# Upcoming Changes To The Pit Challenge Tier [MEGA]

## Replies

• 1740 posts Member
Since the rate of change of the stat boosts is linear (20, 40, 60, etc), I'd dare to posit that the boost growth is quadratic!

@DarjeloSalas
• 1740 posts Member
My math is a bit rusty, but I think this checks out

Let y = boost amount
Let x = number of boosts
y = ax^2 + bx + c

0 = a(0^2) + b×0 +c
C = 0

20 = a + b

60 = 4a + 2b

60 = 4a + 2(20-a) = 4a +40 -2a = 2a + 40

20 = 2a

a = 10

b = 10

y = 10x^2 + 10x
• 9944 posts Member
Checks out.

Now redo it with x = %age damage recorded
• 1740 posts Member
I think that would be a piecewise, stairstep function; and you could fit a quadratic through the beginning/middle/end of each step. :P
• 4925 posts Member
I could be investing relic material in other toons like Vader, Shak ti. I was caught halfway and now I'm stuck in the middle of the journey. Can I stop investing in them without being harmed? Absolutely not. How many players were caught up for that? That is my point that a compensation should be given to the players.

I don't disagree about the trap we were put in. I was put in the same trap, and because of the timing I was hit as badly as anyone.

It's not the nature of the trap that we're arguing. I'm just saying that I don't think we, the player base, deserve "compensation" because of our choices in how to handle that trap.
• 3338 posts Member
The other option is...there's no function, just a formula and manually set discreet values.
• 97 posts Member
Kyno wrote: »
LordDunbar wrote: »
It should be every 5% not every 2%

May I ask why? It's a lower add than the original one which teams were surviving, so this add will not be as much of a hard line as many seem to think.

By teams, you mean Kylo right? Maybe there were some Rey teams out there that could get above 20% if insane RNG, but there certainly aren't any other teams that get close.

Saying that "it's a lower add than the original" is completely wrong, Since it is 20% at 2%, then 60% at 4%, as soon as you hit the 6% mark it is 120%, you are over the first 'old' value of 75%, then it becomes 200% at 8% and finally 300% at 10% done which is the same as the previous final 20% remaining.
If you apply this scaling to a 5% then it is only once you hit 15% that this becomes harder than the previous 20% value

As a lot of teams can do around 5-8% in the first 3 phases, with the current changes, these scores will no longer happen due to these increased speed and damage from Rancor and will require a lot more teams from a lot more members, let alone the teams doing more than 10-14%. You already see what the Rancor does in the last phase with 100% speed and offense, there are like no teams getting above 4% there. Yes this change means more teams can be used in the last phase for Rancor to make that slightly easier (no need to save rebels or Malak to do 0.2-0.4% damage), but overall the difficulty is made incredibly harder.

Also if you watch the video of Kylo soloing the phase 1 (please note this is the only phase that can be soloed anyway) you will see that he keeps going for the adds until the siphon is really high, and the boss is still at 98.13% before he starts doing all the swipes, then gets to 82.10% for the final swipe before ultimate, uses it at 71.61% and is immune to damage and kills the boss before coming out of it, so the changes applied here are negligible, you just time your ult and you can do a lot of damage still.

p.s. It is funny you mention your guild has about 25 people contributing, maybe that was because after 25 the rewards get even less, and certainly after 40 it's hardly worth the time to even try to hit as you get crappy 1 relic material. Why bother trying to contribute if you know you can't get into top 25 if it doesn't make a difference to the result.

• 168 posts Member
I think the penalties should start at 5%. Other than phase 1, no other phase can be solo'd, so why put a huge stopper on the entire raid? I also hope that you un-neuter GLs so they can be used as intended now that we're going to be beaten down by the 2% penalty. Did you consider that 99.99% of the guilds won't have 50/50 participation in the CRanky raid? Building more teams to use is great, but when you exhaust teams in the first phases there won't be anything left for P4. Again we as officers/GLs still have to micro-manage the raid to make sure we can finish it with (1) only certain teams, (2) not having members over-extend their roster, (3) making sure all phases are covered, and (4) we have enough juice to complete it.

• 1247 posts Member
Avinash wrote: »
I think the penalties should start at 5%. Other than phase 1, no other phase can be solo'd, so why put a huge stopper on the entire raid? I also hope that you un-neuter GLs so they can be used as intended now that we're going to be beaten down by the 2% penalty. Did you consider that 99.99% of the guilds won't have 50/50 participation in the CRanky raid? Building more teams to use is great, but when you exhaust teams in the first phases there won't be anything left for P4. Again we as officers/GLs still have to micro-manage the raid to make sure we can finish it with (1) only certain teams, (2) not having members over-extend their roster, (3) making sure all phases are covered, and (4) we have enough juice to complete it.

if you read the changes that were posted, the GL pen isn't there anymore.
• 2390 posts Member
Kyno wrote: »

4) no it has not been ignored.

Not being fixed though.

Those rewards are hardly "flat"
• 32087 posts Moderator
ShaggyB wrote: »
Kyno wrote: »

4) no it has not been ignored.

Not being fixed though.

Those rewards are hardly "flat"

The player sentiment about this is not being ignored. One thing at a time, and you are correct nothing has been change, yet, but that doesnt eman they are not discussing things around the player sentiment.
• 14242 posts Member
Checks out.

Now redo it with x = %age damage recorded

Which will then finally include the variable that also increases at each damage threshold (that, for some reason, continues to be ignored in this conversation) - speed. The result of increasing offense to the Rancor and at the same time increasing the speed of those attacks relative to the player, creates quite an interesting graph....
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
• 5215 posts Member
Nikoms565 wrote: »
Checks out.

Now redo it with x = %age damage recorded

Which will then finally include the variable that also increases at each damage threshold (that, for some reason, continues to be ignored in this conversation) - speed. The result of increasing offense to the Rancor and at the same time increasing the speed of those attacks relative to the player, creates quite an interesting graph....

Hey he has a piece of paper that says you’re wrong and he’s right, regardless of the facts.
• 1740 posts Member
Nikoms565 wrote: »
Checks out.

Now redo it with x = %age damage recorded

Which will then finally include the variable that also increases at each damage threshold (that, for some reason, continues to be ignored in this conversation) - speed. The result of increasing offense to the Rancor and at the same time increasing the speed of those attacks relative to the player, creates quite an interesting graph....

Okay, so it's likely quartic :P

Seriously though, I assume most people use "exponential" idiomatically when they are describing growth that is nonlinear. I was just bored
• 14242 posts Member
Nikoms565 wrote: »
Checks out.

Now redo it with x = %age damage recorded

Which will then finally include the variable that also increases at each damage threshold (that, for some reason, continues to be ignored in this conversation) - speed. The result of increasing offense to the Rancor and at the same time increasing the speed of those attacks relative to the player, creates quite an interesting graph....

Okay, so it's likely quartic :P

Seriously though, I assume most people use "exponential" idiomatically when they are describing growth that is nonlinear. I was just bored

Agreed....until some people come in pounding their chests, waving their degree around, being arrogant and dismissive and presuming they're the only ones that understand math.

I appreciate your work Ragnarok. Keep up the good work.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
• 1110 posts Member
Nikoms565 wrote: »
Nikoms565 wrote: »
Checks out.

Now redo it with x = %age damage recorded

Which will then finally include the variable that also increases at each damage threshold (that, for some reason, continues to be ignored in this conversation) - speed. The result of increasing offense to the Rancor and at the same time increasing the speed of those attacks relative to the player, creates quite an interesting graph....

Okay, so it's likely quartic :P

Seriously though, I assume most people use "exponential" idiomatically when they are describing growth that is nonlinear. I was just bored

Agreed....until some people come in pounding their chests, waving their degree around, being arrogant and dismissive and presuming they're the only ones that understand math.

I appreciate your work Ragnarok. Keep up the good work.

Hi, no degree here,
It isn't exponential.
Look, no exponent

• 349 posts Member
Agreed....until some people come in pounding their chests, waving their degree around, being arrogant and dismissive and presuming they're the only ones that understand math.

I appreciate your work Ragnarok. Keep up the good work. [/quote]

You know his work proves you and @Ravens1113 are still wrong tho? A quadratic function is not the same as an exponential function.
• 5215 posts Member
Agreed....until some people come in pounding their chests, waving their degree around, being arrogant and dismissive and presuming they're the only ones that understand math.

I appreciate your work Ragnarok. Keep up the good work.

You know his work proves you and @Ravens1113 are still wrong tho? A quadratic function is not the same as an exponential function. [/quote]

Exponential growth is a pattern of data that shows greater increases with passing time. As such, every 2% threshold creates a greater increase of damage/speed boosts. Ergo, the longer the fight goes on, the more the damage/speed increases thus making the rancor getting stronger faster
• 5215 posts Member
Ravens1113 wrote: »
Exponential growth is a pattern of data that shows greater increases with passing time. As such, every 2% threshold creates a greater increase of damage/speed boosts. Ergo, the longer the fight goes on, the more the damage/speed increases thus making the rancor getting stronger faster

Again, that’s what you (and lots of society) THINK when you hear the words exponential growth. But increasing by a greater amount each time is not the definition of exponential.

If we look at a quadratic function like y = x^2, it shows greater increases with passing “time” as well, but it’s not exponential. In fact, as Ragnarok demonstrated, the proposed CPit increases can be modelled with a quadratic function quite easily.

And as for “regardless of the facts” - these are the facts! The increasing thresholds are not exponential, despite several posters claiming that it “literally” is exponential.

This whole situation reminds me of the people who type “could care less” and insist that they are correct, when they are not. It might be what they have typed all their lives, it might be what everyone the know types, but that doesn’t change the fact that the correct phrase is “couldn’t care less”. Just because 100s of people misuse a word or phrase, doesn’t make them correct.

The literal definition of exponential in any dictionary is something increasing at a greater rate over time. Also just because the quadratic formula can be used here doesn’t mean the exponential function doesn’t or can’t either.

I’m no mathematician however I’ll follow what I did learn in college and follow a graph that shows a faster increase over time.

Aside from this very random discussion though, the thresholds for the damages increases are too low. 5% is a fair spot given the current stat increases. Either that or just make it a steady 20% per threshold rather than 20 to 40 to 60 to 80 etc.
• 9944 posts Member
Ravens1113 wrote: »
Ravens1113 wrote: »
Exponential growth is a pattern of data that shows greater increases with passing time. As such, every 2% threshold creates a greater increase of damage/speed boosts. Ergo, the longer the fight goes on, the more the damage/speed increases thus making the rancor getting stronger faster

Again, that’s what you (and lots of society) THINK when you hear the words exponential growth. But increasing by a greater amount each time is not the definition of exponential.

If we look at a quadratic function like y = x^2, it shows greater increases with passing “time” as well, but it’s not exponential. In fact, as Ragnarok demonstrated, the proposed CPit increases can be modelled with a quadratic function quite easily.

And as for “regardless of the facts” - these are the facts! The increasing thresholds are not exponential, despite several posters claiming that it “literally” is exponential.

This whole situation reminds me of the people who type “could care less” and insist that they are correct, when they are not. It might be what they have typed all their lives, it might be what everyone the know types, but that doesn’t change the fact that the correct phrase is “couldn’t care less”. Just because 100s of people misuse a word or phrase, doesn’t make them correct.

The literal definition of exponential in any dictionary is something increasing at a greater rate over time. Also just because the quadratic formula can be used here doesn’t mean the exponential function doesn’t or can’t either.

I’m no mathematician however I’ll follow what I did learn in college and follow a graph that shows a faster increase over time. .
The dictionary definition is grossly oversimplified and can be applied to any form of growth that isn’t linear. If you went with the dictionary definition, the number of pins in the rows of an ever increasing bowling pin triangle (1,3,6,10,15,21 etc) would be classed as growing exponentially. Which it isn’t.

And I’m afraid that it absolutely does mean that the exponential function can’t be used here. It is not possible to come up with an exponential function to model the increases of 20 then 40 then 60 etc because the growth is not exponential (in the mathematical sense) - you said yourself you’re no mathematician, so please take my word on that.

Anyway, it is a bizarre argument because I, like you, am apprehensive about what these changes will do to our guild’s ability to clear the raid.

But like all internet arguments, it’s just some nerds wanting to be right.
• 5215 posts Member
Ravens1113 wrote: »
Ravens1113 wrote: »
Exponential growth is a pattern of data that shows greater increases with passing time. As such, every 2% threshold creates a greater increase of damage/speed boosts. Ergo, the longer the fight goes on, the more the damage/speed increases thus making the rancor getting stronger faster

Again, that’s what you (and lots of society) THINK when you hear the words exponential growth. But increasing by a greater amount each time is not the definition of exponential.

If we look at a quadratic function like y = x^2, it shows greater increases with passing “time” as well, but it’s not exponential. In fact, as Ragnarok demonstrated, the proposed CPit increases can be modelled with a quadratic function quite easily.

And as for “regardless of the facts” - these are the facts! The increasing thresholds are not exponential, despite several posters claiming that it “literally” is exponential.

This whole situation reminds me of the people who type “could care less” and insist that they are correct, when they are not. It might be what they have typed all their lives, it might be what everyone the know types, but that doesn’t change the fact that the correct phrase is “couldn’t care less”. Just because 100s of people misuse a word or phrase, doesn’t make them correct.

The literal definition of exponential in any dictionary is something increasing at a greater rate over time. Also just because the quadratic formula can be used here doesn’t mean the exponential function doesn’t or can’t either.

I’m no mathematician however I’ll follow what I did learn in college and follow a graph that shows a faster increase over time. .
The dictionary definition is grossly oversimplified and can be applied to any form of growth that isn’t linear. If you went with the dictionary definition, the number of pins in the rows of an ever increasing bowling pin triangle (1,3,6,10,15,21 etc) would be classed as growing exponentially. Which it isn’t.

And I’m afraid that it absolutely does mean that the exponential function can’t be used here. It is not possible to come up with an exponential function to model the increases of 20 then 40 then 60 etc because the growth is not exponential (in the mathematical sense) - you said yourself you’re no mathematician, so please take my word on that.

Anyway, it is a bizarre argument because I, like you, am apprehensive about what these changes will do to our guild’s ability to clear the raid.

But like all internet arguments, it’s just some nerds wanting to be right.

Well aside from what is or isn’t deemed exponential in our own definitions, at least we agree on the more important issue that the thresholds they’re implementing are no bueno. That’s more important to these two nerds haha
• 349 posts Member
Only a graph is not a prove for what type of funtion it is, but it can give you an idea what type it might be. It will also not work. An exponential function is a function of the form f(x)=a*b^x where b is a positive real number. Here f(x) the increase and x = number of boosts. So let's assume it's an exponential function. We then have f(0) = 0, so it follows that a = 0 as b^0 = 1. So we have f(x) = 0, which I would really like, but I don't think CG will do this XD. Now you could say that we start at x = 1 and don't bother with x = 0 as that isn't really relevant for us. Although I think for coding it will be (not sure about that). We have f(1) = a*b^1 = 20 and f(2) = a*b^2 = 60. 2 functions and 2 unknowns (a and b), so we can solve this system of equations. We have ab = 20, this gives a = 20/b. We substitute a = 20/b in a*b^2 = 60 and get 20b = 60, so b = 3. So we get f(x) = (20/3)*3^x. But f(3) = 180 =/ 120, so exponential function also doesn't work here. Contradiction with assumption that the correct function was exponential.

You can write it as a quadratic function as was shown already by @Ragnarok_COTF. Or what I think CG most likely have in their code: an arithmetic series. Which would be x_{n} = x_{n-1} + 20*n, with n = number of boosts, x_{n} the increase at n boosts and x_{0} = 0 (the starting point). Then we get
x_{0} = 0
x_{1} = 0 + 20*1 = 20 (correct)
x_{2} = 20 + 20*2= 60 (correct)
x_{3} = 60 + 20*3 = 120 (correct)
x_{4} = 120 + 20*4 = 200 (correct)
x_{5} = 200 + 20*5 = 300 (correct).

I also agree the increase is way too high.
• 9944 posts Member
Only a graph is not a prove for what type of funtion it is, but it can give you an idea what type it might be. It will also not work. An exponential function is a function of the form f(x)=a*b^x where b is a positive real number. Here f(x) the increase and x = number of boosts. So let's assume it's an exponential function. We then have f(0) = 0, so it follows that a = 0 as b^0 = 1. So we have f(x) = 0, which I would really like, but I don't think CG will do this XD. Now you could say that we start at x = 1 and don't bother with x = 0 as that isn't really relevant for us. Although I think for coding it will be (not sure about that). We have f(1) = a*b^1 = 20 and f(2) = a*b^2 = 60. 2 functions and 2 unknowns (a and b), so we can solve this system of equations. We have ab = 20, this gives a = 20/b. We substitute a = 20/b in a*b^2 = 60 and get 20b = 60, so b = 3. So we get f(x) = (20/3)*3^x. But f(3) = 180 =/ 120, so exponential function also doesn't work here. Contradiction with assumption that the correct function was exponential.

You can write it as a quadratic function as was shown already by @Ragnarok_COTF. Or what I think CG most likely have in their code: an arithmetic series. Which would be x_{n} = x_{n-1} + 20*n, with n = number of boosts x_{n} this increase at n boosts and x_{0} = 0 (the starting point). Then we get
x_{0} = 0
x_{1} = 0 + 20*1 = 20 (correct)
x_{2} = 20 + 20*2= 60 (correct)
x_{3} = 60 + 20*3 = 120 (correct)
x_{4} = 120 + 20*4 = 200 (correct)
x_{5} = 200 + 20*5 = 300 (correct).
I am quite obviously not the only person who understands maths in this thread.
• 664 posts Member
Let's move on. This isn't exponential growth but I don't see the need to argue about it.
• 192 posts Member
Let's move on. This isn't exponential growth but I don't see the need to argue about it.

No, I just wanted to demonstrate that the growth can be written as arithmetic series. Let’s just wait until someone comes up with another idea because that’s what makes math wonderful: a problem can be stated and solved in many different ways and all of these are correct.

A teachable moment! More than person can be right. We just need to understand the differences in between our perspectives/approaches.
• 3338 posts Member
Nikoms565 wrote: »
Nikoms565 wrote: »
Checks out.

Now redo it with x = %age damage recorded

Which will then finally include the variable that also increases at each damage threshold (that, for some reason, continues to be ignored in this conversation) - speed. The result of increasing offense to the Rancor and at the same time increasing the speed of those attacks relative to the player, creates quite an interesting graph....

Okay, so it's likely quartic :P

Seriously though, I assume most people use "exponential" idiomatically when they are describing growth that is nonlinear. I was just bored

Agreed....until some people come in pounding their chests, waving their degree around, being arrogant and dismissive and presuming they're the only ones that understand math.

I appreciate your work Ragnarok. Keep up the good work.

We didn't make these definitions, there's no subjective definitions when it comes to math. I don't understand the point of insisting on something that's simply wrong by the universal definition and that we already get is used in a metaphorical sense.
• 14242 posts Member
Only a graph is not a prove for what type of funtion it is, but it can give you an idea what type it might be. It will also not work. An exponential function is a function of the form f(x)=a*b^x where b is a positive real number. Here f(x) the increase and x = number of boosts. So let's assume it's an exponential function. We then have f(0) = 0, so it follows that a = 0 as b^0 = 1. So we have f(x) = 0, which I would really like, but I don't think CG will do this XD. Now you could say that we start at x = 1 and don't bother with x = 0 as that isn't really relevant for us. Although I think for coding it will be (not sure about that). We have f(1) = a*b^1 = 20 and f(2) = a*b^2 = 60. 2 functions and 2 unknowns (a and b), so we can solve this system of equations. We have ab = 20, this gives a = 20/b. We substitute a = 20/b in a*b^2 = 60 and get 20b = 60, so b = 3. So we get f(x) = (20/3)*3^x. But f(3) = 180 =/ 120, so exponential function also doesn't work here. Contradiction with assumption that the correct function was exponential.

You can write it as a quadratic function as was shown already by @Ragnarok_COTF. Or what I think CG most likely have in their code: an arithmetic series. Which would be x_{n} = x_{n-1} + 20*n, with n = number of boosts, x_{n} the increase at n boosts and x_{0} = 0 (the starting point). Then we get
x_{0} = 0
x_{1} = 0 + 20*1 = 20 (correct)
x_{2} = 20 + 20*2= 60 (correct)
x_{3} = 60 + 20*3 = 120 (correct)
x_{4} = 120 + 20*4 = 200 (correct)
x_{5} = 200 + 20*5 = 300 (correct).

I also agree the increase is way too high.

The point of bringing up the graph was simply to demonstrate that the increases in offense at each interval, combined with the increase in speed (which the effects of are ignored in the equations people are presenting) result in a player damage graph that strongly resembles an exponential function. Thereby making the OP's claim that the "difficulty" (ability to do damage) increases "exponentially", practically correct.

Yes, it might not literally be an exponential formula as written in the code - but in terms of how the mechanic effects damage output, the OP calling its effects "exponential" is, not completely inaccurate.

But I do agree that we can stop the semantic debate, since we all seem to agree that level of difficulty the stacking increases of damage and speed at such small intervals is a change in difficulty that is significant enough to be concerned m
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*