CyberneticPony | 2015-01-20 17:37:49 |
So... I've been really frustrated with losing games lately simply due to what appears to me as unrelated to skill and more related to cards that I've been given.
I do not contest that a higher level player has more skill than a lower level player by a margin. This is because averaged over the wins and losses, they have been more consistent than the lower level player. However, I think the odds of a lower level player beating a higher level player are disproportionately high in this game, in that the higher skill player could do everything in their power and still lose to a combo that they saw coming but had no efficient responses to. Let me give an example; let's give the example of a player who has rushed out a Dragon. If you do not have Ice Guard or Tornado, you have usually lost the game. This is irrespective of whether the opponent knows you have tornado or not (although if they do, they're at a huge advantage). So the counter arguments I can imagine are as follows: 1. You could beat the player before Dragon comes out due to the weaker vertical power.
2. You could beat the player by simply sniping their life faster.
3. A dragon doesn't necessarily win the game if you don't have Tornado or Ice Guard.
To respond to these arguments, the way I see it is like this:
1. There is no way to necessarily know your opponent has the Dragon. You will either have Armageddon or Fire Elemental (extremely rare you'll have both). This is not enough to guarantee a Dragon, only makes it a 50% chance. Let's assume you drew Armageddon, if you spend moves fortifying against a Dragon, the player could take the FE route and play a mana efficiency ramp, which would result in a standard game of "win fast" vs "win slow", or the player COULD use the vertical power and offset your advantage heavily at a good opportunity earlier in the game. While it might seem like this knowledge barrier exists on both sides, the player with the dragon has the advantage because he can end the game without board control if he has the Dragon played, but it is much more unlikely you can, so avoiding a lethal sweep is a huge consideration.
2. Beating a player by sniping their life faster is a good plan, but usually a Dragon play will be most prominent when you do not have the necessary snipe cards to end the game faster; the Dragon play is dominated by the presence of opponent's snipe cards. Otherwise, they wouldn't play Dragon. The argument I'm making isn't Dragon is always a good play, but if Dragon comes out, it can often end the game without you having a viable counter either earlier or later in the game. If we took the inverse where you could "outheal" them, that's frankly impossible. Dragon contributes at least 14 damage on its own with E6, and healing that requires either a Elvish Mystic (good luck) or Master Healer sat out for 5 turns, 2 plays of E2 (a huge tempo loss) or an E4 that has to have earth built up to at least 7 for just the dragon (but this would result in further plays of E4 being more inefficient). With a supporting creature, the earth amount would need to be stored much higher. Played out any earth earlier? You're done for. Even very high values of earth can sometimes not help you against a Dragon, and E4 is a tempo loss.
3. I don't have a response to this one, because I don't believe it to be true. If someone can demonstrate a reasonably consistent game plan of dealing with a dragon when you don't have either of these cards it'd likely have some insight. But I don't believe there is such a gameplan because your opponent can simply elect to match you roughly in plays until the Dragon + fatty comes out and you are burst down with A6 or E6 or some class cards, because board control stops mattering to that player.
it's a really complicated question to answer in detail. besides, i am really tired of trying to answer this specific question again and again all these years so for whatever it's worth, i am just going to give you my opinion: i disagree with you. i feel that the odds of a lower level player beating a higher level player are disproportionately LOW in this game, compared to other card games. the higher skill player will see the combo coming and will do everything in their power to beat it and will WIN. just play 20 games vs any player in the top 10 or even vs me, and you will see what i'm talking about GrimJ0ker | 2015-01-20 18:24:01 |
Try to upload here some duels, i could help you analyzing your moves.
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-20 18:30:42 |
If what you're saying is true, how do you explain Plynx's win rate?
If what you're saying is true, how do you explain Plynx's win rate? Control and Time easly spoil opponent's plans.
Modified by Decay on 2015-01-20 19:02:12 CyberneticPony | 2015-01-20 20:00:55 |
If what you're saying is true, how do you explain Plynx's win rate? I don't think you're understanding the issue. Try to read again. 2nd paragraph already provided an explanation. CyberneticPony | 2015-01-20 20:01:42 |
it's a really complicated question to answer in detail. besides, i am really tired of trying to answer this specific question again and again all these years so for whatever it's worth, i am just going to give you my opinion: i disagree with you. i feel that the odds of a lower level player beating a higher level player are disproportionately LOW in this game, compared to other card games. the higher skill player will see the combo coming and will do everything in their power to beat it and will WIN. just play 20 games vs any player in the top 10 or even vs me, and you will see what i'm talking about I'm up for doing this, when are you availible? Wavelength | 2015-01-20 20:10:58 |
If they get Dragon (the worst-balanced card among basic houses IMHO) and ALL the spells and you're stuck with a Chain Lightning screw or something, I believe it can be an unwinnable game. This is only like 1% of draws, though. Well over 95%, probably around 99%, of draws are winnable by either player.
CyberneticPony | 2015-01-20 20:29:40 |
If they get Dragon (the worst-balanced card among basic houses IMHO) and ALL the spells and you're stuck with a Chain Lightning screw or something, I believe it can be an unwinnable game. This is only like 1% of draws, though. Well over 95%, probably around 99%, of draws are winnable by either player. This is not the only case though. Drawing all 4 elementals is strong. Drawing splash Creatures with attack boosters can be gamebreaking if you have an Inferno. There are plenty of states where there are unwinnable conditions imo, I just gave one example out of many. I've found that these conditions occur a lot more often. Maybe I'm overestimating them and simply have run into a bad run, but I'd want to know what others think, which is why I posted this thread, and phrased it as a question.
Wavelength | 2015-01-20 20:50:36 |
Lots of hands are strong, but they're all counterable in several ways. Elementals? Creature rush or spread attackers or strong sweeps. Spread attackers? Mana gain strategies or mass destruction or Barguliciousness. USUALLY, the opponent has at least one of those counter, and needs to read your actions well to save the right counter for it. Very occasionally, you don't get any counters, and that makes for an unwinnable game if played correctly. Very rare, though. ~1-3% of games.
Modified by Wavelength on 2015-01-20 20:52:20 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-20 22:04:37 |
... I don't think you're understanding the issue. Try to read again. 2nd paragraph already provided an explanation.
I'm talking specifically about your statement in the second paragraph that "the odds of a lower level player beating a higher level player are disproportionately high in this game." I guess it's just a question of what odds you think are acceptable. I'm saying there are easily referenced examples of players whose win rates are too good for the odds of low-level players to beat them to be very high.
You're certainly far from the first person to make this argument though. I think the reason it keeps coming up is because people think of each hand they play as "a game of spectromancer." Whereas if you play "a game of poker" you play many hands. What I actually think of as "a game" of spectromancer is a sequence of many rounds where I play many different hands. I go in assuming I am going to lose some rounds even if I'm playing against someone who's not as good, and even that the occasional game might come up where I had no chance to win.
I'm not doubting you're aware of this distinction but I am suggesting maybe it's just a problem of how you're looking at it. For some reason some people seem to look at spectromancer much more how they'd look at chess than how they'd look at poker, but I feel the opposite should be true. Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2015-01-20 22:06:26 CyberneticPony | 2015-01-21 08:23:19 |
... I'm talking specifically about your statement in the second paragraph that "the odds of a lower level player beating a higher level player are disproportionately high in this game." I guess it's just a question of what odds you think are acceptable. I'm saying there are easily referenced examples of players whose win rates are too good for the odds of low-level players to beat them to be very high.
You're certainly far from the first person to make this argument though. I think the reason it keeps coming up is because people think of each hand they play as "a game of spectromancer." Whereas if you play "a game of poker" you play many hands. What I actually think of as "a game" of spectromancer is a sequence of many rounds where I play many different hands. I go in assuming I am going to lose some rounds even if I'm playing against someone who's not as good, and even that the occasional game might come up where I had no chance to win.
I'm not doubting you're aware of this distinction but I am suggesting maybe it's just a problem of how you're looking at it. For some reason some people seem to look at spectromancer much more how they'd look at chess than how they'd look at poker, but I feel the opposite should be true.
That's actually a good point. Maybe while I'd like to have each game treated as a separate instance, I guess with the very random draws it is too unrealistic to expect "unwinnable" hands to never show up. Even in poker you sometimes face the nuts (your opponent has the optimal hand for the flop or later).
... I'm up for doing this, when are you availible?
tomorrow (thursday) at 17:00 UTC or later
Modified by filip on 2015-01-21 09:28:05
Hi CyberneticPony!
Based on reading your excellent points, I think you are on the verge of a big level up burst. I really like how you clearly laid out your reasoning about the game in your request for help.
If someone can demonstrate a reasonably consistent game plan of dealing with a dragon when you don't have either of these cards
Whatever is behind your asking this question is the origin of your frustration, and you realize it, too:
But I don't believe there is such a gameplan because your opponent can simply elect to match you
That is, you know that the question has no valid answer. You've recognized the paradox. In fact, it's the question that is the problem.
Hidden in your question is an assumption about the game that you probably don't realize you made. Although hard to put into words, I can try: you have assumed that the way to think about your play is to think about what the cards do and how they interact. While Spectromancer is not a card game at all, this assumption does not work in any card game I know, either. While the cards take up the most space on the screen, they are not the center of the game. They are keys on a piano, but the game is a melody.
Next time you play, think carefully about the plays you might be ignoring; the "whatever" plays you think are throwaways on the way to the big card combo, that you hint at when you say "match you roughly in plays". There is no such thing. Beethoven didn't write "whatever, random throwaway notes?... da da da DUN", or that four-note theme wouldn't be memorable. If your thought is to "roughly match" your opponent, then your play is very likely discordant, and although you may lose to a dragon or many other combos, that is only the visible part of why you lost, and the reason why that is the only visible part to you right now is because of the assumption hidden in your question. CyberneticPony | 2015-01-21 10:37:42 |
Hi CyberneticPony!
Based on reading your excellent points, I think you are on the verge of a big level up burst. I really like how you clearly laid out your reasoning about the game in your request for help.
...
Whatever is behind your asking this question is the origin of your frustration, and you realize it, too:
...
That is, you know that the question has no valid answer. You've recognized the paradox. In fact, it's the question that is the problem.
Hidden in your question is an assumption about the game that you probably don't realize you made. Although hard to put into words, I can try: you have assumed that the way to think about your play is to think about what the cards do and how they interact. While Spectromancer is not a card game at all, this assumption does not work in any card game I know, either. While the cards take up the most space on the screen, they are not the center of the game. They are keys on a piano, but the game is a melody.
Next time you play, think carefully about the plays you might be ignoring; the "whatever" plays you think are throwaways on the way to the big card combo, that you hint at when you say "match you roughly in plays". There is no such thing. Beethoven didn't write "whatever, random throwaway notes?... da da da DUN", or that four-note theme wouldn't be memorable. If your thought is to "roughly match" your opponent, then your play is very likely discordant, and although you may lose to a dragon or many other combos, that is only the visible part of why you lost, and the reason why that is the only visible part to you right now is because of the assumption hidden in your question. It's a matter of efficiency; you lose if you play substandard cards in response to aggression. You'd lose far earlier than the combo if you had not made those moves. Am I missing something? Is there a method of using less efficient cards to win the game? Also, I've been stuck at 13-14 for a while and it's been frustrating. I'm pretty sure I'm at this skill, and am stumped how to get better at this point. Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-01-21 10:39:32
It's a matter of efficiency; you lose if you play substandard cards in response to aggression. You'd lose far earlier than the combo if you had not made those moves.
The notion of "substandard cards" is also something revealing. That is akin to saying there are substandard keys on your keyboard. Surely, you will use Q less than E when typing in English, but that doesn't mean Q is substandard.
To get better, you first have to see the parts you aren't now able to see, then decide what you want to say with your cards, rather than stringing them together based on a notion of relative strength. What words do you want to make with the letters? When? Why?
[Edit: you appear to be on right now, so if you want to do some training, I can for a time.] Modified by Plynx on 2015-01-21 11:01:03 CyberneticPony | 2015-01-22 01:24:56 |
... The notion of "substandard cards" is also something revealing. That is akin to saying there are substandard keys on your keyboard. Surely, you will use Q less than E when typing in English, but that doesn't mean Q is substandard.
To get better, you first have to see the parts you aren't now able to see, then decide what you want to say with your cards, rather than stringing them together based on a notion of relative strength. What words do you want to make with the letters? When? Why?
[Edit: you appear to be on right now, so if you want to do some training, I can for a time.]
I'd be up for training definitely! Also, when I say substandard, I mean related to what the opponent played. I think every card in the game is useful. Just, in some situations, some cards are obviously bad plays.
Great! If you see this soon, post here and I will come on.
CyberneticPony | 2015-01-22 18:31:19 |
I am online right now.
have you two played each other after all?
CP it seems you're really interested into the game (and playing all classes) it would be great!
btw sorry about the rant in the beginning came out a bit aggressive
CyberneticPony | 2015-01-23 14:22:53 |
have you two played each other after all?
CP it seems you're really interested into the game (and playing all classes) it would be great!
btw sorry about the rant in the beginning came out a bit aggressive
Yeah, we did. I did win my first game with Plynx although he deliberately handicapped himself to try to see how I react to a common (but long term inefficient) opening. I have to say the training was hugely enlightenening; Plynx was able to demonstrate a game where he could beat a Dragon play without using Tornado or Ice Guard, and it involved a clever early detection of the dragon and floating earth mana with a plan to cover all bases for the alternatives. He showed me that my concepts of play efficiency weren't enough, I wasn't reading the opponent enough.
MikeBnDe | 2015-01-23 16:56:23 |
... Yeah, we did. I did win my first game with Plynx although he deliberately handicapped himself to try to see how I react to a common (but long term inefficient) opening. I have to say the training was hugely enlightenening; Plynx was able to demonstrate a game where he could beat a Dragon play without using Tornado or Ice Guard, and it involved a clever early detection of the dragon and floating earth mana with a plan to cover all bases for the alternatives.
He showed me that my concepts of play efficiency weren't enough, I wasn't reading the opponent enough.
Hi CyberneticPony, first off, i started playing random again, so i hope you are not disgusted by me anymore ;-) So please forgive me ;-) Regarding the training with Plynx, that was a very nice thing of him to do. Just like you, i am stuck at a certain level range (23-28) and it seems that i just cannot improve my game to the next level. Maybe thats simply my peak, lol ;-) Surprisingly, my statistics against some L30/40 players are not as bad as they should be. I would love to learn from the top players. Anyway, i am interested in the common opening you mentioned. Could you elaborate? And how can you surely detect a dragon play? If someone conecentrates on collecting fire mana, that can mean anything. @all: Btw, there is an opening i have been wondering about for a long time: First turn: mana creature Second: Ice Golem Third: Spirit/Holy 4. A lot of players use that opening. I am still not sure if spending 4 special mana to proctect your generator is worth it. I dont think so, it seems too expesnive. The generator has to live 4 turns longer to make up for the loss and against a solid counter play, the gain of board control is not so drastic. On the other hand, i don't think i counter that combo good enough. The Spirit/Holy 4 weakens my creatures, and sometimes, the opponent even manages to get 2 Golems out and then comes F11 or e9 and that's basically it. Any thoughts? @Plynx: thanks for replying to Cybernetics request for help. I am always interested to read comments from the top players here. Even though i only got a vague idea what you meant, to be honest. You make your playstyle sound like art and the beethoven analogy was quite interesting. We only played one game, but i got the distinct feeling that your playstyle is 'special'. I can't put it in words though, and it may sound strange because we only played one single game, but i got that feeling before i read how good you really are, so i was not influnced by the other players comments on the forum. May i ask if you studied mathematics or so? Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-01-23 17:19:44 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-23 21:48:03 |
I always assumed Plynx was a mathematician because I learned the word 'asymptotic' from him HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-23 21:52:57 |
@all: Btw, there is an opening i have been wondering about for a long time: First turn: mana creature Second: Ice Golem Third: Spirit/Holy 4. A lot of players use that opening. I am still not sure if spending 4 special mana to proctect your generator is worth it. I dont think so, it seems too expesnive. The generator has to live 4 turns longer to make up for the loss and against a solid counter play, the gain of board control is not so drastic. On the other hand, i don't think i counter that combo good enough. The Spirit/Holy 4 weakens my creatures, and sometimes, the opponent even manages to get 2 Golems out and then comes F11 or e9 and that's basically it. Any thoughts?
I think it depends a lot on the situation and what your plan is. Sometimes using this strategy can guarantee that you get a certain card out really early that your plan centers on. I think that simply calculating relative mana values is not always the way to determine if a move is "good" -- sometimes you can "overspend" for something that is the right card at the right time.
Overall though I would definitely agree that this is not as strong as an opening that uses holy 3, which often allows you to keep your mana generator (or something else) alive just as long, is cheaper, and summons a creature instead of just healing one.
Holy 4 is better for later elemental play. GrimJ0ker | 2015-01-23 23:39:45 |
Holy3 on the left of mana gainers is the best mana opening of all classes. Holy4 is a really strong spell but using it at the start is not always the best thing also with ice golems. I'm writing an advanced guide ( in my language, but i think it will be easly understandable with google translator and also thanks to a lot of images) to play spectromancer with each card, i'll try to write something not banal for all classes and also of particular situations during the game which i consider really decisive moments of a match, but i think this needs a long time for a full version.
Modified by GrimJ0ker on 2015-01-23 23:40:42 MikeBnDe | 2015-01-24 09:28:00 |
HPG/Grim: Good, points. Yes, it depends. I stopped playing the combo 'by default', and more often than not, i take a different route. Still, it sometimes is not a good feeling when the opponent plays it on his W5 and his air mana is growing while at the the same time the own heal is E1 and E11 or so ;-)
Regarding the training with Plynx, that was a very nice thing of him to do. Just like you, i am stuck at a certain level range (23-28) and it seems that i just cannot improve my game to the next level. Maybe thats simply my peak, lol ;-) Surprisingly, my statistics against some L30/40 players are not as bad as they should be.
I'm not even sure what a peak means, but if it means you believe you have encountered some sort of unsurpassable internal limit, I don't believe that is how it works. Instead it's likely that there are just many little things that in time you will discover. Some of the reasons you might be feeling stuck are because you've taken your current way of looking at it to its limit, and need to find a new outlook.
I would love to learn from the top players. Anyway, i am interested in the common opening you mentioned. Could you elaborate? And how can you surely detect a dragon play? If someone conecentrates on collecting fire mana, that can mean anything.
It was just a common low-level play, merfolk elder, followed by forest sprite x2, then minotaur commander.
As for detecting the dragon, I think cyberneticpony just meant I accounted for it, not knew for sure that she had it or was going to play it. Certainly, if I don't have it, nor any associated spells, I would need to account for it.
.@all: Btw, there is an opening i have been wondering about for a long time: First turn: mana creature Second: Ice Golem Third: Spirit/Holy 4. ... i don't think i counter that combo good enough. ... Any thoughts?
It shouldn't be giving you any problems--since it is, though, I'd have to play you to see what the reason is for your troubles.
May i ask if you studied mathematics or so?
Mathematics and I don't get along. I could not finish basic calculus because I couldn't do things using those limits and other band-aids over the gaping holes in their assumptions, but of course if I do them my own way, I get an F. MikeBnDe | 2015-01-24 19:22:52 |
I'm not even sure what a peak means, but if it means you believe you have encountered some sort of unsurpassable internal limit, I don't believe that is how it works. Instead it's likely that there are just many little things that in time you will discover. Some of the reasons you might be feeling stuck are because you've taken your current way of looking at it to its limit, and need to find a new outlook.
Thanks for the long reply, Plynx. Maybe you are right. I
will listen to the advice you gave Pony and carefully consider other
moves i ignored before and try to look at the game from different angles. Interesting
that you consider the forest sprite / minotaur low-level play. I always
thought its ok when the opponent doesn.t have f9 and e9 (so that it is more difficult for him to get rid of the minotaur in an efficent way.)
Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-01-24 19:24:50 CyberneticPony | 2015-01-25 04:15:56 |
Yeah, Plynx does have a very unique way of looking at things. I am a mathematician, but when I trained with him he taught me a new way of playing the game that opened my eyes a little.
What separates the high spectro players from the above average players is more than simply people who understand the math of the game better, but people who also read the player.
Thanks for the long reply, Plynx. Maybe you are right. I will listen to the advice you gave Pony and carefully consider other moves i ignored before and try to look at the game from different angles.
I try to make at least 1-2 bad moves per game, and see what I can learn. You might also try to up the difficulty for yourself by adding conditions, like pretend your fire house is broken and you can only use it on every other turn, or don't use any special house cards at all, or you can only play creatures with odd numbered attack, or whatever.
Interesting that you consider the forest sprite / minotaur low-level play. I always thought its ok when the opponent doesn.t have f9 and e9(so that it is more difficult for him to get rid of the minotaur in an efficent way.)
This particular concept of efficiency is probably holding you back (there may be others that will not). Think on the basic rules of the game instead of jumping to the conclusion that the mana numbers can tell you what is a good play is vs not. Sure, this kind of thinking can guide a player away from making horrible plays, and that's super helpful when you first play. But it's not going to guide you to great plays. The game is much deeper than that. MikeBnDe | 2015-01-26 00:44:37 |
Yeah, of course mana efficency is important, but not the only thing to consider. I will try the things you mentioned. I have to find a new strategic approach to play the game, i think i have become a victom of my own play style. I almost always play after the same pattern. And i will watch your play ;-) I hope you meant training when you talked about the 1-2 bad moves.If you got to level 50 with 1-2 bad moves per game - well that would be even more incredible.
Dam, that was my post, not Plynx's. I can only write int he quote box, strange
Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-01-26 00:51:20 Wavelength | 2015-01-26 07:42:17 |
Just make a new post and I'll delete that one, Mike.
Xanatos | 2015-01-26 18:59:15 |
I find the problem is how XP is calculated. My level (Crash And Burn) ranges between 2-6. If I get on a losing streak I'll drop to 2; crawl my way back to 4th, and maybe make it back to 5th. If @ level 4-5, I beat someone less than my level, I get 30-40 xp (or so). If I lose vs them, I lose much more XP than that. I feel like that is a very bad mechanic/system. The XP gain/loss should be the same for wins/losses.
If that was the case, high level players (or mid-range players) would be more likely to play against lower level players. Since they wouldn't lose a "massive" amount of XP from a loss, and next to no gain from a win.
OT: It also seems that the focus on level in the player lists is unfortunate, as there is no indication at all of the player rank without looking at their profile. XP could also be calculated based soley on Rank vs Rank, instead of "level".
Eurydice | 2015-01-27 03:48:30 |
I find the problem is how XP is calculated. My level (Crash And Burn) ranges between 2-6. If I get on a losing streak I'll drop to 2; crawl my way back to 4th, and maybe make it back to 5th. If @ level 4-5, I beat someone less than my level, I get 30-40 xp (or so). If I lose vs them, I lose much more XP than that. I feel like that is a very bad mechanic/system. The XP gain/loss should be the same for wins/losses.
If that was the case, high level players (or mid-range players) would be more likely to play against lower level players. Since they wouldn't lose a "massive" amount of XP from a loss, and next to no gain from a win.
The experience system encourages players to challenging themselves by playing more difficult opponent than themselves. The reward outweighs the loss for them. On the other side, it discourages high players from "picking on" the lower players and inflating themselves. If the rewards/loss exp were the same for all then everything would fail, and there would be no point in a level scale. To learn more about the exp system see here: http://www.spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=expOT: It also seems that the focus on level in the player lists is unfortunate, as there is no indication at all of the player rank without looking at their profile.
There is list of top players by glory rank as well. Just see glory tab in hall of fame: http://www.spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=4#D
If @ level 4-5, I beat someone less than my level, I get 30-40 xp (or so). If I lose vs them, I lose much more XP than that.
yes but also: if you lose vs someone more than your level, you lose 30-40 xp (or so). if you beat them, you get much more XP than that
Modified by filip on 2015-01-27 08:50:54 Xanatos | 2015-01-27 16:30:07 |
... The experience system encourages players to challenging themselves by playing more difficult opponent than themselves. The reward outweighs the loss for them. On the other side, it discourages high players from "picking on" the lower players and inflating themselves. If the rewards/loss exp were the same for all then everything would fail, and there would be no point in a level scale. To learn more about the exp system see here: http://www.spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=exp
... There is list of top players by glory rank as well. Just see glory tab in hall of fame: http://www.spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=4#D
I don't agree. I've been building and designing RPG systems for 30 years, and I don't think you can mathematically prove that the "system" would fall apart by not hosing the player for losing to a lesser opponent. I play auto-match - like possibly many others. There is no "risk/reward" there, at level 4/5 I can be put up against level 9's or higher at times, or even level 1's. It's bullshit when you lose to a low level (who may just be an alt) from auto-match and lose 60+ XP. Then get matched up against level 7-9+ and lose some more, and drop back to level 2. That's hardly the definition of risk/reward. Then you have the assholes that drop instead of taking their loss. You can see they get higher levels than they deserve, cuz the only time they lose is when you surprise them with a win. When a game starts your stats should be adjusted with a loss immediately, and a tentative xp change that applies the next time you login. If you drop, you lose, you should lose double or triple really. The only way not to be assessed that loss, is to complete the game and win. Another mechanic, would be once you reach any level, the XP requirements for the lesser levels gets reduced. (I can't find a XP to level list, so these numbers are example only.) E.g. if these were the XP requirements: 5: 800xp 4: 500xp 3: 300xp 2: 100xp If level 5, the XP requirement for 4th might be halved to 250, or it might just be one step lower: 300. (Thus it would take a significant number of losses before your "actual level" would drop back to 4th or less.) When your XP is less than your given level, but not below the reduced cost of the lower levels, you could gain more XP from wins, until your XP matches your level again. (e.g. You wouldn't drop to level 4 until your XP was cut down to 250/300, instead of 500). The game is highly slanted towards extremely good players, and people that DROP or as Forestry calls some others: SMURFS. (Not to mention Spirit-Wankers, that I blacklist whether I win or lose against them). Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-27 21:16:42
Then you have the assholes that drop instead of taking their loss. You can see they get higher levels than they deserve, cuz the only time they lose is when you surprise them with a win.
you actually think that is the way things work? also, wait a second: if you do think that indeed, are we seriously making conversation about a system like that? trying to find/propose improvements etc? for real? dude, if someone drops they get a loss. they don't get a win, they don't get a tie, they get a loss. otherwise there is no credible system to talk about...
in general you seem to be under some serious misconceptions about how stuff works / is supposed to work. the only thing i agree with you is that it sucks to lose vs an alt account and lose XP as if that was their real level (which clearly isn't). that is unfair and shouldn't be happening (although it's not easy to solve without causing other problems). on the other hand, the system will fall apart indeed if you offer greater rewards than penalties. you don't even need to be a mathematician to understand that. let's say that a player 5 levels lower than you defeats you. your XP are reduced by 20 points. then let's say that you defeat a player 5 levels greater than you. your XP are increased by 30 points. can you see what that means? the players with the most XP are not the ones who are good at the game, they are the ones who play the most duels!
Modified by filip on 2015-01-27 19:58:07 Wavelength | 2015-01-27 21:19:10 |
Xanatos, while your input is appreciated, I'm just another in a long line of people who agree you're dead wrong about this.
Among a few of the factual flaws in your logic:
* Losing against a player 3 levels (a reasonably significant difference in skill) lower than you causes you to lose 52 XP, whereas losing against someone 3 levels higher means losing 46 XP (not the 30-40 and 60-70 amounts you'd mentioned). Winning would get you 53 and 47 XP, respectively. Not a huge difference based on level. Certainly not the difference you're asserting. Not sure whether this is exaggerated at low levels, but in general this is how it works.
* Calculating XP gains based on Rank (which steadily increases over time) would reward alts and punish longtime, steady players much harder than the current system does, so that idea is totally absurd.
* You get the same XP loss for dropping, surrendering, or straight-up having your life reduced to zero. The only reason someone would drop is because they can't admit a loss or because they disconnect - but the XP/level system treats it exactly the same way it treats a completed loss.
* Halving the required XP for a level once you've gotten there, after level 5 or so, would essentially make your highest rank permanent. For example, with about 11,000 XP now at Level 24, I'd need to lose about 105 consecutive games to drop to 5,500 XP. This is silly. It would actually punish me in the long run, because if my ability dropped to that of a Level 20, I'd be taking bigger XP penalties for playing other Level 20s since my given Level is 24. Also, contrary to your argument, this would help smurfs.
* Once again, you don't seem to understand that you receive more than 50 XP for beating players of a higher level than you. You seem to think the system is punishing, whereas it is actually fair.
In fact, I encourage you to try to "game" the XP system in any fair (non-cheating, non-boosting) way you can, and see if you can reach a much higher level than you think you deserve. If you can, go ahead and make a topic at that time and explain how you did it, and maybe there will be some good info there on how we can rework the XP system. Until then, please recognize that there are a lot of players here who are in favor of changes in general, but find you to be so, so incredibly wrong about this one.
Xanatos | 2015-01-27 21:30:30 |
...
you actually think that is the way things work? also, wait a second: if you do think that indeed, are we seriously making conversation about a system like that? trying to find/propose improvements etc? for real? dude, if someone drops they get a loss. they don't get a win, they don't get a tie, they get a loss. otherwise there is no credible system to talk about...
in general you seem to be under some serious misconceptions about how stuff works / is supposed to work. the only thing i agree with you is that it sucks to lose vs an alt account and lose XP as if that was their real level (which clearly isn't). that is unfair and shouldn't be happening (although it's not easy to solve without causing other problems). on the other hand, the system will fall apart indeed if you offer greater rewards than penalties. you don't even need to be a mathematician to understand that. let's say that a player 5 levels lower than you defeats you. your XP are reduced by 20 points. then let's say that you defeat a player 5 levels greater than you. your XP are increased by 30 points. can you see what that means? the players with the most XP are not the ones who are good at the game, they are the ones who play the most duels!
I've never purposely dropped, so I can only assume with the frequency that others do - there must be some advantage to it? Given the landscape of the playerbase, last year when I first started online - my Win/Loss ratio after a few thousand games was 3W/4L (~33% more losses than wins). My level ranged between 1-5. A year later, given pretty much the same landscape of the playerbase, and a newly started Nick (Crash And Burn), after a few thousand games my Win/Loss ratio improved by ~33% to 4W/5L (~20% more losses than wins). My level ranges between 2-6. Most of the player names that I recognize over the last year (that aren't in the high-teens+) seem to range between 2-8. Unless you Win more than you lose (which isn't possible for most players, even decent ones) you are stuck in the < level 10 range, and are constantly set-against SMURFS, and Spirit-wankers. Given that absolutely no acknowledgement is given to a players RANK in the player-lists (in-game), a newbie (Novice) level 5 looks just like a level 5 Arch/Master/etc Mage. In essence you never make any progress. Tournaments are run every month it seems, and are only offered for the absolutely best (top-ranking) players (many of those names, I never even see online). The bulk of the player base can't even compete (against others of their own skill-level). The games that I know of, and communities that I've participated since the 90's wouldn't of gotten very far by alienating most of the active players/members. Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-27 21:48:59 Wavelength | 2015-01-28 00:56:26 |
Xanatos, your post is spectacular in its faultiness. I know you're trying to make a well-intentioned and honest argument here but you're ignoring so many facts that it's getting infuritating, and you're dragging this topic way off the mark. I've never purposely dropped, so I can only assume with the frequency that others do - there must be some advantage to it?
Pretty poor assumption. This is a global game and some people do not have the same internet reliability that you do. In addition, some people are prone to closing the program in anger if they feel like they lost due to luck or something - I've done this a few times when the opponent was acting like a complete ass. There is absolutely, positively no benefit to dropping. Unless you Win more than you lose (which isn't possible for most players, even decent ones)
What?! Are you kidding? Do you also believe that Obama is a Communist and the world is 6,000 years old? Do you think that K-values in chess tournaments should be replaced with Popsicle Stick Lotteries? What kind of hilariously faulty logic led you to believe that most players can't win more games than they lose, when they are limited to dueling approximately equal-levelled opponents? you are stuck in the < level 10 range, and are constantly set-against SMURFS, and Spirit-wankers.
There's nothing "bad" about being in the low-level range. I imagine if every player had played a few thousand games in this rating system, the average level would be somewhere around 10; maybe slightly higher. (As it is, the average level among active players is probably around 8.) If you are a slightly below average player you will hang in the single digits, which makes sense because your skill level is below that of those average players. Smurfs, I will agree with you, are a minor problem, and they do distort the system a bit in the short-term... but they tend to make it above level 10 within just a few dozen games, so lower-level players like you do not have to deal with them for long. "Spirit-wankers" as you are so fond of calling them (classy of you!) are free players who are restricted to that one class. PROTIP: This is an advatantage for you! You can either also be a "Spirit-wanker" if you so choose, and play Spirit each time (just because you bought the game doesn't mean you HAVE to change classes), or you can play one of the classes that does well against Spirit. Or, if playing against Spirit bothers you that much, check a player's profile before you offer them a duel. In essence you never make any progress.
You make progress when your skill at the game increases. If you want to make progress without getting better at the game, go play FISHDOM or one of the many "fine" Zynga games out there. I get that you're an RPG fan (I am too) so you might see "levels" as something to be constantly gained; that is not the purpose of ratings (or levels) in competitive games. The purpose is to attempt to rate a player's true skill in comparison to other players and provide a useful heuristic when matchmaking so that players can have a good game against a similarly-skilled players. Tournaments are run every month it seems, and are only offered for the absolutely best (top-ranking) players (many of those names, I never even see online).
Blatant lies. Anyone can participate in tourneys, so long as they have at least 12 classes unlocked and have played at least 100 games (and this second requirement is only to prevent abuse). This month's "Tournament of Champions" is a special event (even Jeopardy! does this) and is the only exception to "anyone can participate" in the ~25 monthly tournaments that have been held so far. Seriously. " Most players lose more than they win" and " Tournaments are only offered for the best players"? Where do you come up with this crap? -- Edit: I'm looking over my post and realizing it probably sounds pretty nasty. I'm going to leave it alone because it's really the truth; I'm pissed that you're spouting all kinds of blatantly incorrect information as if it were absolute fact. Hopefully you're not personally offended (there is no intention to), even if I'm coming off very sardonically. Modified by Wavelength on 2015-01-28 01:24:41 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-28 00:59:25 |
Unless you Win more than you lose (which isn't possible for most players, even decent ones) you are stuck in the < level 10 range, and are constantly set-against SMURFS, and Spirit-wankers. Given that absolutely no acknowledgement is given to a players RANK in the player-lists (in-game), a newbie (Novice) level 5 looks just like a level 5 Arch/Master/etc Mage.
In essence you never make any progress.
Your biggest hindrance to increasing your level is probably that you care too much about it in the first place. If you want to increase in levels the best way to do it is to stop caring. Play the game creatively and to explore and expand your abilities, not to see a number get higher. After a while you'll not only start winning more often but actually start enjoying the game more, too. Xanatos | 2015-01-28 04:53:24 |
There's nothing "bad" about being in the low-level range. I imagine if every player had played a few thousand games in this rating system, the average level would be somewhere around 10; maybe slightly higher. (As it is, the average level among active players is probably around 8.) If you are a slightly below average player you will hang in the single digits, which makes sense because your skill level is below that of those average players. ...
I get that you're an RPG fan (I am too) so you might see "levels" as something to be constantly gained; that is not the purpose of ratings (or levels) in competitive games. The purpose is to attempt to rate a player's true skill in comparison to other players and provide a useful heuristic when matchmaking so that players can have a good game against a similarly-skilled players.
... Blatant lies. Anyone can participate in tourneys, so long as they have at least 12 classes unlocked and have played at least 100 games (and this second requirement is only to prevent abuse).
This month's "Tournament of Champions" is a special event (even Jeopardy! does this) and is the only exception to "anyone can participate" in the ~25 monthly tournaments that have been held so far.
Seriously. "Most players lose more than they win" and "Tournaments are only offered for the best players"? Where do you come up with this crap?
If I cared that much about my own level, I wouldn't still be playing. And perhaps my coined phrase for spirit-only players isn't classy. I feel (and like everyone loves to point out) I'm probably wrong - but Spirit among all the classes seems broken. It's the only (to a lesser extent Holy) class that allows the player to use two distinct styles - at nearly the same time. It has better mana gains than Sorcery (?!) and S4 seems difficult to counter. And instead of actually addressing the suggestions (like How rank could be seen in the player lists instead of ONLY levels), instead the focus is on how *everything* I say is wrong. Or insults. Then that particular heuristic (of calculated XP)perhaps doesn't work so well, when I get matched against level 1's and level 9's. I would think win/loss ratio is a pretty good metric for assessing ones skill in comparison to other players. (but here I'll save you some time: I'm probably wrong again) Yeah everyone can participate in a Tournament, but whats the point? The bulk of the players as you say are level 8. They wouldn't make it much past the first round aye? I come up with "this crap" by the logic that, if you don't win more than you lose, you wont break level 8-10. You stated that the average level is 10th. Average being a pretty poor numerical assessment (in and of itself, standard deviation would be more appropriate here). Most players online at any given point are 10th or less. Do you perhaps see a connection there? At all? I have no idea how old the world/universe is, although expansion theory breaks down due to the laws of thermodynamics. I'm
Canadian so I'm not particularly concered about Obama's political
affiliations -- You should of used Stephen Harper - and I wish he was
communist, that might of kept him out of office. And without looking it
up I'm not sure what a chess k-value is - perhaps its related to ELO. Here this is definitely OT: What is particularly annoying, are when bugs aren't even acknowledged. http://spectromancer.com/forum.cgi#pageid=4623Although I did accidentally post in General instead of Problems/Bugs. Just split the thread. I'll make sure I don't post blatant lies in the future. Sorry for trying to participate in the community Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-28 07:23:55 Wavelength | 2015-01-28 07:29:57 |
And perhaps my coined phrase for spirit-only players isn't classy. I feel (and like everyone loves to point out) I'm probably wrong - but Spirit among all the classes seems broken. It's the only (to a lesser extent Holy) class that allows the player to use two distinct styles - at nearly the same time. It has better mana gains than Sorcery (?!) and S4 seems difficult to counter.
Yeah, "perhaps" wankers isn't the nicest term. And "perhaps" Spirit is actually very well balanced among all the classes, with the ninth highest winrate (49.3%) among all classes and only one matchup above 55% (vs. Mecha). See the attached table. Can Spirit play a versatile game? Sure. Can most other classes? Yes. Does Spirit's versatility make it better than a one-trick pony like Golem? Apparently not. And instead of actually addressing the suggestions (like How rank could be seen in the player lists instead of ONLY levels), instead the focus is on how *everything* I say is wrong. Or insults.
It's not that everything you're saying is wrong; it's that a lot of it - in this topic at least - is blatantly made up. In my previous two posts I've pointed out several factually inaccurate (not even consensus, but factually inaccurate) things you've said that you wouldn't have said if you had taken five minutes to do some research. The lack of respect that's shown by spouting falsehood after falsehood is what I find insulting. Some of your suggestions in other topics, like the one you linked, are fine. Go ahead and champion those ideas! It's your prerogative to do so and if other people haven't noticed them, it's not that they're ignoring them - it's that they either hadn't seen it or weren't inspired enough by the idea to respond. It's up to you to champion your own ideas and get people to care! I've gotta do the same for my ideas, you know? Then that particular heuristic (of calculated XP)perhaps doesn't work so well, when I get matched against level 1's and level 9's. I would think win/loss ratio is a pretty good metric for assessing ones skill in comparison to other players. (but here I'll save you some time: I'm probably wrong again)
It would be worse than the current system. Surely someone who wins 50% of their games against level 18's (who might have each won 65% of their own games) is worse than someone who wins 50% of their games against level 2's (who might have each won 35% of their own games). The current system accounts for that; your system doesn't. Yeah everyone can participate in a Tournament, but whats the point? The bulk of the players as you say are level 8. They wouldn't make it much past the first round aye?
Familiar with a "Swiss Style" tournament structure? No? Didn't think so. It's accusations like "they wouldn't make it past the first round" that show the community you are throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks, rather than making informed and intelligent arguments. Because everyone makes it past the first round, and the second, and the third... I come up with "this crap" by the logic that, if you don't win more than you lose, you wont break level 8-10. You stated that the average level is 10th.
First of all I stated that IF every player had played a fairly large number of games in the current system, I think the average would be around 10, and then immediately said that the actual average level seems to be around 8. Don't twist my words. Secondly, your logic is, again, faulty. Take a second and think instead of spouting stuff off. Please. Once you make it to level 5 (where you receive the full XP loss for defeats), if you win exactly as many matches as you lose, you will stay at level 5 (there's actually a very, very slow XP gain built in so that over several hundred matches you'll average a one level gain, but that is inherently self-correcting and it will stop after one level). So I don't understand how you can argue " if you don't win more than you lose, you won't break level 8-10" with a straight face. Average being a pretty poor numerical assessment (in and of itself, standard deviation would be more appropriate here).
Please explain why you think St Dev alone would be a better assessment here than Mean. Just split the thread. I'll make sure I don't post blatant lies in the future.
Sorry for trying to participate in the community No one wants you to stop participating in the community; we just want you to do a better job educating yourself about something in (at least) the most basic ways before go pointing out that everything is poorly designed. For example, participate in one tournament before you go around talking about how the tournaments are just a way to irritate lower-level players.
I'm Canadian
Ah! That explains everything!
Modified by Wavelength on 2015-01-28 07:37:56 Xanatos | 2015-01-28 08:50:24 |
I would think Standard Deviation would handle the anomalous high levels. I don't think I've ever said anything is poorly *designed*. I said I don't think the level system provides an adequate reward due to the reward of "rank" is hidden from plain sight, which I feel is disingenuous. I made a few incorrect assumptions (re dropping players, and "overall" win-rates from my own observations - as I consider myself "decent"). I also didn't realize Tournaments were done Hockey-Style.
(Can't seem to figure out the BB-quoting mechanism for a small piece of text, so) "" So I don't understand how you can argue "if you don't win more than you lose, you won't break level 8-10" with a straight face.""
I have two nicks (three, one I only use to play with my 10yo nephew), they both got to about the same level, give or take. I observe (the stat-cards of) high-levels ---> usually more wins than losses. I observe SMURFS ---> more wins than losses. I observe those in the 3-8 level range, that have played a lot of games (thousands) generally more losses than wins. I've also clearly stated auto-matching, not picking and choosing matches. Thus with a straight face, from what I _CAN SEE_. The players with a lot of matches that aren't in the Teens+ have more losses than wins.
I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this observation/opinion/comment?
As far as Spirit is concerned. It has synergies that the other classes don't. It has a strange amount of mana gains (that also heal/or direct damage). Unlike almost all the other classes, it's features/spells don't require a sacrifice to use. In fact the opposite of that, those features/spells allow Spirit to repeatedly cast the same spells at a rapid pace. Spirit allows horizontal/vertical play, that can be switched between very easily - unlike most of the other classes (in my experience). Along with one of the strongest tanks (Angel) that can be cast every 4 turns. I also don't believe that one can truely assess the balance of a given class by just looking at its win-rate. Just like how you can't adequately balance a class in other games by merely looking at its Damage-Per-Turn.
As far as Golem is concerned. It's quite likely that giving the Golem the ability of: "Prevents AoE combat damage to the player" would address its primary weakness, as the Golem player effectively (unfairly) takes double damage from AoE hits.
Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-28 08:56:56
Given the landscape of the playerbase, last year when I first started online - my Win/Loss ratio after a few thousand games was 3W/4L (~33% more losses than wins). My level ranged between 1-5. A year later, given pretty much the same landscape of the playerbase, and a newly started Nick (Crash And Burn), after a few thousand games my Win/Loss ratio improved by ~33% to 4W/5L (~20% more losses than wins). My level ranges between 2-6. Most of the player names that I recognize over the last year (that aren't in the high-teens+) seem to range between 2-8.
more misconceptions:
having a positive W/L ratio doesn't prove anything about how good you are at the game. perhaps you have been playing with lower-level players only, in which case your positive W/L is to be expected, and should probably result in your level staying the same (unless you're really unstoppable or something). perhaps you have been playing with higher-level players only, in which case your positive W/L is indicative of higher skill, and will result in your level rising (no matter what)
Unless you Win more than you lose (which isn't possible for most players, even decent ones) you are stuck in the < level 10 range, and are constantly set-against SMURFS, and Spirit-wankers. Given that absolutely no acknowledgement is given to a players RANK in the player-lists (in-game), a newbie (Novice) level 5 looks just like a level 5 Arch/Master/etc Mage. In essence you never make any progress.
has it ever crossed your mind that maybe just maybe you are simply not good at this game?
if you happen to lose more than you win (while playing people around level 8) then guess what? the level that represents your skill is... (drumroll) lower than 8 who would have imagined? i'm sure most people would blame it on the experience system instead - like you do
btw the only difference between a "newbie" level 5 and a "veteran" level 5 is on their profile (total games played). if they both have the same skill then yes they should both be level 5. i cannot understand what exactly is your grief about this
Tournaments are run every month it seems, and are only offered for the absolutely best (top-ranking) players (many of those names, I never even see online).
seriously now? stop making stuff up please. if you are not sure about how something works, please take the time to look it up. or maybe try it out yourself. or maybe simply ask around. don't come out saying the first thing that pops on your mind just because it sounds good next to your latest conspiracy theory
The bulk of the player base can't even compete (against others of their own skill-level)
what? this is so false! how do you come up with this stuff? everyone can compete against others of their own skill-level. i don't even understand what makes you say they cannot
The games that I know of, and communities that I've participated since the 90's wouldn't of gotten very far by alienating most of the active players/members.
are you saying that the game's experience system is alienating most players/members? or that we (the people in the forum) are alienating most players/members? both are absurd claims. we have already tried to explain how the experience system is working in a fair way. also: the fact that we are actually trying meticulously to explain stuff and make this conversation with you (even though it has started to seem like a lost cause already) shows how much we respect people and value the community
Modified by filip on 2015-01-28 09:30:40 Xanatos | 2015-01-28 09:30:02 |
...
more misconceptions:
having a positive W/L ratio doesn't prove anything about how good you are at the game. perhaps you have been playing with lower-level players only, in which case your positive W/L is to be expected, and should probably result in your level staying the same (unless you're really unstoppable or something). perhaps you have been playing with higher-level players only, in which case your positive W/L is indicative of higher skill, and will result in your level rising (no matter what)
...
has it ever crossed your mind that maybe just maybe you are simply not good at this game?
if you happen to lose more than you win (while playing people around level 8) then guess what? the level that represents your skill is... (drumroll) lower than 8 who would have imagined? i'm sure most people would blame it on the experience system instead - like you do
btw the only difference between a "newbie" level 5 and a "veteran" level 5 is on their profile (total games played). if they both have the same skill then yes they should both be level 5. i cannot understand what exactly is your grief about this
...
seriously now? stop making stuff up please. if you are not sure about how something works, please take the time to look it up. or maybe try it out yourself. or maybe simply ask around. don't come out saying the first thing that pops on your mind just because it sounds good next to your latest conspiracy theory
...
what? this is so false! how do you come up with this stuff? everyone can compete against others of their own skill-level. i cannot even understand what makes you say they cannot
...
are you saying that the game's experience system is alienating most players/members? or that we (the people in the forum) are alienating most players/members? both are absurd claims. we have already tried to explain how the experience system is working in a fair way. also: the fact that we are actually trying meticulously to explain stuff and make this conversation with you (even though it has started to seem like a lost cause already) shows how much we respect people and value the community
You are breaking my sentences into snippets, effectively misquoting me and putting words in my mouth. Re-addressing what Wavelength has already kindly explained. Maybe just maybe you should of read the thread? Maybe just maybe *drumroll* you are being an asshole and taking almost everything I said out of context. Maybe just maybe you could stop trolling, thank you kindly. What the hell is wrong with you people? All I fucking did was question the "level reward" and suggest showing rank in the damned player list. Along with a misconception on players that drop, and how Tournaments were run - that I thought excluded a large part of the player base. And YES broken into snippets, as my reference to "playing against similiar skill" was in regards to Tournaments. Cripes. Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-28 09:50:22
i kept every sentence intact. i did not break any sentence into snippets. i broke down the last paragraph into its 3 separate sentences and only did that because i had to address 3 separate points. i kept the first two paragraphs exactly the same as they were written in your original post. i am trying to explain stuff but you're making this so hard. sorry if my style of writing was rude, but i don't think the content of my post is trolling material...
And YES broken into snippets, as my reference to "playing against similiar skill" was in regards to Tournaments. Cripes.
oh ok now i see what you were trying to say there. sorry about that - my bad
Yeah, of course mana efficency is important, but not the only thing to consider. I will try the things you mentioned. I have to find a new strategic approach to play the game, i think i have become a victom of my own play style. I almost always play after the same pattern. And i will watch your play ;-) I hope you meant training when you talked about the 1-2 bad moves.If you got to level 50 with 1-2 bad moves per game - well that would be even more incredible.
I can't play as often as I would like (lately just one day a week on the weekends), so I definitely have to do my experimentation during each game I play. The opposite is what would be incredible, leveling without making any bad moves deliberately at all.
Dam, that was my post, not Plynx's. I can only write int he quote box, strange
I think you get into that state if you delete to the end of the quoted section so that it deletes the final return character. What I do to avoid this is add a blank line to the bottom right after quoting before editing the quote. Modified by Plynx on 2015-01-28 11:08:39 Wavelength | 2015-01-28 10:51:53 |
I would think Standard Deviation would handle the anomalous high levels.
In combination with the Mean? (You actually implied otherwise with your wording in the last post) I don't think I've ever said anything is poorly *designed*. I said I don't think the level system provides an adequate reward due to the reward of "rank" is hidden from plain sight, which I feel is disingenuous.
You said the following in one of your earlier posts: "I feel like that [the XP gain/loss system] is a very bad mechanic/system." That's saying it's poorly designed, isn't it? And what we are trying to explain to you is that it's not poorly designed - it's actually one of the best possible designs for what it's trying to accomplish. (Can't seem to figure out the BB-quoting mechanism for a small piece of text, so)
Basically you put the cursor wherever you want to insert the quote, you go back up to the post you want to quote, you hit "Reply" (it inserts the entire post), and then you delete the parts you don't want. I do this several times in a post like this one; that's how I create the small snippets in quotes. It's kind of clumsy to try to get right so no one will complain if you want to just put it in italics like you did. "" So I don't understand how you can argue "if you don't win more than you lose, you won't break level 8-10" with a straight face.""
I have two nicks (three, one I only use to play with my 10yo nephew), they both got to about the same level, give or take. I observe (the stat-cards of) high-levels ---> usually more wins than losses. I observe SMURFS ---> more wins than losses. I observe those in the 3-8 level range, that have played a lot of games (thousands) generally more losses than wins. I've also clearly stated auto-matching, not picking and choosing matches. Thus with a straight face, from what I _CAN SEE_. The players with a lot of matches that aren't in the Teens+ have more losses than wins.
I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this observation/opinion/comment?
It's because you're displaying a lack of understanding about the way the XP system works (which in turn is a bit infuriating to see in someone who is saying the system is bad). If you still don't know the precise mechanics, please read about them here: http://spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=expNow think about what will happen if a Level 5 player plays against other Level 5 players and wins half his matches. He will stay at level 5, or (because of a few of the forigiving idiosyncracies in the XP system) might rise to 6 or 7 before leveling off and staying there, even over thousands of games. With that in mind, all of the things you've observed can be explained: * High-level players - of course they have more wins than losses; they won a lot while climbing to the high levels. Once they reach the spot they're fairly rated, they'll start going 50/50 in future games against like-level players. * Smurfs - same exact theory as High-level players. * Longtime players Levels 3-8 - To some extent this is the exact opposite as High-level players. In addition, generally, longtime low-level players are slightly more likely to play higher-level players than themselves (often people they started the game with who have since surpassed them). So their winrate would be expected to be slightly worse than 50/50 but they'll stay steady in XP and Level. Again, this is one feature that makes Spectro's XP system so good. As far as Spirit is concerned. It has synergies that the other classes don't. It has a strange amount of mana gains (that also heal/or direct damage). Unlike almost all the other classes, it's features/spells don't require a sacrifice to use. In fact the opposite of that, those features/spells allow Spirit to repeatedly cast the same spells at a rapid pace. Spirit allows horizontal/vertical play, that can be switched between very easily - unlike most of the other classes (in my experience). Along with one of the strongest tanks (Angel) that can be cast every 4 turns. I also don't believe that one can truely assess the balance of a given class by just looking at its win-rate. Just like how you can't adequately balance a class in other games by merely looking at its Damage-Per-Turn.
Yes, it's a somewhat versatile class (Chaos, Illusion, Holy, and Time are more versatile in my opinion), but it pays for that with a general inability to push its advantages. Angel can theoretically be cast once every four turns once you stockpile some extra mana on the front end, but so can Hypotyst, Chrono Engine, and Steam Tank (with an assist from Dwarven Craftsman) and in most games those three creatures have more impact than Angel. Which brings us back to the winrates chart. Winrates aren't the only important analysis tool but they're a damn good place to start. If Spirit is so broken,
then why is it winning less than 50% of its games? Are people just
playing it incorrectly? If so, then why do you (who claim to know its
strengths) have such a poor record with it? (Not being sarcastic here -
I sincerely want to know why you think it's so strong despite its
winrate and what you think you might be missing about the class that you have such trouble playing with or against it.) As far as Golem is concerned. It's quite likely that giving the Golem the ability of: "Prevents AoE combat damage to the player" would address its primary weakness, as the Golem player effectively (unfairly) takes double damage from AoE hits.
This actually is one of the major problems with Golem Master (I talk about it a lot more in my "Reworking Golem Master" thread), but I think you missed the fact that Golem Master actually has the second highest winrate in the game (I can attest from personal experience! - GM is the only class of the newest 4 that I'm positive W/L with). Preventing Spread Attacker damage to the player would put the class far into Broken territory unless you did something else to balance the change.
Hi Xanatos,
Before I offer my input on the experience system and your proposals, I wanted to make sure I understood your points:
- You're frustrated because it seems that you cannot progress - When playing, you feel penalized more than rewarded - You get the impression that the current system focuses on rewarding high level players and their smurf alts and not the bulk of the player base - You have some concerns about class balance, and find Spirit especially troublesome - You have some ideas you would like to share regarding system design
Let me know if that is an accurate understanding, and if I have any misunderstandings, please correct me. Thanks for posting! RedRook | 2015-01-28 15:23:08 |
... Ah! That explains everything!
Hey! Watch it, buddy
---
Edit by Wave: I was getting cheeky, eh? =P
Modified by Wavelength on 2015-01-28 21:55:16 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-28 16:23:50 |
Yeah everyone can participate in a Tournament, but whats the point? The bulk of the players as you say are level 8. They wouldn't make it much past the first round aye?
I really don't want to make you feel piled on or anything, I get that you're not trying to be rude and are just offering your thoughts, but I don't understand the way you see the system and I feel like this statement is emblematic of it. This is the entire point of having a tournament -- to see who plays the best that day. If people who are worse at the game were winning the tournament regularly over the best players, I would see that as a problem, not the other way around.
Anyway please don't feel discouraged from sharing your thoughts (especially with plynx, he is very insightful and I'm really curious to see what he will say ), I think some of them just came off a little like you were making some false accusations (I was a little put off by the comment about tournaments being open only to high level players, but I see how you could get that impression if the one this weekend was the first you saw). HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-28 16:27:39 |
I would think Standard Deviation would handle the anomalous high levels.
I don't think I've ever said anything is poorly *designed*. I said I don't think the level system provides an adequate reward due to the reward of "rank" is hidden from plain sight, which I feel is disingenuous.
To address this issue, one thing that is probably confusing about the "rank" system is that it actually did not exist for the first couple years of the game's existence. It was an extra type of measurement that was added in one of the expansions. I always got the impression that it was sort of a "for fun" thing and I don't personally take it as seriously as level, but it's probably not more visible simply because of the fact that it wasn't implemented at all in the original design. I imagine it would be something a lot of players would appreciate if that type of rank was immediately visible too.
At any rate at least if Cooler sees this suggestion I'm sure it's something he would take into account for future games, but I think they probably won't implement it for Spectromancer, not because it isn't a good idea, but because they're working on new projects and I'm not sure Spectro will see any more updates being as old as it is. Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2015-01-28 17:14:45 Xanatos | 2015-01-28 18:03:31 |
Hi Xanatos,
Before I offer my input on the experience system and your proposals, I wanted to make sure I understood your points:
- You're frustrated because it seems that you cannot progress - When playing, you feel penalized more than rewarded - You get the impression that the current system focuses on rewarding high level players and their smurf alts and not the bulk of the player base - You have some concerns about class balance, and find Spirit especially troublesome - You have some ideas you would like to share regarding system design
Let me know if that is an accurate understanding, and if I have any misunderstandings, please correct me. Thanks for posting! 1) I'm not frustrated - this situation here is _frustrating_ because everyone keeps thinking I am! LOL. And reiterating what Wavelength has already taken the time to explain - in regards to my misconception on dropping players and Tournaments. 2) I do not personally feel penalized / for me the reward is playing - win or lose. 3) NO, I do not have the impression that the current system focuses on rewarding high level players and their smurf alts. I lurked here on the boards, reading tips, guides, suggestions, and about tournaments. From that I got the impression that Tournaments (like the olympics) were only focused on High Levels - the posts always mentioned about getting such n such best players to participate. It seemed exclusionary. My misconception about Tournaments was clarified quite a while ago. When I said "I didn't realize tournaments were done Hockey Style [Thumbs Up] " Yet so many people keep going back to this point, as If I need it re-explained and clarified again and again. 4) I don't personally like playing against spirit, I find it boring and tedious, as I think it forces you into a very specific "defense" -- you have to skip turns more often against Spirit. S4 is almost always a 2nd turn cast, and most things you can cast within the first 2 turns can be wiped. Thus I choose not to play those that ONLY play spirit. and with that - It would be hypocritical of me to play Spirit. (Wavelength, as I said, my main player is Crash And Burn - for at least the last 6+ months or more, if he has any Spirit games, its not many, and I resumed my "personal ban".) I currently Randomly play between: Chronomancer, Necromancer, Chaos-Master, Mechanician (recent re-add), Sorceror (recent re-add, used to be Xanatos' favorite, but I sucked royally with it back then when I first started). I don't play Cleric either as its quite similar in essence to Spirit. I have and do play all the other classes, I keep ~5-6 checked at any point. 4b) Certainly I have ideas about class balance. 5) Or game ideas in general. Even my 10yo nephew comes up with some pretty interesting thoughts. I've posted very few of those ideas. The high-levels usually come out (on the boards) and disagree with anyone that isn't among the elite. -- I'm an "old man", I don't particularly like being talked to/condescended like I am a child. Some of the responses here have been a bit rude, to say the least. If I've stated things (about the game) as "factual". "I feel xyz. I think xyz. etc" -- they are thoughts/opinions, and I have no problem being corrected when wrong. I don't like being set upon and berated for saying my opinion. Opinions change. Views change. I was wrong about dropping players/tournaments - my bad. But I don't think it deserved such a visceral response. | | My primary idea about level was to address the bulk of the player base that is less than 10th level. That it would be more rewarding to the individual player, if their level wasn't knocked down so hard when you wind up in a losing streak. The idea which was never addressed, due to everyone seeming somewhat offended that I thought the current system wasn't "good enough".
| | (I realize I never mentioned the impetus of that idea, was losing streaks, not that the system is "bad") Wavelength: "" It's because you're displaying a lack of understanding about the way the XP system works (which in turn is a bit infuriating to see in someone who is saying the system is bad). If you still don't know the precise mechanics, please read about them here: http://spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=exp"" I don't think the XP system in-and-of-itself is bad. I think that getting knocked down to level 1 or 2 from a losing streak is bad, and misrepresentative of a players actual skill level. The idea was that if this is the Chart (as I said I don't see a level to XP list anywhere, to use actual numbers) 2: 100 3: 200 4: 500 5: 1000 Whatever level you have reached is your current "Max Level", and it should/could be more resistant to dropping, until you have lost a lot again. It would not make it easier to get above that Max Level, it would just make it a little easier not to drop below it. The XP level requirements for levels below your "Max Level" would be halved (or reduced by some formula). So if you were level 6, you would not drop to level 5 - until your XP was 500 (half of 1000). You would not drop to level 4 until 250 (half of 500). The additional separate idea on this aspect, was you could get increased XP gains when your level is below your "Max Level" to help alleviate losing streaks. Once you reattain your Max Level, no further xp (bonus) gains are given. THIS was my whole point in regards to the LEVEL system (not that the XP system is bad). That it might be more representative of a given players actual skill level, and wouldn't be so demoralizing as your level is more resistant to plummeting from losing streaks.Given this idea, it probably would allow players to rise a level or 2 above where they would be with the current system - but I don't think that would be a problem. Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-28 18:19:30 Xanatos | 2015-01-28 18:21:57 |
... I really don't want to make you feel piled on or anything, I get that you're not trying to be rude and are just offering your thoughts, but I don't understand the way you see the system and I feel like this statement is emblematic of it. This is the entire point of having a tournament -- to see who plays the best that day. If people who are worse at the game were winning the tournament regularly over the best players, I would see that as a problem, not the other way around.
Anyway please don't feel discouraged from sharing your thoughts (especially with plynx, he is very insightful and I'm really curious to see what he will say ), I think some of them just came off a little like you were making some false accusations (I was a little put off by the comment about tournaments being open only to high level players, but I see how you could get that impression if the one this weekend was the first you saw).
Wavelength addressed this further up. When he mentioned Swiss style (e.g. International Hockey Tournament Style). Which I gave a thumbs up to.
Xanatos | 2015-01-28 18:24:58 |
(1) With that in mind, all of the things you've observed can be explained: * High-level players - of course they have more wins than losses; they won a lot while climbing to the high levels. Once they reach the spot they're fairly rated, they'll start going 50/50 in future games against like-level players. * Smurfs - same exact theory as High-level players. * Longtime players Levels 3-8 - To some extent this is the exact opposite as High-level players. In addition, generally, longtime low-level players are slightly more likely to play higher-level players than themselves (often people they started the game with who have since surpassed them). So their winrate would be expected to be slightly worse than 50/50 but they'll stay steady in XP and Level. Again, this is one feature that makes Spectro's XP system so good. (2) You said the following in one of your earlier posts: "I feel like that [the XP gain/loss system] is a very bad mechanic/system." That's saying it's poorly designed, isn't it? And what we are trying to explain to you is that it's not poorly designed - it's actually one of the best possible designs for what it's trying to accomplish.
No, the point which I failed to express as I stated in my post above, was to make your currently attained Max Level more resistant to dropping from a run of bad luck/losing streaks. The current system penalizes you for bad-luck/losing streaks beyond the frustration of being in a losing streak. Your publicly displayed level is misrepresentative of your skill-level (I always wind up back to level 5/6 sometimes 7th). If I always get back up to level 5+, it would be more rewarding (I believe) to not publically display a level that doesn't truely reflect your skill. I will give an example, on Carnage MUD back in the late 80s, early 90s, when you died you lost a whole level worth of XP. You could be permadead if you died too many times. When I took over management (and coding) from the old-guard (along with another long-time player/friend), we eventually changed that system to not further penalize the player from further deaths past the first level loss, until they re-attained the XP for their level. Your level never actually dropped from dying, just XP loss, but repeated deaths made it harder and harder to get back to a zero sum. In this respect, Your level in Spectromancer wouldn't drop from a run of bad luck, it would just take longer to get back to a zero sum and surpass that current level (as you've lost XP). And this was why I posted in this thread, as I thought it was tangentially related to "Higher Skill Weight". E.g. more accurately reflecting a given players skill level. I went way off topic though. My bad. Thank you for your time. Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-28 18:42:32 CrashAndBurn | 2015-01-28 18:54:14 |
Maybe it would be more representative to be on the forums as CrashAndBurn, it was just that I started here as Xanatos. So that's what I kept on the forums.
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-01-28 19:18:25 |
I prefer Xanatos 'cause Gargoyles was a rad cartoon.
Anyway, sorry if I have misunderstood any of your points, I did personally get the impression that you were frustrated over feeling like you couldn't level up and that the game was unfairly privileging an elite few players. If that is not the case you apparently didn't need any of what I suggested! But I think there were a lot of misunderstandings in this conversation, as so often happens on the internet. I hope you will stick around as I appreciate anyone who puts thought into their points regardless of whether I agree. Xanatos | 2015-01-28 20:38:10 |
Funnily enough, I came up with the name before Gargoyles! Xanatos was my first mud character, it was a play on Thanatos (In Greek mythology, Thanatos was the daemon personification of death.) By the time the Internet was all the rage, Xanatos was taken everywhere (for email purposes, and board-logins) due to the popularity of Gargoyles in the 90's.
Wavelength | 2015-01-28 20:58:25 |
The high-levels usually come out (on the boards) and disagree with anyone that isn't among the elite.
No one is ganging up on your or getting cliquish. In general (and certainly not always), the best players are the ones who have found the smartest way to do things, so if someone posts something that is blatantly wrong, it stands to follow that all of the high-level players will have copious reason to disagree with it. -- I'm an "old man", I don't particularly like being talked to/condescended like I am a child. Some of the responses here have been a bit rude, to say the least. If I've stated things (about the game) as "factual". "I feel xyz. I think xyz. etc" -- they are thoughts/opinions, and I have no problem being corrected when wrong. I don't like being set upon and berated for saying my opinion. Opinions change. Views change. I was wrong about dropping players/tournaments - my bad. But I don't think it deserved such a visceral response.
If you're responding to Plynx when you're saying this, then you're completely misunderstanding where he's coming from. He wants to be precise in his reponse so there aren't any more "misunderstandings". When you say things like "What the hell is wrong with you people?!" he senses frustration, and was trying to figure out why. He's not being the slightest bit rude or condescending - if anything, it was me who was being rude and condescending, and I'll admit as such, but it's because I was really pissed at some of the ignorant stuff you were originally writing. I don't think the XP system in-and-of-itself is bad. I think that getting knocked down to level 1 or 2 from a losing streak is bad, and misrepresentative of a players actual skill level.
The idea was that if this is the Chart (as I said I don't see a level to XP list anywhere, to use actual numbers) 2: 100 3: 200 4: 500 5: 1000
Whatever level you have reached is your current "Max Level", and it should/could be more resistant to dropping, until you have lost a lot again. It would not make it easier to get above that Max Level, it would just make it a little easier not to drop below it.
The XP level requirements for levels below your "Max Level" would be halved (or reduced by some formula). So if you were level 6, you would not drop to level 5 - until your XP was 500 (half of 1000). You would not drop to level 4 until 250 (half of 500).
I would actually be in favor of a ~500 XP DISPLAY ONLY "buffer" that degrades over a few dozen games which would activate upon achieving a new level or dropping one, or something like that. That's a good idea. It would be a nice "feel-good" addition so that you wouldn't *immediately* lose a level you've earned and you wouldn't feel as much *immediate* impact from losing streaks. You took it to an ultra-extreme level by suggesting "half of it", which I've already tried to explain to you once in this topic. For example, my current level requires about 11,000 XP. If you halved that to 5,500 XP, you'd be talking a level that I couldn't sink down to even if I lost 100 consecutive games! My highest level ever achieved was 28; it happened while I was in rare form. I'm glad my current level is NOT 28; I am playing like a Level 24/25 and that's where I am. But in your proposed system, I'd be a Level 28 forever - even if my skill dropped to the point where I should be a Level 15! It's not just the "level or two" that you think it is. The reason it would have to be display only is because otherwise it would hurt players more than it helped. If your actual level is marked as 8 but your XP suggests you should be a Level 5, and you lose to a Level 5, then you'd be losing more than the 49 XP that you deserve to. But if your display level is 8 and your actual level is 5, it works out fine. The additional separate idea on this aspect, was you could get increased XP gains when your level is below your "Max Level" to help alleviate losing streaks. Once you reattain your Max Level, no further xp (bonus) gains are given.
I see where you're coming from, but (unless we stole extra XP from whoever you defeated, which probably isn't fair) this would introduce far too much inflation into the leveling system. It's the reason that Hearthstone, for example, needs to reset its ladder every month, which is just dumb. The current system penalizes you for bad-luck/losing streaks beyond the frustration of being in a losing streak. Your publicly displayed level is misrepresentative of your skill-level (I always wind up back to level 5/6 sometimes 7th). If I always get back up to level 5+, it would be more rewarding (I believe) to not publically display a level that doesn't truely reflect your skill.
There's really no such thing as a bad luck streak in Spectromancer. The odds against having three or more consecutive "unwinnable" draws are astronomically low. If you're on a losing streak (especially if you're using AutoSearch), it is because you are playing badly. I already touched on it a bit, but the level that is displayed IS probably representative of your true skill. Your high-water-mark might not be a true representation of your skill. (This is why I'm slightly against showing your Rank so obviously in the in-game lobby.) I will give an example, on Carnage MUD back in the late 80s, early 90s, when you died you lost a whole level worth of XP. You could be permadead if you died too many times. When I took over management (and coding) from the old-guard (along with another long-time player/friend), we eventually changed that system to not further penalize the player from further deaths past the first level loss, until they re-attained the XP for their level. Your level never actually dropped from dying, just XP loss, but repeated deaths made it harder and harder to get back to a zero sum.
I don't deny this was a really smart decision for a MUD. But think about how different the concept of "Level" is there. Your "Level" in an RPG or MUD or (usually) MMO determines what you are able to do and how many options are open to you. It has an appreciable effect on gameplay. And it is not a "rival" (in the sense of economics) system. In a MUD everyone feels good if they put up gaudy numbers. (There's also the "vicious cycle" aspect that can happen in a MUD where you keep losing XP, but that's tangential.) But in Spectromancer "Level" is a means of organizing and ranking players fairly. It is mostly like ELO in Chess, and it only has meaning when compared to other players. Would new players feel good if their ELO kept increasing with every few games they played, win or lose? Maybe. Would it destroy the purpose of the system? Definitely. It is a virtue, not a vice, that your level will plateau (and sometimes even drop) until you improve your play. One last thing, and I forgot where you mentioned this so I can't quote it directly: You imply that your 40/55 record on this account with Spirit is not representative as your true account, CrashAndBurn. But I just looked that account up and you are 6/9 with it! So I ask again: where do you think the disconnect is between the strength that you see in Warrior Priest versus your poor record with it? I strongly think it's because you're seeing strength that's not there, but I'm open to other possibilities. === EDIT: Removed formatting to fix forum bug.
Modified by Wavelength on 2015-01-28 21:49:54 Xanatos | 2015-01-28 22:55:39 |
No one is ganging up on your or getting cliquish. In general (and certainly not always), the best players are the ones who have found the smartest way to do things, so if someone posts something that is blatantly wrong, it stands to follow that all of the high-level players will have copious reason to disagree with it.
How many times in this thread have you mentioned how I am wrong? A dozen, two dozen? I'm not that thick, I get it I was wrong in regards to a few things. Yet I get quoted on the same damn thing over and over. And some of the responses have been blatantly hostile. ... If you're responding to Plynx when you're saying this, then you're completely misunderstanding where he's coming from. He wants to be precise in his reponse so there aren't any more "misunderstandings". When you say things like "What the hell is wrong with you people?!" he senses frustration, and was trying to figure out why. He's not being the slightest bit rude or condescending - if anything, it was me who was being rude and condescending, and I'll admit as such, but it's because I was really pissed at some of the ignorant stuff you were originally writing.
You yourself have been somewhat rude, along with others. You used exaggeration and intelligence insults. I shrugged it off and didn't call you on it. I made light of it. I'm tired of defending myself on the same thing over and over. With multiple people re-quoting and blasting me over a mistake. ---> "Go play a zynga game", "Maybe you're just not good at this game", "do you also think the world is 6000 years old" Very childish and petty behaviour quite frankly. I was stating that I have felt beset upon and repeatedly insulted, if you cannot see that I don't know what to say. What could I have possibly said to raise such ire ("pissed")? That the level system seems broken? I've repeatedly attempted to clarify what I meant with that. That I thought Tournaments were exclusionary? Really??! I've gone out of my way toi be polite, and not be provoked. I've re-edited posts and taken inflammatory responses out. Yet I've been hounded by multiple people over the same things. It's quite tiring and frustrating at this point. ... I would actually be in favor of a ~500 XP DISPLAY ONLY "buffer" that degrades over a few dozen games which would activate upon achieving a new level or dropping one, or something like that. That's a good idea. It would be a nice "feel-good" addition so that you wouldn't *immediately* lose a level you've earned and you wouldn't feel as much *immediate* impact from losing streaks. You took it to an ultra-extreme level by suggesting "half of it", which I've already tried to explain to you once in this topic.
For example, my current level requires about 11,000 XP. If you halved that to 5,500 XP, you'd be talking a level that I couldn't sink down to even if I lost 100 consecutive games! My highest level ever achieved was 28; it happened while I was in rare form. I'm glad my current level is NOT 28; I am playing like a Level 24/25 and that's where I am. But in your proposed system, I'd be a Level 28 forever - even if my skill dropped to the point where I should be a Level 15! It's not just the "level or two" that you think it is.
The reason it would have to be display only is because otherwise it would hurt players more than it helped. If your actual level is marked as 8 but your XP suggests you should be a Level 5, and you lose to a Level 5, then you'd be losing more than the 49 XP that you deserve to. But if your display level is 8 and your actual level is 5, it works out fine.
... I see where you're coming from, but (unless we stole extra XP from whoever you defeated, which probably isn't fair) this would introduce far too much inflation into the leveling system. It's the reason that Hearthstone, for example, needs to reset its ladder every month, which is just dumb.
As I have stated multiple times, I cannot see Level requirements per level anywhere. So I gave example numbers. "Half" works for lower levels. I also indicated (or some forumula) --- meaning not necessarily "half". And half with a cap of 500xp would work for all levels. ... There's really no such thing as a bad luck streak in Spectromancer. The odds against having three or more consecutive "unwinnable" draws are astronomically low. If you're on a losing streak (especially if you're using AutoSearch), it is because you are playing badly.
I already touched on it a bit, but the level that is displayed IS probably representative of your true skill. Your high-water-mark might not be a true representation of your skill. (This is why I'm slightly against showing your Rank so obviously in the in-game lobby.)
Now you are just arguing semantics. Whether you are playing badly, got a bad draw, or just lost because you miscalculated numbers in your head, or your opponent was just better - its a loss, and if you lose multiple times in a row, that is a losing streak. I never mentioned luck at all. One last thing, and I forgot where you mentioned this so I can't quote it directly: You imply that your 40/55 record on this account with Spirit is not representative as your true account, CrashAndBurn. But I just looked that account up and you are 6/9 with it! So I ask again: where do you think the disconnect is between the strength that you see in Warrior Priest versus your poor record with it? I strongly think it's because you're seeing strength that's not there, but I'm open to other possibilities.
I stated in response to Plynx and previously (multiple times) , that I do not like playing against Spirit. "" 4) I don't personally like playing against spirit, I find it boring and tedious, as I think it forces you into a very specific "defense" -- you have to skip turns more often against Spirit. S4 is almost always a 2nd turn cast, and most things you can cast within the first 2 turns can be wiped. Thus I choose not to play those that ONLY play spirit. and with that - It would be hypocritical of me to play Spirit. (Wavelength, as I said, my main player is Crash And Burn - for at least the last 6+ months or more, if he has any Spirit games, its not many, and I resumed my "personal ban".) "" I (CrashAndBurn) have at a minimum 117+ games played in every other class (except Spirit). A select few are ~200, most are 400-1200 games played, for 9000 games total. Xanatos has ~2200 games with a much different % split between the various classes. My record would of been 0/1 with Spirit, but I tried it briefly again last year, and I didn't enjoy how it plays. And it doesn't really matter how I feel or think about Spirit, I never came here to complain about Class Balance. I was ASKED about that opinion due to my "Spirit-Wanker" phrase by you. I was ASKED by Plynx about my issue with spirit. So I gave my opinion. That's all. There are a few other classes that I don't particularly care for, either to play as or against - but I don't find them as bothersome as Spirit. There's a couple classes that I like, but I don't play them as well as my opponents do (Goblin, Beast), so atm I don't use them. Modified by Xanatos on 2015-01-28 23:25:56
sorry for ganging up on you dude. i know our posts must have been annoying as hell but there are some good points in them (which is true for your posts as well) i personally disagree with lots of what you're saying but hey don't let that stop you
Modified by filip on 2015-01-28 23:48:39 Wavelength | 2015-01-29 05:36:17 |
Xanatos, you're just way, way off on reading my (and I think other members') intentions here. I'm sorry you feel like you're being attacked or ganged up on, but that is in reality not what is happening.
You should calm down. Half of your sentences are punctuated by "hey I bet you're all gonna tell me I'm wrong again"; you're clearly on tilt. So I'm gonna hold my tongue about all the other accusations you're throwing at me above and ask you to just leave it there. Start with a fresh slate tomorrow.
Beyond a certain level (I think Level 10), I think it's 500 XP per level.
yup it quickly stabilizes at 500 XP per level (but i'm not sure what's the situation at low levels)
CyberneticPony | 2015-01-29 21:10:36 |
Oh goodness this thread has exploded... I take a short break from Spectromancer and this happens!
minhtuan | 2015-01-30 05:20:48 |
Xanatos, please read the pinned important threads in this forum to gain deeper understanding of this game.
Being angry and blaming the system as unfair do not help.
Xanatos | 2015-01-31 19:49:46 |
I've read those. I lurked for a long time here before posting anything at all. Though I may of missed a couple. I'm not angry, nor blaming the system. Anyways, game on!
|