I would like to interject a few comments.
My bunker wars is balanced. Everything is precisely mathematical. Blizzard's melee balancing is the only rival to mine.
None of the gambles instantly ruin a game; it is made purposely. I have played hundreds of games where a player has won 1,000 ore and still died agonizingly. You are much better off on average to refrain from gambling. Although it has been argued that gambling is not necessary, it is just as valuable and necessary as are the other purchase options. You differentiate between the gambling purchase and other purchases; this shouldn't be done. Gambling no more affects gameplay than does buying heroes in a defense map. It's a way of changing gameplay to make the experience more enjoyable for some players.
On a final note, if anyone would like to argue math theory on my numbers, please do.
P.S. Unholyurine only played the map once. If you are arguing that gambling ruins a game quickly, you probably need a larger sample to discuss gameplay reasonably.
Lets say i play a ton of games.
1v1, as is deemed to be the official comp. ver at this fake point and time.
Assuming your gambling is in fact gambling and is impossible to break/predict, we can say 11% of the time i use it i die.
Out of fifty games, with luck thats five times, used once per game.
Add my opponent, thats ten times, 11 if you wanna be more precise.
11/50 games in a 1v1 will be ruined if everyone uses gamble once.
And thats not even with jackpot.
None.
Lol doesn't the map ITSELF say that it's not supposed to be balanced?
Now you're just screwing around XD
None.
MEMEME670,
If you choose to use gamble, you only can kill yourself instantly. In other words, you can only ruin the game for yourself, not anyone else. I believe we disagree on our concepts of "ruin."
Your math is awful.
UnholyUrine,
That message is for people who lack mathematical understanding. It's much easier to quiet the unintelligent by agreeing with their idiotic ideas and fallacies. I am not "screwing around." I am completely serious.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 9 2009, 1:12 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Being a dick.
None.
MEMEME670,
If you choose to use gamble, you only can kill yourself instantly. In other words, you can only ruin the game for yourself, not anyone else. I believe we disagree on our concepts of "ruin."
I agree with this, although if you replace ruin with break, and add in the chance of jackpot...
Your math is awful. I suggest remedial math classes. I will tutor you for a fee if you would like.
11%=11/100
Meaning 11/100 times i would get the 11% chance.
100/2=50
11/2=5.5
Round down for luck = 5 suicides
Attachments:
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 8 2009, 6:09 am by MEMEME670.
None.
MEMEME670,
If you choose to use gamble, you only can kill yourself instantly. In other words, you can only ruin the game for yourself, not anyone else. I believe we disagree on our concepts of "ruin."
I agree with this, although if you replace ruin with break, and add in the chance of jackpot...
Your math is awful. I suggest remedial math classes. I will tutor you for a fee if you would like.
11%=11/100
Meaning
11/100 times i would get the 11% chance.100/2=50
11/2=5.5
Round down for luck = 5 suicides
Your math is clearly bad. If "11/100 times you get an 11% chance of death," then that's the same thing as saying "11% of the time you get an 11% chance of death." This is obviously only a 1.21% chance of death by The Fundamental Theorem of Probability.
Edit #1: That replay is from a very old version. Ignoring our quarrel, you should really download the new version that is posted on the first page.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 9 2009, 1:13 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Being a dick.
None.
Reading his statement once again, MEMEME means that assume, there is a 11% chance of death. Play 100 games with gambling being used in each game, that is 11 deaths for the player who is gambling. I agree here, but then he goes on to say that the other player also gambles, meaning he has a chance of dieing, hence, he also has 11 deaths from gambling. From those 100 games, 22 games will be decided purely on luck. (On the basis that only one suicide happens per game, for only one player.) Though I'm not sure you can even say that, because the other player cannot suicide once his opponent has, so 11 games, it would be impossible for the other player to suicide, but I do slightly agree that luck is a large factor in the game.
This is true.
11/100 is about 1/9 games, with the .09 being rounded down.
So we can assume that out of those 22 games, a likely max of two will have both people suicide, reducing the number of games ruined from 22 to 20.
Thats still one fifth. I dont know the chance for other outcomes, including jackpot, but...
@Replay: I didnt know that, ill probably try the new ver, but it still seems a big part based on matchup of what you choose at the start.
EDIT: Ultimo, i was assuming gambling was being used once per game by each player. Things would get worse if it was used more.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 9 2009, 2:14 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Removing off-topic personal commentary.
None.
I would like to bring in some more precise statistics into this discussion. Please allow me to do so.
Out of 100,000 (one-hundred thousand) games, I, Vanished, will die exactly, absolutely, most certainly, positively, definitely, unerringly,
unquestionably, and not a single thousandth more than 0 (zero) times.
I don't believe any other math is needed for this discussion.
Thank you very much.
None.
I would like to bring in some more precise statistics into this discussion. Please allow me to do so.
Out of 100,000 (one-hundred thousand) games, I, Vanished, will die exactly, absolutely, most certainly, positively, definitely, unerringly, unquestionably, and not a single thousandth more than 0 (zero) times.
I don't believe any other math is needed for this discussion.
Thank you very much.
Now, if every single game ever played was against you, Vanished, we wouldnt need any more math.
This leaves two logical conclusions that fit your statement.
Either 1. You know a way to break your gambling system, or
2. You dont gamble.
Also, unless you mean die as in only die from gambling, and not die from losing, your game is OP and shouldnt be considered balanced.
Fact is, gambling will be used, even if its not by you.
Your choices =/= anyone elses.
None.
What I find most striking and disturbing about SEN is that people who provide little to no information about their maps when they post them and then argue about the maps...get a lot more attention than people who are informative and open-minded from the start. (This is assuming, of course, that the map isn't especially groundbreaking in some way that draws an unusual amount of attention.) I'm inclined to wonder if people aren't starting to exploit this phenomenon. Because, clearly, you *don't* have to give a lot of information about your map. You can just post it, moderators will bitch at you, you can add a little more information, argue with some people, and the thread grows.
No offense to you, Vanished, but this seems like an appropriate time to point this out. All you guys who are complaining about this map, you're giving it more attention than other maps out there that seem like they might actually deserve your interest and approval.
Something's not right with this picture.
None.
I don't think you realize how amazing this map is. This map is ten times better than Team Sage (sp?).
He never said your map was bad. He was stating that by giving little information, your map got more attention than what it should have gotten.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 9 2009, 1:54 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Reference quote.
None.
What I find most striking and disturbing about SEN is that people who provide little to no information about their maps when they post them and then argue about the maps...get a lot more attention than people who are informative and open-minded from the start. (This is assuming, of course, that the map isn't especially groundbreaking in some way that draws an unusual amount of attention.) I'm inclined to wonder if people aren't starting to exploit this phenomenon.
This is so amazingly true.
I hope you win discussion member of the year.
http://www.staredit.net/topic/9232/
No one cares until you either:
a) tell us what you've updated.
b) removed those random deaths and crazy jackpots from your gambling thing.
..yeah.... srsly.. I'd try this again if you do b).
None.
My bunker wars is balanced. Everything is precisely mathematical. Blizzard's melee balancing is the only rival to mine.
No, just no. That's Impossible. I oughtta bitch slap you for being so arrogant.
That second statement: no. Its possible to get the precise damage, attack rate, movement, and everything. Did you really calculate the multi variable rates? That's (just for a start) easily over 100 variables. That's not including player skill, which cannot be calculated, nor evaluated. You can come close, even very close, but you will never reach perfection.
That third statement: no. Blizzard made StarCraft as an (above?) average game imo, and took over a decade to balance it (fact). StarCraft is still not 100% ballanced, and never will be; the term "balance" is an ideal alike "perfection."
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 13 2010, 7:13 am by fat_flying_pigs.
None.
That third statement: no. Blizzard made StarCraft as an (above?) average game imo, and took over a decade to balance it (fact). StarCraft is still not 100% ballanced, and never will be; the term "balance" is an ideal alike "perfection."
It is considered balanced enough that each race has an equal chance to win when played by a good player.
This is balanced enough for gaming and thus fills the term in its most used form.
None.
Updated. Added awesome stuff.
None.
