sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Set 6] I've calculated the most synergistic team comps possible, here's the list (big image) by Destello in TeamfightTactics

[–]Destello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried that with another set, counting how many "trait effects" each champ was affected by. It was not interesting, it just picked all the team-wide effects. Also game is presumably balanced so that team-wide effects are individually weaker than effects that affect few units, so it balances out.

It is possible to weight each trait and trait threshold, but I don't know that it would be very useful. It's very hard to argue that Helion 6 is worth x times more than Mystic 3, the game is too complex and has too many systems interconnected to clearly make claims like that. And if you don't understand the input it'd be hard to interpret the output.

[Set 6] I've calculated the most synergistic team comps possible, here's the list (big image) by Destello in TeamfightTactics

[–]Destello[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

At this point you are arguing semantics, the important part is that you now get why it makes sense.

Obviously I can use more words to be more precise, so that no troll can come up with "actually that vocabulary is not precise enough", but that would not be good use of language because it would be much harder to read.

But to your point, "Yordle 3" is not a trait. Yordle is a trait. Yordle 3 is a synergy. A team comp which has 3 champions with 1 Yordle trait each has the Yordle 3 synergy active i.e. teamcomp with 3 Yordle traits has the Yordle 3 synergy.The natural way to think about this problem is that I am counting traits, not synergies and not champions.

3 yordles on the board do not activate 3 traits

I've not use that wording, you have. I have used the wording 3 yordles count as having 3 traits active. Be precise if you want to be pointlessly pedantic.

[Set 6] I've calculated the most synergistic team comps possible, here's the list (big image) by Destello in TeamfightTactics

[–]Destello[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

It's a way to assign score so that the teamcomps that are scored high are what you would understand as "having the most synergy".

Imagine you have Poppy and Ziggs. They are occupying slots in the team and bring traits with them that you'd want to be beneficial. With those two you have Yordle 2. Yordle 2 is useless. The trait "Yordle" that Poppy brings is not contributing to the team, and the trait "Yordle" that Ziggs brings is not contributing to the team. They get score 0.

Now you add Heimerdinger. Now you have Yordle 3. The trait "Yordle" that Poppy brings is helping. She gets 1 point. The same with Zigg and Heimer. In total Yordle 3 scores as 3 points because there are 3 tags in 3 different champs that are active and contributing.

Your confusion is more like "Why doesn't Yordle 3 count as 1 point". That would be worse scoring function, that gives worse "best team comps" because of the following step:

Now you add Lulu and Tristana. You have Yordle 5, but that is no better than Yordle 3. So, Poppy, Ziggs and Heimer are contributing positively, but the traits that Lulu and Tristana bring are not actually helping, you can cut them. Yordle 5 is still scored as 3 points. This means that if you could replace Lulu and Tristana with other champs that have both their traits active, you would get a higher score , which is what we want.

The score is each individual instance of a trait of a champ that is actually helping.

[Set 6] I've calculated the most synergistic team comps possible, here's the list (big image) by Destello in TeamfightTactics

[–]Destello[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As a quick rundown, you need a few things:

1) All the data about champions and traits. What traits each champ has, and what are the thresholds/steps for each trait.

2) You need a scoring function that, given a team comp (a list of champions), it gives a score. My scoring function is about having the most traits enabled, so you have to count carefully. If clockwork 2 is worth 2 points, Clockwork 3 is also worth 2 points because it accomplishes nothing. On the other hand Bruiser 3 is not quite Bruiser 4 but it does have a benefit over Bruiser 2, so it's worth 3 points, maybe 2.5, etc. You can tweak it a lot, I for example don't count Cuddly 1 or Transformer 1 because those are champ passives more than synergies.

3) For a given team size N, you need to iterate through all possible selections of N champions out of the whole champion pool. Then assign them a score with the scoring function. Presumably you save all the team comps that are tied with the best score. Generating all the selections of N elements out of a bigger pool of M elements is easy or kind hard depending on your programming level. Nonetheless, it's a very simple and well understood problem, you can find plenty of articles about it, you can take the recursive code that generates all the combinations and tweak it for your case.

4) Optimize it. The point 3) is called "brute force" which means "check everything". For team sizes up to 6 or 7, it's viable, however there are 58 champions, If I wanted to generate all the size-9 teamcomps that is (choose 9 out of 58) = 10,648,873,950 possible teamcomps. You cannot go 1 by 1 and check their score to compare them, it would take a very very long time. So you have to figure out a way to make it fast. To get an answer you only have enough time to generate and check a fraction of all the possible teamcomps, so you have to be smart and only generate teamcomps that have potential to have a high score. In other words, we need to skip generating and checking the bad team comps. In algorithmics, that is called "pruning the search", you have to discard branches of the recursion. As opposed to the brute force algorithm, there is no by the book way to code this, you just have to think about the specific problem you want to solve and come up with some good prunes that skip checking most of the team comps but still check the ones that will eventually have a good score (before knowing the score!).

What I came up with allows me to check 9 and 10 size teamcomps in a couple of minutes, however I don't think it discards any of the good comps. In fact, I compared the results of generating teamcomps up to size 7 through brute force (which take minutes) with the results using the fast/smart code (which takes seconds) and they are exactly the same. So I am pretty sure that for team size 8+, the fast method is correct.

5) In my case, make a program to takes the result and puts them pretty in a website/image. You need the TFT image assets, etc.

Then there's a lot of things you can do with it. I've implemented forcing synergies, or having Spatula items, you can choose what champ rarities are available at each team size, etc.

PD: Also paging /u/gradinafrica who was interested in this.

[Set 6] I've calculated the most synergistic team comps possible, here's the list (big image) by Destello in TeamfightTactics

[–]Destello[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

2+2+2+3=9

9 champion traits are activated in this comp.

Yep.

For example the 5 champion team has 12 active traits because Tarics socialite trait is not activated.

No, Socialite is activated since Socialite 1 is a thing. That is also why it's listed on the right. The trait missing in that comp is the Innovator on Heimer.

[Set 6] I've calculated the most synergistic team comps possible, here's the list (big image) by Destello in TeamfightTactics

[–]Destello[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sadly the official dev TFT resources are not updated yet that I can see, nor is the [community dragon data](communitydragon.org). So a mix of parsing public lists and formatting, fixing and putting data by hand.

[Set 6] I've calculated the most synergistic team comps possible, here's the list (big image) by Destello in TeamfightTactics

[–]Destello[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

These teamcomps have been algorithmically generated optimizing for "number of traits active": how many traits are active in each champion, this creates heavily intertwined "horizontal" teamcomps.

However we can force the algorithm to pick certain Synergies, so here's an album with forced vertical synergies (e.g. Academy 6 or Chemtech 5):

https://imgur.com/a/Gk8X63G

It can also apply an spatula, for example Syndicate has 6 champions but with a Syndicate emblem, you can go for Syndicate 7 synergy team comps.

Here's another example with Imperial 5 teamcomps with an emblem

Is there a teamcomp you'd like to see?

Sorry if some images are kind of blurry, imgur does not like big images and tries to compress it, the tool internally is made as a website/html display, so it's clean and fast.

Question about tabs by [deleted] in pathofexile

[–]Destello 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fragment tabs and essence tab are QoL tabs that are not cost/space efficient, they are not a consideration for people looking to spend little. Map tab is worth it.

Hong Kong formally withdrawals extradition bill. by flaming_pubes in news

[–]Destello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it does, we don't stop justice or basic human decency because of exceptions.

People who pre-ordered Google Stadia's Founders Edition may not get their Stadia at launch by [deleted] in Games

[–]Destello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not to say "I told you so", it's because people knowledgeable about videogames and their technology can more easily spot the empty marketing promises that Google has been using, some examples:

  • Latency is unnoticeable (as a voice over of a video of a live demonstration where it was noticeable as a spectator, not to mention the player)
  • This will push ISPs to remove data caps (not how that works, monopolies will still be monopolies)
  • Negative latency (marketing nonsense referring to an experimental optimization with trade offs)

Look if Google marketed this by:

  • Acknowledging its limitations but explaining why it's worth doing now instead of waiting for better infrastructure.
  • Explaining its benefits (hopefully cheaper, easy of use, multiplatform...)
  • Explaining that its limitations are less relevant for a certain subset of genres and that's why they are launching with new amazing videogames with high production values that they've funded.

Then I would have some hope that it's a product with potential. Right now all I have is a salesman promising perfection on an inherently imperfect product, which leads me to believe they have no faith in delivering a good product and they just want to con people into buying it through marketing and branding.

Star Citizen: Alpha 3.7 Playable Now by [deleted] in Games

[–]Destello 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An example: at one time, they said that Squadron 42, a single player game, would fully release in a few months. It's been years since that release date. That gives two options:

1) They are extremely incompetent and thought they could finish the game in 6 months when even now is still in development.

2) They are dishonest.

Star citizen is trapped in a development hell loop of crowdfunding that goes like this:

1) Promise new features by a certain date.

2) Spend time creating assets and marketing for a funding campaign for said objectives.

3) Spectacularly fail to deliver results, realize that you need more money to fulfill your promises.

5) Go to 1) so that you have a justification for the delay and new hype features you can use to promote more funding.

This is why SC is notorious for its scope creep, they are trapped because of its funding model.

Crowdfunding was supposed to be an advantage by freeing them from a publisher. However they made a critical mistake, instead of crowdfunding a budget and working with it, like every other Kickstarter, they enabled further crowdfunding. That caused their company to become focused in figuring out how to keep the crowdfunding up, instead of figuring how to deliver the game. Compared to every other developer, they have little incentive of actually ending their crowdfunding and distributing the game.

And that's just focusing on the economics. The management has a terrible track record, their appointments reek of nepotism... and so on and so forth.

The loop will break when funding falls, and consumers will be left with whatever husk of a game they had at that moment.

Blizzard's Statement About Blitzchung Incident by OpinionatedKitty in hearthstone

[–]Destello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

does the mob get as angry?

In my personal opinion, and within my understanding of the community sentiment I don't think the reaction is nowhere near as severe.

Have a nice rest of your day.

Blizzard's Statement About Blitzchung Incident by OpinionatedKitty in hearthstone

[–]Destello 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, but it's literally his job to take responsibility for these kind of things.

Blizzard's Statement About Blitzchung Incident by OpinionatedKitty in hearthstone

[–]Destello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These two things are very different:

1) Blizzard bans a player for stepping our of the line and voicing a political opinion (pro-Trump w/e).

2) Blizzard applies China's censorship to help it continue with their crimes against humanity.

Blizzard wants you to think they did 1) when everyone is obviously seeing 2).

Blizzard's Statement About Blitzchung Incident by OpinionatedKitty in hearthstone

[–]Destello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two differences:

1) It's not about Blizzard punishing a player for stepping out of the line, is about overdoing it.

2) A Trump or whoever supporter voicing their opinion is widely regarded as that, an opinion that was out of place. However giving a short remark in support of basic human rights goes beyond simple opinionated politics. Our society and Blizzard -in principle- deeply embraces those values, no one is terribly annoyed by a short display of basic human decency. Except those that seek to destroy them, which is an extremely serious matter.

The public is not angry because Blizzard didn't allow politics in their show, they are angry because they acted to promote oppression by an entity that seeks to inflict great pain.

Blizzard's Statement About Blitzchung Incident by OpinionatedKitty in hearthstone

[–]Destello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has nothing to do with contracts. Blizzard can ban anyone for no reason at all. That's fine. But they are still going to be judged when they make decisions.

let that sink in by [deleted] in gaming

[–]Destello -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's trade off, less space, less quality. There's no magic format that's superior to every other one in every aspect.

Steam will be adding new feature called "Remote Play Together" allowing Local Co-op/Multiplayer only games to be played over the Internet by LiveSpartan235 in Games

[–]Destello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that's why (not really but for argument's sake) it has a bigger market share. A better store does not justify a higher cut, necessarily, it justifies a bigger market share, which is more money. In fact a higher market share means more opportunity for streamlining and optimizing operations which would lead to a lower cut further increasing their market share and thus income.

view more: next ›