Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 445
# 61
02-02-2013, 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Yes, it is the point. It is indeed the whole point of this thread: Should this be a design goal or not.

Thank you for agreeing on this one, at least up to the point where we ask a very vital question:



That is true. Is this really the case? Is it impossible? If it was, a single example for how it is possible would remove that notion from the debate, right?

So, now we need to find criteria that, in for example your opinion, have a given solution count as "working". What are your criteria for that?
Sophokles, this reminds me of the old bit where a guy asks out a woman, and she shoots him down with "Only if you were the last man on earth". His response: "So, you're telling me there's a chance!"

I'll give you my criteria below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Are you seriously claiming that 1v1 situations don't happen in 5v5 fights?
Are you seriously claiming that because 1v1 situations happen, the design space needs to privilege them at the same level it does team play? Because that's a stupid argument. Here's why:

1v2 also happens, now needs to be balanced for. Ditto 1v3. Ditto 1v4. Ditto 1v5. Ditto 2v3... etc.

Again, as I said last time, very clearly, 1v1 fights happen, but that doesn't mean we need to balance for them, any more than we need to balance for any of the other possible combinations the system is not designed for, because those situations are fundamentally different from the game play we are trying to encourage.

Analogy: Cars sometimes drive into rivers. Does this mean that we need to design all cars to also be boats, or does it mean we need to train people to drive better?

I note that in your yen to score points off me by equivocating about the "1v1 is a subset" argument, you completely conceded that 1v1 is fundamentally different, for the reasons I listed. Let me put it to you this way - I'm saying that apples and oranges are both fruit, but that doesn't mean that apples are a 'subset' of oranges, because they are totally different things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Well, unfortunately, that is not a useable definition, because "satisfying" depends on highly subjective matters of taste and custom. What we need are objetive criteria here, such as "fight lasts no less than X, but no more than Y", and other objetively measureable criteria. Could you give a list that works for you, so that I can design an example that scales for 1v1, 5v5 and 10v10 for those criteria?
It's not a usable definition for you, because you sense that you will be unable to make a case that your 'solution' is 'satisfying' without quantifying it. That doesn't matter, though, because I am under no obligation to give you only those criteria that you feel able to meet.

Besides, in a game, what other criteria is there besides fun?

That said, I am highly interested in seeing you try this, so, here are some objective criteria to get you started:

matches last an average of 10 minutes, with a 95% confidence level, for both 1v1 and 5v5 matches.

Players have a selection of meaningful choices to make in ship and power selection - at least equal to what is in the game now. Meaningful in this context means that the selections I make will change the nature of the ensuing combat in ways that are obvious. Note that this may mean that some combinations are better than others - since some posters (you) are highly resistant to the idea that there can (or should be) one 'best' way to play, for bonus points, make sure that all the powers are equally effective in all combinations.

Players have active click power available at least once every ten seconds in top level pvp - on average. Note that some play styles may make this easier/harder, as the alpha strikers will likely stack powers on top of each other seeking an instant advantage, while other players may require up to 30 seconds of pure inaction so that they can think about the situation carefully (okay, that last guy wasn't you, but you remind me of him).

Players of roughly equal skill level have roughly equal chances of winning a match, both 1v1 and 5v5, meaning the 5v5 setting has to be robust enough so that a more skilled player can balance out a less skilled player on the same team.

And finally, the game still has to be fun. Meaning I reserve the right to make a case that whatever you come up with doesn't sound like an experience I would enjoy. You can balk at that all you like, but fun is important in a game, so you will have to defend any alternative on those grounds.

Okay, I think that's about it, Don Quixote - that windmill over there is looking at you funny, go sic it!
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,330
# 62
02-02-2013, 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtshead View Post
[...]
It's not a usable definition for you, because you sense that you will be unable to make a case that your 'solution' is 'satisfying' without quantifying it.
What may be satisfying to me may not be satisfying to you. Thus we won't be able to establish a proof based on subjective expression like "satisfying" or "fun".

Quote:
[...]
matches last an average of 10 minutes, with a 95% confidence level, for both 1v1 and 5v5 matches.
I understand that as " a match will last 10 minutes in 95% of the cases".

Quote:
Players have a selection of meaningful choices to make in ship and power selection - at least equal to what is in the game now.
[...]
Players have active click power available at least once every ten seconds in top level pvp - on average.
[...]
Players of roughly equal skill level have roughly equal chances of winning a match, both 1v1 and 5v5, meaning the 5v5 setting has to be robust enough so that a more skilled player can balance out a less skilled player on the same team.
[...]
First of all, from the above list I can only conclude that you are currently not finding PvP in STO in any way satisfying, because the current combat, not even when limiting it to 5v5 Arena sports events, is not even close to meeting the above criteria.

Second, I ignore any subjective additions like the funny part where you reserve the right to dismiss anything just based on some subjective feeling that you can claim to have, because you obviously were just joking.

Now, a simple system that achieves your goal would be:
  • Matches last for exactly 10 minutes. After that time is over, the match is ended by the engine, and dished out damage, and heal per side is compared. The side with more damage+heal in points (counting both shields and hull) wins. This satisfies the desire for an average 10 minute match duration, with 100% reliability (first criterium).
  • We essentially use the system of abilities as it is now, with modifications where needed, see below. This will satisfy the desire for a diverse system and the desire for every player having something available to click at least every ten seconds (second and third criteria).
  • All heals and resistance bonuses are castable on team mates and on the player's ship itself, as much as all attacks are possible to concentrate on a given target. This will mean that the numbers of damage and heal will be balanced regardless of team sizes, provided that both sides have sensible builds, stay close to each other, coordinate equally and stay awake. Thus, the system will be scale for 1v1, 2v2, 5v5, 10v10 and 1000v1000.
  • The numbers for heals and attack powers (weapons, damage-inflicting ablities like GW, damage-increasing abilities like CRF) are balanced vs a given number, say, 20,000 dps plus HPS for max level gear and maxed-out stats set up in the optimal combination (this is just an example number, don't read too much into it). Thus, all ship and captain classes s are balanced vs one another.

(Note for any innocent bystanders just jumping into this thread: I am not proposing this system to replace the one we have. This is just an example that proves how something that was claimed to be impossible is actually possible.)

So, obviously it is not impossible to do that. Point proven.

Of course certain people will now jump up and down to show how they don't think that proves anything, or will try to move the goalpost, make lame jokes to distract from the point that was proven, or some other forum PvP that is just so tiring about this subforum. But for me, any claims that "it is impossible to balance both for 1v1 and 5v5" are just no longer existant, and I will ignore them due to the above.

As you, mrtshead, have already agreed that balancing for 1v1 as much as for 5v5 or 10v10 is a desirable goal, and were simply of the opinion that it wasn't impossible, you will of course now say that the system should balance out for 1v1 as much as for 5v5. Right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,015
# 63
02-02-2013, 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Having balanced the game around something else than 1v1 will essentially make some players feel like they are in an inferior ship. That is not a good feeling, and would thus be bad game marketing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
What may be satisfying to me may not be satisfying to you. Thus we won't be able to establish a proof based on subjective expression like "satisfying" or "fun".
As usual, if we wait long enough you will completely destroy your own points. Of course, you have been consistently blind to your own hypocrisy and contradictory assertions in the past, so there's no expectation that you will recognize it this time.

These are the voyages of the U.S.S. Hypocrites...
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 445
# 64
02-02-2013, 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
What may be satisfying to me may not be satisfying to you. Thus we won't be able to establish a proof based on subjective expression like "satisfying" or "fun".
Hey guy, guess what? Just because you can't quantify something doesn't mean it isn't real, and can't be compared. For example - going to a funeral? Not fun, generally. Reading your posts? Moderately entertaining. Responding to them? More fun. Easy. Thus, again, no, I won't let you dismiss 'fun' as a criteria for a game, since 'being enjoyable' is inherent to the activity, and while it can't be quantified, it can be discussed, compared, and evaluated. This, I would think, would be obvious, but, whatever.

The ONLY reason I can discern that explains why you resist this so much is because you sense that if you allow 'fun' to be a criteria you will lose the debate, since you will end up having to admit that the change would be more fun for you, but at the cost of the fun of the people who enjoy the status quo, and you have little to no chance of convincing people that the benefit (Sophokles enjoys game more) outweighs the cost (other people enjoy it less). I think you are right about that, which is why way back in my first post I said that even if you succeed in coming up with a viable alternative, you would still have to defend that it is preferable, and that I didn't think you could do that.

This is vital - if you are unwilling to defend your alternative as having merit as a game (ie being fun to play), then point blank you lose, and, to take a page from your book, I will ignore any alternative you provide that doesn't take that into account.

Feel free to mis-interpret that as saying "Other people aren't as rational as Sophokles, and therefore can't see that their own preferences are illogical and thus should be ignored", if it helps you feel like you didn't just get your argument crushed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
I understand that as " a match will last 10 minutes in 95% of the cases".
It doesn't really mean that, but meh, it really doesn't matter, since functionally they are close enough for everyday purposes. In any case, your first suggestion (alone) does meet this criteria, and thus may have merit for further discussion (although I suspect it would be better to have a 'kill counter OR timer, which ever comes first' system, otherwise you end up with one sided slaughters that have to go on for a full ten minutes, and that probably sucks).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
First of all, from the above list I can only conclude that you are currently not finding PvP in STO in any way satisfying, because the current combat, not even when limiting it to 5v5 Arena sports events, is not even close to meeting the above criteria.

Second, I ignore any subjective additions like the funny part where you reserve the right to dismiss anything just based on some subjective feeling that you can claim to have, because you obviously were just joking.
First, thanks for putting words in my mouth. This was another trap, and one I DON'T apologize for, because it totally undercuts your argument. Since, as you already pointed out, 'fun' can't be quantified, you have no way of knowing that I don't like the current system, but since you are obviously comfortable drawing a conclusion about my experience in the status quo, it stands to reason that we should be equally comfortable evaluating any proposal you put forth in the same way.

Or, in other words, if you can tell me that the current system is not fun (in your opinion), I can clearly say the same about yours. You don't get to use "the current system is not fun" as a reason to reject it, while at the same time asserting that it is an 'unsuitable' criteria for evaluating the alternative.

Second, since you've chosen to ignore all that, this is me ignoring your proposal, because on face it doesn't meet the 'fun' criteria. Explain how it meets ALL the criteria, and I'll put forth my case for why it doesn't and we'll see where we land.

Oh, and to pre-empt your "then we'll never reach a conclusion" - remember you're not here to 'win' (IE forum PvP), you're here to exchange ideas. It shouldn't matter that no-one accepts or agrees with your ideas if all you are looking for is a nuanced discussion. Unless, of course, that's just what you tell yourself when you realize how badly you're losing.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:46 AM.