Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion

[iZumo]

We're arguing about a different case: If on 2on2 1st player does 90 dmg, victim recovers to 100 hp, 2nd player does 100 dmg and kills him. Aza says that that 1st player should get 90 damage points and the 2nd player should get 100 damage points, while I say 1st player should get 0 damage points and the 2nd player should get 100 damage points. That's pretty much all.

And the skill system rates players as individuals, not the teams, the 1on1 example was to show the difference between the two viewpoints.

[Azarael]

1on1 is a false comparison as well. 1on1 is about aim, movement and map/pickup control. If you can factor in the last of these, you certainly can make a system based on damage done / received because if you do more damage, you're generally going to win unless the opponent is controlling the map. Freon doesn't have this aspect.

For my part, I don't understand why only "strategic" damage should be counted. Score doesn't give a shit whether your damage was "useful" or not. Can you please explain to me why exactly the general ability to do damage over the general ability to mitigate it (i.e. your own raw combat strength IRRESPECTIVE of strategic effects) is not a valid indicator of skill, and how the strategic effect of a shot has any bearing on the skill required to make it?

[iZumo]

1on1 is a false comparison as well. 1on1 is about aim, movement and map/pickup control. If you can factor in the last of these, you certainly can make a system based on damage done / received because if you do more damage, you're generally going to win unless the opponent is controlling the map.

My point exactly - it's about strategy as well.

Freon doesn't have this aspect.

Of course Freon has a strategy.

For my part, I don't understand why only "strategic" damage should be counted. Score doesn't give a shit whether your damage was "useful" or not. Can you please explain to me why exactly the general ability to do damage over the general ability to mitigate it (i.e. your own raw combat strength IRRESPECTIVE of strategic effects) is not a valid indicator of skill, and how the strategic effect of a shot has any bearing on the skill required to make it?

I did show you that in the AS example.

[Azarael]

The AS example was specifically dismissed, your argument was basically this: "Because you farm, or I think you farm, you are less valuable to your team because you do not directly advance the objective of the map and thus deserve a lower skill." While from an AS perspective this has already been destroyed many times, most notably by the "efficiency within a team of wide skill variation" argument which makes it tactically the smartest thing to do, A) Killing people is always the point of Freon as the ultimate objective is for all the enemies to be dead and B) how I choose to play shouldn't have any reflection on my maximum skill, which should be based on raw combat strength. If I or similar players are penalised heavily because of "frm", it just means the balancer is inaccurate in games where the skill distribution is more even or I choose to take objectives.

Perhaps our interpretations of a skill balancer differ? I was under the impression that the skill balancer was intended to prevent stacking. Games are stacked by players with high raw combat strength.

EDIT: just so I don't reiterate myself:

Not that I'm convinced in the slightest that strategic effect is relevant. If you do more damage than you take while maintaining a certain level of output, you are more skilled and that is independent of other game factors, which didn't make it more or less difficult for you to deal damage.

You responded with an AS case, in which the objective of the game is to finish the map first. Freon requires all enemies to be dead to finish a round. Need to apply it to a Freon case. Also, let's put it another way and eliminate the whole "damage" thing: if you aim better and evade better than another player, you should be considered more skilled is the new axiom.

[iRobot]

Moral of the story, 'skill' can not be translated effectively into numbers.

The only issue I have currently is balance, but then that is being worked on already so is not important.

If you get put on a team of lemmings, you die alot and the game considers you to be "low skilled", even if you are head and shoulders the MVP of the team (sometimes match).

I'd probably just suggest you make the skill figures visible to admins only, and use them purely for balance purposes. However, you could keep the rankings, since I'm #1 (though I just frm, look at gizmos and aaps thaw points compared to mine!)

Being able to see the number as a player, means it's always in the back of your mind. Not being able to see it will also stop you being 'judged' by other players, even before you fire a shot.

[iZumo]

I agree and never denied "if you aim better and evade better than another player, you should be considered more skilled", but there is also "if you have the same ability to aim and evade as another player, but are more successful in doing game objectives whether direct (AS: objs, FREON: thawing) or indirect (FREON: healing, 1on1: map/pickup control), you should be considered more skilled".

Obviously, these two don't comply on 100%. And I'm convinced that counting only "strategic damage" along with "thaw points" is a good resolvement for the collision for the case of Freon.

[focus]

Practive round is very useful. At least for me. My computer is so slow, that downloading, loading and package verification completes few secs right before end of this round. So I do not miss the game itself. I would rather add 10 sec more.

[Azarael]

I agree and never denied "if you aim better and evade better than another player, you should be considered more skilled", but there is also "if you have the same ability to aim and evade as another player, but are more successful in doing game objectives whether direct (AS: objs, FREON: thawing) or indirect (FREON: healing, 1on1: map/pickup control), you should be considered more skilled".

Obviously, these two don't comply on 100%. And I'm convinced that counting only "strategic damage" along with "thaw points" is a good resolvement for the collision for the case of Freon.

There is no dispute that thawing should be counted. However, in the case of damage, *all* damage has some effect on the game. If you're hit, you have to do something to counteract the effect of that hit. If I cause someone to flee and they are subsequently killed after or during a heal, or someone else is killed because the fleeing player's support was lost, and then the fleeing player heals to full, I get no or reduced credit.

3SPN has tracked weapon-based and overall hit rate for ages and they're considered perfectly valid with reference to player skill. No need to exclude anything, just include thawing support and heals not made on self.

[iZumo]

I agree and never denied "if you aim better and evade better than another player, you should be considered more skilled", but there is also "if you have the same ability to aim and evade as another player, but are more successful in doing game objectives whether direct or indirect, you should be considered more skilled".

Let's do it step by step. Prove me wrong here (w/o implications on Freon).

3SPN has tracked weapon-based and overall hit rate for ages and they're considered perfectly valid with reference to player skill.

I've already stated that 3SPN was made just for TAM, where there are differences in both game goals and skill of the playerbase and also HIT RATE - which is something different.

[iZumo]

Anyway, looks like nothing more is going to be added towards damage discussion.

In which case I shall stick to my version, but other things like finishing the balancer and adding a decay for inactivity.