Jump to content


calibration of aircraft parts


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Eviscerador #21 Posted 03 July 2018 - 07:16 PM

    DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!!

  • Beta Tester
  • 2046 battles
  • 1,208
  • [BU-LL] BU-LL
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Ok, I have rolled 5 times. I wasted my hard earned materials with this just to prove you that calibration is nonsensical and a waste of resources.

 

This is the equipment as I had it before I started:

 

https://imgur.com/s2vNdjU

 

First roll, an improvement on range, and an increase of the malus. Worth enough.

 

https://imgur.com/L5gHJGw

 

Second roll. I got back to the starting range, and I get a decrease of the malus, but take note that if I apply this, I will have a WORSE equipment than I started, after two rolls, so I don't apply.

 

https://imgur.com/xnUIQRR

 

Third roll. Same story. I don't apply

 

https://imgur.com/v4wN7rW

 

Fourth roll. I get a bonus reduction and a malus reduction just enough to get where I started. I don't apply, because I would have wasted 4 rolls for nothing.

 

https://imgur.com/U6WR2GJ

 

Fifth roll. Same roll as in second and third. I can see a pattern here...

 

https://imgur.com/zmyK9ED

 

Total materals wasted. 15-15-5. I had 20 weapon components now I have 5. I get a 0,7% total increase to range with a whooping 3% reduction of burst duration (0,7% range for 3% less firing time... balans!). Hopefully the XP-75 has almost infinite overheating so it is not a problem.

 

So now you tell me that the system works as intended and I will tell you that if that is true the system is BAD.

 

I expect a free loot crate for the effort and the resources spent.

 

You are welcome.


Edited by Eviscerador, 03 July 2018 - 07:21 PM.


BravelyRanAway #22 Posted 03 July 2018 - 09:03 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1842 battles
  • 812
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostEviscerador, on 03 July 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

Very much my experience too.

I wasted a lot of materials, it works like a one armed bandit, frustrating and tedious.......it's why I got cheesed of and drifted back to WoT.


"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing".G.B.Shaw


zen_monk_ #23 Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:23 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Then don't do it. At least I don't. Stay at Ultimate, do a roll/disassemble if you must have a certain bonus, but Ultimate is good enough. No need to lose a will to play for an extra 1-2%.

Killtech #24 Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:43 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1092 battles
  • 285
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postklbergmen, on 03 July 2018 - 08:16 AM, said:

 

I had 150 bad rolls in a row, this is not random!

There are rules behind it that we don't know.

Random is already a bad design but this pseudo random is cheating on us if we don't know how it is working.

I don't see why we have to reverse engineer this bullshit and even if we do they can change it again at any time.

I calibrate a lot from the beginning and I'm sure that sometimes I have to accept a bad role to be able to get good roles again.

How can somebody in his right mind implement this stupid mechanic and how can his boss accept this ?

 

no, you didn't have 150 bad rolls in a row. that is your emotion/frustration speaking, not the facts.

there might be rules, sure but if there were you would be probably less frustrated because the random nature is exactly what produces that "150 bad rolls in a row" feeling.

an no, you don't have to accept a bad result. it won't improve your chances for the next roll (well, unless the bad result hits minimal tech value because a follow-up calibration cannot go below the minimum thus must be an improvement).

 

besides, your reaction to this is so typical for most people confronted with a pure random game/mechanic. randomness has the nature that is make it look like there are hidden rules/structures and our minds are sharp to look out for these especially when we lose a few times in a row which incites us to somehow make it better next time. on the other hand a simple random mechanic is exactly what you expect devs to implement initially because it is the easiest thing to do. however, given the frustration such systems cause these simple systems are better replaced by pseudo-random mechanics with hidden rules like for example to break long loss streaks (for example a guarantee that out of 5 rolls at least one must yield a good result).



Franco_Scala #25 Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:26 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

View PostKilltech, on 03 July 2018 - 11:43 PM, said:

 

no, you didn't have 150 bad rolls in a row. that is your emotion/frustration speaking, not the facts.

there might be rules, sure but if there were you would be probably less frustrated because the random nature is exactly what produces that "150 bad rolls in a row" feeling.

an no, you don't have to accept a bad result. it won't improve your chances for the next roll (well, unless the bad result hits minimal tech value because a follow-up calibration cannot go below the minimum thus must be an improvement).

 

besides, your reaction to this is so typical for most people confronted with a pure random game/mechanic. randomness has the nature that is make it look like there are hidden rules/structures and our minds are sharp to look out for these especially when we lose a few times in a row which incites us to somehow make it better next time. on the other hand a simple random mechanic is exactly what you expect devs to implement initially because it is the easiest thing to do. however, given the frustration such systems cause these simple systems are better replaced by pseudo-random mechanics with hidden rules like for example to break long loss streaks (for example a guarantee that out of 5 rolls at least one must yield a good result).

 

Your analysis of people finding patterns that reflect their own psychology is generally sound, but the 'easiest thing to do' would be to make all improvements a 'Ronseal' job - ie. does exactly what it says on the tin. No need for any generator, players wouldn't be getting peeved with the tedium and complexity of making the improvements, and there'd be no room for the insertion of conspiracy. As always, WG/Persha have hoisted themselves by their own petard by implementing such a convoluted and non-transparent set of mechanics without broad consultation. The notion that they'd be better placed with 'pseudo-random' mechanics is pretty pseudo-random itself when common sense would suggest 'KISS' (Keep it simple, stupid) and transparency/clear accountability. 



Eviscerador #26 Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:37 AM

    DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!!

  • Beta Tester
  • 2046 battles
  • 1,208
  • [BU-LL] BU-LL
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostKilltech, on 04 July 2018 - 12:43 AM, said:

 

no, you didn't have 150 bad rolls in a row. that is your emotion/frustration speaking, not the facts.

there might be rules, sure but if there were you would be probably less frustrated because the random nature is exactly what produces that "150 bad rolls in a row" feeling.

an no, you don't have to accept a bad result. it won't improve your chances for the next roll (well, unless the bad result hits minimal tech value because a follow-up calibration cannot go below the minimum thus must be an improvement).

 

besides, your reaction to this is so typical for most people confronted with a pure random game/mechanic. randomness has the nature that is make it look like there are hidden rules/structures and our minds are sharp to look out for these especially when we lose a few times in a row which incites us to somehow make it better next time. on the other hand a simple random mechanic is exactly what you expect devs to implement initially because it is the easiest thing to do. however, given the frustration such systems cause these simple systems are better replaced by pseudo-random mechanics with hidden rules like for example to break long loss streaks (for example a guarantee that out of 5 rolls at least one must yield a good result).

 

While I agree that small samples in RNG systems are non valid, after 20 or so rolls I can tell you with proof that you will get more bad results than good results, as in 1 good result every 4 bad ones.

 

According to other people playing this is close to reality, making calibration a material sink with poor implementation.

 

In fact as I said, in Elite Dangerous they removed the random RNG rolls (which in ED were totally random) for a small incremental system which removes the RNG and you can just calculate how many materials you need in order to get the top roll.

 

Before that people rolled 100 times to get the "god roll" with the secondary effects they wanted.



zen_monk_ #27 Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:46 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostEviscerador, on 04 July 2018 - 07:37 AM, said:

 

While I agree that small samples in RNG systems are non valid, after 20 or so rolls I can tell you with proof that you will get more bad results than good results, as in 1 good result every 4 bad ones.

 

According to other people playing this is close to reality, making calibration a material sink with poor implementation.

 

In fact as I said, in Elite Dangerous they removed the random RNG rolls (which in ED were totally random) for a small incremental system which removes the RNG and you can just calculate how many materials you need in order to get the top roll.

 

Before that people rolled 100 times to get the "god roll" with the secondary effects they wanted.

 

I was there too, losing my mind with Palin and spending weeks collecting CIF and Pharma Isolators so I can to there and be berserk with meh rolls at grade 5, some worse than 4 even 3... the introduction of normal progression in scale with what you've put in was the best thing ever.

 

Calibration must have small increments towards better, always.



klbergmen #28 Posted 04 July 2018 - 09:37 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2565 battles
  • 69
  • [JV44] JV44
  • Member since:
    08-13-2014

View PostKilltech, on 03 July 2018 - 11:43 PM, said:

 

no, you didn't have 150 bad rolls in a row. that is your emotion/frustration speaking, not the facts.

there might be rules, sure but if there were you would be probably less frustrated because the random nature is exactly what produces that "150 bad rolls in a row" feeling.

an no, you don't have to accept a bad result. it won't improve your chances for the next roll (well, unless the bad result hits minimal tech value because a follow-up calibration cannot go below the minimum thus must be an improvement).

 

besides, your reaction to this is so typical for most people confronted with a pure random game/mechanic. randomness has the nature that is make it look like there are hidden rules/structures and our minds are sharp to look out for these especially when we lose a few times in a row which incites us to somehow make it better next time. on the other hand a simple random mechanic is exactly what you expect devs to implement initially because it is the easiest thing to do. however, given the frustration such systems cause these simple systems are better replaced by pseudo-random mechanics with hidden rules like for example to break long loss streaks (for example a guarantee that out of 5 rolls at least one must yield a good result).

 

With bad rolls I mean not better than what enhancement would give me. I had 150 of them in a row and that's a fact, not my feeling. With 20 or 30 bad rolls I would agree with you but not with more than 100.

See this post:

http://forum.worldofwarplanes.eu/index.php?/topic/50899-enhancement-calibration-feedback/page__st__40__pid__564035#entry564035

I did the same but ran out of material after 39 rolls. This is no proof but I think more than 100 is.



eekeeboo #29 Posted 04 July 2018 - 10:16 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostEviscerador, on 03 July 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

 

 

Here we go! 

 

Stock equipment - Fine so far. 

First Roll: improvement (+ 0.7% (increase in bonus) and -3% (increase in penalty)). - note the weighting of the buff, 0.7 vs 3, positive out weighs the negative. 

 

Second Roll: Improvement (- 0.7% (reduction in bonus) and +2% (decrease in penalty from beginning)). - You now have a net improvement of a 1% reduction in penalty. The shift in overall level due to positive weighted heavier than penalty weight. 

 

Third Roll: Improvement (- 0.7% (reduction in bonus negated) and +3% (further decrease in penalty)). - You have now gained a further reduction on penalty stat. 

 

After this, I notice you did not press apply on the calibration? This means you're re-rolling stats whether positive or negative regardless, so it's a little harder to see the positives and negative gains from the rolls. You don't apply the 3rd or 4th roll, but then apply the 5th. 

 

Fifth Roll: You improveme with a (-0.7% (reduction in bonus but doesn't go below what you already rolled) and +3%. 

 

I can't tell much more after this, as you seem to only look for positive buffs and not reduction in negative values. To get an improvement each roll you need to calibrate, apply, calibrate and apply. Otherwise you can't improve on something if you haven't applied it. 

 



Eviscerador #30 Posted 04 July 2018 - 10:29 AM

    DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!!

  • Beta Tester
  • 2046 battles
  • 1,208
  • [BU-LL] BU-LL
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 04 July 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

 

I can't tell much more after this, as you seem to only look for positive buffs and not reduction in negative values. To get an improvement each roll you need to calibrate, apply, calibrate and apply. Otherwise you can't improve on something if you haven't applied it. 

 

What I'm trying to tell you is that in the second roll (which I didn't apply by the way) in case I accepted that roll I'd have had a WORSE piece of equipment compared with the stock one:

 

- Same range, more malus

 

How the heck is that considered as an improvement? All I see is a system that, according to your post, works as a one step forward and two step backwards system, in order to force you to spend MORE materials to get that small step forward.

 

Or are you saying that the system is not RNG, and you need to have a worse equipment in order to improve it in the next rolls?

 

Anyway, the system is not intuitive, not well explained, and for most people, just ignored, as you can notice in all the feedback posts.

 

I guess they will make their numbers and see how much people use the system.



eekeeboo #31 Posted 04 July 2018 - 10:37 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostEviscerador, on 04 July 2018 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

 

And I'm telling you that if you calibrate, apply. Then click roll and accept you will constantly get bonuses. You're currently comparing rolls you don't even apply. That isn't quite going to work that way, I'm sorry to inform you. 

 

Derp spelling when going for lunch! 

 


Edited by eekeeboo, 04 July 2018 - 12:24 PM.


zen_monk_ #32 Posted 04 July 2018 - 10:55 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 04 July 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

 

And I'm telling you that if you calibrate, apply. Then click roll and accept you will constantly get bonuses. You're currently comparing rolls you don't even apply. That doesn't quite going to work that way, I'm sorry to inform you. 

 

One on top of the other of the other... like 7-8 bonuses, as much as you applied?!

 

If so, it changes the entire approach! You hoard bonuses, there's the improvement, right?


Edited by zen_monk_, 04 July 2018 - 10:56 AM.


eekeeboo #33 Posted 04 July 2018 - 12:25 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postzen_monk_, on 04 July 2018 - 10:55 AM, said:

 

 

I'll see if i can get some screenshots for you :) 

 

Only 2 I would have not applied if I wasn't doing this to show you how applying even minor changes is better than just re-rolling without accepting. As you can see, progress was made regardless. 

 

Rolls: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

 

Now vs Before


Edited by eekeeboo, 04 July 2018 - 12:34 PM.


zen_monk_ #34 Posted 04 July 2018 - 01:08 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Oh... a major food for thought.

 

Thank you for you effort :honoring:



klbergmen #35 Posted 04 July 2018 - 03:15 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2565 battles
  • 69
  • [JV44] JV44
  • Member since:
    08-13-2014

View Posteekeeboo, on 04 July 2018 - 12:25 PM, said:

 

I'll see if i can get some screenshots for you :)

 

Only 2 I would have not applied if I wasn't doing this to show you how applying even minor changes is better than just re-rolling without accepting. As you can see, progress was made regardless.

 

Rolls: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

 

Now vs Before

 

Depends what you mean with progress. In my opinion the part that you created is horrible. 19%bonus and 18%penalty.

Would'nt only enhancing be better than that ?



eekeeboo #36 Posted 04 July 2018 - 03:19 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postklbergmen, on 04 July 2018 - 03:15 PM, said:

 

Depends what you mean with progress. In my opinion the part that you created is horrible. 19%bonus and 18%penalty.

Would'nt only enhancing be better than that ?

 

It's already enhanced to max level, now it just need calibrating to the max level. I chose this so you could see the over-all improvement, regardless of the "losses" you see in some screenshots. 

klbergmen #37 Posted 04 July 2018 - 03:33 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2565 battles
  • 69
  • [JV44] JV44
  • Member since:
    08-13-2014

View Posteekeeboo, on 04 July 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

 

It's already enhanced to max level, now it just need calibrating to the max level. I chose this so you could see the over-all improvement, regardless of the "losses" you see in some screenshots.

 

What exactly do you mean with improvement ? That the Technology Level goes up ?

 



Eviscerador #38 Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:16 PM

    DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!! DAKKA!!!

  • Beta Tester
  • 2046 battles
  • 1,208
  • [BU-LL] BU-LL
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

If it works that way, then the system is poorly designed. Who in their sane mind will apply a calibration when you get a WORSE piece of equipment than before?

 

I won't.



Killtech #39 Posted 04 July 2018 - 09:45 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1092 battles
  • 285
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostFranco_Scala, on 04 July 2018 - 07:26 AM, said:

 

Your analysis of people finding patterns that reflect their own psychology is generally sound, but the 'easiest thing to do' would be to make all improvements a 'Ronseal' job - ie. does exactly what it says on the tin. No need for any generator, players wouldn't be getting peeved with the tedium and complexity of making the improvements, and there'd be no room for the insertion of conspiracy. As always, WG/Persha have hoisted themselves by their own petard by implementing such a convoluted and non-transparent set of mechanics without broad consultation. The notion that they'd be better placed with 'pseudo-random' mechanics is pretty pseudo-random itself when common sense would suggest 'KISS' (Keep it simple, stupid) and transparency/clear accountability. 

 

roulette (or any game of chance) would be indeed simpler if it wasn't random but i don't see anyone willing to play them if one would only get exactly the expected winnings. the randomness of not knowing the result has a certain appeal but repeated losses take an emotional toll. stripped bare of the randomness calibration would be entirely linear, too simplistic and thus boring up to the point of being even more annoying. at least the random part requires a little risk management. without that a replacement mechanic would be needed that presents players with some decisions/options with actual depth. that however is a lot more difficult and time intensive to develop... not to mention that it would cause new balance problems (since depth is only depth if it has an impact).

Franco_Scala #40 Posted 05 July 2018 - 05:00 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

View PostKilltech, on 04 July 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

 

roulette (or any game of chance) would be indeed simpler if it wasn't random but i don't see anyone willing to play them if one would only get exactly the expected winnings. the randomness of not knowing the result has a certain appeal but repeated losses take an emotional toll. stripped bare of the randomness calibration would be entirely linear, too simplistic and thus boring up to the point of being even more annoying. at least the random part requires a little risk management. without that a replacement mechanic would be needed that presents players with some decisions/options with actual depth. that however is a lot more difficult and time intensive to develop... not to mention that it would cause new balance problems (since depth is only depth if it has an impact).

 

KISS doesn't indicate 'roulette', and I see no reason why having further depth is necessary in the first place....and if necessary why it is also necessary to tie it with some form of handle-cranking to manage emotional toils or balance problems. This is all straw and non-sequitur.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users