I'm an engineer too. The "fitness" parameter thing was one of the firsts things I scratched because it just doesn't work out and is beated by stats given "so it feels right" by a mile. Fuzzy logic.
How about we avoid general phrases and give us some examples you jack in the box. Yeeeeeeesh.
You haven't even suggested anything. I could sum it all up in two sentences. It used to be better. Make it better.
A single fitness parameter cannot represent the complex relations that exist between the stats themselves, the non-linearity of their usefulness, unquantifiable stats (animations ?) and variations between players/teams/gamemodes/maps. Actually it could but if it did it would be so complicated we simply wouldn't be able to create it in the first place.
I would rather try something like a facemash-like study, comparing two items at a time and asking the player to select which one is the best.
It's a video game. Everything in it is already quantified, down to the 1s and 0s. Everything about the animations is quantifiable: delays, reaches, sweetspots, etc. And yes, the equation for fitness parameter would be complicated, but every day engineers develop fitness parameters for much more complex systems, where everything boils down to a single number.
I've been playing CRPG since nearly the beginning, back when its webpage was black and white with a row of the names of those who had donated. I've seen all the changes and there was a point where the mod peaked and then a crucial turning point started the decline: instead of focusing on fixing glitches, adding content and tweaking game modes, the developers decided to embark on this wild series of erratic nerfs, a lot of which they had to quickly revise or drop entirely.
It's just silly. The player population is getting smaller while the gameplay is becoming increasingly restrictive. There are still all kinds of weird little bugs and inconsistencies that have gotten absolutely no attention despite numerous threads. The developers' priorities are inscrutable but apparently wrong. Programming a big mod isn't easy of course, it's hard and there are going to be problems and all the players are thankful the mod exists in the first place, but that doesn't change the facts. It would all be so much better if their focus was on the mod's real problems instead of these bizarre alterations that nobody outside of a small clique want to see implemented.
I just get the feeling that this whole mod was at some point derailed by a crew of people (I don't know who exactly) who are bent on enforcing limitations that degrade, slow-down, de-skill and remove diversity. All that was most fun about CRPG is disappearing, and what replaces it is a LARPing simulator, heavily biased for Strategus play, with only a few truly viable builds possible.
The balance crew is unaccountable, doesn't dialogue on the forum by responding to feedback, and doesn't even any longer post the changes they make. It's like a takeover to make CRPG just as boring as the other, non-Warband melee games out now.
If the balance team is trying to use this thread to talk about their plans openly, that's awesome and I hope they'll create something like a thread that everybody can read and only they can post to, so that players could kind-of listen in on their whole process. It was cool of them to open-up like this and they deserve respect for that. It's not at all the reaction I expected. Thanks.
You're wrong and there's an easy way to show it: try to come up with this function.
There are so many points in this post that are a description of the current crpg such as your description of shields. We have this currently and having tested shields myself, I can easily detail which shields are best suited for each job and why. Some balancers agree with you that we currently have a type of balance that came about by making everything basically the same as everything else. Did you see the recent 2h rebalance? Those changes were directly implemented because of this problem.(click to show/hide)
For the latter part of your post, I think you confused what urist and cmp were saying, with what phew was saying. Phew was suggesting the "entirely new method of balancing" and our balancers(who you are at odds with) were saying that is an absurd idea.
The existing variables in the game are sufficiently comprehensive for everything to be balanced, but the question that has to come first is what kind of balance? Balance can come as the result of making everything much the same (what I think is one problem with the way things are being done) or it can come as a result of making different elements of gameplay "competitively unbalanced" - like for example, giving crushthrough and knockdown weapons slow speed and high strength requirements, while the weapons without those flags are much faster and can be used by builds with less points invested in strength. Ultimately the most satisfying way to balance a game is to focus less on item-to-item equivalence and more on build-to-build counters (something like, archers beat light melee, shielders beat archers, heavy 2h beats shielders, throwers beat heavy 2h, light melee beats throwers, and so on. Don't take that progression as a literal suggestion, it's just a loose conceptual example and any real balancing will be far more complex).
From there you can further balance weapons within those broad classes not by comparing numbers of kills, but the relative utility of those weapons within the sub-groupings of each broad class. To use shielders as an example, you have some who will want enormous tower shields for extra coverage from archers, and others who will want smaller, quicker shields for when they close to melee. They shouldn't be equal, but each better suited to different builds and different contexts in battle. The small-shielders will typically go for one-handed weapons, with some choosing blunt to get through armors and others choosing cut to slice-and-dice, while the big-shielders will probably tend towards polearms since their shields slow them down and they'll have to rely on reach and support more. These are all logical, successive sub-groupings that are a better way to balance than a purely mathematical approach.
I regret that I'm not making my points very clearly or completely, but to try to sum it up in some basic way, if you try to balance the game by a direct comparison of the "1s and 0s" then you're bound to make mistakes because you've taken a view too far removed from the way the game actually plays and the kinds of choices and preferences that constitute a sort of 'conduit' or 'medium' as it were between the players and the "ones and zeroes" they interact with, and through which they interact with one another.
It's as if the team is balancing for the sake of a numerical ideal instead of through an understanding of 'emergent gameplay', something I'm sure they've all studied.
Ultimately the most satisfying way to balance a game is to focus less on item-to-item equivalence and more on build-to-build counters (something like, archers beat light melee, shielders beat archers, heavy 2h beats shielders, throwers beat heavy 2h, light melee beats throwers, and so on.
It's as if the team is balancing for the sake of a numerical ideal instead of through an understanding of 'emergent gameplay', something I'm sure they've all studied.
If you can share details about the animations (damage scaling as a function of time within animation, and delays), I think I could make a decent go at it. For instance, 1h thrust has a tiny sweetspot, so the ability to thrust wouldn't be considered much of a bonus on 1h weapons. But 2h thrust is very good, so 2h swords would be "rewarded" more for having a thrust.
I don't think you need that formula for balancing, because it's the same for all weapon types (all thrusts share the same sweetspots, all overheads share the same sweetspots, etc.).
I assume you mean within a given weapon type. 1h right swing glances in the first half of the animation, while pole and 2h will hit for near-full damage in the very start of the animation. Likewise, 1h left swing won't glance during any part of the animation, but pole left swing glances during the early part, etc. Information about the relative sweetspots between different weapon types would be necessary for a unified fitness parameter that applies to all melee weapon types.
Nope, I don't mean within a given weapon type. See, we already have an example of balancing by numbers not working.
cmp, you are mistaken about the animation sweetspots. Get a +3 Arabian Cavalry Sword and an unloomed Heavy Bastard Sword on a char with 1wpf in both 1h and 2h. Same damage, same length. Then right swing at someone in medium armor, standing still, at about your 2 o'clock. The ACS will glance, the HBS won't. Because 1h right swing has a small sweetspot, 2h right swing has a huge sweetspot. Anyone that has ever played 1h and 2h knows this.
Phew, I have the code in front of my eyes.
Something doesn't add up. Anyone that has played the game can tell you that each weapon type has different sweetspots for each animation type. I did 6 gens of polearm, and the left swing glances during the early part of the animation. 1h left swing will hit someone at your 8 o'clock just fine. Polearm thrust will connect at near-facehug range, 1h thrust requires like 80cm between you and your target. 1h right swing doesn't have a prayer against someone between 1 o'clock and 4 o'clock, but that is the ideal strike location for 2h and polearm right swing.
Is the code for sweetspots temporal or spacial? i.e., you inflict max damage x seconds into the animation, or x degrees into the swing arc? If it's the former, then the fact that the different weapon types have different delays for each animation might explain the differences. If it's the latter, then the fact that each weapon type "starts" the animation from a different location relative to the player could explain the differences.
If it's literally "right swing deals 10% damage at 3 o'clock, up to 100% damage at 12 o'clock" or similar regardless of weapon type, then you can say that animation sweetspots are independent of weapon type. If there are any other variables, then you can't.
For stabs it's based on animation progress (I'm not sure what delays you're talking about).
For swings it's based on difference of angle between agents - so yeah, it's independent of weapon type.
You know, the animation delays you guys messed with like a year ago. I think Paul even posted the delays for each swing animation at once time; these are the reason 1h left swing is "fast" and right swing is "slow" for instance.
Anyway, I think cmp is trolling me about this sweetspot homogeneity between weapon types. I'll stop posting about it until I do some more testing.
Yes, I was totally trolling you. Couldn't you tell from the tone of my posts?
For stabs it's based on animation progress (I'm not sure what delays you're talking about).So on swings, the time the animation lasted has nothing to do with damge? Just the angle between the swinger and the guy being hit?
For swings it's based on difference of angle between agents - so yeah, it's independent of weapon type.
Afaik new items have been added at least a month ago, including kebab remover's armor. Just waiting for patch. So go spam chadz.
I'm an engineer too. The "fitness" parameter thing was one of the firsts things I scratched because it just doesn't work out and is beated by stats given "so it feels right" by a mile. Fuzzy logic.
Current balance is heavily biased to agi builds
Since everyone is voicing their opinions. I believe the ranged needs have been ridiculous. You guys have limited archery to 2 builds strength or agility. I mean on my archer now I don't even use athletics anymore....its fucking useless. Why waste points when even with 8 athletics a Shielder in heavy armor can catch me anyway. Instead of this weighted quivers bullshit, why not just lower ranged damage on the bows or arrows. I'd have rather have had lower damage output but keep my speed. I play mostly on EU since the NA community is constantly ignored. Fighting in melee with 110 ping isn't very fun especially with an archer with 1 wpf. Dafuq. As Artie has said NA players have quit in mass and its because they are constantly ignored and get the changes EU gets after close to a month. Its aggravating.
(click to show/hide)
NA is having issues with the current metagame. Right now,EU1:
- Archery is almost nonexistent, perhaps two or three per 45-man team.
- Lancers are running amok due to the lack of consistent ranged threat.
- Infantry polearms are pretty rare on NA. Even one longspearman per team is a sight to see.
- Throwers are popping up more, but still cannot fill the reliable anti-cav role that archery can play.
- Horse crossbowmen are majorly messing up team balance. Two or three decent ones can pick apart powerful infantry players, and almost always clutch rounds. This, again, relates to the NA archer scarcity.
Two-handers are still the primary class, despite these imbalances. NA archery is not the same as EU archery, and so any nerfs to combat the bloat of EU archers serve to cripple NA's unyielding 2H/lancer playerbase further.
Lancers and HX are able to go all-out because nobody has the setup to rear the horses or shoot them down with any accuracy.
Firing the current balance team is no good, but adding a few NA to it would go a long way to seeing our issues resolved.
EU1:
- Archers are running amok
- Cav is running amok
Tell me, how do you imagine a common balancing for EU and NA to work well?
Tell me, how do you imagine a common balancing for EU and NA to work well?
REally, if you're being trampled by cav, take a spear... You don't need wpf to rear a horse.
Personally, I play a hybrid build, purely so I can be effective most of the time. I'm a polearm/1h user. So if there's a lot of cav, I can take a spear, lot of ranged, I take a shield, lot of heavily armoured 2h's? +3 German pole or a blunt 1h. I mean, if you expect to be able to play your class the way you want 100%, that's a rather unrealistic assumption.
Maybe EU is more adaptive than NA?
NA is having issues with the current metagame. Right now,
- 1)Archery is almost nonexistent, perhaps two or three per 45-man team.
- 2)Lancers are running amok due to the lack of consistent ranged threat.
- 3)Infantry polearms are pretty rare on NA. Even one longspearman per team is a sight to see.
- 4)Throwers are popping up more, but still cannot fill the reliable anti-cav role that archery can play.
- 5)Horse crossbowmen are majorly messing up team balance. Two or three decent ones can pick apart powerful infantry players, and almost always clutch rounds. This, again, relates to the NA archer scarcity.
Ok just hoped on NA1 and this is what i saw
*bullshit*
So your statement seems quite incorrect
Yeah, jump on the server at 7:30 in the morning on a work/school day instead of prime time NA and think you have made a point?+1
stuff+1
Maybe EU is more adaptive than NA?+100 to everything in your post, but especially that line. This is the exact issue, why NA metagame is so wonky.
Yeah, jump on the server at 7:30 in the morning on a work/school day instead of prime time NA and think you have made a point?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
funnily enough, i don't give a shit about Prime time. There were people on, i had a look, that is the extent im going to go to.Then what is the point? :|