Upcoming Changes To The Pit Challenge Tier [MEGA]

Replies

  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.
  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.

    Actually it more often turns out ok as things unfold, more so than the game has died, if I recall correctly.
  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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?

    General rule of thumb when something bad happened and we got too close to the threshold, is that a teams performance is cut in halfords worse, so with a lower increase we would generally expect 35-40% reduction in scoring. But that is based on different math, and will need to be adjusted to the 2% mark (scaled down as we were discussing earlier) But more information is needed and team comps that worked before may get switched around a little to create new teams and whatnot.

    Here is a pretty fair breakdown of what to expect:

    We already have teams that can go past the 20% damage mark, and that gives a +75% rancor stat bonus. Logic tells you that those same teams will now will now survive the +20% rancor stat bonus & even a bit past the 60% stat bonus, if they didn't die instantly at 20% damage before when the +75% stat bonus kicked in.

    So we have every reason to expect that the super-squads will still get 5%. There's even a good chance they'll get 7%.

    Even the teams that can't stay alive with the +20% stat bonus are still going to get one or more good hits in before the Rancor's next turn (or maybe even survive one more turn by the Rancor). So teams that were getting 3.5%-4% will still get 2.5% to 3%.

    It's not realistic to think this is an instant death sentence at a +20% stat bonus when some squads were surviving +75% stat bonuses.

    Any squad that got over 2% before is going to get 2% plus at least one more good hit. Any squad that got less than 2% before is unaffected. So, no, you're not suddenly doomed to getting only 2% and you're done.
    Moreover, you still don't require 100% participation, because even if a squad was limited to 2%, a single player can send in more than one squad. (And if it's worth it to you, can even swap mods in between - how many credits would you pay for Aeromagnifiers if they were available for credit purchase?)

    I had one 5% squad for p4, same for p3, an SLKR squad for p1 or 2 ... but because we had to do everything all at once, I couldn't add in any additional squads later. I had to hit & hold and then wait...

    Now I can send in 3 x 2.1 to 2.5% squads in p1, send in my SLKR mega squad for 5%+ in p2, 3% ish in p3, and then another 3% in p4 + at least 2 more clean up squads in p4, so I still total 5%.

    As a player, it wasn't worth it to send in a 4th squad in p1 or p2 (whichever one I didn't use SLKR) because it would have done piddling damage compared to the best squads & I would just be told to back out & save the squad after someone else hit big. What a waste of time.

    But now I can get an extra 6% in p1, I lose 15-20% in p2, lose 2% in p3, and stay the same in p4. Add it up, I lose 11-16% damage, but I'm still doing more than 2% per phase. If you have 50% participation that looks like mine you can crush the raid since I'm going to be doing more than 4% in each and every phase except p3, and someone else can pick up my p3 slack by sacrificing a little in p4 or p1 where I'm going well over 4%.

    So not only can a guild of 50 players like me complete the raid with 50% participation, but you no longer have guild coordination specifying an exact time for players to hit & then holding on for an hour just to turn off airplane mode simultaneously with 30 other people, which I have to say is not my idea of fun.

    As a result, I suspect that participation will go up, since people can hit at their convenience. If I was the best in my guild (and I'm a long way from best in my guild), we could still beat the raid with 80-90% participation, and it would come without coordination headaches.

    No, this isn't going to be easy. Yes, each attempt is going to be very short, unless you're restarting to max out your score. But the guilds who did it before are going to be able to do it again unless they were guilds relying on only a very few heavy hitters while the rest of the guild contributed little to nothing.
  • MaruMaru
    2152 posts Member
    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.

    That has been the case in my guild, I have no experience of it. When early drops that took the phases below %80 happened, the banked damage had surpassed %100. If you are saying %5 moved to %3 with higher current ramp ups, cases where we can survive 1-2-3 of the new thresholds can happen.
  • MaruMaru
    2152 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.

    Actually it more often turns out ok as things unfold, more so than the game has died, if I recall correctly.

    Since I never made a case otherwise, not even once (i.e. something current or future will kill the game or gear crunch is very bad) then your previous claim doesn't hold.
  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.

    Actually it more often turns out ok as things unfold, more so than the game has died, if I recall correctly.

    Since I never made a case otherwise, not even once (i.e. something current or future will kill the game or gear crunch is very bad) then your previous claim doesn't hold.

    Since those things have yet to happen, even if you didnt say them, I am not as wrong as you think when responding to people who do say them, and yes it will be ok.
  • MaruMaru
    2152 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    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.

    Actually it more often turns out ok as things unfold, more so than the game has died, if I recall correctly.

    Since I never made a case otherwise, not even once (i.e. something current or future will kill the game or gear crunch is very bad) then your previous claim doesn't hold.

    Since those things have yet to happen, even if you didnt say them, I am not as wrong as you think when responding to people who do say them, and yes it will be ok.

    Neither did I say otherwise or made any value judgement on the outcomes I was guessing on the initial post you were responding to.
  • Konju
    803 posts Member
    Ultra wrote: »
    Any hope of a change in the aeromagnifiers being upped to 5 minimum for rank 26 ~ 50 too?

    Handing out 3~1 for half the guild working closely together seems uneven

    I wish I could like this question more than once. 😂

    Obvious to the player base, a closely coordinated effort by most (if not all) members of guild to complete deserves at least flatter rewards in Aeromagnifiers.
  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    Ultra wrote: »
    Any hope of a change in the aeromagnifiers being upped to 5 minimum for rank 26 ~ 50 too?

    Handing out 3~1 for half the guild working closely together seems uneven

    There is always hope.
  • Community - "Fix the raid so we don't have to wait on airplane mode for hours and coordinate attacks!"
    Development - "Here's a fix that addresses the issues you have raised."
    Community - "WHY DID YOU DO THAT??"

    Perhaps we should at least wait and see how even just the first ctr with the new changes goes before crying about it.
  • ShaggyB
    1983 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    ShaggyB wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    4) no it has not been ignored.

    Not being fixed though.

    Those rewards are hardly "flat"

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

    How much discussion does it take.

    Its not like this wasnt a player sentiment from before challenge rancor launched.


  • camper288
    210 posts Member
    edited March 9
    Doing the research, and seeing with my guild how far we would go, we went to P4 and we lacked Rey and JKL to take her down.

    The real experience gave me exactly what will catch more people.
    is p4.

    CRancor's speed base is 216, with 100% speed increase on p4 we have 432.
    it is already a crazy hunt to do 1% damage with a CLS team.
    If a team that could make 8% (Rey + JKL) makes 3 to 4% will be in profit

    Assuming only a 20% increase 432 + 42 = 476

    they will let the whale guilds take a good lead, for after another 3 months of complaints and information gathering and maybe give relief in the speed increase of phase 4.
  • Nauros
    4231 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.
    Revive the stores, the game needs it.
  • Ravens1113
    3331 posts Member
    camper288 wrote: »
    Doing the research, and seeing with my guild how far we would go, we went to P4 and we lacked Rey and JKL to take her down.

    The real experience gave me exactly what will catch more people.
    is p4.

    CRancor's speed base is 216, with 100% speed increase on p4 we have 432.
    it is already a crazy hunt to do 1% damage with a CLS team.
    If a team that could make 8% (Rey + JKL) makes 3 to 4% will be in profit

    Assuming only a 20% increase 432 + 42 = 476

    they will let the whale guilds take a good lead, for after another 3 months of complaints and information gathering and maybe give relief in the speed increase of phase 4.

    I mean these super exclusive r8 materials are end game stuff! Then again, you can just whale on the pieces every month when the pack pops up and you can buy 3 packs for 30 of the new relic mats, along with some other goodies. Whale harder ;)
  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.
  • Nauros
    4231 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.

    Maybe not 100, but in our case, definitely more than 50.
    Fact: we barely make it now with full participation.
    Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.
    Conclusion: we will need more than 50 people or be back to grinding.
    That is my math, show yours instead of accusations of negativity. I want to be positive about it, I just can't.
    Revive the stores, the game needs it.
  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.

    Maybe not 100, but in our case, definitely more than 50.
    Fact: we barely make it now with full participation.
    Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.
    Conclusion: we will need more than 50 people or be back to grinding.
    That is my math, show yours instead of accusations of negativity. I want to be positive about it, I just can't.

    Sure, 50 players need to average 2% to make it work. This change doesnt effect anyone who can do 2% per phase.

    Teams that do more than 2% right now, will do more than 2% after the change, and some probably even more to help make up the difference for those players who cant do 2% per phase in each phase.

    I'm not asking you to be positive, but you seem to have drawn a conclusion out of nothing, and maybe reserving judgement may be more prudent until we all have some experience to build on.
  • Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.


    Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.

    Show your source plz bc based on my experiences, teams should be doing roughly the same as before. If you mean SLK will be significantly less effective after the change, he's the only standout indicator of that and he's only one toon. Hardly 'most teams'. Everyone seems to be assuming all teams will do 2% damage and then die immediately. That doesn't make sense bc we have teams doing more than 2% when the rancor/guards have obscene buffs already so how is a 2% threshold of lower stats going to do more than the 20% left in the phase crazy boosted stats?
  • TVF wrote: »
    Show your source plz bc based on my experiences, teams should be doing roughly the same as before.

    Before I could do up to 20% damage with no change in boss stats.

    Now the boss stats will improve at each 2% threshold.

    We can debate how much less damage we'll do, but there is zero chance teams will do roughly the same damage as they are doing now.

    Those are GLs that were getting those numbers, which again is not "most" teams. It's a few teams.
  • Nauros
    4231 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.

    Maybe not 100, but in our case, definitely more than 50.
    Fact: we barely make it now with full participation.
    Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.
    Conclusion: we will need more than 50 people or be back to grinding.
    That is my math, show yours instead of accusations of negativity. I want to be positive about it, I just can't.

    Sure, 50 players need to average 2% to make it work. This change doesnt effect anyone who can do 2% per phase.

    Teams that do more than 2% right now, will do more than 2% after the change, and some probably even more to help make up the difference for those players who cant do 2% per phase in each phase.

    I'm not asking you to be positive, but you seem to have drawn a conclusion out of nothing, and maybe reserving judgement may be more prudent until we all have some experience to build on.

    I have drawn my conclusion from the known information about the change. You keep going on about how I am overly negative while showing exactly nothing to support your view.
    Any team doing more than 2% will be less effective after the change, assuming that we are talking about the typical situation where everyone does their runs before the current bonuses kick in. Any team doing less will be unaffected. That means net negative change compared to the current state, because we are not doing exactly 2% each in every phase (and I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this unrealistic scenario), but most are doing much more in some phases and less in others. It follows that we will come up short after the change, not sure how you can consider this "out of nothing".
    I'm not disputing that scores over 2% will be possible, all I say is that they will be significantly reduced.
    Revive the stores, the game needs it.
  • MaruMaru
    2152 posts Member
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.

    Maybe not 100, but in our case, definitely more than 50.
    Fact: we barely make it now with full participation.
    Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.
    Conclusion: we will need more than 50 people or be back to grinding.
    That is my math, show yours instead of accusations of negativity. I want to be positive about it, I just can't.

    Sure, 50 players need to average 2% to make it work. This change doesnt effect anyone who can do 2% per phase.

    Teams that do more than 2% right now, will do more than 2% after the change, and some probably even more to help make up the difference for those players who cant do 2% per phase in each phase.

    I'm not asking you to be positive, but you seem to have drawn a conclusion out of nothing, and maybe reserving judgement may be more prudent until we all have some experience to build on.

    I have drawn my conclusion from the known information about the change. You keep going on about how I am overly negative while showing exactly nothing to support your view.
    Any team doing more than 2% will be less effective after the change, assuming that we are talking about the typical situation where everyone does their runs before the current bonuses kick in. Any team doing less will be unaffected. That means net negative change compared to the current state, because we are not doing exactly 2% each in every phase (and I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this unrealistic scenario), but most are doing much more in some phases and less in others. It follows that we will come up short after the change, not sure how you can consider this "out of nothing".
    I'm not disputing that scores over 2% will be possible, all I say is that they will be significantly reduced.

    Leave it to Kyno to tell you to wait until we see it, only to push his own premature conclusions without any math to show for it.
  • Ravens1113
    3331 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Show your source plz bc based on my experiences, teams should be doing roughly the same as before.

    Before I could do up to 20% damage with no change in boss stats.

    Now the boss stats will improve at each 2% threshold.

    We can debate how much less damage we'll do, but there is zero chance teams will do roughly the same damage as they are doing now.

    Those are GLs that were getting those numbers, which again is not "most" teams. It's a few teams.

    Any team that was getting more than 2% before these changes will do worse now. You’re implementing a 20% change to the raid at that threshold which means any team you used prior will not do as well. How you can say they’ll still get the same damage output is beyond me
  • Ultra
    7577 posts Member
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.

    Maybe not 100, but in our case, definitely more than 50.
    Fact: we barely make it now with full participation.
    Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.
    Conclusion: we will need more than 50 people or be back to grinding.
    That is my math, show yours instead of accusations of negativity. I want to be positive about it, I just can't.

    Raids are always meant to be full participation events upon release until they get outdated, so I don’t see anything wrong with buffing the raid up to require that level of effort
  • Nauros
    4231 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Show your source plz bc based on my experiences, teams should be doing roughly the same as before.

    Before I could do up to 20% damage with no change in boss stats.

    Now the boss stats will improve at each 2% threshold.

    We can debate how much less damage we'll do, but there is zero chance teams will do roughly the same damage as they are doing now.

    Those are GLs that were getting those numbers, which again is not "most" teams. It's a few teams.

    So many GLs in my P2/3 Shaak team...
    Now: 5 - 6%. After the change: expecting around 3% due to only one Aerial Advantage from Rex instead of two because it won't hold that long. And there are other non-GL teams.
    Revive the stores, the game needs it.
  • Kyno
    29220 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 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.

    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.

    Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.

    Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.

    Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
    How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.

    There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.

    I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.

    Maybe not 100, but in our case, definitely more than 50.
    Fact: we barely make it now with full participation.
    Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.
    Conclusion: we will need more than 50 people or be back to grinding.
    That is my math, show yours instead of accusations of negativity. I want to be positive about it, I just can't.

    Sure, 50 players need to average 2% to make it work. This change doesnt effect anyone who can do 2% per phase.

    Teams that do more than 2% right now, will do more than 2% after the change, and some probably even more to help make up the difference for those players who cant do 2% per phase in each phase.

    I'm not asking you to be positive, but you seem to have drawn a conclusion out of nothing, and maybe reserving judgement may be more prudent until we all have some experience to build on.

    I have drawn my conclusion from the known information about the change. You keep going on about how I am overly negative while showing exactly nothing to support your view.
    Any team doing more than 2% will be less effective after the change, assuming that we are talking about the typical situation where everyone does their runs before the current bonuses kick in. Any team doing less will be unaffected. That means net negative change compared to the current state, because we are not doing exactly 2% each in every phase (and I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this unrealistic scenario), but most are doing much more in some phases and less in others. It follows that we will come up short after the change, not sure how you can consider this "out of nothing".
    I'm not disputing that scores over 2% will be possible, all I say is that they will be significantly reduced.

    If 2% is possible for all of your guild members than there is no problem, and since you agree that scores over 2% are possible you have a cushion.

    That seems like you are saying that any net negative to any single team or player can be easily distributed to the whole guild allowing you to make it through.

    There is nothing unrealistic about guilds on the edge of making a raid work, doing exactly the % needed across the board, that is always the initial plan and goal of how to develop into new raid content.

    Yes it is possible that you come up short, but it is also possible that with a proper plan and seeing the numbers of what actually works after the change that you will be ok. You didnt give much information and the reason I was focused on 2% is because any guild at the level of this content should be able to have all members put up 2%, and those numbers will be unaffected. Maybe I'm wrong about your guild makeup, but still a player putting up 4-5% should help make up for that. It's all an averaging effect.

    I'm am not being overly positive in this discussion, which is why I have stayed focused on the bare minimum each member would need to do (to answer your questionqhy I am focused on 2%), I wouldnt want to start putting out statements about teams doing 3,4,5 or even 6 % as some sort of normal, but it's all still possible, and very well might be part of the new normal we see.
Sign In or Register to comment.