1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Leurocian - Mistakes in game design 101

Discussion in 'UHall' started by imported_MoonglowMerchant, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. Hello Leu,

    This post is meant to illustrate how the design process can go bad so that hopefully, future design processes can be improved.

    The case study is pet ball changes.

    The first step in a design change is realizing the need for a change. Some times this happens inadvertently (more on this later). In this case, the first inadvertent change which necessitated a design modification was the introduction of the super dragons.

    Having super dragons in Destard and giving dragons back their place among feared monsters was an admirable goal, however, allowing them to be tameable quickly brought taming and more specifically petballs to the forefront. Petballs had been abused for years, but by introducing the super dragons, the abuses quickly came to the forefront.

    Hence, the three part petball changes were introduced. The concerns about petballs were:

    1. Hidden tamers were using them to summon in pets to...
    2. Use as part of an offensive combo then...
    3. Spamming the petball while chasing down opponents.

    The fix to number one was to prohibit the use of a petball while hidden and additionally display a message that it was in use. The fix to number 3 was to introduce a 15 second delay between uses. The fix to number 2 was to introduce an interruptable casting delay. Number 2 is where we run into the next example of an unintended outcome which will require a further adjustment.

    The unintended outcome of introducing an interruptable casting delay intended to stop the use of petballs as part of an offensive combo is that the same delay will now prevent the defensive use of petballs as protection against dismount.

    In another thread, the use of bolas and teleport has been illustrated for you and you now realize that this is a problem. However, for every time someone is dismounted by a bola throwing teleporter, 100 people are dismounted by a heavy crossbow, usually from a hidden archer.

    The unintended outcome of the casting delay will be that the only viable escape available to any player regardless of template has now been removed. Dismount which is already very,very difficult to escape, will now become an automatic death sentence.

    Why am I telling you this? Well, I'd like design resources to be spent wisely the first time. That way, we can get more positive design changes and less wasted time fixing bad ones.

    Let me simplify this.

    A) Super dragons introduced--petball changes now required.
    B) Pet ball changes introduced--dismount changes now required.

    Do you see the pattern? We are repeatedly getting poor design decisions which immediately impact the game in ways the design team did not anticipate. Thus, further changes become necessary almost immediately.

    How can this be avoided? The arch cure changes are a good example of a poor design choice which did not make it into production. The changes were created without player input (more on this to come) and then put onto test center where even before testing was done, players quickly realized that this was a bad design decision.

    The cost was the time wasted designing and implementing the arch cure changes. That time could have been spent on something players asked for or needed if only someone had taken the time to ask player's opinions before the design and implementation time had been wasted.

    In the example of the superdragon spiral, introduction of the super dragons without player input has now resulted in petball changes which in turn will necessitate dismount changes. Again, this could have been avoided by consulting players before introducing another even more ridiculously overpowered pet.

    At least in terms of the petball changes, player input was solicited. The mistake that was made in this case was in not taking the time to fully understand what players were saying. Numerous threads explained that with the effective removal of petballs as a defensive measure, dismount would become insanely overpowered. Numerous suggestions were made in these numerous threads to allow for the prevention of petballs as part of a combo while still preserving their defensive use. My personal favorite is lengthening the delay between the use of a petball and the ability of a tamer to give the "all kill" command. Currently, this delay is about one second. By lengthening it to two seconds, you would have the same delay that is being tested now but the defensive use of petballs would be preserved. The only difference is that summoning as currently proposed is interruptable, which of course is the inherent design flaw.

    Let me explain this simply, in an attempt to fix something, you broke something else. It was bad design, it was also a failure to listen.

    I have two take homes for you.

    1. Always solicit player input when contemplating design changes. You don't have to make a post on Stratics. Form focus groups (and treat them professionally this time), PM players who know what they are doing, ICQ someone, do something, but get player input. UO is not a game that can be designed by the numbers, Mr. Tact proved that over and over. It must be designed by those who actually play the game or at least, those who play the game must be asked.

    2. Listen to player input. Consider not just the direct impact of changes, but also the unintended impact. That feedback in this case is in multiple threads, it was there for consideration, it just wasn't adequately understood.

    I'm not sure what else to say other than, I hope this helps you design better. Understanding where mistakes are made is a good way to avoid them in the future, even if it is already too late for the "super dragon spiral".
     
  2. Clx-

    Clx- Guest

    <blockquote><hr>



    A) Super dragons introduced--petball changes now required.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Without trying to derail your point completely - this isn't correct is it? Petballs have needed changing for years.
     
  3. Quoting myself:

    <blockquote><hr>

    Petballs had been abused for years, but by introducing the super dragons, the abuses quickly came to the forefront.

    [/ QUOTE ]
     
  4. 1. Always solicit player input when contemplating design changes.


    That would be all well and good if the players could actually agree.

    Most times they don't.
     
  5. Players don't have to agree to make their input valuable.

    I think what the design team gains is understanding not consensus.

    I don't think you were around for the first PvP re-balancing, the one that followed AOS. I was.

    The process then was exactly what I've described. It was a back and forth between the developers and the players. You are certainly correct in stating that all players didn't agree then nor do they now. But, in discussing the changes we were able to create a publish that balanced PvP for a long time.

    It was the most successful process I have ever seen in UO. Unfortunately, like you, most of the current design team has no idea how effective that model is because they have never seen it work.

    Heres hoping they try sometime.
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I have tested the new pet commands to the best of my ability on test center, and reported my findings so that others can benefit from my efforts.

    I've done the best I can to provide useful feedback.

    Has anyone done likewise with petballs?

    I can't really test those in the ways that seem to be needed. If I use a pet ball twice in the same day it's an unusual event. The changes will have no impact on me whatsoever. I can't see what the impact will be on abuse, cos I don't abuse them in the first place.
     
  7. I am guilty of not testing the changes to petballs despite repeatedly asking for them to be added to bankboxes.

    My interest is not in the functionality of the changes, but rather in the design flaws inherent within them.

    I'm tired of fixing one thing and breaking two more.
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I might agree the pet-ball use, highlights a program exploit with the bola.


    But the pet-balls are simply horrific in design from the get go. I dont care if you are summoning only bunnies.

    The ability of the P-ball was, in my opinion, another dumb down the game idea and/or fix the problem with the tame commands that didint work.

    These fixes and concerns have everything to do with fixing Ultima (the ones DEVS are doing now) and the laziness cast upon us by past DEVS.

    A pet-ball to me should even be more restricted, as should recall, gate, and sacred journey. It should allow a strong tamer to get a pet in to a tuff place or out of a tuff place. With strong limits. To me the problem was that the commands to manage your pet sucked, pre-pet-balls. If you had a commmand of FOLLOW and IGNOR MONSTERS and it actually worked, then you could have walked your pet to whereever you wanted it to go. It would NOT run off to fight over and over.

    One thing I hope happens is the make recalling (and above skill based).
    How?
    Well let me tell you.

    Skill of 0 - 45.... recall or sacred to open spaces in same land
    Skill of 45 -65... recall or sacred to 1st level of dungeons and other lands
    Skill of 65 -85... recall to other levels of dungeon but not bottom
    Skill of 85 and above recall anywhere, including bottom of dungeons.

    Of course the failure rate for the lower places decreases to no fail as you go up.

    Gate would be similiar. But I guess thats a different thread.

    Great things they have done.
    Randomize Ore and resources.
    Change BOS
    And Pet-ball changes though I would make them harsher.

    HOW ABOUT THIS. You can NOT use a pet-ball on a mount. Wouldnt that fix the problem. And make pet-ball 1 use and done.

    Like old moonstones

    "You place pet-ball to ground and speak the secret words"

    Your pet appears in place of the pet-ball. You are done.
     
  9. You should work for UO... [​IMG]







    zzzzzzzzzzzzz
     
  10. At this point, petball changes are going to happen. My point was that if they are implemented as planned, then dismount changes will also be required.

    By changing the design now, we can make the needed changes while avoiding any unneeded and unintended consequences. Thus, that development time can be spent on something we actually meant to do.

    Your point about petballs being unnecessary could be true, but without further adjustments it is not currently practical. For me, this is about smarter decisions that result in less unintentional outcomes and therefore more time for intended results.
     
  11. <blockquote><hr>

    You should work for UO... [​IMG]







    zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I have no interest in working for EA. If I did work on this game though one of my first creations would be a "player council" to privately provide feedback on design changes before they were implemented.
     
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    If you remember our discussions on the pet balls' fix, we raised (and achieved a fix) for the resultant pet AI issues.

    Now, unfortunately we don't seem to have a solution satisfying the concerns of dismount victims in PvP. But that doesn't make the team wrong in how they've done things on this. It just means that you need to test the changes and raise those concerns loud and clear so they are fixed. There may be a good reason why dismount wasn't addressed in this patch.

    I'd suggest a simple system, no delay on summoning a pet if it's one which can be owned by anyone and has no fighting capabilities. Leave the delays for the rest. Or look at the problem from the dismount side of things.

    You may also get better results by sending in feedback about it so it can hopefully make it to the FoF. Then you'll know the issue has been noticed.

    Wenchy
     
  13. I've posted about this issue repeatedly and in numerous threads as have many others. I've sent in feedback. That is a good suggestion and I've done that.

    Your proposal is another viable way to preserve the defensive uses of petballs while limiting their use as part of an offensive combo. Many such suggestions have been made, but despite multiple threads and feedback, such considerations are not part of the design.

    This is my last hurrah. Either the design team wants to get it right or they want to get it done. That doesn't make them "wrong". It just makes more work for them and a less enjoyable game for us.
     
  14. <blockquote><hr>

    If you remember our discussions on the pet balls' fix, we raised (and achieved a fix) for the resultant pet AI issues.

    Now, unfortunately we don't seem to have a solution satisfying the concerns of dismount victims in PvP. But that doesn't make the team wrong in how they've done things on this. It just means that you need to test the changes and raise those concerns loud and clear so they are fixed. There may be a good reason why dismount wasn't addressed in this patch.

    I'd suggest a simple system, no delay on summoning a pet if it's one which can be owned by anyone and has no fighting capabilities. Leave the delays for the rest. Or look at the problem from the dismount side of things.

    You may also get better results by sending in feedback about it so it can hopefully make it to the FoF. Then you'll know the issue has been noticed.

    Wenchy

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I love your posts on PvP topics...


    Honestly... the only real problem with dismount is dismounting at a range.

    Remove dismount from Archery and remove the teleport exploit from bola's and it's fixed. If someone has the cunning, strategy and tactics to get right up to me on foot and knock me off my mount... kudos, they deserve the maneuver
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Well, hopefully Leurocian is reading and joins the discussion. At least to explain why a fix isn't being tabled for discussion yet.

    Wenchy
     
  16. One thing I've noticed about Leu, he gets things done.

    If there is an issue, he has the ability to create a solution. This is mostly a very good thing, but in some cases knowing that he is going to create a solution, I'd like him to get some additional input and create a really, really, good solution.

    An example from the distant past is his creation of the level 6 treasure chests. At the time, treasure hunters were asking for better or unique loot in t chests since monster loot had been bumped repeatedly and chest loot hadn't.

    Instead of doing what players asked, he created a whole new system of level 6 maps and chests. It was a great idea that in the short term prompted renewed interest in treasure hunting. Unfortunately, in the long term, it made all level 1-5 maps virtually worthless.

    He got it done, but he got it done with unintended consequences. I'm trying to help him get it done with intended results. Hopefully, there is still time to listen and act.
     
  17. I agree for the most part. I would say dismounting from invis AND dismounting from range are the 2 issues. If you can't do a long range dismount from invisibility, people have a counter in that they can just stay at range from you. Granted, melee dexers will not be able to hit you either without risking getting dismounted, but you're not mounted either. Basically, people should be able to dodge a dismount situation and they should be able to clearly see that a dismount opportunity is in play.
     
  18. You are correct.

    My concern is that if the pet ball changes go thru as is, we will have months to wait for the next opportunity to fix ranged dismounts.

    I will certainly be playing less if every time I leave the house to PvP, the inevitable outcome is being dismounted with no chance to escape.

    Fixing the petball changes to allow for their defensive use could be a temporary way to allow some survivability while dismount problems are tackled for the next publish.

    If the pet ball changes go in as designed without accompanying changes in dismount, it will be a discouraging couple of months.
     
  19. Leurocian 03/21/08
    Looks like the delay is a flat 2 seconds for summoning a pet with the Crystal Ball of Pet Summoning. Not sure if you're aware of that, but I thought I'd mention that here.

    03/22/08
    on test it has been noticed that the "bank box" doesn't always spawn a "full set"(Pb and Powder.... mmmmm)
    Petra had reported ... getting some the ingame way.

    Ya gots your petballs and powder ... and a 2 second delay to work with.

    go test.
     
  20. Do you really think I need to test that?

    I know how long two seconds is in PvP since I've been PvP'ing for hours every week for years.

    Still, I probably should if for no other reason than to be able to say "Yes, I have tested it and it is exactly what I thought it would be."
     
  21. Guest

    Guest Guest

    As anyone with a college degree knows from the required Science lab class--

    The Scientific Method:
    • Identifying a Problem
    • Forming a hypothesis
    • Designing and Performing Experiments
    • Collecting and Analyzing Data
    • Formulating Conclusions about the Hypothesis
    What you’re doing is Steps 1 and 2, then you just assume that your right, skip step 3 and 4, formulate conclusion not based on factual testing, and come to the boards and slam the developers for – not following process—

    Well since your so ready to beat the development team up for not following SLC (Systems Life Cycle) development, or at least Agile life cycle (My preference by the way) you may want to consider taking your own medicine and actually going to test and doing some testing and providing feedback.

    Your rights about the SLC and Agile Development process having steps for collecting and analyzing feedback before moving to design and coding, but that’s the point, the players need to provide the feedback, either through the boards, or through testing on test center.
     
  22. <blockquote><hr>

    1. Always solicit player input when contemplating design changes.


    That would be all well and good if the players could actually agree.

    Most times they don't.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    MOst sensible post in this trhread, and showing you where you go wrong.... WHO would be on the "private council"/Focus group? And how many persons? One of each possible template? 3 of each? 5? And every template also has diffferent playing styles... And thus different interests... And different input! Every single player in UO could want something else, one thing you call disaster, others might be cheering about. (Take for example Raven, he mentioned "a great thing" called randomn ore spawn, well, we know quite some persons who do fully and fanatically disagree there!!) So you just can't always see those unintended results...
    With monsters getting stronger all the time, the super dragons make a nice pet. For some...
     
  23. <blockquote><hr>

    As anyone with a college degree knows from the required Science lab class--

    The Scientific Method:
    • Identifying a Problem
    • Forming a hypothesis
    • Designing and Performing Experiments
    • Collecting and Analyzing Data
    • Formulating Conclusions about the Hypothesis
    What you’re doing is Steps 1 and 2, then you just assume that your right, skip step 3 and 4, formulate conclusion not based on factual testing, and come to the boards and slam the developers for – not following process—

    Well since your so ready to beat the development team up for not following SLC (Systems Life Cycle) development, or at least Agile life cycle (My preference by the way) you may want to consider taking your own medicine and actually going to test and doing some testing and providing feedback.

    Your rights about the SLC and Agile Development process having steps for collecting and analyzing feedback before moving to design and coding, but that’s the point, the players need to provide the feedback, either through the boards, or through testing on test center.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I will go to test center. It is the only way to stop these silly posts that say "You don't know because you haven't tested it!".

    As I stated before, I have provided feedback on the boards and through the feedback system. Others have as well.

    If a change was proposed to lower the resist cap from 70 to 20, how much testing would you need to do to know that would make it harder for you to survive in some situations and impossible in others?

    This change is the same at the level I play at.

    When a player is dismounted in PvP, there is a delay of at least 3-4 seconds before a re-mount can even be attempted. Now, with this change, you can add a 2 second interruptable delay before an attempt at a re-mount can even be made. So, at a minimum players will be on foot for 5-6 seconds.

    In PvP .25 seconds is a long time. I died last night because I was wearing FCR 3 instead of FCR 4, a difference of a quarter of one second.

    Your resist cap has just been lowered to 20...
     
  24. <blockquote><hr>

    MOst sensible post in this trhread, and showing you where you go wrong.... WHO would be on the "private council"/Focus group? And how many persons? One of each possible template? 3 of each? 5? And every template also has diffferent playing styles... And thus different interests... And different input! Every single player in UO could want something else, one thing you call disaster, others might be cheering about. (Take for example Raven, he mentioned "a great thing" called randomn ore spawn, well, we know quite some persons who do fully and fanatically disagree there!!) So you just can't always see those unintended results...
    With monsters getting stronger all the time, the super dragons make a nice pet. For some...

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Luckily I don't work for EA so I don't have to make that decision.

    However, in light of some of the design changes/attempted design changes we have seen and are seeing, more player input would be a good thing in my opinion.

    Again, players don't have to agree. When you listen to players you aren't trying to get everyone to agree, you are trying to hear all sides so that more informed decisions can be made.

    I've seen it work before.
     
  25. BadManiac

    BadManiac Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    1. Always solicit player input when contemplating design changes.

    [/ QUOTE ]They did, we got Ninjas...
     
  26. <blockquote><hr>

    As anyone with a college degree knows from the required Science lab class--

    The Scientific Method:
    • Identifying a Problem
    • Forming a hypothesis
    • Designing and Performing Experiments
    • Collecting and Analyzing Data
    • Formulating Conclusions about the Hypothesis
    What you’re doing is Steps 1 and 2, then you just assume that your right, skip step 3 and 4, formulate conclusion not based on factual testing, and come to the boards and slam the developers for – not following process—

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Being a scientist myself... it's obvious you're just reading the definition from the book.

    Or have you never heard of a "thought experiment?" where rather than physically testing something... you can run the experiment through in your mind based off of the proven knowledge (experience) you've already obtained.

    With the changes that we have been told are going to be taking place (that are on test) it's already obvious to those of us with experience that the solution is short sighted.

    Dismounting at a range is a huge problem.

    The no delay between uses of a petball was also a huge problem but that was fixed.

    I never really thought disrupting the tamers "summon" was that huge of a deal... but others did, so it was also added.


    but either way... out those 3 imbalances... only 2 have been addressed with the changes.
     
  27. <blockquote><hr>

    1. Always solicit player input when contemplating design changes.

    They did, we got Ninjas...

    [/ QUOTE ]



    Hehe.

    Ninjas aren't so bad. Not balancing them for years after their introduction, that is bad.

    Tis another good example of why it is important to make the very best effort to get it right the first time.
     
  28. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    You should work for UO... [​IMG]







    zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Surely that counts as a personal attack and not a compliment.
     
  29. <blockquote><hr>

    Surely that counts as a personal attack and not a compliment.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I consider it a bump.

    [​IMG]
     
  30. <blockquote><hr>

    I never really thought disrupting the tamers "summon" was that huge of a deal... but others did, so it was also added.



    [/ QUOTE ]

    That particular delay was put in to assuage concerns about tamers using pets as part of a combo.

    It will accomplish the goal of preventing "pet combos". Unfortunately, it also brings with it the side effect of sentencing dismountees to certain death.

    I'm pretty sure that wasn't one of the goals.

    [​IMG]
     
  31. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The basis was set in the opening statement that the level applied was that of undergraduate.

    And you’re right; I have an End Degree as a practitioner, not a theorist.

    While I know people who use process that do not involve proven and tested data, I do not always agree that the application of the process is appropriate for the circumstances.

    Some examples of people using "thought experiment" would include Plato and the Plutonic Society.

    And anyone with "proven knowledge (experience)" knows how realistic Plato’s Plutonic Society was.

    There are too many examples of the use of "thought experiment" coming to the wrong conclusion when not applied properly to give credence in circumstances where practical testing is available.
    TC1 is available.
     
  32. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "If someone has the cunning, strategy and tactics to get right up to me on foot and knock me off my mount... kudos, they deserve the maneuver"

    I don't have to be on foot for most of the time. I can be on my Lesser Hiryu, ready Riding Swipe on my No-Dachi, charge someone and right before i smack into them i use a UOA macro to hop off my Lesser Hiryu, so if/when i hit, i Dismount them. Since my Lesser Hiryu is guarding me, if they were riding a pet, he attacks it and often times kills it in the first few secs if it's not a tough tamer mount. If they were on an Ethy, he attacks them. Most people never see it coming until it's too late, or if i miss. If i miss, i use a UOA macro to hop back on my Lesser Hiryu, but the "Element of Surprise" is lost, so they know if i charge them like that again with a No-Dachi in my hands, i'm likely gonna attempt to Dismount them. Plus it also leaves my Lesser Hiryu vulnerable to a Poison (Even though he has GM Resist) or being lured off, so attempting a Dismount can backfire on me.
     
  33. <blockquote><hr>

    "If someone has the cunning, strategy and tactics to get right up to me on foot and knock me off my mount... kudos, they deserve the maneuver"

    I don't have to be on foot for most of the time. I can be on my Lesser Hiryu, ready Riding Swipe on my No-Dachi, charge someone and right before i smack into them i use a UOA macro to hop off my Lesser Hiryu, so if/when i hit, i Dismount them. Since my Lesser Hiryu is guarding me, if they were riding a pet, he attacks it and often times kills it in the first few secs if it's not a tough tamer mount. If they were on an Ethy, he attacks them. Most people never see it coming until it's too late, or if i miss. If i miss, i use a UOA macro to hop back on my Lesser Hiryu, but the "Element of Surprise" is lost, so they know if i charge them like that again with a No-Dachi in my hands, i'm likely gonna attempt to Dismount them. Plus it also leaves my Lesser Hiryu vulnerable to a Poison (Even though he has GM Resist) or being lured off, so attempting a Dismount can backfire on me.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Hiryu dismounts are another great reason why pet balls shouldn't lose their defensive uses.
     
  34. <blockquote><hr>

    There are too many examples of the use of "thought experiment" coming to the wrong conclusion when not applied properly to give credence in circumstances where practical testing is available.
    TC1 is available.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Practical testing for a two second interruptable delay has been available for years. It is the identical delay to a fifth level mage spell (with two FC).

    I can tell you from experience that casting a 4th level mage spell like greater heal is impractical in a dismount. Against a single opponent, it can be cast if the dismountee isn't poisoned or bled or stangled. But, against multiple opponents in a typical dismount situation, 1.5 seconds is too long to be able to cast the spell. No one even tries. Now add .5 seconds to that and you have the proposed pet ball delay.

    While I understand the need to test pet balls to see if the changes are working as designed, the need for testing to see if the design is faulty has been going on for years.

    That data has already been collected.
     
  35. "Leurocian - Mistakes in game design 101"

    Maybe it's just me, but this title sure seems to be condescending toward someone that designs games for a living, and IMO, does it pretty damn well overall.

    If I were him, my first thought would be "who does this guy think he is to talk to me like I'm some rookie?". Your point could have been made without the condescension.
     
  36. I understand how the title could be interpreted that way and I apologize for my frustration.

    After contributing to multiple threads with discussion about this issue and sending in feedback about the issue only to have a major concern overlooked, I am at a loss.

    Rest assured my first post, even my tenth had a different tone. As I said earlier, this is a last hurrah.

    If I have offended anyone so be it. At this point, I'm more concerned about getting a design change that makes sense.
     
  37. <blockquote><hr>

    There are too many examples of the use of "thought experiment" coming to the wrong conclusion when not applied properly to give credence in circumstances where practical testing is available.
    TC1 is available.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Oh... you are completely correct. As you so graciously demonstrated for me how you failed at your very own "thought experiment!" That's not to say that we all do... so if you need numbers and cold hard facts for proof, then by all means... go to TC yourself and do it. However, please don't comment any more on the ability others possess to succeed or fail at it... you have no clue.


    and by the way... Albert Einstein was probably one of the greatest thought experimenters of last century.


    and FYI... Mathematics and Quantum Physics are the greatest thought experiments ever! Just because the thoughts are written down on a piece of paper... doesn't make them anything less.

    Do you know what inferring something indirectly means?
     
  38. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Even Alan Turing used practical methods, not theoretical.

    Computer Science and Information Systems are both Engineering Sciences, Applied Sciences, as opposed to the examples you gave of Physics, an Experimental Science.

    Since you are familiar with “thought experimentation” you know that the process is not applied to Computer Sciences or Information Systems, but is, as you stated, used in more abstracted fields, such as the example I gave, Philosophy, or your example, Physics.


    The original poster implies that he development team should only use fact based process to develop new code. And the original Poster was correct.

    However the original poster insists that he is able to determine how workable a solution is by thought process only, switching from using the Applied Sciences to Theoretical Sciences in mid stream…..

    Read some of the post in this thread where people are debating the possible implications not only of the specific change being requested, but other factors.

    I never underestimate the ability of a UO player, especially the PvP community, to find new and inventive ways to interact with the game components. The only way to fully understand the implications of a change to the game are to fully test the changes.

    Simply using “thought process” will result in very bad changes to the game code as factors not considered in the original equation are introduced by the players.
     
  39. Thanks for the bump.

    Experimentation aside, as I stated earlier, you don't have to be on TC to see if a 2.0 second interruptable delay is practical in escaping a dismount situation. You simply need to attempt a fifth level spell.

    As I explained earlier, people don't even try to cast fourth level spells.

    Further, the notion that reducing ethy summoning time to 3.0 seconds is going to help is ludicrous. That is the equivalent of being dismounted and casting gate travel.

    Again, if there is a reason to go to TC, it is to see if the changes are working as designed. I'm not questioning whether they are working as designed, I'm questioning the design.

    Edit: The main point of my post was that better designs will result if players are more involved in the process not that the process needs to be more "fact" based. Facts are important, but the numbers alone don't tell the story as in this case. Players are often able to see the flaws in the design without testing. When the design is implemented, then testing is needed to see if it is working as intended.
     
  40. Smart Man this Moonglow Merchant... I 99 % agree with what he has said. Level headed people like this posting on stratics is what we need....
     
  41. the 4th man

    the 4th man Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    45
    I for one, if being a dev, would be insulted by your post. I mean, telling a guy how to do his job......if you're that much better, you do it.

    To make an issue over something as trivial as a petball,...I don't know.
    Seems most of the steady eddie posters on here a small fraction that represent the community.....

    Then you talk about AoS and the B word...balance.

    Balance is for wimps....period.
     
  42. jagarr

    jagarr Guest

    if your dev team actually plays the game (or preferably many different facets of the game,) you need VERY LITTLE input from the players. and NO anonymous or 'forum' input whatsoever.

    players are dumb. we all want to be rich, powerful, and better than everyone else playing EXACTLY the way we want to. don't listen to us unless we're forced to really think through our input.

    well... except for me this one time. listen to me!!
     
  43. Kith Kanan

    Kith Kanan Guest

    <blockquote><hr>



    One thing I hope happens is the make recalling (and above skill based).
    How?
    Well let me tell you.

    Skill of 0 - 45.... recall or sacred to open spaces in same land
    Skill of 45 -65... recall or sacred to 1st level of dungeons and other lands
    Skill of 65 -85... recall to other levels of dungeon but not bottom
    Skill of 85 and above recall anywhere, including bottom of dungeons.

    Of course the failure rate for the lower places decreases to no fail as you go up.

    Gate would be similiar. But I guess thats a different thread.



    [/ QUOTE ]

    ARE U INSANE ????? so now only mages or paladines get to hunt in high level places ????
     
  44. Im glad you are smarter than everyone else, I thought i was the only one.........
     
  45. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I for one, if being a dev, would be insulted by your post.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    I would be too. I suspect they have to grow thick, thick skins to deal with a customer base as angsty and contradictory as we can be. I really don't envy that part of their job.

    Balance ... tradition ... novelty ... fairness ... fun ... there are so many different ways to play this game, to judge its design. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree, sometimes I sit back and learn. In the end, I see the devs as mortal men and women charged with responsibilities more suited to wielders of omnipotence and omniscience.
     
  46. Gildar

    Gildar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4
    <blockquote><hr>

    A) Super dragons introduced--petball changes now required.

    [/ QUOTE ]Not entirely accurate. Super dragons were introduced, already required pet ball changes became more apparent.


    <blockquote><hr>

    B) Pet ball changes introduced--dismount changes now required.

    [/ QUOTE ]Again, not entirely accurate. Bolas already had a bad design that required change. The pet ball changes simply made that need more apparent.
     
  47. <blockquote><hr>

    In another thread, the use of bolas and teleport has been illustrated for you and you now realize that this is a problem. However, for every time someone is dismounted by a bola throwing teleporter, 100 people are dismounted by a heavy crossbow, usually from a hidden archer.

    The unintended outcome of the casting delay will be that the only viable escape available to any player regardless of template has now been removed. Dismount which is already very,very difficult to escape, will now become an automatic death sentence.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Be aware that the summon time for ethys has been decreased from 5 seconds to 3, that change is on TC now and would be going in at the same time as the pet ball changes.

    It's a big difference - if you can get an invis or an invis pot off it's going to work really well. It'll be tons harder to catch you with that earthquake or meteor swarm or reveal, or anything.

    With this added change, the whole dismount thing could be that much less painful. I'm not sure anyone would bother with the pet ball trick in the field with this change to ethys, it could be that invis + get on ethy is the more effective choice anyway. One has to try it out and see. On TC it feels great, for what it's worth, you're on your mount in a snap.
     
  48. <blockquote><hr>

    I am guilty of not testing the changes to petballs despite repeatedly asking for them to be added to bankboxes.

    My interest is not in the functionality of the changes, but rather in the design flaws inherent within them.

    I'm tired of fixing one thing and breaking two more.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Someone's gotta, gotta, gotta check that stuff tho.The greatest design in the world can still be screwed by an oops-like keystroke and then nobody necessarily realizes what went wrong down the road.
     
  49. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    There are too many examples of the use of "thought experiment" coming to the wrong conclusion when not applied properly to give credence in circumstances where practical testing is available.
    TC1 is available.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Practical testing for a two second interruptable delay has been available for years. It is the identical delay to a fifth level mage spell (with two FC).

    I can tell you from experience that casting a 4th level mage spell like greater heal is impractical in a dismount. Against a single opponent, it can be cast if the dismountee isn't poisoned or bled or stangled. But, against multiple opponents in a typical dismount situation, 1.5 seconds is too long to be able to cast the spell. No one even tries. Now add .5 seconds to that and you have the proposed pet ball delay.

    While I understand the need to test pet balls to see if the changes are working as designed, the need for testing to see if the design is faulty has been going on for years.

    That data has already been collected.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Remember that in real gameplay, it's not going to be where both of the people are going to be hitting the spells (or petballs or ethys) at the same time. The guy on foot is going to either hit invis or hit his ethy or hit his ball, and then the pursuer has to react with his own spell or potion or skill. The person on foot has a natural head start in this.
     
  50. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>



    One thing I hope happens is the make recalling (and above skill based).
    How?
    Well let me tell you.

    Skill of 0 - 45.... recall or sacred to open spaces in same land
    Skill of 45 -65... recall or sacred to 1st level of dungeons and other lands
    Skill of 65 -85... recall to other levels of dungeon but not bottom
    Skill of 85 and above recall anywhere, including bottom of dungeons.

    Of course the failure rate for the lower places decreases to no fail as you go up.

    Gate would be similiar. But I guess thats a different thread.



    [/ QUOTE ]

    ARE U INSANE ????? so now only mages or paladines get to hunt in high level places ????

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Im not insane. The game needs to get rid of its simplification to the player can do everything. We have 7 characture slots for goodness sake. We have soulstones. Id love to see a change like this. And this change doesnt stop you from much really. You might have to walk a bit. But I fail to see how it stops you.
    The recall to everywhere else but no where in ilsh is the perfect example of why its needed. Two extremes. They need to fix it.