|
Stabilis -> RE: Shadow Arts. (5/12/2012 1:05:17)
|
@ND Mallet,
quote:
Most skills have damage ranges.
Key point: damage ranges are readable. If an attack's power was 40-44 and a player's defense was 32-36, I would take my lowest damage range which is 4, and the highest damage range which is 12, add those together and get a median which is 8. I would make a decision based on the median. I can also take my minimal damage range and act conservatively based on that. Damage ranges are workable, they be be used in a direct calculation to get a direct result. Percent chances of occurrence retain nothing. If I had a 1 in 10 chance of winning one million dollars it doesn't mean that in 10 tries that I will win one million dollars. It is only assumed. Frequencies are different than rates. A rate defines the percentage, such as a percent chance, the "average" frequency or chance of happening. A frequency is a reliable repetition, a pattern. You can compare this with cooldowns for example. If you have ever taken physics, here is why we do not use "averages" in results summaries and conclusions and generally everything. If I had data of where apples fell on the ground, and graphed 2 real examples in a scatter plot:
Non-repetitive positions (rated)
Repetitive positions (frequent)
So, I create a line of best fit. In the "rate" graph, there are apples that are off in terms of x and y in contrast to the supposed locations on the line of best fit. However, because the line represents an "average", these data points are assumed to share similar traits. That is false. Even though the line represents all of the apples, it in noway represents each individual apple. There is no defined path to argue that the second highest apple in the non-repetitive graph, shares any characteristics or behaviours of the line, or any other apple for that matter. There is no order, no clean relationship between the apples, and because of this, the error of uncertainty is extremely high and results will not prove any patterns to justify a relationship. The non-repetitive graph will need to be scrapped and retested with new apples, and that same graph is tantamount of luck.
Now see the repetitive graph. The line of best fit represents the "average", but see here, the apples are located in a more stable pattern on the line of best fit. There is now a sense of certainty as the apples seem to follow an order of occurrence. There can be an equation to determine the position of each apple shown. Y = X. If another apple was added, you can with greater assurance tell where the next apple will be found, along the line, in front of the lead apple. There is a frequency, but most importantly, a structured interval.
If one enters 1v1 and depends on an active skill with a 5 turn cooldown, while another depends on a passive skill with a % chance of occurring (again see the non-repetitive graph). Will the skill with a 5 turn cooldown be effective in 5 turns? Yes, it will. Will the passive skill's % chance to block for example block in 5 turns? No, it can, but it will not. This is the very nature of entropy (chaos). Energy enters a system (using Shadow Arts), and results are determined by the amount of energy (% chance of happening), and number of items affected (how many blocks Shadow Arts will output).
Alright ND Mallet, add even more uncertainty into EpicDuel, with what you are suggesting I may as well play YukonGold! This "luck" should make the game more interesting, right? Let's have 1 battle result in 10 blocks and 10 critical hits and another battle result in 0 anything even though the second battle had much more likely unreliable rates. Technically, % chances to occur offer NO bonuses to the player. So, would then you support the fact that a player who rightfully outwitted and therefor conquered another player, should be victim to lose the match because of fluke chance that allowed the less-prepared player to not only survive but instead knockout the true winner of that battle?
If you do not support inappropriate, unrealistic, illogical, invalid reasons to throw a PvP match, then you nonsupport "luck" and most if not all improper battle mechanics of random chance. If you still do, continue reading...
quote:
DNs
CH - Replace Technician with Plasma Armor (passively gives energy resistance)
Gives them a reliable passive with better defensive options
The staff does know their own logic, because they evidently tried to weigh in balance by adding a passive skill that occurs every turn aside a passive that occurs at random. Do you not see the randomness that exist enough already in EpicDuel? Why do you want more? Yes, you do want more, why do you think that you are arguing a irrational case against me saying that "luck" is a correct means of PvP or balance to say the least? Luck is nonexistent. You cannot grasp it in your hands or shape it. There is enough luck already occurring in EpicDuel, examples I have in countless times mentioned, the build of the enemy, the equipment, the skill tree, the strategy, the very choices that they make, the first turn, the damage for and against. Even this is enough, no? So why should it ever live in our skills? If it is not in our control, it is not a skill. Simple.
quote:
You might hit the low end of one skill and your opponent lives instead of dying. You lose by luck in that case. You cannot remove luck entirely from ED without making it a predetermined fight every time.
Predetermined? Please, do not make me laugh, the last time I had laughed was 17 years ago. Whoever has the most optimal setup of character and favourable counter to another player's build, and has the most wisest choice of actions will be the rightful winner of a match, there is no denial there. Luck is truly only in our game EpicDuel to raise interest levels, can you not think of other ideas to make PvP interesting?
~greenrain, the green void of depressing
|
|
|
|
