If I have a minute I might have a closer look but - no disrespect - I have a feeling your game theory may be flawed You don't eliminate strategies by the number of wins and losses against other strategies but solely on the principle of being dominated. i.e. one strategy is worse than another regardless the move of your opponent. You can factor in cost, information etc. But just saying one strategy wins more often than another does not allow you to eliminate one or the other.
If I have a minute I might have a closer look but - no disrespect - I have a feeling your game theory may be flawed You don't eliminate strategies by the number of wins and losses against other strategies but solely on the principle of being dominated. i.e. one strategy is worse than another regardless the move of your opponent. You can factor in cost, information etc. But just saying one strategy wins more often than another does not allow you to eliminate one or the other.
Fair enough. I avoided technical terms for general consumption.
In the parlance of game theory, at the first table Min Diversity, Highest Quality is a strictly dominated strategy with no victory conditions, warranting iterative deletion.
In the second stage Max Diversity, No Dupes is a weakly dominated strategy where every other option is preferable, also warranting iterative deletion.
Obviously, the final graph displays two strategems, with Max Diversity, High Quality strictly dominating Minor Diversity, High Quality. The deletion of that would have left an unnecessary 1x1 graph.
I will admit there may be flaws with my approach to this particular problem, but I'm fairly confident that this approach and solution is sufficient to illuminate the major flaw in the new AW system, which - to restate - is that the rules and context do not provide an environment with a sufficient number of viable options to achieve victory conditions.
AW2.0 is not problematic because of the introduction of Diversity, nor is it the point score system per-se.
The problem with AW2.0 is that the design is such that there are no strategic options for any of us, so we will all by necessity choose the exact same tactic.
The introduction of Defenders Diversity possesses an indirect effect to the overall game, apart from the AW.
I do believe that Defenders Diversity was based on the sincere effort by Kabam to persuade more and more people on using the first 5* champs (which most summoners haven't upgraded yet to the same or better level as some god-tier 4*s). That would have been the first-step onto the bigger transition towards the first 6*s. (...I guess...)
The problematic with that thought was the aggressive way that it was introduced to the game, through the "Defender diversity", as it didn't calculate properly that summoners' investment on upgrading only a few, and not all their champs was because of the huge costs on time, effort and (in some cases) money.... in order to upgrade those few
When such a parameter (that doesn't calculate properly the overall game mechanics) is introduced into a game, then havoc is created.
You could shift some points around, you could restore defender kills, you could redraw the map a little - all pretty easy things to do. The problem is that if Kabam does not fully consider the consequences of the little changes that they make then I, or someone like me, will quickly write an optimization formula and we will be right back where we are.
The bold sentence is where the treasure is hidden.
..."does not fully consider the consequences of the little changes"... (and mods, I am not saying this in a bad manner).
As this game is based on so many details and variables, it requires a huge load of resources from summoners (I mentioned them earlier). And since small micro-changes into multi-variable calculations can create big "conflicts" to the macro-environment, if done wrong, they require extreme fine-tuning in order to avoid creating those conflicts. And the introduction of AW v2 didn't calculate all the variables properly.
Yet... you did, sir!
And I congratulate you for such an inspiring, comprehensive and scientific analysis.
I applaud you @JJW for taking the time and energy in creating your thorough and well presented analysis that I believe would only be argued by those who fail to comprehend it.
Also, it could be possible that your analysis is exactly what Kabam needed to decide they were obligated to respond to, opposed to the countless numbers of posts(including my own) that expressed more of the players "emotional" analysis. Not that those were incorrect or invalid, but maybe Kabam understand opinions expressed in indisputable numbers and equations better than they do anything else.
TBH, I hope they shut down AW for an extended maintenance however long it may take for them to release a complete finished product that thoughtfully took into full consideration all the consequences of the changes the intend to make rather than "wing it" and make changes as we go along. Thanks again for your fantastic write up!
Comments
You should come chat with us on the server Saturday just to make sure you are mic'd up well.
Fair enough. I avoided technical terms for general consumption.
In the parlance of game theory, at the first table Min Diversity, Highest Quality is a strictly dominated strategy with no victory conditions, warranting iterative deletion.
In the second stage Max Diversity, No Dupes is a weakly dominated strategy where every other option is preferable, also warranting iterative deletion.
Obviously, the final graph displays two strategems, with Max Diversity, High Quality strictly dominating Minor Diversity, High Quality. The deletion of that would have left an unnecessary 1x1 graph.
I will admit there may be flaws with my approach to this particular problem, but I'm fairly confident that this approach and solution is sufficient to illuminate the major flaw in the new AW system, which - to restate - is that the rules and context do not provide an environment with a sufficient number of viable options to achieve victory conditions.
The introduction of Defenders Diversity possesses an indirect effect to the overall game, apart from the AW.
I do believe that Defenders Diversity was based on the sincere effort by Kabam to persuade more and more people on using the first 5* champs (which most summoners haven't upgraded yet to the same or better level as some god-tier 4*s). That would have been the first-step onto the bigger transition towards the first 6*s. (...I guess...)
The problematic with that thought was the aggressive way that it was introduced to the game, through the "Defender diversity", as it didn't calculate properly that summoners' investment on upgrading only a few, and not all their champs was because of the huge costs on time, effort and (in some cases) money.... in order to upgrade those few
When such a parameter (that doesn't calculate properly the overall game mechanics) is introduced into a game, then havoc is created.
The bold sentence is where the treasure is hidden.
..."does not fully consider the consequences of the little changes"... (and mods, I am not saying this in a bad manner).
As this game is based on so many details and variables, it requires a huge load of resources from summoners (I mentioned them earlier). And since small micro-changes into multi-variable calculations can create big "conflicts" to the macro-environment, if done wrong, they require extreme fine-tuning in order to avoid creating those conflicts. And the introduction of AW v2 didn't calculate all the variables properly.
Yet... you did, sir!
And I congratulate you for such an inspiring, comprehensive and scientific analysis.
Thank you.
Also, it could be possible that your analysis is exactly what Kabam needed to decide they were obligated to respond to, opposed to the countless numbers of posts(including my own) that expressed more of the players "emotional" analysis. Not that those were incorrect or invalid, but maybe Kabam understand opinions expressed in indisputable numbers and equations better than they do anything else.
TBH, I hope they shut down AW for an extended maintenance however long it may take for them to release a complete finished product that thoughtfully took into full consideration all the consequences of the changes the intend to make rather than "wing it" and make changes as we go along. Thanks again for your fantastic write up!