Again, the self-importance aspect rears its ugly head
TA Derivative Balancing Theory, Part Deux
Moderator: Moderators
I hate entering this thread, but I'm tired of Tired again.
Tired, I invite you to argue with me about the statistical approach to balance any day, and attempt to defend any particular judgement you wish to apply to a given set of cases. Let's talk about hills vs. slopetolerance vs. weaponspeed vs. turret rotations, and arrive at a perfectly-balanced set of assumptions that can be used to balance a given weapon system.
Let's talk about energy input per-frame and the sliding effects on the firepower of a given collection of Annihilators, and discuss their real combat power as a dimishing-returns curve over any collection of real frames.
Go on. Take either of those two problems, sit down, and write out an essay describing how they actually work. Use some goddamn math, Mr. Statistics. Give us a real analysis. Or shut up. Your approach to unit analysis is so crude, it's like watching a somebody trying to pick a flower with the Jaws of Life. You simply do not understand your subject matter, and spout meaningless crap, and we're supposed to take you seriously, because you're just so cool
Why you persist in such complete logical fallacies, that you know you cannot defend, and don't even understand the underlying math of, whilst claiming you are logically consistent is a miracle of a small mind.
Tired, I invite you to argue with me about the statistical approach to balance any day, and attempt to defend any particular judgement you wish to apply to a given set of cases. Let's talk about hills vs. slopetolerance vs. weaponspeed vs. turret rotations, and arrive at a perfectly-balanced set of assumptions that can be used to balance a given weapon system.
Let's talk about energy input per-frame and the sliding effects on the firepower of a given collection of Annihilators, and discuss their real combat power as a dimishing-returns curve over any collection of real frames.
Go on. Take either of those two problems, sit down, and write out an essay describing how they actually work. Use some goddamn math, Mr. Statistics. Give us a real analysis. Or shut up. Your approach to unit analysis is so crude, it's like watching a somebody trying to pick a flower with the Jaws of Life. You simply do not understand your subject matter, and spout meaningless crap, and we're supposed to take you seriously, because you're just so cool
Why you persist in such complete logical fallacies, that you know you cannot defend, and don't even understand the underlying math of, whilst claiming you are logically consistent is a miracle of a small mind.
-
Machiosabre
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 22:56
jerk!Tired wrote:Failure to follow simple instructions. =.=R.P.S. Feel free to split off the quote about balance only impacting gameplay through consistency, and delete the rest. Only way to have a message understood around here is to keep it simple, and repeat.
Ya know, it's no surprise that so many of you think that I'm a jerk. You're just too dumb to follow my of humor. =)
I agree. I've probably removed more units than I introduced, although many of the retired units came back because they were a dev's favourite. That sounds bad, but in fact it forces the dev to make it very unique before bringing it back in. This cycle has fueled many innovations.Tired wrote: Worth pointing out again is that CA has far too many units for the balancing approach being taken
Yeah, but..Tired wrote: "Complete" Annihilation is anything but complete
Proof:trepan wrote: In the default game mode, you win by achieving the
"Complete Annihilation" of your opponent(s).
CA Storyline (ripped from TA) wrote: For each, the, only acceptable outcome was the complete annihilation of the other.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
And my mod is actually fun, so we're all winners here.Tired wrote:Why have all "Annihilation" games become oxymorons, btw? "Absolute" Annihilation is obviously far from absolute, "Balanced" Annihilation is anything but balanced, "Complete" Annihilation is anything but complete, and "XTA" is anything but Xtreme. At least my mod has the humility to represent itself as it actually is. ~~
Case of missing the point, Forb - every mod in that list was insulted, to include my own. Add your own at its peril. ~~
The problem is that many people don't specialize in "getting the point," which in turn's frustrating and results in sarcastic retort. Argh's a case in point of this, but he's a flat out moron. Watch him defend his contention that NanoBlobs was anything other than complete ass, or that he's not a moron, in a post soon to follow this one if you have doubt.
tom, you should understand if you've read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," which was about eating Irish babies. To me, it seems unreasonable that anyone with a whit of wit could get offended at something that so cleverly lambasted the same person getting offended for their own hypocrisy, yet people who read it to this day are outraged because they lack perspective, consideration... or they're just plain dumb.
quant, you're a good guy, and I highly support your window shopping innovations. Collectively speaking, though, the CA dev. crew is like a Walt Disney without a Roy, which's why I never expect CA to be playable. =(
trepan, the tragedy in all of this is that I've never once attacked you. I made a joke in response to a joke you made and you perceived an attack that didnt't exist. You responded, I made a joke about your response, in which you perceived yet another attack.... You've done enough LUA work that I don't consider you to be a dumb person, so savvy up and stop playing the part. =\
The problem is that many people don't specialize in "getting the point," which in turn's frustrating and results in sarcastic retort. Argh's a case in point of this, but he's a flat out moron. Watch him defend his contention that NanoBlobs was anything other than complete ass, or that he's not a moron, in a post soon to follow this one if you have doubt.
tom, you should understand if you've read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," which was about eating Irish babies. To me, it seems unreasonable that anyone with a whit of wit could get offended at something that so cleverly lambasted the same person getting offended for their own hypocrisy, yet people who read it to this day are outraged because they lack perspective, consideration... or they're just plain dumb.
quant, you're a good guy, and I highly support your window shopping innovations. Collectively speaking, though, the CA dev. crew is like a Walt Disney without a Roy, which's why I never expect CA to be playable. =(
trepan, the tragedy in all of this is that I've never once attacked you. I made a joke in response to a joke you made and you perceived an attack that didnt't exist. You responded, I made a joke about your response, in which you perceived yet another attack.... You've done enough LUA work that I don't consider you to be a dumb person, so savvy up and stop playing the part. =\
Last edited by Tired on 19 Nov 2007, 22:03, edited 1 time in total.
Ok, I'll draw a flow chart.
Tired: "Complete Annihilation is not 'complete,' ha ha."
trepan: "Complete Annihilation is 'complete' because you 'completely annihilate your enemies, ha ha."
Tired: *Creates Straw Man of trepan's joke (wiki it). Attacks Straw Man to make a Canadian joke.*
trepan: *Reacts as though Straw Man joke were a legitimate attack, and responds. In this, he's assuming that I'm REALLY dumb, and missing the switch that the train of thought just took.*
Tired: 0o
trepan: *Reacts as though "0o" is a legitimate attack. Adds smiley because somewhere he learned that it makes you seem uneffected by whatever you're responding to when you're obviously not, else you wouldn't be responding. (Don't do that btw - it's a silly practice.)*
Tired: "Ok, now you're just being dumb."
trepan: "Oh, who's the dumb one? =)"
Tired: "Seriously. Dumb."
trepan: "Oh, you're so dumb, are you? =)"
tombom: "I don't get it. ;\"
Tired: "That's it - flow chart."
Tired: "Complete Annihilation is not 'complete,' ha ha."
trepan: "Complete Annihilation is 'complete' because you 'completely annihilate your enemies, ha ha."
Tired: *Creates Straw Man of trepan's joke (wiki it). Attacks Straw Man to make a Canadian joke.*
trepan: *Reacts as though Straw Man joke were a legitimate attack, and responds. In this, he's assuming that I'm REALLY dumb, and missing the switch that the train of thought just took.*
Tired: 0o
trepan: *Reacts as though "0o" is a legitimate attack. Adds smiley because somewhere he learned that it makes you seem uneffected by whatever you're responding to when you're obviously not, else you wouldn't be responding. (Don't do that btw - it's a silly practice.)*
Tired: "Ok, now you're just being dumb."
trepan: "Oh, who's the dumb one? =)"
Tired: "Seriously. Dumb."
trepan: "Oh, you're so dumb, are you? =)"
tombom: "I don't get it. ;\"
Tired: "That's it - flow chart."
Last edited by Tired on 19 Nov 2007, 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
For Nor, I have a 3 point plan for making XTA eXTREME!
1) Bigger explosions. Add in bigger impulse effects to match the overdone weapon effects and have units flip across the map.
2) Bullet time. Have sluggish gameplay periodically/sporadically kick into triple speed for 10 second bursts, possibly with that new random crit multiplier someone came up with. Possibly make this in part player controlled, preferrably by picking up Power Ups spread across the map.
3) Mountain Dew logos on all Peewees and Red Bull logos on all AKs.
Do the Dew.
1) Bigger explosions. Add in bigger impulse effects to match the overdone weapon effects and have units flip across the map.
2) Bullet time. Have sluggish gameplay periodically/sporadically kick into triple speed for 10 second bursts, possibly with that new random crit multiplier someone came up with. Possibly make this in part player controlled, preferrably by picking up Power Ups spread across the map.
3) Mountain Dew logos on all Peewees and Red Bull logos on all AKs.
Do the Dew.
Hmm... then why are you so afraid to debate me?Argh's a case in point of this, but he's a flat out moron. Watch him defend his contention that NanoBlobs was anything other than complete ass, or that he's not a moron, in a post soon to follow this one if you have doubt.
You have yet to defend your idiotic shambles, and you just keep saying, "NanoBlobs sucks, therefore Argh can't know anything", which isn't an argument- it's just a straw man.
My argument, very simply put, is that you are incapable of meaningful statistical analysis of game balance. You don't have the skills to do it. You should not be giving advice, other than vague ideas about how something might be cooler with more hitpoints. You aren't qualified to tell us anything more plausible than that.
Whether or not I'm a moron is entirely irrelevant. You can either demonstrate that you have standing to submit arguments for peer review, or you can wimp out, like you always have before. Your call.
Last edited by Argh on 19 Nov 2007, 22:20, edited 1 time in total.
Flow Chart #2:
Tired: "Argh's a moron, so he'll respond to what I'm typing here even though I've made it pretty clear that I won't give him the time of day. In responding to this statement, he falls for a troll feint and proves himself a moron!"
Argh: *Responds, as predicted.*
lurker: *Reading only the lines and missing everything in-between (as did Argh) reacts only to that which's clearly laid out for him.*
Tired: "That's it - flow chart."
So damned stupid it makes my eyes bleed.
Tired: "Argh's a moron, so he'll respond to what I'm typing here even though I've made it pretty clear that I won't give him the time of day. In responding to this statement, he falls for a troll feint and proves himself a moron!"
Argh: *Responds, as predicted.*
lurker: *Reading only the lines and missing everything in-between (as did Argh) reacts only to that which's clearly laid out for him.*
Tired: "That's it - flow chart."
So damned stupid it makes my eyes bleed.
Ah, I didn't pick up on that implication because I don't see it the same way, as Argh trying to talk to you being foolish. I see it as just trying to open a dialog, whatever you said in your post. Heck, I have some naive hope you'll work it out and possibly improve the situation of spring mods' balance.
I responded legitimately to Argh once. In that response, I suggested that he read what I'd typed that preceeded his response, because if he did he'd find the answers to most of his objections. I should note that in this one response I was every bit as polite as Argh has even been on these forums, and probably a fair bit moreso.
In response to reason, Argh refused to follow my suggestion and proceeded with more of the typically unoriginal personal attacks that characterize the dim breed that he's a part of - one both malicious and dreadfully boring. I wrote him off, and he filled the rest of the page with responses that I either sluffed off or ignored. One-sided conversations ftw.
Anyway lurker, balance is easy easy easy to achieve, as I've pointed out here and in other threads. All it does is force all units through their common characteristics into a common formula where you can achieve a zero-sum. You could pull this formula out of a hat, and have a very dull game with perfect balance. Much as truth and validity are both required to make a sound argument, unit roles and balance combine to make sound gameplay. Balance merely addresses the element of validity - of form.
It applies a fixed, measurable standard to gameplay. More than anything else, applying a balancing template to BA4.7 as I did to create TA corrected the many gross oversights that self-perpetuated in unpopular and overly popular units alike. Similar units in every respect save that one floated and one didn't in one case resulted in a 400% cost change. One unit that flew around in circles and dropped bombs using essentially the same script was far more effective than a similar unit than its cost would suggest. Balance introduced apple to apple consistency, and all combat units are apples. After this foundation is in place, definition of unit roles determines whether or not you'll have "fun" (subjective, but predictable with objective data) gameplay.
Once again, this's all trepan's fault for failure to follow simple instructions. Poor Neddie, who'll no doubt feel compelled to lock this thread because of another moderator's mess again.
Lack of consistency.
In response to reason, Argh refused to follow my suggestion and proceeded with more of the typically unoriginal personal attacks that characterize the dim breed that he's a part of - one both malicious and dreadfully boring. I wrote him off, and he filled the rest of the page with responses that I either sluffed off or ignored. One-sided conversations ftw.
Anyway lurker, balance is easy easy easy to achieve, as I've pointed out here and in other threads. All it does is force all units through their common characteristics into a common formula where you can achieve a zero-sum. You could pull this formula out of a hat, and have a very dull game with perfect balance. Much as truth and validity are both required to make a sound argument, unit roles and balance combine to make sound gameplay. Balance merely addresses the element of validity - of form.
It applies a fixed, measurable standard to gameplay. More than anything else, applying a balancing template to BA4.7 as I did to create TA corrected the many gross oversights that self-perpetuated in unpopular and overly popular units alike. Similar units in every respect save that one floated and one didn't in one case resulted in a 400% cost change. One unit that flew around in circles and dropped bombs using essentially the same script was far more effective than a similar unit than its cost would suggest. Balance introduced apple to apple consistency, and all combat units are apples. After this foundation is in place, definition of unit roles determines whether or not you'll have "fun" (subjective, but predictable with objective data) gameplay.
Once again, this's all trepan's fault for failure to follow simple instructions. Poor Neddie, who'll no doubt feel compelled to lock this thread because of another moderator's mess again.
Lack of consistency.
