ESOC in game modification organisation

User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

Dsy wrote:I did 1,5 for both ( i think :D )
You can do yourself: just use cost effectivity
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=11558

And if its 83 and 83 (on RE) im completely up to a scenario test where two units (in villsec cost the same) fighting vs same amoun of musks.
They will perform the same.
Oh you aren't talking about dps, then? That's what it sounded like to me because you explicitly used the word "attack". You seem to be talking about general cost-effectiveness. But BR were nerfed in EP so a comparison based on RE stats isn't relevant here.
For the record, elite RR do about twice as much damage against heavy infantry compared to elite BR (48 vs 25). That's excluding BR's longer animation before their first shot.

Anyway, Zoi in my experience actually takes a fairly mathematical approach to unit stats. More than me (I used to mostly go by intuition) at least. So I don't know where this complaint is coming from, but it's misguided. You generally seem to be making a lot of false assumptions about the EP process in this thread. I'm glad to see people correcting them.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by deleted_user »

EAGLEMUT wrote:He is technically not part of the staff; has more like a "Consultant" relation, I guess? Zoi has no administrative power on the site, nor access to general staff sections / discussion servers, and he is generally not representing ESOC. As far as I'm aware, that state is intended and not an oversight. Perhaps some sort of tag with the right wording could be considered, but I know this was a point of confusion/disagreement in the past.

As for listing every single player Zoi has talked to on the Team page, that would cause insane confusion.

Consultant is a good word for it
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Dsy »

Goodspeed wrote:
Dsy wrote:I did 1,5 for both ( i think :D )
You can do yourself: just use cost effectivity
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=11558

And if its 83 and 83 (on RE) im completely up to a scenario test where two units (in villsec cost the same) fighting vs same amoun of musks.
They will perform the same.
Oh you aren't talking about dps, then? That's what it sounded like to me because you explicitly used the word "attack". You seem to be talking about general cost-effectiveness. But BR were nerfed in EP so a comparison based on RE stats isn't relevant here.
For the record, elite RR do about twice as much damage against heavy infantry compared to elite BR (48 vs 25). That's excluding BR's longer animation before their first shot.

Anyway, Zoi in my experience actually takes a fairly mathematical approach to unit stats. More than me (I used to mostly go by intuition) at least. So I don't know where this complaint is coming from, but it's misguided. You generally seem to be making a lot of false assumptions about the EP process in this thread. I'm glad to see people correcting them.



On EP its a bit better. They do 74 vs 83 score if they are shooting heavy inf units.
Some other infos: they do 166 vs 83 score if they are shooting heavy cav
And they have 74 vs 28 score if they are shooting skirmishers
(BR vs RR on EP)

Yeah it wasnt stated anywhere how this team decide about the patches. So i did assumptions. Im glad Zoi answered correctly.
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by SoldieR »

I guess what you're comparing is would you ship 5 RR or 6 elite BR in age 3.cost being about equal then, I could see them being about even. But the hit and run of RR is a large advantage

But in terms of a real game, making only batches of 5, would you rather make 5 BR or 5 RR?
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Dsy »

IAmSoldieR wrote:I guess what you're comparing is would you ship 5 RR or 6 elite BR in age 3.cost being about equal then, I could see them being about even. But the hit and run of RR is a large advantage

But in terms of a real game, making only batches of 5, would you rather make 5 BR or 5 RR?


RR also has a great advantage which : its auto upgraded for elite in age 3. The scores are above for unupgraded units.
But its just *1,5 on every scores.
So initially when you hit age 3 RR seems much stronger vs heavy inf. However still weaker than an unupgraded BR vs heavy in and skirmishers. + kite which is nice ofc. So when BR is unupgraded i can see RR viable on EP.
However once you upgrade BR i think there is no reason to train a single RR even on EP.
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by SoldieR »

Why would you calculate unupgraded RR?
Also, I think ur still ignoring what I said about only being able to train 5 units at a time. Yes BR might be better per cost. But if you're only going to have 5 units, 5 RR are probably better than 5 BR, especially defending age 2 pushes with musk huss.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Garja »

RR are skirm+goon+culv all in one. They have decent dps and multiplier almost against everything. They are not bad.
Also I read somewhere that they do same damage vs heavy infantry which they clearly don't. Maybe you meant heavy cav.
Image Image Image
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by deleted_user0 »

Dsy wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
Show hidden quotes
You must have made some mistake, I'm pretty sure RR have higher dps against heavy inf than BR.
Did you take ROF into account?


I did 1,5 for both ( i think :D )
You can do yourself: just use cost effectivity
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=11558

And if its 83 and 83 (on RE) im completely up to a scenario test where two units (in villsec cost the same) fighting vs same amoun of musks.
They will perform the same.


well, even when looking at cost, it can't be the same. as gs says, RR do almost 2x as much dmg vs HI as BR, ignoring intangibles such as set up animation, kiting ability and shadow tech veterancy. While they cost only 45 coin more.
User avatar
Austria supahons
Dragoon
Posts: 357
Joined: Feb 11, 2018
ESO: supahons

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by supahons »

Yes, a lot of important points were already mentioned by Kaiserklein and other commentators before but if you ignore them ...

@Dsy
Play a compstomp with BR+Axerider and then another one with RR+Axerider. Then you will start to think that BR are really bad compared to RR. The heavy inf/artillery multiplier is huge and it's a lot easier to hit and run with the RR animation. BR are first choice in supremacy, but RR are still useful. (read the other comments again)
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by deleted_user »

I think DSY is right.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Goodspeed »

umeu wrote:
Dsy wrote:
Show hidden quotes


I did 1,5 for both ( i think :D )
You can do yourself: just use cost effectivity
https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=11558

And if its 83 and 83 (on RE) im completely up to a scenario test where two units (in villsec cost the same) fighting vs same amoun of musks.
They will perform the same.


well, even when looking at cost, it can't be the same. as gs says, RR do almost 2x as much dmg vs HI as BR, ignoring intangibles such as set up animation, kiting ability and shadow tech veterancy. While they cost only 45 coin more.
As I understand it the tool he's using simulates scenario editor fights as closely as possible. So it would also be taking HP into account.
(But not any of the RR benefits that you mentioned and have been mentioned ITT).
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Dsy »

They do 74 vs 83 score if they are shooting heavy inf units.
Some other infos: they do 166 vs 83 score if they are shooting heavy cav
And they have 74 vs 28 score if they are shooting skirmishers
(BR vs RR on EP)

On technical standpoint RR cant be considered to be useless since its 1,12 times better vs heavy inf on EP.
Br 2 times better vs heavy cav.
Br 2,64 times better vs skirmishers.
RR 1,12 times better vs cannons.

Special effects: RR can kite

If you didnt know if you upgrade both units to elite, these differences remains the same.
It was stranger on RE where it did totally the same vs heavy inf and cannons. Even worse vs cav skirm. All it had was kite compared to BR.

Btw my whole standpoint is to use calculator since it shows a lot of important data which we need to compare units. This BR vs RR (meant on re) was an example.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Goodspeed »

I think you overestimate the importance of such data. For balancing it's pretty simple, you just need to look at units' frequency of use and at the contexts in which they are used. Generally you can trust high level players to use strong units, and not to use weak units.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Dsy »

Goodspeed wrote:I think you overestimate the importance of such data. For balancing it's pretty simple, you just need to look at units' frequency of use and at the contexts in which they are used. Generally you can trust high level players to use strong units, and not to use weak units.


There are some issues there.
1. objective vs subjective decision making
Some high level players (its known) dont want to change anything. Even if they know a unit is useless they say: its fine. So how you deal with that?
2. even if you know what units are unused (it means probably they are bad) (plus id like to mention high level players will probably say: dont change its good)
How you change its stat?

For example here is the halberdier.
I can show it with numbers that its worse than a musket put in melee combat. Still people here say: its fine.
I can initially set a number (for example for its attack) where it becomes technically viable and know almost all the consequences it brings to the game without testings.

Plus i mentioned it million times. Using a calculator doesnt exclude being a good player.
So the main: Why are you still refuse to use it basicly?
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Dsy wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:I think you overestimate the importance of such data. For balancing it's pretty simple, you just need to look at units' frequency of use and at the contexts in which they are used. Generally you can trust high level players to use strong units, and not to use weak units.


There are some issues there.
1. objective vs subjective decision making
Some high level players (its known) dont want to change anything. Even if they know a unit is useless they say: its fine. So how you deal with that?
2. even if you know what units are unused (it means probably they are bad) (plus id like to mention high level players will probably say: dont change its good)
How you change its stat?

For example here is the halberdier.
I can show it with numbers that its worse than a musket put in melee combat. Still people here say: its fine.

We all know that musks are better than halbs lol. That's why noone makes halbs. Still, it's fine because you have goons instead.

I can initially set a number (for example for its attack) where it becomes technically viable and know almost all the consequences it brings to the game without testings.

We don't really want halbs to become viable because they'd replace the goons, which is not something we want.

Plus i mentioned it million times. Using a calculator doesnt exclude being a good player.
So the main: Why are you still refuse to use it basicly?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by deleted_user0 »

Dsy wrote:They do 74 vs 83 score if they are shooting heavy inf units.
Some other infos: they do 166 vs 83 score if they are shooting heavy cav
And they have 74 vs 28 score if they are shooting skirmishers
(BR vs RR on EP)

On technical standpoint RR cant be considered to be useless since its 1,12 times better vs heavy inf on EP.
Br 2 times better vs heavy cav.
Br 2,64 times better vs skirmishers.
RR 1,12 times better vs cannons.

Special effects: RR can kite

If you didnt know if you upgrade both units to elite, these differences remains the same.
It was stranger on RE where it did totally the same vs heavy inf and cannons. Even worse vs cav skirm. All it had was kite compared to BR.

Btw my whole standpoint is to use calculator since it shows a lot of important data which we need to compare units. This BR vs RR (meant on re) was an example.


are these stats per unit, or per cost per unit?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Goodspeed »

Dsy wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:I think you overestimate the importance of such data. For balancing it's pretty simple, you just need to look at units' frequency of use and at the contexts in which they are used. Generally you can trust high level players to use strong units, and not to use weak units.
There are some issues there.
1. objective vs subjective decision making
Some high level players (its known) dont want to change anything. Even if they know a unit is useless they say: its fine. So how you deal with that?
2. even if you know what units are unused (it means probably they are bad) (plus id like to mention high level players will probably say: dont change its good)
How you change its stat?
Yeah, many units aren't viable. You can show this either with maths or simply by looking at frequency of use in high level games, which is both a more reliable and more available (in the memory of anyone who plays or follows the game) stat. Either way, if a unit is not or rarely viable that doesn't mean it should be changed. The method by which you decided that the unit isn't viable isn't relevant when deciding whether or not you should change it. In that discussion, you need to look at the impact of the viability of this unit on civ balance and on the meta, and you need to gauge the popularity of such a change.

Why is frequency of use more reliable? Because it takes into account things that a direct cost-effectiveness comparison cannot: Shadow techs, availability, effectiveness at certain micro techniques, upgrade (card) potential, compositional advantages etc. These can be very significant, as with the rifle rider which mathematically looks much worse than its frequency of use would imply.
For example here is the halberdier.
I can show it with numbers that its worse than a musket put in melee combat. Still people here say: its fine.
You can show this with numbers, but you can just as easily show it by looking at frequency of use (near zero). So how do maths help here? People don't say halbs are fine, they say they don't want to change them. That's different.
I can initially set a number (for example for its attack) where it becomes technically viable and know almost all the consequences it brings to the game without testings.
Not by doing maths. You'd estimate the consequences by having an understanding of the meta and taking an educated guess as to which game scenarios the unit would become viable in, then guessing how much of a difference the unit would make in those scenarios. No amount of maths will tell you the impact on civ balance or the meta, because these are not things you can even describe with numbers. I mean, you could, but it would take a lifetime.
Plus i mentioned it million times. Using a calculator doesnt exclude being a good player.
So the main: Why are you still refuse to use it basicly?
I get that you want to plug your tool here but the data it provides is just not as significant as you think. Historically the patch team and players in general have always found it both more convenient and more reliable to simply look at their own experience and frequency of use in high level games. Take it or leave it.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Garja »

BR used to cost 100f 100g when TWC was released. this explains why they're so good and also all other comparison with RR. RR is not a weak unit by any mean.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Dsy »

Diarouga: You know that it wouldnt have any impact on high level plays if halbs could beat musks who are put in melee combat. You also know they wouldnt replace goons at all.
Umeu: unit power for its cost(when trained). But if you download and use it, it asks you type the cost of the analysed unit.
Goodspeed: You still compare the calculator vs a skilled player to make decision. I suggest a good player with the calculator. Ive never said that we should give the calculator for a player who started yesterday and say ask him to make decisions. Ofc changes impact game balances. Its called a tool which helps in decisions.

As for vet halberdier: (vs vet musk who put into melee)
179 vs 204 when attacking infantry
358 vs 612 when attacking cav

vet halb (vs unupgraded musk)
179 vs 142 when attacking infantry
358 vs 426 when attacking cav

Extra effects: musk can shoot, vet halb has shadow

How can you say this data not helping?
Use of this data i can say increase halbs attack by 30% -> effects
vet halb vs vet musk
232 vs 204 attacking infantry
464 vs 612 attacking cav

vet halb vs unupgraded mus
232 vs 142 when attacking infantry
464 vs 426 when attacking cav

Extra: the same
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by deleted_user0 »

Well, that's another thing your calculator can't really take into account. Not many ppl play sioux, but it's generally accepted among those who do play it, that you don't want to train RR except in certain very specific situations where they do outshine BR, especially colonial BR, mostly vs colonial musk huss (because BR can't kite, so RR do better when you don't have mass), vs HI + artillery and HI + RI (such as bow pike or musk lb). However, you do want to send 5 RR vs any civ that makes HI or even sometimes when you want to go wakina AR mostly but need a few anti cav units in the back to dps down some random cav units. This is because while RR are quite expensive, and in mass indeed not better than BR in most cases, the shipments give great value. The use of the unit by top players pretty much reflects some of the conclusions of your calculator, but players from their experience can also draw conclusions about its use that your calculator can never give. I guess that's what GS is trying to say, a good player has this calculator in their brain. And thats why there's no need to use it for top players, because they already know from experience everything it can tell us, although I agree that it might be a useful tool for beginning players who want to get good. And it might be useful for balancing/patching certain units, for sure.

Dsy wrote:How can you say this data not helping?
Use of this data i can say increase halbs attack by 30% -> effects
vet halb vs vet musk
232 vs 204 attacking infantry
464 vs 612 attacking cav

vet halb vs unupgraded mus
232 vs 142 when attacking infantry
464 vs 426 when attacking cav

Extra: the same


The reason it's not helping is because people already knew this, the fact that you make it come down to an exact number isn't that relevant, for reasons stated that it can't put a number on certain things, and for the fact that you don't need to know exactly how much more effective something is, you just need to have a rough measure, enough to know to make or not to make a unit in a certain situation. whether that number is 500 or 488 exactly isn't relevant then.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Goodspeed »

Dsy wrote:Goodspeed: You still compare the calculator vs a skilled player to make decision. I suggest a good player with the calculator. Ive never said that we should give the calculator for a player who started yesterday and say ask him to make decisions. Ofc changes impact game balances. Its called a tool which helps in decisions.
My entire point was that you don't need maths to know which units are viable and which aren't. Frequency of use already tells us this, and does it more reliably.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by deleted_user0 »

Goodspeed wrote:
Dsy wrote:Diarouga: You know that it wouldnt have any impact on high level plays if halbs could beat musks who are put in melee combat. You also know they wouldnt replace goons at all.
Umeu: unit power for its cost(when trained). But if you download and use it, it asks you type the cost of the analysed unit.
Goodspeed: You still compare the calculator vs a skilled player to make decision. I suggest a good player with the calculator. Ive never said that we should give the calculator for a player who started yesterday and say ask him to make decisions. Ofc changes impact game balances. Its called a tool which helps in decisions.
My entire point was that you don't need maths to know which units are viable and which aren't. Frequency of use already tells us this, and does it more reliably.


it could be useful for determing buffs/nerfs, to see how much hp/attack needs to be changed etc. But only if it takes ranged resist or melee resist into account, as well as types of damage (melee, ranged, and bombard)
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Goodspeed »

If it doesn't, I'm sure that would be easy to add. But even so I would personally base any stats nerfs on what feels intuitively right (according to high level players) and on various break points in 1 unit vs 1 unit fights. There are too many limitations to a mathematical approach, too many factors it doesn't take into account. It would help as a last check though, just to see if the proposed nerf/buff doesn't completely break a specific scenario.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: ķŒ€ ķ•˜ģš°ģŠ¤

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by n0el »

One of the main problems about looking at attack and HP stats is that the two most important attributes for RTS units are range and speed. Factoring that into calculations is extremely difficult. That's where feel and skill makes a big difference. You could "balance" halbs based on attack and HP attributes, but in the end they are still going to be bad because they are slow.
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: ESOC in game modification organisation

Post by Dsy »

I think you just have negative assumptions on me.
For example: i compare jannissary vs musk and say: hey musk is just more cost effective so jan needs to be buffed. Meanwhile this statment would be bold since otto is one of the strongest rushing civ. Even if statistically it should be buffed civ wise it shouldnt since it would be too op.
You need to compare wisely ofc. Actually im not noob as you think. I used to be pr30, now didnt play for years so my account pr25. But know there are plenty better players than me, just dont act like i wouldnt understand the whole game please, its annoying.
There is a reason why i compare vet halb to vet musks in melee for example. Both units usually aviable for most of civs and if musk is in melee it acts totally the same.
As for my whole standpoint it was its useful for balancing porpuses. Ofc if you play hundreds of game you will have the experience what to make. But after a change you would need to play hundreds of games again to test your changes. It tells the "basic" outcomes (ofc it might be some surprises still).

Umeu: It takes resists into account.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV