"MaruMaru;c-2235193" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235192" wrote:
"MaruMaru;c-2235185" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235183" wrote:
"MaruMaru;c-2235171" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235168" wrote:
"MaruMaru;c-2235164" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235161" wrote:
"Ravens1113;c-2235147" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235131" wrote:
"Nikoms565;c-2235121" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235073" wrote:
"Nikoms565;c-2235070" wrote:
"Assassin9818;c-2235023" wrote:
Only a graph is not a prove for what type of funtion it is, but it can give you an idea what type it might be. It will also not work. An exponential function is a function of the form f(x)=a*b^x where b is a positive real number. Here f(x) the increase and x = number of boosts. So let's assume it's an exponential function. We then have f(0) = 0, so it follows that a = 0 as b^0 = 1. So we have f(x) = 0, which I would really like, but I don't think CG will do this XD. Now you could say that we start at x = 1 and don't bother with x = 0 as that isn't really relevant for us. Although I think for coding it will be (not sure about that). We have f(1) = a*b^1 = 20 and f(2) = a*b^2 = 60. 2 functions and 2 unknowns (a and b), so we can solve this system of equations. We have ab = 20, this gives a = 20/b. We substitute a = 20/b in a*b^2 = 60 and get 20b = 60, so b = 3. So we get f(x) = (20/3)*3^x. But f(3) = 180 =/ 120, so exponential function also doesn't work here. Contradiction with assumption that the correct function was exponential.
You can write it as a quadratic function as was shown already by @Ragnarok_COTF. Or what I think CG most likely have in their code: an arithmetic series. Which would be x_{n} = x_{n-1} + 20*n, with n = number of boosts, x_{n} the increase at n boosts and x_{0} = 0 (the starting point). Then we get
x_{0} = 0
x_{1} = 0 + 20*1 = 20 (correct)
x_{2} = 20 + 20*2= 60 (correct)
x_{3} = 60 + 20*3 = 120 (correct)
x_{4} = 120 + 20*4 = 200 (correct)
x_{5} = 200 + 20*5 = 300 (correct).
I also agree the increase is way too high.
The point of bringing up the graph was simply to demonstrate that the increases in offense at each interval, combined with the increase in speed (which the effects of are ignored in the equations people are presenting) result in a player damage graph that strongly resembles an exponential function. Thereby making the OP's claim that the "difficulty" (ability to do damage) increases "exponentially", practically correct.
Yes, it might not literally be an exponential formula as written in the code - but in terms of how the mechanic effects damage output, the OP calling its effects "exponential" is, not completely inaccurate.
But I do agree that we can stop the semantic debate, since we all seem to agree that level of difficulty the stacking increases of damage and speed at such small intervals is a change in difficulty that is significant enough to be concerned m
I would disagree with that. The smaller increase in stats makes the quicker increase point manageable for teams that were already going good.
Yes they scaled everything back, but in theory we saw a SLKR do 100%, which means he was hitting a very high penalty and could do very well in a similar situation in the new dynamic, of course he wont be doing 100%, but he will be pulling his weight (in theory). Opening up the floor to more teams/toons/players also has a large effect on the difficulty of the entire raid, which is not accounted for in your explanation of "exponential difficulty increase", and should be part of a list of factors that mitigate that, because those factors make it easier to deal damage (as you were limiting your argument to).
That's a fair point - while the amount of damage 1 team could do has decreased significantly (regardless as to the specific mathematical descriptors used and whether or not they are accurate) but the option of using more than 4 teams may help mitigate the overall "difficulty" related to an entire roster.
We won't know until we see things live. I do know that if there are guilds that were completing the raid that no longer are able, there will be quite the outrage. And that would be, for the most part, understandable from the perspective of those guilds.
I agree. I also dont think we will hear any great praise from guilds who couldn't/wouldn't do it before who will now be able.
I would however like to point out that there are many factors involved and a guild who could do it with 25-30 players not doing it now without full participation is not necessary a fair comparison. I also fully expect a higher % of failures for the first 2(ish) runs after the change than after that point. This change will have an almost new raid learning curve (almost).
SLKR was a team requiring very specific modding, R8 and good RNG. I don’t think it was that big of an issue considering how much you needed to get it done but that’s just me
Ok, and just so you are aware, the threshold limit of 2% is not directly related to him.
Is it indirectly related to him? What other teams do you know that pulls any number beyond %20 in any phase?
To the 2%, no, not really. The way it stacks is what seems to be designed to stop him.
I believe that since they built that mechanic in they tested where he landed and other teams and the 2% was more based on the preservation of team order and keeping great doing great, good doing good and so on down the line, but the actual % he did doesnt really influence the 2% limit.
So in theory, 5% could have muddied the waters allowing too many teams to keep previous % or close to, making it easier overall and not keeping a relative perspective on investment.
How will the great keep doing great etc.? The definition of great will change? If something that previously doing %20 now does %3, and %5 %2.5 does this fit the your statements...or won't this happen?
Scaling.
If 20% was great, and now 10% is great. Someone who did 20, now doing 10, is still doing great....and so on down the line.
What great is may change, but who is doing it shouldn't. Same for good and ok... make sense?
Kinda does, but it probably won't fit your definition as anything over %2 will degrade too fast to make any difference=all teams reduced to a similar threshold, thus the differention in between them will evaporate.
We already have teams that can pass the correct threshold, which is more than the 2% increase. Do you believe those teams will not be able to pass the 2% line?
It's possible you just a negative view on things and that is skewing your view of this, as there is no practical knowledge to back what you are saying. The 2% line is much less harsh that the line we currently see.
I don't have a negative view of things, just asking if you know more than us that makes you make these claims. I'm on the winning side of this change with too many teams to use because I ended up r5ing them as the optimal teams kept changing. Maybe you have unreasonably positive view of things like in all topics which skews your view point.
This is all based on conversations around testing this. I'm not saying it's any hard line that they will all fall in line but this was the idea behind it and the testing planned out in a way that seemed to support this.
You are treating 2% like nothing will pass that, and there is nothing to back that up, infact the only place we have a hard line, teams do pass, so that would suggest that a lower increase is not as detrimental. That was why you seem to come across more negative on this than is warranted.
Considering the game is still here and player are doing better in game modes and making it through the gear crunch with some practices that get passed along, and many of the other things that people tend to be negative about, my positivity is more online with the reality of what's going on than the constant "the sky is falling"...... but that's just me.
Capital Games Team
