Warrior General Games

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by blln4lyf

I really should read until the end before posting things taut has already said since he was actively viewing the thread

I'm just glad we finally got somewhere though.

Now that you have read through it, I will go back and edit all my remarks to what I really mean...just to mess with your head.

I actually do that in all threads as soon as you leave.



I've known this already tbh, I'm just totally okay with it because it makes me right and you wrong

Link me to the quote I haven't actually read the middle 56 pages yet.

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt

So 1, 2, 3, 4 would be rolls... And the number of rolls are decided by things like Vision, Carrying and Confidence? For instance, if you have really high Confidence and Vision... Shouldn't you maybe have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 rolls of various things to try? And the highest score on the roll wins?

The lower your Energy/Morale is the less rolls you get.

There are a lot of cool things you could do with this Taut.

It could also be biased by what you are good at, or by tactical selectors.



Yep. If you slider is set one way, it may totally eliminate rolls and Vice Versa.

Anyway...this is the kind of thing I'm picturing...
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9181/prettycircles.jpg

The red is approximately how far a player can get in one tick, yellow is 2 ticks, green 3 ticks. With that, the HB could know where to run...right?

Originally posted by r87
Link me to the quote I haven't actually read the middle 56 pages yet.

Originally posted by Bort
Man, conspiracy theories are out in full force lately...is there something in the water 'round here?

No, spin has not been touched in several months. If it had, it would be in the changelog, just like anything else I might have changed. Play outcomes vary. That is the definition of random, not a conspiracy.

Page 5.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Anyway...this is the kind of thing I'm picturing...
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9181/prettycircles.jpg

The red is approximately how far a player can get in one tick, yellow is 2 ticks, green 3 ticks. With that, the HB could know where to run...right?

Perrrrrty.

Originally posted by burn_209
he was one but got removed for being a douchebag. Semi helpful but mostly a douchebag

jesus it was a joke...

Originally posted by Deathblade
Anyway...this is the kind of thing I'm picturing...


The red is approximately how far a player can get in one tick, yellow is 2 ticks, green 3 ticks. With that, the HB could know where to run...right?

Yes, that is speed an agility based. But determining threats should be vision/confidence/carrying amirite?

See what Taut posted above...

Actually regarding the basic pathfinding algorithm, what about this:

The basic problem is that the HB cuts according to current defender vectors, the defenders easily make their vision checks and change their intercepts, creating a new solution for the HB on the next tick.

The tackler threat radius is such that the defender needs redonkulous speed advantage to find a path that doesn't result in oscillation.


What if the defender could fail there vision check resulting in a poor (slow) reaction rather than a retarded looking run to the sideline maneuver? What if the qulity of the HB vision check could influence the defender's ability to make his check?

This might have the intended response, or at least introduce some hysteresis that could result in a non-predictable conclusion instead of the dance of death.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Anyway...this is the kind of thing I'm picturing...
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9181/prettycircles.jpg

The red is approximately how far a player can get in one tick, yellow is 2 ticks, green 3 ticks. With that, the HB could know where to run...right?

I still think the elusive back needs to be able to influence the defenders path in a little more nuanced way than just blinking him in order for a solution to be found. Maybe not though...if he could at least anticipate the effect of the blink.

Knowing that a dot is blinked, and knowing how that dots can recover is a key part of the solution. A blinked dot should not be ignored (as it is currently), but should be "understood" in some way by the HB.

Originally posted by tautology
Actually regarding the basic pathfinding algorithm, what about this:

The basic problem is that the HB cuts according to current defender vectors, the defenders easily make their vision checks and change their intercepts, creating a new solution for the HB on the next tick.

The tackler threat radius is such that the defender needs redonkulous speed advantage to find a path that doesn't result in oscillation.

What if the defender could fail there vision check resulting in a poor (slow) reaction rather than a retarded looking run to the sideline maneuver? What if the qulity of the HB vision check could influence the defender's ability to make his check?

This might have the intended response, or at least introduce some hysteresis that could result in a non-predictable conclusion instead of the dance of death.

Might be a decent solution...but you would still have the dance of death kind of being retarded. I mean, it would slow down the defense and maybe be more effective...but it would still be pretty dumb.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Might be a decent solution...but you would still have the dance of death kind of being retarded. I mean, it would slow down the defense and maybe be more effective...but it would still be pretty dumb.

It's a little hard for me to envision how it would actually look...you might be right though.

Originally posted by tautology
I still think the elusive back needs to be able to influence the defenders path in a little more nuanced way than just blinking him in order for a solution to be found. Maybe not though...if he could at least anticipate the effect of the blink.

Knowing that a dot is blinked, and knowing how that dots can recover is a key part of the solution. A blinked dot should not be ignored (as it is currently), but should be "understood" in some way by the HB.

That's been discussed as well, and carried over to the test server, and added to Bort's personal list of things to tinker with.

And for the second part of my pretty circles...
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/3082/prettycircles2.jpg

The middle path would like, be the "power" path. The left path would like, require 50+ elusive. The outside path would require 90+ elusive

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by tautology

I still think the elusive back needs to be able to influence the defenders path in a little more nuanced way than just blinking him in order for a solution to be found. Maybe not though...if he could at least anticipate the effect of the blink.

Knowing that a dot is blinked, and knowing how that dots can recover is a key part of the solution. A blinked dot should not be ignored (as it is currently), but should be "understood" in some way by the HB.

That's been discussed as well, and carried over to the test server, and added to Bort's personal list of things to tinker with.

And for the second part of my pretty circles...
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/3082/prettycircles2.jpg

The middle path would like, be the "power" path. The left path would like, require 50+ elusive. The outside path would require 90+ elusive

Only problem is the way DE's are built... Their circles based on your theory would be larger than any of the defenders. Hell they would be larger than some HB's!! LOL

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Only problem is the way DE's are built... Their circles based on your theory would be larger than any of the defenders. Hell they would be larger than some HB's!! LOL

Not if they are being blocked >_>

That's why their red is basically non-existent...they would need to break a block (one tick) before they become relevant.