To all those who have seen the past post about respawns, it was about the tons of questions and experiments I had been doing. As such my final question came to this about respawns: What is the radius in which an enemy player gives a negative influence? So I conducted an experiment, I created an 8x8 unit area and put 6 respawns in one corner and 1 respawn in the opposite corner. I also put a Weak repsawn zone down to give the 6 respawns a positive influence and positioned myself on top of the single spawn in the opposite corner. With my other controller I plugged in I position player two with the 6 respawn zones. Then I started to kill him and move approximatly 1 unit closer to the enemy player for every kill. Once I was 3 units away he eventually spawned behind me. Since the respawns in front of me have a negative influence from earlier kills that would eliminate that range was the case with those spawns. Which means that the spawn that was 3 or more units away had no negative influence. This is all theory, So I conducted the experiment 4 more times all with the same result. This leads me to beleive that the radius of influence is 3 units, And I must admit thats pretty damn small. Conduct the experiment yourself with different unit scale and see what happens, but from this you could possibly position your spawns for this consideration. I shall do gameplay tests and see how it will work under stress conditions. Thought I would let you in on my findings, to see what you think.
Maybe you should try with just 1 or two spawn points, as the sheer number of spawns you used may have outweighed the effect of the single spawn time.
I can't really understand your explanation, but from what I gather there are other effects that could be affecting your experiment. I have an idea for one I'll try next time I get a chance that should eliminate any other influences.
I apologize for coming off strong. Please let me try this again. If you have a specific configuration and you test it 100 times, and each time you get the same result, what I would conclude is that the test demonstrates that the variables involved are consistently producing the same result. But it doesn't give us any real insight into what those results mean. Your test involves many variables of only some we know exist, and of very few we have any information about. There is the death influencer. We know that it is strong. We know it has a radius. We assume it is cylinder, but it might be spherical. We know it is centered at the point of death, not the dead body. If I recall, we were told it has a radius in which the influence begins to decay outward. We know that it probably has a default value and that each canvas can override that particular value. We do not know much more than this, and what I just shared we do not know the particulars. Now if you take that and extrapolate across all of the influencers, those we know about and those we do not, then you can begin to see the problem exponentially increase in trying to study just one property amongst potentially hundreds. I hope this helps demonstrate why empirical evidence cannot be used to identify specific properties within the spawn system. On the other hand, when JonnyOThan told us that the Respawn Zone was so strong that no combination of negative influences could overcome it, I found such a combination. I took it to him, reporting it as a bug in the spawn engine. He took some time to try to reproduce it and demonstrate that it was indeed a bug. Together we figured out what it took to expose the bug. This is the purpose of empirical evidence - to demonstrate that documented behavior can be broken given the right configuration or combination of events. But I could not in any way go to him and say, "This is how the spawn engine works." If I had done that, he would have just ignored me.
The biggest problem I see with your experiment is you didn't isolate a single variable, instead you have multiple variables at play such as, number of spawn points, the death influence right atop the next spawn area, Line of Sight influence, and your weak spawn zone. As your experiment is now I could argue that the weak zone is holding the enemy in that area, or the number of spawn points themselves gives a 6:1 ratio that he will spawn there. I could also argue that Line of Sight played a role in the test, and that it ultimately caused him to spawn behind you. Another argument could be that it is in fact not 3 units away, but 5 due to you then being 5 units from the far side spawn point. (this is if you were walking in a straight line of 8 units, not that the floor was 8x8 and you were going corner to corner, which is kinda how I read it, in which case you were further from the single point than 5 units.) Thats just a few quick example I came up with, but I think you get the general idea. Basically my suggestion would be to be sure when your designing a scientific test that you isolate a single variable to test. That said I find this to be interesting, and look forward to seeing what you find.
just a theory, in the hopes that maybe spawns could be controlled a little better. The respawn zone weak was only to give the respawns a positive influence. and I would look away each shot as someone has told me of the los respawn mechanic. I not suggesting that this is 100% proven, I am trying to understand how the respawn influences work and what range they can be influenced at. If anyone knows the answer to this question or has a better way to figure out the range of influence of a respawn point then that would be great. I think it is a good thing to know what the range is so that way respawns can be placed more accurately. In fact, I challenge the forgehub community to figure this out. It would be a great benifit to all forgers.
I apologize for coming off strong earlier. Let me try this again. It would be nice if we could determine the radius of influence. But without knowing all the other variables in the equation, you cannot solve for that variable.