- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Naraga
NaragaMember Since 21 Dec 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 04:36 PM
- Group Junkies
- Active Posts 926
- Profile Views 6762
- Member Title Member
- Age 23 years old
- Birthday November 17, 1992
Naraga hasn't added any friends yet.
Posted Nicholaes92 on 20 December 2015 - 08:07 PM
Posted greeneos on 15 December 2015 - 01:07 AM
except its not. the game got easier. its true people may have gotten "better" but most likely the game and especially the required level of coordination got dumbed down. currently RMD has rogue mage which has always been the "high skill combo". unfortunately due to this expacs spells/playstyle its the easiest to pull off. a mage rogue today would get CRUSHED running rmp in s8. you cant simply count down 3 2 1 and cheapshot deepfreeze an entire team at the same time. you had to do things kinda on the fly and coordinate at a moments notice. todays players would NOT be able to do it with there current level of skill
other comps are fairly easy to run too. your comp basically breaks down to 1 of 2 types. a dampening comp. stop cc which happens every 30 seconds or a cc comp which uses its cc every 30 seconds
every comp atm save WW dk (and even then) function around a 30-45 second rotation of instant cc or rely on dampening. in wotlk you had a million dif spellcleaves that had to CAST CC (OMG CASTING?!?) and CAST DAMAGE. you had double healer comps, melee cleave comps, melee caster healer comps. the list goes on and on and none of them had similar strats. godcomp and rmd both basically do the same shit dont they? wait for deep and use instant cc to land kills. boring and thats why its dead, its just the same shit
Posted Dizzeeyo on 14 December 2015 - 06:30 PM
this would be significantly easier to accomplish if the game was still designed with fun and class immersion in mind, rather then the current stupid focus on raiding above all else
since so far in legion they are pruning all specs down to around half the buttons they have now, and continuing the stupid focus on raiding along with slightly more focus on pvp, but in the wrong way, I don't see anything changing, happy to be proved wrong if they randomly decide to change direction during the rest of alpha/beta however
Posted Atosy on 28 November 2015 - 01:04 AM
Posted Dizzeeyo on 12 November 2015 - 07:20 PM
Posted Voksen on 03 November 2015 - 08:47 AM
on some bgs the top teams played each other on the last day/week, on other bgs they just dodged and farmed africa
also a ton of people xferred to bongwater at the last second and just blasted a battlegroup of dummy teams. the titles never really meant anything
Sounds more like end of wotlk then all of tbc and maybe up to s6-s7.
Heres the wall of text for @Balance.
In US, TBC titles from Bloodlust (BG9), Rampage (BG3?), Ruin (BG5) were legit, prob also Vengeance and one other. So like 3-4 bgs were pretty unshakeable and the game wasn't developed enough for any team to just walk in and takeover (on those bgs).
Part of the reason is based on the TBC queueing system (was slower and more selective than the wotlk revamp), and also cause someone strong in 3v3 was probably already locked into a hard earned, strong 2v2 rating. I don't really think people xferred for r1 titles from 2s or 3s back then, maybe 5s though. The only bracket you could actually sort-of wintrade in was 5s. Everything else had way too many queues (even in offhours) for the whole 3-2-1 queue between trader and tradee.
As for the leapfrog/passing thing --> yes it was possible but it was well guarded against. The queues would thin out near the top, so much so that the top people would use AJ to post a "we are queing now". As more people did this, you'd get this kind of critical mass that would snowball. This made unofficial scheduling of a prime time window. Pretty much every good sport would queue then. And, if you checked the logs you could easily identify wintrading. Yes, we had advanced armory with complete dmg/hp/details logs back then. The public could see what was up, every game. Shit wasn't streamed either so less real-time ghosting and all that.
To get the proper r1 slot, you did have to defend against being passed the night before season's end. So you're r1 at 2608 and number two and number three teams are only feasible passers within X hours, you might set some lvl 1's up to monitor. It would be a late/long night. If they start queueing you had basically no choice but to queue into them. You had one class/spec/comp none of this insta form a counter comp with alts. So no real counter comping or dodging/sniping. In TBC wayyy more often then not, the better team simply won. By WOTLK this did evolve a little bit and sometimes people would agree on just tying for r1 (usually on shitter bg).
The oldschool ladder integrity tended to be self-reinforcing. For this and other reasons, I would think irregardless of current game state, that an oldschool title is more significant. Shortlist of reasons (some opinions but a lot of raw facts):
-- steady activity all season with last minute pushes. less social media surrounding the game meant your presence in-game determined your connectedness to ladder activity.
-- mmr system wasn't fucked like it is today --> slower more incremental ratings changes buffered (somewhat) against those 1 night snipes or tanks.
-- mmr system was scaled inwards with less runaway effects like today. Your 3100 rating was 2600 back then, and you couldn't reach this "escape velocity" where you just learn some cd chain that farms the same feeders and shit over and over at 2700 to reach 3000.
-- no teams were there to really throw away rating, feed or deliberately tank because competition and charter --> hard grind.
-- r1 on some class or spec meant it was your main. end of story. IMO people had to play a lot harder and be a lot better at their single class/spec/comp. No toggling over to alts and forming groups instantly at xyz mmr --> less meta.
-- Less boosts, mods, scripts, bots, cheats, etc.
-- Less min/maxing and less meta-gaming --> no idea who was queuing until the gates opened. Some people would try to snipe/dodge based on a lvl 1 scout toon or get their friends. There was also a time-delay on arena status updates. And no bnet. So you basically didn't get real-time info on who/what was where --> curved dodging/sniping.
-- Something like 30x more people actively caring about the game --> more competition.
-- Something like 3-4 esport tournaments across 2-3 active circuits each year while the game was still fresh --> more competition.
Posted xndr on 31 October 2015 - 04:40 PM
too bad that nobody cared to "find" you on your birthday
Posted Voksen on 29 October 2015 - 11:37 PM
All kinds of sheep jumping on the "no" bandwagon. No...to what exactly? Stop being: trolls, EU as fuck, Activision jaded, too new to remember the golden age, or just plain AJ toxic. I'll bite, and take 5 mins to be constructive...
You need to differentiate between opinion on the bracket currently vs. potentially. Currently its fucking bad --> the end. However, the potential for balanced, legitimate, and sufficiently competitive 2v2 is there. Maybe not for tournaments, but at least enough for titles. This is fact based on (i) history, and (ii) simpler in balance design then 3v3/5v5. There is absolutely no structural reason why you couldn't dial down the balance tuning for small scale fights. Yes, this risks alienating the large-scale group fight players. Of course there are reasons why you wouldn't expect successful 2v2 balance to happen -- mainly because Blizzard cba.
I think the devs need to seriously look at re-introducing 2v2 titles, even moreso then 5v5 titles. The OP gives reasons why it could work based on Legion design. I'll add some business model reasons:
- A shrinking and increasingly isolated player base, where getting the other people together for 'competitive' large-scale fights is going to become a challenge in and of itself.
- More pairing-off and group-completion per unit time per queue volume. This yields more ladder entropy/activity and faster queues.
Do I think Legion will be balanced (for any bracket arenas) at all in any way? Probably not. If by chance it is, it will be because of more ability homogenization, or a console-level simplification.
Posted Forumz on 22 October 2015 - 06:50 PM
It's not interesting at all, especially when they don't even allow you to spend different amounts and you only have one or two abilities that actually generate your combo points, andd those abilities have cooldowns so you can't even decide to focus on building combo points or doing other stuff.
Shadow Orbs is probably the most stupid secondary resource right now. Cast Mind Blast 3 times, cast Devouring Plague for free. They might as well put Devouring Plague on a 20 second cooldown reduced by haste.
Posted Dizzeeyo on 22 October 2015 - 05:32 PM
from vanilla we have had 2 expansions going in the right direction, and then 3 expansions all going in the wrong direction, cumulating in wod. we either hope that they suddenly find inspiration for a brand new direction which also happens to be good, or we ask for tbc/wotlk mechanics/gameplay back
when people ask for wotlk back, they don't actually mean they want to go back in time to 2010, they mean they want the game to be fun again, like it was in wotlk
Posted Wertexjk on 22 October 2015 - 12:14 AM
After the horrible introductions of shadoworbs, holy power, burning embers and soul shards (am I forgetting any?) they decided to add yet another terrible secondary resource into the game.
It was interesting on DKs because they were a new class and it was a niche, but this is just getting out of hand now. Especially because it absolutely decimates the play styles of the mentioned classes.
Which becomes even more ridiculous seeing as the primary resource systems in most of those cases are a non-factor.
Posted Dizzeeyo on 17 October 2015 - 03:00 AM
Wotlk made most classes flow better and have a toolset that made a good deal of sense, filling in the holes left unfinished in BC.
Cata took weaknesses and filled them, which led to future expansions where everyone can do everything--it set the precedent in a manner of speaking.
wotlk - build on tbc class design
cata - x class has y weakness, so lets give every single x class z ability to counter y weakness, wonder what can go wrong with that hehe
Posted ROKMODE on 17 October 2015 - 02:40 AM
knockback immunity on DK
necrotic strike (I don't care what anyone says, fuck this ability, especially in cata)
dark simul when dks already had like 15 ways to stop spells
ring of frost (yes this spell was a big deal dunno what ur smoking, any ability, including smoke bomb, that completely takes out part of a map is by default game changing)
solar beam (lol)
paladin interrupt, feral interrupt (when they already had feral charge)
the entire system of holy power, and pretty much all those sub systems (eclipse and whatever) (this alone accounts for like 10 abilities
unleash elements (absolutely nobody was asking for this)
unholy frenzy (new spell basically b/c cata made it break cc making it another unneeded spell that had no reason to exist)
starsurge, especially since it turned into an instant burst spell that randomly reset 24/7, boomkin damage was already strong in wrath
frostfire orb, which gave you like infinite fingers of frost
heroic leap- honestly what the fuck, nobody wanted this in place of having charge/intercept LOL, it didn't even work a lot of the time
stupid ass mushrooms which just turned into annoying as fuck desecration
universal dispel (something again nobody at all asked for)
adding bloodlust to like 10 different classes (only really relevant in s9)
Everything they did to the hunter class
strangulate being an interrupt in addition to a silence
ghoul getting an interrupt
throwdown (another thing nobody asked for)
warlocks getting 15 fel doms
warlocks getting an out of combat evocate (WHO THE FUCK ASKED FOR THIS LOL)
MAGE INVIS letting u see targets, basically just giving mages a stealth,invis further reducing the rogue stealth niche (again set a precedent)
revamping combustion from an ability to increased your crit change to ability that nearly ended the game everytime it was pressed
and basically every singe cooldown, stun, silence, kick that was added that made the game increasingly frustrating to play
when you compare that to wotlk added spells, you get a different trend. In TBC, many specs were incomplete, and it was really obvious. Wotlk made most classes flow better and have a toolset that made a good deal of sense, filling in the holes left unfinished in BC. Cata took weaknesses and filled them, which led to future expansions where everyone can do everything--it set the precedent in a manner of speaking.
Good examples of what I mean:
Shadowpriests oomed like a bitch in TBC (this would have become a big issue as the game naturally became faster) and had no survival cooldowns: Dispersion was added, but it deliberately tied both these weaknesses together, so that if you used it at low mana, you were then vulnerable.
Hex was added because shamans had literally 0 cc, which would have made them irrelevant had TBC continued.
Thunderstorm and roots were added because elemental shamans oomed easily in TBC and got absolutely shit on because they had whack ass survial tools.
Lava burst was added because shamans had EVERYTHING tied to one school of magic which was a shitty design.
Wind shear was taken off earthshock and made a separate ability because it was needlessly tied together, which made the class feel less coherent.
For the uncalled for spells such as penance and deep freeze, they just ended up working really well and made the game fun, but imo at that point, they should have just stopped adding fun spells because that was nearly the threshold. The ability lineup was like ideal at that point, with a few spells such as bladestorm and spirit wolves being a bit too derpy, but for the most part I'd say that nearly everyone will tell you that the diversity was very much there while also adhering to a system of very apparent weaknesses for every spec.
Posted Voksen on 15 October 2015 - 06:37 PM
- Its really hard to understand what is being asked.
- I'm going to assume this is some variation of searching for a needle-in-a-haystack. This means known solutions to similar problems of this type (e.g. combinatorial group testing) will apply.
truly a dizzying puzzle you've contrived here
For starters, you haven't addressed how to find that outlier, so you don't really have a solution and your method is meaningless. Multiply all by 120% and magically one of them will reveal itself and then multiply it back? Seems a bit too simple to me as well, so I'm pretty sure he's asking how to find that outlier. Then again he hasn't really specified a way to test, differentiate or identify the unique spell (i.e. the 80% one out of the mess of 120% ones).
Blizzard has done all dmg changes, it can be done. But maybe there is no 'change all, except for these couple of listed spells here' option built in into the editing program for WoW.
Can only ever change spells all-at-once and/or 1 by 1, piece by piece.
You can't use any sequential 1-by-1 method on n --> large samples. This includes what I think Capstone's method is referring to.
Finite resources apply and you can't sequentially test/scale each spell for whether or not it is the "needle" in the bunch.
Based on what (I think) the OP is saying, we're allowed access to some kind of way/test to distinguish spells as being in one of two groups: belong 9999999999999% or w/e). and belonging to the set that need to be scaled by 80% (i.e. the 1-p).
- Given N spells (N > 1), and of those spells, k "special" ones (0 < k < N), what is the optimum method to identify all of the special spells, and how many tests (queries to Blizz's code db) are required?
- This is an instance of a non-adaptive combinatorial group testing problem, with known bounds:
o(k^2 / log(k) * log(n)) <= t(k,n) <= O(k^2 log(n))
- For the special case of k=1 we get: log(N)/log(k) <= t(k,N) <= O(log(N)), which is basically a binary partition search.
This requires at most log_2 (N) tests, where each test is a partition of the remaining candidate set into "does contain" and "does not contain" the k=1 special spell.
Solution (Binary Partition Search):
1.) Randomly partition the set of N spells into two groups.
2.) Perform a cheap test on one of the groups to determine if the special spell is in that group. Can be a simple inspection through that group (although can be done better).
3.) Remove the negative group from consideration and make the positive group the new set of spells to test.
4.) Repeat (1) to (3) until converge (i.e. spell is identified).
This requires O(log(n)) operations in the worst-case. Which means for N=1E10 spells needing a 120% scaling, the k=1 unique spell requiring 80% scaling can be identified after at most 33 passes through the algorithm.
The type of testing you want would be based on some pass/fail threshold criteria such as: "do the properties of this block of spells sum to some number".
Again its hard to answer because whats being asked is vague. But this seems like more of a combinatorial search problem then a simple 'multiple and divide' problem.
Posted stalebagel on 11 October 2015 - 06:12 PM