Hits Calculation and Shields

Discussion in 'Archive' started by Ability, Apr 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ability
    • Development Team
    • NOTD Creator

    Ability NOTD Creator

    From Kithrixx above. Fair point. I'm fine with changing our Hit tracking in NOTD from an integer to real number. Each Shield Hit can be valued at 0.33 Hits and each Armor Hit at 1 Hit. Shields will still be valuable but no longer a free card. This will also ensure players are overall more conscious about not getting hit. Any violent objections?
  2. Kith
    • Development Team
    • Designer

    Kith NOTD Staff: Anti-Fun Wizard Skeleton

    I was going to make it 1:1. Shields are already super valuable because they're ailment free.
  3. MSluiter

    MSluiter Member

    As long as people can reload their bank, any player can achieve high rating. More than anything, this is the reason for overinflated ratings. What ever happened to rating over 2k was supposed to be harder to gain? It sure seems like it gains at the same rate. Plus all the CP bonuses are making shields super buff too. +20 shield and +1 shield armor.

    IMO, rating would have been better tied to damage taken (after armor) than hits. Why should a single wraith hit count the same as a beastling hit? One does massive damage and the other very little.

    This is also going to make Silver Star significantly harder. This will make it like Bronze Star. Older players got Bronze Star when it was ez mode, and now it’s stupid hard.

    All that being said, I would rather see a minor change like rating gains reduced rather than a game mechanic change like this. Then, you can do whatever rating overhaul is necessary for NOTD2.
  4. Kith
    • Development Team
    • Designer

    Kith NOTD Staff: Anti-Fun Wizard Skeleton

    In completing a Nightmare Alpha, I gained 6 rating with 3 hits (might as well have been 0, considering that I was an Assault). One of the other fellows who was at 1900~ish rating gained 17. The problem is that there was no 2x rating loss implemented after 2000, which was stuck on a dusty "to do" list somewhere and forgotten.

    Back in the day of NOTD:AM, every hit was dangerous because every hit had a chance of applying an ailment. Venom of three different kinds, open wounds, fractures, short circuits. Every single hit had a chance of completely ruining your day. Every time you got hit, that was an enormous risk to your personal safety and the effectiveness of the team. Shields being included softened the blow, so to speak, and as we made more shield-based characters, we got ourselves further into a hole of not being able to get rid of them. If shields had been removed in the days that I was first playing, we would've been able to get away with it. Now? We'd have to completely rebalance CP, Demo, Pathfinder, Assault, Flamethrower... actually, I think it's easier to say that we wouldn't have to rebalance the Technician and leave it at that.

    It's a selfish medal so the requirements are high. If they're so concerned about getting Silver Star, then go Survival. It's chock full of disables and gofast. If you're still torn up about it being "too hard", then we can make it available to all classes with under 5 hits.

    You have a really bad habit of balking changes to NOTD because you feel that NOTD is "to your liking" or "finished". It may be the former, but it is not the latter. Stop digging in your heels at the mention of change and start thinking about how to make things better.

    Rating gains don't need reduced, they're where they need to be. Rating loss is what needs to be fixed, and this is part of that solution.
  5. ArcanePariah
    • Development Team
    • Map Developer

    ArcanePariah Miracle Worker

    I would argue that the rating penalty for death needs to be upped considerably.

    The primary reason many people gain so much rating is that in NM games, you do not accumulate hits and lose tons of rating by end game, you simply die, lose a small amount of rating and start the next game. Hence the stories in pubs of people losing a TON of rating, and people in NM games gaining plenty of rating.
  6. Archangel

    Archangel Well-Known Member

    If nightmare is going to have exceptional achievements, might as well give it "ball kicking" losses.

    NM Game = 100% = 50 rating lose on death
    Vet Game = 60% = 30
    Hardened = 30% = 15
    Recruit = 20% = 10

    I was thinking 10% on recruit due to the low xp reward for new players, might as well give them a low penalty for dying also since they are literally learning what we have known for years (Some of us).

    Edit: I'm not opposed to making the lose significantly larger in nightmare games.
  7. Kith
    • Development Team
    • Designer

    Kith NOTD Staff: Anti-Fun Wizard Skeleton

    I kinda am. 50 rating is a whole goddamn lot. I'd say 35 or somewhere in that ballpark, not 50.

    I'd rather not make failed Nightmare games too heavy on the punishment. Nightmare is going to get even harder as updates are made as classes are rebalanced and better AI is implemented. There's always going to be hardcore failure NM games where something goes amazingly wrong and everyone dies in under 10 minutes.

    UA3's creator implemented a save function for basically the same reason. When the harder modes fail, they fail spectacularly. He didn't want to force players to eat the loss when things hit the fan, so to speak. I'm not saying that we should adopt the manual save policy so "bankscumming" gets even easier, but I do think we shouldn't punish players TOO harshly for dying on a difficult mode because otherwise it's just going to encourage bankscumming.
  8. HipHopDragon
    • Warden

    HipHopDragon Warden

    Why do you want to change the way you lose rating if you have a problem with the way its earned? Your trying to fix the flaws of gaining rating by inflating the death toll. The way you gain rating is by winning games, as long as you didnt face tank the whole game you will gain rating. The only thing defining how fast you gain it is by how much you got hit. If you want it the be harder to gain and maintain a high rating, increase the loss for hits and decrease the gain for higher ratings. That way you actually change the pace at which rating is gained. It would be harder to gain rating and make it possible to lose rating even when you win, and increase the required skill to maintain a higher rating.



    But to be honest i despise the rating system as a whole anyway. It starts by the way you gain rating. Only deciding factors being hit taken and dying. While those are 2 ways in which skill shows itself its such a gross over simplification of skill that its useless. But the main problem is the fact that its a major factor in deciding how hard a game will be instaed of the players deciding. Its the game forcing it on the players, and thats just not how it should be. I can see why you would do that for recruit, but if a team decides it wants to see what 2400+ is like, let them have it. Its not the games job to decide if they are ready to face it or not, and especially not to forbid players to even try. And on a side note it cries elitism because players cant play with random people or the difficulty will automatically drop atleast one level.
  9. ArcanePariah
    • Development Team
    • Map Developer

    ArcanePariah Miracle Worker

    Hip, I can certainly see that viewpoint, however there is something to be said in terms of a learning progression. The inevitable problem is that people will try 2400 and then complain that it is too hard when they are not ready for it. What do I tell them? I could be blunt and tell them their complaint has no merit, lrn2play first, but that also comes off as elitist. If you want a shining example of this, see the normal SC2 forums where players regularly complain at imbalances of units/races/strats in plat and below leagues, where players usually lose due to simple simple play errors (Never scouting, never expanding, building only one unit, etc.).

    Now could/should we incorporate other factors into rating? Absolutely. The sticking point always ends up being what factors are weighted the most. To use another example, any MOBA features carries, suppports and tanks. Inevitably the support will have an ok to shitty K/D ratio, however they are often more crucial by buying key items (Wards, healing items, wards, disables, wards), which is never reflected in the final score screen (Dota 1 in WC3 actually did this right, but the score screen was indeed a gigantic table and often hard to read).


    Also, since this is a coop game, ANYTHING that can gain rating without interaction with the AI, and under the control of the player, is going to be gamed, simple as that. If we gave rating for tons of kills, we would get killwhores, give rating for healing, people will injure themselves and get medic to heal them and medic gets rating. Now we could in thoery ignore such people, but then they ultimately make the system worthless and just another number. It is practically par for the course for any method that gives a net positive to players in a game with no risk WILL be abused. A simple example is the route that I adapted from EU for EC NM that allowed people on NA to super farm DSM, one could get a level a week if one tried.

    Edit: Also Kiths point about NM is also a very saliant one. As the game gets harder, the gameplay is more and more like balancing on the edge of a knife, a single slip and everything goes to hell... fast. Most failed NM games collapse inside 1 minute (death lag doesn't help either, I still need to further rectify that). Of course, that is part of the thrill, that you feel you are on the edge of death at various times.
  10. Kith
    • Development Team
    • Designer

    Kith NOTD Staff: Anti-Fun Wizard Skeleton

    I don't have a problem with the way it's earned, I have a problem with the way that it's lost. Specifically that shields and shield-heavy characters (the demo, the pathfinder) have advantages over the other characters in terms of gaining rating. Despite both featuring very frontline-style trees, when I play Demotank or Jumpfinder I often find myself with less than ten hits. Half the time I've got zero.

    That's completely ridiculous to me, and even moreso, it teaches bad habits. I found myself taking some pretty close shaves when I played other classes afterwards because I got used to having such enormous buffers for hits, and as a matter of fact I died a couple times due to overconfidence. Of course, the perfect solution would be removal of shields altogether, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons, so there's no point in pitching that.

    I don't see how it's a gross oversimplification. NOTD is about Survival. Not getting hit and not dying is... surviving. What else would you measure? Kills favors DPSes, and survival is not always about killing.

    I think what you mean to say is that "the rating system forces challenge on the players and I don't like that". See, the past games of NOTD have always featured difficulty increasing based on the players' skill level. Medals, experience, rating, kills, everything factored into making the game harder so the appropriate challenge was always provided. Multiplayer games do this as well - various ranking systems ensure that players of certain skill levels are adequately challenged by providing them with capable opponents. The system may not be perfect, but it is a far, far cry better than the game's difficulty remaining the same every time you pick a certain mode.

    If one wants an easier game, it's pretty easy to commit suicide over and over to tank one's rating. Alternately, they can just start over. But the legacy of NOTD has been and always will be that it is a game that adapts to its players to consistently bring a challenge to those that play it, rather than being something that you can control and tell to "roll over and die" whenever you feel like having it easy.

    We may not be at that point yet with this iteration of NOTD, but we're getting there, and there's nothing wrong with taking steps to rectify the situation.
  11. ArcanePariah
    • Development Team
    • Map Developer

    ArcanePariah Miracle Worker

    The primary problem with rating from my point of view is that A) Too easy to gain and B) Provides no incentive to even earn it in the first place.

    A can be solved relatively easily, and B... little bit trickier. Personally I would go for scaling XP off rating, so it ties your reward to your long term effort, but not in a way that snowballs hugely.
  12. Kith
    • Development Team
    • Designer

    Kith NOTD Staff: Anti-Fun Wizard Skeleton

    It doesn't provide an apparent incentive is the problem. Sure, you can get up to 50% reduced weapons switch time and 7% increased movespeed, but where is that written in the game?

    XP bonuses scaling off of rating is something I thought already happened. If it is, it definitely needs to be more noticeable. If it doesn't, it should happen. Harder games should be more rewarding.
  13. HipHopDragon
    • Warden

    HipHopDragon Warden

    If a team of 8 randoms goes nm and dies, what do we do? Make the game easier? no, we tell them to learn the game or play a easier mode. Just because i want people to be able to choose the sq too doesnt change that.
    That analogy is only true if plats were given the option to play master and then started to whine they got rolled by them.

    Thats why i never said it should be that way, there is no way to proberly reflect the skill rating of a player without making it open for abuse in a coop game. I can easily mass pubs wipe the floor with eos alone and gain 2500rating, does that mean i earned it? It should just be removed and the choice given to the players.

    Which is why i said raise the hit penalty. That way its harder to gain while actually playing the game, instead of overly emphasizing a single mistake.
  14. HipHopDragon
    • Warden

    HipHopDragon Warden

    Tanks dont care about hits to begin with, demo gets less hits than the other tanks but that doesnt matter anyway.
    Jumper got his shields for exactly that reason, he is supposed to jump in and be able to mittigate 1-2 hits while he is getting out again. If he is not supposed to be that way reduce his shields.

    Shields dont teach you bad play, they give you a degree of freedom. By giving players freedom you always give them the option to choose doing something stupid. If you die because you used your freedom to take X hits and died, then thats not a reason to reduce shields, but a reason for you to realise to stop that.

    You survive by winning the game and still being... alive. You did it with 100hits 5000dmg? You still beat it, and survived. The only measure you could use would be the time it took you to beat it, everything else are just means on achieving victory. Using the hit counter is like SC2 giving more rating for a win if you did it with 2 bases. You penalise legitimate options a good player could use just because you wanted a way to impose a rating on players (which is not needed in anyway).

    I would not measure it at all, or if you realy want to by winning/loosing depending on the diffculty/rating.

    I dont have a problem with the game being a challenge, im one of the players which constantly want to have the game harder. I have a problem with the game dictating what it thinks we are able to handle instead of the players.
    Past notd games did it this way might be a reason it was adopted for notd sc2, but its not a reason to not think about a better way. Yes its better than a one difficulty game, but its worse than a game which gives players the option to choose which difficulty they want. Its like sc2 putting you in bronze no matter what, then you need atleast 100games before you can get to silver, then need another 100 for gold... and so on. While this would actually be possible in a singleplayer game, its not in a coop game with 8 random players. The effect of your rating is only 1/8, so if you want to play a harder game the only way to do so i by elitism. Not allowing randoms to join and grind rating with your elite team.

    Choosing a sq does not hinder the adaptation of notd in anyway. At the moment most of the adaptation is done by the random nature of spawns which would still be there. The only thing taken away would be the random sq you get when you put 8 people random with different ratings in a game.
    If you dont want people to be able to "tell it to roll over and die", you have to remove normal mode and even prohibit vets from joining a pub. Because that way you are already allowing people to choose easymode right there, the only difference choosing the sq would make is that you can choose everything inbetween normal-nm too.
    [hr]
    XP is only dependant on mode and to a lesser degree on your exp.
  15. Kith
    • Development Team
    • Designer

    Kith NOTD Staff: Anti-Fun Wizard Skeleton

    Your analogy only works if Masters were allowed to go Bronze.

    "Not getting hit" and "not dying" is pretty hard to abuse, sans not playing entirely. And yes, it absolutely means you've earned it. Sure, you basically just grinded until you got what you want, but it's not like what you did required no effort whatsoever. Considering that you're playing a ton of pubs, you probably often ended up being the only one alive. If you didn't, then you probably had to teach the players how to survive. No matter how you slice it, you're still putting forth effort without failing, so you're still earning that rating. You're going to earn it much slower than someone who plays a difficult mode, of course, but you've still earned it.

    That "single mistake" being that you've failed completely at the point of the game: survival. NOTD is a survival game, so of course failing to survive is going to be penalized much more harshly than anything else. Hit penalty doesn't need to be raised, it just needs to be standardized.

    You have successfully missed my point. I do not want shields to become less durable. I just want them to record hits taken, both as a warning to players that they're taking hits and also as a penalty because the system is called "hits", not "life damage".

    Which is why I want to record shield hits.


    Yeah, no matter how you survived, you still get a ton of rating for surviving. Last I checked, I got something like 25 for completing a NM Alpha. Considering that hits are currently not penalized very much, the completion bonus will allow you to do exactly what you're saying should be done.

    Lowering rating penalizes "doing something stupid", as you put it. At this point I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make considering how all over the place your argument is.

    For one, NOTD is a game about communication. Of course we're going to encourage people to organize teams. You keep throwing around "elitism" when I'm pretty sure that there's no such problem present. People want to play with other people of equal skill level. That's not elitism, that's not wanting the game to go south because there's an inexperienced player present. Having specific requirements such as "knowing what you're doing" is not elitism. Elitism is acting like you're better than someone.

    Two, letting the players choose the difficulty isn't "a better way". It's a different way. Different does not mean better.

    Yes it does. Absolutely it does. You're forcing it to be at a certain point, so it's not actually adapting.

    Except that normal mode is there for a reason and vets are allowed to pub for a reason.

    That's unfortunate. Yes, rating should absolutely impact XP gain.
  16. Ability
    • Development Team
    • NOTD Creator

    Ability NOTD Creator

    - Hits on Shield now recorded as 0.5 Hits (it was previously 0).
    - Higher Rating now grants more XP when you are victorious. +1 XP per 100 Rating above 1500.
  17. Ability
    • Development Team
    • NOTD Creator

    Ability NOTD Creator

    Moving to NOTD Discussion.
  18. vexxenon

    vexxenon Well-Known Member

    I couldn't agree more with MS.
  19. Shooz
    • Donator

    Shooz NOTD Staff: Killjoy

    MSluiter never played when silver star was hard apparently. Things were made easier for everyone and now that they're getting harder again, everyone is unhappy. I don't get it. Are you not all looking for a challenge? If you want to play an easy game just delete your bank and play the easy difficulty.
  20. vexxenon

    vexxenon Well-Known Member

    At this point in time when you are implementing this change, I'd consider it a MAJOR game change. This like this should be left to NOTD2. When you all of sudden change something that works very nicely to fix a different problem, you open a whole can of worm. Which is what you're seeing right now.

    I also agree with Hiphopdragon's previous post on page 1 (sorry if I spelled your name wrong)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page