Rarity System?

[ParaBellum]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Remember folks, the ENTIRE purpose of this feature is to basically stop the unrealistic overuse of uncommon stuff.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

For me, that's all I wanted to hear.

And now back to your dungeon!

You've got a job to do!

[JAK]

Ummmm....well....I guess that means its here! Yeah thats right!!! What steve's actually saying is not pertaining at all to the rarity system at all, he's telling us the demo is here!!! THE DEMO....no more coffee for me. Muhahahah

Jake

[xerxes]

Glad to hear that rarity and computer pick are working well together. In my experience CMI normally does a very good and realistic job picking troops. Every now and then something oddball comes up but rarity would greatly reduce that issue.

But to fully appreciate the new rarity system I would need to do some extensive testing. Could you send me a beta test copy of CMII? I'll report extensively on my "blatant attempt to be a gamey force selection wank" testing results. deal?

-marc

[Battlefront.com]

Wreck

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Steve, you point out that RVP will get variety because rarity will change from month to month. That's fine, I understand the point. But I am concerned about variety not just over the course of the war, but within any given month as well. Imagine choosing a Kursk quickbattle and every time, the German buys PzIVf2s, and the Russian, T-34-76bs.<hr></blockquote>

If those were the ONLY good choices in that month and you always played with the same exact settings, then you are correct. But in reality, you are wrong simply because there is no month where the options are that narrow. Plus, there are all sorts of variables to play with within any given month. Things like force size, force type, weather, who is attacking/defending, etc. So even if the force purchase options are always exactly the same (which is not the case in reality) the game itself would be completely different by changing even one variable.

Of course, then there is Variable Rarity which means that in one game the PzIVf2 might be dirt cheap and therefore the best pick, but in another it might be a bit pricey so you go with some PzIIIs instead.

In short, you are not giving the system much, if any, credit for variability. It has far more than you think even if you tried to play the same exact game settings over and over again.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Why not just got to boolean RVA, and say you can't pick rare things at all? In other words, what's the point of putting in an "option" that is always bad? It does not hurt, I guess, but it is just a tiny bit confusing. <hr></blockquote>

Because it is easier for us to let the player decided what is "good" and what is "bad". It could be that if I am on the attack I might opt to spend a bit more on some rarer vehicles which are better on the offensive instead of some cheaper common ones which are only good on the defensive. If we excluded stuff, using a binary "in/out" system that option would be removed from me. In other words, less flexibility and less chance of something different happening. Which is exactly what you are so much against

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>With variable RVP, there might be variety, but only if a rare item can drop down to a common rating. My understanding from what I have read of the system in other posts, is that this will never be -- a rare unit will never become "common" (== cheap), just "less rare" (== ess expensive, but still more than without rarity on). In which case, effectively Variable RVP is little or no different than Fixed.<hr></blockquote>

Not correct. While it is true that you will never see something like a IS3 or Sturmtiger become cheaper than dirt, you will see other things come within reasonable price range. Again, depends on the vehicle, month, and luck of the draw. However, the more rare something is the less chance it will become affordable. And again, that is exactly how we wanted the system to work.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Now, all that stated, I agree that given the criteria you have stated, your system seems to fill the bill. The implementation is, IMO, is a bit weird.<hr></blockquote>

I don't think so at all, obviously The implementation is smooth and logical. It provides a great degree of variablity, a more strict degree of variability, or total variability like in CMBO.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My criteria for what I want in a rarity system include all the things that you want, but go further. Mine include two more. (1) Wanting a variety in battles within any given month, <hr></blockquote>

The game has this now, even if you don't understand my explainations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>(2) wanting to have a balanced battle with the occasional rare unit mixed in with a majority of common units.<hr></blockquote>

Which can happen, but not nearly to the extent you desire. See below...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>That's what I believe my proposal will do, and what I have proved your system will not do, outside of the possibility that Variable RVP sometimes allows "rare" units to be rated as "common".<hr></blockquote>

Not the way I look at it. Our system has what you are looking for, except to the degree you apparently want to see it. In other words, from the sounds of it you really want to see at least one Rare vehicle in each and every game. Or at least the option of that happening. That goes completely against the purpose of a Rarity system in the first place, in our opinion. Here is the difference in our thinking...

Out of 100 games played on a given month with the same exact settings:

Our system (Fixed Rarity) - Highly Rare units would never show up. Modestly Rare ones wouldn't likely show up except in perhaps 1 or 2 games. Uncommon units would show up in about 30. Common ones would be the norm for the remaining 68 or so.

Our system (Variable Rarity) - Highly Rare units would show up in perhaps 1 or 2 games. Modestly Rare units would show up in perhaps 10 or so games. Uncommon units would show up in maybe 40 games. Common ones would fill in the remaining 48 or so. But also keep in mind, that many of the "uncommon" units would be priced "common" and some "common" units priced "super bargain", which will change the dynamics of the game in a whole different way.

Your system (RVA) - Too difficult to say, but one thing is clear... Highly Rare units would pop up in the majority, or at least significant minority of games. Modestly Rare units would be fairly normal, Uncommon ones slightly more so. Common units, unless they also happen to be favorably thought of, would not see much game play at all. In other words, this system would be an improvement over the existing CMBO system, but would still be favoring gamey unit choices.

Again, it all comes down to philosophy. We don't want to reduce the number of rare units used per game, but the number of rare units used in total. In other words, 1 rare unit used in 1 out of 100 games vs. 1 rare unit used in each game.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I suppose, given that you are stating you are not going to change at this point (which does not surprise me; I'm a programmer), the only point in my posting anything more on this topic is to beg you to make variable rarity sometimes produce "commonness" even for rare things. <hr></blockquote>

Hehe... we love it when people beg Not to worry, since we really do want to see the rare stuff show up once and a while as well as you do. But the super rare stuff, like under 20, are very rarely going to ever see the light of day with either Rarity Option. By all rights these things shouldn't even be in the game in the first place because they are so rare. And tha that is why Rarity can be turned off

Other answers...

Yes, vehicles can be purchased in platoons, but not Companies since few game options would provide enough points to make this worth the coding effort. Platoons give discounts (like with infantry units in CMBO) as well as C&C benefits because of the HQ unit that comes with the formation. The computer does favor purchasing formations rather than individual vehicles of different types, contrary to the way it works now in CMBO.

Force pool points are already allocated differently depending on the force type selected. Rarity should have no special influence over this, except if we were to program an entirely unique rarity system which would given an infantry force a higher chance of getting a crappy Pzjäger or light tank vs. something like a Tiger or IS2. But this is not something we feel is needed or that we have time for.

The system does not need a lot of testing/tweaking since the prices are based on availability numbers. However, Base Prices are always subject to great debate In any case, we are full to the gills with testers

Steve

[Zitadelle]

Not that BTS needs any defense, but they have already developed the rarity system for CMBB. I don't think that the code will change this late in the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). We can all argue how we want them to design/develop the software, but it's already been done and the software is in testing.

I congratulate them on creating a wonderful game, and I am eager to try the new concepts in CMBB. Let's end this trend, and let BTS get back to work rather than responding to our requests.

[Battlefront.com]

Wreck, I hope I have at least said a couple of things that will make your (legit) concerns about variability soothed until the release

I think people who really want to see the rare stuff excluded from the vast bulk of games will be quite happy with our system. It is a bit tough to show why that is the case since you aren't actually playing with the feature. Those who want something inbetween will likely have to switch back and forth between No Rarity and Variable Rarity. Personally, I don't expect 99% of the time I will play with Variable Rarity on.

Steve

[Shipmonkey25]

So Steve, the IS-3 is in?

[Wreck]

Steve -- after your last response (well second to last, now), I was quite happy, so I shut my yap.

The variable RBP, as you describe it ("uncommon" shows up in 40%, "rare" in 10%, "very rare" in 2%) is exactly what I want.

Part of our miscommunication had to do with "rare", which I was using in a simplistic, boolean way, basically having mind anything that in ASL would have been rarity 1.2+ (assuming you recall ASL's system). You had that four way division in mind, so you though I was asking for something of King Tiger rarity in every battle. I was really just asking to see a Panther now and then.

That said, I am bit concerned about making common things even cheaper, but only for play balance reasons. And I am sure y'all have the problem well in hand.

[Battlefront.com]

Nothing is "in" at the moment, as I sit here with hundreds of models that still need to be hand coded into the game But I do believe we have a model of the IS3 already made. That doesn't mean much though.

Wreck, OK, I think we are more or less on the same page. As for making things cheaper, it isn't by much. And since the other side's Variable Rarity numbers are generated using the same logic, there should be no more balancing issues than there would be with any of the other options. So if balance is a concern for you, don't sweat it

Steve