Author Topic: New efforts!  (Read 7308427 times)

chuckv3

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 362
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22480 on: February 05, 2016, 07:23:23 PM »
The old corporations don't care gets really old to hear.

I completely agree. Of course corporations exist in order to make a profit (DUH). How they do that is produce goods, provide services, or add value to the goods and services of others. That's the supply side. There's some business-to-business transactions in the middle, then YOU AND ME are end of the demand side. Unless we want something from them (and pay for it) the corporations wouldn't have a purpose. If you don't like it, you can drop off the grid, make some candles from beeswax, grow your own food, gets some white pants that are good and tight around the armpits and complain about the government full time. Good luck with all that. Yes there are evil, self-serving pricks who work in (and run) many corporations, but most folks are decent, and that goes for all those who work in corporations. And TANSTAAFL.

ivanhedgehog

  • New Efforts # 25,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22481 on: February 05, 2016, 07:46:07 PM »
I completely agree. Of course corporations exist in order to make a profit (DUH). How they do that is produce goods, provide services, or add value to the goods and services of others. That's the supply side. There's some business-to-business transactions in the middle, then YOU AND ME are end of the demand side. Unless we want something from them (and pay for it) the corporations wouldn't have a purpose. If you don't like it, you can drop off the grid, make some candles from beeswax, grow your own food, gets some white pants that are good and tight around the armpits and complain about the government full time. Good luck with all that. Yes there are evil, self-serving pricks who work in (and run) many corporations, but most folks are decent, and that goes for all those who work in corporations. And TANSTAAFL.

corporations are as good or as bad as their managers. the management sets the morals/standards/rules that they operate by. if they act in an underhanded or illegal way, its because thats what the management wants. or at least some portion of it. Ultimately though, it is the responsibility of the board and the CEO. you cant use a blanket statement for all, any more than you can for any group of individuals. does large sums of money corrupt some people? yes, but only some.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22482 on: February 05, 2016, 08:29:28 PM »
Journalism is a business. they dont owe you anything. when you remember this, it will become much clearer. they are not saint, public servants benefactors or boy scouts. They are employed in the job to make money by providing a service. sometimes they do dangerous things to get the information and bad things happen. sometimes they break the law to get the information and they are not exempt from penalties for doing so. they hype news to get readers and sell advertising. It is not a conspiracy, any more than all those evil car dealers trying to get you to buy more cars. they have zero responsibility to report on things you think you know. they do have liability if they report things they think might be true but arent and defame someone. part of doing business.

Actually, it is not quite as cut and dried as that, at least in the United States.  A news organization is a business, but journalism is a profession, and in the United States journalism occupies a very grey area legally and ethically because the US Constitution explicitly mentions it.  The constitutional right to a free press comes from a presumption that US was founded in large part through an informed populace conducting critical discourse particularly against government authority.  As a result, journalism as a profession has special rights in the US that most other professions do not.  For this reason, there is also a presumption that these legal latitudes be exercised ethically.

I'm not saying journalists are any less corruptible or that news organizations should have any less of a presumption of a profit motive, but in the US journalists are legally seen as in part public servants in general if not in specific.  An individual journalist may not be a public servant, but the profession as a whole is presumed to serve a public interest.

Incidentally, Absence of Malice is one of my favorite movies.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22483 on: February 05, 2016, 08:38:02 PM »
1; true, but it's still necessary, they are handling data transmitting it from one source to another. it's like a bank, say you have some money in your account ($1000) and it made 23.567% interest total over the last 4 years and you had paid no attention to it, so you go to the bank to ask how much money is in your account, the Correct Answer should be "[Title] [name], you have $1235.67 in your account" .

instead what the news is doing is like saying "he doesn't need to know the cents, and heck he probably wont care if we just give a rough ballpark, and we can generalize the name and just say "an account" because our boss doesn't want anyone to know whats in their accounts so he can secretly steal/use it: "an account we are looking at has a decent sum of money". and then not being able to ask further questions or look up the definite answer yourself.

luckily that isn't the case with banks. but it is with the news.

No it is not.  Because when it comes to the news we can in fact generally look up the answers ourselves, if we actually care about the information enough to look.

Also, I'm guessing you don't actually have a savings account that you look at on a regular basis.  If I had a thousand dollars in a savings account and the bank decided to give me two hundred thirty five dollars and sixty seven cents in interest in four years, the bank could give me a rough ball park, print it on toilet paper, keep the sixty seven cents for itself, actually use the toilet paper, and then mail it to me.  In return, I would give them more money.

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,376
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22484 on: February 05, 2016, 08:43:32 PM »
wait, i kinda skimmed over that bit evidently. Joshex's example of an accountable transparent business model is a bank? this is the second time i've had to use this image today


Pyromantic

  • New Efforts # 16,000!
  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22485 on: February 05, 2016, 10:25:21 PM »
Warning: math inbound.  For those of you who don't care about such things, you might want to skip this post.

I was thinking about that problem within the context of the AE.  I did not find a viable way to do that.  In principle though I think it is a potentially good idea, but the question is how to define "diversity" in a mathematically rigorous manner that a game engine could implement.

It is indeed the question, and I've been thinking about it somewhat over the last day.  Specifically, attacking the problem of measuring diversity of damage types in a group of enemies as a place to start, since that is what got me thinking about the larger issue in the first place.  These are initial thoughts and I'm sure implementing it would require testing and adjustments--not to mention a game, I suppose, but it's an interesting mental exercise regardless.  So, imagine we have a group of enemies built by a developer or a player in AE.  To make the issue a little simpler for now, we'll suppose we're only concerned with minions (handling other ranks could come later), and I'll ignore some corner case possibilities such as minions that produce 0 damage.  What do we do next?

Step 1: Find damage vectors for each enemy.
  We'll define a damage vector as a vector with 8 components (one for each main damage type).  It represents the average DPS that the enemy or group of enemies deal for each of the 8 damage types.  So, if a minion deals on average 10 DPS of damage type 1 and 5 DPS of type 6, then the vector is [10,0,0,0,0,5,0,0].  I'm glossing over this part a bit, as I realize coming up with an accurate picture may not be the easiest thing in the world--it depends not only on powers available to the enemy, but also AI factors and so on.  However, I believe this is something that could be dealt with to a sufficient degree of accuracy for the remaining steps.
  These damage vectors can have only nonnegative components.  They follow the expected rules for addition by components and scalar multiplication.  Magnitude is best determined by the Taxicab norm (the sum of the components), as that will produce the total DPS of the enemy irrespective of damage type.

Step 2: Determine diversity of a damage vector.
  Let's first define the function we'll use to determine this.  We'll convert the damage vector D into one that represents the damage by type as a proportion of total DPS, called D', by dividing each component by the magnitude of the vector ||D||.  Note that the sum of the components of this new vector is always 1.  We can take the Euclidean norm of this vector (square root of the sum of the squares) to get its length, but we must note that this tends to give larger lengths the fewer damage types are present, so we'll take the reciprocal.  Due to the structure of the vector used and the number of components, this will produce a number between 1 and 2root2, so we'll take the logarithm base 2root2.  Like so:

  D' = (1/||D||) [d1,...,d8]
  Diversity of D = log2root2 (d'12 + ... + d'82)-0.5

  What this produces is a number between 0 and 1, for which 0 represents no diversity (all damage of one type) and 1 represents perfect diversity (equal damage of each type).  It increases fairly quickly at first by introducing 2nd and 3rd damage types of significant amounts onto the 1st, which I think is what we would like this measure to accomplish.
  Using this function, we could get a sense of the diversity of damage types in a group of enemies by looking at the average of the damage vectors for its members.
  (While we're at it, we may as well note the expected DPS of the average enemy also.  I'll come back to this later.)

Step 3: Account for individual variation.
  One aspect that has been touched on briefly in conversation is that how diversity is distributed among the minions may be relevant.  For example, if you have two minions, one of which deals damage type 1 and the other which deals an equal amount of type 2, then you have the opportunity to focus fire one of the minions down and reduce the remaining damage types to just one.  If however, you face two minions that each deal half damage of type 1 and half of type 2, then you don't have such an opportunity.  However, our measure of diversity above does not account for this difference, since the "average" minion is the same in each case.  Thus, it would be good to measure each minion's contribution to diversity and the benefit to the player of focus firing it down.
  Since our baseline assumption is that a particular spawn consists of three minions, let's start there.  For each minion A that can spawn for the group, we will construct a spawn of minions consisting of A and two others (which may or may not be of the same type).  If there are n members of the group, there are n(n+1)/2 possible such distinct spawns.  We find the total damage vector for the spawn both with and without A.  We can then use the diversity function on each vector and take the difference to find the change in diversity from defeating that minion.  For each minion, take the average of these values across each possible spawn.
  What we get then is a measure for each minion of how much you will reduce (or increase) the damage diversity if you remove it first from a spawn of three.
  (Again, while we're at it, we may as well take the average portion of the spawn's damage the minion represents.)

Step 4: What to do with these numbers?
  We've now collected data on two things: the diversity of the group of enemies in general, and the benefit for each minion type that the player sees in reduced damage, both in terms of total damage and the diversity of that damage.  Deciding how to use this is an open question.  It depends how much you decide they matter.  But as a place to start, you might determine how much damage diversity a "typical" group should have, and apply xp bonuses or penalties when above or below that value.  We also have a way to identify minions that represent greater threats.  If for example a minion represents a greater portion of the damage potential compared to the average and offers a diverse selection of damage types in a group that otherwise consists of very few, that can be accounted for.  It might make sense to combine these measurements with others to determine the "focus fire factor" of minions first though, as we all know damage isn't always the main concern in picking your first target.  *cough* Sappers *cough cough*


This lays some potential groundwork for the theory.  I tried some numbers in a spreadsheet, taking the measures mentioned for a group of 4 minions, and the results were fairly promising.  It produces numbers that intuitively feel to be useful measurements in a relative sense.  There are a fair number of calculations involved, though that is effectively irrelevant as they only have to be done once.

Harpospoke

  • New Efforts # 4,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22486 on: February 06, 2016, 12:08:17 AM »
Dreamed about CoH last night.   Was in the game and talking with someone about missing my old toons and they somehow PL'ed me to 50 so I could get it back.   ...Like instantly.   The fastest PL ever.   Wow...

Been trying to not think about the game but it still pops into my head a lot.   Still hopeful but perhaps less so than last summer.   *sigh*

I understand what you're saying. I just don't like to lose, so to speak. So, the risk, for me, is failure accomplish my goals on the first attempt. That doesn't mean that I won't try , try again. I just don't want to have to try again, if I can help it. Other than that, xp debt, time running back to the mission and all that other stuff isn't all that much of a detriment to me.

When it comes to AVs on the other hand, I'm not as irritated at failing to take them down on the first attempt.
And there is something which can't be measured.

How much does "losing" bother you?    It bothers me quite a bit.   Debt wasn't the reason either because after I'd played a few years I realized debt went away fast.   I just hated being killed.   Even in Hami fights when everyone got mowed down it bugged me.

I played with other players who didn't seem to mind dying at all.   We both might get killed, but it was more "risk" in my mind than theirs because it was more of a penalty in my mind.    So how do you balance a game around that variable?   Wow...

Not to mention that sometimes I wanted more risk so I would play Blasters where I needed to use strategy.   Then the next day I might just want to go in and kill things with little risk so I would play a Scrapper.   So not only is there the problem of various attitudes about losing, there is the problem of individual players in different moods.   "Balance" that!     ;D     Somehow CoH pulled it off with the various AT's and the difficulty slider.

The evil robber barons of the 1800's have given way to a populace in at least the USA who thinks poor means you just have a flip phone, used car and an apartment. In most nations around the world poor means you live in a rural area with no food you don't grow yourself or gather and you burn dung for heat and cooking.
Humans being so adaptable is a good thing but also means we get spoiled really quickly when our lives improve.   My "poor" today is a lifestyle far superior to the richest humans of past centuries.    A time machine would be useful in letting people appreciate the paradise we live in.   The "good old days" wouldn't seem so great then.

Even the truly poor people in developing nations are better off than they were 100 years ago so it's a great time to be alive.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22487 on: February 06, 2016, 12:44:57 AM »
This lays some potential groundwork for the theory.

1.  This will take some time to analyze.

2.  At first glance, it appears to be computationally intensive.  I'm not sure how practical this would be for an actual MMO.  Granted a lot of this can be precomputed, but precomputation would seem to place certain limits on how the system could be used on the fly, like say in user-defined content.

3.  It is most definitely non-intuitive, or to be more precise it doesn't seem to lend itself to intuitive rules of thumb at first glance.  Meaning, it seems difficult to know what to tell a developer to roughly do when creating content to generate roughly certain results.  Without that intuitive gateway to the math, the math can get esoteric.

I'm a big believer in minimizing the math porn in game design.  Perhaps ironically coming from me, I don't believe in pretty but complex equations.  I believe the math that forms the basis of the game should be only as complex as it needs to be, and whatever it is if it makes contact with human beings it has to be explainable to them.  Meaning math that affects decisions players have to make has to be explainable to players.  Math that affects how game content is implemented must be explainable to developers.  Some math is easy to explain and some is not: in particular math that has a physical analog tends to be the best math to use, whenever possible.  My instinct is to say whatever the math above does, there should be a simpler way to achieve the same goal.  That doesn't mean there is such a way, only that I would probably try real hard to find it before giving up.

As an illustrative tangent, the math for CoH resistance is, in my opinion, non-intuitive.  When we build up resistance in a build, we build linearly.  In other words, we add to R, pushing that slider upward from zero to (if not reaching) 100.  As we do, our survivability increases as 1/(1-R).  Basically, hyperbolic to the linear inverse of R.  Err... there's no real intuitive notion for that for a non-mathematician, except for the whole "it stacks increasingly strong."  If resistance was implemented the way duration resistance worked in CoH, or the way damage resistance works on other games (notably Champions Online) where damage taken decreases as 1/R, then the survivability increase as R increases would be ... R.  Or actually, 1+R.  Basically, if you increase R from zero to 0.5, your survivability would increase from 1.0x to 1.5x its original.

You can do better as a game designer.  Why screw with the whole "one plus" thing.  Why not design your game so that base damage resistance for everyone was 1.0, or 100.  We'd throw out the fake percentages that aren't percentages and call this damage resistance rating and it would start at 100.  When you turned on a power that offered +50 resistance, your damage resistance rating would increase to 150.  What does that mean to the player?  It means they are 150% more survivable.  Period.  Arcanaville game documentation would not only be a lot more accurate, it would also be a whole lot shorter.  When your build has 950 smashing resistance rating, everyone knows what that means relative to the player who only has 450.**

That doesn't mean there's no place for complex math.  Where I believe you deploy complex math is by making the precise way your mechanics works sufficiently non-linear or discrete that there exists no closed form computation for them, giving the min/maxers something to chew on.  Classic canonical example from City of Heroes: the SR scaling resistances.  These are very easy to explain what they do: as your health drops from 60% to zero, each resistance power increases its resistance from zero to 20% in linear fashion.  Describing what they do takes virtually no math at all.  Giving players an intuitive grasp of how they might affect their survivability moment by moment is also not all that difficult.  But describing how they affect survivability in exact quantitative terms is actually a virtually unsolvable problem.  Are they worth more or less than a single power offering 15% resistance constantly?  The answer is: it depends.

The numbers should be easy for players to understand, because they have to make decisions based on those numbers.  The game should offer fair decisions for them to make.  But if you want to try to calculate your way to victory?  I have no problem making that problem as intractable as I can make it.


** Debuffs can become complicated in this system, which is why I wouldn't use it as-is, I would use a modified version of it that was a little more complex.  But for these purposes, its a good enough example.

darkgob

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22488 on: February 06, 2016, 01:00:38 AM »
Right now, as [former :(] CoH players discuss the underlying math in the game, Jack is somewhere gritting his teeth and foaming at the mouth and he has no idea why.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22489 on: February 06, 2016, 01:05:13 AM »
Humans being so adaptable is a good thing but also means we get spoiled really quickly when our lives improve.   My "poor" today is a lifestyle far superior to the richest humans of past centuries.    A time machine would be useful in letting people appreciate the paradise we live in.   The "good old days" wouldn't seem so great then.

It depends on how you judge.  If you live in the western world, you probably have access to technology far superior to the total under command of the most powerful Egyptian pharaoh.  On the other hand, neither you nor the richest ten thousand people you know are going to be able to order a six million ton pyramid from Amazon.  We judge based on a modern perspective of what is necessary and important when that isn't always a fair comparison.  We can order a pizza by pushing a button.  But we cannot create immortal launchpads to eternity for our spirits to use to achieve godhood.  By that standard, ancient pharaohs might think our entire civilization was pretty poor.

There was a time when we thought early hunter-gatherers spent most of their time "working."  We thought of and described their lives as "nasty, brutal and short."  However, modern research now suggests that hunter-gatherers spent less time on work than modern people do: averaging less than 30 hours a week on such tasks.  What's more, those people would not necessarily even consider most of that time spent on "work" as we think of it.  Children are taught at very early ages "hunting games" and "crafting games" and when they become adults actual hunting and actual crafting become extensions of those activities.  It is as if an entire generation of children who grew up playing World of Warcraft became adults who played WoW as their professional careers.  If we're talking about "lifestyle" then a life spent playing - as *they* saw it - ain't all that bad when you think about it.  That's what they were taught, that's all they knew, and they were mostly happy to do it.

However, if we do decide to judge based on modern, western notions of lifestyle, then yes, things are better now than they have been, and have been trending better overall.

darkgob

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22490 on: February 06, 2016, 01:18:41 AM »
It is as if an entire generation of children who grew up playing World of Warcraft became adults who played WoW as their professional careers.

That's ridiculous, how could such a thing ever happen.

LaughingAlex

  • Giggling like an
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,019
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22491 on: February 06, 2016, 01:27:32 AM »
Or children growing up today expecting games to let them win automatically with no difficulty because people forgot what makes harder games fun :).  While also designing difficulty settings bethesda style and then wondering why even people who are quick to learn and everything steer clear yet go back to classics with higher difficulties and harder but fun :).
Currently; Not doing any streaming, found myself with less time available recently.  Still playing starbound periodically, though I am thinking of trying other games.  Don't tell me to play mmohtg's though please :).  Getting back into participating in VO and the successors again to.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22492 on: February 06, 2016, 01:37:52 AM »
Right now, as [former :(] CoH players discuss the underlying math in the game, Jack is somewhere gritting his teeth and foaming at the mouth and he has no idea why.

If we're being honest with ourselves, criticizing Jack's math skills is like criticizing Stan Lee's punctuation skills.  Jack's making a living creating MMOs and has successfully launched four, three of which are still running.  I don't know about you, but that's four more than me.

Yes, he doesn't seem to have the analytical math skills God granted the turnip, but technically it should really be the developers who work for/around him that pick up that slack.  And I'm pretty sure he's sitting in his chair smiling that Captain Kirk smile to himself thinking that he actually gets paid to do this.

darkgob

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22493 on: February 06, 2016, 01:48:58 AM »
Or children growing up today expecting games to let them win automatically with no difficulty because people forgot what makes harder games fun :).  While also designing difficulty settings bethesda style and then wondering why even people who are quick to learn and everything steer clear yet go back to classics with higher difficulties and harder but fun :).

Honestly I would not look back to very many old hard games and call them fun.  Generally speaking, the reason they were hard is because either 1) they were arcade ports and thus designed to bilk you of quarters/continues or 2) they were designed by programmers who didn't really know what they were doing (to be fair, no one had really done this stuff before).  An excellent example is the oft(and justly)-maligned Silver Surfer for NES, a game that could have been fun were it not for the ridiculous unfairness (no continues, parts of the level background that can kill you upon touch despite looking completely innocuous).  Hard does not automatically equal fun (that's what she said).

As for games today granting "automatic wins", please allow me this rare occasion to quote Ronald Reagan (something that I don't do often) -- "there you go again".  Which games are these that let the player win "automatically"?  Ever play Spelunky?

If we're being honest with ourselves, criticizing Jack's math skills

Whoa, stop here please, I wasn't criticizing Jack's math skills.  I was making fun of his weird crusade against Real Numbers that made power choices back in the day little more than an inscrutable guessing game.  Quite a few pages back we had a discussion about advancements to CoH since launch, and I think Real Numbers might have been either missed or glossed over, which is unfortunate because it really changed the game for the better.

Also:

is like criticizing Stan Lee's punctuation skills.  Jack's making a living creating MMOs and has successfully launched four, three of which are still running.  I don't know about you, but that's four more than me.

Appeal to authority?  Give me a break, you're better than this.

Yes, he doesn't seem to have the analytical math skills God granted the turnip, but technically it should really be the developers who work for/around him that pick up that slack.

This is true, which is why Jack himself shouldn't be directly criticized for the zanier math errors that made their way into the game.  Although, when your philosophy is "the players shouldn't know any of the underlying numbers", maybe you're encouraging a math-negative atmosphere to begin with.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22494 on: February 06, 2016, 03:10:33 AM »
Appeal to authority?  Give me a break, you're better than this.

What appeal to authority did I make?  I never said anything Jack did was right.  What I implied was that there's no possible way Jack could care about any of our criticism.  I understand it was a joke, but the context of the joke was that Jack would be instinctively cringing at criticism he couldn't actually hear.  But if you were Jack, why would you care about any criticism targeted at your apparent lack of a technical skill that by any objective measure wasn't impairing your professional success?  That's why I compared to criticizing Stan Lee's grammatical skills.  Stan Lee doesn't have the final say on English grammar.  The point is that it doesn't matter if his grammar is right or wrong.  Similarly, even if Jack didn't know how to add, the objective evidence is that it hasn't hampered his ability to make video games very much.

The proof that Jack is doing something right is not anything Jack says as a game design authority, it is his actual success at launching actual MMOs.  Look around at the MMO landscape.  How many were launched by the exact same guy?  Sure, we can criticize the games themselves, but launching four separate MMOs is in and of itself an unusual achievement in the industry.

I say "launching" because actually making it to the point where actual people are actually playing the game, and for more than a few minutes before throwing the box away, is not easy.  Not every MMO makes it that far.  That is a specific achievement.  But I don't think Cryptic has the same successful track record in supporting MMOs.  I think the skills required to launch are different than the skills required to support long-term evolution.  Paragon, which is granted a Cryptic spinoff of sorts, in my opinion did a far better job at long-term support of CoH than Cryptic has shown the capability of doing for any of the other three MMOs they have launched.

In any case, the appeal to authority fallacy involves granting someone the final say in a logical argument based on the presumption that their opinion should always be presumed to be accurate.  Nowhere did I make that claim.  Acknowledging someone's resume, or the basis of their credibility, is not an appeal to authority fallacy.

darkgob

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22495 on: February 06, 2016, 03:23:15 AM »
What appeal to authority did I make?  I never said anything Jack did was right.  What I implied was that there's no possible way Jack could care about any of our criticism.  I understand it was a joke, but the context of the joke was that Jack would be instinctively cringing at criticism he couldn't actually hear.  But if you were Jack, why would you care about any criticism targeted at your apparent lack of a technical skill that by any objective measure wasn't impairing your professional success?

Uh yeah, I think most people probably would.  In fact, I would be surprised if that never happened once on the game forums back in the before times, in the long long ago.

Anyway, that's not what I was saying in the first place, so at this point you're just comparing apples and some fruit no one's ever heard of.

Pyromantic

  • New Efforts # 16,000!
  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22496 on: February 06, 2016, 05:25:13 AM »
I appreciate your thoughts Arcana, and have some comments and further thoughts of my own.  As I said, that was a first effort, and there were aspects of it I'm not satisfied with for sure.

The numbers should be easy for players to understand, because they have to make decisions based on those numbers.  The game should offer fair decisions for them to make.  But if you want to try to calculate your way to victory?  I have no problem making that problem as intractable as I can make it.

I do wonder how much we are talking about such a situation.  Let's presume for a moment that we are ignoring this issue from the Dev side; they have the option to utilize such a system or ignore it as they choose, and can (and should) use judgment in determining fair rewards for an enemy group.  This is primarily aimed at AE, in which case I think we are indeed trying to make it difficult to calculate your way to victory.  One of my intents here is to make the measure of diversity as "accurate" as possible (admittedly according to subjective criteria) in order to prevent gaming the system to unfair advantage, though I'm certainly not claiming to have an ideal solution for that.  I'm also a believer in making most of the game's math up-front and intuitive, but in a case like this I don't have a problem with keeping much of the math under the hood as long as the net effects are made clear to the AE designer.  With that in mind, I have a modified proposal that reflects what I'm thinking right now.

Firstly, let's simplify the diversity formula to simply take the Euclidean norm of the proportional damage vector.  Rather than using further functions to adjust it into a scale from 0 to 1, let's assign intervals with appropriate guidelines.  Note that these are rough estimates from some initial crunching.  Would need to establish guidelines, compare to existing groups, and so on.  Also note that the range of this function is 1/2root2 (about 0.3535) to 1.

  • [0.3535,0.41) - Very high diversity.  Roughly equal mix of 6 or more damage types.
  • [0.41,0.46) - High diversity.  4 or 5 primary damage types, or 3 primary types and multiple secondary types.
  • [0.46,0.55) - Moderate diversity.  3 primary damage types, or 2 primary damage types and multiple secondary types.
  • [0.55,0.75) - Low diversity.  2 primary damage types, 1 primary damage type and multiple secondary types.
  • [0.75,1] - Minimal diversity.  All or most damage of one type only.

In order to assign values to an enemy group, we can do two things.  Firstly, as suggested before we find the "average" minion by averaging the damage vectors, calculate the diversity, and initially assign that category to the group.

But, another way to account for individual enemies occurred to me.  If we determine the damage diversity of each minion individually, and take the average* of those values, it can be compared to the group diversity.  If we see the average is significantly less diverse than the group, then we know it is because the individual minions tend to deal different damage types, allowing the player to diminish the diversity substantially by defeating an enemy, and we can adjust accordingly.  For example, if individual diversity is two categories or more less than the group's, compensate the diversity down one category.  As compared to the previous suggestion, this is computationally significantly easier, without the need to compare across each possible spawn of three minions, and with fewer things needing to be updated with each modification.

What to do with this determination is again another subject.  However, if we had a similar measure in some basic categories (damage, mitigation, utility for example), then an adjustment to the rewards up or down might be appropriate.

*I say average, though it is not immediately obvious that the arithmetic mean would be the way to go here.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22497 on: February 06, 2016, 05:32:05 AM »
Uh yeah, I think most people probably would.  In fact, I would be surprised if that never happened once on the game forums back in the before times, in the long long ago.

Anyway, that's not what I was saying in the first place, so at this point you're just comparing apples and some fruit no one's ever heard of.

Since I'm quoting you explicitly, that's an interesting comment.  Referring to your statement about Real Numbers: a couple problems with that: one: Jack didn't have a problem with players discussing the math of the game per se, at least as far as I'm aware of.  His problem was that often he himself seemed to mischaracterize those discussions, which is explicitly why I referred to his math skills in direct connection to any discussion of the math of the game (anyone reading anything I've written for the past ten years will be quite familiar with that particular fruit).  Two: Jack didn't specifically oppose the Real Numbers system.  Jack was long gone from the City of Heroes landscape by then.  Jack was realistically speaking mostly gone from the City landscape by I4, except for the circa I6 Prima Guide which I know he had some involvement with.

Jack's position, at least as I understood it, was not that the players shouldn't have the numbers, it was that he felt players often got too hung up on the numbers, and often in ways that were unhelpful.  And in fact for beginning players knowing the numbers and the math was in fact of dubious value.  Jack wanted players' first encounter with the game to be "should I take fire blast or assault rifle" and not "does katana have higher DPS than broadsword."  That's why he was skeptical about making the numbers too readily accessible within the game.  But I don't think Jack was opposed to players discovering the numbers after significant play.

And I don't think Jack thought developers shouldn't know the numbers.  I think, and this is an opinion, that he felt the numbers themselves didn't tell the whole story and so they shouldn't be trusted.  And if you aren't comfortable with numerical analysis, it isn't and they shouldn't.  What the numbers tell me is that the AV regeneration buff made them unkillable, and thus a mistake.  The numbers *didn't* tell the devs that, so obviously for them the numbers were not telling the whole story.  Whatever the numbers were telling the devs, it was obviously wrong.

Was there ever a time on the forums where Jack reacted negatively to people questioning his development skills?  Actually, not really: at least not in any major way I could tell.  In fact, when he made what I felt were some pretty critical errors and was called out on them (Defiance 1.0 comes to my mind in particular) he didn't seem to acknowledge that was happening at all.  At least not publicly.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22498 on: February 06, 2016, 05:41:03 AM »
I do wonder how much we are talking about such a situation.

As I said, that was an illustrative tangent.  I mentioned I don't know if we're in that situation here or not, I just have a visceral hunch it is worth checking to see if we are.

Quote
But, another way to account for individual enemies occurred to me.  If we determine the damage diversity of each minion individually, and take the average* of those values, it can be compared to the group diversity.  If we see the average is significantly less diverse than the group, then we know it is because the individual minions tend to deal different damage types, allowing the player to diminish the diversity substantially by defeating an enemy, and we can adjust accordingly.

Hmm, I think you mean calculate the diversity of the minion average, not take the average of minion diversity.  If we calculate the average minion damage vector and compare its diversity to a particular minion we could see if the group was composed of different vectors or not that averaged out.  But if we average the diversity of the minions itself, we are averaging scalars: we lose the damage typing.  In other words, a group with all minions doing nothing but smashing damage has the same average diversity as a group with eight different minions, each doing just one type of damage, because each of those minions has the same diversity: all one type. 

I have a separate question.  You seem to be taking it as an axiom that if you have two minions, one that does all smashing and one that does all lethal, that group is in some ways weaker than one that has all minions doing an equal amount of smash/lethal.  I have a hunch that is true myself in at least some cases.  But do you have a way to demonstrate that?  I'm not 100% convinced that those two situations are distinguishable in a way I would *want* to distinguish.

LaughingAlex

  • Giggling like an
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,019
Re: New efforts!
« Reply #22499 on: February 06, 2016, 06:55:40 AM »
Honestly I would not look back to very many old hard games and call them fun.  Generally speaking, the reason they were hard is because either 1) they were arcade ports and thus designed to bilk you of quarters/continues or 2) they were designed by programmers who didn't really know what they were doing (to be fair, no one had really done this stuff before).  An excellent example is the oft(and justly)-maligned Silver Surfer for NES, a game that could have been fun were it not for the ridiculous unfairness (no continues, parts of the level background that can kill you upon touch despite looking completely innocuous).  Hard does not automatically equal fun (that's what she said).

As for games today granting "automatic wins", please allow me this rare occasion to quote Ronald Reagan (something that I don't do often) -- "there you go again".  Which games are these that let the player win "automatically"?  Ever play Spelunky?

I find it hard to believe you didn't catch my sarcasm.  To be fair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6UuRTjkKs

Maybe I shared it earlier.  Go figure, when it comes to "automatic" wins though, I refer to things like many modern shooters or games where the "normal" difficulty is perhaps a little to easy.
Currently; Not doing any streaming, found myself with less time available recently.  Still playing starbound periodically, though I am thinking of trying other games.  Don't tell me to play mmohtg's though please :).  Getting back into participating in VO and the successors again to.