Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| 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: 2/1/12 2:02 p.m. |
In Response To: Re: re: DMR Study Update (new spreadsheet) (RC Master) : Lol - thats a bit of a stretch. 1 frame of difference is hardly enough of an : advantage to be considered 'encourage.' As we see from your own pacing : data, the only reason 4 spam shots + headshot might ever be considered : optimal would be because it could be executed more reliably than reset : after each shot due to reaction time errors creeping in. : Also, considering full reset in 85% is literally 1 frame different from max
: If the difference between a perfect pacing kill and a 5 shot spam kill is a
: Considering that a spammer could zoom in for their last shot, certainly at
I'm just pointing out that in 100% bloom, 4 spam + 1 headshot is faster by 1 frame. In 85% bloom, 4 spam + 1 headshot is slower by 4 frames. This is a 5 frame swing, which is just on the border of the lag tolerance, yes, but definitely significant. A change like this should not be overlooked. : This is exactly the kind of rolling re-balancing that a good TU should not
I'm personally fine with breaking familiarity if it improves the game. Halo 2 had a massive re-balance to grenades and BR spread. Halo 3 entirely changed the melee system. Reach tweaked bloom and bleed-through. These are all game-changing patches. I'm perfectly happy to relearn the game if it makes the DMR more consistent and rewards pacing more than spamming. You might say the TU isn't an improvement, but I'm sure there were many in the H2 and H3 days that thought the same thing. 343 isn't exactly blazing a new trail here. Does that make it "right" to change something against the opinions of many of their fans? Well, Bungie obviously thought what they were doing to H2 and H3 was necessary to help the game. 343 is of the same opinion, but has at least given those who do not like the changes playlists where the original game still exists. This is above and beyond what Bungie ever did to keep everyone happy. But for some reason, this new 343 approach is deemed worse than just forcing everyone over. I don't understand why. If you absolutely despise the TU and could never imagine playing it, be thankful that 343 left you some playlists to play Default, as this was not the precedent. And there's always Custom Games. H2 and H3 post-patch didn't even have Custom Games with the old settings. If you are more mad that 343 hasn't just picked a setting, why let that bother you when you can pick yourself? You have the choice, isn't that what we ultimately want? : Adding more cover on Hemmorhage, for example, might solve map-traversal
Well, that depends on how much extra cover is added. I wasn't saying add a big rock every 10 feet. I meant maybe have a few extra rocks since Hemmorhage is pretty open. Playtesting would of course be necessary to figure out what feels good. : Firstly, short range would be unaffected since weapons like the AR and Pistol
: Secondly, the bloom getting larger, more quickly, does not preclude it also
: THAT would punish spamming. : Simply reducing bloom does not and was never a stated design goal. I think I just showed how reducing bloom punishes spamming. Perhaps there are other ways to do so, but 343 chose this one for unknown reasons (I believe because it also slightly increases the speed of the gameplay, but that's speculation). The widely held belief before this study was the TU encourages spamming. This study's results show the exact opposite is true. And even if the encouragement of pacing was not a design goal, does that make it bad? Should we reject benefits just because they were unstated? : It's another layer of skill - timing. Which was part of the whole point to
: Timing is a skill. Don't try and say it's not. Oh it definitely is. I don't see where I ever implied it wasn't. I just think the TU chooses to reward the skill of accuracy slightly more than the skill of timing. And that is something I think most FPS games (and certainly every Halo until Reach) chooses to reward. : LOL. The data shows that in theory unzoomed fights at close and medium
The data shows the underlying changes of the game engine that will persist to real world encounters. The additional factors such as player skill, accuracy, and movement will all be affected by this base change. The balance of pacing versus spamming has been shifted to the pacing side. All the factors I just mentioned have their starting point in this new balance. : Your more 'in practice' data does not say the same thing - it says pacers
When I did the test, I was very conscious of making absolutely sure the reticule had fully reset on each and every shot. At long range, I was relying much more on my eyes to confirm this than my "mental rhythm." This added more and more reaction time to the data. If anything, this showed that while I was a perfect spammer, I was a bad pacer in this test. To see the real change, we should compare perfect spammer to perfect pacer, otherwise we will introduce confounding variables. The number of shots needed for each kill is purely determined by the game engine. Since we know for a fact (based on the my extra long pacing times) that the reticule was fully reset for each shot, why should we not base the results on the number of shots? Removing human errors such as player accuracy, movement, and reaction time from the equation let us see the exact changes that occurred in the TU. The number of shots necessary for each kill, and the minimum times for those kills are all we need to answer the question at hand. Since my definition of spamming was full ROF and pacing was full reticule reset, I do not see how I violated my own definitions in any way. What if I was a really bad pacer and added 1/2 a second in between each shot, should we use that data? No, that would be silly. Are you saying you would rather base your conclusions on error-filled numbers? I thought that was the reason you started criticizing my experiment in the first place. : Because lets be honest here, the most important thing is not how it works
That's the point. Because the difference is very little, pacing win percentage has increased in the TU at short and medium range. : Perhaps you mistyped, but the data makes no statements on how fun the DMR is
This was found underneath the "Opinion Time!" section and was preceded by "I think." On a side note, I saw in the "NR is pretty good" thread that you completed 75 kills with the TU NR in a test. Are you getting underway with your study? Out of curiosity, what will your focus be? Can't wait to see the results, this stuff fascinates me. :)
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |