Jump to content

Conquest Is Not The Problem


5 replies to this topic

#1 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 16,734 posts

Posted 22 September 2019 - 02:15 AM

the problem is siege isn't on the modes list in most conflicts phases.

removing conquest wont put siege on the modes list or give it equal representation.

another problem is that there are four variations on skirmish that all play the same that compete with siege time. these need to be paired down or have reduced probability. perhaps limit one per phase and rotate them.

if you play fp for eight hours strait you should get a decent sampling of all the modes available in fp rather than just 2. this is just boring. if you are going to have multiple modes, cycle them.

the easiest most effective fix is to have pgi include siege in all future conflict phases. you dont need to cut any modes to do that, and if you do, cut some of the skirmish alikes. when there is zero chance for siege, cutting one of the other modes will not increase that chance. so put siege in all the conflict phases and we will revisit paring down some of the modes in next 90 days.

Edited by LordNothing, 22 September 2019 - 02:17 AM.


#2 Sjorpha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,472 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 22 September 2019 - 11:28 PM

The problem has been that something makes conquest dominate the distribution of matches, it's showing up more than the expected 1/3.

There is nothing really wrong about conquest, but I have kept tabs on the distribution and I've got conquest more than 2/3 in several phases rather than the expected 1/3. I think there may be an actual bug here.

#3 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 16,734 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 09:20 AM

View PostSjorpha, on 22 September 2019 - 11:28 PM, said:

The problem has been that something makes conquest dominate the distribution of matches, it's showing up more than the expected 1/3.

There is nothing really wrong about conquest, but I have kept tabs on the distribution and I've got conquest more than 2/3 in several phases rather than the expected 1/3. I think there may be an actual bug here.


the distributions are kind of bogus. i dropped with skirmish, domination and incursion as the modes, i played a dozen games, but all but 2 games were domination, and incursion never came up either. this leads me to believe that the modes for each phase are weighted disproportionately. i think that pgi is treating siege as a "boss mode", but there's no point for that if you never get to the boss fight.

#4 Yondu Udonta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Gold Champ
  • CS 2020 Gold Champ
  • 645 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 03:30 AM

View PostLordNothing, on 23 September 2019 - 09:20 AM, said:


the distributions are kind of bogus. i dropped with skirmish, domination and incursion as the modes, i played a dozen games, but all but 2 games were domination, and incursion never came up either. this leads me to believe that the modes for each phase are weighted disproportionately. i think that pgi is treating siege as a "boss mode", but there's no point for that if you never get to the boss fight.

I believe that there is a weighting issue. E.g. if there is a conflict phase with only Siege and Conquest. There are only 6 Siege maps and 12 Conquest maps. Instead of weighting Siege and Conquest to 50% each before weighting the maps individually after, they weight a specific map-mode combination to have a 1/18 chance of being selected, hence over a long run, 2/3 of the games played are Conquest and 1/3 of the games played are Siege. I can attest to the latter being the current system at the moment unless I am getting some bad RNG.

#5 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:10 AM

I recall that PGI introduced the ability to weight modes and maps in events.

I have a funny feeling the programmer who knows how to locate the weighting algorithm in the codebase has left, and that the Conquest weighting is still set higher than normal, where it was at the end of some long-forgotten prior event.

Or maybe it's another 'floating bridges' bug, where an unrelated change in the codebase has produced an accidental side effect of overweighting Conquest in the mix. Eg. Maybe two variables accidentally share the same name.

EDIT: Yondu's insight makes a lot of sense.

Edited by Appogee, 24 September 2019 - 04:13 AM.


#6 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 16,734 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 09:15 AM

View PostAppogee, on 24 September 2019 - 04:10 AM, said:

I recall that PGI introduced the ability to weight modes and maps in events.

I have a funny feeling the programmer who knows how to locate the weighting algorithm in the codebase has left, and that the Conquest weighting is still set higher than normal, where it was at the end of some long-forgotten prior event.

Or maybe it's another 'floating bridges' bug, where an unrelated change in the codebase has produced an accidental side effect of overweighting Conquest in the mix. Eg. Maybe two variables accidentally share the same name.

EDIT: Yondu's insight makes a lot of sense.


all you need is rand(), multiplication, and conditionals, all of which are core language features of both c++ and lua which are the languages used by cryengine. its not rocket science, its merely computer science. of course pgi cant afford programmers.

Edited by LordNothing, 24 September 2019 - 09:18 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users