Dead Zones and Challenge Bonuses (in General)

QBJohnnywas August 13 2008 9:17 AM EDT

Since Jon adjusted scoring Do people still feel there is a 'dead zone'? At the time of the adjustment people were of the opinion that it would probably help - has it?

And with the adjustment are people getting better challenge bonuses for longer?

How about nearer the top levels? Challenge bonuses anybody? I ask, because while I'm sitting in and around the top 20 standings I have on several opponents bonuses of around 30%. Which is pretty surprising to me.

Flamey August 13 2008 9:30 AM EDT

No Challenge bonus hindrance for me. I was pretty much the epitome of dead zone.

Colonel Custard [The Knighthood] August 13 2008 9:52 AM EDT

I'm getting a slight challenge bonus from a couple of opponents now, but not much. People do have to get a rather high score in order to actually give me a bonus, and it seems that I and others keep knocking their score a bit.

Windwalker August 13 2008 10:06 AM EDT

JW- Mine is running from 0 to -4% challenge bonus. It is better than the -4 to -8% I was getting before! The scores seem to fluctuate much more now though.Getting any distance from the "Dead Zone" is still a monster ;)

Organ Doughner [Fees Dirt Cheap] August 13 2008 12:09 PM EDT

My challenge bonus increased from -2%-0% to 0%-19%.

INDColtsFan18 August 13 2008 1:07 PM EDT

My challenge bonus runs from 5% to 15% at my current 3mil to 3.3mil score zone.

I'm rather disappointed in it as im still only 2.1mil MPR and i figured to at least be at 25%+ challenges at this time.

Lord Bob August 13 2008 1:17 PM EDT

I'm still getting at least 20% extra than I was before the change. I like it much better as it is now.

Tyriel [123456789] August 13 2008 2:17 PM EDT

At 2.15m MPR (2.28m PR on offense), my list of 11 people (8 clan, 3 non-clan) give me 24%-44% bonus.

Very little gear and RoE FTW!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 13 2008 2:28 PM EDT

I'm not losing as much score from fighting battles I lose, as I expected to.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] August 13 2008 2:43 PM EDT

im getting 50% but then im using evasion, so that is -50%

8DEOTWP August 13 2008 4:15 PM EDT

did you forget to mention your RoBF, Pizzaman? =P

Cube August 13 2008 5:54 PM EDT

The only reason it was a dead zone was that people couldn't get over a negative challenge bonus, and thats not really fair when 6/20 is exempt.

Colonel Custard [The Knighthood] August 13 2008 6:12 PM EDT

IND: at 2.1 mil, I was at -4% to 0%. I hardly think it's reasonable that people would have 100% challenge bonus all the way through an N*B run just yet. 5%-15% shows that the deadzone is, indeed, being fixed.

lostling August 13 2008 6:21 PM EDT

i still dont see why 6/20 should be exempted from challenge bonus... makes no sense at least to me...

QBJohnnywas August 13 2008 6:33 PM EDT

If you took away the 6/20 privilege of not getting negative bonuses you would end up with a situation where the number one player was getting (potentially) lower rewards than somebody lower down.

Now whatever problems I might have had with Ranger over the years I never begrudged him the top slot and wouldn't have agreed that the top player in the standings should (potentially) be getting lesser earnings than those below.

Cube August 13 2008 6:34 PM EDT

Cause people don't like to see negative numbers? I guess it's there because if you are the top character there might simply no one with a high enough score, but exempting the whole of 6/20 is rather excessive at least now with the fixed scores.

The best challenge bonus you can get still scales down, but I sort of think that's okay, it gives people a chance to catch up.

lostling August 13 2008 6:38 PM EDT

put it this way... once he goes low enough he would have more challenge bonus then the people around him... and start to rise again... AND well it keeps the top fluid... so instead of 1 person at the top we have what it should be a group of people joisting for the top spot

superior me August 13 2008 7:22 PM EDT

lostling if ranger was still playing it wouldnt matter if his score was 1 as rewards are calculated on your PR vs their score and since ranger had a PR of nearly 7m he would need to find opponents of 7m score or higher to receive anything higher than a negative percent reward, that is why its in place for those top players who's pr is so high that it is impossible to find people with a score to match it and it should remain this way unless they change the score or rewards system

superior me August 13 2008 7:25 PM EDT

i get from +87% to +100% rewards

TheHatchetman August 13 2008 10:41 PM EDT

2.25m MPR with a MTL lvl tat, and just over 156m equipped nw... getting 36% at the moment... ^_^

That's a freak occurance of course, normally it's more around the 0-15% zone I've been too lazy and busy to maintain a shorter better fightlist :P)...

lostling August 14 2008 12:20 AM EDT

which is exactly why its wrong... WHY is it that people at 6/20 get exempted from challenge bonus defecencies ? why is it that everyone below has to struggle to equip their stuff? personally i would think that this is a better way to solve the problem then encrumberance -.-

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 14 2008 12:36 AM EDT

"WHY is it that people at 6/20 get exempted from challenge bonus defecencies ?"

it is really quite simple and if you choose to still not see the reasoning then i am not sure how else to explain it. everywhere else in the game, you have multiple targets ahead of you and if you specialize you can get a positive challenge bonus. near the top, there is very limited, or in the worst case scenario for the number one score there is no one above you.

there is already a mechanism in place to deal with bringing new blood into the top and after recent adjustments it is working very well and that is the n*b's. i was in the top 15 or so mpr's, possibly even at 12, i lost some ground due to retraining, but even without that i would still be pretty darn close to where i am now.

it is extremely difficult to stay in the top now with an older character unless you can get right up into the top ten or so. if you are suggesting we need to make that any more difficult, then we might as well have characters reset as some have suggested. there will be no reason for devotion to one team as it will only be a losing prospect.

as my fightlist stands now, i have one character that regularly gives me a positive challenge bonus, before the score change i had none. i would assume that all the others would be pretty negative. if all of the people around my score are in similar positions, then we would really have no choice, with negative challenge bonuses in effect but to make and ncb. if that were to happen then those moving up would have even less targets to get a positive challenge bonus as they are growing their n*b's. thus worsening the situation and putting us back into the dead zone issues that seem to be improving, at least as far as i can forecast what would happen.

lostling August 14 2008 12:42 AM EDT

dont you get it? thats the whole point... ITS self correcting.... as NCBs run up and hover near the top people will feed off them and move upwards too and if the NCB's build isnt good he wouldnt be able to find targets and then he will slip down again until a spot where he is able to find enough targets to stablize in growth -.-" please correct me if im wrong...

+ this gives incentive for people to streamline their builds... and actually makes sense to streamline their fightlist even if they were getting all 0% challenge bonus now

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 14 2008 7:55 AM EDT

you believe it would streamline builds and fightlists. i say that it would only streamline in the sense that even more people would quit playing the high level characters and start ncb's.

i still don't get it lostling, as i have said before people need motivation for doing things. under your idea, what would be the motivation for non n*b's to continue playing high level characters? providing fodder for characters that are still growing whilst you stagnate is not what i consider motivation.

QBJohnnywas August 14 2008 8:09 AM EDT

I'm running a 6/20 now, but where rewards are concerned I've always been of the view that you should get better rewards the higher you go. Of course if you look closely enough there is a spot, just below the 'dead zone' where you can do better. Perhaps a good spot to continuously retrain to maintain it? ;)

If you lessen deliberately the rewards top slots get then yes, you might make it easier to catch up, but you make it easier to not care that you're higher up. If I thought I was going to get crappy rewards at this level I'd perfectly happy to stay lower. Lower the incentive and you lower the urge to compete.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 14 2008 8:14 AM EDT

You do get better as you go higher.

As rewards are based on the size of your opponent. Hit larger foes, you get better base rewrds. As they grow, your rewards grow.

But the Challenge bonus is just that, a bonus. And you shouldn't be exepmt from fighting 'easy' with no challenge, just because you're the biggest.

Wizard'sFirstRule August 14 2008 8:44 AM EDT

doesn't the negative CB reduce as you get less BA/refresh? I mean at -50% CB with 9/20, you only get a net -37.5% or something? (75% of 50)

Sickone August 14 2008 9:50 AM EDT

"You do get better as you go higher"
Tell that to lostling again :)
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=002W5p">Dead Zones and Challenge Bonuses</a>