Originally posted by marcello
And if we sold our piece of BB equipment today, after the announcement?
u lose
And if we sold our piece of BB equipment today, after the announcement?
u lose
PLAYMAKERS
online
online
Originally posted by marcello
And if we sold our piece of BB equipment today, after the announcement?
then you didn't read the announcement
And if we sold our piece of BB equipment today, after the announcement?
then you didn't read the announcement
Warlock
offline
offline
Originally posted by DONKEIDIC
Problem is you cannot balance a sim when the players are spread over 11 seasons of development.
Bullshit.
It's all math and theory. Followed by testing and adjustments based on the test data. Once dots act the way you intended without any of the additional bullshit on top... you can start adding additions, developed via math and theory, followed by testing and adjustments... etc...
You test with end builds in mind, then proportionally lower effectiveness until you get to the beginning builds. It really isn't all that complicated TBPH... I could probably design a balanced base system in a couple weeks... then again I have played pretty much every single gaming system in existence (D&D, shadowrun, GURPs, champions, Vampire the masquerade, DAoC, EQ, Shadowbane, WoW, etc...). I've been gaming since I was 6, that's over 27 years of experience. I was a rules lawyer as well, finding every possible exploit I could, so I know full well what balance is and how to achieve it.
GLB is not linear enough and that's why balancing is all fubar'd. One of the most realistic and balanced system I've ever encountered was GURPs... every choice/benefit had a counter-balancing sacrifice/penalty.
http://www.sjgames.com/GURPS/
Problem is you cannot balance a sim when the players are spread over 11 seasons of development.
Bullshit.
It's all math and theory. Followed by testing and adjustments based on the test data. Once dots act the way you intended without any of the additional bullshit on top... you can start adding additions, developed via math and theory, followed by testing and adjustments... etc...
You test with end builds in mind, then proportionally lower effectiveness until you get to the beginning builds. It really isn't all that complicated TBPH... I could probably design a balanced base system in a couple weeks... then again I have played pretty much every single gaming system in existence (D&D, shadowrun, GURPs, champions, Vampire the masquerade, DAoC, EQ, Shadowbane, WoW, etc...). I've been gaming since I was 6, that's over 27 years of experience. I was a rules lawyer as well, finding every possible exploit I could, so I know full well what balance is and how to achieve it.
GLB is not linear enough and that's why balancing is all fubar'd. One of the most realistic and balanced system I've ever encountered was GURPs... every choice/benefit had a counter-balancing sacrifice/penalty.
http://www.sjgames.com/GURPS/
Maddoc
offline
offline
Originally posted by marcello
Originally posted by Catch22
If it was done before the announcement, it's eligible. If after, nope.
And if we sold our piece of BB equipment today, after the announcement?
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g300/kshockley_2006/WillyWonkaInTheShining.gif
Originally posted by Catch22
If it was done before the announcement, it's eligible. If after, nope.
And if we sold our piece of BB equipment today, after the announcement?
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g300/kshockley_2006/WillyWonkaInTheShining.gif
Maddoc
offline
offline
But if it makes you feel any better, you brought laughter into the hearts of the people in this thread.
utvols
offline
offline
Originally posted by Maddoc
u mad
Nah, don't get mad, just don't have much patience for snipers that sit and wait to make smart a$$ remarks to try to overcome some personal shortcoming and make themselves feel superior at someone else's expense. These forums are full of them and they really hinder the people that want to see progress get anything productive done.
u mad
Nah, don't get mad, just don't have much patience for snipers that sit and wait to make smart a$$ remarks to try to overcome some personal shortcoming and make themselves feel superior at someone else's expense. These forums are full of them and they really hinder the people that want to see progress get anything productive done.
marcello
offline
offline
Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
then you didn't read the announcement
Or the announcement was updated after I read it to include the new warning.
then you didn't read the announcement
Or the announcement was updated after I read it to include the new warning.
Warlock
offline
offline
Originally posted by blln4lyf
They aren't going to remove AE and VA's to do so though, so you have to work backwards. The only option I can even seen them exploring is removing VA's and AE from maybe a second test server, and working on the base there, the problem is they likely will not get the balance right then either, because test server can not replicate the live sim enough to show every potential problem.
Nothing needs removal. They need to sit down for a couple weeks and number crunch, designing a balanced system (this including developing AEQs/VAs... using the current structure as a guideline). Once the theories are sound, then you start testing... we're fucking guinea pigs anyways, might as well take a season to test the new designs. Once you have a season worth of data from thousands of sims, you start identifying problems and make adjustments... most adjustments should be slight as the theories should be mostly accurate. At most I see bug fixes being the major problem.
Like I said though, the problem is more about build trends than anything else. The build trends are a direct result of the imbalanced attribute system. If attributes were balanced, build trends would cease to exist for the most part and thus so would exploits taking advantage of the build trends. +% stacking is an exploit taking advantage of build trends. If the benefits of stacking weren't so pronounced, people wouldn't exploit them. Although they're only pronounced because of attributes... multiplicative bonuses and all that jazz. If the discrepancies in attributes weren't so pronounced, neither would the multiplicative bonuses.
They aren't going to remove AE and VA's to do so though, so you have to work backwards. The only option I can even seen them exploring is removing VA's and AE from maybe a second test server, and working on the base there, the problem is they likely will not get the balance right then either, because test server can not replicate the live sim enough to show every potential problem.
Nothing needs removal. They need to sit down for a couple weeks and number crunch, designing a balanced system (this including developing AEQs/VAs... using the current structure as a guideline). Once the theories are sound, then you start testing... we're fucking guinea pigs anyways, might as well take a season to test the new designs. Once you have a season worth of data from thousands of sims, you start identifying problems and make adjustments... most adjustments should be slight as the theories should be mostly accurate. At most I see bug fixes being the major problem.
Like I said though, the problem is more about build trends than anything else. The build trends are a direct result of the imbalanced attribute system. If attributes were balanced, build trends would cease to exist for the most part and thus so would exploits taking advantage of the build trends. +% stacking is an exploit taking advantage of build trends. If the benefits of stacking weren't so pronounced, people wouldn't exploit them. Although they're only pronounced because of attributes... multiplicative bonuses and all that jazz. If the discrepancies in attributes weren't so pronounced, neither would the multiplicative bonuses.
Originally posted by Warlock
No, this is utterly ass backwards and why many of the implemented changes in GLB are always so hard to balance (like VAs, it only took ~8 seasons for them to work most of the kinks out). You build a solid foundation before building a house, otherwise you will be constantly making changes to the house to adjust for the poor foundation (plus any additions to the house will never go as planned).
GLB=/=House
Houses don't have beta testing.
No, this is utterly ass backwards and why many of the implemented changes in GLB are always so hard to balance (like VAs, it only took ~8 seasons for them to work most of the kinks out). You build a solid foundation before building a house, otherwise you will be constantly making changes to the house to adjust for the poor foundation (plus any additions to the house will never go as planned).
GLB=/=House
Houses don't have beta testing.
Originally posted by beenlurken
Yet you have no proof to suggest that anything less than 30-35% is worthwhile. One opinion vs another.
You should try clicking on profiles sometimes. Helps when you know who you are arguing with.
Warlock
offline
offline
Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
GLB=/=House
Houses don't have beta testing.
Guess you never heard of an analogy...
GLB=/=House
Houses don't have beta testing.
Guess you never heard of an analogy...
Saris
offline
offline
Just so I understand this, if one newly built player had spent a shopping token or two to pick up a 2% aeq to improve their early performance (something I've done before on a few builds), that player will essentially be set for life with the 25 shopping tokens they'll get from this? 25 really seems like overkill to me.
Also I assume these proposed changes were discussed on one of the tester/mod forums etc., giving those agents in the know the opportunity to spend a couple shopping tokens to pick up two %aeq on all of their young players?
Also I assume these proposed changes were discussed on one of the tester/mod forums etc., giving those agents in the know the opportunity to spend a couple shopping tokens to pick up two %aeq on all of their young players?
Edited by Saris on Feb 14, 2010 02:55:09
Edited by Saris on Feb 14, 2010 02:54:35
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Saris
Just so I understand this, if one newly built player had spent a shopping token or two to pick up a 2% aeq to improve their early performance (something I've done before on a few builds), that player will essentially be set for life with the 25 shopping tokens they'll get from this? 25 really seems like overkill to me.
Also I assume these proposed changes were discussed on one of the tester/mod forums etc., giving those agents in the know the opportunity to spend a couple shopping tokens to pick up two %aeq on all of their young players?
*grabs pitchfork*
Just so I understand this, if one newly built player had spent a shopping token or two to pick up a 2% aeq to improve their early performance (something I've done before on a few builds), that player will essentially be set for life with the 25 shopping tokens they'll get from this? 25 really seems like overkill to me.
Also I assume these proposed changes were discussed on one of the tester/mod forums etc., giving those agents in the know the opportunity to spend a couple shopping tokens to pick up two %aeq on all of their young players?
*grabs pitchfork*
blln4lyf
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Originally posted by Saris
Just so I understand this, if one newly built player had spent a shopping token or two to pick up a 2% aeq to improve their early performance (something I've done before on a few builds), that player will essentially be set for life with the 25 shopping tokens they'll get from this? 25 really seems like overkill to me.
Also I assume these proposed changes were discussed on one of the tester/mod forums etc., giving those agents in the know the opportunity to spend a couple shopping tokens to pick up two %aeq on all of their young players?
*grabs pitchfork*
lmao beat me to it
Originally posted by Saris
Just so I understand this, if one newly built player had spent a shopping token or two to pick up a 2% aeq to improve their early performance (something I've done before on a few builds), that player will essentially be set for life with the 25 shopping tokens they'll get from this? 25 really seems like overkill to me.
Also I assume these proposed changes were discussed on one of the tester/mod forums etc., giving those agents in the know the opportunity to spend a couple shopping tokens to pick up two %aeq on all of their young players?
*grabs pitchfork*
lmao beat me to it
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
