast majority of defensive play in an attempt to reward a small minority of it (which already has certain rewards in the first place). 

taking it further, even if lunging resulted in a 10% better chance to get a kill, it is still such a sub-optimal style of defense in most situations that it wouldn't have much affect on how people are playing the game.  so using a 90% minimum in this instance does nothing to positively change the style of play in hz - the potential 10% bonus from a high velocity lunge simply doesn't justify a defense increasing their use of a tactic that is otherwise sub-optimal in most situations. 

so this setting would create little-to-no positive benefits as it would have little affect on how people approach the game, yet it has a significant negative impact on gameplay.  the prospect of a dud on 10% of non-lunging defensive plays is enough to scare people into playing a more conservative style of gameplay.  defenses would feel the need to engage more in turtling and crease sitting.  this is detrimental to the gameplay of our zone, and lessens the sense of excitement.  on top of that, you will also have defenders who make really nice plays on the ball (as a result of difficult and well executed positioning and timing as opposed to high velocity lunging) be punished a potential 10% of the time, when in reality landing a check by means of position-based defense is often more difficult and impressive than landing a hard lunge. this causes constant frustration for HZ players. and at any rate, it should not be punished because it is far more often the optimal way to play defense.  not only that, but a lunging player is often already rewarded by connecting a check in that their forward momentum will often create space for them to maintain possession of the ball and potentially get ahead of the opposing teams defense.
Logged

Poseidon

  • The Top Rope
  • Common Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 966
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #77 on: June 29, 2017, 05:42:36 PM »

No. I think this will incentivize more crease sitting. With the increased minimum damage, there is little reason to lunge rather than crease sit as your chances at getting a kill would be the same. I am in favor of tweaking the numbers to change the dud rate, however.


think about it though.. most of the time the reason people crease sit is because they are trying to rely on their prox instead of their ability to check.  it is usually optimal to move your ship at least somewhat to get a check.  the only ship that really benefits much from trying to sit in a still position to make a check is a levi with its double, rapid fire bullet (and even this isnt usually optimal), and levis already barely dud in the first place and even if they do they can shoot another bullet instantly after - so, these duds do pretty much nothing to deter the most likely ship to CR-sit-in-order-to-check, yet while punishing every other ship.

not only that, but attempts to lunge near the crease rarely get the defender to 100% momentum.  they are mostly smaller-length lunges where the ship usually moves somewhere between 0-50% velocity, which in our current settings still means more chance of a dud (as opposed to full velocity).   

really the opposite of what you said is true - crease sitting increases when people fear that the ball carrier wont die even if they connect their check.  they instead rely on their prox instead of a check, and generally the best way to use your prox most safely and effectively is to sit on the crease - particularly if going for a check seems too risky.  however the are many ways to use checking effectively around the crease and many if not most of them in optimal situations do not equate to sitting at a standstill on the crease, unlike putting a reliance on prox.  the idea should be to increase reliance on checking and decrease reliance on proxing at the crease
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 06:02:49 PM by Poseidon »
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Random Damage
« Reply #78 on: June 29, 2017, 05:44:58 PM »

Pose I do not have time to go point by point with these giant posts.

CNM and Blue express valid counterpoints to getting rid of variable damage.

I disagree with your analysis that the incentive is negligible.  Of course lunging is (mostly) sub-optimal defense.  That's why we want to encourage it.  While it is not the play least likely to result in a goal against, it increases the odds of a constructive possession for your team.

Furthermore, VRBL is an very meaningful incentive to lunge against ships that are not (nearly-)guaranteed kills; e.g. terr vs jav, wb/wzl vs spid, etc.

Whether people will react to incentives, and how, is always unclear.  For nearly every change, one person can argue that it will reduce crease sitting, and the next person can argue the opposite.  If you make crease sitting stronger, are you inspiring teams to crease sit more to compensate?  However, one thing is logically certain: if a team is going to load up the crease anyway (as inevitably happens) then reducing cr sit effectiveness is a good thing.
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 #79 on: June 29, 2017, 05:48:01 PM »

goldeye the main point im trying to make is about the incentives.  it seems pretty obvious to me that since lunging is usually sub-optimal, even if it results in a 10% (or only 10% depending on how u look at it) greater chance of making the kill, people are not going to change up their gameplay very much.  thus by having these 10% duds you are punishing the majority of gameplay which is centered around positioning and team movement as opposed to hard lunging.  like i said:

Quote
if you think about it, the vast majority of checks do not come from high velocity lunges.  i would estimate that ~85% of checks in rshl happen from a defender who is moving somewhere between -50% to 50% velocity.
 

currently we punish the vast majority of the gameplay for a small, somewhat negligible (regarding how to approach playstyle) reward.  and the punishment is FAR more detrimental to gameplay than the reward is constructive - this is the heart of the issue and is the main point my giant wall of text is trying to get at



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

Also, i agree with this statement
Quote
VRBL is an very meaningful incentive to lunge against ships that are not (nearly-)guaranteed kills; e.g. terr vs jav, wb/wzl vs spid, etc.

and i am very for keeping this incorporated as long as we can do it while eliminating the types of duds im complaining about
« Last Edit: June 29, 2017, 06:00:40 PM by Poseidon »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
 

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 27 queries.