Upcoming Changes To The Pit Challenge Tier [MEGA]

Replies

  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).
  • What are you all - government civil servants? Only in the government have I seen people dwell on pedantic nonsense that adds little value - it is exponential/isn’t exponential, it’s an ARIMA no it’s it’s a hedonic....who cares? What has this got to go with the subject at hand - nothing. How does it progress what’s being discussed that is of concern? It doesn’t.

    The changes will skewer middling 200m guilds through no fault of their own - 4% would be more comfortable as it cuts the number of r5’s needed from 1000 to 500. Baring in mind not all r5’s are equal or even viable. 2% also won’t even allow a team to ramp up whereas 4% will so at least it lets us get rolling only for the penalty to kick in and neuter progress.
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    Thulsadoom wrote: »
    What are you all - government civil servants? Only in the government have I seen people dwell on pedantic nonsense that adds little value - it is exponential/isn’t exponential, it’s an ARIMA no it’s it’s a hedonic....who cares? What has this got to go with the subject at hand - nothing. How does it progress what’s being discussed that is of concern? It doesn’t.

    The changes will skewer middling 200m guilds through no fault of their own - 4% would be more comfortable as it cuts the number of r5’s needed from 1000 to 500. Baring in mind not all r5’s are equal or even viable. 2% also won’t even allow a team to ramp up whereas 4% will so at least it lets us get rolling only for the penalty to kick in and neuter progress.

    Without any practical knowledge of how this will play out, it is a little difficult to make a blanket statement like that base solely on a guilds GP.

    This change makes this raid fall in line (tactics wise) with the other raids, there will be good/key teams needed to get the %s needed for a guild to work it out.

    - the teams doing good, are seemingly going to do good still (which is a good thing)
    - P2/P3 will still remain 1 run phases, no second topple makes additional runs less helpful, so better to save those teams
    - P4 will be much easier to manage
    - no one would argue that a higher % would feel more comfortable
    - the number of R5s doesnt change that drastically, but we will have to wait and see how it all plays out.
  • Nikoms565
    14056 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"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*
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).
  • Ravens1113
    3392 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    even without r8 I know ppl who were pulling 50% runs with SLK. So maybe it is just you. :p
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?
  • The fact that the new mechanic reduce GL stats much less than before, would I be correct in assuming that will actually hurt SLKR P1 performance?
    As I understood the strategy, it was a point to use the stat reduction to your advantage, to build up much more siphon.
    Now, with less reduction of SLKR stats, wouldn’t he just kill the sides instead of continuously building siphon off them?

    I’m generally happy that GLs will not loose mastery as fast, but this particular point seems to me to act as both a boost to JML/Rey/SEE and a nerf to SLKR P1... though still boosting slkr in P2-4
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.
  • Ravens1113
    3392 posts Member
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    even without r8 I know ppl who were pulling 50% runs with SLK. So maybe it is just you. :p

    They didn’t care about the 50% runs. They only cared about the one 100% run. I don’t recall any dev posts about 50% of p1
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    Making a 2% threshold will make teams who did anything over 2% worse thus requiring a second team to match what was previously done. So no, a 5% threshold will only affect those teams who did gigantic runs and wouldn’t punish teams pushing below 5% in the first place. It still would require some extra investment and make it more “inclusive” on who could finish the raid, but wouldn’t be such a demand for more teams now per person. 5% is beyond reasonable to ask for/expect
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    even without r8 I know ppl who were pulling 50% runs with SLK. So maybe it is just you. :p

    They didn’t care about the 50% runs. They only cared about the one 100% run. I don’t recall any dev posts about 50% of p1
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    That is not necessarily true. They were looking at the raid before he was shown to beat phase 1.
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    even without r8 I know ppl who were pulling 50% runs with SLK. So maybe it is just you. :p

    They didn’t care about the 50% runs. They only cared about the one 100% run. I don’t recall any dev posts about 50% of p1
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    Making a 2% threshold will make teams who did anything over 2% worse thus requiring a second team to match what was previously done. So no, a 5% threshold will only affect those teams who did gigantic runs and wouldn’t punish teams pushing below 5% in the first place. It still would require some extra investment and make it more “inclusive” on who could finish the raid, but wouldn’t be such a demand for more teams now per person. 5% is beyond reasonable to ask for/expect

    No one is saying anything should match what a team did before, but they were trying to preserve the order they would score, but scale it back. No a 5% threshold would effect anyone doing over 5%, and anyone in the 5-10% range would have all been pushed closer together, hence muddying the waters of which teams are good and just ok, because some teams did score around the 4-5% mark.

    Sure it is reasonable to ask, and it was even tested because of some reasoning like that, but made it too easy overall.

    I dont see how they could make it more difficult, and open this up to more teams being able TM be used without some way of pushing developing more teams or involving a larger portion of each guild, but maybe you do.
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?

    Scaling.

    If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.

    What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?

    Scaling.

    If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.

    What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?

    Kinda does, but it probably won't fit your definition as anything over %2 will degrade too fast to make any difference=all teams reduced to a similar threshold, thus the differention in between them will evaporate.
  • Best. Change. Ever. Thank you, CG!
    The nightmare is almost over.

    2% per player per phase to beat the Rancor, with no coordination or timing requirements, seems challenging but reasonable. I'm in an international guild that has gotten to about 10% p4 the last two runs because there's no good time for 30+ of our players to be on at once. We might get it next time, but the time commitment to do so is ridiculous, and I'm thankful that this weekly ordeal will soon be behind us. I've enjoyed trying to get high-percentage runs with Vader and SLK. I haven't enjoyed pausing those runs indefinitely. I'll trade that for an anytime raid in a heartbeat.
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?

    Scaling.

    If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.

    What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?

    Kinda does, but it probably won't fit your definition as anything over %2 will degrade too fast to make any difference=all teams reduced to a similar threshold, thus the differention in between them will evaporate.

    We already have teams that can pass the correct threshold, which is more than the 2% increase. Do you believe those teams will not be able to pass the 2% line?

    It's possible you just a negative view on things and that is skewing your view of this, as there is no practical knowledge to back what you are saying. The 2% line is much less harsh that the line we currently see.
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?

    Scaling.

    If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.

    What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?

    Kinda does, but it probably won't fit your definition as anything over %2 will degrade too fast to make any difference=all teams reduced to a similar threshold, thus the differention in between them will evaporate.

    We already have teams that can pass the correct threshold, which is more than the 2% increase. Do you believe those teams will not be able to pass the 2% line?

    It's possible you just a negative view on things and that is skewing your view of this, as there is no practical knowledge to back what you are saying. The 2% line is much less harsh that the line we currently see.

    I don't have a negative view of things, just asking if you know more than us that makes you make these claims. I'm on the winning side of this change with too many teams to use because I ended up r5ing them as the optimal teams kept changing. Maybe you have unreasonably positive view of things like in all topics which skews your view point.
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    Also since slkr was the only team that was going far past %20 (as far as I know dv in p1 can possibly get past %20 a bit and nothing else) we didn't get to experience the effects of thresholds beforehand.
  • Do we know yet what will happen if guilds are mid-raid when the game is updated? Will the changes go into effect immediately or with the next raid?
  • TVF
    29527 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Also since slkr was the only team that was going far past %20 (as far as I know dv in p1 can possibly get past %20 a bit and nothing else) we didn't get to experience the effects of thresholds beforehand.

    Just wanted to point out I was able to get 20% with Rey in P1.

    Not no more though.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Also since slkr was the only team that was going far past %20 (as far as I know dv in p1 can possibly get past %20 a bit and nothing else) we didn't get to experience the effects of thresholds beforehand.

    Just wanted to point out I was able to get 20% with Rey in P1.

    Not no more though.

    Yeah so actual experience of how teams do beyond the current or upcoming threshold exists for noone. Current team proportionalities are very unlikely to hold. i.e. %5 vs %20 won't convert to %2 vs %8.
  • Kyno
    29921 posts Moderator
    edited March 8
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?

    Scaling.

    If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.

    What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?

    Kinda does, but it probably won't fit your definition as anything over %2 will degrade too fast to make any difference=all teams reduced to a similar threshold, thus the differention in between them will evaporate.

    We already have teams that can pass the correct threshold, which is more than the 2% increase. Do you believe those teams will not be able to pass the 2% line?

    It's possible you just a negative view on things and that is skewing your view of this, as there is no practical knowledge to back what you are saying. The 2% line is much less harsh that the line we currently see.

    I don't have a negative view of things, just asking if you know more than us that makes you make these claims. I'm on the winning side of this change with too many teams to use because I ended up r5ing them as the optimal teams kept changing. Maybe you have unreasonably positive view of things like in all topics which skews your view point.

    This is all based on conversations around testing this. I'm not saying it's any hard line that they will all fall in line but this was the idea behind it and the testing planned out in a way that seemed to support this.

    You are treating 2% like nothing will pass that, and there is nothing to back that up, infact the only place we have a hard line, teams do pass, so that would suggest that a lower increase is not as detrimental. That was why you seem to come across more negative on this than is warranted.

    Considering the game is still here and player are doing better in game modes and making it through the gear crunch with some practices that get passed along, and many of the other things that people tend to be negative about, my positivity is more online with the reality of what's going on than the constant "the sky is falling"...... but that's just me.
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?

    Scaling.

    If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.

    What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?

    Kinda does, but it probably won't fit your definition as anything over %2 will degrade too fast to make any difference=all teams reduced to a similar threshold, thus the differention in between them will evaporate.

    We already have teams that can pass the correct threshold, which is more than the 2% increase. Do you believe those teams will not be able to pass the 2% line?

    It's possible you just a negative view on things and that is skewing your view of this, as there is no practical knowledge to back what you are saying. The 2% line is much less harsh that the line we currently see.

    I don't have a negative view of things, just asking if you know more than us that makes you make these claims. I'm on the winning side of this change with too many teams to use because I ended up r5ing them as the optimal teams kept changing. Maybe you have unreasonably positive view of things like in all topics which skews your view point.

    This is all based on conversations around testing this. I'm not saying it's any hard line that they will all fall in line but this was the idea behind it and the testing planned out in a way that seemed to support this.

    You are treating 2% like nothing will pass that, and there is nothing to back that up, infact the only place we have a hard line, teams do pass, so that would suggest that a lower increase is not as detrimental. That was why you seem to come across more negative on this than is warranted.

    Considering the game is still here and player are doing better in game modes and making it through the gear crunch with some practices that get passed along, and many of the other things that people tend to be negative about, my positivity is more online with the reality of what's going on than the constant "the sky is falling"...... but that's just me.

    I'm asking how that will happen, guess it's too much for you to make the distinction. If the proportionally is not conserved then great=/great and is only good or maybe even meh. Please illustrate to us what's this future picture that can possibly keep the proportionality.

    Also I'm waiting for examples for the teams that passes the current threshold besides slkr with his special mechanics. Where exactly have we experienced the effects of current threshold?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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

    I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.

    Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).

    That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.

    We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.

    I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.

    I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).

    SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me

    Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.

    Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?

    To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.

    I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.

    So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.

    How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?

    Scaling.

    If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.

    What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?

    Kinda does, but it probably won't fit your definition as anything over %2 will degrade too fast to make any difference=all teams reduced to a similar threshold, thus the differention in between them will evaporate.

    We already have teams that can pass the correct threshold, which is more than the 2% increase. Do you believe those teams will not be able to pass the 2% line?

    It's possible you just a negative view on things and that is skewing your view of this, as there is no practical knowledge to back what you are saying. The 2% line is much less harsh that the line we currently see.

    Yes, the 2% is less harsh, but the 6% line is much harsher - and currently there's no line before 20%.
    The raid have gotten a lot harder to beat in terms of teams (investment) needed.
    All teams which previously did more than 2% damage will now do less and all big hitters will do a lot less.
    I look forward to seeing how bad this is going to be, I wonder what our 20-30% SLKR runs will end up at for P2-3 and even more so where our 7-10% Rey P4 runs will end up.
    I'll stick to what I've posted before, final judgement is reserved until we've tried the thing, but the goalposts have certainly been moved, question is if by yards, miles or parsecs.
  • MaruMaru
    2255 posts Member
    Lastly OT: you are very frequently wrong about how future events in the game will unfold with your dismissal of all viewpoints that doesn't fit into your "it'll be ok" mold, but since you never have to redeem past statements you can keep making infinitely more.
  • 0dysseusK wrote: »
    Do we know yet what will happen if guilds are mid-raid when the game is updated? Will the changes go into effect immediately or with the next raid?

    The changes will never affect a raid in progress.
  • MaruMaru wrote: »
    Where exactly have we experienced the effects of current threshold?

    Have you never attacked after someone has prematurely dropped? I mean you're acting like everyone's only attacked when the guards or the rancor are at 100% down to 80% and never experienced the pain of the 20% left on the phase section. My padme team managed around 3% in that instance in p1. Most guides seem to suggest she can do 5% unhindered. So that's still pretty good imo.
  • Konju
    994 posts Member
    0dysseusK wrote: »
    Do we know yet what will happen if guilds are mid-raid when the game is updated? Will the changes go into effect immediately or with the next raid?

    In Doja’s statement it was said that they will be giving an update on timing of the changes to occur so that guilds can choose when to launch the raid.
Sign In or Register to comment.