Settings changes

[Micloren]

Quote:<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Micloren" data-cid="291996" data-time="1410027706">
<div>
I still disagree with everyone on the shrapnel.  Why should i be rewarded for missing someone rather than a perfectly placed bomb?

 

You aim a bomb, you aim bullets, you don't aim shrapnel it's fixed.  Personally i think its damage should be either A) reduced to 100, or B) have the number of shrap reduced to 4/5.

</div>

Obviously, you aren't missing someone because the bomb explodes.  If you ever watch pros skim bombs so they do very little damage and the shrap doesnt hit them because it is predictable. The only situation where shrap become unpredictable is when you are in a tight space or are rep killed.  These two areas add a bit more inconsistancy which, I believe, gives the game more character. Shrap add another level of difficulty for dodging.  Just get better at predicting shrap (they are pretty obvious) and then dodge. 

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Any decent player can skim bombs that's not what im talking about.  I'm talking about the complete random BS stuff that screws a prac/game.

 

Just today i shot 1 bomb across my screen towards Crescendo.  He said he skimmed the bomb but ran into a few shrap that caused over 800 damage.  He was LL and died.  The irony is if i had hit him with a direct he would of lived.

 

Explain to me the logic behind how it's a better game when i shoot a shit shot and kill someone... yet a perfect shot would allow them to live?

[Crescendo]

But like I said before McLaren, a perfect shot does do more damage than an indirect. In that situation, that shrap that KO'd me barely hit the edge of my ship, it's not like that always happens everytime you shoot a shit shot. I like numbers so i'd say the ideal way of settling this would be to have a chart of avg. damage dealt vs bomb explode distance over 1000 4v4 games. It would probably be monotonically decreasing (which means 0 distance would have the highest average damage, and as the explode distance gets further away the damage would never increase).

 

avg damage (including damage from shrap)

|*

| *

|  *

|   *

|     *

|____* - . ._ distance


my guess!

[Bargeld]

Quote:<div>
Just today i shot 1 bomb across my screen towards Crescendo.  He said he skimmed the bomb but ran into a few shrap that caused over 800 damage.  He was LL and died.  The irony is if i had hit him with a direct he would of lived.

 

Explain to me the logic behind how it's a better game when i shoot a shit shot and kill someone... yet a perfect shot would allow them to live?

 

</div>

 

The perfect shot is the one that causes the most damage in any given situation. If your target is in a corner, don't hit em directly. Hit the wall where you know they will take 70% bomb damage and get hit by 3 shrap for 600 damage. 

 

Cres, when your graph shows "avg damage including shrap" that's somewhat debatable as to what it means. If you are comparing a direct vs an indirect with inactive or missed shrap vs an indirect with a shrap hit, vs and indirect with multiple shrap hits (over time), I don't think that graph would be a smooth curve as suggested. Assuming the situations I just stated, from left to right, It's more like:

 

|     *

|*   *

|  *

|   * 

|______

 

It's all situational, if someone gets stuck in a box and the incoming bomb proxes on the target, then you get 8 shrap inside the box + the indirect damage (this is the worst/best case scenario). Assuming it all hits, you get like 600 + 1600 damage.

If they are stuck in the box and bomb explodes on the inner wall, you only get 5 shrap and maybe some indirect bomb damage. Say 300 + 1000 damage.

If you direct hit them in the box, they take full direct damage, but no shrap. Its 850ish.

If they aren't in a box, at best, 1 shrap can be a reliable hit on an indirect, so the reliable damage is going to be 5 or 600 + 200.

Direct hit outside the box is going to be the same 850 as in a box.

 

Really what it comes down to is that shrap is powerful, plentiful, and offers an element of controllable randomness based on the skill of the shooter and target. Smart targets get the f' out of that corner, duh. Smart shooters aim to make more shrap in a corner. Smart targets skim the bomb out in the open on an angle that shrap doesn't project into. I would go so far as to say the discussion of skill vs randomness boils down to shrap vs no shrap at all.

 

I know this is 'skilled 4v4 league play', but just to toss it out there, original SVS settings had random damage on bullet and shrap damage (yes the actual damage of each shrap and bullet hit varied up to the max damage setting) and the shrap explosion pattern was random as well, meaning that no matter how skilled you were as a pilot, sometimes you just ate the 650 for the bomb + 5 shrap in your face, and you would die from one bomb at 1700 nrg. Uncommon, but possible. So in league play, when we are discussing taking 650 + 190 + possible additional 'random' shraps that might hit, vs a 'skilled' direct hit for 850, it's seriously into some knit-picking and everything is opinion, there are no facts. Datalog for a year and people will still argue about the numbers that come out.

[7th]

Cres was using the average damage on his little graph, not all the possibilities.  Obviously, if it was all the possibilites the graph would range everywhere, but when you take the average damage it should be a lot smoother curve.  As your sample increases, the sample mean should be close to the real mean.  The outliers (prox damage + a lot of shrap damage) don't occur very often in the whole picture of a game.  It is probably <1% that someone actually gets proxed and then takes 600+ damage due to shrap.  Actually, it is probably more like .01% if you really take every bomb explosion into effect.  There hasn't been any data collected on this (that I know of), but from personal experience this doesn't happen very often to me or to what I've seen.  Thus the conclusion is being a smoother graph because those outliers shouldn't affect the average damage over a larger sample when the high majority of the bombs do do a semi stable damage (lag takes play here as well to add more inconsistancy). 

[Bargeld]

Hence, if the curves match over a large dataset, you might as well remove shrap altogether, right? My point is that the curves and the data don't really matter, and it comes down to the community's opinion of shrap vs no shrap. Leave it alone, tweak it, or remove it. It's a decision based on opinions, not facts and data.

[Crescendo]

Exaclty what 7th said. There will be a few outliers** but those will get squashed with enough input data. Again, only my hypothesis.

 

**(like your scenario bargeld, one poorly aimed bomb in a corner might do 1100 with shrap + bomb damage, but usually poorly aimed bombs would do 400 total... so the overall average for poorly aimed bombs might be 450ish).


Curves and data don't really matter? Whoa whoa whoa, curves and data are the results, and the results depend on what happens, and what happens matters to me! McLaren was saying something about logical, I pointed out it bomb damage with shrap probably is logical as it is now.

[Crescendo]

Obviously we want to form our opinions based on something (like facts and data lol)... bargeld lol.

[Crescendo]

If you wanna go by intuition, my intuition says that leave sharp as it is. You're right -- it's very situational, and like you said, good players avoid poor situations like corners. The debate for shrap is so one sided for me I don't even know why this is being discussed.

[Crescendo]

"Hence if the curves match over a large dataset.... might as well remove shrap..." , wait no! In that case, removing shrap only simplifies the game!If they do match (which I was guessing they would), you would be dumbing down the game by removing shrap.Corners/boxes wouldn't be the same, rep kills and repping into corners wouldn't be the same, dodging and skimming bombs and the CHAOS of chaos 4v4 wouldn't be the same.

[Bargeld]

And I agree, I think shrap is a central element of the game, and even as random as some might infer, to me it adds a level of skill that isn't immediately obvious. The 'perfect shot' situation presented is not always synonymous with 'direct hit'. Sometimes the perfect shot takes shrap into account and is not a direct hit.

 

My point is that data set comparisons shouldn't be the end-all determination of what should and shouldn't be, and that even a data set will be subject to difference interpretations. There needs to be some level of human experience and logic in order to keep it skillful. 20 damage as a difference from shrap and a bullet, or a single random shrap that gets a kill are not game changers. The general response to those situations is that the target was playing too risky, putting themselves in a bad position, or was going to die regardless. I would expect someone to respond with 'learn to play better' in those cases. 

[Micloren]

What is yalls opinion on my other two suggestions regarding greens and the shark?

 

Also on a side note... does anyone know what the proximity distance damage on each level of bomb is?  Not what triggers the bomb but how far the explosion radiates outward in pixels?

[Pistol]

Been keeping an eye on this thread and I have to say it is pretty funny.

 

Before I say anything I just want to say that I'm well aware core elements like shrap and repels are never going to change, and I'm not suggesting to change them. But dont delude yourselves into thinking things are even close to ideal the way they are. You are seeing the game through rose-tinted glasses. A perfect example is where 7th said "These two areas add a bit more inconsistancy which, I believe, gives the game more character." Alright, that's fine if you think that. But inconsistency is never good for a competitive game. If you want to keep inconsistency, you should acknowledge that "pro" league is nothing but a casual, fun-driven event. You can't pretend it is anything more than that when games can be decided by inconsistencies, and ultimately the end result of all the settings, the rules, and the map, is an environment where highly defensive play can keep the weak much more competitive than they should be.

 

The part about shrap and learning to play better is what really got me laughing.. Who on this earth ever fired a bomb, having planned exactly how the shrap was going to come out and connect with their opponent? Most people, including you posting in this thread, are lobbers. At least half of the time you dont even know that your shot is going to hit. Dont pretend that shrap kills are skill.

 

Predicting the way shrap is going to come out of an enemy's bomb and pre-dodging it? If you were truly gifted with this kind of vision you would have seen the bomb coming and dodged it completely. Moreover, if they were truly gifted with this kind of vision you would be much more powerful than you are. You'd be constantly making everyone look stupid.

 

What goes through a pro player's mind is very basic (and most of the time it is true but not always):

 

-The further the bomb is from me, the less dmg it will do.

-The more direct my shot is, the more dmg it will do.

 

Shrap isn't even on the conscious level until it needs to be (when you're red).

 

Quote:<div>
The 'perfect shot' situation presented is not always synonymous with 'direct hit'. Sometimes the perfect shot takes shrap into account and is not a direct hit.

</div>

 

I knew someone was going to  say this.

 

That is actually just bad game design, plain and simple. You're right. It is technically a perfect shot because it deals the most damage, but it shouldn't be. Where in this world other than 4v4 league has a perfect shot ever been anything but a direct hit? The fact you gladly accept it as if there is nothing wrong with it tells me you are either in love with this game (seeing it through rose-tinted glasses), or you somehow think no one should question why things are the way they are. Understand that the game was made by error-prone human beings, not some omnipotent entity (and it shows). About bomb aim and damage, I tend to agree with McLaren's logic. It makes sense that the harder thing to do should be the most rewarding, but 4v4 doesnt work that way (not in any way... I could draw countless examples).

 

On things you might actually consider changing:

 

Shark is pretty much useless against anyone with good ship control, or in any lob fest (which comprises the vast majority of 4v4 games). Decreasing antiwarp cost isnt going to fix that. It's The problem is that the ship's only strength is its fast guns, and because of the way it flies, you wont connect enough to kill anyone with good control of their ship.

 

Greens shouldn't give you anything, ever. Warp doors are random and shouldn't exist. That is all.

 

Sorry if this offends anyone, that was not my intention. Just trying to put the truth on the table.

[Bargeld]

Aiming at a target (or target position, in the case of making shrap happen) and hitting that target/position are 2 different things. If you can aim and hit directly, then why would you not be able to aim ahead and hit indirectly on a wall and cause shrap that they will fly into. It's not that I am so in love with this game, it's that myself, and plenty of others have been playing it for 18 years now. You'd be surprised at how much the game mechanics get burnt into your brain, and how many sessions have been spent doing stupid non-league things that result in a revelation of how something works.

 

I remember learning the game and thinking I was sooo good at it after 2 years. I was... for a 2 year player. A year later, I had learned even more. After 5 years, I felt like I knew everything. Still to this day, I am learning things. Never underestimate the power of repetition when it comes to learning new things and changing how you see and approach a task.

[Bargeld]

As far as the shark goes, I liked it better with 300% cloak and 1750 energy. Similar to the extreme occurrences with shrap mentioned above, if you end up 1 vs whatever in a shark and you have to run anti, that's just how it goes. Otherwise, who cares about anti cost. Don't be that 1 out of 4 pilots on your team who volunteers to run it.

 

Bomb explosion damage? Check the arena settings.

[Tunahead]

I was always wondering why direct bomb doesn't do full bomb damage plus the damage of all the possible shrapnels. It didn't really hinder the game, but was just really odd and bad design, like Pistol pointed out.

[7th]

Quote:<div>
I was always wondering why direct bomb doesn't do full bomb damage plus the damage of all the possible shrapnels. It didn't really hinder the game, but was just really odd and bad design, like Pistol pointed out.

</div>

Direct bombs do 750 damage + 80 damge from shrap.  The shrap are inactive so they only do 10 damage each.  8*10 = 80.   Active shrap do 190 damage, which are caused from not direct hitting.  Which the damage calc is bullet damage *.9  so 212 * .9  rounded down to get 190 dmg.

[Micloren]

Is there a way to do a vote on the shark & prizes?

[Plarep]

Quote:<div>
I was always wondering why direct bomb doesn't do full bomb damage plus the damage of all the possible shrapnels. It didn't really hinder the game, but was just really odd and bad design, like Pistol pointed out.

</div>

If I have to guess, the original SVS settings were designed to mask/reduce the effect of high latency and low bandwidth from when everyone used 9600, hence SVS settings have low thrust (sensitive to latency) and low rate of fire (sensitive to bandwidth). Even now, with everyone on much better connections, it frequently happens that bullets barely hit on someone's screen but barely miss on someone else's, or for someone to ghost when they hit/miss the corner of a wall. If direct bombs did full active shrap damage, there'd be a huge difference between a direct bomb doing 750 + 190*8 = 2270 damage (instant death) and a barely not direct bomb doing 740 damage. At that point you might as well just give bombs random damage.

 

Quote:<div>
Predicting the way shrap is going to come out of an enemy's bomb and pre-dodging it? If you were truly gifted with this kind of vision you would have seen the bomb coming and dodged it completely. Moreover, if they were truly gifted with this kind of vision you would be much more powerful than you are. You'd be constantly making everyone look stupid.

 

What goes through a pro player's mind is very basic (and most of the time it is true but not always):

 

-The further the bomb is from me, the less dmg it will do.

-The more direct my shot is, the more dmg it will do.

 

Shrap isn't even on the conscious level until it needs to be (when you're red).

</div>

It's true that no player fires a bomb in open space with the intent of dealing damage with shraps; they only fire bombs for shraps inside boxes, and then only if they cannot/will not fire directly at the enemy (i.e. they have no angle or they don't want to go inside the box with them). On the other hand, players consciously dodge shraps all the time. Bombs have big enough prox that you often can't avoid getting hit by them, but they're often slow enough that you have a range of spots to skim them. Since shraps come out at the 8 corners, you just skim them anywhere else to avoid taking an extra 190 damage (which is pretty noticeable once you're yellow and numbers start appearing beside your ship).

 

Also, players can deliberately run through a bomb's prox to lower the damage taken by forcing the bomb to do some pb damage (esp against thors with its huge blast radius), but it's pretty situational (the bomb needs to be close to the shooter relative to its blast radius), and often times maybe it's more so the shooter making a bad choice of when to bomb than any reaction on the defender's part

[Crescendo]

I think more than enough has been said, but i'm adding this to cover some things that pistol posted.

"The perfect shot is not a direct hit, the game's broken": This is the reason for my graph. Yes, <5% of the time the perfect shot is not a direct hit. If you're complaining about this, it's ridiculous. It's the reason why players aim for directs... because they understand that a direct is how they will do the most damage 95% of the time. Pro players don't try to create shrap and pray that the opponent runs into them.

"No one tries to dodge shrap, that's ludicrous": Look at what 7th wrote, a pro player, and just read the post above me by plarep, another pro player. Not to be condescending but i was wondering how much 4v4 you played or watched. Pros consider dodging shrap a routine part of their play. 7th even posted that shrap is 190, which is only slightly less than a bullet's damage. People put in the effort to dodge bullets all the time so it's only reasonable that they try to dodge shrap too.

Quote:Obviously, you aren't missing someone because the bomb explodes.  If you ever watch pros skim bombs so they do very little damage and the shrap doesnt hit them because it is predictable. The only situation where shrap become unpredictable is when you are in a tight space or are rep killed.  These two areas add a bit more inconsistancy which, I believe, gives the game more character. Shrap add another level of difficulty for dodging.  Just get better at predicting shrap (they are pretty obvious) and then dodge.

"Inconsistent game, so pro league is for teh casuals": You grabbed the snippet about inconsistency out of context then stated that pro league has to be a casual game. I disagree but love to hear your argument for it. Anyway, I can't speak for 7th, but the entire post there is reiterating that shrap is very predictable/consistent and not broken. The part of the game that's bad is lag, and that isn't by design. Again, love to hear your argument spelling out the inconsistent parts of the game.

[Pistol]

Plareplane,

 

"On the other hand, players consciously dodge shraps all the time. Bombs have big enough prox that you often can't avoid getting hit by them, but they're often slow enough that you have a range of spots to skim them. Since shraps come out at the 8 corners, you just skim them anywhere else to avoid taking an extra 190 damage (which is pretty noticeable once you're yellow and numbers start appearing beside your ship)."

 

Assuming you're in open space (it cant be anywhere else since you didn't mention any bounces), those 8 shraps that come out are inactive and do 10 dmg, not 190. This means that most of the time they are largely irrelevant in the open, which is what I hinted on. With good technique you can get by paying minimal attention to them. Recall that I said, "the further the bomb is from me, the less dmg it will do." That means I agree that skimming is good. Skimming in the open, no matter how you do it, already puts you in a position to take minimal damage. It doesn't matter if you've chalked up in your mind how the 8 shrap are going to come out or not. That is why I disagree. You think people skim "accurately" to pre-dodge shrap, and I know they dont, because the vast majority of the time they dont need to. They dodge the shrap after it becomes visible, if anything. There isn't any huge predictive skills required here like you're suggesting there is.

 

Now lets take your example and put you inside an enclosure where the shraps can actually do 190 dmg:

 

Even if you do put yourself in a position to avoid the 8 (10 dmg) shrapnels when they come out, you arent protecting yourself from what is actually dangerous - the bounces that are about to compound the shrap damage by 1900%. In truth you were better off hitting them before they bounced. With all this said, I don't see your point, at all.

 

"Also, players can deliberately run through a bomb's prox to lower the damage taken by forcing the bomb to do some pb damage (esp against thors with its huge blast radius), but it's pretty situational (the bomb needs to be close to the shooter relative to its blast radius), and often times maybe it's more so the shooter making a bad choice of when to bomb than any reaction on the defender's part"

 

I know this, but what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?

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

 

Crescendo,

 

5% is significant when the sample size is hundreds of thousands of games over close to two decades. 5% can contain very important league games. It took you 2 days to respond and you respond by quoting others who you think are pro players, when the fact of the matter is they are middle-skilled. In the future I would hope you could think for yourself, good things can happen.

 

You say I grabbed a quote out of context, and then you did the exact same thing to me. When I said pro league should be considered more of a casual game, I was more referring to this:

 

"and ultimately the end result of all the settings, the rules, and the map, is an environment where highly defensive play can keep the weak much more competitive than they should be."

 

and

 

"It makes sense that the harder thing to do should be the most rewarding, but 4v4 doesnt work that way"

 

And yes this is all made even worse by what you call <5% occurrences, and a 3 death limit.

 

All of this is why a lot of players seem to be so incompetent at judging things. Be it player skill (especially their own relative to others), what is actually happening in the game and why, etc. What you have is an environment full of obscurity to anyone except very few.

If we were in an environment where you were constantly forced to engage or lose, the truth would become much more obvious than it is. Those with worse fighting ability would constantly die (and I'm not just talking about bottom tier teams).

 

Again, this has nothing to do with settings changes since I already said Im not suggesting to change the core nature of league, simply shedding light on its flaws to people like you - who actually think its good design. I already knew I would get some unfavorable reactions but to say any of it is a lie, you're in denial.