A case for DPS ... or ... Why MMO maths is too obvious

[Ronin Storm]

So, I noticed Panda complaining about the use of the term DPS, meaning Damage Per Second, as relates to games with guns. To quote from the shoutbox:

why is the term dps being used in a game with guns?

[...]

because guns don't do damage per second?

[...]

ballistic weaponry does damage based on whether you hit something, and where you hit something, and how hard you hit

Juba made a good point:

dps is an abstract measure of how much damage divided by how much time you did it in is all

I'd like to elaborate on that but simultaneously look at a different problem that I believe may actually be the real problem.

So, DPS. Damage Per Second. It's an almost ubiquitous measure in MMOs to assess the effectiveness of a particular weapon, spell or even class at dealing damage.

At its simplest, it's a way to compare apples to oranges (or swords to fireballs). Take the following basic example:

Rusty Sword, 10 damage, strikes every 5 seconds
Masterwork Axe, 50 damage, strikes every 10 seconds
Deadly Lance, 100 damage, strikes every 100 seconds

Which weapon is better? The Rusty Sword is obviously a bit crap, but at first glance, you might be tempted by the Deadly Lance due to the high damage value, but then you look at how frequently you strike with it and would be immediately put off. Why?

Rusty Sword = 10 / 5 = 2 DPS
Masterwork Axe = 50 / 10 = 5 DPS
Deadly Lance = 100 / 100 = 1 DPS

Yep, as any MMO player would have automatically told you, the best weapon is the Masterwork Axe and that Deadly Lance is a clear turkey.

Okay, that's fine, but bonuses versus certain creatures, effects over time, the role of resistance or armour, and even chance to do extra damage via criticals all play a role.

Thing is, it doesn't matter what you do with it, it boils down to an equation that gives you a sense of damage per second.

e.g.

Magical Axe of Flaming Doom, 500 damage + 50 fire damage per second for 10 seconds + 20% chance of double damage from a critical, strikes every 10 seconds

500 / 10 = 50 DPS basic
+ 50 DPS fire damage = 100 DPS
+ an average of 500 extra damage every fifth hit, giving + 10 DPS from criticals = 110 DPS total

That total is effectively risk adjusted. The risk is that you keep not getting a critical strike, so that extra 10 DPS never actually manifests. However, on average, you should be getting it, so you factor it in as an estimated value. The minimum DPS is 100, and the maximum 150 (assuming no criticals ever, or always criticals respectively). It's common to give low:mid:high values when dealing with risk adjustment, so our Magical Axe of Flaming Doom has a DPS of 100:110:150 with a triangular distribution between them.

Fine, so, it's an equation with some risk involved, but it's still pretty straight forward.

Now, we could start to factor in chances to miss your strike entirely (thus dealing zero damage), or for your target to dodge, parry, block, or whatever, but we're just adding some more risk factors to that base DPS. All we're doing is affecting the shape of the distribution curve and the minimum possible value (noting that when adding the ability to cause 0 damage on any individual strike, the actual minimum becomes 0...).

Fine, so we can break any system down to DPS and we get a common way of analysing any attack on any opponent. Indeed, we can do this for any attack mechanism.

Assault Rifle, 20 damage + 50% chance of double damage critical, fires once every second

Assuming a 50% chance to hit (to keep the maths easy) ...

20 / 1 = 20 DPS base
Adjust for 50% chance of missing = 10 DPS
Add chance of critical every other hit = 15 DPS

Okay, that's probably not perfect and I don't doubt that somebody schooled in this would slap my simplistic approach to combining those percentages around, but it'll do for this example. Indeed, given a chance of missing all the time, or a chance of hitting with criticals all the time, our range is 0:15:40 though I'd not care to hazard a guess at the shape of the distribution.

So, can guns have DPS? Sure they can. Just like anything that has a frequency of attack and a value of damage dealt (risk adjusted or whatever).

But then to my ancilliary point:

Where's the fun in that? Hasn't that just made the experience of slaying a mighty foe a matter of doing the not-exactly-complex maths in advance? Okay, probably not entirely, especially as with larger fights with more combatants on each side, the mix of probability curves becomes significantly more difficult to understand, but the one-on-one approach still bears some resemblance to this analysis. Indeed, there's plenty-a-website that will gleefully share the innermost workings of any weapon you care to mention and break it down to the DPS.

And that is my problem. It's like Han Solo said to C3-P0, "Don't tell me the odds!" If I can tell I'm going to win based on the rate of damage I'm doing versus the rate of damage my opponent is doing then where's the sense of fighting chance, of last minute comeback, of beating the odds? Where's the sense of heroic adventure?

I don't think Panda's real issue is with DPS. It's just a model, just applied maths. I think it's with the product of DPS, the netdecking (or whatever you'd call it for MMOs) and resulting loss of mystery and potential for lack of innovation. Here's the best weapon. Use that. All other choices are less optimal, or even wrong. And why would you want to play a game wrong?

 

[Kasatka]

I think the problem is more with tradition MMOs where you have a levels, and thus everything must be about progressions. A weapon for a level 1 character has to be worse than a weapon for a level 50 character, and NPC enemies have to have their HP buffed over time to remain a challenge. It's an age old issue with computer games, especially role-play and shooter games (remember Doom-style bosses who could withstand dozens of rockets just to make them challenging?)

Now a great example of where DPS calculations are both necessary and not game breaking is Eve Online. It's a game without levelling, where all you can do is gain a small percentile improvement to the same gear that anyone can use. As such there is no "ultimate correct way to play" and it call comes down to personal preference, skill set and how good your maths is.
There are plenty of players who just slap stuff on their ships and run about, but the truly skilled player isn't just someone with lots of money, or a powerful ship, they have run calculations on their weapons damage output, optimal ranges, tracking speeds and thus distances to orbit targets, warp in and out times, lock times etc.

It's a plethora of mathematics that doesn't obfuscate itself behind aspects of the game - it revels in the fact that you are playing a spreadsheet with a glorified GUI.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

MMO:
I always thought DPS was about the maximum theoretical damage with a given setup in a given class in a given roll, Whether a player could reach it, and all the given factors that could reduce their dmg dealt were irrelevant.

A player doing 2000 dps on an a 50%immune/mirror enemy would still be superior to a player doing 1800 on an unarmoured foe.

I never played DPS in an endgame MMO - because i didnt like being told the best way to play. As blizzard have said, in the case of WoW, talent trees are pointless because someone will find the best DPS spec, and the game is over. I did dps for relaxing only.

FPS:
I wrote some stuff, but didnt make sense.

 

[Ronin Storm]

calculations on their weapons damage output, optimal ranges, tracking speeds and thus distances to orbit targets, warp in and out times, lock times etc.

Interestingly, I think that making the maths sufficiently complicated that determining the outcome has actually become quite difficult is one way to help avoid netdecking, especially when chaotic variables are put into play (e.g. what will the other player do, given the exact same setup, but also given choice over speed, heading, turn radius, angle of attack, etc). As you say, you can't just give a single right answer as the results are situation dependent and somewhat non-linear.

That said, even EVE panders to the progression with tiers of equipment with increasing effectiveness at higher tiers. Perhaps that's necessary, to an extent? Or even natural? I'm not sure.

 

[thatbloke]

It's simple. You have all of these various stats that affect things to some certain degree, but there will always be someone out there that will boil it down to the most simple representation possible - see Gearscore in WoW for instance, which I think is the worst invention ever.

If my number if bigger than your number then i'm better than you.

 

[Huung]

It's simple. You have all of these various stats that affect things to some certain degree, but there will always be someone out there that will boil it down to the most simple representation possible - see Gearscore in WoW for instance, which I think is the worst invention ever.

If my number if bigger than your number then i'm better than you.

If my number is bigger than your number, I have overall a better level of gear than you*

Which is true.

I like DPS; I like Damage Done more (as it shows a better measure of time on target). Either way, I LIKE the maths which goes into these kinds of things, it's what keeps me playing.

I find with MMOs where they've tried to make the mechanics "interesting" I tend to just find them "sloppy" instead. If I don't feel like I'm doing the absolute best I possibly can be, I get annoyed with myself. Same goes for a team of people - if I'm putting in as much effort as I can be to fulfil my role and help the team, why aren't others?

I know this grinds on some people, as they like to play the game "their way" rather than "the right way" but it's the right way for a reason. It's the way you get to do the most amount of stuff in the least amount of time with the lowest chance to fail. That to me is fun. Sure, sometimes failing cataclysmically is fun, but repeatedly doing so because people are "doing it their way" instead of what the maths has told them is superior, is just annoying. I love maths, always have done. Things like DPS are the embodiment of maths in a game, and thus I can't get enough of it.

I think it all comes down to your mindset, at the end of the day. If you're of the mindset you want to push yourself to do the best you absolutely can, and achieve as much as possible, you're likely the kind of person who likes the stats, and the DPS nature of games.

If, however, you're the kind of person who just enjoys letting the game take them where it will, and are happy to coast along doing whatever as long as it doesn't require too much thought (after all, it's a game, it should be fun, right? Thinking isn't much fun, so the less fancy numbers to have to think about, the better) then you're probably the kind of person who shuns the DPS bits.

Just my 2p.

 

[thatbloke]

If my number is bigger than your number, I have overall a better level of gear than you*

No it means I'm better than you.

(I'm sure you see my point by now)

 

[Panda with issues...]

I'm glad that (for once) something positive (this thread) came from one of my rants.

My biases for this stuff are well known.

The problem I think for me is that none of these terms have any place in a role playing game. The point of a role playing game is to enjoy yourself, immerse yourself in a character and a story. I understand that often games need to have some of these mechanics (though whatever Ronin says, I still feel that DPS is a ludicrous term to use for gunplay), but tuning yourself to hold the 'Axe of Being a total twat +4' and wear 'Heavy metal plate of the wanker +20' utterly breaks immersion.

I know it's a shortcut that is probably necessary, but reducing things that are ultimately undefineable in a numerate way really annoys me. I don't put my jumper on in the morning and think, thank god this jumper provides at least 4 more protection from cold than the t shirt underneath, and if someone were to hit me with a hammer I'll be 1 time more protected, no matter whether they hit me in the face or the foot. I think it's lazy design, but I can see why these things are reduced to numbers and chances in games.

The main question is WHY ARE THESE NUMBERS BEING SPLASHED ALL OVER GAMES.

'Here traveller, buy my Mace + 6 and ring of asshat +4 and feel safer!' shockingly enough isn't something I heard when I was in the market today. When the point of a game is immersion, which is the case with RPGs, all you're doing with showing these things is preventing someone from sliding deeper into that world you've painstakingly created. I don't get stats breakdowns when I buy a new badminton racket, just like I don't get told 'this sausage will keep you fuller for 2 hours more than that one' in the supermarket. When you hand out arbitrary statistics in games, you just show the shortcuts you've had to make in design (as well as remove mystery and fun from games as ronin articulated earlier).

No army in the world chooses their weapons based on something like damage per second, though I suspect rate of fire is probably something they DO look at. Having stats that actually mean something doesn't bother me in the slightest.

When I play games like left 4 dead and ArmA II I chose weapons based on how they feel and whether I think they're working for me, though you can probably guarrantee that the game has a bunch of made up statistics behind the operational front that decides how much damage they do. I DON'T WANT TO KNOW THESE THINGS.

I wish RPGs would just have weapons called 'Really big silver axe - feels lighter than you expect, so you can probably swing it quite fast, it's also quite sharp so you don't think it will have trouble cutting through chainmail'

I'm sure some toolstoy somewhere has extracted all the weapon stats for left 4 dead and boiled everything down to optimisation, I don't want to know, if I believed there was a hell, i'd hope they burned in it. As it is, I'd settle for them having to live in Ethiopia.

Ultimately, in some ways, this is about playing the game YOUR way. - If some twat wants to piece together all the stats and optimise himself to death, that's his choice. Splashing stats everywhere in these games prevents me from playing them in the way I want to play them. It's the same reason I don't really like D and D very much. Too much dice, less roleplay.

I think it's a sort of 'uncanny valley' situation. - Some games look like games, and are designed to be played as games, some games offer the ability to slide into a story, or become a character etc. - Why do these games then do everything they can to break immersion with statistics?

When I played a lot of warhammer, and some smelly loser would make snide comments about my lists being suboptimal, I'd just go and play someone else in a game, it doesn't work quite the same way when the game is the issue. The social contract doesn't work.

I think it's one of the reasons I really liked the witcher. - As far as I can remember, it DIDN'T have any stats, just comments like 'Silver sword - Good against monsters, not so good against humans', 'chainmail - more protective than leather'.

The sad fact of the secret world is that the half hour developer vid showed them using all these terms which I've made no bones about, I hate, but using these tems just indicated to me that they aren't going to be trying anything even remotely new, it's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[Juba]

wel while I can get where you are coming from panda it has to be remembered that the dev's are talking to people who play mmo's and therefore use the languange that is normal to them. I personally dont get the impression that their will be a best weapon for every situation as weapons are very dependent on what your skills are so playing how you like should be more than possible. See the attached synergys chart http://www.darkdemonscrygaia.com/showthread.php?t=25719

On a more general note...I think what you are not taking into account in mmo's are there arent just a handful of weapons there are hundreds. In real life I can pick up an axe, note its length, its sharpness, how easy it is to wield and assess if it will do more or less damage than another axe. In a virtual world I can't so the only way to test it would be to use it and see how fast something dies.

I can see that being viable if there are 10 to 20 weapons in game but not when there are many more

 

[VibroAxe]

No army in the world chooses their weapons based on something like damage per second, though I suspect rate of fire is probably something they DO look at. Having stats that actually mean something doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Actually, That's almost EXACTLY what an army buys it's weapons based on. Assuming you are looking at the same class of weapon system attacking the same target set then a defined metric of Damage per second is a perfectly valid system. It works around the basis that if I have 10 men with the gun and assume that the battle will last longer than an alpha attack (if we rule out airstrikes this is the case in most battles) then the ammount of DPS a weapon can lay down is actually very important. It's a combination of the rate of fire and magnitude of fire for a weapon and does allow you to compare (as Ronin suggested) an AK47 and an M16 or similar.

Spoiler

I'm going to leave this thread on this note, suffice to say I have professional interest and experience in this field, so you can take it or leave it

 

[Wol]

Entire team is babies

must use fizzy gloves

e2a: im going to murder tolower()

 

[Spicypixel]

Nice drunkposting.

 

[Kasatka]

I think in summary it's safe to say we all acknowledge the importance of such maths and stats in game balance, but that perhaps there doesn't need to be so much transparency when dealing with it. A degree of obfuscation (for example Diablo's system of having pre/suff-ixes to denote what an item was roughly about) can help immersion ten-fold.
Ultimately though it is a crying shame when people yell at each other for playing a game wrong... unless the game's manual categorically states something like "all paladins act exactly the same way and love hammers and shields" then i see no issue in douche-bag paladins carrying two-handed swords!

 

[Dr Drae]

e2a: im going to murder tolower()

Only a true geek ends a word with () whilst drunk.

I'm waiting for the end of sentence ';'

 

[Huung]

I don't think any computer game which markets itself as an "RPG" is really a true RPG any more.

You're still playing the role of a character in a different universe etc, but that's pretty much the end of it. There isn't the immersion you get with pen+paper games, but that's partially because instead of having everything described to you, and allowing your imagination to fill in the blanks, you have to have real and defined limits within the game. You can't petition the GM to let you do something extraordinary, which the scenario developers hadn't thought of, because it would be outside of the computer game's mechanics. You're playing within very tight confines in order to make the game 'fair' to everyone, and to give all people a valid shot at having fun.

There will always be that divide between computer games and old school RPGs (where you use your own personal wit, knowledge of the world, and personal style to define your character). Certain RPGs will let you handle situations in multiple ways (the primary example I can think of is Mass Effect), but even then you're limited to what is programmed into the game. In the same line, there will always be weapons which are mathematically superior.

​

In most of these games' universes, these weapons have been either tried and tested and found superior (in much the same way people have done so in our world, for the military etc), or the weapons are 'named' and are therefore assumed to be known to the people of that world as a superior weapon to an unnamed one, or one which was found in the loot hoarded by a less superior monster.

It'd be pretty darned hard to have loot tables for monsters, and to have them drop unnamed weapons which all had differing hidden stats, and then let players find out which were better. The game would be a sloppy mess. Knowing how effective a weapon is before you wield it makes the game far smoother, and also allows you to see secondary useful details, like which class would benefit the most from its passive abilities.
Even pen+paper RPGs 'break immersion' by making it obvious which weapons are superior (either through making the attack bonuses or damage bonuses known to you via the person who sells them to you, or via discovering the magical properties of magical items using your skills or the skills of someone you hire). Cure Moderate Wounds is going to be a better spell than Cure Light Wounds - but the character would know that given their profession, and would use them accordingly.

I suppose one of the main differences is in pen+paper RPGs there will still be an 'optimal' weapon you can use (ie. same stats on different weapon types, except for damage), but your character might not use the 'better' weapon because it doesn't 'fit in' with their character's ideals. This is something you really don't see in a computer RPG, because using the less superior weapon for the purposes of role playing would hamper the efforts of the team - usually more so than it would in a pen+paper RPG.

Ideally we'd call MMORPGs something different, as although they are role playing games, they're far more about the next step in the progression of your character than about the journey there. Changing the name would just confuse or alienate a large portion of your MMORPG market though, which is probably the reason devs don't do it.

Anyway, in summary, Panda can lump it, because it's popular, it makes money, and thus it won't change.

 

[Juba]

Ideally we'd call MMORPGs something different, as although they are role playing games, they're far more about the next step in the progression of your character than about the journey there.

While I agree with this statement to a certain extent there are two forms of progression possible in an mmo. The game mechanic one and personality development of your character through rp with other humans.

 

[Kasatka]

Any game, whether and RPG or otherwise, allows for personality and 'role-playing' development. Be it through how you act on voice coms, to character name and bios, appearance (one thing WoW and it clones got right was adding cosmetic items to differentiate the scores of identical looking characters of each race/class combination) or even game-play choices (for example only ever playing Sniper classes in shooters etc).
The statistics aspect of pen-and-paper role-play games was only ever there to allow a framework for all the players to be treated fairly... otherwise you run into cowboys and indians syndrome - bang bang! you're dead! no, i shot you first! etc. As such i don't think RPG in the video game industry has anything to do with the ability to develop a characters personality and storyline as you see fit.
I mean what about J-RPGs? I seriously suggest anyone interested in this discussion watch the Extra-Credits episodes about western vs asian RPGs, found here http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/western-japanese-rpgs-part-1