Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
LastLast
  1. #141
    Herald of the Titans Haidaes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    BUoE - Bureaucratic Union of Europe
    Posts
    2,968
    Quote Originally Posted by fappasaurus View Post
    When a red orb hits ra-den he increases his current and maximum hp by 10%. During a farm raid the guild Midwinter got a big streak of a lot of red orbs. After a certain number of orbs the boss just went to 1/1 or something iirc and couldn't be killed. Garrosh is a real hack-job of a fight b/c of this threshold. Just awkward in design

    As far as quotes I cba pulling one out for you. Do yourself a favor and browse the blue feed and twitter weekly and you might have a remote idea the game the direction the game is taking. If you did that you'd know the squish is basically guaranteed at this point. I just find it interesting so much controversy can come from people that are attached to big numbers /don't like change.

    It's actually odd everyone wouldn't welcome more simplicity (especially at max level).
    Hmm I can see how a mechanic like that can cause an overflow of an Int32, especially depending on how you code your +10% mechanic.

    Just to make this clear though: I dont really care about the squish one way or another, I just don't like it when people pull seemingly random claims out of thin air. In these cases I prefer to inquire the reason for such claims and the source. Well that is actually not entirely true, I do care a little about the squish, but not enough to rage about it. The thing is I still doubt blizzard will pull the squish off in a way that it won't be needed again soon because of their terrible item 'philosphy' or that farming old content won't be impacted by it. The most curious thing about the napkin graph for example is that they wanted to squish iLvls for cata but already planned on going for an extreme growth over the expansion itself. I also doubt that they won't try to make raiding gear obsolete at the beginning of an expansion, hence there will be no linear increase like with already squished content, it will just keep going mostly exponential. If this is how they plan it, I'm not really sure they figured the core problem out yet, which is 4 difficulties, each with vastly diffrent ilvls and a couple of dated mechanics they might have to rethink.

    I do browse the blue posts regulary btw, but I would never claim to have read every last one of them as most of them are not that interesting after all.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Marston View Post
    //Lots of numbers
    Woah, thanks for the work on these. I guess then it really is close to the max of 4,29 billion health. I really wonder though if a supposedly only supercharged warrior like garrosh really needed to have a health pool of something like 35 legions of Elite Korkons. Healing himself seems actually alot less ridiculous than making him impenetrable.
    Last edited by Haidaes; 2013-10-22 at 02:52 PM.

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    That's 400% increase.(400%*200k + 200k = 1m, an increase is added to what you already have)
    5000% would be 10.2m HP tanks.
    Results of multi-tasking, wrote one zero too much :)
    Also, the item squish results not from incompetence, but from a fundamental issue of increasing character stats... how to keep it meaningful over long stretches. There is no perfect solution, no matter how smart you are.
    Let take ToT normal gear ilvl as baseline. 522. Then, SoO LFR - 524, SoO Flex - 528, SoO Normal 535. Voila. That's if we really want Flex mode in the picture, and if we really want non-LFR raiders to feel obliged to run LFR. If LFR would be made more optional, then SoO LFR ilvl could be 516-518. Even though it is 10 ilvl lower than what it is on live, it is only 15 ilvls lower than proposed normal mode gear. On live, this difference (LFR<->Normal) is 25 ilvls, which is quite huge and demotivating.

    And I don't know how others feel, but raiding ToT feels like complete waste of time. 522 is like new grays at a whim of a patch. So much efforts and resources invested and get pile of crap as reward. I understand that next tier gear should be more powerful, but not so much powerful to make complete trash out of 522 like it is expansion switch.

    It's like developers intend "LFR->Flex->Normal->Heroic" progression. 13 ilvls is a significant upgrade for anyone raiding in some specific mode. So jump from 522 in ToT to 535 in SoO would still be meaningful. Why should it be KZ->SWP jump from one tier to next?

    However, what is done is done. It is wrong. But "item squish" isn't a solution. Solution lies in finding more competent people to deal with current problems (starting with such problem as changing types of variables...).

  3. #143
    Brewmaster Marston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post
    Woah, thanks for the work on these. I guess then it really is close to the max of 4,29 billion health. I really wonder though if a supposedly only supercharged warrior like garrosh really needed to have a health pool of something like 35 legions of Elite Korkons. Healing himself seems actually alot less ridiculous than making him impenetrable.
    I am not even suprised by these numbers. Back in Classic, Ragnaros had roughly 1 million. Patchwerk had around 3 Million I think. Or even Kel'thuzad, who wasn't a gear check, had around 3 million (according to WoWpedia).

    Now, Sha of Fear had around 1,4 Billion at 25 man heroic. So, Garrosh having roughly 3 times that amount seems about right.

  4. #144
    Stood in the Fire Snuglz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Montgomery, Texas
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post
    Where did you pull that one from? Whats his health on 25H anyway? I could only find the 25N value of 451.401.792, in 10 man mode he has roughly 48% more health on heroic than on normal, so my guess would be around 668 million health. 3 times that is 2.004 million, which is still in the range of a 32-bit signed (!) integer (which you would only use if you are retarded, given that negative health makes no sense, well as a lazy cop out maybe) and hence not even close to the full ranage of 4,29 billion and a little something.
    A 32 bit interger can only hold a value of 2.1 billion, and from what i was told if you account for all the phases of the heroic 25m encounter for the fight it ended up higher than that.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferocity View Post
    However, what is done is done. It is wrong. But "item squish" isn't a solution. Solution lies in finding more competent people to deal with current problems (starting with such problem as changing types of variables...).
    Your problem starts with underestimating the effort required to do that. It's hardly easy with a behemoth like WoW. After the problems i had just changing a minor variable that shouldn't have been referenced by anything in a 1000 line program i wrote entirely myself, i wouldn't want to touch them in something the scope of WoW with a very long stick.

    Besides, that still doesn't fix that you have to let stuff grow exponentially to keep meaningful progression. Everything you suggest only postpones the squish.

  6. #146
    Pit Lord Doktor Faustus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    UK of Earth World & Northern Fat Land
    Posts
    2,418
    Number squish is the simplest concept going, how are people failing to grasp its beauty?

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    Your problem starts with underestimating the effort required to do that. It's hardly easy with a behemoth like WoW. After the problems i had just changing a minor variable that shouldn't have been referenced by anything in a 1000 line program i wrote entirely myself, i wouldn't want to touch them in something the scope of WoW with a very long stick.
    What language was that? Assembly? Unless both your arms are broken there is no way in hell that something like that would take this long in a high level language, specially when you are increasing the amount of bytes that the variable can take.
    Last edited by Thyranne; 2013-10-23 at 12:05 AM.

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Thyranne View Post
    What language was that? Assembly? Unless both your arms are broken there is no way in hell that something like that would take this long in a high level language, specially when you are increasing the amount of bytes that the variable can take.
    You make it sound as if it being a high level language somehow makes this easier. Assembly would be less of a hassle since it would just mess up your data if you did it wrong. A high level language won't even compile and leave you to figure out why.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    You make it sound as if it being a high level language somehow makes this easier. Assembly would be less of a hassle since it would just mess up your data if you did it wrong. A high level language won't even compile and leave you to figure out why.
    Exactly why it is easier. It shows you where is the mistake (although in Delphi it shows even inside asm blocks, hell it even puts a big red line telling you what is wrong).

    In a high level language you don't have to worry about every tiny detail like in Assembly.
    Last edited by Thyranne; 2013-10-23 at 12:52 AM.

  10. #150
    This whole number squish thing sounds great on paper, but I'm not sure how I'll feel when my envenom is critting for 200 damage at level 100.
    Quote Originally Posted by Extremity View Post
    I like turtles. I would like turtle-based tier sets. I would like a turtle shell helmet, and perhaps a cheeseburger backpack and a chestpiece that simply places a red gemstone on my bellybutton.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Thyranne View Post
    What language was that? Assembly? Unless both your arms are broken there is no way in hell that something like that would take this long in a high level language, specially when you are increasing the amount of bytes that the variable can take.
    I'd bet you a fair amount of money that 99% of the WoW engine is written in C and C++. That's what you use when you want to make optimized code, because when you look at a C code you can usually already tell what assembly code it will be compiled to. No one makes AAA games in high level languages (especially not in those that use VM and GC)
    And you can't just throw in a few bytes at variable declaration, it's either 32 bit integer or 64 bit integer if you want bigger. But the 32 bit processor can only adress and fit 32 bits into its registers and working with bigger than 32 bit numbers will slow down calculation (of course it can work with bigger than 32 bit numbers, it just gets more complicated).
    And don't even get me started on changing their whole databese to 64 bit integers So it's not that simple as you and others try to put it.

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Steppinrazor View Post
    I'd bet you a fair amount of money that 99% of the WoW engine is written in C and C++. That's what you use when you want to make optimized code, because when you look at a C code you can usually already tell what assembly code it will be compiled to. No one makes AAA games in high level languages (especially not in those that use VM and GC)
    And you can't just throw in a few bytes at variable declaration, it's either 32 bit integer or 64 bit integer if you want bigger. But the 32 bit processor can only adress and fit 32 bits into its registers and working with bigger than 32 bit numbers will slow down calculation (of course it can work with bigger than 32 bit numbers, it just gets more complicated).
    And don't even get me started on changing their whole databese to 64 bit integers So it's not that simple as you and others try to put it.
    I'm sorry to disappoint you but C++ is a high level language.

    And assuming a perfect algorithm the assembly implementation will always be faster than the C++ implementation (that's why C++ has a keyword (not sure if it's really a keyword) called __asm, because if you need extreme optimization then write it in assembly).
    Last edited by Thyranne; 2013-10-23 at 09:39 AM.

  13. #153
    Herald of the Titans FuxieDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    København
    Posts
    2,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Thyranne View Post
    I'm sorry to disappoint you but C++ is a high level language.

    And assuming a perfect algorithm the assembly implementation will always be faster than the C++ implementation (that's why C++ has a keyword (not sure if it's really a keyword) called __asm, because if you need extreme optimization then write it in assembly).
    Wrong... C and C++ are mid-level language..
    Pascal and Basic are examples of high level languages..

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by FuxieDK View Post
    Wrong... C and C++ are mid-level language..
    Pascal and Basic are examples of high level languages..
    Really? Do you deal directly with your processor in C and C++? Do you deal with the stack? Registers? Memory address?

    No, it's all abstracted for you.

    But go ahead and tell me why C and C++ are mid-level language.

    From Wikipedia:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In computer science, a low-level programming language is a programming language that provides little or no abstraction from a computer's instruction set architecture. Generally this refers to either machine code or assembly language.
    Last edited by Thyranne; 2013-10-23 at 10:25 AM.

  15. #155
    You can do all that in C and C++, which is why they are considered mid-level, not high-level. In a high-level language, you can't even access those if you want to.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    You can do all that in C and C++, which is why they are considered mid-level, not high-level. In a high-level language, you can't even access those if you want to.
    And how do you do it in C++? Show me an example of how you deal with a register in C++.

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Thyranne View Post
    And how do you do it in C++? Show me an example of how you deal with a register in C++.

    You can use the asm keyword to write assembly within c/c++

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Thyranne View Post
    And how do you do it in C++? Show me an example of how you deal with a register in C++.
    You can get the address of the registers and set pointers on them. That's how. A quick google search gives an example

  19. #159
    In Pascal:

    Code:
    procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
    begin
    asm
      mov ebx, 20;
      push ebx;      
      pop eax;
    end;
    end;
    Pascal is still a high level language.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Thyranne View Post
    From Wikipedia:
    From Wikipedia:
    The terms high-level and low-level are inherently relative. Some decades ago, the C language, and similar languages, were most often considered "high-level". Many programmers today might refer to C as low-level.
    You should have read a little further.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •