"Nauros;c-2235486" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235473" wrote:
"Nauros;c-2235431" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235424" wrote:
"Nauros;c-2235412" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235405" wrote:
"Nauros;c-2235399" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235341" wrote:
"Nauros;c-2235306" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2235224" wrote:
"Morgoth01;c-2235216" 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.
Yes, the 2% is less harsh, but the 6% line is much harsher - and currently there's no line before 20%.
The raid have gotten a lot harder to beat in terms of teams (investment) needed.
All teams which previously did more than 2% damage will now do less and all big hitters will do a lot less.
I look forward to seeing how bad this is going to be, I wonder what our 20-30% SLKR runs will end up at for P2-3 and even more so where our 7-10% Rey P4 runs will end up.
I'll stick to what I've posted before, final judgement is reserved until we've tried the thing, but the goalposts have certainly been moved, question is if by yards, miles or parsecs.
Correct, most guilds are going to need more players involved per phase than previously because a small handful will not be taking down a phase.
Honestly, I see Rey fairing nicely as her team will survive longer due to the lower increase.
Oh nice, gonna expand our guild to 100 players then...
How the heck can Rey team survive longer? It will face higher stats so it will die sooner. The only positive change is that her ultimate will actually do some damage now as well as protect the team for a while.
There is some very simple math that shows you dont need 100 people, but I know you just want to be negative.
I dont mean she will do better than she did, but I feel like the setup will allow her to last a little longer than teams of a similar grade/score.
Maybe not 100, but in our case, definitely more than 50.
Fact: we barely make it now with full participation.
Fact: most teams will be significantly less effective after the change.
Conclusion: we will need more than 50 people or be back to grinding.
That is my math, show yours instead of accusations of negativity. I want to be positive about it, I just can't.
Sure, 50 players need to average 2% to make it work. This change doesnt effect anyone who can do 2% per phase.
Teams that do more than 2% right now, will do more than 2% after the change, and some probably even more to help make up the difference for those players who cant do 2% per phase in each phase.
I'm not asking you to be positive, but you seem to have drawn a conclusion out of nothing, and maybe reserving judgement may be more prudent until we all have some experience to build on.
I have drawn my conclusion from the known information about the change. You keep going on about how I am overly negative while showing exactly nothing to support your view.
Any team doing more than 2% will be less effective after the change, assuming that we are talking about the typical situation where everyone does their runs before the current bonuses kick in. Any team doing less will be unaffected. That means net negative change compared to the current state, because we are not doing exactly 2% each in every phase (and I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this unrealistic scenario), but most are doing much more in some phases and less in others. It follows that we will come up short after the change, not sure how you can consider this "out of nothing".
I'm not disputing that scores over 2% will be possible, all I say is that they will be significantly reduced.
If 2% is possible for all of your guild members than there is no problem, and since you agree that scores over 2% are possible you have a cushion.
That seems like you are saying that any net negative to any single team or player can be easily distributed to the whole guild allowing you to make it through.
There is nothing unrealistic about guilds on the edge of making a raid work, doing exactly the % needed across the board, that is always the initial plan and goal of how to develop into new raid content.
Yes it is possible that you come up short, but it is also possible that with a proper plan and seeing the numbers of what actually works after the change that you will be ok. You didnt give much information and the reason I was focused on 2% is because any guild at the level of this content should be able to have all members put up 2%, and those numbers will be unaffected. Maybe I'm wrong about your guild makeup, but still a player putting up 4-5% should help make up for that. It's all an averaging effect.
I'm am not being overly positive in this discussion, which is why I have stayed focused on the bare minimum each member would need to do (to answer your questionqhy I am focused on 2%), I wouldnt want to start putting out statements about teams doing 3,4,5 or even 6 % as some sort of normal, but it's all still possible, and very well might be part of the new normal we see.
Stop playing dumb. Plese. You are better than that.
Not everyone has teams for every phase. In fact, in middling guilds, most people probably don't. Therefore, it is usual to score nothing in some phases and compensate for it in others, to achieve the 2% average. No cushion, just non-uniform distribution. One would think that this doesn't need to be explained to someone actually playing the game.
Ok, thank you for more information. I was unaware that you had players that couldnt put a minimum
score into the raid. As I said earlier I was basing everything off the information you had given.
You asked for the simple math to back up what I was saying, I gave it to you. I'm sorry if you do not like it, and its unfortunate you think that your guild will not be able to meet that, there is still hope, unless you are literally just scraping by, IDK.
I would think that most players in guilds and successfully doing the raid would have some ability to out up 4 teams of varying ability to score in the raid, but that is just me.
Nooo! Not minimum score. Teams only for some phases! Posting in some phases but not others still gets non-zero score. Am I really that unclear?
I will give myself as an example, so far I ended up in top 10:
P1 - Padme, around 3%. Will be mostly unaffected, maybe down to 2.8 or so.
P2 OR P3 - Shaak, 5-6%. Will be probably drastically cut due to one less AA from Rex.
The other one, depending on where I use Shaak - 0
P4 - Rey, around 6% (mostly held back by suboptimal mods). Will probably be significantly cut. And some leftovers that do maybe 2% all together.
See? Not 2% in each phase, nor complete zero, but a score varying by phase. Others may have fewer teams ready, plus we heavily rely on SLKR teams doing 15+% in P2/3. Now guess what happens when the higher scores get cut...
And keep in mind that I am one of the stronger members. If everyone had a roster like me, we would probably have no problem.
Yes I understand, I never said complete 0.
I see how you may have problems if everyone in your guild is not able to put up a minimum score in the raid. I agree that guilds in this situation may have trouble moving forward, but still have some hope with players putting up numbers to not be at 0.
You are likely to end up in a decent range, 2-3% ish, with the numbers you out there, and it has remained to be seen what SLKR will do to help lower the per phase numbers needed. If he can do 5% that is 1.5 people that are covered for that phase.
So you have all 50 participating currently?
Capital Games Team
