Life bar in VS mode


#1

I have no idea whether this has been posted before…it’s a rather difficult subject to search…

But, I’m sure people will be chomping at the bit to tell me “WE ALREADY HAVE 98 THREADS FOR THIS. SHUT UP”…SRK is friendly like that. So feel free to shut me down.

Anyway, I was wondering…do people think the damage settings in VS mode can actually destroy the intended fighting system? For example, when we play SC3 here, we turn the damage up to 200% to make matches longer. Does this destroy the game’s natural chemistry?

Any math fiends can chime in, because I think this might actually be a statistical question. Do longer matches favor characters who deal more statistically probable damage (i.e. higher tier characters) and harm characters with less statistically probable damage (i.e. lower tier characters)?

For a simplified example, let’s say I have a match between character A and B. Character A has a mix-up that works 10% of the time, and does 10% damage. Character B has a mix-up that works 1% of the time, and does 100% damage. Does messing with the VS modes life bar settings favor character A or B unfairly?

I suppose it depends on how you model the scenario mathematically…like whether the example is based on time or some other variable…

I dunno…maybe my question is too weird…


#2

Yes it does. I would explain it, but I think someone else could do a better job then me. In fact, it looks like you already understand how it messes it up.


#3

The games are made with defualt options because thats the way their ment to be played, besides buttons settings.

Oh yeah, WE ALREADY HAVE 98 THREADS FOR THIS. SHUT UP.


#4

You know what? I don’t feel like studying. So I’ll try and explain it.

WARNING!WARNING! Large aircraft: FUNKY MATH Is Approaching. WARNING!WARNING!

Let’s simplify the problem. Take two charactors, let’s call them… Chipp and Potemkin.
Now let’s say they can block and they can attack and they both have 100 health. And each charactor only has one attack. They are both exactly the same, except Chipp’s attack does 5 damage, and Potemkin’s attack does 10 damage.

Now, for Chipp to win a round, he needs to land 20 attacks.
For Potemkin to win, he needs to land 10 attacks.

Now let’s up each of their health by 200%. They both now have 200 health, but their damage remains the same. 5 and 10.
Chipp now needs to land 40 attacks to win, while Potemkin only needs to land 20 attacks.

You see what just happened? The amount of work need for Chipp to win just increased 8 times, while Potemkin’s work only increase by 2 times.

So, yeah, changing the health does fuck things up.

Also, if it were possible to change the thread title, I would call it, The effects of health adjustment on balance. Or something like that.


#5

Word, good shit. This would def fuck things up in Thrid Strike. Do you know how easily Q can get taunts in by sacrificing a little life? And how many pokes Twelve would need to land to win.


#6

^-- x2 ?!? What kind of stats are you using there? I don’t see where you’re pulling 4x or 8x out of. :wtf:

x amount of work is required for player y to go from damage 0 to N on player z. x Attacks = N damage. Direct stat correlation. You up life bars 120%, you up Attacks Required 120%.

However, the key variable offhand would be time. Unless you increase time 120% too, then you will definitely distort gameplay. I don’t know what the relevant key variables would be here… something like:

  • [ Life bar length, Clock speed, Attack damage]
    If you touch one of those without touching the others, you throw off the gameplay. If you’re running a game that has 100% combos at 120% normal life, it’s not the out of box game by any means. You increase Touches Required For Death from 1 to 2. That’s exactly what you’re trying to do though, so from that point on this all becomes an incredibly boring argument.

You’re trying to play some certain gameplay experience. It’s up to what you want that to be, and the American Counsel on Gaming has actually officially ruled that you can have your own standards and tweak game settings, which is a marked improvement over yesteryear.


#7

I don’t know if my stats is right or anything. But back when I played TTT, I played Ling and Lei. That’s the arguement I used to get everyone to bring the health back down to 100%. And when we did that, I started winning alot more. :wgrin:


#8

The new figure for Potemkin - twice as much work:
10 attacks x 2 = 20 attacks

For Chipp:
20 attacks x 8 = 40 attacks

What if we reduce the life bar to 50%? It would take 10 Chipp hits and 5 Potekmin hits to end the round. Let’s look at how much work they would have to do:

Potemkin:
10 attacks x .5 = 5 attacks

Chipppppppp:
20 attacks x 27 = 10 attacks

Potemkin would have to do half as much work but, Chippy, oh boy, he’d have to do 27 times as much work! Man, that guy just can’t catch a fucking break! Poor bastard.


#9

On SC3 you have ring outs…so if you were really bored you could play RO only games. Astaroth and Yoshimitsu loves it.(even more so if you have VS. Special and that slippery level on)

As for actual tournament gameplay…LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE!

Thats my 2 cents on it. (actually $1.73 but…eh)


#10

Yep. Just play more games if you want to make matches last longer.


#11

This destroys logic. :tup:


#12

So would this apply to rounds aswell? As in each player now has another “100%” they have to work twice as hard to win?


#13

What a horrible thread. :lol: I see we do not have any stats majors here…

For each unit, there’s X work associated. So 2u == 2x. Linear associativity. This is not rocket science. :smile:


#14

I think what is effected more is damage scaling in combos.

In MvC2, an infinite can do considerable amount of damage due to the first few hits having a certain amout of damage given to them. After around 10 hits I think, any hit will do the same amount of damage. However, if damage scaling was changed, the change in damage would change from the 10th hit to the 5th hit, or something like that. So, damage scaling would totally fuck up the game play. As opposed to landing 4 fk from Magneto, someone would be more inclined to just focusing on landing more infinites since there are more hits involved.


#15

The entire line of reasoning is also flawed in that you’re assuming the characters are exactly the same except for the fact that they do different amounts of damage. The factors that differentiate each character also would weigh in heavily on something like this.


#16

Those factors better not weigh in too heavily; I entered them in a lightweight division. They might have to drop some water weight, eh? By the way, you mustn’t forget color choices - blue characters are disproportionately affected by increased health when compared to red characters.


#17

well im a math minor but fuck math and especially FUCK statistics. ill just throw in my own two cents on stuff other than the life bar.

i dunno about life bar, but if you changed the timer by shortening it drastically, i’d say that turtlling would become the most viable strategy. the reason being that rush down can be blocked, and only succeeds a certain percent of the time. the longer you play however, the higher chance of landing that combo of death you get. if the timer was shortened considerably, you’d have a lot more pressure to rush down and land that hit, causing more mistakes. the turtle would definitely come out on top here - your goal would just be to block, chip, zone out the opponent and win by timer.

in this case, the guy that does 10% damage 10% of the time would win. The guy who does 100% damage 1% of the time would be completely worthless.

likewise, turtling would be severely weakened if the timer was lengthened (I just realized that the turtle fest that is CVS2 is probably a counter to this argument of mine LOL but whatever)

okay and then for damage, obviously if damage is reduced then again chipping/defense tactics become that much stronger as strat. for example, if a chip sequence such as doing sentinels super and calling out doom etc… does almost the same amount of damage as magnetos infinite, all of a sudden chipping becomes that much better, i’d say ice man would be improved considerably. his low health wouldn’t be an issue anymore because the top tiers wouldn’t be able to exploit it as much do to less damage. on the other hand, an ice beam would be able to still chip the same amount of damage. ditto strider.

yeah as for life bar - same principle i guess. if life is increased, this is essentially the same effect as reducing damage, and thus the turtle strategy dominates.


#18

The only thing messing with the handicap in VS Mode in most any game does is give you more work to do. Weak characters will just have to work harder for their kill then usual. Honestly, if you’re fighting against someone that is going to flat out kill you at 100% default Handicap with their choice of character doesn’t mean you’ll have an easier time fighting back if you when you both lower the handicap (since that is what you do to EXTEND your match playtime. Lowers your life or damage dealt, However you want to look at it because it’s pretty much the same thing) and extend the round. Some characters are weaker then others in general and the ones that don’t do so much damage end up having to work hard whether the handicap is there or not. It just boils down to how much work.


#19

could someone explain to me how moving Chipp number of attacks from 20 to 40 increases the work he has to do by 8 times?


#20

The logic is simple, but figuring out which character it helps in each matchup can be extremely complicated. Typically, someone with a large disadvantage in a matchup would want shorter life bars as it is more likely to get a random win.

Lets take a simple example. Two equal characters, except one does 50% damage and one does 30% damage.

A: 50 damage, wins in two combos.
B: 30 damage, wins in four combos.

Increace life to 110 and…

A: 50 damage, wins in three combos.
B: 30 damage, wins in four combos.

The increace helped B.

Increacing to 130 and…

A: 50 damage, wins in three combos.
B: 30 damage, wins in five combos.

This increace helped A when compared from 110. Comparing from 100 it helped B in theory. Going from two to three is a larger jump than from four to five, but there are other things to consider. The increaced randomness could have helped B get some more wins. B could use runaway tactics to make the difference not even matter one bit.

Theres a simple analysis. Try factoring in different moves and their priorities over the opposing character(of course you’d have to figure out how much players use each move to get this), chip damage, ease of gaining meter(someone might be able to reliably get an extra super with a 10% boost to health), how much that meter actually matters, and basically every theory fighter theory applied to current life ammounts to new ammounts. Then do that for every matchup in the game.

Drastic changes would be easy to figure out in theory. Take a game with ring-outs and increace life by 1000%. Instantly people who are good at ring-outs are good and can only be thwarted by characters who can gain a life lead, and run the clock.

Increacing the number of rounds to win affects any game with risidual effects from the previous round(IE if you keep meter between rounds). Super Turbo wouldn’t affect anything gameplaywise if you changed the number of rounds, but would in Third Strike. Pretty much any fighting game outside of the sf2 series is affected.

“could someone explain to me how moving Chipp number of attacks from 20 to 40 increases the work he has to do by 8 times?”

I can’t.