RoE and Bonuses. (in General)


AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 8:30 AM EDT

OK, I'm firmly in the "Don't let the RoE work with either of the Bonuses" camp.

I'm mid way thorugh my latest NCB. One I started as a UC Tank then mooched around adding a minion, firing him, going SG, going Tank. Until I finally settled on a UC build I liked (heh, perils of starting a new Bonus character around Changemonth time!).

And I've been focused and having fun playing this build. It was slow going to start, but I feel I'm picking up pace now.

But, just by Random chance I stumbled across a NUB that's about 5 times bigger than me. I though let's just have a look see how bad my history graph curve is, and see how I'm doing now.

This NUB created their charcater 3 days after me...

OK, so free BA and me never having enough cash to stump out the silly cost of NCB (it's silly. It's not even a restart Tax any more Jon.) and Summer Holidays etc. I've not been competitively fighting and have just been running thorugh opponents, losing as much as I win.

So no biggy.

Until I noticed that this NCB curve looked just about the same as mine, until it suddenly spikes. And that the charatcer is wearing a RoE.

Ugg.

Can we please get rid of the "leveling Build" aspect of CB by requiring all characters to *have* to wear a RoE?

Now, while this is a singular case, it applies to the whole of CB. I (and anyone else not wearing a RoE) have *no way* to catch this character ahead of me now. Even if I were to strip my Strat of what makes it tick and slap on a RoE.

I really am not fond of games that encourage you to build a certain way to level the quickest, only to change to what you really want to play after you've reached the level cap (or in CB your bonus time has run out).

Which is really what's being enforced here. Want to stay competitive whith your peers, level using a RoE during your bonus time.

Then retrain to whatever it is that you actually want to play.

:(

Sorry, I just feel better getting that off my chest! ;)

NIG August 21 2008 9:04 AM EDT

I know, I felt the same way as a new player at this game. I love the strategy, but you _must_ wear a RoE and go single minion to have a shot to be the highest score. Why do we have all this strategy in the game if RoE+Single minion+retrain trumps all in the end? Is strategy supposed to be only for people at the top ranks?

I know this is going to be blown apart by the people below me, but I was never good at expressing what I feel.

Godpanda August 21 2008 9:48 AM EDT

Jon, it's kind of funny. You gave us a way to compete.... And it's ruined the game (for me. Not speaking for anyone else here.)

You know, before the NCB stuff, I didn't feel bad NOT being at the top. It just wasn't possible and I wrote it off as such. So I simply enjoyed playing as well as I could. But now that I can compete, that I can be the best, it's ruined it. I HATE not using my tattoo. I hate it. I log on everyday and using my BA is a chore. I don't -want- to do it anymore. The RoE is SO DANGED mandatory, it's sickening.

Solution? Get rid of it. It's such a simple fix in this case. No one has NW in it. There is no -desire- for it. It's a choice between competition and enjoyment. And, yes, I want both. A game should offer both.

And the best part is, no one suffers. It may take alot of work on your part, because suddenly existing N*B growth rates are going to be out of whack. But you know what? It's worth it. Let me use my tattoo against. Let all of us use it again.


What does the RoE add to this game? Nothing. Besides inflated MPRs. The RoE has a purpose before NCB. But not now. There are a few cases, such as Flamey's, where the RoE made a difference. But he would have caught up anyways.


SUMMARY:
Remove the RoE from the game

lostling August 21 2008 9:52 AM EDT

change ROE into something worthless :) i wouldnt mind it and i have 1

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2008 10:43 AM EDT

this is related, but in a slightly different vein. when the n*b's were first created, i was under the impression that they gave players an option to catch up. now it seems that these have morphed into the only option for being competitive.

many of us have lamented the disposable nature of teams in the past. i am not sure what should be done if anything, but i do feel frustration in that i always supported giving people the ability to compete at the top, i just never realized that the option would become the requirement.

some of my frustration may be just that single minion teams have too little going for them.

Little Anthony August 21 2008 11:01 AM EDT

I agree with original post :P

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2008 11:07 AM EDT

my post got me thinking. i think the n*b is currently based on the number one score. if we want to get them within competitive distance of number one, why not base it on an average of the top five, ten or twenty five scores instead.

i am not sure exactly where jon envisions the n*b getting them, but perhaps the bar needs to be lowered?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 11:07 AM EDT

95% of the top MPR, with equivalent effort.

Who cares about score? ;)

QBOddBird August 21 2008 11:13 AM EDT

OK, I'm firmly in the "Don't let the RoE work with either of the Bonuses" camp.


I know, I felt the same way as a new player at this game. I love the strategy, but you _must_ wear a RoE and go single minion to have a shot to be the highest score. Why do we have all this strategy in the game if RoE+Single minion+retrain trumps all in the end? Is strategy supposed to be only for people at the top ranks?


many of us have lamented the disposable nature of teams in the past. i am not sure what should be done if anything, but i do feel frustration in that i always supported giving people the ability to compete at the top, i just never realized that the option would become the requirement.


The three preceding excerpts express everything I had intended to post.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2008 11:13 AM EDT

doh, i meant mpr rather than score.

i also agree that the roe shouldn't work as well as perhaps some other limits. as it now stands, if you can get to 95% with one minion and no roe usage, then using a roe and purchasing minions afterward would put ya over.

i guess this would have a similar effect to using the average of top mpr's rather than the top one.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 21 2008 11:36 AM EDT

Is it possible that if your goal is to take over the top you should have to make ugly hard choices?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 11:36 AM EDT

Doing that Dude, you force the RoE to be necessary to reach 95% of the top.

Just get rid of it, or stop it working with any XP gained during a Bonus.

I can see it's purpose for large characters, where it's a trade of growing your tattoo or growing your MPR.

But when you have a large tatoo, over your MTL (legacy for NCB, or bought with the condensed wealth of the NUB) there's no drawback to a ROE.

As long as you use a "levelimg Build" that lets you fight and win without a tattoo...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 11:37 AM EDT

What choice Nov? Use a RoE or don't bother?

Thats not a choice.

Sickone August 21 2008 11:37 AM EDT

The problem is not the RoE, the problem is the N*B.
Permanent variable bonus depending on distance to the top is the solution.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 11:41 AM EDT

That's been asked for quite a few times, and Jon's not interested. To close to rewarding lazyness for his taste.

The problem is the MTL and the RoE.

High level,it's a trade off. Grow your Tattoo, or Boost your MPR.

But low level, there's no choice. You Tattoo ain't growing anyway, so just use the RoE.

And anyone who doesn't, is left in the dirt.

The Bonuses accenuates this, as every BA is worth more, so losing potential XP from one is more damaging.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 11:46 AM EDT

It's also compiled with the design of getting higher rewards the larger you get.

Boost yourslef above your competition, you gain better rewards than them, so unless they can boost themselves more, they can never catch up.

So in the lower levels, where's there's no penalty to using the RoE, use it. Boost ot of the pack, pick up the higher rewards from getting larger, and carry on zooming ever bigger and bigger.

Sickone August 21 2008 11:50 AM EDT

"That's been asked for quite a few times, and Jon's not interested. To close to rewarding lazyness for his taste."

No "lazy" guy would ever get to the top anyway, since the variable bonus would get smaller the higher you go.
Persons would always get tiered according to activity level, you won't have lazy guys ever getting above more active guys.
If that is close to rewarding lazyness, what the heck is a N*B then ?
Or, what about buying high-MPR characters ?
Nobody bothered buying the top MPR characters which were on sale.

The existance of the N*Bs on top of the overpoweredness of evasion right now is wrecking the game wore than a variable bonus and USD spending ever managed to.

QBOddBird August 21 2008 11:52 AM EDT

I 100% agree with you Sickone...

So does 90% of CB...


...but none of that matters if the guy who codes the game mechanics doesn't agree with you ;)

Sickone August 21 2008 11:53 AM EDT

Oh, and growing tattoos by fighting, and fighting only... I dare say that was yet another mistake.

You should be able to upgrade tattoo level (NW) with cash too ; otherwise, it's just a "start NCB, grow tattoo, start fresh NCB, use RoE until MTL, grow tattoo some more, repeat".

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 11:54 AM EDT

It's more aobut being able to go take a 2 month break, then coming back and now having a larger bonus that ofsets the time you've missed.

While you might have fallen behind your peers, you've got exactly what you need to catch up, and have losted nothing for your break.

But I'm a supporter of this, as it still requires (or rather should) equivalent effort.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 11:57 AM EDT

I think I'm just feeling a little dijected is all. I again don't see the point of fighting, and if the character market is anything to g by I sohuld just wait for a Bonus RoE users to finish thier time and purchase a large character.

Who I can then retrain, and use my existing gear on.

I'll have evaded the silly NCB BA cost, not have had to put much effort in myself at all, and still come out with a much larger character.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 21 2008 11:59 AM EDT

What you're missing GL is that the bonus you get from fighting higher with a tat can be equivalent to the RoE. I was seeing 30% higher rewards from larger PR and score targets the last NCB I ran (both target were 100% chal bonus, but the larger ones gave much better rewards). That's MONEY AND XP. Fight high and fight often and I think it's possible to match the RoE.

It's a choice...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 12:09 PM EDT

Then the RoE user puts on his Tat...

Brakke Bres [Ow man] August 21 2008 12:56 PM EDT

If the RoE is gone, how is anyone able to reach the 95%? Up the n*b rewards and lowering ba cost for the ncb?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2008 12:58 PM EDT

i was under the impression that the roe was not figured in the 95% value.

NIG August 21 2008 1:00 PM EDT

..and then when the Tattoo's PR boost pushes the user under the 100% zone, put back on the RoE..

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 21 2008 1:00 PM EDT

Lowering the cost of the NCB would be on par with a rescale of just the top 20 mpr and items in fairness... If you're going to suggest it GL you better have a justification better than "It's expensive"

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2008 1:09 PM EDT

if jon really dislikes the idea of a rolling bonus because it would be too easy and reward inactivity, what if we could devise a way of still rewarding veterans and people who have fought hard with teams and somehow base a catch up reward on battles fought? i have no idea on how to go about doing this, but if his main argument against it is rewarding laziness, then base it off of a factor that would rule this out if that makes sense.

Lord Bob August 21 2008 1:10 PM EDT

"The problem is not the RoE, the problem is the N*B.
Permanent variable bonus depending on distance to the top is the solution."

I agree with the first part 100%.

As with the second part, while I would love a rolling bonus, we are never going to get one because the developer views it as rewarding laziness, however right or wrong that may be.

Instead, I propose that the N*B be replaced with extra BA, or differing BA regen rates for lower MPR players. This does not "reward laziness" and I doubt it could ever be viewed as such. But it gives weaker players the opportunity to catch up slowly (the N*B allows growth FAR to fast) and with much effort.

Tyriel [123456789] August 21 2008 1:19 PM EDT

"what if we could devise a way of still rewarding veterans and people who have fought hard with teams and somehow base a catch up reward on battles fought?"

Supporter ite--

Wha-ha-hait. Haha, you almost got me there. ;)

QBOddBird August 21 2008 1:35 PM EDT

Lord Bob:

the BA bank would be great, except I see it as something that would be 100% burned during EXP time. It would also give those new players MASS cps whenever they wanted.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] August 21 2008 1:42 PM EDT

Well the RoE has the fine ability of getting a NCB to the 95% (or in that proximity) without buying ba. Which is horribly expensive.

If the RoE is gone then the nub shouldn't get free BA anymore.

three4thsforsaken August 21 2008 1:42 PM EDT

or perhaps we can impose a percentage penalty (10-20% levels) for trading a tattoo among accounts.

This way choosing a RoE over a normal growing tattoo would cause many more problems, because you can't just buy another big tattoo. Unless you already own one, boost for vets anyone?

three4thsforsaken August 21 2008 1:53 PM EDT

this would also greatly encourage NUBs to grow a tattoo and have NCBs use an RoE. Kind of nice?

Little Anthony August 21 2008 2:02 PM EDT

like that is going to happen

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 21 2008 2:11 PM EDT

I believe it used to be that way...
and LA is right... ain't gonna happen (again).

three4thsforsaken August 21 2008 2:14 PM EDT

seriously? It used to be like that?

what happened?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 2:14 PM EDT

"Lowering the cost of the NCB would be on par with a rescale of just the top 20 mpr and items in fairness... If you're going to suggest it GL you better have a justification better than "It's expensive""

Get rid of it.

Ther'es no need for a restart Tax. And that's all the NCB increased BA cost is.

As a restart tax, it is too expensive. And that's all the justicifcaion needed Nov. ;)

Why not move in the TA/SY direction and add in a base cost for starting a NCB, if you really must Tax it. Say 500K CBD. OR 1Mil. Or a base Adam.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 2:15 PM EDT

Or a 'special' item you buy fromthe new special item store.

NCB token. Or something.

Flat cost, unlocks the creation of a new NCB character.

three4thsforsaken August 21 2008 2:20 PM EDT

I really like the NCB prices really. It kind of creates a state of separation between NCBs, so they all don't converge to near the same MPR.

Lord Bob August 21 2008 2:27 PM EDT

"the BA bank would be great, except I see it as something that would be 100% burned during EXP time."

So? Why would that be a bad thing? People burn extra BA during XP time now.

"It would also give those new players MASS cps whenever they wanted."

Cps?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2008 2:30 PM EDT

clan points

NIG August 21 2008 2:31 PM EDT

CP is for Clan Point, and that's good enough for me!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 2:37 PM EDT

"I really like the NCB prices really. It kind of creates a state of separation between NCBs, so they all don't converge to near the same MPR."

Equivalent Effort should cover that.

NIG August 21 2008 2:45 PM EDT

Yea, Effort>$CB..aren't the NCB costs encouraging USD spending?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2008 2:49 PM EDT

which is why i suggested something being based on battles fought, isn't that the best indicator we have in cb of effort?

PearsonTritonRaveshaw August 21 2008 2:50 PM EDT

Change the RoE into a tattoo that trains a melee tank minion. There is the hal and jig familiars, but there is no pure melee familiar. So, my thoughts are this:
Trains HP at 50-60% of tattoo level
trains ST at 50-75% of tattoo level
trains DX at 25-33% of tattoo level
wields the equivalent of a BoNE or MH (similar to the halidon and the ELB it wields).
And possibly trains steel skin at max level in the same manner the halidon trains archery.
Check out all the mage type familiars and compare that to the number of physical familiars. So, I think tanks need some more lovin.

QBOddBird August 21 2008 3:02 PM EDT

Good god rave, that is a huge tank familiar.

Lord Bob August 21 2008 3:16 PM EDT

"CP is for Clan Point, and that's good enough for me!"

Ah, yes. I suck with acronyms.

If giving extra clan points to newbies is a problem, put a weight on the points that are bestowed rather than giving them out on a 1 per fight basis.

QBsutekh137 August 21 2008 4:05 PM EDT

LB, I have always liked the BA pool idea, and over various discussions, a lot of people offered good ideas. To do it right would entail:

-- Ear-marking the special extra BA to control things like clan points and how much can be used in high experience time.
-- Alternately, just throttle how much of it can be used each day, and have it expire if not all used. This would mix the BA pool idea with the current timing idea, which I think sounds neat. New players would still have to click like crazy, and do so for a consistent period of time (no one ever said the N*B should be easy, right? *smile*)
-- Ear-marked BA could also be throttled (or forbidden) for forging.

The upside of a BA pool as I see it? Let's the intensity of play strike while the iron's hot -- when a player is new. Also, it doesn't put such incredible influence on every battle like when there is a 200-300 percent bonus at work (that stress would kill me, and makes the idea of trying another NCB _very_ unpalatabable to me). More BA means more, less-stressful learning.

And like I said before, having this new type of BA programmatically ear-marked offers all kind of fun ways it could be controlled over time instead of just jacking up rewards for a while.

However, a special type of BA seems like it would be a lot of work to implement, not to mention the fact that in previous "BA pool" discussions Jonathan has pretty much flat-out stated he is not interested in implementing the bonus that way.

Plus, none of this really has anything to do with the RoE, I don't think. Though I suppose bonus BA could be forbidden when an RoE was equipped (or somesuch). Earmarking BA that way makes the possibilities pretty much endless on how a bonus could be implemented... (you know, assuming Jonathan just has an infinite amount of programming time, right? *grin*)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 21 2008 4:21 PM EDT

Why would anyone run anything but NCB chars without the extra cost GL?

I don't think someone should match PoisoN's mpr without spending at LEAST as much money as he has on BA. Do you really think Jon would be that messed up and hose long time players that badly?

Lord Bob August 21 2008 4:30 PM EDT

"-- Ear-marking the special extra BA to control things like clan points and how much can be used in high experience time."

Like I said, putting a weight on clan points is a possible solution to this. Instead of the current "1 fight = 1 clan point" we would need a slightly more complex scoring system, where players in different BA regen brackets earn a different amountof points per battle. For example, players in a 12/10 (yes, ten) regen rate get one clan point per fight, while those at the top in the 8/20 (yes, twenty) get four or five. These are just random numbers I'm pulling out of my rear, but you get the concept.

And still, I don't see the problem with blowing extra BA during crazy XP time. Everyone does it now. I do it now. If someone wants to save up the extra BA for a few hours, which would still cap at 160, let them.

"-- Alternately, just throttle how much of it can be used each day, and have it expire if not all used. This would mix the BA pool idea with the current timing idea, which I think sounds neat. New players would still have to click like crazy, and do so for a consistent period of time (no one ever said the N*B should be easy, right? *smile*)"

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same system here. I'm not advocating giving out a gigantic pool of BA at the beginning. That would be a disaster. I'm talking about retooling the BA regen rates to give low MPR players a better opportunity to catch up, all the while promoting more activity over what Jon calls "lazyness."

".. having this new type of BA programmatically ear-marked .. However, a special type of BA seems like it would be a lot of work to implement, .."

Again, this is not a "special type" of BA. It's just re-configuring the existing BA spawn rates to give new players and low MPR characters more of it. Nothing else nees to be changed, except the volume at which weaker characters are able to fight.

"Plus, none of this really has anything to do with the RoE, I don't think. ... "

Yep. Under this, the RoS could remain unchanged.

lostling August 21 2008 4:38 PM EDT

ROE you mean :)

QBsutekh137 August 21 2008 4:38 PM EDT

If the RoE remained unchanged, then all of GL's points are still valid, aren't they? About catching up?

Also, I am not sure about how extra spawning at the beginning would work... Aren't some bonus rates something crazy, like 400-500%? Do you know how much a new player would have to play to use up 4 to 5 times as much BA? Would they still cap at 160? Right now, a 10/10 player regenerates 30 BA an hour, meaning they go about 5-6 hours before seeing the dreaded 160. With faster accrual, they would have to burn BA every 1-2 hours... As a new player, I would say "no thanks" to that.

I like your idea, can you elaborate on what the implementation would be?

(and can someone confirm what a new player bonus is these days, percentage-wise?)

Lord Bob August 21 2008 4:57 PM EDT

"ROE you mean "

Yep. (D'oh!)

"If the RoE remained unchanged, then all of GL's points are still valid, aren't they?"

Not sure to be honest. Haven't really thought it through (or even read it completely). My goal here was to suggest a replacement for the N*B, not the RoE, but I assumed the real problem here was the former and not the latter.

"Aren't some bonus rates something crazy, like 400-500%? Do you know how much a new player would have to play to use up 4 to 5 times as much BA?"

Yep, lots. It allows players to -catch up- to the top over time, not fly up there in a few months like current system allows.

"I like your idea, can you elaborate on what the implementation would be?"

Well, I can only toss out some suggestive numbers. Obviously balancing this would and should be left in the hands of better programmers than I.

For example, here's the current x/20 BA rate:
6
7
8
9
10

For starters (and for an experiment), why not try it as this?
6
8
10
12
14

If it needs to be tweaked from there, tweak it from there.

Lord Bob August 21 2008 4:58 PM EDT

I should note that I might have more thought-out numbers if I wasn't slammed at work right now. Semester starts are always a pain. This one is worse than most.

lostling August 21 2008 4:58 PM EDT

my percentage is 318% so i think it should be around 330% now...

remember jon changed 4 months to 6 months?

LuisOrtiz August 21 2008 5:12 PM EDT

My NUB is 323%. I'm using an RoE because I was told to the first day I got here. Not sure I'm going to keep using it though, as I think I can get better challenge bonuses with a different tat that should outweigh the advantage of the RoE (I'm currently only able to get ~60%-70% Challenge Bonus with my "typical" SFBM wearing the RoE.

QBsutekh137 August 21 2008 5:21 PM EDT

Hm, just faster accrual, which now in the world of slower accrual overall, just takes new players back to a time when they HAD to play more. Heck, I ran up CB1 and was in 10/10 for a long time, that meant only 160 minutes between maxes!). Your max of 14 would be 42 BA per hour now, still giving someone almost 4 hours between maxes...

Simple, I like it. Might need to be more like 16, 12, 10, 9, 6 or so...

The rate definitely has to converge on something, otherwise the person would have a higher rate, well, forever, right? Would it ever end?

In other words, this is like a rolling bonus, but instead of the rewards converging to the top, the BA accrual converges to the top. If Jonathan is against a rolling bonus, wouldn't he be against this, too?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 5:45 PM EDT

"Why would anyone run anything but NCB chars without the extra cost GL?"

Jon showed why ages ago Nov.

The short end of the stick is if you restart, and play with the same 'effort' you play with now, you're going to end up slightly behind where you would be if you had just ocntinued playing.

So the NCB would only be used if you messed up, left CB, etc and needed to restart again (Or just wished to).

You already incure a penalty to size for doing so.

It's osmething along the lines of;

You work at x% effort to the top MPR (who has a MPR of y) so your MPR is x*y. You restart and work at the same effort. The growth of the top MPR over your bonus period is z. Your bonus would give you x(y+z) * 0.95. As equavalent effort (x of 1) will get you to 95% of the Top.

If you had just kept playing, you would have had x(y+z). You'll always lose out if you restart with equal effort.

I hope this makes sense. :/

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 5:54 PM EDT

Nice Luis! Only a month into your 6 month Bonus time and nearly 700K MPR! That's over double mine and I'm about half way thorugh my 4 months.

Sorry OB and the rest of you guys, I'm gonna pull out of the Clan. I just don't see the point of fighting with my current character atm.

I'd be far better off waiting for a good deal on a single minion character, who will be much higher than I can hope to fight to now with mine.

Lord Bob August 21 2008 6:12 PM EDT

"Simple, I like it. Might need to be more like 16, 12, 10, 9, 6 or so... "

Yeah, probably. But I figured let's start with baby steps.

"In other words, this is like a rolling bonus, but instead of the rewards converging to the top, the BA accrual converges to the top. If Jonathan is against a rolling bonus, wouldn't he be against this, too?"

I don't see why he would be. He was against the rolling bonus because it promoted lazyness. With this, not only is it encouraging more gameplay, it also encourages more logins, since for most brackets 160 comes much earlier.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 6:15 PM EDT

"my percentage is 318% so i think it should be around 330% now...

remember jon changed 4 months to 6 months?"

I'm on one of the later 4 months. I've got 474% atm.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 6:17 PM EDT

I like it bob. Only thing left to ask is what happens when you get into 6/20?

Unlike now, there would be no way to progress to catch the Top Spot, as everyone would then have the same potential BA to spend.

6/20 would just be static once you reached it.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 6:20 PM EDT

"Also, it doesn't put such incredible influence on every battle like when there is a 200-300 percent bonus at work (that stress would kill me, and makes the idea of trying another NCB _very_ unpalatabable to me). More BA means more, less-stressful learning."

Missed this earlier.

Aye. Can't but agree here. And the RoE makes it a worse situation.

But with LB's change, the RoE wouldn't be soo much of a problem. It would let you get to the new BA regen rate earlier, but then you would slow down, while you peers could potentially catch up by burning more BA than you do.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 6:22 PM EDT

Ah ha! unless the top level of BA regen was only reached when you hit 95% of the top MPR! (what's it currently?)

Then that idea would be fully in tune withwhat the current bonuses are designed to allow you!

Then to prgres past that 95% mark, you must work harder than those above you.

Simple. I love it LB!

Lord Bob August 21 2008 6:23 PM EDT

"Only thing left to ask is what happens when you get into 6/20?
Unlike now, there would be no way to progress to catch the Top Spot,"

This isn't intended to fix 6/20. This is intended to get people there to begin with, in a better way than the N*B can. I've never gotten to 6/20, so I have no interest in any problems that occur up there.

Lord Bob August 21 2008 6:25 PM EDT

Thanks for the endorsement GL.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 6:27 PM EDT

"Why would anyone run anything but NCB chars without the extra cost GL?"

Sorry to come back to this Nov, I suggested some costs for restarting above. (As I'm fired up about LBs idea, and this would really negate the problem of NCB BA costs).

Make it a flat cost, like the new SY or TA. An amount of cash for the privaledge, or a 'special item' that unlocks the NCB option on character creation. Like another TA/SY, that you pay this token to, and it lets you create a new character.

That sort of deal.

It stops the cost for restarting continue to increase the larger the top character gets.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 6:29 PM EDT

NP! While it would give all the opportunities a rolling bonus would, it doesn't promote lazyness, as you don't get it all for one click after taking a 6 month sabatical, but you would actually have to work your way back up.

It's just there's a way in the system to allow you to do so. ;)

Lord Bob August 21 2008 6:31 PM EDT

Now if only Jon would read this thread and see the idea...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2008 6:35 PM EDT

More thoughts. This could work currently, but your rewards increase as your BA regen goes down. So, we would have to get rid of that (or adjust it so that the rewards for the 6/20 bracket aren't twice those of 12/20.

From the wiki;

"however, fight rewards are adjusted accordingly to increase whenever your BA regeneration rate decreases. This is a very important point. The only benefit you get by staying at a lower BA regeneration rate is the ability to produce more clan points. Otherwise your money and xp rewards are the same if you bump up a regeneration rate."


As for Brackets, they are currently;

"When you are below about 2.5% of the top MPR, you gain 10 BA per 20 minutes.
When you are between about 2.5% and about 15% of the top MPR, you gain 9 BA per 20 minutes.
When you are between about 15% and 40% of the top MPR, you gain 8 BA per 20 minutes.
When you are between 40% and 60% of the top MPR, you gain 7 BA per 20 minutes.
When you are above 60% of the top MPR, you gain 6 BA per 20 minutes. (per the changelog that introduced the 6 BA, it is MPR not VPR)."

Why don't we suggest something like (in reverse order);

95%+ Top MPR: 6/20
80%+ Top MPR: 8/20
60%+ Top MPR: 10/20
30%+ Top MPR: 12/20
0%+ Top MPR: 14/20

Or the like. ;)

QBsutekh137 August 21 2008 6:36 PM EDT

I guess that is all true -- a converging/rolling bonus with more work than laziness.

Don't worry, we'll get visibility on it one way or another...

Lord Bob August 21 2008 6:48 PM EDT

"More thoughts. This could work currently, but your rewards increase as your BA regen goes down. So, we would have to get rid of that (or adjust it so that the rewards for the 6/20 bracket aren't twice those of 12/20."

Yep. The reward increase for the brackets should remain the same, but not increase more now that you have less BA.

For instance, if you were getting a 10% bonus (hypothetical number) for losing 1/20 BA, you shouldn't get a 20% bonus for losing 2/20 in the new system. You still only get 10%.

(Am I making any sense?)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2008 4:34 AM EDT

Yup. ;)

Cube August 22 2008 4:47 AM EDT

I don't really see the issue, but I started from a base tattoo when I started my NCB because I figured any team would get higher up than me even if I used an RoE, so I might as well build up capital by leveling a tattoo, and well I'm happy with my about 7 mil profit from that choice.

But then again I'm not shooting for the top, I'm shooting for an effective team.

superior me August 22 2008 5:48 AM EDT

i agree 100% im a NUB with a tat lvl 3.4m and a MTL of 2m and i would love to use my tat but if i do a have to lose out on exp from the RoE, at the moment there is 0 incentive for me to use my tat and that shouldnt be

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] August 22 2008 10:48 AM EDT

is this thing on....

I believe it's possible to match the output of the RoE with a tat by fighting higher. It's a CHOICE!

Sacredpeanut August 22 2008 10:55 AM EDT

"I believe it's possible to match the output of the RoE with a tat by fighting higher. It's a CHOICE! "

I disagree, I would be very surprised if anyone could get 20% increased rewards through using a tat and fighting higher. In-fact, I wouldn't be surprised if average rewards (pre RoE bonus) are greater with an RoE than with a tat in some cases (less PR = better challenge bonus).

QBsutekh137 August 22 2008 11:11 AM EDT

I think novice still has a point, though, and he's not exactly strategy-deficient, folks. Furthermore, what nov is saying means that if you REALLY use a tat well (not just some lame-o strap on of an RoBF or a ToE), you really CAN fight higher. Having good gear and a good synergy with a familiar, for example, can probably find you some large targets. And remember, the bonus you get from fighting higher grows ALL your minions, not just the one wearing the RoE (moot point for single-minion teams, but you see my point).

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2008 11:17 AM EDT

SP has a really good point about the PR increase. The RoE doesn't have this drawback.

So you would need to fight even higher with a large tattoo to make up for the drop in rewards your increaed PR gives.

Colonel Custard August 22 2008 11:21 AM EDT

Superior: give me your tat. I'll trade ya for free.

Why/how did you obtain a 3.5 mil tat when you can't use it and when you're making FS/WTBs looking for base tats?

Colonel Custard August 22 2008 11:24 AM EDT

Oh, I'd also like to throw my support behind the idea that LB and Sut are working on. 6/20 starting at 95% of the top MPR... cool!

Cube August 22 2008 11:31 AM EDT

He bought it from someone, and he needs the base ToA for the new tattoo artist.
-----
Gentleman what character are you talking about in the beginning? I also started my NCB three days after you with no RoE, and I missed a bit of BA, but I still made it to 1.25 mil mpr so far. I also bought no BA.

This was with a tattoo equipped that helped my fight up a lot.

QBsutekh137 August 22 2008 12:37 PM EDT

That idea is all LB! How can I tell? The quality. *smile*

Controlling accrual rates as the sole means of bonus is a really cool idea (much better than controlling rewards of using a big BA pool, IMO). I'm still not totally sure about implementation (at the very least it is going to require fractional BA accrual rates, yes?) The bonus needs to be an ever-increasing continuum over time, so if I start today and someone else starts a week from now, their BA accrual is going to have to be slightly higher than mine (but not a full integer higher). But that shouldn't be that hard. Either make the BA amount accrued have a fraction that gets carried along to keep integer-based BA accrual accurate (I think rounding would introduce too many discrepancies over time), or make accrual times vary -- shorter accrual times for higher bonus.

Either way, LB's idea means more BA, more work to accomplish using that BA, and everything else in the game can work as is. I can't see any downsides right now, at least as far as gameplay works...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2008 12:42 PM EDT

All we need now are Jon's reasons for disliking it, so we can work around it! :P

(As long as it isn't just another Mage Staff! :P)

QBOddBird August 22 2008 12:48 PM EDT

Hooray for good ideas!

Cube August 22 2008 12:57 PM EDT

You'd have to adjust money rewards or else you'd have people staying in the lower bracket to farm cash and then making their way up to the top. Overall though it's a pretty solid idea, though Jon may simply not like the flavor of it.

Cube August 22 2008 12:59 PM EDT

However, I think switching right now wouldn't be fair to people who just sold their characters for no profit and then they are suddenly stuck at the bottom. There's no easy way to transition to it.

QBOddBird August 22 2008 1:04 PM EDT

You think Jon's going to adjust the timeline for any of his changes based on when someone sold their character?

Cube August 22 2008 1:07 PM EDT

No, but I don't think an idea that's similar to something he said is never happening is likely to be put in if it'll cause a whole round of complaints.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 22 2008 1:07 PM EDT

i am for anything that makes veteran characters, and all characters for that matter, less disposable and makes it possible for new people to catch up but doesn't make that the only game in town.
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=002WUO">RoE and Bonuses.</a>