Protecting Our Casuals: Gear

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-02 22:44:30

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by Azherae on 2022-03-02 22:45:39

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share the quoted post.

Why? Ashes doesn't imply that design type at all yet.

In fact you've struck at the heart of something much more relevant.

The sort of person who quits when they lose in PvP despite understanding the PvP, even when disadvantaged, is also the type of person who quits when they reach some arbitrary challenge point that they can't clear.

Psychologically, that sort of player is seeking 'to be above average', which, by definition, only around 10% of players can actually demonstrably claim to be (give or take 3% depending on your personal definitions). This means that in open ended games like Ashes where they can lose anything at all, they leave anyway.

Attachment to a place, story, concept, history, all these things can take precedence over a single PvP encounter, for many. The feeling of 'wandering the wilderness and suddenly facing a strong and terrifying enemy' is not a quit point, right? Why does it become one when that enemy is another player?

The answer is that it doesn't, actually, the person just has the psychological profile that makes them feel bad for not 'winning' at the game, and that will pop up regardless. Even at the top.

Post by CROW3 on 2022-03-02 22:46:54

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-02 22:52:38

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-02 23:02:09

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by Noaani on 2022-03-02 23:04:35

We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.

Post by Noaani on 2022-03-02 23:05:40

We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.

Post by Azherae on 2022-03-02 23:15:28

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share the quoted post.

Part of that is because people who 'play games because they want to be better than others at the game' quit quite early, let's SAY that 90% of them quit because they don't want to have to go through the learning curve, whereas 10% either stick it out, get help, are insulated, naturally win, etc.

The reason that the 90% will give is the 'I keep losing, this game is stupid/sucks/isn't balanced'. Only 10% would give the 'I just got bored of waiting for my guild to organize enough to fight that boss properly' because only 10% even got there (if you want me to find 'actual numbers' I cannot because it's different per game).

The learning curve matters more than the difficulty or the losing part. The capacity to react matters more than either. Protecting casuals isn't directly about making gear disparity less, it's about giving them options to react to gear disparity in other ways.

In one game I play, there's a 'build' that can escape from nearly any battle except the most specialized 'I am hunting the type that runs away'. That build can't win battles, so it flees. Anecdotally, a lot of players claim to 'enjoy' playing this build? Why? Because what they wanted was 'agency', not necessarily 'victory'.

That paper I linked is 90 pages of actual analysis even when you discount all the preamble and charts, and it links to over a hundred others. People don't spend time studying this sort of thing because they 'are too blind to see the obvious cause-and-effect'. They study it because our subjective experience of numbers and ratios lies to us. Constantly.

Post by Dygz on 2022-03-02 23:18:15

We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-02 23:19:20

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-02 23:24:17

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by Dygz on 2022-03-02 23:25:13

We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-02 23:37:37

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by Azherae on 2022-03-02 23:41:59

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share the quoted post.

Except that the easy solution would be 'waiting longer' and could be undertaken by both sides with no meaningful cost to them.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-02 23:54:53

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by Dygz on 2022-03-02 23:57:15

We have not received permission from Dygz to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-03 00:00:01

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by CROW3 on 2022-03-03 00:13:20

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-03 00:19:17

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by Caeryl on 2022-03-03 00:29:16

We have not received permission from Caeryl to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-03 00:39:08

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by VmanGman on 2022-03-03 00:41:04

We have not received permission from VmanGman to share this post.

Post by bloodprophet on 2022-03-03 00:42:27

We have not received permission from bloodprophet to share this post.

Post by Noaani on 2022-03-03 00:44:12

We have not received permission from Noaani to share this post.

Post by Caeryl on 2022-03-03 00:44:55

We have not received permission from Caeryl to share this post.

Post by Goalid on 2022-03-03 02:55:45

We have not received permission from Goalid to share this post.

Post by Asraiel on 2022-03-03 04:25:04

We have not received permission from Asraiel to share this post.

Post by JamesSunderland on 2022-03-03 05:07:23

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share this post.

Post by Azherae on 2022-03-03 06:48:03

I really should put my own posts into the analytics when I run them, but I'm not about to write a new script for the other tab, so I can't quickly find the last time I explained it.

Therefore short version, with crunching in the spoiler tag. Things we 'know' as of Alpha-1 indicators and other claims . I'm treating 'a page worth' as 'not going very advanced'.

1. Weapon Procs are enough of a system that they can probably be considered to matter and weapon attacks will be an option.
2. TTK is intended to be 30-60s or so
3. 20-30 hotbar slots, let's guess 15-18 attack skills
4. 15-18s cooldown on many skills
5. Tab Targeting is a thing.

So logically Intrepid:

1. Expects a player to take a bit over 3% of their health in damage per second as an average in a fair fight.
2. Doesn't expect most fights to contain more than 2x uses of most of the skills
3. Intends for players to strike with their weapon sometimes, enough so that it's worth putting points into that, so I'd guess at WORST 25% damage from weapon attacks (but I'll actually sorta-ignore it from here on)

We don't know what the cooldown of Dodge will actually be, but players have given lots of feedback that they don't want high mobility, and similarly we are at 'Split Body' with huge hitboxes/attack cones, making actually missing in a way that we can force, less likely.

Even assuming evasion, that gives us some number of uses of skills at the lowest, if 20 hit, at 4% damage each, and melee works decently, opponent dies. If we ignore melee, then 25 skills total. Let's be 'generous' and assume that skills take 45 frames maximum, to animate, so 0.75 seconds, around the point where the 'windup half' is reactable.

At a 40% or higher gear gap, even if we take it down to '40% gear gap only results in 25% extra damage', then the higher level person goes from 4% per skill on average, to 5%, and only needs to land 20 skills.
A player whose personal skill and accuracy rate is 90% but with lesser gear could land 25 of 28 skills for 100% damage. The player with the 5% damage per skill only needs to land 20 of the 28 skills, still requires almost 75%, though.

But we don't give endurance rewards, so, if we assume TopTierGear player has equal skill and lands 90% of attacks, they only need to do 22 attacks. NormalTierDude would have to force 5 mistakes beyond the 10% 'miss rate' for this to even be close.

Can players manage to force opponents to make a mistake every 6 seconds in a low mobility game? I think so.

Unfortunately all of this was based on offense stats only, and as soon as TopTierGear has better defensive gear too, this is a blowup, requiring someone to force their opponent to make a meaningful targeting or judgement mistake every four seconds or less.

Extending the factors by lowering the accuracy rate below 90% doesn't actually help NormalTierDude, it makes it worse, especially if Intrepid's plan is anywhere based on 'improving the damage of skills because people miss' (because it will almost certainly increase the multipliers for other reasons, if it doesn't, skill actually will trump gear by a LOT). It would explicitly rely on the opponent being inexperienced and not knowing what they're doing, or the execution difficulty of the game being enough that stress points actually affect this.

But Tab Targeting is a thing.

A gear gap of 20%, then resulting in a 12% difference in damage, makes TopTierGear need to land 22 attacks, and have to do at least 24, extending the survivability of NormalTier for roughly 3-4 seconds on average, or, if you look at it the other way, giving them 24 chances to force an error instead of 22. They could win here by forcing 3 total errors, within '24 seconds'. Add in the defensive gear again and they probably have to force 5 errors still in order to win, but TopTierGear still had to make 3 additional meaningful attacks, which still takes 3-4 seconds. 5 forced errors in 27-28 seconds is cutting it close, as it should.

To do the 'calculation' the other way, just assume TopTierGear isn't that good at the game yet and makes these errors on their own unforced, and NormalTier is a 'casual' who can't exactly tell when they caused it and when it was just their opponent's skill lacking (but they at least have the skill to hit with their own attacks). In case A, TopTierGear has to make 5 mistakes in order to fail to kill in the time it takes NormalTier (high skill) to kill them, in case B, they only have to make 3 mistakes for it to be even.

From there you can add an easy multiplier scale. If both players are at 80% accuracy rate, STK (starting from all previous premises) goes up to 32 vs 25 in case A, and 32 vs 28 in case B. If you started from 'make sure the TTK is 30s even at an 80% accuracy rate, then you're now at '7 mistakes in 30s' vs '4 mistakes in 30s'

If instead you went '30s is the fastest TTK for a perfect high (90%) accuracy fight' then simply extend by 'the time it takes to do the 5 additional attacks, which we will set at 6 seconds for simplicity:
'7 Mistakes in 36s' vs '4 mistakes in 36s'. But this is, again, before counting for TopTierGear's better defensive stats, which will always raise the number of errors one must force (let's say 9 vs 6). The ratios actually stay the same here, for the most part, until you get to the point where you need to start saying 'this game's accuracy is so volatile that distinguishing forced errors from unforced is difficult'. I have no opinion on if that's something to consider here.

Human error rate in competitive games of this type depends on a lot of things, but the distance between '1 mistake every 10 seconds' and '1 mistake every 6 seconds' is pretty large.

This WOULD have been my 'proof' if the premise itself wasn't off.

Post by BlackBrony on 2022-03-03 09:09:40

We have not received permission from BlackBrony to share this post.