Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
Re: re: DMR Study Update (new spreadsheet) | |
Posted By: Hoovaloov | Date: 1/28/12 6:20 a.m. |
In Response To: re: DMR Study Update (new spreadsheet) (RC Master) : I've thought about it a bit more, and normal distributions should be a good : fit for the pacing curve, and good fits for each individual spamming : spike, but they'll never be a good fit for whole of the spamming results : because of the gaps in between where it's possible for a spammer to fire. : So, if you wanted to use normal distributions to model the spamming
Yeah, I agree. Joel's equations really don't seem to match well with what we have. I'm fine with leaving them behind. ________________ : Ah right. Well if G Docs has macros I've no idea where they are anyway!
: Since the order of the wins don't matter (you just count the wins in each
: Problem is, this isn't a good model of what actually happens. A closer
: See, the way you've set it up, if I draw a card that says '49 frames', that
Great minds think alike. I actually made a new spreadsheet a few days ago after thinking about this. This one just takes the top values from the Pace and Spam Selection columns and does the comparison. This is repeated 25,000 times. Interestingly, my results did not change very much: Old Method: (+10.7% short /+6.3% medium / -1.1% long)
And since we can consider a Draw as a Pace Kill, if we add the Draw% to the Pace% in your Absolute Matrix, our two methods match very well: New Method: (+11.5% short /+9.7% medium / +1.1% long)
I find it fascinating that my method came so close to the true probabilities of your matrix. Also I was initially surprised that the old method comes pretty close to the true answer as well. But after thinking about it, I realized the full deck method should match the single card method after enough simulations. For example, say we both had brand new decks of cards to play "war" with. Since our decks are exactly the same, the odds of me winning a single card pull are the same as the odds of me winning a full deck worth of "war." It's 50-50 using either method. No doubt my older method would have done even better had I done more than 1,000 simulations with the full deck. It's funny to me that we both had our qualms about the first method only to see that both methods are equally valid given enough samples. Also, your matrix idea is an awesome. I love the layout and the precision with which it determines the probabilities. Much better than running through an entire simulation just to see the change in probabilities. Great idea, RC! ________________ Lag tolerance is definitely something that we can consider. It's part of the game, and your implementation of it in the matrices is well thought out. Plus, the colors make it much easier to visualize what's going on. Also, I saw the thread with you and JonnyOThan conversing about lag tolerance earlier, so I figured this topic was inbound. ;) :JonnyOThan thinks thats even on the low side for the
If Jonny thinks this is on the low side, maybe we use something like 4 frames? I agree that I've seen lag of at least 5 frames or more. Especially Grifball *shudder* ________________ : Instead of 'rewarding' the pacer, what you've actually done is punish smart
My initial question was "does the TU encourage or discourage spamming?" One of the biggest complaints about 100% Reach is the amount of spam wins. People attacked the TU claiming spamming was increased in it, but my study showed that spammers are punished more in the TU than they are in default Reach. Whether this muddies the tactics is another issue. Perhaps it does, but that was not what I set out to study. Smart Man should still spam at short, and pace at medium and long. That hasn't changed really. ________________ : lets look at the score difference in a game to 100
: Score 100-64 -- pacer wins by 36 : 85% bloom
: Score 100-69 -- pacer wins by 31 : Spammer gains 5 kills : Weird huh? This is a really interesting result. I would have expected Draws to equally affect Pacing and Spamming, but it appears they eat away Pace's wins more than Spam's. I'm still looking over all your new spreadsheets, so I'll post something after I do something tinkering. ________________ : From the bloom you get after firing 4 shots at max ROF? It's really just 3
No, I goofed that up. I went back and looked at video to determine how it changes depending on the number of spammed shots fired. Here are the real reset times, listed by how many spam shots came before it: 100% Bloom
85% Bloom
Note: Because the max. ROF is unchanged by the TU, the time between spammed shots is 12 frames in both settings. It's interesting to me how fast the 100% bloom maxes out compared to the 85% bloom. I'm beginning to wonder whether the 15% reduction in bloom is not necessarily the max size of the reticule, but the speed at which it resets. : JonnyOThan reckons bursts of 2 are optimal for both weapons. At least in
According to my reset test above, in 100% bloom, firing in bursts of two leads to a longer kill time than just letting the reticule reset fully (the 2 frames is how long the 5th shot takes to register the kill): Full reset: 15+15+15+15+2 = 62 frames
Not to mention that the spammed 2nd and 4th shots could lead to more misses than fully pacing. ________________ : Hmm. I guess I just had a problem how it seemed to be that you were just
I'm still digesting this data, but I'm tinkering with your spreadsheets to see if there's any more to the "whole story." :) ________________ : In TU or default? I say the NR is the bomb in the TU. That thing is awesome. My firing cadences I listed might not be optimal however. ________________ : Constructing the new spreadsheet took a while as well 0.o I know, this study has been time-consuming, but it's super fun and kind of addicting! :D
|
|
Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |