Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
457
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 21:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
I recently found out that falloff on electronic warfare works with a "hit or miss" mechanic instead of scaling their effect.
I understand why guns use this mechanic, but E-war should not be binary.
at optimal + falloff e-war effects like tracking disruptors and sensor dampeners are 100% effective half the time and 0% effective half the time.
This should not be the case as it introduces an unnecessary and nonsensical randomization mechanic into an otherwise competitive game.
It would make much more sense if at optimal + falloff the ewar was 50% effective all the time.
Randomization is bad for competition. To be highly competitive, games need to be completely deterministic otherwise the computer ends up deciding the match. This is why people turn off random crits in TF2, and why starcraft has no randomization in it at all. |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 22:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Would be better if we had something in the middle like with guns; hit, miss and graze.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
AurielS
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 23:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
I also share the vision that would be best to avoid as much randomness as possible, so I support your idea. In a related note, this is the same reason why I don't like ECM as it exists right now. |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 00:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Randomization is bad for competition. To be highly competitive, games need to be completely deterministic otherwise the computer ends up deciding the match. This is why people turn off random crits in TF2, and why starcraft has no randomization in it at all. Its not random, random would be all over the place. Its predictable, 50% of the time it will work, 50% of the time it will not work. If you throw salt at the floor, that's a random distribution, placing them evenly 50% to one side and 50% to the other is not random. However that is how we imagine random if we are asked to place something randomly; Evenly distributed. |
Sigras
Conglomo
459
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 01:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
by that logic throwing a die is not random because I know that over 1,000,000,000 samples 1/6 of them will be a 5 . . .
Random as in it is practically impossible to predict the outcome of the next event.
Say im in an arazu warp disrupting you at 80 km and youre in a tornado. I throw a sensor dampener on you. 75% of the time my dampener works and i hold you until my fleet lands and kills you. 25% of the time my dampener doesnt work due to no fault of my own and you blow me up in one hit because you were fitting 1400s
The computer just decided that engagement not anything you or I did. |
Ehcks Argentus
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 04:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Say im in an arazu warp disrupting you at 80 km and youre in a tornado. I throw a sensor dampener on you. 75% of the time my dampener works and i hold you until my fleet lands and kills you. 25% of the time my dampener doesnt work due to no fault of my own and you blow me up in one hit because you were fitting 1400s
The computer just decided that engagement not anything you or I did.
You made the choice to engage outside your optimal.
You could fight closer, or you could use rigs to increase your disruptor range. If you failed, it's because you didn't plan correctly. |
Sigras
Conglomo
459
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Im not disagreeing that there should be a penalty for engaging outside of my optimal range. I just dont think that penalty should be completely random and unpredictable.
Definitely, penalize me, but penalize me in a way i can play around; in a way that has to do with my knowledge of the game and informed decisions, not by some role of the dice. |
Sigras
Conglomo
459
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
AurielS wrote:I also share the vision that would be best to avoid as much randomness as possible, so I support your idea. In a related note, this is the same reason why I don't like ECM as it exists right now. The problem is that targeting is something that is binary. There is no "partial lock" and I dont even know how that would work.
im not sure if there is any way to make ECM work without introducing a random element.
Im actually ok with that because it is a necessary function. What we need to do is eliminate unnecessary randomness which the non-ECM e-war effects are currently using. |
Qolde
Scrambled Eggs Inc. Gunmen of the Apocalypse
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
partial effects would be nice. target painters only blowing up your sig 10%, ecm ships only jamming you for 5 seconds, td's at 75% effects, this would all be nice. i DO however appreciate the randomness of some of it. maybe in your falloff, theres a 25% chance of it working 100%, 25% chance of fail, and 50% "partial" effect. also, ecm should allow you to still target the ecming ship, maybe even having an effect on targeting speed, so that you can target them faster. If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Omega Flames
Last Resort Inn
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 05:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
You can't scale the effect of a jammer, either it jammed you or it didn't. You can't even reduce the time you are jammed because that is tied into the cycle time of the jam module. |
|
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 17:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sigras wrote:by that logic throwing a die is not random because I know that over 1,000,000,000 samples 1/6 of them will be a 5 . . .. Indeed. An independent probability event like a dice is indeed not very random, its evenly distributed over a known statistical probability. If however the dice had an unknown shape and number of sides, it would be random. Hence the understandable day to day misunderstanding of the concept, random. |
Sigras
Conglomo
465
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 21:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
that has got to be the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard on these forums.
from the American Heritage-« Science Dictionary: 1. Relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
from Webster's College Dictionary: Statistics - of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
from the Collins English Dictionary GÇô Complete and Unabridged: (Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) Statistics - having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically a random variable
from The American Heritage-« Dictionary of the English Language: Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/random
Random is what we call it in the English language, what do you call it? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 21:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
I agree that falloff should mean something all the time you're in it rather than only sometimes or whats the point of it? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Whitehound
1561
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 21:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
TL;DR: OP wants less chaotic game mechanics, because EVE players are chaotic enough and one can only handle so much chaos. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 04:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sigras wrote:that has got to be the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard on these forums.
Random is what we call it in the English language, what do you call it?
Random is a difficult concept, it is not merely what the majority thinks the word means. I wonder why so few mathematicians ever try to explain it. Perhaps because people use dictionaries as authorities on mathematics and then construct an argument from authority from it. I will save us the threadnought, if anyone here wishes to understand the concept of randomness, PM me. "Random" is in day-to-day terms used as shorthand for various probability events, but that is not the actual concept of randomness.
To add something on-topic to the thread: The ewar modules function as a swing or a miss above optimal, knowing this you must use them within optimal. Past optimal there's a chance that it fails to hit every time, deal with it. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |