Sometime soon I'm going to release a VERY early PvP scenario. I've got a lot of ideas and think it might work, but I don't consider myself much of a PvP expert to begin with, so the plan is to start small, test some basic principles, and then add to it slowly but steadily until we've got a good balance of strategy, complexity, and fun.
This earliest version is going to be not much more advanced than a simulation of PvP at its most basic and random (almost entirely chance, few options, little strategy). Frankly, I expect it will be boring, and not particularly rewarding. But if a few brave souls are willing to try it out for a bit, I can use that data to start adding improvements.
I'll post more when it's ready, but keep in mind I'm looking for bug testing and constructive suggestions.
PvP version 0.01 coming soon
Moderator: Moderators
Right now it's you against a set of predefined characters, in a limited combat setting. In this first incarnation, I just want to test how the relative powers affect the likelihood of winning or losing, and just kind of make sure things are working at this level.
Combat assumes you always hit, and the opponent always hits. The amount of damage done hinges on your choice of the type of attack, versus their chosen defense. It's a lot like rock-paper-scissors in that certain attacks do better or worse against certain defenses, in a circular sort of fashion. Right now the defensive choice is 100% random, so it's all luck. Later, when real people are behind the characters, they'll have the ability to predefine choices for offense and defense.
Also right now the game assumes your choice for defense is random, as is the opponent's choice for offense. Both of these will be able to be adjusted later, too.
Right now there isn't any risk to playing, other than your time; so it's not a complete waste, I do give out some minor amount of XP, but mostly I'm assuming at least a few folks will want to mess around with it out of curiosity. There will be actual rewards for winning later.
Hit me with questions, bug reports, and the like.
Combat assumes you always hit, and the opponent always hits. The amount of damage done hinges on your choice of the type of attack, versus their chosen defense. It's a lot like rock-paper-scissors in that certain attacks do better or worse against certain defenses, in a circular sort of fashion. Right now the defensive choice is 100% random, so it's all luck. Later, when real people are behind the characters, they'll have the ability to predefine choices for offense and defense.
Also right now the game assumes your choice for defense is random, as is the opponent's choice for offense. Both of these will be able to be adjusted later, too.
Right now there isn't any risk to playing, other than your time; so it's not a complete waste, I do give out some minor amount of XP, but mostly I'm assuming at least a few folks will want to mess around with it out of curiosity. There will be actual rewards for winning later.
Hit me with questions, bug reports, and the like.
Dunno. I'd imagined that as a strategy you'd have to pick before hand. Mostly to cut down on tons of clicking. Presumably it's a strategic element: you'd pick based on past encounters with the person (fight them once, see what they do, adjust). Or based on other benefits (equipment, say) that makes one defensive choice better than the others.
-
MagiNinjA
- Posts: 1466
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:56 pm
- Location: Berkeley when at school, San Diego when at home
- Contact:
I still feel shady about this kind of defense. If I want to have confidence in something like this, I want a system that I can morph very fluidly. This is a point Marshall brought up in some random debate that I thought was awesome. In KoL context, speed ascensions (or similarly diamondy activities) require rigid optimizations against a foe that really doesn't change, while in PvP, everything and anything can change, especially since you have a live opponent who can change his/her defenses literally in a snap of a second. There are many more elements to manipulate in PvP as well, and there is always a compromise in PvP that you must go with (consumption mini vs. white canadians). While I'd say that something that involves collections like the flower mini or the WC mini is inherently flawed, some of the minis are well balanced against each other.
[nonsense]And that's the story of how I beat up Dr. Horrible.[/nonsense]
[nonsense]And that's the story of how I beat up Dr. Horrible.[/nonsense]
This is 100% my intention. Think I may have even mentioned it earlier in the thread.Socket wrote:
1) Instead of your attack/defenses being random, allow the user to set % chances. I.E., you might set to 50% agressive, 25% standard, 25% cautious. Sure, an opponent might spade it out but you could always change it around tomorrow. Not to mention that
#2 is also very likely, in some fashion or another.
Yeah, I can see that quick and simple can be convenient, but I've never felt a win/lose button was especially satisfying on its own. Since fighting takes some game time, I want to make sure players are getting some entertainment for their money (which is time, as we all know). I don't want things to drag out that much -- ideally a tough fight will take maybe 8-10 turns once things are working properly, so there's room for some strategy and some excitement, without it taking too much clicking or time.
Ultimately, though, I know I can't make everyone happy, so I'm picking what I think I'd most enjoy to start, and then I'll work with it as I get feedback.
Ultimately, though, I know I can't make everyone happy, so I'm picking what I think I'd most enjoy to start, and then I'll work with it as I get feedback.
That's part of what I'm testing. Thus far:
Ryme won: 45/565 = 8%
Ivan won: 15/191 = 8%
#3 won: 55/149 = 37%
#4 won: 81/112 = 72%
The Mick won: 236/358 = 66%
I wanted to see how drastic the range in power would affect the range in odds. What I've concluded thus far is either I don't have nearly enough samples, or I've got bugs in my code. I would have expected a fairly linear difference between the three, and I definitely would have expected the middle slot to win very close to 50% of the time, and the #4 slot to win less than the Mick.
I do think I want to adjust the calculations so that this spread can be a bit wider, but manipulating your PvP power at the cost of other benefits is something I intend to be part of the game. If 6 points was inconsequential, my plan would have serious problems, so I'm glad that's not true.
If anyone feels like spending some time fighting the middle three, it would be much appreciated.
The three attacks are just rock/paper/scissors right now. Later there will be things that change them some. For instance, gear that boosts one of the attack types.
Ryme won: 45/565 = 8%
Ivan won: 15/191 = 8%
#3 won: 55/149 = 37%
#4 won: 81/112 = 72%
The Mick won: 236/358 = 66%
I wanted to see how drastic the range in power would affect the range in odds. What I've concluded thus far is either I don't have nearly enough samples, or I've got bugs in my code. I would have expected a fairly linear difference between the three, and I definitely would have expected the middle slot to win very close to 50% of the time, and the #4 slot to win less than the Mick.
I do think I want to adjust the calculations so that this spread can be a bit wider, but manipulating your PvP power at the cost of other benefits is something I intend to be part of the game. If 6 points was inconsequential, my plan would have serious problems, so I'm glad that's not true.
If anyone feels like spending some time fighting the middle three, it would be much appreciated.
The three attacks are just rock/paper/scissors right now. Later there will be things that change them some. For instance, gear that boosts one of the attack types.
Wow. Just realized I'd forgotten all about ties, which really skews the numbers. Here's the newest results.
Against Ryme (640 fights):
ryme won 49 times = 8%
tie 140 times = 22%
players won = 70%
Against #2 (218 fights)
#2 won 20 times = 9%
tie 51 = 23%
players won = 68%
Against #3 (174 fights):
#3 won 63 = 36%
tie 56 = 32 %
players won 32%
Against #4 (177 fights):
#4 won 126 = 71%
tie 37 = 21%
players won 8%
Against #5 (405 fights):
#5 won 273 = 67%
tie 29 = 7%
players won 26%
Still kind of skewed, but not quite as weird as they seemed before. Certainly the middle slot makes more sense, as it's split about evenly. I'd like to lower the chances of tieieng there, though. I'm gonna redo some of the calculations, and try a new set shortly.
Against Ryme (640 fights):
ryme won 49 times = 8%
tie 140 times = 22%
players won = 70%
Against #2 (218 fights)
#2 won 20 times = 9%
tie 51 = 23%
players won = 68%
Against #3 (174 fights):
#3 won 63 = 36%
tie 56 = 32 %
players won 32%
Against #4 (177 fights):
#4 won 126 = 71%
tie 37 = 21%
players won 8%
Against #5 (405 fights):
#5 won 273 = 67%
tie 29 = 7%
players won 26%
Still kind of skewed, but not quite as weird as they seemed before. Certainly the middle slot makes more sense, as it's split about evenly. I'd like to lower the chances of tieieng there, though. I'm gonna redo some of the calculations, and try a new set shortly.
Also, a special thanks to the top 10 testers of the initial PvP test:
Code: Select all
Name rounds fought
xXRevaNXx 49
Matt the vigilante 32
Armarant 28
Socket 24
Hariwald 22
Arthur Dent 19
Xarth 18
chuwenhsuan 18
Brew 17
lazyfire 17Revised the PvP calculations a bit. Also put in tiebreakers, so that if you tie but your margin of victory is still pretty decent, the judges might select you as a winner. (Or loser, if the margin goes the other way.) Ties are boring, right?
Also bumped up the XP gain slightly, to encourage further testing, because I realize this is still probably pretty unexciting, since it's mostly chance. But I really do want to know how this stuff will pan out before making wild and crazy assumptions.
Also bumped up the XP gain slightly, to encourage further testing, because I realize this is still probably pretty unexciting, since it's mostly chance. But I really do want to know how this stuff will pan out before making wild and crazy assumptions.
-
MagiNinjA
- Posts: 1466
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:56 pm
- Location: Berkeley when at school, San Diego when at home
- Contact:
Wouldn't the match stop if I won? You still get a crafty shot at me.Your moderate attack far overmatches your opponent's attempt to dodge. Ryme loses 27 points.
Ryme proceeds with a moderate attack, which far overmatches your attempt to dodge. You lose 22 points.
You won the duel, so you'd probably get something here. An item or reward or something. But for now .... nothing.
Normally you wouldn't get this here, but as thanks for testing the system, and to prevent it from being a complete waste of your time, here's 175 XP. Thanks!
-
Cristiona
- Posts: 5118
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:01 am
- Location: the Conservatory with the lead pipe
- Contact:
Is software supposed to trigger while using the arena?Normally you wouldn't get this here, but as thanks for testing the system, and to prevent it from being a complete waste of your time, here's 14 XP. Thanks!
Your watch beeps with a suggestion from the Penny Pincher software. The reminder gets you a nice discount earning you 30 chips.
The churches are empty / The priest has gone home / And we are left standing / Together alone
--October Project: "Dark Time"
--October Project: "Dark Time"
New results with 0.2
Against Ryme (323 fights):
ryme won 3 times = 1%
tie 40 times = 12%
players won = 87%
Against #2 (783 fights)
#2 won 46 times = 6%
tie 232 = 30%
players won = 64%
Against #3 (847 fights):
#3 won 243 = 29%
tie 370 = 44%
players won 27%
Against #4 (724 fights):
#4 won 428 = 59%
tie 239 = 33%
players won 8%
Against #5 (217 fights):
#5 won 185 = 85%
tie 31 = 14%
players won 1%
Against Ryme (323 fights):
ryme won 3 times = 1%
tie 40 times = 12%
players won = 87%
Against #2 (783 fights)
#2 won 46 times = 6%
tie 232 = 30%
players won = 64%
Against #3 (847 fights):
#3 won 243 = 29%
tie 370 = 44%
players won 27%
Against #4 (724 fights):
#4 won 428 = 59%
tie 239 = 33%
players won 8%
Against #5 (217 fights):
#5 won 185 = 85%
tie 31 = 14%
players won 1%
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest