NW - PR Link (in Debates)
I cannot understand how CB would be balanced by removing the NW-PR link, and am more than happy to admit I just don't get it. So here's my view on it, I hope if it's incorrect this could be xplained to me!
A Teams 'Power Rating' is used to determin in game rewards. Power Rating is currently a combination of raw XP amounts and item Net Worth (with no bearing on strategy, or how these amount are used in game, just how much you have of them).
Two teams with equal MPR have equal raw 'power', as represented by MPRs contribution to PR.
Currently, NW does the same.
Removing the NW-PR link would remove NW's contribution to your Power Rating.
Leading to the situation where two teams with equal MPR have the same PR, when one could have vastly more NW than the other.
It can be of little doubt that NW supplies 'power' to a team. There should be little doubt that a 1,000 NW Morg gives the same 'power' as a 1,000,000 NW Morg.
Given two identical Tank teams. If one has a 1,000 NW Morg, and the other a 1,000,000 one, if the NW-PR link was removed, both would have the same 'power' rating, while the one with the vastly larger Morg obviously has much more inherant 'power', and shouldn't get the same rewards as the smaller Morg Tank when fighting the same Targets.
This is why the NW-PR link must be in place.
I cannot reason why it should be removed, or who you could then balance teams without it.
Am I wrong in my conclusions? Is there something I'm missing?
November 20 2009 3:32 AM EST
Weapon X is already removed from the NW-PR link. One of the best features from a tank's point of view the game currently has. Not so good if you're on the receiving end of an x25000 weapon...
Yeah, I'm still of an opinion Weapon 'X' should be on a sliding scale. Either reduce PR, give no PR, or increase PR depending on size in relation to your Team, but that's another topic!
(Just assume the Morg's NW above is all in '+' for this topic!)
The PR for tanks needs adjusting but the PR-NW link should not be removed.
November 20 2009 9:48 AM EST
I cannot understand how CB would be balanced by removing the NW-PR link, and am more than happy to admit I just don't get it.
The lack of NW-PR was key in allowing teams on CB1 to catch up. The ability to fight up here is hamstrung because of the link.
Removing it would allow users to specialize and maintain a bonus for a much longer period.
The other aspect of the it that I see as very important is related to the item economy. Since the implementation of NW-PR the item market has consistently gone down. NW-PR essentially punishes people buying items by lowering rewards, upgrading your dbs to attempt to beat someone new lowers your rewards for everyone else. I see this as a huge issue.
November 20 2009 1:26 PM EST
But on the other hand, NW-PR does help a bit in decreasing the influence of USD.
But... Then again, I thought ENC would do a better job than it currently does. And would be a step towards removing NW-PR.
Reducing the influence in this case refers to hindering the growth of chars with powerful items... something that also effects people who have specialized and gotten themselves a single weapon with high NW, or a large tattoo. NW-PR is a penalty for playing well...
That I disagree with.
Increase your DD, your PR goes up. Increase your Defensive skills, your PR goes up.
Why then, (if NW-PR was removed), should you be able to increase your Offense (through Weapons) and defense (Through Armour) without it Increasing your PR.
Surely upping NW increases your team 'Power'.
(Also, NW = Good Playing. It just equals lots of money...)
Well put GL... maybe what I'm looking for is an alteration of how fight rewards are done.
I save up money, I choose what armor to use. Why should I be penalized for using it? I know at least one person who takes off their armor at the top to fight, then puts it back on when they're done. Why should people be penalized for having NW? I thought ENC was to keep you from using too huge of items... ahhh, but I guess we all know that's where the problem lies.
i see encumbrance and pr performing very different tasks. encumbrance keeps you from using too big of items but pr accurately shows how much power your team has.
if the two could be combined that is awesome but jon stated that encumbrance was no replacement for pr when introducing it.
Titan, the same reason that guy with 1/2 XP into DM is 'penalised' for fighitng teams without and ED to dispel. I'm sure folk would love to be able to remove trained X versus targets it oens't help with. For no downside, and reduced thier PR to increase their rewards.
Like taking a bit of armour off.
But as for being penalised, in actual fact, he's not. And nor are you.
Cor blimey that post sucked. Sorry everyone, I hope it's still somewhat readable...
"maybe what I'm looking for is an alteration of how fight rewards are done"
How about a small amount, based on your MPR, of 'free' NW. This would give you a little limit on using some gear without increasing your PR at all.
Then anything over that, increases PR as usual.
This would also include Weapon X, but Weapon X would have it's own cost.
On a sliding scale, based on how large your Tank is (based on the XP trained on STR/DEX of the minion using the Weapon.
If Weapon X is below this amount, your PR is actually reduced. At this amount, weapon X adds no extra PR (like currently), and above this amount, the extra Weapon X adds PR.
If your Weapon X adds PR, it would then also be absorbed by the global free NW break the character has.
But that would be a set limit for all your minions. So on a multi minion team, probably the rest would have to be naked.
Something like that?
NW still represents overall 'power', but all teams get a tiny amount of leeway, for using either some base gear, or a little upgraded gear for free.
Just a thought. ;)
Base gear adds no PR already.
November 21 2009 5:20 PM EST
I never understood why weapon + was removed from PR calculations.
It hasn't been.
Or if it has, it shouldn't! ;)
For a long time I never understood why weapon X was emoved, but it's quite necessary.
On that hand though, it should still increase PR if it's to big. And conversly for balance reduce PR if it's actualy too small.
November 21 2009 5:23 PM EST
Then I never understood why weapon x was removed from PR calculations.
Because they were scaled to DB + and DBs don't have x.
Weapon X ws removed, as;
"Tanks need weapons to function"
And they do.
I was caught up, for ages (I freely admit), over the problme of a x1 Whip adding the same PR as a x10,000 Morg. That is, nothing.
Obvisouly the Morg has much more 'power' than the whip, and surely this must be represented somehow.
So I thouht weapon X being free was absurd.
But, ruminating longer, I started to see the reasoning behind this. And i'm sure I posted it a while ago.
Mages only need to train DD. Tanks need to train STR and DEX and have an equivalent Weapon X, as thier damage is related to the two amounts.
Lets make a base assumption that a Mage training 'x' DD and deals 'y' daage is balance to a Tank training 'a' STR, 'b' DEX and having a Weapon X of 'c'.
The Tank *can't* function equivalently to the Mage without a Weapon X of 'c', so requires that amount to work. They shouldn't have thier rewards penalised for purchasing 'c' Weapon X from an increase PR, as they need this amount to be balanced.
That's all fine.
Having 'c' less than expected, means they are less powerful compared to an equivalent Mage, and conversly having more 'c' means the are more powerful.
I feel strongly this needs to be represent accurately in the current system.
Lower Weapon X than usual should reduce your Power Rating, while higher should increase it.
I hope this explains everything! ;)
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=002vo5">NW - PR Link</a>