[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arcana, if I am reading between your lines correctly are you saying that much of the game engine is/was designed primarily by trial and error and not by creating/using a mathematical model to represent some particular plan or behavior?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a game where, (I hear- wasn't there), Tanks started out able to reach 100% damage resistance and they didn't realize it would be a problem.
Math came to this game somewhat late.
[/ QUOTE ]
This would be just one among many w-t-f moments in the game design and power balancing efforts. But that wasn't because Invuln's numbers were set randomly: more critically they were set according to a system that judged the raw numbers, and not the survivability those numbers represented.
This is evident from remembering descriptions of the situation when scrappers were set to "75%" of tankers, by instituting the 0.075 AT modifier for scrappers, essentially making scrapper invuln 0.75 times tanker invuln. This was described as making scrappers "75% as strong as tankers." This is a mathematical distortion that is impossible to overstate. And my guess is that it comes down to Geko being good with numbers, but not good with math. This cropped up again in discussions about Kheldians, and Kheldian health: the effects of +health get radically misstated by the devs there.
I think an underappreciated fact is that the devs don't ignore math when they design things, but they often misapply it. This is important, because many players think math "doesn't tell you the whole story." Those people would be surprised, I think, to learn just how the game *is* designed and balanced by the devs. Its not balanced by "feel" its balanced by numbers: but not in a consistently logical way.
Consider: in I6, thunder kick was lowered from 2.78 BI to 2.33 BI. Was this because it "felt" too powerful? Was this because the set was datamined to be too damaging? No. It was set to 2.33 BI because thats what their attack formula said it was supposed to be, given its recharge and all this time it was set wrong. That's it. The change was made to adhere to a mathematical rule, period.
I keep this, and many other things, in mind whenever someone basically tells me "math's great, but math isn't the final answer." How little they know how often math is in fact the final answer. Just not always in a good way. The problem isn't that the devs don't listen to math, its that they only listen to their math, most of the time. The challenge to me, and others with similar goals, is to make my math as compatible with their math as possible, because they aren't taking a bunch of math classes to hop the fence over to me.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Even in EQ, roles shifted as new abilities and gear were released with new expansions. On my server, Firiona Vie the "roleplay server", we were only allowed one character (unlike the normal eight); in my time playing the game as a Druid, I found at one moment I was sought after for travel powers, and then later on, not at all. Like Wizards, I could solo easily, even engaging in the much-maligned "quad-kiting" and later, the much, much more dangerous "charm-kiting" (which Wizards couldn't do, but Enchanters could). On paper, Druids weren't "the best" at anything--third-tier direct damage, second-tier healing, third-tier (at best) buffing. However, the unique combination of abilities--none of which were first-tier--allowed them to solo things in the highest ranges that others would get instantly slaughtered by. I bring this up because the math there didn't tell the entire story.
[/ QUOTE ]
This brings up a good point: Math is great for creating and maintaining balance in a static atmosphere. I get to hear about the shortcomings of our mathematic models pretty much daily from various sources, much of which I agree with. A solid mathematical base should be the basis of every game system (regrettably, it's rare that a developer actually has the amount of time they really need to create an elegant system.)
The problems with mathematic models, though, is that they rarely take into consideration a number of variables that are very ephemeral and difficult to quantify. The aforementioned "quad-kiting" and "charm-kiting" are great examples -- both are player behaviors that were never accounted for in any of the math models used to create the game. All it takes is one aberrant behavior to throw a seemingly well-balanced system out of whack. For our game, adding in external effects like Temp Powers and Inspirations tremendously increases the complexity.
Among other reasons, that is why we tend to look at things on a macro level, and even then deciding how, when, and how much to adjust things is difficult. It allows us to see whether or not how players are using the characters makes them 'balanced' or not. Obviously, there are problems with that practice, and I am constantly working at improving how we look at powers and powersets. A large part of that process is talking to you folks to see how you are looking at things.
And with that, back to the discussion!
edit: touched up a bit of grammar
Woo hoo! Castle actually read something I wrote!
And I'm the first to post after it!
On my birthday!
<does the Cabbage Patch>
40062: The World's Worst PUG
84008: Jenkins's Guide to Super-Villainy
230187: The Hero of Kings Row
No H8 - 08.04.10
@Circuit Boy - Moderator - Pride global chat channel
[ QUOTE ]
The problems with mathematic models, though, is that they rarely take into consideration a number of variables that are very ephemeral and difficult to quantify. The aforementioned "quad-kiting" and "charm-kiting" are great examples -- both are player behaviors that were never accounted for in any of the math models used to create the game. All it takes is one aberrant behavior to throw a seemingly well-balanced system out of whack. For our game, adding in external effects like Temp Powers and Inspirations and things really jump in complexity.
[/ QUOTE ]
This brings up a philosophical question: should power sets be balanced around what they *can* do, or what the players *make* them do. If no one takes RPD, does that mean Invuln is weaker than it should be? If Invuln is boosted because of that, and *then* players start taking RPD above the boost, is Invuln *now* too strong, and has to be nerfed?
Do you balance sets factoring *in* player skill, or factoring *out* player skill? In my opinion, you balance factoring *out* player behavior in general, and change things only when by some freak occurance you design a set that has such a skill-significant issue, that skill doesn't become a reasonable reward unto itself (you do better because you are better), but becomes out of whack to skill level (learn one little thing, and suddenly you're twenty times better).
Otherwise, you're actually saying, in essence, the better you (the players) play your sets, the worse we're going to make them. We're penalizing good play. Contrawise, suck, and we'll boost to compensate. I'm sure there's an argument to be made that fundamentally, this is a good idea, but there isn't enough alcohol in the universe to convince me of that.
Now, I'm not an EQ player, but what I can say is that its not true that "math there didn't tell the entire story." Whatever you can do with weird kiting strategies is no more than the maximum you are calculated as being able to do. *Most* people do *less*, but no amount of kiting can allow you to do more. Which, if you balance around the philosophy of balancing around potential, and not actual performance, is not a problem.
That might mean the kiting itself is a problem, but that is exactly what datamining is good at: finding trends in player behavior. It says nothing, though, about what you should do about it, or even *if* you should do anything about it. And when player behavior allows a group to gain better leverage over the game environment than another, and its inextricable from the game, then it just becomes another factor in the mathematical balancing models.
If, hypothetically, I had a power that was designed in a weird way that allowed anyone with it to kite a group of critters in a way that prevented them from ever shooting back, ever, then in fact the damage mitigation potential of that power is 100%. Mathematical models can handle that. If it requires tremendous skill to pull off consistently, that power's effective damage mitigation potential can be said to be some fraction of 100%, based on average player skill. Mathematical models can handle that also. If the difference between the best players and the worst players is too high given the constraints of the game, such that no ratio properly represents the average effect of that power very well, then the mathematical models are screaming that that power shouldn't even be in the game at all. But in no case is that power beyond the ability for a mathematical balancing model to handle.
On the subject of time: we both know why there's often not enough time to construct good mathematical balancing models: its because mathematical skill isn't highly valued in the game design industry, and mathematical work isn't highly valued in game implementation projects.
On the subject of being berated about mathematical models, tell Weirdbeard I said hi.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Among other reasons, that is why we tend to look at things on a macro level, and even then deciding how, when, and how much to adjust things is difficult. It allows us to see whether or not how players are using the characters makes them 'balanced' or not. Obviously, there are problems with that practice, and I am constantly working at improving how we look at powers and powersets. A large part of that process is talking to you folks to see how you are looking at things.
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that this practice doesn't allow you to capture things that are 'unfair' but not necessarily 'imbalanced'.
For example, Consume from the Fire Aura set versus Energy Absorbtion, Energy Drain and Power Sink. All those powers are significantly stronger than Consume despite being in melee armor sets. None of them besides Energy Absorbtion should have a really significant impact on survivability. Those are utility abilities. But then it's simply unfair to leave Fire Aura with an inadequate drain for no reason other than Fire Aura users seem to do OK without it.
I got the same beef with how Regen is designed and how it was changed. Regen used to be a set that was principally toggle based in its protection and then it was changed to be primarily click based. No one doubts that it's still an extremely powerful defensive set, but it appear that Regen got a big 'Screw You' you're still uber from the devs. Players who enjoyed how their set played are told to shut up since you're still good with no redress except alts.
As for Blasters and Defiance, again, Blasters might be 'fine' on a macro level, but that still doesn't mean that Defiance is a fun mechanic. I certainly believe Arcana's conclusions, but that still doesn't mean that it's fair or fun for Blaster to have an inherent that unusable if you know how to play.
I originally created my Ice/Energy because I believed that the controls and single target focus would provide a strong amount of soft protection. I was right. I rarely see much effect from Defiance.
I think Arcanaville depends on her math too much, and I think you guys depend on your math too much. But at least her math is fair. That's what I think it missing all too often from the balancing changes.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
Woo hoo! Castle actually read something I wrote!
And I'm the first to post after it!
On my birthday!
<does the Cabbage Patch>
[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly the most joy I've ever seen in a thread I've started.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm not an EQ player, but what I can say is that its not true that "math there didn't tell the entire story." Whatever you can do with weird kiting strategies is no more than the maximum you are calculated as being able to do. *Most* people do *less*, but no amount of kiting can allow you to do more. Which, if you balance around the philosophy of balancing around potential, and not actual performance, is not a problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is where math fails you Arcana. Kiting as druids did(do) it in EQ is not something that simply looking at the druid class you could determine by plugging it into a formula. It's not. Kiting relied on the interaction of various powers and how certain mobs were designed and how certain zones were designed. It's probably possible to design such a model, but I really don't think it's as easy as you state it is.
It also relied on the behavior and skill of players. Players would quad kite instead of playing the game as designed. They would find the best place to do so and then do that to level. Kiting as it was done simply wasn't possible everywhere you did it.
So you tell me, how do you account for that? How do you account for a situation where a number of variables, none of which are problematic in isolation, combine to create a problematic situation?
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
This is where math fails you Arcana. Kiting as druids did(do) it in EQ is not something that simply looking at the druid class you could determine by plugging it into a formula.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it did. What I said was that no matter what it did, it couldn't have allowed you to do more than what your powers theoretically allow you to do. The whole point to balancing around potential instead of actual performance is that I really don't care if the design happens to create an unforseen and unpredictable circumstance like that described, because if the unforseen circumstance is tolerable, the sets don't need to change, and if its intolerable, the circumstance gets eliminated. But in no case is it "balanced" around: that's the whole point.
There's no way to look at a bunch of numbers and equations and predict, lets say, superjump jousting in PvP. But it *is* eminantly predictable that regeneration scrappers and stalkers would try hard to create a jousting strategy, because the mechanics of regeneration so highly favor it. That might have been useful information to a game designer, if there was someone around willing and able to tell them that, and they were willing to listen.
There are limits to what the mathematical models can do. But I don't think most people are informed about what those limits are. They presume there is a limit, and assume its somewhere near what they themselves believe they are capable of. Its actually probably several orders of magnitude higher than you are estimating.
To the extent that mathematical models might fail to take certain things into account, in this particular game those things aren't balanced anyway. I cannot think of one thing *actually* balanced in this game, that could not have been with reasonable mathematical design.
[ QUOTE ]
So you tell me, how do you account for that? How do you account for a situation where a number of variables, none of which are problematic in isolation, combine to create a problematic situation?
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly as I previously described.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
EvilGeko:
I can't help but think quad-kiting was intended. After all, they gave both Wizards and Druids a power that snared four things at once, along with AOEs that nailed four things at once. I know a lot of people objected at the time, but I think it was "working as intended". It was disruptive, which was the source of a lot of complaints.
I think charm-kiting, as Druids and Enchanters did it, was an innovation. I don't think the developers had anticipated it. Still, it was so ridiculously dangerous (especially for Enchanters) that I suspect EQ's developers decided it wasn't a game-breaker. Nonetheless, they made plenty of foes 100% resistant to charm afterwards.
40062: The World's Worst PUG
84008: Jenkins's Guide to Super-Villainy
230187: The Hero of Kings Row
No H8 - 08.04.10
@Circuit Boy - Moderator - Pride global chat channel
Does anyone else see the irony of what is going on in the game mechanics and the introduction of purple kryptonite and what it did to Superman?
Seems we are getting our version of purple kryptonite as the method of balancing.
[ QUOTE ]
Among other reasons, that is why we tend to look at things on a macro level, and even then deciding how, when, and how much to adjust things is difficult. It allows us to see whether or not how players are using the characters makes them 'balanced' or not. Obviously, there are problems with that practice, and I am constantly working at improving how we look at powers and powersets. A large part of that process is talking to you folks to see how you are looking at things.
And with that, back to the discussion!
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's how I'm looking at it: Defiance (by any name) was a bad idea for the Blaster Inherent. It is counter-intuitive. It is counter-productive. It is not thematically appropriate for Blasters. I do not want it.
To elaborate: Giving us an inherent that is linked to our Health, that fluctuates inversely with said Health, that maximizes only when we're a breath away from dead....was a bad idea. I'm sure it sounded good to *someone* once upon a time, and was thematically appropriate for Tankers (who came up with the idea in the first place), but this idea of "the closer I am to dead, the more damage I do" is neither thematically appropriate for Blasters, nor wanted by many of the Blaster community (who have vocally said so many times).
The first inkling we had that this was going to be foisted upon us was when someone heard Statesman talking about it at a convention, and relayed that news to use here on the forums. "Desperation" was coming our way, and many of us immediately realized that this was a BAD idea. We voiced that. We also pointed out that the name was less than ideal. Unfortunately, the only response was that the name was changed. So instead of a badly named, ill-conceived inherent, we got an inherent that was merely ill-concieved. How Statesman or anyone else could have imagined that this would be "a good thing" for Blasters, I cannot understand. Had anyone bothered to ask us, before commiting to this path, I'm sure we would have been glad to point out the flaws in this bad idea.
I don't want an inherent that requires me to pay for it with my Health.
I don't want a damage/accuracy boost that is dependent upon me being at a particular state of Health.
I *especially* don't want a damage/accuracy boost that is dependent upon me being in a state of lowered Health.
The benefit (increased damage/accuracy) is fine. That's something we need/want *all the time*. The conditions under which that benefit is rewarded (being in a state of lowered Health), however, is a state that any intelligent player is going to actively work to avoid. Thus, we're actively working to avoid our own Inherent. Furthermore, I believe that putting yourself closer to defeat, in order to receive a bonus, will wind up getting you killed more often than helping you win. Hence, I feel it is counter-intuitive and counter-productive.
And, as long as we have this Inherent, we won't be getting anything else as an Inherent (I don't see them giving us two Inherents anytime soon), so it does take away something from us: the potential of ever getting a good Inherent.
Please ditch this bad idea and give us something else. I would prefer a straight buff to our damage, but barring that, I'd like to see our "Damage Resistance Bypass" perk from PvP brought over into the PvE side of things, and have that be our Inherent. If Defiance-for-Blasters must exist somewhere, then let it exist only in the PvP zones, since I'm told that it is of use there, and many PvP'ers would miss it were it gone.
But for the love of all, please get rid of Defiance in PvE zones and give us something useful instead.
As always, this is just my opinion, and I acknowledge that not all may share it.
Thanks for reading, Castle. I have high hopes that you can make positive changes for Blasters.
Lightning Rod
<Guardians>
"I am certain that all CoX will be humbled by the might of the Lightning Rod." -Lady_Sadako
[ QUOTE ]
This is a game where, (I hear- wasn't there), Tanks started out able to reach 100% damage resistance and they didn't realize it would be a problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. I was around for that. It was indeed the case.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
There's no way to look at a bunch of numbers and equations and predict, lets say, superjump jousting in PvP. But it *is* eminantly predictable that regeneration scrappers and stalkers would try hard to create a jousting strategy, because the mechanics of regeneration so highly favor it. That might have been useful information to a game designer, if there was someone around willing and able to tell them that, and they were willing to listen.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can buy that.
[ QUOTE ]
There are limits to what the mathematical models can do. But I don't think most people are informed about what those limits are. They presume there is a limit, and assume its somewhere near what they themselves believe they are capable of. Its actually probably several orders of magnitude higher than you are estimating.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually believe that mathematical models are capable of mostly balancing a game like this (except for the 'fairness' situations I describe above), but I've played enough of these games to know that there are some strategies that people come up with that are so specific and that depend on so many interdependent factors that I simply don't believe you can ever just use the math. I think there's a level of creativity and ingenuity inherent in this stuff that cannot be captured except by the most complex of systems.
[ QUOTE ]
To the extent that mathematical models might fail to take certain things into account, in this particular game those things aren't balanced anyway. I cannot think of one thing *actually* balanced in this game, that could not have been with reasonable mathematical design.
[/ QUOTE ]
My comments specifically related to EQ which in many ways was more complex than CoX.
[ QUOTE ]
The whole point to balancing around potential instead of actual performance is that I really don't care if the design happens to create an unforseen and unpredictable circumstance like that described, because if the unforseen circumstance is tolerable, the sets don't need to change, and if its intolerable, the circumstance gets eliminated. But in no case is it "balanced" around: that's the whole point.
[/ QUOTE ]
So how do you 'eliminate the circumstance'? I don't see how that's materially different that 'balancing'.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem anyone?
Just Lucky that way...
Consider herding. Herding was possible to the extent that it was because:
a) You could aggro an unlimited number of foes
b) You could hit any number of in-range foes with an AoE
c) Foes had no collision bounding, meaning a limitless number of them could be fit into a given area
Now, realistically, the devs not only should have seen that coming, I think they did see it happening in Beta.
Regardless, it seems likely that the ability could have been nipped in the bud by someone looking at any one of the above lettered items and saying "that's a potential for players to do more at once than we want." Of those, the most effective at "hard limiting" the behavior is the cap on AoE targets. I really loved that there was no such cap, because it was more realistic, but if they'd gone in with a cap on it, herding would never have reached the heights it did.
I think that's an example of balancing around potential. By setting bounds on what's maximally achievable you limit your chances that players will exceed that level of performance.
It's always possible to forget to bound something, but if you stick to bounding the fundamental attributes, you know that you've at least cut down on a huge set of possible combinations players might try.
When CoH first came out, there weren't many limits that mattered. 
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
So how do you 'eliminate the circumstance'? I don't see how that's materially different that 'balancing'.
[/ QUOTE ]
You need to separate balancing powers and effects, and balancing tactical mechanics. When the devs decided that travel power jousting was allowing things like blasters to fight with a lot more safety than they desired, did they:
a) Give all blasters a resistance debuff to make them take more damage.
or
b) Institute travel power suppression.
I make a distinction between designing the powers, and managing playstyle mechanics. If you want to manage playstyle, you can predict a lot of it if you are smart enough, but some things just require watching your players, and seeing what they come up with. But that is ordinarily a completely separate problem from powers strengths.
If the devs suddenly discovered that all scrappers were using taunt to single pull, and that was causing them to fight in total safety, would you consider that a case of needing to alter pulling mechanics, or reducing the strength of their defenses to make single pulling more of a challenge? I'm of the opinion that 99.9% of the time, its the former, not the latter.
And that is why datamining for performance is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Data mining behaviors to find out behaviors makes sense. Data mining performance intertwines two separate components of performance - power strength and player tactics - that should never be balanced together, almost always addressed separately.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
And that is why datamining for performance is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Data mining behaviors to find out behaviors makes sense. Data mining performance intertwines two separate components of performance - power strength and player tactics - that should never be balanced together, almost always addressed separately.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think your idea ignores the possibility that the maximum potential of one powerset might be harder to obtain than the maximum potential of another powerset.
Now I know you disagree, but I think it's perfectly appropriate that Regen has more potential protective ability than SR since you have to decide when to use it. Your models just predict the ultimate potential of both sets, without determining if on the whole regen players are actually achieving that potential.
It seems to me that you need to look at the datamining to determine if, in practice, Regen and DA are outperforming SR 'on the street'. Because it they are not, then SR doesn't need a buff even if its theorhetical performance is weaker.
I shall now run since I have committed a foul sin and Arcana will now try to smite me. 
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
Consider herding. Herding was possible to the extent that it was because:
a) You could aggro an unlimited number of foes
b) You could hit any number of in-range foes with an AoE
c) Foes had no collision bounding, meaning a limitless number of them could be fit into a given area
Now, realistically, the devs not only should have seen that coming, I think they did see it happening in Beta.
Regardless, it seems likely that the ability could have been nipped in the bud by someone looking at any one of the above lettered items and saying "that's a potential for players to do more at once than we want." Of those, the most effective at "hard limiting" the behavior is the cap on AoE targets. I really loved that there was no such cap, because it was more realistic, but if they'd gone in with a cap on it, herding would never have reached the heights it did.
I think that's an example of balancing around potential. By setting bounds on what's maximally achievable you limit your chances that players will exceed that level of performance.
It's always possible to forget to bound something, but if you stick to bounding the fundamental attributes, you know that you've at least cut down on a huge set of possible combinations players might try.
When CoH first came out, there weren't many limits that mattered.
[/ QUOTE ]
With many things they "balance". It's not balancing around potential that I have problems with. It's that they balance around the wrong areas or put easy fixes.
Like on your herding list. One should be able to agro unlimited amounts of mobs. Because to tell you the truth I find it really stupid for me to fight a mob and 5 of their friends are just sitting there doing nothing. The only thing agro cap created is that I wont be getting hurt as much because the agro cap simple prevents the extra mobs from attacking me then and there. The moment their buddies drop they all jump into the fire and die. It actually helps the survivability of a herder. One should also be able to hit as many targets as those in range and line of sight as a given power indicate. The problem was collition checks. If mobs had good collition checks then they wouldn't stack. That would automatically prevent said AoE from hitting 100 targets because only a certain few would be in range and or in line of sight.
Out of the 3 things... they choose the 2 wrong ones to change.
They shouldn't balance things because of potential but simply change mob AI so we can't abuse our potentials. Just like when they made puppies attack with range first. That curved potential down. Better mob AI = less abuse.
What i'm saying might be a whole lot more work but in my opinion would make for a better game in the end.
LOOKout!! A Red name!!! Run!!
[ QUOTE ]
...I get to hear about the shortcomings of our mathematic models pretty much daily from various sources...
[/ QUOTE ] Your math sucks! 
"thpppppt"
/e scatter
Allow me to step in for a second on the subject of Quad-kiting in EQ (being one of the people in the game at launch time).
The _tools_ were there, and they were obvious. We were able to single-kite at an early level, the druids had a snare and few things had ranged attacks. Kiting was an obvious tactic and with practice you could chase the kite with melee weapons and manage your agro, perfectly safe.
Wizards had to resort to 'root and nuke' due to the lack of an early snare. Later we got the snare and the AOEs but it took quite a bit of work to find where the tactic worked. No one knew about the Aviak islands and how easy it was to kite there for quite some time (and I think that included the Devs). It took a lot of hard work to figure out how to sucessfully quad kite until people drew maps of the exact path(s) to take. Once you followed some of those paths and saw how it worked from a first-person perspective you could go out and work on it at other spots.
To put this in comparison to CoH, just because you had an Inv Tank didn't mean you could herd an entire map. The tools were available but it also took some work and practice. Once you did learn the trick it was quite easy, however.
[ QUOTE ]
This brings up a good point: Math is great for creating and maintaining balance in a static atmosphere. I get to hear about the shortcomings of our mathematic models pretty much daily from various sources, much of which I agree with. A solid mathematical base should be the basis of every game system (regrettably, it's rare that a developer actually has the amount of time they really need to create an elegant system.)
[/ QUOTE ]
This ties in to my somewhat soapboxy "Complexity vs. Reward Rate" post, which I separately PM'd to Positron because I feel so strongly about it.
The crux of that post is that a successfully balanced game should allow player to achieve higher reward rates by using increasingly complex strategies. Since not all strategies should be predictable in advance, this means that emergent strategies should be evaluated not only in terms of how high a reward rate they achieve, but also how complex they are.
If developers see players outperforming the devs' predictive models based on repetitive, assemblyline behaviors, then I agree that needs rebalancing. If on the other hand players outperform devs' predictive models based on complex, difficult to implement or timing-critical strategies, then the devs have successfully created a complex and challenging game, and that behavior should be rewarded and folded into the game-world for future content consideration.
The recent change disallowing auto-turret teleport is, in my opinion, an instance of balance failure. Players discovered a novel, complex way to make their powers work together, and that avenue should have been allowed to continue to reward them, rather than being shut off.
As an aside, I am honestly curious whether Cryptic considered Warburg temp powers and Shivans when designing the LRSF. I don't really expect an answer on this, but one can always hope...
- Protea
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines
Will be honest. If I had a dollar for every proposal that looked good on paper or in theory.That people brought to me. I would be beyond filthy rich. I look at numbers a lot in large volumes that can fluctuate greatly on a dime, and deal with them every single day in a real business enviroment. The only thing I can add is that while datamining and looking at statistics is very important, and can be a great essential tool. It is just that, a tool. Never ever should it dictate or be the primary overriding factor in whether or not a certain aspect of a business (game if you like) design or process should or should be not a certain way.
People for the most part play games for fun. That there should be the primary controlling factor. If there is a certain design or business (game) process,product, etc that looks great, on paper or in theory. Fine. Go ahead and try it if you believe it will work. But, if a majority of your customer or client base thinks its a poor idea or worse, not fun. You dont wait for the numbers or the product, process design or whatever to fail or show you that it will not work. You change it now.
[ QUOTE ]
Will be honest. If I had a dollar for every proposal that looked good on paper or in theory.That people brought to me. I would be beyond filthy rich. I look at numbers a lot in large volumes that can fluctate greatly on a dime, and deal with them every single day in a real business enviroment. The only thing I can add is that while datamining and looking at statistics is very important, and can be a great essential tool. It is just that, a tool. Never ever should it dictate or be the primary overriding factor in whether or not a certain aspect of a business (game if you like) design or process should or should be not a certain way.
People for the most part play games for fun. That there should be the primary controlling factor. If there is a certain design or business (game) process,product, etc that looks great, on paper or in theory. Fine. Go ahead and try it if you believe it will work. But, if a majority of your customer or client base thinks its a poor idea or worse, not fun. You dont wait for the numbers or the product, process design or whatever to fail or show you that it will not work. You change it now.
[/ QUOTE ]
AMEN !!!!
I play games to have fun if I and most everyone else thinks it is broken and not fun then just fix it or change it.
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think your idea ignores the possibility that the maximum potential of one powerset might be harder to obtain than the maximum potential of another powerset.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't ignore that. I just wouldn't balance the powers themselves around that directly under ordinary circumstances. And if I decided it *was* necessary, I would still develop a quantitative model to do it.
Why? Because I am not of the design school that says "throw it all up on the wall and see what sticks." I am of the school that says "you won't always do the right thing, but you should always at least know what the heck you're doing." So suppose I design set A to be harder to use than set B. How *much* harder did I do that? Hard to say. But what I'm *supposed* to know is how hard did I *intend* to make set A relative to set B. If I *intended* set A to be twice as hard to play as set B, I can decide how that should factor into the strength of set A, and set B.
I might be wrong, though, and datamining might tell me my judgement of difficulty is in error. There's two solutions: accept that even though I wanted set A to be twice as difficult as set B, since its actually three times harder, just go with that and tweak the power set so it makes sense when set A is three times harder. Or, say "well, I didn't hit my target of twice as hard, lets change the difficulty of the set so I actually hit the target I set for myself."
I'm of the school that demands the second option is the *only* option worthy of being put on a resume.
The best way to describe this philosophy is to say its goal-oriented. You set a goal for the design, and you try to hit it; you don't design in the blind, and change your goals to try to represent it.
If I want set A to be 30% harder, and I decide to give it 10% more performance for that 30% harder, I expect to hit those marks. And if I miss one, I fix it: I don't revolve everything else around the miss.
[ QUOTE ]
Now I know you disagree, but I think it's perfectly appropriate that Regen has more potential protective ability than SR since you have to decide when to use it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know that, because I don't disagree. In fact, you'll see statements precisely to that fact for both Regen and DA in my scrapper secondary comparisons, with specific warnings about making a difference between knowing what the performance actually is (which the analysis shows), and what the desired performance actually should be, which is a separate issue.
The question, though, is how much better. For the cost of having to have three brain cells wired together in the right way to click a button, regen gets about twice the performance under ordinary conditions. For most players, those three brain cells are probably not a very high cost relative to the return, provided the average player doesn't play extremely intoxicated.
Actually, on my server, that's not entirely a safe assumption, but I assume it nonetheless.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
One thing. The devs seem to also balance on "feel" which can invariably trump all math from time to time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that, in part, is from a desire to keep all powersets "desirable" relative to the others within the AT. I suspect that there is a basic formula used to determine power cost, damage, etc. I believe that when you start adding secondary effects, that basic formula breaks down. Add in any synergy between the powers, and it breaks down more. The manual tweaking (see adjustments to Subdue and Mental Blast) can be used to buff a powerset that is generally perceived to be weaker, or debuff a set that is considered overpowered.
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the mechanics of Defiance - thank you so much for your testing and discussion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed!
-- War