Should some negative challenge bonuses be removed? (in General)


QBRanger October 28 2007 4:07 PM EDT

I know there is a problem in the 7 BA regeneration zone.

While people at 6 per do not get a negative bonus, those at 7 per can get one, limiting their growth compared to those higher.

What I would propose is no negative bonus until you fight below your MPR.

This will ensure some growth at the 7 BA level.

Thoughts?

Flamey October 28 2007 4:09 PM EDT

<3.

Spawn October 28 2007 4:15 PM EDT

I totally agree!

The Highest Challenge Bonus i get is -2% (From Xanas. With Rangers fancy ToE)

Thats me fighting 1mil MPR above me (300k Score above me)

Give us 7/20s a break :P

QBRanger October 28 2007 4:16 PM EDT

Let me clarify just a bit.

You compare your PR vs their score. If their score is higher, you get a + CB.

If your PR is higher then their score you get a 0 CB until their score is lower then your MPR, then you start to get a negative CB.

So scores between your MPR and PR give a 0 CB instead of a negative one.

This will allow some growth in the lower BA regeneration zones.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 28 2007 4:16 PM EDT

that was a hard area to get through as the ones above you tend to be quite above you. that does sound like a reasonable solution.

Iluvatar[NK] October 28 2007 4:21 PM EDT

This heavily favors NW-weighted teams, it seems.

A 2.5m PR team is supposed to be roughly equivalent to any other 2.5m PR team, but under these situations, a 1.6m MPR team will have a bonus advantage over a 2.1m MPR team.

I have never liked the "NW is king" trend, and this would only serve to exacerbate the issue.

I do think 7 needs to be fixed, but simply changing the % of top MPR needed should solve that issue more cleanly.

Yukk October 28 2007 4:56 PM EDT

I think this is a great idea. 7/X was hard.
I don't think this will advantage $NW characters since Ranger proposes using the opponent's MPR as the cut-off for -ve bonuses.

Unless a team is a really well run NCB or has huge NW it's hard to fight through this zone and a fightlist with bonuses gets shorter and shorter and then disappears. At that point the team is losing ground on the 6/20 teams that always get at least 0 bonus.

Basically I'm all for it, even if it's not implemented exactly this way, I think Ranger has a good idea here.

Iluvatar[NK] October 28 2007 5:01 PM EDT

"I don't think this will advantage $NW characters since Ranger proposes using the opponent's MPR as the cut-off for -ve bonuses."

Explain.

Basically this is how I see it (arbitrary numbers):

You're a 300m+ NW team with 1.4m MPR that has 2.2m PR. After this change, you've got a good chance of moving up because so few 1.4m MPR teams can beat you; that is, you will always have positive or 0 bonus.

You're a 100m NW team with 1.7m MPR that has 2.2m PR. After this change, you still lose to 1.5/1.6m MPR teams with more NW than you, and you still have negative bonus.

Cube October 28 2007 8:03 PM EDT

Couldn't you simply help it by basing rewards off of your opponents Score or PR whichever is higher? Then always use your own pr to compare?

Cube October 28 2007 8:08 PM EDT

I guess you'd need to tweak that idea though ^ because you run into problems with teams that are way too small for their equipment.. Like when you equip a big weapon on a 1 mpr character

lostling October 28 2007 8:10 PM EDT

challenge bonus based on your PR vs score up to 8 then your PR vs opponent's PR when you hit 7 then when you hit 6 it resets back to PR vs score

DrAcO5676 [The Knighthood III] October 28 2007 8:57 PM EDT

Please we need to do something about 7/20. I have been stuck here for far too long and I never get a challenge bonus thats positive. I can cut about 200k pr off of me and It still doesn't help me at all. And I even beat a few 2.5 mil mpr chars.

Lumpy Koala October 28 2007 9:02 PM EDT

Although it will also benefit me but I would say no thanks. With this implemented, what's the point of balancing your PR strategically? There are people who sacrificed using of tattoos just to maintain low enough PR to get decent challenge bonus and the same people are being penalized because 6/20 dudes can bully them as much as they like. Now you want to further penalize them...

If you really want to help us... then stop using that freaking ROE !! :P

QBRanger October 28 2007 9:40 PM EDT

Why should I stop using the ROE?

It is incredible the amount of xp I get with it. Now that my tattoo is large enough, why not use what Jon's gives everyone the chance to do-get large amounts of PR relatively cheap.

Yukk October 28 2007 10:10 PM EDT

As a user of the ROE, I agree. I'm giving up all the advantage that a tattoo could give me or the armour I could put on a minion.
If you want the advantage of all that exp, get a ROE.
Ranger has held off all this time. Now he's using one. I'm sure he's doing it to help everyone that hates ROEs, but in the meantime, anyone can do it.

horseguy001 October 28 2007 10:34 PM EDT

It's fine by me that Ranger is using an RoE, as its available to everyone. If I was top mpr with a 5 mil tattoo, you better believe I would be using one too.

It's just a shame he started using one after my NCB started, since now my bonus will be less effective, but hopefully still effective enough to get into that coveted 6/20.

Lumpy Koala October 28 2007 10:44 PM EDT

I was just kidding about you using ROE btw :P Although I seriously hoped you would abandon the idea of using ROE all the way....

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] October 28 2007 10:55 PM EDT

I agree. The current situation is dumb.

Flamey October 28 2007 11:13 PM EDT

NK, it already is like that, high NW teams still dominate either way, this way would be better for low end teams, most NW is in a weapon, if it's under the WA it doesn't add to the PR, let me tell you that my current WA is about 135 mil. Most NW is in weapons, this wouldn't make things worse, it'd make it better.

Iluvatar[NK] October 28 2007 11:25 PM EDT

"NK, it already is like that,"

Firstly, Lumpy Koala is NK. I am his most unworthy servant.

Secondly, considering the relative ease with which Jon can implement change, normative arguments do not apply. The fact that the status quo exists should not justify its existence.

"high NW teams still dominate either way,"

This is true. There should be a better solution that mitigates the dominance of high networth teams. However, if Jon does not wish that, there is an issue independent of networth. All 7/20 teams suffer at varying degrees, and we are all trying to solve that issue.

"this way would be better for low end teams,"

I don't see why. Referring to my previous example, it is quite evident to me that low networth teams would suffer under the new model as well as the old. Such a change, since it does not consider PR, would be detrimental to high-MPR low-PR teams - that is, those with low networth.

"most NW is in a weapon, if it's under the WA it doesn't add to the PR,"

The fact that WA hides some NW still does not justify your argument. The simple statement "More NW = More PR" applies to more cases than it does not. Even heavily weapon-weighted teams can have significant PR over MPR due to armor costs.

"let me tell you that my current WA is about 135 mil."

I fail to see the relevance of your WA to this debate.

"Most NW is in weapons, this wouldn't make things worse, it'd make it better."

It's something of a leap in logic, but if I follow you, you're saying that because weapons have a negligible impact on PR, changing the Challenge Bonus calculations will benefit low net worth teams as well as high net worth ones.

I find that train of thought to be nonsensical.

1) Most NW is in weapons. OK. Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. Even if it is true, that still doesn't account for the vast PR that is added because of NW invested in armor.

2) It would further exacerbate the difference between rich teams (usually USD spenders) and poor ones. I find that undesirable. While I agree that those who spend USD should be rewarded for their investment, I disagree with any changes that grant them more advantage.

3) While this change will promote parity between 7/20 and 6/20 characters, it will do so at the expense of poor teams. Also, it seems like a contrived mechanism, a sort of "band-aid" that will not solve the root issue [simply misplaced thresholds]

All in all, while I think this is a well-intentioned suggestion, I am not convinced its benefits outweigh harms done.

Flamey October 28 2007 11:36 PM EDT

You say that teams that have high NW with lower MPR would be able to beat teams with higher MPR, this is already the case, a lot of people still keep all their armour on and they beat people who are larger than them, because of NW. I still don't really see how high NW get more benefit than low NW teams, they still keep the same thing on, they just both don't get penalised, besides this is only for negative challenge bonus. If you can beat someone properly with PR vs Score then you'll get a challenge bonus, but you wont if you've packed on the NW/PR.

The fact I mentioned my WA is that 135 mil could be into a weapon and not a drop into the PR, irregardless of any changes regarding BA regeneration, a 135 mil Weapon will still own.

A lot of NW on tank teams is in the weapon, that is if you're disregarding the NW from a tattoo seeing as you don't actually put money into it, it just grows.

Currently the 7/20 cap is at 40% and the 6/20 at 60%, how much more do you want to lower it? Even at 50% the threshold will be at 1.6 mil, any lower and it wont take much to go from 8/20 to 6/20. Besides you'll never entirely fix the negative challenge bonus problem, at least with the current playerbase, if a lot more people joined the game say 100 and they all used their NUB we'd see Challenge bonuses and score soar.

Iluvatar[NK] October 28 2007 11:58 PM EDT

Before I get into this: Please use less commas and more periods. It's easier to follow if you adhere to accepted grammatical norms.

"You say that teams that have high NW with lower MPR would be able to beat teams with higher MPR, this is already the case, a lot of people still keep all their armour on and they beat people who are larger than them, because of NW. I still don't really see how high NW get more benefit than low NW teams, they still keep the same thing on, they just both don't get penalised, besides this is only for negative challenge bonus. If you can beat someone properly with PR vs Score then you'll get a challenge bonus, but you wont if you've packed on the NW/PR."

Nowhere have I said that high NW teams shouldn't be able to beat higher MPR teams. My argument is that high NW teams shouldn't get breaks on challenge bonus, which Ranger's proposition provides.

Basically, at the 7/20 level, nobody gets positive challenge bonus. Ranger's idea tries to solve this by using MPR instead of Score, since MPR is a more lenient measure. However, this allows high PR:MPR ratio teams more leeway than low PR:MPR teams.

"The fact I mentioned my WA is that 135 mil could be into a weapon and not a drop into the PR, irregardless of any changes regarding BA regeneration, a 135 mil Weapon will still own."

Again, you misunderstand my argument. WA lessens PR, true, but there are so many other ways to increase PR. Mikel stays under his WA, but still has a 3:2 PR:MPR ratio because of his armor and tattoo. There are other ways to increase PR besides WA.

"A lot of NW on tank teams is in the weapon, that is if you're disregarding the NW from a tattoo seeing as you don't actually put money into it, it just grows."

See the above argument on armor. Your point has no impact so long as armor adds significantly to networth - which it does. In fact, your arguments on WA only serve to bolster my contention; that is, even when you disregard a significant portion of networth, it still manages to increase PR by quite a bit on rich teams.

"Currently the 7/20 cap is at 40% and the 6/20 at 60%, how much more do you want to lower it? Even at 50% the threshold will be at 1.6 mil, any lower and it wont take much to go from 8/20 to 6/20."

I don't have the meta-stats on this, so I can't say definitively. 50% ? 55%? I'm sure there's a workable number. It's not like the 8/20 number has to remain static; the entire scale would be re-done.

"Besides you'll never entirely fix the negative challenge bonus problem, at least with the current playerbase, if a lot more people joined the game say 100 and they all used their NUB we'd see Challenge bonuses and score soar."

This argument is basically saying "because you can't solve the problem entirely, don't try". I'm sure you can see how that fails to convince me. Your secondary point about players is illogical; you've provided no reason why such a thing would happen, and it has no impact on the argument at hand.

Flamey October 29 2007 4:13 AM EDT

Before I get into this: Please use less commas and more periods. It's easier to follow if you adhere to accepted grammatical norms.

I really don't care. I suck at English, whether I use commas or full stops, my posts are much easier to read than a lot of the crap on the internet. How do you survive?

this allows high PR:MPR ratio teams more leeway than low PR:MPR teams.

No it doesn't, I already said why.

Again, you misunderstand my argument. WA lessens PR, true, but there are so many other ways to increase PR. Mikel stays under his WA, but still has a 3:2 PR:MPR ratio because of his armor and tattoo. There are other ways to increase PR besides WA.

Armour isn't essential to a team, it really isn't. Ask someone to remove their armour and usually it won't make a difference. JW will back me up on this, because he's the one that said it. Unless you're talking about a Wall, in most other cases e.g. for a tank or a mage, taking off your CoI and AG won't make much of a difference.

even when you disregard a significant portion of networth, it still manages to increase PR by quite a bit on rich teams.

Why do you keep talking about rich teams? Normal teams have armour. Normal teams have high AC walls. Normal teams also have NW.

I don't have the meta-stats on this, so I can't say definitively. 50% ? 55%? I'm sure there's a workable number. It's not like the 8/20 number has to remain static; the entire scale would be re-done.

I already said that 50% of the top MPR is 1.6 mil, which is still far too great. If you're going to rescale the whole then it'll break, people will be getting into 6/20 really fast and no one would have to spend longer than a week in 8/20, 9/20 and 10/20.

This argument is basically saying "because you can't solve the problem entirely, don't try". I'm sure you can see how that fails to convince me. Your secondary point about players is illogical; you've provided no reason why such a thing would happen, and it has no impact on the argument at hand.

I didn't say that. I'm supporting this idea for god's sake, the idea to help people in 7/20. You're the only naysayer in the whole thread. This is changing it a little, which is exactly the opposite to what you think I'm doing or supporting. I thought that the bit on players was completely logical and easily understood. The only reason this thing occurs is because lack of players towards the top. The whole reason for the Top 10 restriction was because of what is happening now, it even got changed to a new refresh which allowed more people in. I'm sorry, maybe next time I have to explain every single word in what I'm saying?

Lochnivar October 29 2007 5:07 AM EDT

This thread was created to give Ranger an unfair advantage.

But as an unbiased user who just happens to be at 7/20 I agree 100% with idea.

For example:
My NW of about 55mil puts me at about 2.2mil PR (MPR is a hair over 1.8mil)
The *only* targets with scores higher than my PR are in the top 10 or so.... as if I'm gonna start beating them.

Under the idea Ranger listed early on I probably would still never see a bonus but it would would enjoy a modest 3% to 4% increase in my fight rewards.

As it is I'm actually starting to worry a little about eventually dropping out of the 7/20 into the 8/20 (a way off but the fact I even think about it isn't good)

QBJohnnywas October 29 2007 5:11 AM EDT

Armours only really worthwhile if it's cutting a LOT of damage. Anything less than 250 AC is pretty much useless; unless you're on the line between winning and losing, where a little bit of damage shaved might make a difference.

But otherwise try it and see all you low AC armour users. You don't need it!

Anyway back to topic:

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] October 29 2007 9:14 AM EDT

"Basically, at the 7/20 level, nobody gets positive challenge bonus. Ranger's idea tries to solve this by using MPR instead of Score, since MPR is a more lenient measure. However, this allows high PR:MPR ratio teams more leeway than low PR:MPR teams."

I agree with your reasoning but I think in practice the high NW team might not be any better off. As long as the low NW teams can find enough targets above their MPR it matters little if the high NW teams can find more.

Would changing the thresholds be a more satisfactory solution? I'm not sure.

Lumpy Koala October 29 2007 9:34 AM EDT

" As long as the low NW teams can find enough targets above their MPR it matters little if the high NW teams can find more. "

No.. when it's MPR against MPR, low N/W team will have immense disadvantage. And the N/W I meant in general was not about WA or armor, but specifically tattoos. Tattoos are the only thing that provides the most PR to any team that uses them, and some teams like NightStrike or mine had decided to dump tattoo advancement for better MPR gain rate or should I say better challenge bonus. This in fact is the only advantage that we have in terms of combat ability versus combat gain. Now if you use MPR vs MPR only, our strat will automatically be branded idiotic moves that reaps no benefits at all. Because any team at the same MPR level with a tattoo has combat benefit against our strat while no fear of challenge bonus deficit.

PR and item PR weight are there for a purpose, most of us take it for granted while forgetting it's strategic usage. If you feel you can't advance anymore than now, why not start a new NCB team? Or use ROE alternatively with your tattoo ? Or manage your inventory to squeeze the PR as small as possible while not losing edge? There're choices available , but do you have the guts to change and stick with it?

Also PR is always the right measure of strength between teams, albeit the wacko WA of tanks. If you ask me, challenge bonus should be PR versus PR :P But that will of course be even more worse for certain 7/20 dudes :)

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] October 29 2007 9:52 AM EDT

Maybe 7/20 should get the same negative challenge bonus relief as 6/20, don't limit it by MPR or anything else.

AdminNightStrike October 29 2007 10:35 AM EDT

Frankly, I think EVERYONE should get negative challenge bonuses. Then it would force the top players to not have 4893798574395793 PR values if they want to stay competitive MPR-wise.

Dark Dreky October 29 2007 12:28 PM EDT

I agree with NS.

The top whatever exemption is ridiculous! It allows the already toughest and most successful players to get even MORE benefits! They can continue to add their USD (I know not all of them do... but the majority) without any penalty. Give them negative challenge bonuses it just makes sense....

Also, it will allow others to catch up in MPR and even the playing field.

Flamey October 30 2007 7:33 AM EDT

Not enough people or targets in the game to do that, NS, DD. That's why it was put in place the first time.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 30 2007 9:29 PM EDT

Get rid of N*B, add the sliding XP bonus Ranger/I have suggested and remove the exemptions.

Job done. CB sorted and no need for any rescales.
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=002GC7">Should some negative challenge bonuses be removed?</a>