Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 278

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: When you win, it's because you were better - would be nice

  1. #181
    Sure, not surprising, but ... if they did complain about the coals, maybe they would lay off the thrasher. Also, if they want to say "let me redesign the game without randomness for you because it's easy and your design is just lazy and/or not as clever as mine", they need to add this to their list of things to adjust.

  2. #182
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    @Frannarf,

    I don't think expressing my opinion is a poor way of contributing to a discussion. It's not like the only thing I said was about my 'surprise' either.

    I understand what you are saying better if we're talking about the risk/reward of a given action as opposed to luck. For me luck is determined by many things which are not necessarily anything to do with the gameplay mechanics. For example, when I accidentally clicked 'ready' in the match I previously mentioned, it could be said my opponent got a bit lucky...

    You cannot eliminate 'luck' from a game like this (maybe even any game), however, that is a different concept to 'randomness' or RNG. IMO the placement of RoA is the complete opposite of random - 1 tile is purposefully marked as a trap. There may be an element of luck involved in whether your opponent triggers it, but there are different reasons for placing the trap in the first place - and it very rarely comes down to just 'I hope he walks this way'...

    Also, I couldn't disagree more that there is anything lame about RoA. By far the most interesting ability (again this is just my opinion), and it creates complex strategies beyond hit this / avoid being hit by that.

    So I suppose I may be engaging poorly with this discussion, but then you are arguing for your opinion in an equally poor way as you are not even slightly convincing me of your argument. As I said in my post to Haeso, I haven't made up my mind yet.

  3. #183
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    This game is about contigencies. You absolutely need to plan ahead so you don't get trapped by RoA or your game doesn't come down to an RNG-off. I think both those complaints come from myopic playing. It's a highly competitive game, and as someone else stated I think Tirean is a good example of a top-tier player who plays contingencies so well RNG is a non-issue in the vast majority of his games (to the point that he's won two tourneys - consistency). I think if RNG were removed (or RoA made visible on the map) the game would be a lot simpler, a lot more deterministic, and frankly, less interesting. I pick up bloodbowl every now and again and ultimately quit due to the huuuuge RNG factor in that game. It bothers me. It makes my blood pressure raise. But I'm not going to say that the game needs an overhaul because RNG. I'm going to say I don't enjoy the mechanics and it's not for me. And then I'll go back to it cause for some reason it always pulls me back in... Point is, that game is built around RNG and it's still competitive...it's just not for everyone. I don't mean to sound like "hey if you don't like it get out" but there are other games out there that can suit your strategy needs. Not a lot cause, well...RNG is in most of them except chess.
    Last edited by sweetjer; 04-06-2013 at 04:25 PM. Reason: typos
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  4. #184
    @loveboof: Here's what I meant. Civilized discussion 101: don't discount or insult anyone's argument or point of view. And I don't mean to do that to you by mentioning this. If I fail to convince you, fine, but that's an entirely different matter.

    Here's an example of what not to do "I can't believe that some people equate ridiculing others' opinions with stating their own opinions! Totally different imo."

  5. #185
    Being better than your opponent to the extent that the limited impact luck can have on the game is irrelevant does nothing to address the fact that there is luck involved, sweetjer.

    Like I said I respect that some people enjoy these elements - just don't try and tell me it's not luck from time to time that determines a game because that's demonstrably the case is all I ask.

    As far as playing something else - I still play chess frequently. I just know this game would be better to me if it were even more deterministic, determinism to me is the pinnacle for competitive games, I do not enjoy competing in games heavily determined by random elements. This game has luck based elements, but they're not so common/powerful that most games are swung one way or the other by them in too often so I'm okay with it. I just know I would prefer the game without those elements, I respect that other people like those things though.

  6. #186
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    I feel that the thread is now generating subtler discussions and nuances on the idea of luck and random number generator in the game. In this light, I'd like to summarize and delineate the discussion.

    OP and Original discussion of the thread:
    1. Randomness of Bloody Flail
    2. Chance/dice rolls/RNG of str<armor attacks

    The thrasher's ability was the focus of discussion for a while, and people had differing opinions/feelings on how much this could determine the game. The main response to this was that the thrasher's ability should not be played or depended upon to win the game.

    A parallel discussion to this was whether the thrasher ability rewarded tactical positioning. This may or may not occur due to the miss chance on the final hit affected by a bonus condition. However, the threat and potential is there.Without the bonus damage, the ability is still willpower efficient and good effective damage, especially when TH is maimed.

    Bottomline for TH: The unit's nature is random. Working as intended. No need to buff the unit.

    On the dice rolls for chance strength attacks, people were voicing how the damage of chance willpower shots was too much when the target was hit. Also, they voiced how a critical luck shot could win the game.

    The response to this was,
    1. The mechanic is not consistent enough to allow a player who only gambles to win consistently or at a good rate.
    2. The mechanic is open to both players
    3. It speeds up the game and allows for comeback
    4. There has been no working and comprehensive suggestion of how to change this (yes some have suggested having total miss or willpower-accuracy, however these have not fleshed out the actual benefits to the game, besides changing the chance to hit mechanic. This must answer how it makes the gameplay better, besides "so it's more deterministic". How would the game play in general, compared to now?)

    This aspect of the discussion has revolved around the degree of determinism in the game. The long and short of it is, the game is highly deterministic. So much so that at least 90-95% of matches are determined without any chance mechanics, based on anecdotal evidence and player experience. However, the issue boils down to player preference.

    I am of the opinion that the discussion of chance mechanics vs competitiveness of the game holds no/little water. There are a number of real world established games that involve high degree of chance, besides skill (poker is 1 example, MTG TCG is another). This generally means TBSF can be competitive even with chance mechanics, so long as the design and implementation are good and it works.

    An emerging discussion is the Sky striker and RoA placement. This has been likened to RNG when the using (defending) player and the approaching (attacking) player have a % chance to succeed with their respective play. This is expressed as 1/x paths where they may be caught in the trap. There are varying scenarios, but I will leave it at that for simplicity.

    When there is 1 path the defender achieves 100% success in blocking/defending that area of approach and access to target (the attacker has 0% to achieve his desired play). When there are 2 or more paths, the defender has a 1/x chance (say 1/2 or 50%) to trap the approaching player, and the approaching player has 50% chance to reach his target.

    Now, I believe this is a different and more nuanced discussion of chance in TBSF.

    We should be distinguishing elements of randomness/luck/chance where the system/server is the one deciding the outcome - i.e. RNG, and also elements where player choice, and chaos give rise to chance play situations.

    The difference is that in the second case, it is not some program dictating what happens. It is really real life chance. The same can be said to apply to the rest of the game. Which of the 6 units or however many are currently on the board/in range will be attacked? It often happens there is the chance the enemy attacks another unit which is better for you.

    If we were to try to express this quantitatively, this would look like 1/x (target units on the board), but with a rubric/weights also for whatever decision process the attacking player is doing internally. This is subjective (yes there may be an optimal move, the one that should be taken, there is no guarantee this will be the one chosen, as this requires perfect information. Decision tree and expected outcome are tools used due to the reality of imperfect information. Point is, because this is subjective and the player is only approximating the best move, the targeting can be seen as chance).

    Any game, in the end can be broken down into whatever statistics that could make sense. At the end of the day however, whatever game it is, is usually more than numbers, and the danger is abstracting too far.

    TLDR: This thread discusses 2 veins of chance in TBSF, 1. RNG 2. Chance in situational plays. I am of the opinion determinism is never 100%. And the discussion is boiling down to preference. I am also of the opinion we should be keeping RoA and the SS out of this discussion.

    Luck/chance is a part of the game. I believe Jer is trying to say, it does not determine the game. No need to go into technicality about how many matches end up being determined by luck (even freak occurrences happen in deterministic games, cos it's still human beings playing - we're not computers playing each other). I am also feeling that while this discussion is interesting, if this is going to boil down to player preference, I'll be closing this thread soon. I would have preferred the thread drift off naturally, but we can be discussing other more productive things. Yes, player preference is important, but if the suggestion/change will only benefit 1 portion of players to the detriment of another portion (because it's a preference) then we'll never have an end to this discussion. We can be focusing on whether it's degree is acceptable to the majority of the playerbase, and if not, how to make it acceptable.

    No more RNG/determinism black and white, please.
    Last edited by raven2134; 04-06-2013 at 10:13 PM.

  7. #187
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    And yes. I think a visible RoA is pointless. No one would ever be caught in it if that was the case. People get caught in it now because:

    1. They didn't know it was there/forgot it was there (obviously)
    2. They needed to make sure where it was, to enact a critical play.

    The second becomes void if you no longer need to "fish" for the trap. I needn't say anything regarding the first.

    Haseo, I don't understand at all how this suggestion would be workable for the skystriker's ability. I would only see this be usable if rank 2/3 shot muliple arrows, but showed you where they trapped.

  8. #188
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    That is a very balanced summation Raven, and I completely agree with everything you have said.

    ____
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    Whenever I think I'm losing, I'll take risks I otherwise wouldn't to see if I can turn it around.
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    percent shots are just built into the game; I think you'll need to design a game of your own from the ground up if you want to remove the randomness.
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    I, too, wasn't crazy about the randomness when I first realized it was there in miss chances months ago, and had really expected/hoped for a game with less of it. At this point, however, I don't think you can design the game without it.

    Personally, I'm surprised more people don't whine about the "randomness" of the rain of arrows. I've seen that decide far more games than a lucky or unlucky flail.
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    @loveboof: Here's what I meant. Civilized discussion 101: don't discount or insult anyone's argument or point of view. And I don't mean to do that to you by mentioning this. If I fail to convince you, fine, but that's an entirely different matter.
    @Franknarf,

    I am not discounting your argument, simply stating that I don't find it persuasive because I disagree with you that RoA ultimately comes down to 'randomness'.

    It seems that your position in this is that you are resolved to having an element of randomness in the game, and have even brought it into your play style on occasion. So why are you drawing an issue with the SS's ability?

    As I said, I don't think RoA is particularly comparable to other random abilities or moves, and brings it's own unique strategic aspect to the game which is interesting and wholly beneficial...

  9. #189
    Anyway, for the record, (i) yup, you do understand my position; and (ii) I do agree with you, raven, et al that RoA is not "random" but "risky" and as such somewhat fits in with complaints like the OP's (that skill does not always determine the outcome).

    I was saying the RoA was chancy and maybe I also said random outside of quotes somewhere, but I really should have referred to it as risky. I reckon that the critics in this thread would probably endorse a statement like "In a game where skill always determines the outcome, risk can have no role!"

    I have no objection to leaving it out of this conversation, but think it a little more interesting than the discussion preceding it, which mostly amounted to folks saying "take out the randomness" or "you can't take out the randomness", with me in the latter camp as you've noted . Long ago (like November-ish), I was resigned to the presence of randomness. Lately, I appreciate that element of the game. My third quote there was meant as an expression of sympathy with newcomers who may have had the same early impression I did.

    EDIT: Just to clarify, when someone puts a word in quotes, like "this", they don't mean for the word to be taken literally. In the third quote above, I put quotes around "randomness" to indicate that some might refer to RoA as random, but I didn't want to endorse that usage. Maybe that threw you off my meaning.
    Last edited by franknarf; 04-06-2013 at 11:48 PM.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    And yes. I think a visible RoA is pointless. No one would ever be caught in it if that was the case. People get caught in it now because:

    1. They didn't know it was there/forgot it was there (obviously)
    2. They needed to make sure where it was, to enact a critical play.

    The second becomes void if you no longer need to "fish" for the trap. I needn't say anything regarding the first.

    Haseo, I don't understand at all how this suggestion would be workable for the skystriker's ability. I would only see this be usable if rank 2/3 shot muliple arrows, but showed you where they trapped.
    1 Arrow at R1, visible. 2 arrows at R2, once one triggers all disappear. 3 arrows at r3. Without any strength bonuses or 100% hit chance as this is significantly more likely to stun someone.

  11. #191
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    As I said, what would be the point of rank 1 besides blocking 1 square? Same as the other 2 ranks. It's not a trap, it would be a blocker. You may as well just make it make the square impassable, cos a rational player who knows where the trap is will have no reason to walk over it.

    If we went with the visible route, I was envisioning, rank 1, 1 arrow invisible. rank 2 +1 visible arrow. rank 3 +2 visible arrows.

    Whether all come down or not when the single tile triggers could work.

    I personally don't see the issue with this kind of "risky" play being possible in the game, where you have a 50% or greater chance of making it to a target vs getting caught in an RoA.

    It's like a buzzerbeater hail mary 3 point shot in basketball, and they're not changing the rules to disallow that.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    As I said, what would be the point of rank 1 besides blocking 1 square? Same as the other 2 ranks. It's not a trap, it would be a blocker. You may as well just make it make the square impassable, cos a rational player who knows where the trap is will have no reason to walk over it.

    If we went with the visible route, I was envisioning, rank 1, 1 arrow invisible. rank 2 +1 visible arrow. rank 3 +2 visible arrows.

    Whether all come down or not when the single tile triggers could work.

    I personally don't see the issue with this kind of "risky" play being possible in the game, where you have a 50% or greater chance of making it to a target vs getting caught in an RoA.

    It's like a buzzerbeater hail mary 3 point shot in basketball, and they're not changing the rules to disallow that.
    Why does it need to block more than one square to be effective? With good positioning blocking one square is denying the enemy an attack, much like the provoker does, it's immensely powerful. And I have no problem with strong abilities, what I have a problem with is elements that are out of my control deciding my fate.

    Your analogy is off, that's far more akin to pillage rules than anything. Plus what does basketball even have to do with the game to begin with? Do you want me to list the changes they've made over the years to basketball? Or another sport?

    It's perfectly fine if they want to leave things as is, it's their game and it's not a big enough issue for me to not enjoy the game - it's fine that you enjoy luck based elements in your game, I however do not. That's all I'm saying.

  13. #193
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    You misunderstand both my points.

    I am saying the ability is a trap. A trap is meant to catch a target. Something walks into RoA and is thereby caught. If you make the arrow visible, then it ceases to be a trap. It becomes only a blocker. It renders the tile impassable. The ability should be re-worked therefore to reflect this.

    You may argue why not keep it the way it is...cos people can walk into it. And I was saying...what possible rational scenario could there be, to purposely walk into a stunning arrow? There is none. Which means the ability would work so that the opponent cannot move over the specified tile instead.

    In terms of ability balance, arguably acting as a blocker (i.e. like a wall/post) may be just as effective and still good compared to a trap (which causes the turn loss). The trade-off between the 2 is the certainty and how this affect gameplay.

    I am speaking from a design perspective Haseo, regarding the change.

    On the second point, I am attempting to illustrate how in other real life games/sports, there is no such thing as 100% determinism. If you're stuck in a situation where 50% chance you reach target, kill it, or 50% chance you get trapped, and then get killed, it feels to me it's not much different from taking that hail mary last second shot in a basketball game which makes the 1 point difference and wins you the game.

    Is that a sure shot? No. Do you have an advantage because the ball/turn is in your possession? YES, you do.

    I do not think my analogy is off. In the same vein, if we wanted more determinism in that major gamble situation in basketball, then you'd change the rule to say "no more 3 point shots" or even further, "no more shots outside the semi-circle." Well there you go, we've limited the area in which shots count and such an action can win the game.

    Same way in which if we show where RoA is, similar "chance play" (I am not referring to RNG/server determined actions) will no longer be of concern.

    Part of what I was getting at however, was questioning the extent to which we want to apply this "determinism."

    In my breadth of time with the game (since day 1 of beta), I have also been in situations where I know what unit my opponent needs to attack to win the game. But he still has 2-3 choices. In such a scenario he has at least a 33-50% chance to get it right and win. He attacks one and subsequently wins/loses. I do not see the difference in the way RoA can and does work, in uncertain situations.

    Does this mean we should also be making this more deterministic? I can understand when the element we are talking about is system determined (RNG). But aren't we going too far when we're also calling player created situations, actual strategy, also chance elements one ponders removing?

    Let's look at even another game. Starcraft/Starcraft II, one game which is I think is very deterministic and highly skill dependent. There are various builds and strategies for the game. And each with its inherent pros and cons. Arguably one will say "well, if you scout, then you know what to do."

    Well, yes and no, this hasn't stopped the highest level of play go with the riskiest and craziest strategies from time to time, from surprise rushes, forward barracks/infantry, early expands, specifically timed attacks, which all still rely both on skill (scouting, macro, micro, etc.), and chance (going by on the imperfect information sometimes - and yes people have done counters by build-feinting).
    Last edited by raven2134; 04-07-2013 at 02:15 AM.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    You misunderstand both my points.

    I am saying the ability is a trap. A trap is meant to catch a target. Something walks into RoA and is thereby caught. If you make the arrow visible, then it ceases to be a trap. It becomes only a blocker. It renders the tile impassable. The ability should be re-worked therefore to reflect this.


    You may argue why not keep it the way it is...cos people can walk into it. And I was saying...what possible rational scenario could there be, to purposely walk into a stunning arrow? There is none. Which means the ability would work so that the opponent cannot move over the specified tile instead.
    I step on traps all the time on purpose, the reason? To get closer to my target. Generally speaking it only deals 1 str damage, often times it's worth taking the 1 damage to get several squares closer rather than resting.

    In terms of ability balance, arguably acting as a blocker (i.e. like a wall/post) may be just as effective and still good compared to a trap (which causes the turn loss). The trade-off between the 2 is the certainty and how this affect gameplay.

    I am speaking from a design perspective Haseo, regarding the change.
    Who isn't? I wouldn't propose an alternative just for the sake of an alternative.

    On the second point, I am attempting to illustrate how in other real life games/sports, there is no such thing as 100% determinism. If you're stuck in a situation where 50% chance you reach target, kill it, or 50% chance u get trapped, and then get killed, it feels to me it's not much different from taking that hail mary last second shot in a basketball game which makes the 1 point difference and wins you the game.
    Why is this desirable to you? What is interesting about the ability to skew the results of a match that is independent of the skill of the two players?

    I do not think my analogy is off. In the same vein, if we wanted more determinism in that major gamble situation in basketball, then you'd change the rule to say "no more 3 point shots" or even further, "no more shots outside the semi-circle." Well there you go, we've limited the area in which shots count and such an action can win the game.
    Your analogy is more akin to simply limiting the options to attack or not attack. I'm not proposing you take away the ability for the SS to do anything but attack. I'm proposing a different attack.

    Same way in which if we show where RoA is, similar "chance play" (I am not referring to RNG/server determined actions) will no longer be of concern.

    Part of what I was getting at however, was questioning the extent to which we want to apply this "determinism."

    In my breadth of time with the game (since day 1 of beta), I have also been in situation where I know what unit my opponent needs to attack to win the game. But he still has 2-3 choices. In such a scenario he has at least a 33-50% chance to get it right and win. He attacks one and subsequently wins/loses.

    Does this mean we should also be making this more deterministic? I can understand when the element we are talking about is system determined (RNG). But aren't we going to far when we're also calling player created situations, actual strategy, also chance elements we should be removing?
    To me, under no circumstance should a match be determined by a coin toss Raven. Whether the computer or the player is making the toss is irrelevant. You cannot know where the RoA is, you can only guess. Are some squares more likely to be trapped than others? Of course. Does it make it any less of a guessing game? Nope.

    It's just... wrong. It would be like having an invisible pawn in chess. There's no reliable way to counter it unless the 5x5 area around the skystriker leaves only one possible location. It's simply not fun to play with or against as an invisible trap.

    Perhaps if you're determined for it to be invisible and not a blocker, remove the stun element and instead increase the damage. Have it inflict 2/4/6 armor break then a regular strength hit. It would give you your coin toss and weaken the ability to the point where it's no longer so easy to change the course of an entire game with it.

    I'm more than happy to accept the situation as is if Arnie and the rest of the guys prefer it this way, I'm just offering some basic information and an opinion derived from them. The game is not wholly deterministic. I would prefer that it were.

    Played another 20~ games today, so it's not like it's ruining the game for me or anything, I merely aim to share my thoughts on the matter. What the devs do with these thoughts is fine either way. I certainly don't expect any changes.
    Last edited by Haeso; 04-07-2013 at 02:28 AM.

  15. #195
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Haseo, why would you step on it if you knew exactly where it was. If I were trying to reach my target I would step on the square before the trap.

    On the second point, why bother keeping the ability a trap, if it's not a trap, but a blocker. This is an intuition thing. We had so many details in the game change just cos of "does it make intuitive sense." I am saying if you're proposing to make the RoA visible, we should change how things display. It should just act like a post. It should no longer permit people to path over the tile at all. Again for the reasons I have laid out.

    (*You're feelings regarding the RoA mechanic are also subjective: "not fun to play with/against", they're how you feel, not necessarily how the rest of the playerbase does. Should we want to verify this, a survey/poll would be ideal - you may of course be right or not).

    Third, it's an analogy. It's mean to be similar but not exactly the same. The same analogy actually also applies to the % chance willpower attacks.

    Fourth, how is skill still not involved? In a basketball game, who has the ball in those last 5 seconds to make that clutch shot? It's either your best player or your best shooter. Same vein, if I'm a skilled player and I can't cover all my approach paths, I will deduce and use my intuition to try to predict where to place my RoA to catch my opponent. Alternatively, if I'm on the approach, I will try to predict how my opponent is placing the RoA. Yes, it does boil down to a mindgame. And yes, at the highest level of play, this is the same as having equal chances on all approaches. Well I don't see this much different from widely popular and competitive sports outside of TBSF (the reason I keep illustrating these is to point out there may be NO NEED to change RoA - there's also little need to keep on with the counterpoints if you're fine with it as is, as you've been saying). In other sports, it's as much as a toss-up whether that star player will pull-off that clutch play. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. It's still those players that have the best chance to do it.

    And I would still argue, there are factors affecting games, outside the game itself which affect the game's outcome. There's never really pure determinism. Who can predict if an injury will occur in any sport? Or weather conditions? Or even player condition?

    I will also caution, TBSF isn't chess. We compare it a lot because of many similarities. But it's betterthat the 2 games are different. Cos hey, if you wanted to play chess, you'd go off to play chess, right?

    To me, under no circumstance should a match be determined by a coin toss Raven.
    If 2 players have exactly the same skill, make no mistakes, and end up playing evenly...the game will eventually boil down to who has more luck. Even if all that "luck" was who started first.

    And seriously man, you would have hated MTG, instants and traps abound in that game, you can have trash starting hands and a sequence of poor draws, and yet it's one of the biggest and most fun games out there .
    Last edited by raven2134; 04-07-2013 at 03:09 AM.

  16. #196
    Junior Member Skaer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    The thing about TBS:F is, due to the first hit advantage making the first mistake can only be countered by making a much larger mistake later.
    I believe you are overestimating the first hit advantage. It largely depends on which units you expose to the possible first hit and you can further control it by making builds specificly tolerant to being crippled by the first hit.

    For example, I play dual warrior/dual raidmaster team. My raidmasters have their ability to largely absorb incoming damage, and if the enemy still manages to maim them with the first hit (for example, using a really strong warrior with exertion) they still remain useful with 3 armor break.

    My warriors, while being very sensitive to taking the first strike, have exertion to avoid it and have the raiders to block possible attackers. These two factors pretty much eliminate the possibility of them taking the first hit, and making a mistake in this avoidance is rather unlikely because of the simple and reliable mechanics involved.

    And the bottom line here is that unless your opponent plays reckless, you have to extend to land the first hit. Whichever unit you extend becomes a subject to focus fire and that can be just enough to cripple the unit far more than it crippled its target, and without having to expose anything to do so.

  17. #197
    Member Leartes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Aachen - Germany
    Posts
    92
    Skaer, I just lost my reply to your post. Suffice to say I think your team has no problem at all with randomness and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    If we were to try to express this quantitatively, this would look like 1/x (target units on the board), but with a rubric/weights also for whatever decision process the attacking player is doing internally. This is subjective (yes there may be an optimal move, the one that should be taken, there is no guarantee this will be the one chosen, as this requires perfect information. Decision tree and expected outcome are tools used due to the reality of imperfect information. Point is, because this is subjective and the player is only approximating the best move, the targeting can be seen as chance).
    I think this is much more important and error. The assumption "x options and one move to block 1 equals 1/x chance" is completely off for a couple of reasons. First you can usually maximize your move to block several path. Then every path has different number of spots that block it. The resulting problem is non-trivial. I guess doing the proper math and assigning correct weights accourding to success probability of all path it boils down to "doesn't matter what you choose" but a) humans are bad random number generators and b) no one can do the math in 45s. So in the end there is significant space for skill on choosing the correct spot and choosing the correct path. (both algorithmically)

    Then there is the other level of reading human patterns. I doubt anyone in this game has random.org open during play uses it to properly randomize their moves. In many games it is worth it, here it isn't imo. This tells me 2 things. a) being not worth it to use proper randomness, this randomness can't be too influantial in this game and b) every players has behavioral patterns that a skilled player can exploit. Skilled here means "skilled in reading and guessing human patterns".
    e.g. I played several games vs new players that used a SS. I know they were knew because they had bad stats on units and made the obvious bad opening moves. When I see this on a player I play for the first time I assume he will do the straight forward strategy and I can abuse that. In all except one games vs such players with SS I could evade all arrows by guessing their position correctly and moving around them/not moving. Then there was one such player, he was not good in general, but he moved his SS and shot likely and unlikely spots alike. He hit me 3 out of 3 times. First time I moved closer then neccessary for the spot he chose and I ran into it. From that point on I kept attention and really tried to guess the spot correct, he was just better than me. When I assumpted he trapped the only attack path for my varl it turned out he didnt but protect his backfield from my backbiter. Then I thought he blocked a tricky strong move and instead he just blocked the obvious move. I don't think this was luck all along. Despite being bad at the basic tactics he outwitted me really hard with the sky striker.

    For reference, there are people that consistently have an above average winrate in games like rock-paper-scissors. People that consistently outwit others in fighting games. People that just do better in picking an appropriate sc2 strategy before they have sufficiant scouting information. Poker has a amount of strategies that require you to fold/call/raise with some % chance to obfuscate your strategy while maximizing value. This is a skill that can be tested and it is not random at all.

  18. #198
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    Just to clarify, when someone puts a word in quotes, like "this", they don't mean for the word to be taken literally. In the third quote above, I put quotes around "randomness" to indicate that some might refer to RoA as random, but I didn't want to endorse that usage. Maybe that threw you off my meaning.
    No. What threw me off your apparent meaning was not the use of quotation marks, but rather the use of your fully fledged sentences:

    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    I fully support more complaining about SS randomness (and I'm not being sarcastic).
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    if you're going to complain about randomness, put her [the SS] at the top of your list.
    Now if you could stop being so patronising I would appreciate it. Maybe you could add that to your 101 course on 'civilised discussion'? ...
    Last edited by loveboof; 04-07-2013 at 08:56 AM.

  19. #199
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Leartes, I realize the mathematical representation is inaccurate/overly simplified. It was a means of illustrating the point in the simplest manner. Which is why I said I'd keep it simple/just consider that scenario.

    Second, I'm not suggesting humans act like computers. I was pointing to the fact that if we were to take this discussion to the extreme, you could based on some criteria for weights/scoring, and whatever other proper modeling, turn the game (and many other games), into math. And I was going for, where do we draw the line?

    And yes Leartes, that's also what I'm getting at with how RoA play and gameplay behavior isn't really "random" and we have so many cases of games where similar things occur, like the ones you gave .

  20. #200
    @loveboof: That's why I said "maybe." It wasn't meant to be patronising, though I can see how it looks that way. It was actually a throwaway thought after re-reading your post (hence the "EDIT"). I'm not trying to start a fight here (though I would welcome one in-game!), but to reiterate: I thought it wasn't helping your arguments to routinely attach "I can't believe these guys over here say such things" at the beginning or end. I was hoping to improve the tenor of the conversation by dissuading you from using such empty and dismissive comments. Obviously, you disagree, so please go ahead and continue doing it.

    I wasn't sure it threw you off, but I thought it might've done. I agree that I used "random" and "chancy" wrongly, though I didn't trawl my old quotes to see exactly how and just went off of the quotes you provided.

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •