You know what would be better than a RB ? (in General)


Sickone July 1 2009 1:38 AM EDT

You know what would be better than a Rolling Bonus ?

The REMOVAL of the "reduced penalties for fighting people lower in score" for the higher BA regeneration echelons.

Cube July 1 2009 1:49 AM EDT

Thumbs up

It would achieve a similar effect, and that lack of penalty never made sense anyway.

Flamey July 1 2009 2:22 AM EDT

No because I would be at a near constant -10% Challenge Bonus causing it near impossible to increase, it needs the cap, I think it should be extended into 7/20 as well. For most of 7/20 I was in a negative challenge bonus and it had nothing to do with strat.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 3:16 AM EDT

Sick, I've asked for that for ages.

slow down the growth of the top, and you don't need bonuses to catch up.

Sickone July 1 2009 4:10 AM EDT

"For most of 7/20 I was in a negative challenge bonus and it had nothing to do with strat."

I'm in the upper regions of 7/20 now, and I fight targets at 20%-30% challenge bonus. Things have changed in the 7/20 region, the "dead zone" is not so clear-cut anymore.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] July 1 2009 4:40 AM EDT

I have just recently gotten into the 7 BA regen level, but I am still sometimes getting challenge bonus's as high as 88%.

As for this suggestion it is one that I have suggested and heard suggested before and am for it.

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:56 AM EDT

I think both likely should be enacted.

I also never understood why those at the top got a free pass on keeping their PR at a reasonable level.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 5:01 AM EDT

I can't quite remember the old arguement for it. It was something along the lines of CB would stop growing if the Top didn't have the exemption.

But it's needed to stop the top growing so much, due to the design of the larger you are, the larger rewards you get, the larger you grow.

AbbathorX July 1 2009 7:39 AM EDT

How about you resolve this same problem in the opposite manner.

Remove the penalties for fighting people lower in score for EVERYONE, not just those near the top. If the rewards are based on the targets power/score etc, that reduced amount should BE your penalty, otherwise the rewards calculation is flawed. If this is the case then the algorithm is the real problem here.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 8:21 AM EDT

"If the rewards are based on the targets power/score etc, that reduced amount should BE your penalty"

It is.

It's set to a minimum of zero for those exempt though.

Flamey July 1 2009 8:24 AM EDT

Sick, I guess I forgot about it getting readjusted a few months after I hit 6/20. I think the scores got a big adjustment and ChB worked better. GL would you say that the higher MPR and 0% ChB would grow larger than lower MPR and 50% ChB? I understand what you're saying, however the lower MPR the more ChB you get, so if you let the top get negative while everyone lower has a better ChB (better targets) then doesn't that mean everyone will level out?

Zenai July 1 2009 9:02 AM EDT

It's an age old argument on that front Flamey. Bottomline is it would still be dependent on something. Player Involvement/Activity, strat, equipment, Tat etc etc. Whenever you try to add the human factor into a mathematical equation you will get many random answers. Sometimes you get your desired effect but don't count on it as a norm.

Aside from this I have noticed that as of right now I am tapping the Dead Zone already @ the beginning of 1.9 it started if this helps with any ideas/thoughts.

Even though Ranger is preaching again, we all know his love for the RB.....lol I have to agree with him though enacting both ideas would Level the Regen Ranges, the Dead Zone, and the N*B system out much better than either one alone. Finally an Idea I can get 100% behind.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 9:12 AM EDT

"so if you let the top get negative while everyone lower has a better ChB (better targets) then doesn't that mean everyone will level out?"

Exactly.

Fight for the top, with no external bonus needed.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 1 2009 9:15 AM EDT

this would mainly affect tank teams more harshly than mage teams wouldn't it?

QBRanger July 1 2009 9:23 AM EDT

Yes Dude it will.

Something was already done with the x on weapons not counting.

Perhaps the first 100 + should not also.

However, as tank teams can hit multiple times a round, compared to mages once a round, this may not be so unfair to make things unbalanced.

Remember, in all but the 6 regeneration zone, tanks do have a higher PR than mages and still do well.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] July 1 2009 10:23 AM EDT

Continuing to punish people for NW is insane. NW-PR is already crippling below 6/20, and is a primary cause of the mediocre economy. Extending this to the top would make large items albatrosses and would surely favor those few strats that have a lower PR penalty from NW.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 10:27 AM EDT

Then all types of minions need equal ability to utilise NW in thier builds.

NW does increase a teams power. That is of no doubt.

If one set of minions can utilise massive amount of NW, with no reflection on thier 'power', PR become meaningless.

QBRanger July 1 2009 10:29 AM EDT

As long as NW-PR is in the game, it has to apply to all character.

I never liked the system, but if it will be here to stay, it has to be equal for all.

QBRanger July 1 2009 10:35 AM EDT

And I would ask that people stop with the personal attacks in what should be civil threads.

They serve no point other than to show what a low class, uneducated, pathetic person you are.

Colonel Custard July 1 2009 10:37 AM EDT

I beat a 1 score opponent for only -49% challenge bonus.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] July 1 2009 10:44 AM EDT

I would argue that simply because all but one group is being unfairly penalized for NW is not a reason to punish the last group. It's a reason to fix the rewards system so buying items and using them isn't going to lower your rewards and therefor your capability to grow.

Were NW-PR brought to 6/20 you'd see the top 5 made up completely of naked GA strats and Hal teams. No item would be above +100, and bonus giving armor would be a balancing act of annoying proportions.

QBRanger July 1 2009 10:52 AM EDT

Why would having to carefully titrate your armor/weapon to maximize your rewards be such a bad thing?

Right now tanks get unlimited x on their weapons without having to add PR. The ToA gives additional "free" PTH. This will not be a tank neutering change. Perhaps some titration of the rewards and score structure may be needed, but it is something that should not be that difficult to balance.

With the ability to disenchant items it would be an interesting addition to the game. Making strategy more essential for the upper ranks.

Rather than slap on any item, upgrade it as much as possible and have no care, one would need to carefully plan upgrades.

We do need a uniform system for all. Either we eliminate the fighting down bonus in all regeneration zones or keep it for all zones.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] July 1 2009 10:54 AM EDT

Biggest RoBF or ELB X wins!

Fatil1ty July 1 2009 10:56 AM EDT

I love the idea. However I think that all scores should get a slight boost near the top so that it is still possible to fight and get bonuses.

ALso it makes strategies much more interesting as USD builds are no longer OP. IT forces a person to actually budget their PR instead of the current system which rewards the user with the most USD to spend!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 10:57 AM EDT

Why is the penalty unfair Nov?

This is a really basic example (my Air Con at work is borken, and i'm melting. :( );

Tank has 'x' on a Weapon and 'y' STR. He deals 'z' damage
Mage has 'a' in DD. He deals 'z' damage

They both have equal NW and equal PR.

The Tank than increases his 'x' fourfold. He then deals 2x'z' damage.

Tiwe as much as the Mage. Except they both have the same 'Power' Rating, when the Tank (with a larger NW) has more actual power, as he can deal more damage than the mage.

If the Mage was actually able to spend NW on increasing his damage, it would have to not add PR for it to be balanced, and the option would have to be there in the first place.

I hope this makes sense! I'm really melting here. My collar is soaking! :( But no, unlike women, I can't wear a skirt to work. Have to remain in trousers, shirt and tie. :(

QBRanger July 1 2009 11:26 AM EDT

As opposed to right now who has the biggest exbow on a minor enchanter wins?

We need a standard that effects all players. Removing the exemption will do just that.

And while it seems that the largest RBF or GA or ELB x wins, that is certainly not true. As many strats can be effective with lower NW. One just has to think if that extra + on that particular piece of armor is really worth it.

It may stiffle the economy a little, however it will mostly effect very high NW items/equipment.

And with the reduced money rewards, is that such a bad thing?

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 11:28 AM EDT

Yes, what novice says is entirely true, because the days of the week all end with the letters D-A-Y.

My logic is irrefutable.

I'm afraid you are incorrect, Ranger.

Fatil1ty July 1 2009 11:30 AM EDT

hey nov, what's wrong with annoying balancing acts. I like that a lot more and it takes more skill than loading up items to huge NW with USD..

Sickone July 1 2009 2:57 PM EDT

Well, the next logical step after the complete removal of "penalty reductions" would be to heavily reduce the PR weight of just about everything.
:)

QBOddBird July 1 2009 2:59 PM EDT

I think this is a good idea as well.

Cube July 1 2009 3:07 PM EDT

'No item would be above +100'

Yeah, right if people DEed their weapons down that low, it'd would make DB owners very very happy.

The PR weights of things may be off/need changing, but novice why is your response to suggestions: 'if it's broke, don't fix it'.

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:08 PM EDT

Sut,

Get over it.

No reason to post this crap in every thread.

If you want to start another trying to mock me, please do. But leave garbage like that out of threads like this, ones trying to propose good ideas.

Sickone July 2 2009 9:36 AM EDT

Nobody else have anything else to add ?

QBRanger July 2 2009 12:19 PM EDT

I guess not.

It is now in the hands of Jon and NS to act or not act on this suggestion.
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=002oa6">You know what would be better than a RB ?</a>