tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post7027583993189844574..comments2024-02-27T14:44:07.868+01:00Comments on Greedy goblin: Normalization of devianceGevlonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-19002590267281292202010-06-11T06:19:11.001+02:002010-06-11T06:19:11.001+02:00Gevlon: "Also, I've seen several such wav...Gevlon: "Also, I've seen several such waves be destroyed before they reached the wall. The tower cannons can AoE them down. They are vulnerable to other forms of AoE too."<br /><br />If the attackers aren't taking down tower cannons before building siege, then they deserve to be wiped off the map. Cannons can't be resurrected once destroyed, do about 4k AoE DPS to vehicles when aimed well, and should be the very first target of any attacking team.<br /><br />Furthermore, if your siege are walking straight into an ambush 50 yds out from the wall and aren't splitting up and changing directions to get around, again, they deserve to fail.Squishalothttp://www.wowhead.com/user=Squishalotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-12141397078493317842010-06-10T14:42:27.927+02:002010-06-10T14:42:27.927+02:00"How can "normalization of deviance"..."How can "normalization of deviance" exist at all? I mean how can someone accept something normal that he knows to be wrong? Because of social conformity. They do not want to challenge the nonsense accepted by their peers."<br /><br />i give another reason:<br /><br />If logic fails, it's quite reasonable to assume that the premise is simply wrong, for instance you might have neglected a variable in your formula , calculating the outcome is only possible if you take in all variables, if your information is incomplete your logic will fail, often searching for the missing piece is deemed too expensive and so people gamble with their luck that it just keeps going like alwaysAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-18266096102876777122010-06-10T00:53:15.815+02:002010-06-10T00:53:15.815+02:00On our server, alliance offense almost always wins...On our server, alliance offense almost always wins. The strat is basically go to the front gate, kill all cannons and any players that show up, barrel straight through the front gate and the next gate too.<br /><br />If horde defends the front gate, we get our kills fast and can get sieges, if they dont, enough people kill random horde npcs to get sieges and force a defense to show up.<br /><br />Considering that we severely out number the horde and that CCs if equally applied can change a 20v10 into a 11v1 very easily, I really don't see how even coordinated defense could compete.Ryan Barkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17831835122741811138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-75390677019172916782010-06-09T23:42:22.959+02:002010-06-09T23:42:22.959+02:00So the problem with your analogy is just because W...So the problem with your analogy is just because Wintergrasp doesn't work the way you want it to doesn't matter. Blizzard doesn't care if each of the individual parts work perfectly because it doesn't cost money to let the problem slide it costs to fix it. In the case of a video game there are no environmental, health or safety hazards to worry about, the only thing to worry about is player attrition. As long as the game is working well enough to maintain the player base than there is no failure, as long as Blizzard continues to make a profit from the game there is no failure. Your complaint is about a cosmetic problem not a systemic problem and from a business viewpoint I would have a hard time justifying a fix to a zone that will be played a lot less than zones in the upcoming expansion. Furthermore the problem as you see it probably isn't causing much if any player attrition. From the standpoint of the greatest enjoyment of the greatest number of people (which is what Blizzard is going for) it doesn't make much sense to design a battleground that one side can hold forever.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030795283340847251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-87610130133659555892010-06-09T23:14:28.297+02:002010-06-09T23:14:28.297+02:00if you see something that does not work according ...<i>if you see something that does not work according to the logic, question the thing, not the logic.</i><br /><br />This is right if you mean questioning your assumptions. For example, that WG consists of teams, that winning WG is the reason people play, that battlegrounds represent competitive environments, that a "good solution" is superior to a "good enough solution," etc.<br /><br />Lacking any sort of leadership, commitment to success, coordination of team play or long-term interaction, the question should really be why any PUGs ever succeed?<br /><br />In an instance, you must contribute to the group effort in order to achieve personal objectives, the group can kick out underperforming members and replace them with better, the pace can be slow enough for adjustments to be made, there is a cost of failure (repair bill, long corpse run), and the division of labor is clear (tank, healer, dps). Battleground PUGs lack all of these.<br /><br />If one were to design a bg for how it will actually be played, the assumption of headless chickens is far better than the assumption of rational teams. The design challenge becomes how to prevent premades from completely dominating any battleground they choose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-20155333307068117802010-06-09T23:13:04.182+02:002010-06-09T23:13:04.182+02:00Normal - adj. - Conforming with, adhering to, or c...Normal - adj. - Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical<br /><br />Based on that definition, I would contend that Wintergrasp's behavior is normal. What you want really, is the way Wintergrasp is supposed to be based on its design. However, isn't that what you complain that 'socials' are constantly trying to do? Impose some standard of the way things are supposed to be.<br /><br />(Couldn't resist pointing that out. Now for a real response to the issue you raise)<br /><br />In effect, if you want Wintergrasp fixed, convince more people to think and act strategically. If the result (that Wintergrasp defenses are regularly successful) is made more prevalent, Blizzard will address the issue.<br /><br />You have several very valid points, on the engines, ease of defensive strategy, etc. However, Blizzard is looking for a situation where the place changes hands regularly. The only way they'll do anything about it is if it ceases changing hands. And that will only happen when we get groups defending the place that know how to do it.<br /><br />Your Shuttle analagy, while amusing, is less than successful. People accept hazardous situations all the time, and have a tendency to address 'the last crisis' rather than addressing the situation that causes the crises in the first place. <br /><br />Your best bet of achieving the change you want is to spread information on how to defend Wintergrasp as far and as wide as possible. If even the idiots know how to win, eventually, they will. And when Blizzard sees that it is broken in that way, they will address it.<br /><br />However, my advice to you is to forget it. At this point, Cataclysm will be out long before you can teach enough idiots to win Wintergrasp. And once it is out, why would you want to come back to Wintergrasp?Jack Shotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-91760160951758059762010-06-09T21:17:44.265+02:002010-06-09T21:17:44.265+02:00Even putting WG aside, this is a very rampant poin...Even putting WG aside, this is a very rampant point of view in the world:<br /><br />"Sure, it has problems, but it is working, isn't it? Why change it." I encountered this view in almost every business I've worked for.<br /><br />Back in WoW - I see the same thing in LFD groups. <br /><br />"Could you please stop ?"<br /><br />"I didn't die, did I?" (This is a quote I have heard frequently from someone doing what I call "The Dumb".) Alternate versions of this response are "lol its fine" and "stfu i no how 2 play".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-69511372913256615882010-06-09T20:47:44.346+02:002010-06-09T20:47:44.346+02:00@Gevlon:
Walls cannot be repaired or rebuilt. Ev...@Gevlon:<br /><br />Walls cannot be repaired or rebuilt. Even if attackers only manage to get a couple of shots in every few minutes, eventually they get that wall down. If the attackers are really "playing perfectly too," they might not get the wall down in one try, but they are going to get in a lot more than just a couple of shots.Samushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02310391280860277082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-69096968153864891012010-06-09T20:22:17.867+02:002010-06-09T20:22:17.867+02:00errmmm, you can heal siege vehicles.
Goblin Beam ...errmmm, you can heal siege vehicles.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wowhead.com/spell=67326" rel="nofollow">Goblin Beam Welder.</a>Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-59710149652944679202010-06-09T19:18:29.777+02:002010-06-09T19:18:29.777+02:00Basil H. Liddell Hart, a British officer and veter...Basil H. Liddell Hart, a British officer and veteran of the Great War, was the foremost military strategist of the interwar period. Highly influential before and after the Second World War, Hart’s theories on mobility in war would influence combat operations and strategy throughout the 20th Century. His concepts of maneuver warfare distill into three components: the use of grand strategy and tactics to paralyze the enemy, the adopting of the indirect approach, and the importance of technology in combat (Wheeler 2). <br /><br />Liddell Hart, drawing on his experiences from the Great War, believed that technology made the defense superior to the offense, rendering the massive frontal attack obsolete. However, he believed armored or mechanized forces brought to bear against the enemy in a moment of surprise could achieve a breakthrough if the enemy was unable to adequately maneuver (Bond 612). The necessity of surprise, coupled with maneuver, would build momentum in combat, paralyzing the enemy in indecision (Carver 797). After the Second World War, Hart believed that the attack would be successful if the indirect approach was adopted, which not only focused on surprise and maneuver, but on the psychological dimension of warfare. Wheeler summarizes Hart’s focus on the mental side of war:<br /><br />That the dimension in which wars are really won or lost is essentially a psychological dimension. Wars reflect conflicts that grow out of human relationships, and human relationships are but a manifestation of the influences which human beings exert, one upon the other. So far as a study of war is concerned, then, the central truth implied by this state of affairs is that ‘the real target in war is the mind of the enemy commander, not the bodies of his troops.’ (Wheeler 2)<br /><br />The theory of the indirect approach had expanded from avoiding a frontal attack, to the use of surprise and maneuver to overcome the inherent strength of the defensive position. Once maneuver was employed and surprise achieved, the enemy would be psychologically devastated, paralyzed into inaction by the momentum built through the application of the indirect approach (Danchev 313-315).Muneyoshinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-26621779021287582932010-06-09T18:24:50.495+02:002010-06-09T18:24:50.495+02:00@Svenn: The main reason it's easier for the he...@Svenn: The main reason it's easier for the headless chickens to assault, is that it's a set visual goal to get into the base and you can cram everybody into one spot to break through.<br /><br />Being defense, it's harder, as you have to be ever vigilant for that one smart player that goes to the oposite side and smashes down a wall before he or she's noticed.<br /><br />Or worse, having assaulters split up into groups and attacking various kinds of directions. <br /><br />However, that only takes a few defenders to disrupt.<br /><br />The most important thing a defender has to do is one thing: <br /><br />Do not die.<br /><br />If you die as a defender, you provide the assaulters a step closer to promotion, which means better sieges coming your way.Denethalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-38409705289235670692010-06-09T18:22:58.869+02:002010-06-09T18:22:58.869+02:00Yo,
"They lack leadership, and the will to ...<a href="http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2010/06/normalization-of-deviance.html?showComment=1276066383064#c8727629797802227522" rel="nofollow">Yo,</a> <br /><br /><i>"They lack leadership, and the will to follow a leader if one appears."</i><br /><br />I think that's a typo, but you summarized my experience succinctly; they lack the will to follow a leader if one appears.<br /><br />Also, people try to strat up all the time in my battlegroup, so it looks like we have some heterogeneous culture going on. (The strats suck, and people don't follow them anyway.)<br /><br />Support of heterogeneity; I win most of my BGs, by not going into the ones my side is currently losing. My experience closely matches Gevlon's, where each side does have a strat, and which wins is basically down to who's winning the cultural evolution arms race. If right now my side's culture adds up to the losing strat, then there's absolutely nothing I can do. (And vice-versa.) And importantly, it's dead easy to recognize. <br /><br />Though I did single-handedly win an EotS once by death gripping literally a second before the flag cap and two before we won.Alrenousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-13142556560408789712010-06-09T18:03:14.719+02:002010-06-09T18:03:14.719+02:00The US Army accepts the fact that the defense has ...The US Army accepts the fact that the defense has the advantage and as such recommends a 3:1 ratio to ensure success when conducting a frontal assault (ie. WG); where success is defined as an acceptable number of casualties and lost equipment while, preserving enough combat power for future operations. Assaults conducted at less than 3:1 odds are not necessarily doomed to failure, just more likely to be resultant in higher losses in terms of personnel and equipment.<br /><br />Given the WG scenario, dealing with virtual personnel and equipment, body counts and deadlined vehicles becomes less of an issue (there are still impacts in terms of time and morale but to a much lesser extent than the $s involved in training troops and building tanks/planes etc.). So, with resource issues out of the way, the WG assault becomes a tactical/operation issue (with strategic implications). <br /><br />A good assault leader thinking operationally in terms of Main Effort, Supporting and Shaping efforts, Priorities of Work, etc. while executing tactically in terms of Task Organization, Cover and Concealment, Mission, etc. while keeping in mind the ever present economics problem of time v. resources should have moderate expectations of success. <br /><br />Of course, the number of people conversant in the operational art of war and savvy enough to develop a decision support matrix to fit the WG assault framework is few; hence the headless chicken assault strat which as we see can still prevail over the headless chicken defense strat given enough time and determination.Svennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02935670473536797042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-35969787067954519272010-06-09T18:00:56.654+02:002010-06-09T18:00:56.654+02:00There is always a reason why things are the way th...There is always a reason why things are the way they are. I think the reason that people don't play to win in WG, while they do when playing basketball or other sports, is the reward structure. You still get honor and a mark for losing, so lazy people are ok with playing to lose. In a game of basketball, winning is all that counts, so people tend to focus on that more, and there is simply no room for the lazy who just want to jack up airballs.Eaten by a Gruehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01741777795065029482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-59768670868395910742010-06-09T16:52:14.271+02:002010-06-09T16:52:14.271+02:00>I also liked the comparison between
>WG-fai...>I also liked the comparison between<br />>WG-fails and shuttle explosions. I<br />>agree that Blizzard's mindset seems to<br />>be that that which has not yet gone<br />>catastrophically wrong must be<br />>'working as intended'.<br /><br /> Time management: there's always more work than workers. This isn't a safety issue where people die, it's just a game where Blizz chases my dollars by giving me what I want.<br /><br /> If you want WG fixed, describe why it should get more priority than the other work they are currently (not) doing. You may reach the same conclusion, but with a real reason to justify it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-4214754648196672472010-06-09T15:33:30.893+02:002010-06-09T15:33:30.893+02:00There are still tactics on attacks we haven't ...There are still tactics on attacks we haven't tried out yet, such as optimizing defenses of sieges.<br /><br />Properly executed, a siege can be a devestating movable fortress that can be used both as an distraction or as main attack siege.<br /><br />Of course, a full siege attack is devastating as well, but one RP-GG can, as mentioned, blow them all to smitherines. <br />That's why defending the sieges is important. Ranged protectors should always look for RP-GG wielding players, as well as taking down cannons and healers.<br /><br />Using the sieges to their full capabilities is key when assaulting.Denethalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-9947494215224552722010-06-09T13:24:45.334+02:002010-06-09T13:24:45.334+02:00Actually, I see this WG problem the other way roun...Actually, I see this WG problem the other way round :<br />Designers managed to build a pvp zone which is "working" (ie attackers or defenders can win, and find it fun) when both sides are poorly organised. This kind of open world bg is expected to attract random players without any global strategy, rather than organised premades.<br /><br />I'm not really surprised that an organised team is over-advantaged, possibly breaking the game. <br /><br />I'm not trying to explain that well organised pvp-ers are cheating here; but that I don't consider that wintergrasp was primarily designed for them.Vinnznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-90345377238274906552010-06-09T13:06:17.792+02:002010-06-09T13:06:17.792+02:00Not saying you're wrong Gevlon (I have no expe...Not saying you're wrong Gevlon (I have no expertise in VoA), but your data doesn't really amount to a whole lot. Your latest WG post shows one week of battles on one server, all of which (I assume) were your dedicated PvP guild versus whoever showed up Horde-side. You even admit that by Friday the Horde wasn't even really trying. Over this period of time your record of defense in prime time was 7-1, overall record of defense was 11-4. This is an impressive record, but hardly enough data to claim that it "practically impossible to win as assault".<br /><br />I think you're giving Blizzard too hard a time about "normalization of deviance" as well. It's not all ignorance, it's also about priorities. Blizzard has a new expansion coming up, for which they plan to rework every class (drastically in some cases) and are currently developing a new world PvP zone, battleground, and several new instances. Is it really the best use of their time to fix a WG imbalance issue that (until now) no one was apparently capable of exploiting? Unlike the space shuttle disasters, the risk of not fixing the problem is relatively low.<br /><br />My guess is that with the advent of rated battlegrounds Blizzard will pay more attention to battleground balance, as it is easier to judge balance when teams are at approximately equal skill. However, they could also just ignore it and let PvP languish while they focus entirely on PvE. Time will tell what their priorities will become.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-11112060329823475122010-06-09T13:00:17.783+02:002010-06-09T13:00:17.783+02:00Amazing Gev. This is one of the best post I ever r...Amazing Gev. This is one of the best post I ever read.John Newhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030041155022521163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-75623454328281661682010-06-09T11:34:30.128+02:002010-06-09T11:34:30.128+02:00In my experience of software programming we encoun...In my experience of software programming we encounter these situations with relatively high frequency. Something works but it does thanks to what we call "double errors", one error balanced by another one. It's impressive the number of times we encounter such things, sometimes they are really non-obvious and you wouldn't believe it's possible for them to emerge.<br /><br />I realized then that it's simply Darwin at work: if it works it survives, just like the O-ring faulty design. It did work and survived, until it met unfavorable conditions which exposed the hidden flaws. <br /><br />Completely wrong solutions are discarded, working ones either are correctly designed or "happen to work", thus the high frequency you can observe (correct design can be a quite rare thing).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-34037816660462863722010-06-09T11:19:39.759+02:002010-06-09T11:19:39.759+02:00@Samus: you are wrong. I'm claiming (and tryin...@Samus: you are wrong. I'm claiming (and trying to prove with data in the ganking guild) that the attackers can't take the keep in 5 days if the defenders are not making mistakes even if the attackers themselves are not making mistakes either.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-37707266536326781282010-06-09T11:19:39.021+02:002010-06-09T11:19:39.021+02:00@Samus: you are wrong. I'm claiming (and tryin...@Samus: you are wrong. I'm claiming (and trying to prove with data in the ganking guild) that the attackers can't take the keep in 5 days if the defenders are not making mistakes even if the attackers themselves are not making mistakes either.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-68798002446187739162010-06-09T11:17:06.809+02:002010-06-09T11:17:06.809+02:00I don't think you're looking at it the rig...I don't think you're looking at it the right way, Gevlon. If the time limit was 5 minutes, even the worst defenders would never lose. If the time limit was 5 hours, the attackers would always win <i>eventually.</i><br /><br />So what about 30 minutes, is that too long for the attacker to have or too short? The data suggest it is slightly too long.Samushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02310391280860277082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-44381707743156446092010-06-09T10:25:08.412+02:002010-06-09T10:25:08.412+02:00Haven't you read the article about how the wg ...Haven't you read the article about how the wg balance is beeing done?<br />It was on wow.com taken from blue post. I cant remember thing but basically, if alliance lost the last 5 games or even more, they start as some siege workshops already capped for alliance, and if they lost even more, they can build siege rightaway dont have to wait to get rank, etc and there are more favor to the losing team, you just need to find that blue post.<br /><br />The real problem with wg is the tenacity.Lets say you are 1 vs 1 with an ally who has 20 tenacity, lets say you are near back west tower and he 1 shots you. wtf? there are no hordies around but he still has 20 tenacity on 1 vs 1. The real fail is this. The game should check the area, lets say 100 yards around if its 1 vs 1, then the ally shouldnt have tenacity. If he walks into some area where there are more hordies in the 100 area range,then the game automcatiicaly inc his tenacity. yeah this would fix wg a bit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-75886880601254466122010-06-09T09:37:37.428+02:002010-06-09T09:37:37.428+02:00@yaggle: why the fuck would you stay in that guild...@yaggle: why the fuck would you stay in that guild for more than an hour?<br />Pugs do far better than them, so just ditch themAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com