Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gorek Loc
Dawning Industries
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 10:31:00 -
[1]
I'd like to see everything in the game being mathematically calculated. No random-based attacks, salvaging, ECM, probing, etc.
There is already a formulae for most of the stuff, just remove the random factor, so people can actually know that a 25% chance is a win about every four times you try. Of course, chance-based is still chance based, so it still won't become a sure 'try four times and win' situation.
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 10:47:00 -
[2]
Sooo instead if(random(100) < 25) // success u want miss miss miss hit
?
Linear ftl --- Alexandra Frigaro > These RISE guys have a better spawn rate than angels... |
Del Narveux
Obsidian Angels Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 10:51:00 -
[3]
Attacks -should be random, one of the things I dont like about many MMOs is the people who sit there with a calculator and an item database and nerd it up, i.e. determine exactly how the battle will play out before anyone takes a shot.
ECM -touchy subject, but I see your point the points system and the voodoo math behind things like dampers should be a little less byzantine and better documented in terms of when they work and such.
Salvage -should be like mining, the wreck contains X components plus or minus a fudge factor calculated when teh wreck is made, each salvage cycle gives you Y components until the wreck runs dry. The people who could most benefit from salvaging are the low-SP guys who dont have a lot of other good isk making opportunities. Plus it would be nice if the parts were more available in general (greater supply) so theyd be usable by more than the very rich and battleship/tech2 pilots. I envision a day when its possible to put a rig or two on a 200k suicide frig and not feel like a total idiot.
Probing -meh. Should be random, but not very random...just enough that one probe isnt guaranteed find as that makes things a bit too simple for the prober IMO. If scan times need to be shortened or aggro timer lengthened then fine, so be it I just want probing to be a bit more than 'ha ha ha i clicks da button and warps to da target'.
Basically I think some randomness is good for combat oriented stuff as it keeps things interesting, but its stupid for industrial activities and just wastes time. _________________ [SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Originally by: Wrangler Well, at least we have forum PvP..
|
Ovno ConSyquence
Amarr Exiled.
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 15:25:00 -
[4]
Quote: Sooo instead if(random(100) < 25) // success u want miss miss miss hit
?
Linear ftl
Although i couldn't agree more on the linear ftl bit i think the op is saying that its more along the lines of
if(random(100) < (25 + random(n)) //success
at the moment, which i didn't think was the case but i could be wrong, anyone know for sure?
If thats not the case, then it is already mathematically calculated and all ccp mean by 'random' is that it is 'chance-based'....
|
Captain Schmungles
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 15:48:00 -
[5]
Look, it's a computer program. Computer programs are not capable of making truly "random" decisions. Everything must be programmed according to SOME kind of formula. The way that "random" works in EVE is much the same way that slot machines "randomly" hit a jackpot-- it's not random, it's "chance-based."
So, as far as removing randomness from EVE, fear not, it's already removed, in fact, nothing in this game was ever random. So, is there a mathematical formula? Yes, there has to be. What makes this formula operate "randomly" is that numbers are randomly substituted (though even then the range of numbers that can be chosen is limited) for at least one of the variables in the equation, thus allowing for the program to generate a range of different solutions so that these results appear "random." However, they're not. Just because they appear to be random does not mean that they are.
|
galadran
Caldari The Power of 3
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 18:55:00 -
[6]
Psuedo randomness is achieved very easily with Computers.
Takea number that won'tb be repeated very often ie: Number of CPU cycles since startup * A large number / A large number
A "random" number.
Thats how random numbers are generally caclulated. So its impossible to work out how a battle will turn out if you don't know the original number.
|
Gorek Loc
Dawning Industries
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 19:24:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ovno ConSyquence
Quote: Sooo instead if(random(100) < 25) // success u want miss miss miss hit
?
Linear ftl
Although i couldn't agree more on the linear ftl bit i think the op is saying that its more along the lines of
if(random(100) < (25 + random(n)) //success
at the moment, which i didn't think was the case but i could be wrong, anyone know for sure?
If thats not the case, then it is already mathematically calculated and all ccp mean by 'random' is that it is 'chance-based'....
This is more what I was thinking... make everything less chance based. Of course, you can't make it solely based on facts... you'd get same result everytime... Even I don't want that
By making the skills count more and the randomness counting less in most skills.. something like (skills +-*/ random number)
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 19:39:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 13/04/2007 19:37:09
I hope you don't mind me asking - why?
Why would it improve the game?
I think EVE is already enough of an excel spreadsheet contest. _________________________________ - The sky is the sky wherever you go - |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 21:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
I hope you don't mind me asking - why?
Why would it improve the game?
Player efforts, for non-combat activities, should yeild a result other than zero/nothing. Crappy skills or tactics should yeild crappy results, but a result none the less.
Example, new guy to invention wants to invent widgets. He gets the basic skills and the minimum stff he needs - runs invention and gets a crappy BPC -but he got somethng for his efforts. He builds or sells from his crappy BPC widget and makes enough ISK to recoup some but not all of his loss - he got a small carrot with a stick in it and not just a big stick.
Another example, new explorer player gets his base skills, his nifty new t1 recon frigate and a few probes. Multifreq gets a hit. So he plops down his quest probes and scans - Sice his skills aren't great, the result he gets is beyond the scan deviation for the pursuit probe, maybe even outside the deviation for a quest probe - but at least he got something that could be marginaly useful if he used his head instead of 45 minutes of nothing at all. It might still take him 45 minutes to figure out how to traiangulate three crappy results and determine that he needs to concentrate with yt another quest probe at planet five -but at least he is making progrss and not just sitting there smacking a button every few minutes on his way to concluding that exploration blows.
An action should provide a result. It's simple Pavlovian thing. -AS |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 21:34:00 -
[10]
I'm standing up for random.
Random is fun. Luke Skywalker didn't kill the Death Star because he was a nerd with a slide rule. David didn't calculate the precise trajectory of his slingshot stone before taking on Goliath.
Predictable is boring. Yes, your skills should make you BETTER - but NEVER perfect. People who only want a 100% success rate, or to know the outcome of a venture before they embark upon it are acCoUNTantS (CAPS deliberate), and, in addition are poorly prepared for life. People like this probably want to bring Health & Safety Inspections into EVE prior to launching your ship...
Every space trip should have a large chance of being uneventful, and an equal, but very small chance of being either a disaster or a triumph. Both outcomes are the stuff of epics, sagas and battlehymns. No one ever wrote an ode to an accountant.
I'd like to see MORE random. It's luck that makes heroes, not calculus. ---
I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment. |
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 21:37:00 -
[11]
I don't see this directly related to proving that all chanced based systems should be eliminated.
It's more like crappy implementation of certain features. But you can always create flawed stuff, be it random or not.
That's why I prefer to differentiate. It's not black and white.
_________________________________ - The sky is the sky wherever you go - |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 11:08:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Adunh, I don't see this directly related to proving that all chanced based systems should be eliminated.
I'm not saying randmoness should be eliminated, so much as, an effort should yeild a result, even if the result is of "poor quality" to the point of being an ISK sink. It's still something other than nothing.
As for "black or white" ... the system is black or white now, you get something or you don't. All I am suggesting is move the boundry towards the "get something" side of zero.
It could be even "more random", you run an invention job so poorly that your researcher blows up the lab and now you owe ISK for repair costs. How many people would like that?
-AS |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 13:13:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Grey Area on 14/04/2007 13:09:33
Originally by: Adunh Slavy It could be even "more random", you run an invention job so poorly that your researcher blows up the lab and now you owe ISK for repair costs. How many people would like that?
/me jumps up and down and waves.
Ooh, ooh, me! ME!
I played a game called "Sword of the Stars" - standard turn based space colonisation game, and THAT had a research section...you could allocate more resources for faster results...but it increased the risk (yes, a RANDOM risk) of something going disastrously wrong...one such incident actually lost me control of ten separate planets (I accidentally created an AI which revolted and took them over - took me about 15 turns to get straight)
As I said...a resounding success, or abject failure should be a POTENTIAL outcome for ANY venture...but 98% of the time, it should just tick along nicely. ---
I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment. |
Captain Schmungles
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 14:05:00 -
[14]
I understand the notion that an action should provide a result-- albeit a crappy one for those with crappy skills-- but it seems to me that if you have crappy skills then you should be vulnerable to the result being nothing. The incentive to improve our skills is the reduction (or elimination perhaps) of the possibility that your efforts will result in nothing.
If we want to make this more "random," then make it so that as you train a given skill the possibility of nothing happening decreases with each level. However, you shouldn't eliminate the possibility of nothing happening.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 18:02:00 -
[15]
Casinos are a good model for this. Casinos are rigged such that they only win 5% of the time, and they do even worse at roulette. The reason is because they want you to stay and keep spending money. Over time they will get their 5%. While they do this, they ply you with cheap drinks, attractive*****tail waitresses, flashy lights and other whimsical things û They want you to enjoy spending your money.
MMOs are not much different. They have time sinks and levels for a reason, so that you keep paying your subscription. Lots and lots of failure messages and zero yield results have a cost, over time, on the psychology of the player. People play games because they want it to be fun, if they feel that they are not having fun, which is a wholly subjective thing of course, they will find something else to do. Eve has lots of things to do, so perhaps Eve is ôsafeö from it, though more and more things in Eve are doing this ôzero resultö thing.
I do get the concept of risk/reward, and risking your time and ISK in these things, or PVP for that matter, is what makes Eve what it is. But there is also another balance and that is the Effort/Fun balance. I will risk considerable ISK if I know the experience will be fun, if the chances are good that it wonÆt be fun, I wonÆt waste my time with it.
-AS |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.04.15 13:34:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Captain Schmungles I understand the notion that an action should provide a result-- albeit a crappy one for those with crappy skills-- but it seems to me that if you have crappy skills then you should be vulnerable to the result being nothing.
I disafree...the result of trying to do something DIFFICULT with crappy skils should actually be WORSE than nothing. If you try to disarm a bomb and don't know what you are doing, it is evidently NOT the case that the worst result is "nothing happens" - more like your hamfisted attempts cause it to go "boom".
And equally, I think the ELIMINATION of these disastrous results should NOT be possible - even the highly skilled experts***** it up sometimes. In any tabletop RPG a "1" on the dice is ALWAYS a fumble, and a "20" (or 100, if you're using percentile dice" is ALWAYS a critical, REGARDLESS of how skilled you are. That is what CCP should strive to maintain in EVE, and ignore all these cries for a pureley mathematical combat system.
In fact, I'll make a deal...you can have a purely mathematical combat system, if you accept purely mathematical loot tables in return. NPC's always dropping the exact same items according to their type. Does that sound like fun? ---
I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment. |
Captain Schmungles
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 16:43:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Captain Schmungles I understand the notion that an action should provide a result-- albeit a crappy one for those with crappy skills-- but it seems to me that if you have crappy skills then you should be vulnerable to the result being nothing.
I disafree...the result of trying to do something DIFFICULT with crappy skils should actually be WORSE than nothing. If you try to disarm a bomb and don't know what you are doing, it is evidently NOT the case that the worst result is "nothing happens" - more like your hamfisted attempts cause it to go "boom".
And equally, I think the ELIMINATION of these disastrous results should NOT be possible - even the highly skilled experts***** it up sometimes. In any tabletop RPG a "1" on the dice is ALWAYS a fumble, and a "20" (or 100, if you're using percentile dice" is ALWAYS a critical, REGARDLESS of how skilled you are. That is what CCP should strive to maintain in EVE, and ignore all these cries for a pureley mathematical combat system.
In fact, I'll make a deal...you can have a purely mathematical combat system, if you accept purely mathematical loot tables in return. NPC's always dropping the exact same items according to their type. Does that sound like fun?
I agree, it's what I was trying to say in my post that you responded to.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |