New Level Pact Squad to face the Toughest in CoH
By
10100101,
Posted on: 2009-05-22 19:36 in The Market and Inventions
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the crux of the disagreement then. I don't see why this should be true. At best they should be earning the same XP/min since their contribution is proportionally the same (assuming all they do is tank - if they also do damage or control, their contribution is proportionally somewhat less).
[/ QUOTE ]
Fundamentally, reward should be based in some measure on a couple of principles.
(1) If you are doing something that's harder for you than someone else, it makes sense for you to get more reward.
In the Tanker case, if he's lower-level than the mobs he's fighting, he's taking on more risk and suffering more damage. If you substituted in a higher-level Tanker, they might both ultimately achieve the same performance on the basis that both were sufficiently tough to pull it off. However, the higher-level Tanker has an easier time of it. How that translates into requirement for player action depends heavily on powerset - a lowbie Fire/ Tanker is probably going to have to play more actively than a lowbie Stone/ tanker running Granite.
(2) If you can perform as well as someone higher level than you, it doesn't make sense for you to get less XP than they would doing the same thing, scaled for level.
Going back to the Defender example, let's say that we have a Empath Defender and a Blaster. All an Emp Defender's buffs function equally well not matter what level they are - only their Heals are weaker at low levels. If the Emp is following the Blaster around buffing his mitigation, damage and regen/recovery, they're both getting benefit and acting as a team. Presumably they both get equal shares of the XP.
Now we replace the Emp with one that's -4 to the mobs. His buffs work out the same for the Blaster. He shouldn't get less progress per defeated foe towards his next level than the same-level Defender did. That would be nonsensical, because they are providing the same benefit. However, the XP system has no way to tell if the 2nd player is an Emp, a Tanker, a Fire/Kin, or whatever. If we say the 2nd, lower-level player is a Blaster, and then we scale the system based on the fact that such a character will deal less damage and contribute less, the low-level Emp is getting less reward than his contribution suggests.
(3) Contribution to progress is not the only thing likely wrapped up in the current XP model. There is also threat represented by foes.
This is extremely hard for me to express quantitatively, partially because I don't have the interest in the topic to think too hard about it. But at its simplest, if you are on a team where you're, say, -3/-4 to all the mobs, you're at a much higher risk of getting waxed than if you are higher level. Part of the difficulty of quantifying that is that it depends immensely on who your higher-level partners are, how smart/good they are at playing the game, and probably what ATs and powersets they have. Going in -3/-4 on a PuG is likely to give very different results than going in on a SG superteam. I think there's a tendency to handwave this aspect of the XP picture away, but I am unconfortable doing so. I'm not sufficiently certain that enough players play in ways that makes being the guy that's really low-level on the team a safe bet without being a door sitter.
Edit: Thinking about the above and what I think you are describing, I think the difference comes down to opinion about what is more important. Neither system is perfect. The existing one is arguably overly gracious, and rewards things more than it arguably should. Your system is arguably overly conservative, and rewards things less than it arguably should, in order to ensure that it's not overly gracious. Which system is "better" depends on which situation you think it's more important to prevent.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
(1) If you are doing something that's harder for you than someone else, it makes sense for you to get more reward.
[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely disagree with this. If two people are doing something, and one person is more effective at it, the person who's more effective should get more reward. Period. Otherwise, the less effective person is incented to put themselves in situations where overall it's actually more beneficial to everyone for them to back away and let the more effective person do everything.
Which, of course, is the situation we find ourselves in today.
Carrying this principle to its logical conclusion is what causes leeching. If the devs hadn't put arbitrary XP gain limits on level differential, your principle says that a theoretical team with 50 members, of each level from 1 to 50 inclusive, fighting one AV, would get increasing rewards as you go down the chain from the 50 to the 1. No one below 42 or so is even going to hit that AV, so if they're damage ATs, the situation is patently ridiculous.
But even for buffers it's all wrong; the level 1 certainly isn't buffing the 50s "better" than a 48 would, and yet your principle says they should get higher rewards from the defeat. That's nonsensical to me. At best, taking into account Arcanaville's position, all the buffers from 42 on down should be equivalent and should get something, since they can still buff even if they can't attack. But I argue that the 42s etc just have no business being on the team to begin with, and the fact that they can affect the outcome because buffs don't diminish is a design flaw that should be corrected and not an inherent to be balanced against.
I really have to wonder what other MMOs do.
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines
You must be a real [censored] joy to team with.
Duel me.
I will work on my sig pic more when I have time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(1) If you are doing something that's harder for you than someone else, it makes sense for you to get more reward.
[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely disagree with this. If two people are doing something, and one person is more effective at it, the person who's more effective should get more reward.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is in opposition to every reward system I have ever experienced, including pen-and-paper ones.
Edit:
I think you may need to remember the context that these reward systems are founded in. The most clear vision of the what XP systems generally represent is a the classic story character of a young hero thrust into adventure. Early on they have minimal skill at fighting, picking locks, fast talking, or whatever it is they do for their class or skill selection. As they do more of these things, they get better at them - expressed in game terms as XP or other points that they can allocate to their progression.
Typically these systems quantify challlenge by levels or "challenge ratings". The wider the gap between a character's level and the level or challenge rating of something they overcome, the more progress they make towards their next progress threshold. A level 8 D&D character gets more progress towards being level 9 for defeating a level 10 foe than a level 10 D&D character progresses towards being level 11.
The idea here is the old "risk vs. reward" notion. If you take on a challenge more risky than normal for your level, the roleplay story translation assumes your character learned more from the encounter than normal, gained more confidence, etc.
That's the story analogy for what XP systems try to represent. How much your character progresses because of that encounter. It's not some sort of wage system where the more experienced characters always earn more for being better. Instead, the more experienced you are the harder stuff you have to do to keep progressing at the same rate, because you don't "learn" anything from the things you did before.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(1) If you are doing something that's harder for you than someone else, it makes sense for you to get more reward.
[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely disagree with this. If two people are doing something, and one person is more effective at it, the person who's more effective should get more reward. Period. Otherwise, the less effective person is incented to put themselves in situations where overall it's actually more beneficial to everyone for them to back away and let the more effective person do everything.
Which, of course, is the situation we find ourselves in today.
Carrying this principle to its logical conclusion is what causes leeching. If the devs hadn't put arbitrary XP gain limits on level differential, your principle says that a theoretical team with 50 members, of each level from 1 to 50 inclusive, fighting one AV, would get increasing rewards as you go down the chain from the 50 to the 1. No one below 42 or so is even going to hit that AV, so if they're damage ATs, the situation is patently ridiculous.
But even for buffers it's all wrong; the level 1 certainly isn't buffing the 50s "better" than a 48 would, and yet your principle says they should get higher rewards from the defeat. That's nonsensical to me. At best, taking into account Arcanaville's position, all the buffers from 42 on down should be equivalent and should get something, since they can still buff even if they can't attack. But I argue that the 42s etc just have no business being on the team to begin with, and the fact that they can affect the outcome because buffs don't diminish is a design flaw that should be corrected and not an inherent to be balanced against.
I really have to wonder what other MMOs do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most have no means to sidekick but IIRC when I played EQ all team members got equal exp splits and there was ninja looting the corpses.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
This is an interesting discussion and may represent the one case I've ever run across where I agree with RP logic dictating a game system.
Logically, Keep's position makes more sense, but I agree with Uber's 'genre convention' explanation of why lower power characters gain more reward from tougher foes.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
[ QUOTE ]
Typically these systems quantify challlenge by levels or "challenge ratings". The wider the gap between a character's level and the level or challenge rating of something they overcome, the more progress they make towards their next progress threshold.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstand me. If a character undergoes two encounters, they should definitely earn more XP from the more difficult one, assuming other factors are equivalent.
But that's a comparison between the character and the enemy levels. There is also the comparison between the character and the teammate levels.
So, taking a specific situation:
If two level 40s defeat a level 40 enemy, they get X. Let's use this as the baseline.
If two level 40s defeat a level 41 enemy, they should get something greater than X, say Y. This satisfies your criteria.
Then one of them levels, and they defeat another 41 enemy. This is where it gets tricky. The level 40 earns Z. We can say that Z should be less than Y because the 40 had more help fighting the 41 this time than they did previously. But what's the relationship to X? That's the hard part.
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines
[ QUOTE ]
You must be a real [censored] joy to team with.
[/ QUOTE ]
I generally solo, but when I do form teams, I follow pretty strict rules about what levels I invite. I don't invite higher level characters so that they don't get shafted, and I don't invite anyone lower than -2 to the general team level unless there are SK spots.
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must be a real [censored] joy to team with.
[/ QUOTE ]
I generally solo, but when I do form teams, I follow pretty strict rules about what levels I invite. I don't invite higher level characters so that they don't get shafted, and I don't invite anyone lower than -2 to the general team level unless there are SK spots.
[/ QUOTE ]
I got to go on a couple of Keep's old Cap runs. Ruthlessly efficient, great communication, and lots of fun. Very much a [censored] joy to team with, but in the good way. 
President of the Arbiter Sands fan club. We will never forget.
An Etruscan Snood will nevermore be free
[ QUOTE ]
Then one of them levels, and they defeat another 41 enemy. This is where it gets tricky. The level 40 earns Z. We can say that Z should be less than Y because the 40 had more help fighting the 41 this time than they did previously. But what's the relationship to X? That's the hard part.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's actually part of the intractibility problem I mentioned earlier. Its a specific instance of the more general problem of defining what is meant by "fairness" when the mathematics is going to end up with no general solution. And it won't, once you start adding situations like a level 45 and a level 41 attacking level 43s, compared to both of their solo performance.
What the current reward system does is basically state that the overriding requirement is no teaming penalty. In other words, under as many conditions as is possible to account for, a player should never earn *less* XP when on a team than when solo, when performing at basically the same activity level (unless they are above the combat level of the targets, where its possible due to saturation).
That's probably implemented too high for level differences higher than 3 (where the purple patch dictates that the reward system itself stops rewarding higher combat differences**) which is why I think the implementation is flawed. But I don't disagree with the principle itself, which is why I don't think the system is completely wrong.
** When you really come down to it, the flaw in the reward system is that when solo, the reward scaling interacts with the purple patch to dictate a break-even point at about +2 to +3. Its exponential nature is *intended by design* to prevent unlimited reward/risk-effort tradeoffs. But teaming blurs that distinction by allowing one party to get the reward while a different party accepts the risk/effort, which decouples the purple patch from the reward system, in effect breaking the purple patch in terms of rewards. But that could be factored back into the teaming reward algorithm itself by factoring in those reward ratios directly into the team proportion calculations, to prevent reward/risk-effort ratios higher than +3 from occuring by fiat. The implementation issue is that this might need to be implemented by table rather than formula, because its unclear to me that a singular formula can implement that behavior correctly for all levels, since levelling rates are intrinsicly different at different levels even after the recent XP normalization pass.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
This is why I love Arcanaville: Even when I have no idea what she's talking about, she says it so precisely that sometimes I feel my brain expanding and I catch a little glimpse of something that makes sense.
50s: Inv/SS PB Emp/Dark Grav/FF DM/Regen TA/A Sonic/Elec MA/Regen Fire/Kin Sonic/Rad Ice/Kin Crab Fire/Cold NW Merc/Dark Emp/Sonic Rad/Psy Emp/Ice WP/DB FA/SM
Overlord of Dream Team and Nightmare Squad
I got about 30-45 minutes this afternoon. Took a while to run everyone to the same zone.
Ding, all 3 are level 18.
[ QUOTE ]
I got about 30-45 minutes this afternoon. Took a while to run everyone to the same zone.
Ding, all 3 are level 18.
[/ QUOTE ]
and the Bunny keeps going... and... going... and...going...
Just curious... but how do you get a level pact between more than two people? Tells me maximum number are in when I try to invite a third.
Smurph, I have a psi blaster to get from 44-50 and I am in a hurry to get it done. How much and when?
Duel me.
I will work on my sig pic more when I have time.
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious... but how do you get a level pact between more than two people? Tells me maximum number are in when I try to invite a third.
[/ QUOTE ]
He's multi-boxing...playing multiple accounts at once. This lets him pact someone for each of his accounts. I'd assume since he mentioned 3 slots that he's using three accounts at once.
[ QUOTE ]
I've had my disagreements and battles with Smurph, but in this instance he's doing something immensely valuable for the game's population, shining a spotlight on a dev-created minefield where they refuse to provide useful, well defined guidelines while threatening players with bans and other punitive measures.
As with their original reluctance to give players meaningful information about powers- if they don't tell us the numbers, we have to find them out ourselves.
For that he deserves a hearty round of applause.
[/ QUOTE ]
I truly admire Smurph's creativity and his accomplishments in the game, but I fail to see the "immensely valuable" contribution to the game's population here (I can see the immensely valuable contribution to the lowbie that zipped to 50, but that's beside the point ). What new information is being imparted here?
On the larger issue: does anyone seriously think that the devs approve of leveling a lowbie from 1-50 in 5 hours? Would anyone be shocked if they clobbered Smurph's lowbie with the ban stick? If they don't, it doesn't prove that what he's done is acceptable. It just proves they're inconsistent in playing PLed character whack-a-mole.
My own belief is that the devs don't mind it if ultrafast PLing is happening on the margins; it's when it gets too common that they take draconian action. If they remove the auto-SK feature of the MA, make the "no XP" option unavailable after level 45, and force maps to have the standard mix of ranks, I'd say that's about all that's needed. It won't eliminate PLing but it'll make it a little tougher to get optimal conditions, and that's good enough.
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Typically these systems quantify challlenge by levels or "challenge ratings". The wider the gap between a character's level and the level or challenge rating of something they overcome, the more progress they make towards their next progress threshold.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstand me. If a character undergoes two encounters, they should definitely earn more XP from the more difficult one, assuming other factors are equivalent.
[/ QUOTE ]
But that's not the assertion that led me to launch into the background of the systems. Specfically, it was the assertion that the character who's better at something should get the greater reward for it.
Going back to Arcanaville's recent example, consider the case of two Scrappers, one L45, one L41, teamed up and fighting L43 mobs. Assuming identical powerset choices (as much as possible for the four-level gap), the L45 Scrapper will be far more efficient at defeating mobs than the level 41 Scrapper will be. Under your principles, the level 45 Scrapper should make more progress towards being level 46 in that encounter than the level 41 one should, even though (as the game stands), he's facing significantly less threat.
In a perfectly idealized setting, the level 41's decrease in progress due to foe level scaling should be perfectly offset by the level 45's increase in progress. (The L45 would defeat more foes but get less for each one.) However, not only is that not the current situation, it's not clear that such a thing is possible in the general case, due to the complexity of AT or powerset differences. That doesn't even account for differences in power choice or slotting within powersets.
Fundamentally, though, I think we have really come down to the critical factor - the question of whether teaming should ever be worse for you than soloing. I do think that making sure that teaming is always a benefit is a strong principal the devs have pursued (perhaps to a fault), with the strongest evidence being the bonuses given for being on progressively larger teams. Now, that was done a significantly long time ago, but I think it may be telling that something like it was only just implemented with MA Ticket rewards.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
I truly admire Smurph's creativity and his accomplishments in the game, but I fail to see the "immensely valuable" contribution to the game's population here (I can see the immensely valuable contribution to the lowbie that zipped to 50, but that's beside the point ). What new information is being imparted here?
[/ QUOTE ]
the 'line of death' beyond which the devs take action against characters and accounts.
they won't tell us where it is, so anyone publicly exploring its limits is doing the community a service.
[ QUOTE ]
On the larger issue: does anyone seriously think that the devs approve of leveling a lowbie from 1-50 in 5 hours? Would anyone be shocked if they clobbered Smurph's lowbie with the ban stick? If they don't, it doesn't prove that what he's done is acceptable. It just proves they're inconsistent in playing PLed character whack-a-mole.
[/ QUOTE ]
if they're not going to nail somebody who made a huge public display out of the feat, they aren't going to nail anyone for it.
the way Smurph has gone about this experiment,no reaction from on high tells us all we need to know.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
[ QUOTE ]
the way Smurph has gone about this experiment,no reaction from on high tells us all we need to know.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not wishing Smurph ill at all. Just saying that I don't share your conclusions that his actions thus far prove anything. Now, if his lowbie petitioned a GM and said, "Hi, I stood in an AE mission and went from 1 to 50 in 5 hours without fighting. You OK with that?" If the GM indicated it was cool, that WOULD prove something. But AFAIK the forum mods are completely different from the in-game GMs and thus nothing has been proven.
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
devs are on the forums.
someone posts a thread about pushing the limits of this or that, someone's gonna check it out.
even if we assume they're blind and deaf, smurph's run didn't set off their datamining RED ALERT siren.
I'm comfortable accepting his data point as inside the limits of their killzone.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
I wouldn't attribute too much to it.
I appreciate Smurphy's thought and effort. But if I was a dev and I had a speed limit I didn't want anyone to know about, then I probably wouldn't post it and I probably would avoid becoming a datapoint in Smurphy's experiment.
In other words, we can't really tell if they experiment failed to trigger the RED ALERT siren or if they simply chose to ignore it.
50s: Inv/SS PB Emp/Dark Grav/FF DM/Regen TA/A Sonic/Elec MA/Regen Fire/Kin Sonic/Rad Ice/Kin Crab Fire/Cold NW Merc/Dark Emp/Sonic Rad/Psy Emp/Ice WP/DB FA/SM
Overlord of Dream Team and Nightmare Squad
But that alone proves something. It makes it all the more evident that they don't give a [censored] [censored] about how they handle this. They retroactively punish, punish the wrong people, ignore their customers screaming for clarification, THEN they make exceptions cause it suits them????? Sorry your going to make something bannable then define it and enforce it evenly no exceptions.
"Play Nice and BEHAVE! I don't want to hear about any more of your shenanigans brought up in our meetings at Paragon"-Ghost Falcon @Tritonfree @Philly's 2nd Convenient CIGAL BoBC/INOANN Arts&Crafts Sporks
Average Joes FAP THE MENTOR PROJECT Justice Events
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't attribute too much to it.
I appreciate Smurphy's thought and effort. But if I was a dev and I had a speed limit I didn't want anyone to know about, then I probably wouldn't post it and I probably would avoid becoming a datapoint in Smurphy's experiment.
In other words, we can't really tell if they experiment failed to trigger the RED ALERT siren or if they simply chose to ignore it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This.
Now, people will hand wave it away. Or try and turn around and say it proves something about the Devs.
All it proves is they wouldn't be suckered into playing this little game, or that they don't care about people triple-boxing 1-50, or they're more concerned with it becoming a mass activity that any individual character can perform by themselves.
There's lots of things that this "experiment" could prove, which is why it a poorly designed experiment if that is what it is supposed to be. It purports to take data on its subjects by reading their minds.
Sounds like science to me.
[ QUOTE ]
this wont explain why i got a minus in xp in front of the mish door, say the 4 1st mobs, then get a lil more on the rest of the map.
[/ QUOTE ]
Were you on a team where some members were sk'd or exemplared? SK/EX seems to have a funny lag issue at mission start, where the first few mobs the XP is earned and divided as if the SK/EX weren't there.
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines