Important rewards issue to figure out (in General)
I've been thinking about the recent flurry of threads regarding how to keep the game on a level playing field. I've also been thinking about how CB is backwards in certain key aspects of the game -- namely, that the most powerful weapons are the cheapest.
Before we go any further in terms of balancing bonuses, modifying clans, or changing the gravitational constant of the universe (bonus points if you get that reference), consider this:
BA cost is indicative of average cash rewards. As you gain MPR, BA cost goes up. So, as you gain MPR, average cash rewards go up. A person at a higher MPR is going to be gaining more cash per BA than a person at a lower MPR, all else being equal (again, *all else being equal*).
Here's the question -- what about XP? Does your average XP per fight increase as you gain MPR? Obviously, this implies base rewards prior to modification by any of the various bonuses available. This is a Very Important Question to answer, seeing as how if it's indeed the case, it surely explains why it's so hard to overtake people in front of you.
I would imagine that the best way to find out is from very careful fight selection samples, preferably on Sundays.
August 20 2007 1:47 AM EDT
XP, cash rewards and BA cost are tied together I believe so yes, as your MPR increases your average XP rewards increase (but at a decreasing rate and very slowly at high MPR's).
Personally I think the reason that it is so hard to overtake people above you at higher levels is more to do with the near impossibility of getting a challenge bonus rather than the slow increase in "base" rewards.
August 20 2007 2:01 AM EDT
atm challenge bonus > MPR :)
im at 8/20 BA regen and i get 100% with 300-800 rewards without any clan bonus
Just to clarify, forget about any bonuses in this thread. I want to clarify a peculiarity with base rewards.
I think this is an extremely important concept to consider.
I think that the battle rewards system probably needs a change. Regardless of the fact that I'm beating people with 1m more PR and 500k more MPR than me, I get less average rewards from them than some others because of difference in score.
In my opinion, the score system is flawed. If you're beating someone a lot more powerful than you, I believe you should be getting better bonuses regardless of score. This is another reason why it is so hard to gain ground on anyone.. even if you can beat them, it doesn't mean that you will get more exp/cash from them.
I think this all ties together. Some research on specific rewards should probably be done and eventually rescaled to prevent CB3.
August 20 2007 10:04 AM EDT
/me got the reference, and therefore, bonus points. Will these affect my rewards in some way? :P
August 20 2007 10:59 AM EDT
DT, rewards are based on score because score is supposedly the "real" power of a team in regards to everyone else.
Using pure PR would be flawed, as a team could have a huge PR but not be very good (bad strategy, at least compared to the teams beating it). Also, PR would not change, probably. So, you would beat that high-up team, and would keep reaping great rewards even after you had already beaten them into the ground. additionally, a team can change their PR at any time by equipping/unequipping items and tattoos. One could really game rewards that way. Score is more honest, as it is decided by the market, so to speak.
That is why score is used. It is a better indicator of how a team does against other CB teams, and it provides the rock/scissors/paper aspect. One team beats a another large scoring team, but then that beaten team can beat someone else high up. And scores change to show that.
I'm not saying I think basing it all on score is the end-all be-all method to use. But I can't think of a better idea. My final example for why it can't be based on PR is to use the stock market as an analogy -- stock prices aren't based on "power" of the stock... They are based on what people will pay for it. The market decides. Basing CB rewards on PR would be like basing stock price solely on earnings or assets. While those aspect of a corporation are important, they are not the only thing stock price is based on. Some companies do a lot with a little, and others do little with a lot. The former are (usually) rewarded with high stock prices (like a high CB score) while the latter might have a crappy price (a low score).
This has little to do with NS's question, however. *smile* I don't know the answer to that one.
As of now, the current understanding is that score affects the one of the rewards bonuses that you can receive, not your base rewards. What we need to know is whether base XP rewards go up as a function of MPR, just like cash does. We already know that cash does, as Jon said it himself. Maybe there's more information in wherever that post is.
August 20 2007 11:09 AM EDT
Which is amusing since there was a discussion not too long ago where the majority of players seemed to think that score had no use in determining where one stands relative to others.
August 20 2007 11:14 AM EDT
I'm 99% sure that XP and cash rewards are tied together and that the ratio of cash to xp rewards is 1.655:1 (see Avoids post about fight rewards). I've never seen anything to indicate this is wrong.
Simply from an observational point of view, fighting with a newly created small character always generates smaller cash AND xp rewards at 100% challenge bonus than the same bonus with a larger character.
August 20 2007 11:26 AM EDT
Who said score was of no use? A "majority" of players? I must have missed that thread...?
I personally don't care about score, but that's because my rewards are fairly samey (being 6/20 and all). But "not caring about score" is VERY different from saying "score is of no use".
Also, did anyone who found score to be of no use have a better idea on how to determine rewards? There's the kicker. *smile* Whether or not it is perfect, one would need to have a better idea on what to use in order to do away with using score.
August 20 2007 11:37 AM EDT
This is the thread I am quoting:
In it, someone stated "This is ridiculous. Score is meaningless. So who cares? Take the MPR."
Some people who's opinion I value (even if I do not stay so in public" state that score is useless.
Guys, come on.. forget about score for a minute. We need to figure out what the deal is with base rewards and XP.
To sacred peanut, base rewards go up from a new character to an old one because of the BA rate change, too. You have to compare multiple MPR levels within the same BA rate.
Given Avoid's old post about Cash:XP, then if that is true, then yes, XP base rewards go up as a function of MPR. This logic is right in line with making the rarest weapons the cheapest. It is counter-intuitive, and I think it's the root of any other problem. If it is indeed the case, then no amount of bonus will be enough given a long enough time frame.
I know a great way to figure it out. Since we have the MPR:XP equation down pretty darn accurate, it should just be a matter of taking two people in the same BA range fighting the same amount of battles (same number of wins, too) over, say, a week or two. See how much XP each gained.
We could do it in arrears if there's anyone that has fought very closely to how Ranger fought since buying whatever char he bought. We know he gained about 92m XP. That might be a bad data point to choose, since it was before the 6BA change, but it might be worth at least looking at, even if not to draw conclusions.
I think base rewards should be based on a combination of Score and MPR (not PR).
The MPR related base rewards be determined with a combination of the attacker's MPR and the defender's MPR.
The MPR related bonus rewards should be determined by the difference between the attacker's MPR and the top character's MPR.
The defender's score should be used to determine base rewards.
The attacker's score should be used to determine bonus rewards.
This would make user's think twice before removing equipment to trump the rewards obtained while they are not attacking.
Does it make any sense?
August 20 2007 12:44 PM EDT
Yes, Ranger, that was me. That is why I clarified above the two most important aspects of the phrase "score is meaningless":
-- Score not mattering is something that I, personally, believe. I am not concerned with my score. That has nothing to do with rewards, or what NS is asking about here (as far as I can tell). Rewards are based on "your PR" and "their score". It is "my score" that I find meaningless, and that is entirely consistent considering that "my score" has nothing to do with rewards I receive. That was the point I was making in the other thread.
-- No one has really come up with a better metric to use for rewards, other than to say it should be some combination of score, PR, and MPR. But without stating exactly how that should work, and how PR could be controlled, that is not a solution yet.
The thread you reference was about double-tapping. I am not sure I understand what that has to do with this thread? As far as I can tell, NS is trying to suss out the foundation of rewards before contemplating new schemes.
NS, I too have always disliked the "have it all" items in the game (biggest weapons also being cheapest to upgrade). I had never thought about the fact that rewards also seem to increase as time goes on. Do you think rewards increase enough to keep up with ever-increasing attribute investment costs? If not, then higher players still face steeper curves with lesser resources, yes? (well, except for weapon x, which you have already pointed out as being somewhat imbalanced, and I agree with that too).
"Do you think rewards increase enough to keep up with ever-increasing attribute investment costs? If not, then higher players still face steeper curves with lesser resources, yes?"
I thought of that, except Jon has gone on record more times than I can count saying that the cost of a stat is essentially linear because you'll get to 16 or so per point and you'll never make it to the next bracket in this lifetime.
August 20 2007 1:11 PM EDT
"base rewards go up from a new character to an old one because of the BA rate change, too. You have to compare multiple MPR levels within the same BA rate. "
Yes you are correct, comparing MPR levels within the same BA bracket would be ideal however the difference in Cash/XP rewards I'm talking about is around a 100-200% increase from a very small character to a moderately sized one in the 8/20 BA range (rewards on a tiny character of say 1k MPR are pretty darn small). The increase in rewards simply from moving from 10/20 to 8/20 is 25% so only accounts for a small part of the increase in rewards.
BA cost/rewards tend to increase relatively quickly early on then seem to taper off somewhat. I have no idea what your BA buy cost is but I would suspect it would only be a few percentage points less than Rangers despite quite a big difference in MPR.
I can't think of a great reason why rewards increase with MPR to be honest. Perhaps it is to compensate the higher ranked players for the lower challenge bonuses they get? Perhaps it helps new characters get more of a feel for the game and give them the impression that they are progressing due to greater rewards?
While changing the rewards "base" so it doesn't increase with MPR would help to a certain extent, as I stated in my first post I think changes to the score system to prevent convergence to 0% challenge bonus as characters reach the higher levels would be a better solution to the stagnation problem that large characters experience. This could possibly be achieved through removal of the fight down exemptions and a change to the way scores are calculated (I have a suspicion that the score calculation is trying to keep score=MPR rather than score=PR making getting a challenge bonus up the top difficult but I can't be sure).
August 20 2007 1:21 PM EDT
But with double tapping one can seriously mess with score thereby mess with rewards.
It is all interconnected.
"I have no idea what your BA buy cost is"
August 20 2007 1:34 PM EDT
NS: Yes, once you hit 16, that is true... But comparatively, 16 is almost 7% more expensive than 15, and it takes a while to get to 16. BA cost increases verrrrry slowly. So, rewards are only very, very minimally impacted once one reaches 6/20 BA accrual rate. There was thread on BA cost previously, and I think it would take hundreds of thousands of PR to make any significant increase in rewards. By that time, a lot of stats will be at 15 and 16 cost...
I think your point is valid, I just think it is a small term in the equation. Definitely smaller than linear x on weapons where USD can also skew things...
Ranger: Yes, it's all interconnected. But that's not really any reason not to stay on topic. *smile* If you have a better formula or idea on how rewards should be calculated, we'd all love to hear it.
August 20 2007 1:35 PM EDT
Hmmm mine is 548 which implies your "base" rewards are twice mine which seems a little high. What are your average rewards using Avoids method?
August 20 2007 1:43 PM EDT
My average cash rewards is 521.3 (100% challenge bonus 0% clan bonus) which makes the base reward $260.65. My BA buy cost is $548 and my BA cost/base rewards is 2.1.
It would be interesting to find out others base rewards and BA cost.
August 21 2007 2:45 AM EDT
=> Frodbot abr
abr = average battle rewards. Fight (and win!) two battles against the same character, and note the cash rewards you get for each. Then send 'abr ' to calculate your average award vs. that character.
keep in mind that frodbot responds to chatmails as well as PMs
August 21 2007 2:48 AM EDT
Well I guess I'll toss in a couple of pennies:
Back when I was trying to evaluate the forging rate : BA cost ratio I recall wondering if the opportunity cost (is the ratio of NW gained to Cash and EXP lost) for forging was consistent across the MRP spectrum.
One possibly useful tid-bit I did pick up during that research (which was more or less completely nuked by the regen rate change) was that Regen Rate and BA cost have to be factored together; ie, BA cost X regen rate = x wherein x is derived from MPR.
I'm thinking rewards ought to embrace a similar relationship... meh if this is completely useless please disregard.
Against Draco, high = 702, low = 527. Ratio = 1.333, so 527 * 1.13/12 = 571. 571 / 1.655 = 345. So my average cash is 571 and average XP is 345.
All I have to say regarding Avoid's work on rewards is.... "Wow."
The man is a genius.
August 21 2007 3:06 AM EDT
What bonuses are those rewards with?
None. Oh, wait... Clan bonus. Darn. Well, hmm.. probably 13.9%.
August 21 2007 3:19 AM EDT
So that gives a base cash reward of $571/1.139=$501.3.
This gives a BA cost/base cash reward ratio of $1048/$501.3=2.1.
This is the same as mine which seems to indicate base rewards do indeed increase at the same proportion as BA cost and that a $2.1 increase in BA cost increases base cash rewards by a dollar.
August 21 2007 3:24 AM EDT
Hmmm thats quite depressing actually, I didn't realise base rewards differed that much. I assumed because I was on 100% challenge bonus and the top characters were on 0% that I would have better rewards when infact at best my rewards are about the same.
August 21 2007 5:50 AM EDT
:) NS could we get a number like 1mill MPR = how much increase in Base rewards?
lostling, BA cost is based on VPR, and I don't know what mine is offhand. I could figure it out, but not right now.
Can anyone else chime in with some values?
August 22 2007 1:27 AM EDT
100% challenge bonus
11.6 clan bonus
BA cost 650
BA regen 8/20 mins
hope this helps
August 23 2007 3:47 AM EDT
100% challenge bonus
10.4 clan bonus
BA cost 650
BA regen 8/20 mins
Using Avoid's method my average reward is 522 with a 38% Challenge bonus, and 12.9% clan bonus.
My BA cost just jumped up today to $1,071! I'll get a new average a little later.
With my new BA cost, my average rewards are 310 XP and $513 per fight. That's at a cost of $1,071. That's a ratio of 2.0877 cost:reward, down from 2.09 using the previous cost. So my ratio is getting more efficient as my MPR grows. This means that as you get bigger, you earn more per fight, both in money and in XP.
September 10 2007 10:11 PM EDT
still doesnt beat 100% for a long time though
September 10 2007 10:28 PM EDT
NS, my BA cost is 1048, same as your was so I can't contribute a data point for you. Sorry.
You can verify that your ratio is the same. If it isn't, then there are other variables to consider. If it is, then the only contributor to base rewards is BA cost.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002C5Y">Important rewards issue to figure out</a>