Has the N*B been increased since the ROE changed? (in General)
January 6 2009 8:37 AM EST
As we all know, the ROE was essential in the first couple months to make a successful run at the top.
Now that it no longer gives bonus xp has the N*B been changed to reflect this?
January 6 2009 8:40 AM EST
It has not been spoken loud about at least.
No, nothing has changed when this EXP cannon exploded.
Thus its no longer possible to reach the top, unless you spend 6 USD for 4% exp gain by naming the tat...
January 6 2009 9:40 AM EST
It might be complicated to program. But one solution to this problem, is to perhaps have the ROE give more xp bonus depending on your BA generation (or rather, based on where you stand from the top). At 10/10 allow it to give a rather high percentage increase, and slowly decrease it until it reaches ~0% at 6/10. I think this would allow players to reach close to the top by the time their N*B expires, of course, at the expense of xp concentration onto one minion.
Of course, this is all based on the idea that one cannot reach the top nowadays.
January 6 2009 10:15 AM EST
One cannot reach the top nowadays.
was it ever stated that the roe was taken into account in the n*b bonus calculations in the first placed. we always assumed it was, but i do not remember jon ever stating that it was so.
we also got a score adjustment which helped somewhat with the dead zone. actually, instead of basing anything on an item slot, especially a tat slot, i would rather see more score adjustments if it is necessary to adjust for bonuses.
another factor that will be balancing to the roe loss somewhat is the extension to six months of the bonus period. natural ba regen can play a bigger part.
whatever the case with the roe, i think there may need to be some adjustments, just not sure which direction it should go.
January 6 2009 10:22 AM EST
Define 'the top'. MPR isn't crucial in reaching the top 5 scores.
also note we are still waiting to see how the new score system affects 6 month N*Bs.
The N*B was *never* designed around the RoE, so it's change should mean nothing.
If the RoE was essential in taking the top spot, then the arguement is that the N*B still isn't calibrated correctly, and probably needs an increase.
We shouldn't forget, it's designed, on its own, to allow a Bonus Character to reach 95% MPR of the Top MPR, with equivalent effort.
January 6 2009 12:26 PM EST
Well with the old ROE, the top spot was taken not once but twice.
So personal experience supercedes the theories we like to pontificate about.
Ranger, that's obvious though.
The RoE gives you more XP, so if the bonus is designed to get you to 95% without the RoE, and is working fine, and you use a RoE, it's going to make it much, much easier to pass the top spot.
What we have to look for now, is if it's impossible to take the top spot currently, without an old style RoE...
"the ROE was essential"
It wasn't and it shouldn't be (for what the bonus was deisgned for, which surpassing the Top spot wasn't the design).
The old RoE made it so much easier to take as you would have to have beaten 'equivalent' effort of the Top Spot, which means fighting *more* BA per day (not going to happen if the Top Spot used all BA...), get a larger Clan Bonus (not going to happen if you're not in the Top Clan, which the Top Spot most likely is...) and have a larger fight/win bonus (not going to happen if hardly anyone can beat the Top Post).
Without the RoE, you were designed to get to 95%, equalling all the above.
To get above that, the only hope you really had (apart from the Top Post losing internet, taking a break, or some toher mishap) was to get better Challenge Bonuses on your fight up he lader, than the Top Spot did.
But, that's fine, isn't it? We don't want the Bonuses to allow an easy ride *above* the Top Spot, do we?
Unless of course, we're looking at this from the POV of someone in a Bonus time right now, trying to take the Top Spot. Of which of course they would want the bonus designed to make it easy for them to reach the top. ;)
January 6 2009 2:05 PM EST
I would like the same opportunity that everyone else had to claim the top spot if I would desire to make a run at it.
Right now, with the ROE changed and no change to the N*B, I will not have that opportunity.
Ah how the times have changed...
Arguements about how the N*B was too much, letting folk pass you too easily, now when it's in your favour, you're asking for it to be buffed.
I'd like to know how you propse to pass the 95% target, if you can't get the largest Clan Bonus, or burn more BA than the Top Spot.
Problems that have faced *everyone* while you held it.
"Right now, with the ROE changed and no change to the N*B, I will not have that opportunity."
that is also a theory that you are pontificating about due to the factors stated above. ; )
i tend to think that if anything the n*b may need to be adjusted downwards currently with all of the changes. that is another theory as well though.
as i have stated many, many times previously, i hope jon has an actual data mining method to determine this as theories are pretty worthless as opposed to hard data.
I'll say it again.
A huge problem in past N*Bs was the so called dead zone. Growth was halted to almost a standstill for a very large portion of the N*B time because of negative challenge bonus and whatnot.
However, scores have received a gigantic boost making the dead zone disappear. This should really solve our N*B problem.
Also worth noting is that the change was less than 6 months ago. And we are yet to get appropriate data from an N*B that burns tons of BA for the entirety of their bonus.
Ranger, let's say we buff the N*B by 100%.
It's design doesn't change, It's still there to get you to 95% with equivalent effort.
So, you have to match Clan Bonus, Win/Loss ratio, BA burned etc.
Lets say you do that, and that the Top Spot Guy you're equalling is burning All BA, has 15% Clan Bonus all the time and a 100% Win/Loss ratio.
No matter how much we buff the N*B, you will *still* only reach 95% of the Top Spot.
As that's the design.
Are you really asking for the bonuses to be redesigned to allow them to let you surpass the Top Spot? Really?
The RoE gave people a means to do this, which is why it was changed.
just an fyi. for the first six weeks of my ncb, i added between 150k mpr to 200k mpr per week. for the next four weeks i have been adding between 100k and 125k mpr per week.
i have likely gotten over 96% of my natural ba but bought only a handful here and there for a total of less than a dozen bought so far.
January 6 2009 2:50 PM EST
The ability to reach the #1 ranking in this game is a major wound in the open-ended game design.
The N*B is a leaky bandage that keeps the game alive, but the game will never thrive without a proper solution. The game needs a tourniquet.
Throw away the novel, semi-functioning N*B and come up with a solution that cuts the problem out completely. Such as:
Independent realms that characters cannot fight outside of. After the population of your realm reaches a certain limit, all new characters start in a new realm. In this case, you could be #1 in your own realm, without grand old players farming down on you.
I'm not saying my solution is the best answer. I am saying that the n*b will only become worse and worse until a real solution is discovered. I shutter to imagine the exp and $$ gains of a new user with a NUB who signs up 2 years from now.
if you figure at least 100k mpr growth for the remainder (i am not sure how feasible that is though) then i should end up around 3.2m mpr.
bought ba is 1/3 of your natural daily? (it is at the 8/20 ratio anyway)
if you multiply my 3.2m mpr by 1.33 (for the 1/3 extra ba) then that would get you to about 4.25m mpr.
as of today lil anthony is at 4.5m or so mpr. if you multiply that by .95 you get 4.275m mpr.
^ that first sentence should read 100k mpr growth per remaining week
January 6 2009 3:45 PM EST
Maybe try uneqipping all equips and resetting all characters? Like tourney style long term...
^ only if we are given money for all the BA we've bought and all the times we've invested in MPR.
January 6 2009 4:59 PM EST
I think we can all agree with that, VK.
January 6 2009 6:55 PM EST
January 6 2009 7:05 PM EST
"I shutter to imagine the exp and $$ gains of a new user with a NUB who signs up 2 years from now."
Would $$ really need increased as you go? Currently I don't see tie between EXP and money needs for a NUB bonus. And why shutter about the EXP gains from 2 years from now? I think it's great this game has such good longevity, and it would be expected rather than shocking that the EXP gain would need to be increased.
Dunno about different realm ideas, would anyone be able to catch up to the top that way? With any ongoing game you should have a component for competition for the higher rankings or some cap where others can catch up. I don't play games like WOW but don't they cap how far up you can level? Used to be 70 now it's like 90? A friend of mine plays it but I don't pay that close attention when he talks about it.
January 6 2009 8:13 PM EST
The N*B system is probably the worst possible workable solution against a completely stale game.
And the lengthening from 4 to 6 months of that period didn't help much in the long run - the value of the bonus still is ridiculously high.
For the life of me, I can not understand why Jon insists that a permanent (but variable) "rolling bonus" would promote lazyness.
Heck, if anything, the CURRENT system promotes lazyness much more (you can take a break as long as you want then just start a NCB), and not only that, it also promotes disposable teams (since in order to "catch up" you HAVE to start a new team, your old one is useless).
The sooner Jon will realize that the N*B system is a vastly inferior solution compared to a permanent variable bonus, the better off everybody will be.
With a permanent bonus that has a variable value (highest when you're lowest, lowest when you're highest):
- the higher your team is the faster you can get to a higher place (does not promote disposable teams)
- assuming everybody has equal levels of activity and performance, no matter how long you play, places wouldn't shift
- if a lower placed player consistently outperforms or has a higher activity level compared to somebody higher up (no matter how much higher up), EVENTUALLY the lower placed player WILL overtake the higher placed player
- it DOES NOT MATTER how high the max value of the bonus is (and for that matter neither does the shape of the bonus curve as long as it respects the rule of "lower place, higher bonus"), the above statements will always be true -- the only thing the size of the bonus influences is *how fast* you can catch up *if* you put in more effort
Actually, it is best for all involved parties if the maximum value for the bonus would be quite low, to avoid the situation we see now with fresh N*B characters that basically need to change their fight list several times a day in the first couple of days.
that is in effect how CB1 worked for XP...
None of the rolling bonus crowd has explained how they are going to solve the BA cost issue.
The N*B has been successful, and I haven't seen any do the hard work to prove it's not now.
Why not have the Different Realms but have a Major Quarterly Competition throughout the Realms. These Major Competitions(Realm Wars) could be capped by PR/MPR and could last for a week. The Scores could work the same as the Clan Points system and of course this could be a time for extra XP and Money as a bonus to participate. Competition is Spiked in two ways once in your own Realm and second in the Competition(Realm Wars). Who knows maybe a Trophy of some kind to be given to the Realm that wins the top spot. Just a thought.....
January 6 2009 8:32 PM EST
"None of the rolling bonus crowd has explained how they are going to solve the BA cost issue."
What issue ?
Just multiply the base current BA cost with the rolling multiplier value, like you do right now with the fixed multiplier.
The fun part is that you can set the maximum rolling bonus value to, say 200% or so (instead of the almost 450% we had at one time or the over 300% we still have) and have an exponential drop profile (as opposed to linear), so the BA cost would never be too exorbitant.
At the same time, buying BA when your bonus is high would actually be counter-productive, it would be better to save up CB$ for the time you get higher up, with a lower bonus, and use the CB$ there - it's a constant struggle between buying and not buying BA, because the more you wait the more effective your cash becomes, but it is always useful.
Sure, this means it would take you a much longer time to catch up to the top, and cash would actually matter LESS in catching up... but you CAN get very close to the top any time with your current team as long as you put in the work, without needing to buy CB$ for RL cash.
So... I ask again... what BA cost issue ?
if that were done, it would be cool to have the rolling bonus start out fairly small for the above stated reasons, then it could be set to bulge or maximize relative to the slow (no longer dead, just slow) zones to help people move through those faster and then slow back down.
i am cool with keeping it as it is, if we do though and any adjustment is needed, i would like to see the adjustments made through scoring system to increase the challenge bonus for the same reasons.
The issue where someone matches PoisoN's MPR without matching the amount he's spent on BA. Anything less would be the most unfair pile of crap ever.
January 6 2009 8:42 PM EST
"The issue where someone matches PoisoN's MPR without matching the amount he's spent on BA. Anything less would be the most unfair pile of crap ever."
We already have that, to some degree.
You can have somebody who spent exactly ZERO CB$ on BA taking over (or at least getting really close to) people who were once "top spot".
And I'm not even talking *only* about NUBs, but also about some NCBs.
And I don't see anybody considering the N*B "a most unfair pile of crap" for that reason.
the NUB forces people to spend money on BA, it's NOT 0
No NCB has yet come anywhere close to NWO without spending money on BA.
ba is free for nubs though, correct?
The cost is automatically removed from the money they earn. They get less than the listed bonus to cash rewards to pay for it.
January 6 2009 8:51 PM EST
I think you meant NCB, not NUB - by definition, the NUB have free BA.
And getting to ~70% of NWO's MPR without spending a single CB$ on BA is possible with a NCB... that's close enough.
With a rolling bonus, the only thing that matters is CB$ you spent on BA *recently*... the more time has passed, the less CB$ spent on BA earlier matters less and less, and CB$ you spent on BA recently matters more.
If NWO keeps spening CB$ on BA, even with a rolling bonus, somebody that also spends CB$ on BA constantly would at best also just come close to him, never surpass him. And without buying BA at all, they would probably get even less close compared to how close they can get now.
For all intents and purposes, a rolling bonus is better.
January 6 2009 8:55 PM EST
"The cost is automatically removed from the money they earn. They get less than the listed bonus to cash rewards to pay for it."
They get more cash than a NCB anyway, and THAT is "unfair" enough as it is.
That on top of the free BA.
No matter how you look at it, a NUB is massively unfair compared to a NCB.
Besides, that has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about here. If you want to compare ANYTHING, you have to compare the NCB with the rolling bonus. The NUB is something entirely different.
210,240,000 cb (this is a conservative extrapolation of what PoisoN has spent on BA)
Think about that the next time you're griping about the cost of the NCB's BA.
January 6 2009 9:13 PM EST
It is irrelevant how much he spent on BA in the distant past.
If NWO would stop spending cash on BA right now, while FTW would keep buying all BA, then eventually a NCB that buys NO BA AT ALL would still get over his MPR.
At the same time, FTW is where he is with a NUB, where by definition you don't spend cash to buy any BA at all.
You're griping about something pointless.
Yes, sure, he did use up so much cash.
Yes, that cash could equate a lot of RL cash.
Yes, it sounds harsh to say it's irrelevant... but IT IS.
Also, you're griping about the wrong issue - it's not the BA cost of a NCB people are complaining about most ; it's the fact you have to start a NCB and abandon your character that's miffing people off, the culture of "disposable teams".
That's what people complain about, and that's what a rolling bonus would fix.
teams not in the top 10 or 20 have always been worthless, long before there was a bonus
Let me repeat myself, the NUB doesn't have "free" BA. The BA is essentially pre-bought. It's removed from rewards without the player getting a choice.
January 6 2009 9:21 PM EST
Heck, for all I care, keep the current NCB/NUB in place "as is", and simply add a VERY SMALL, XP-only bonus when you're not in any N*B.
The bonus would be around +50% at next to no MPR,
drop to ~40% at around 30% of top MPR,
get down to ~30% at around 60% of top MPR,
be barely ~20% at ~75% of top MPR,
down to 10% at ~80% of top MPR
and drop to zero at 95% of top MPR.
Now, THIS would be a sufficient rolling bonus already.
Yes, even this small thing would be more than enough.
"Let me repeat myself, the NUB doesn't have "free" BA. The BA is essentially pre-bought. It's removed from rewards without the player getting a choice."
The price deducted is normal-price BA though, not bonus-cost BA.
January 6 2009 10:56 PM EST
I just know that I wish I went single minion for xp concentration, but I don't think I'll ever use an NCB because my NUB with no BA cost will never be outmatched by an NCB that I may use.
Food for thought, Solare has reached 4M MPR already novice. How much money do you think he spent on BA? :)
very few NUBs make it to a top spot. Perhaps we should consider that before we call NUB overpowered.
Yeah, so what NUBs get free BA? Ultimately, they are forced into the game, with no supportership, preparation, equips or experience and running a bonus. They need to spend time getting the hang of the game while buying equips deciding on a strat and are in danger of having too many or too few minions too soon.
It's no wonder so few NUBs reach the top. Sure it's good, but so few people are able to exploit it to half of what it is it's hardly the standard. The majority of top spots are made by NCBs not NUBs. It's not like if you mess up your NUB you fail at ever playing competitively.
Another thought that annoys me is that everyone feels that they are entitled to a top MPR. Well, I disagree, I believe that only those whom are willing to invest heavely and prepare equips while selecting appropriate growth strategies should reach the top. I agree that the bonuses for N*B might need a -minor- increase (even though there is no evidence of what the new score system can accomplish in 6 months) but I'm afraid that the rational of the rolling bonus is because EVERYONE wants to reach the top with minimal investment.
My train of thought continues and wonders why the RoE was changed. I think the old RoE would be a great option that would only work on perhaps 7 BA and lower. It really added to the game.
"Yeah, so what NUBs get free BA? Ultimately, they are forced into the game, with no supportership, preparation, equips or experience and running a bonus. They need to spend time getting the hang of the game while buying equips deciding on a strat and are in danger of having too many or too few minions too soon."
Not all mate. ;)
My brother certainly wouldn't. If he decided to start CB.
And if I actually had a brother.
How about your kid? He would love CB!
Since when was Emma a he?
I see the above post as a MAJOR FAIL!!11!!oneoneone
meh! Mistake! honest!
January 7 2009 10:18 AM EST
Indeed. Do not confuse the gender of the child promised to me.
;) I won't forget, GL!!
Hey what now? You're not getting your mitts on any or my offspring! ;)
Well, your brother is not the norm, and the NCB should be changed for the lucky few like him :)
Makes you wonder how many of the NUBs that got top tier characters were part of the lucky few though, doesn't it. ;)
January 7 2009 2:21 PM EST
My wager... just about every last one of them, either friends or family of decent players, or non-supporters that had expired accounts so they could create NUBs instead of being forced into NCBs.
with such a lack of confidence in the multi-hunting skills of our admins, why not go for it yourself then or is it a moral hang-up?
January 7 2009 2:36 PM EST
Nah, I prefer to always do it by the rules, no matter how silly the rules are (but of course I'm always going to complein about the rules) :P
Besides... there is a fine line between one kind of multi (the bad one) and the other kind (the somewhat neutral one only going for a NUB).
Even if somebody WOULD actually be a multi of the second kind, it would be basically impossible to prove in such a way as to warrant a reset, unless they get stupid and try to help themselves from their old account.
Worse still, the second kind was completely legal up to some time ago, since old accounts used to expire normally. I didn't do that "thing" back when it was legal to do it, I'm not about to do it now that it no longer is.
January 7 2009 2:40 PM EST
I personally am morally against it, the NUB.
And I will not resort to cheating like others clearly have.
However, there is an abundance of multis in CB, whether the admins catch them or not. Of course I have no 100% proof of it, but for me it passes the "smell test". I know it when I smell it.
Just look at Duke, Mantra, and all the other multis out there who "turned themselves in".
We do need a Rolling Bonus rather then the garbage we have now. At least to make older characters, like the one I am toying with now, fun again.
well, we can't really prove that so it remains a theory. the potential exists though and the payoff is great. we cannot really remove the potential however the payoff can be reduced.
the rolling bonus would do that, why cheat when we all get the same ability to catch up with older teams or start a new one and get an even better bonus.
as for it promoting laziness, the real question is whether it is better to promote laziness or laziness & deception? i say we remove the deception and set the bonus amount where laziness isn't much of an issue.
there is quite a range between "catch them all up in one fight" and "they can catch up but it will take years". the bonus amount could be adjusted per the ba regen rates as well. 10/20 will get very little so that they can learn the ropes and not have to update the fight list continually. have the bonus max during the 8/20 and 7/20 regens as that is usually where the challenge bonus dead zone exists.
there could even be a cap on the max bonus a character could get, perhaps double or triple what normal xp rewards are for the regen rate. this would make it so that it still takes quite a bit of fighting to get close.
January 7 2009 3:25 PM EST
how bout a rolling bonus where fighting a single fight will activate the bonus for say 3 days at least regardless if they log on again. This would still reward players who log in every day and burn BA but would not allow a player to log in once a month and only use up one day of their bonus.
It would allow players who are gone for a month after they log on to only lose that one day and a number of days afterwards up to in my example 3 days.
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=002dIG">Has the N*B been increased since the ROE changed?</a>