luciox wrote...
Assumption 1: There will always be farmers.
Assumption 2: There will always be one weapon/power stand out.
Assumption 3: The farmers always use the best cost/effectice way to farm.
Conclution 1: The farmers will always use the stand out weapon/power to farmer for best cost/effectice.
Assumption 4: To reduce farming, the standout weapon/power need to be nerfed.
Conclution 2: The nerf will continue till no weapon/power standout.
Conclution 3: All weapons/powers will be the same.
Please cheak.
tks
Lucio
1) Provide an operational definition of farming. You will find that this assumption is either inherent in your definition of farming (e.g. playing for credits = farming) or not valid (e.g. sitting in one place to kill enemies with minimal effort = farming). Moving forward, it will be necessary to decide which is a more valid definition. The latter is more in line with how most here define farming.
2) Not valid at all. Assumes inbalance where none necessarily exists. If true, your recursion cannot ever converge, not even on 1 (as you have claimed). Once balance is attained (such that no standout tool exists), this assumption is proven false.
3) You mean "are more likely to use"; else there would be no variance in the teams selected. Otherwise, this assumption is true of all players, farmer
->C1) This conclusion is logically consistent based on your assumptions. If A is C and B uses C, then B uses A.
4) Not valid, and more importantly, it's rather loaded. Underlying assumptions are: that farming can be reduced at all (in conflict with assumption 1, but it's not valid anyway), that farming should be reduced at all, that farming can only be reduced by addressing standout tools (note that you said needs, which denotes that no other solution is possible), and that the game should be balanced purely around farming and not with other gameplay in mind. The first is fine, the second is fine, the third is obviously horribly wrong, and the fourth is an assumption that limits the scope of the system.
->C2) This is also an assumption, not a conclusion. You are assigning an end condition. Prior to this, you have assigned no goal state. What you mean to say is that "if farming hasn't stopped and there is still a standout power, then the next standout needs to be nerfed." You assign the goal of either an end to farming or an end to inbalance within farming. Since an end to farming isn't possible according to assumption 1, then the end to imbalance must occur. If the end to imbalance cannot occur according to assumption 2, then your assumptions are logically inconsistent. That is actually more or less what you intend to demonstrate: that the notion of balancing around farming is logically inconsistent. Fortunately, both assumptions 1 and 2 are dubious and your assumption of balancing purely around farming purely by nerfing standouts isn't actually followed.
->C3) Does not follow. The result of your recursion is balance, not sameness. Even if we assume perfect mathmatical efficiency (obviously not the case here), there are multiple solutions with equal overall efficiency. For example, if one weapon is more accurate and another more damaging (with equal weight), then neither is more efficient. The problem is that the balance, per your assumptions, extends only to farming because the game was just balanced around farming. You'll end up with a game balanced around farming and, given the number of required iterations and time interval between them, we'll have to live as long as Okeer to achieve even that balance. Good thing we aren't balancing around farming, then. Additionally, you failed to consider a very obvious situation: when balance is not achieved but there is no standout. Currently, the process stops when the most overpowered tool meets the second most overpowered tool. You obviously intend that all powers meet other powers in this balancing scheme, which means that you have to add a comparison to all other skills in your plan. Of course, that would defeat your purpose of saying anything here as you'd have to admit that you're just balancing all skills around farming by nerfing the top guys, and there wouldn't be any conclusion to make.
This is why I say to check your assumptions.
Modifié par Gamemako, 22 août 2012 - 03:46 .
Retour en haut
Then it is crappy philosophy from the designers; backward if it is the purpose to make players happy.
It just frustrates me to have to turn down the volume.
