Diminishing Rewards

[Taldier]

<p>There have been plenty of threads complaining about ganking, title systems, etc.  One recent thread even recommended that groups shouldnt be able to attack solo players.</p><p>The problem that I see however isnt the 6v1 scenario itself but that fact that the pvp rewards system (fame/money/faction) clearly discourages what the majority of people consider to be good fights (between groups of even or nearly even numbers).</p><p>In the current system if a group kills someone each of them get the reward/number of players in group.  For example in a 2v1 the possible rewards of the group are divided in half to represent their greater chance of victory.  However, by grouping their chances of winning have more then mearly double.  If we play out this scenario the 1 is not likely to win 1 out of every 3 times regardless of the ineptitude of the 2.  If we expand this to a 6v1 the chances of the group winning are far greater then 6:1.</p><p>What I am suggesting is rather simple.  I start by assuming that all even fights are equivalent and provide the group with 100% of the rewards.  To do this I square the number of players on the bottem of the ratio.  For example if a duo wins a 2v1 each would recieve 1/4 of the possible rewards (fame/money/faction), and the losing player would lose 1/2 of the possible losses.  This would mean that being ganked by a full group would cause you to lose 1/6 of what you would lose for being killed in a 1v1, and each member of said group would only recieve 1/36 of the possible rewards to represent the minimal effort that was required.</p><p>In a 4v6  Each member of the group of 4 would receive 1/4 of the rewards for each kill giving them a total of 6/4 (1.5) of the rewards if they are victorious.  The group of 6 would recieve 1/6 of each kill giving them a total of 4/6 (2/3) of the rewards.</p><p>As a related issue I would like to point out the complete nonsense that is kill counts.  If a group of 6 kills a single opponent, they are each listed as getting 1 kill.....but how does a single kill turn into 6 kills.  Each of the people involved in a kill should be listed as getting a fraction of a kill representing that they did not actually kill someone entirely on their own.  Therefore for someone in a group of 5 to get a full kill their group must either kill another group of 5-6 or 5 individuals.</p><p>Do I honestly think this will stop ganking and title hugging...No.  The point is merely to stop rewarding these behavoirs that the majority of players seem to dislike and encourage fighting when the odds are even or against you.</p>

[Bozidar]

grouping does split the reward -- status, money, and fame.  The only thing that doesn't get split is faction.

[Taldier]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>grouping does split the reward -- status, money, and fame.  The only thing that doesn't get split is faction.</blockquote><p>I am quite aware of that and talked about it in my post.  Normally you have far more interesting things to say then simply a statement that clearly shows that you didnt read what I said. </p><p>The point is that the division of rewards is not equivalent to the effort and risk put into those rewards.  A group of 2 halves their rewards and more then doubles their chance of winning, a group of 6 divides their rewards by 6 but is far more then 6 times as likely to win.</p>

[Mildavyn]

<p>I think you're missing the point Boz. While all those things ARE split, what he's saying is that they aren't split enough. The principle comes from old Battleship fights, where 2 battleships were effectively four times as powerful as one. In the time it takes two ships to kill one other ship, that other ship will have only managed to destroy half of one ship. 50% damage caused by all three ships will add up to one dead ship and one half-dead ship, with his undamaged friend. See the picture below.</p><p><img src="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1751/battleshipswe0.png" alt="" width="414" height="346" border="0" /></p><p>Since two players are essentially 4 times as strong as one player, shouldn't they only get 1/4 of the reward for killing him? And since they're four times more powerful, shouldn't the one player get four times the reward for killing them? </p>

[Mighty Melvor]

<cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><img src="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1751/battleshipswe0.png" border="0" alt="" width="414" height="346" /></p></blockquote>LOL

[Mildavyn]

<p>Paint For Teh Win!! I think it got the message accross though.</p>

[Greenion]

<p><span style="color: #339900;">i like the visual aids...</span></p><p><span style="color: #339900;">/thumbs up.</span></p>

[Mildavyn]

<p>Ok, less worshipping of my insane Paint skills and more getting back on topic.</p><p>4 times stronger should equal only getting 1/4 of the reward.</p>

[Greenion]

<span style="color: #339900;">unless you are completely bloobie minded.</span>

[Mildavyn]

I fail to see the connection...?

[Greenion]

<p><span style="color: #339900;">pve minded individuals i believe think that great reward is yeilded from little risk.</span></p><p><span style="color: #339900;">edit> i was citing your statement as being opposite of this.</span></p>

[Wytie]

<cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><img src="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1751/battleshipswe0.png" border="0" alt="" width="414" height="346" /></p></blockquote><p>You didn't take in  a factor, what if?</p><p>what if the solo ship was twice as big as the other two or could shoot twice as fast or had twice the armor.... ect......</p><p>Sure in a perfectly even environment this would be true but that is hardly the common case in pvp </p><p>Which is why this is all irrelevant. The ships are hardly ever exactly the same so why base rewards on them as if they were?</p><p>perdy picture tho even if it was a waste <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Taldier]

<cite>Greenion wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #339900;">pve minded individuals i believe think that great reward is yeilded from little risk.</span></p><p><span style="color: #339900;">edit> i was citing your statement as being opposite of this.</span></p></blockquote>You seem to be confused, how does grouping and only attacking smaller groups increase risk?  The point is to stop disproportionally rewarding people for never fighting unless they have an advantage. 

[Norrsken]

<cite>Wytie wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><img src="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1751/battleshipswe0.png" border="0" alt="" width="414" height="346" /></p></blockquote><p>You didn't take in  a factor, what if?</p><p>what if the solo ship was twice as big as the other two or could shoot twice as fast or had twice the armor.... ect......</p><p>Sure in a perfectly even environment this would be true but that is hardly the common case in pvp </p><p>Which is why this is all irrelevant. The ships are hardly ever exactly the same so why base rewards on them as if they were?</p><p>perdy picture tho even if it was a waste <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>However, no class is twice the class of any other class in this game. Its not a perfect environment, but we dont have that big variations in offensive or defensive powers, and definately not the sum of them.

[Greenion]

<span style="color: #339900;">then itd be a phatter target and get hit fore times as often.</span>

[Mildavyn]

<p>Shut up Humi. How dare you destroy my beautiful theories with your ugly truths!</p><p>I did mean to put a disclaimer to that effect in, but my perty picture completely blew it out of my mind. Having no way to measure the difference between two battleships though, and ignoring a lucky hit in the ammo magazine, this basically works.</p>

[Greenion]

<cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Greenion wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #339900;">pve minded individuals i believe think that great reward is yeilded from little risk.</span></p><p><span style="color: #339900;">edit> i was citing your statement as being opposite of this.</span></p></blockquote>You seem to be confused, how does grouping and only attacking smaller groups increase risk?  The point is to stop disproportionally rewarding people for never fighting unless they have an advantage.  </blockquote><p><span style="color: #339900;">that is what i was saying...</span></p><p><span style="color: #339900;">im agreeing with him, i guess its just really hard to understand.</span></p>

[Mildavyn]

I got it, I just wasn't sure if you were calling my a bloobie /shakefist

[Wytie]

<cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wytie wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><img src="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1751/battleshipswe0.png" border="0" alt="" width="414" height="346" /></p></blockquote><p>You didn't take in  a factor, what if?</p><p>what if the solo ship was twice as big as the other two or could shoot twice as fast or had twice the armor.... ect......</p><p>Sure in a perfectly even environment this would be true but that is hardly the common case in pvp </p><p>Which is why this is all irrelevant. The ships are hardly ever exactly the same so why base rewards on them as if they were?</p><p>perdy picture tho even if it was a waste <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>However, no class is twice the class of any other class in this game. Its not a perfect environment, but we dont have that big variations in offensive or defensive powers, and definately not the sum of them.</blockquote><p>level 70>60  i would say the level 70 is x2 better than the 60 who is still in Teir 6 gear when the 70 is raid fabled...</p><p>you forgot about level differences thats why you cant have a system based simply on number of people vs number of people <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Taldier]

<cite>Wytie wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>You didn't take in  a factor, what if?</p><p>what if the solo ship was twice as big as the other two or could shoot twice as fast or had twice the armor.... ect......</p><p>Sure in a perfectly even environment this would be true but that is hardly the common case in pvp </p><p>Which is why this is all irrelevant. The ships are hardly ever exactly the same so why base rewards on them as if they were?</p><p>perdy picture tho even if it was a waste <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote><p>The simple fact is that this is largely irrelevant.  numbers > gear+skill+lvl</p><p>My calculations dont give the 1 in a 2v1 no chance of winning, simply a 4:1 chance rather then a 2:1 chance which is wildly inaccurate. </p><p>Sure you could run into a full group who had accidentally taken off all their gear and kill them all but what are the chances? </p><p>Humor aside I think if you take an average of fights that occur 4:1 for a 2v1 and 36:1 for a 6v1 are far more accurate then 2:1 or 6:1.</p>

[Greenion]

<p><span style="color: #339900;">why dont we just have crafted battleships ingame then?</span></p><p><span style="color: #339900;">edit> maybe submarines if the stealth is not thought too overpowered.</span></p>

[Mildavyn]

<cite>Wytie wrote:</cite><blockquote>level 70>60  i would say the level 70 is x2 better than the 60 who is still in Teir 6 gear when the 70 is raid fabled... <p>you forgot about level differences thats why you cant have a system based simply on number of people vs number of people <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote><p>If 1x70 > 2x60 then why do you always see duos of level 57-59s sitting on the docks in SS?</p><p>And whats wrong with a system based on numbers? Our current system doesn't take level into account either. With the exception of level ranges, which can be ignored if the greys want to attack the higher levels.</p>

[Wytie]

<cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Shut up Humi. How dare you destroy my beautiful theories with your ugly truths!</p><p>I did mean to put a disclaimer to that effect in, but my perty picture completely blew it out of my mind. Having no way to measure the difference between two battleships though, and ignoring a lucky hit in the ammo magazine, this basically works.</p></blockquote><p>heh, somebodys gota keep ya on your toes......</p><p>/FD </p>

[Mighty Melvor]

<cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><img src="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1751/battleshipswe0.png" border="0" alt="" width="414" height="346" /></p></blockquote><p>Can we get back on topic please...</p><p>The bottom ship's right gun has clearly missed its target to the right.  That is why it lost the battle!!!</p>

[Mildavyn]

<p>/stand</p><p>/move</p><p>/laugh</p>

[Wytie]

<cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wytie wrote:</cite><blockquote>level 70>60  i would say the level 70 is x2 better than the 60 who is still in Teir 6 gear when the 70 is raid fabled... <p>you forgot about level differences thats why you cant have a system based simply on number of people vs number of people <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote><p>If 1x70 > 2x60 then why do you always see duos of level 57-59s sitting on the docks in SS?</p><p>And whats wrong with a system based on numbers? Our current system doesn't take level into account either. With the exception of level ranges, which can be ignored if the greys want to attack the higher levels.</p></blockquote><p>thats because those 57-59 are "twinked" yes twinked out of there minds exploiting the level system to get first shot on 70's</p><p>Regardless i would love to see 2 of them have even a remote chance at either of my 70's.........</p>

[Mildavyn]

Yes, but you have "I win' buttons on both of those classes. Try doing the same with a necro <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Taldier]

<cite>Wytie wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>level 70>60  i would say the level 70 is x2 better than the 60 who is still in Teir 6 gear when the 70 is raid fabled...</p><p>you forgot about level differences thats why you cant have a system based simply on number of people vs number of people <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote><p>Except 70s dont get rewards for killing a 60 anyway...if your within 8 lvls you have a fighting chance.  I would still argue that the 60 should only get 1/36 of the credit if he killed the 70 with a full group.  Swarming exponentially increases your chances of victory regardless of lvl.</p><p>You are correct that this system might not properly translate all the way down (t2 for example), but neither does the current one.  This is an improvement not perfection.</p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>grouping does split the reward -- status, money, and fame.  The only thing that doesn't get split is faction.</blockquote><p>I am quite aware of that and talked about it in my post.  Normally you have far more interesting things to say then simply a statement that clearly shows that you didnt read what I said. </p><p>The point is that the division of rewards is not equivalent to the effort and risk put into those rewards.  A group of 2 halves their rewards and more then doubles their chance of winning, a group of 6 divides their rewards by 6 but is far more then 6 times as likely to win.</p></blockquote><p>/invite, it's a group game, and /invite will balance your gaming experience (if you use it correctly).</p><p>Taldier, they only "more than double" or are "far more than 6 times as likely to win" vs a solo opponent.</p><p>The split of fame, status, and loot is just fine the way it is.  If you want to fight a group, get a group.  </p>

[Tamar]

<cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>There have been plenty of threads complaining about ganking, title systems, etc.  One recent thread even recommended that groups shouldnt be able to attack solo players.</p><p>The problem that I see however isnt the 6v1 scenario itself but that fact that the pvp rewards system (fame/money/faction) clearly discourages what the majority of people consider to be good fights (between groups of even or nearly even numbers).</p><p>In the current system if a group kills someone each of them get the reward/number of players in group.  For example in a 2v1 the possible rewards of the group are divided in half to represent their greater chance of victory.  However, by grouping their chances of winning have more then mearly double.  If we play out this scenario the 1 is not likely to win 1 out of every 3 times regardless of the ineptitude of the 2.  If we expand this to a 6v1 the chances of the group winning are far greater then 6:1.</p><p>What I am suggesting is rather simple.  I start by assuming that all even fights are equivalent and provide the group with 100% of the rewards.  To do this I square the number of players on the bottem of the ratio.  For example if a duo wins a 2v1 each would recieve 1/4 of the possible rewards (fame/money/faction), and the losing player would lose 1/2 of the possible losses.  This would mean that being ganked by a full group would cause you to lose 1/6 of what you would lose for being killed in a 1v1, and each member of said group would only recieve 1/36 of the possible rewards to represent the minimal effort that was required.</p><p>In a 4v6  Each member of the group of 4 would receive 1/4 of the rewards for each kill giving them a total of 6/4 (1.5) of the rewards if they are victorious.  The group of 6 would recieve 1/6 of each kill giving them a total of 4/6 (2/3) of the rewards.</p><p>As a related issue I would like to point out the complete nonsense that is kill counts.  If a group of 6 kills a single opponent, they are each listed as getting 1 kill.....but how does a single kill turn into 6 kills.  Each of the people involved in a kill should be listed as getting a fraction of a kill representing that they did not actually kill someone entirely on their own.  Therefore for someone in a group of 5 to get a full kill their group must either kill another group of 5-6 or 5 individuals.</p><p>Do I honestly think this will stop ganking and title hugging...No.  The point is merely to stop rewarding these behavoirs that the majority of players seem to dislike and encourage fighting when the odds are even or against you.</p></blockquote>This is a well thought out and extremely understandable post.The issue of "gank squads" has been addressed countless times in a non positive light and evoked many a ridiculous "fix", including not even allowing groups to attack soloers.Its hard to disagree with the fact that increased numbers improves your groups success in a far greater ration that mere numbers such as 6 v 1 seem to indicate.Bozidar is correct that to fight groups you should need a group, but that wasn't really the issue put forth by Taldier.  The proposal had nothing to do with the ability of a solo to fight a group or a group to fight a solo, it illustrated the fact of difficulty compared to reward, and offered a change that would not limit people grouping, soloing, ganking, raiding, or whatever they choose to, it would just make sure they were given a reward commensurate with the difficulty involved./salute for a rational suggestion

[Aerlyn]

This is a really good idea, Taldier.  It seems like a much more accurate mathematical representation of fights involving unequal numbers.The thing that I think makes this suggestion superior to some of the other similar suggestions that I've read is the fact that it's still a zero-sum calculation, just like the current system, which means that the fame gain/loss is balanced and, I think, leaves less possibility for it to be exploited in some way.

[Mighty Melvor]

I would worry that we would have even more lvl 14 twinks running around soloing groups or 10s.  Imagine the faction they would rake in...

[Taldier]

<cite>Mighty Melvor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would worry that we would have even more lvl 14 twinks running around soloing groups or 10s.  Imagine the faction they would rake in...</blockquote><p>I know I didnt explain it perfectly but said twinks would get the same amount of rewards for killing a full group as before.  </p><p>The point is merely to decrease the amount of rewards for the outnumbering group.  If you actually work out the math the rewards for the outnumbered group actually remain the same.  </p><p>This is far more easy to code then increasing rewards based on the number of opponents you're facing.  I wanted to make sure the idea could be easily implemented simply by placing a ^2 in the denominator of the required equations which already exist for reward splitting.</p>

[Aerlyn]

<cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote>In a 4v6  Each member of the group of 4 would receive 1/4 of the rewards for each kill giving them a total of 6/4 (1.5) of the rewards if they are victorious.  The group of 6 would recieve 1/6 of each kill giving them a total of 4/6 (2/3) of the rewards.</blockquote>Isn't this particular example how it already works in a 4v6, though?  Following the idea of your suggestion, here's what I think you might have intended:if a member of the 4 player group dies, then that should count as a loss of 4/6 (or 2/3) unit of fame, which then gets split evenly among the group of 6.  So for each kill in the group of 4, the player that died loses 2/3 unit of fame and each player in the group of 6 gains (2/3)/6 which is 1/9 unit of fame.  Killing all 4 members of the group would give them each a gain of 4/9 units.This seems like it would get much more complicated if you start considering situations with multiple groups or multiple individuals involved in the fight. I think this is a good idea, though, that might work out well if someone can figure out how this would work in all situations.

[Mighty Melvor]

<cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mighty Melvor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would worry that we would have even more lvl 14 twinks running around soloing groups or 10s.  Imagine the faction they would rake in...</blockquote><p>I know I didnt explain it perfectly but said twinks would get the same amount of rewards for killing a full group as before.  </p><p>The point is merely to decrease the amount of rewards for the outnumbering group.  If you actually work out the math the rewards for the outnumbered group actually remain the same.  </p><p>This is far more easy to code then increasing rewards based on the number of opponents you're facing.  I wanted to make sure the idea could be easily implemented simply by placing a ^2 in the denominator of the required equations which already exist for reward splitting.</p></blockquote><p>Hmmm, I don't understand....</p><p>...</p><p>..</p><p>.</p><p><img src="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1751/battleshipswe0.png" border="0" alt="" width="414" height="346" /></p><p>Oh, now I know what you mean!!!</p>

[Taldier]

<cite>Aerlyn@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote>In a 4v6  Each member of the group of 4 would receive 1/4 of the rewards for each kill giving them a total of 6/4 (1.5) of the rewards if they are victorious.  The group of 6 would recieve 1/6 of each kill giving them a total of 4/6 (2/3) of the rewards.</blockquote>Isn't this particular example how it already works in a 4v6, though?  Following the idea of your suggestion, here's what I think you might have intended:if a member of the 4 player group dies, then that should count as a loss of 4/6 (or 2/3) unit of fame, which then gets split evenly among the group of 6.  So for each kill in the group of 4, the player that died loses 2/3 unit of fame and each player in the group of 6 gains (2/3)/6 which is 1/9 unit of fame.  Killing all 4 members of the group would give them each a gain of 4/9 units.This seems like it would get much more complicated if you start considering situations with multiple groups or multiple individuals involved in the fight.I think this is a good idea, though, that might work out well if someone can figure out how this would work in all situations.</blockquote><p>Yeah I think I messed that one up (not the math,  I garbled my explanation of it).  What I believe I intended to say was not that each member of the group would get that amount of rewards, but rather that the group as a whole would get that amount of rewards and then it would be split between them.</p><p>Therefore each member of the group of 4 would be able to get 3/8 of a reward (1/9 per kill), and each member of the group of 6 would recieve 1/9 (1/36 per kill).</p><p>This system essentially makes it so that any even fight regardless of numbers involved is equivalent to 1.  As a side effect it decreases individual risk and reward if the numbers on both sides increase.  In a 24v24 situation dying would cause you to lose only 1/24 of possible loses, and killing someone would gain you 1/576 of the possible rewards, your raid wiping the other raid would gain you 1/24 of possible rewards as the raid as a whole would gain 1.</p><p>It would probably be nicer if the ratio could include both the number of opponents your facing and the number of allies you have, this would increase rewards when outnumbered or equal, however I'm not sure whether soe is capable of that and/or willing to put in that much effort.</p><p>edit: btw this whole idea is just something that poped into my head between classes, I welcome all negative comments and poking of holes in my mathmatics.</p>

[Taldier]

<cite>Mighty Melvor wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hmmm, I don't understand....</p><p>...</p></blockquote>I know it might seem like convoluted complex math for something simple, but its really nothing more then arithmatic, and since it would just be the computer doing it in the background its more important for it to be easy to code then easy to do in your head.

[Greenion]

<span style="color: #339900;">shouldnt those submarines be</span> <span style="color: #33ff00;">yellow</span><span style="color: #33cc00;">?</span>

[Taldier]

<cite>Greenion wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #339900;">shouldnt those submarines be</span> <span style="color: #33ff00;">yellow</span><span style="color: #33cc00;">?</span></blockquote><p>enough with the battleship analogy.  Either get out a calculator and check my math or write one of your rambling blocks of green text either agreeing or disagreeing with the topic at hand (not yellow submarines hehe).</p>

[Greenion]

<p><span style="color: #00ff00;"><span style="color: #339900;">i agree that some risk in life is inherent in the act of living</span>.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ff00;"><span style="color: #339900;">some risks taken are for a percieved reward that are sometimes greater than or less than the expected return for the risk</span>.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ff00;">><span style="color: #339900;">some deeds are extraordinary</span>, <span style="color: #339900;">and some are not</span>.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ff00;"><span style="color: #99cc00;">edit</span>><span style="color: #339900;"> i think im saying i agree with you but im not sure</span></span><span style="color: #99cc00;"><b>.:</b></span><span style="color: #99cc00;">þ</span></p>

[Aerlyn]

Ah, I think I see.  I'm not sure I totally like the idea, though.  If I understand, the total fame gain/loss for an encounter is always equal to 1, regardless of whether it's a 1v1 or a 24v24.Right now, if a person joins a x4 raid and let's say that raid kills another x4 raid (an even fight), then that person will gain 1 fame (24/24).However, with this change, then it sounds like in that same situation the person will only gain 1/24 fame.If that person just joined a group of 6 and killed another group of 6 (another even fight), then that person would gain 1/6 fame, which is better than raiding.The highest payoff for an even fight, then, seems to be 1v1.  I think it would just encourage people to play in smaller groups or just solo, if their goal is just to gain fame.To me, it kind of doesn't make sense that an even fight that involves more people would pay-off less than an even fight with less people.Here's what I'd like to see:If X is the number of friends in the fight and Y is the number of enemies in the fight, then your death would cost you X/Y, and your enemies would gain X/(Y^2).  Consequently, an enemy death would cost them Y/X and you would gain Y/(X^2).Here's something I threw together in Excel using that equation.  I skipped some of the redundant ratios:Edit: Hmm, it didn't include my table in my post.  Let me try again:<b>Friends    Enemies    Friendly Fame Loss per Death    Enemy Fame Gain per Kill    Enemy Fame Loss per Death    Friendly Fame Gain per Kill</b>    1             1                 1                                                1                                                        1                                            1    1             2                 1/2                                           1/4                                                       2                                            2    1             3                 1/3                                           1/9                                                       3                                            3    1             4                 1/4                                           1/16                                                     4                                            4    1             5                 1/5                                           1/25                                                     5                                            5    1             6                 1/6                                           1/36                                                     6                                            6    2             3                 2/3                                           2/9                                                     1 1/2                                      3/4    2             5                 2/5                                           2/25                                                   2 1/2                                     1 1/4    3             4                 3/4                                           3/16                                                   1 1/3                                      4/9    3             5                 3/5                                           3/25                                                   1 2/3                                      5/9    4             5                 4/5                                           4/25                                                   1 1/4                                     5/16    5             6                 5/6                                           5/36                                                   1 1/5                                     6/25    6             6                 1                                              1/6                                                     1                                             1/6    1             24               1/24                                         1/576                                                 24                                           24    6             24               1/4                                           1/96                                                    1/4                                       1/96    24           24               1                                              1/24                                                    1                                           1/24**One thing that you can notice from the 2 most right columns is that this allows people to gain much more fame from killing enemies when outnumbered, and also introduces a larger penalty for dying when you outnumber your enemy.  If this turned out to be a problem, then the fame gain/loss per kill could just be capped at 1 instead.

[Taldier]

<cite>Aerlyn@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ah, I think I see.  I'm not sure I totally like the idea, though.  If I understand, the total fame gain/loss for an encounter is always equal to 1, regardless of whether it's a 1v1 or a 24v24.Right now, if a person joins a x4 raid and let's say that raid kills another x4 raid (an even fight), then that person will gain 1 fame (24/24).However, with this change, then it sounds like in that same situation the person will only gain 1/24 fame.If that person just joined a group of 6 and killed another group of 6 (another even fight), then that person would gain 1/6 fame, which is better than raiding.The highest payoff for an even fight, then, seems to be 1v1.  I think it would just encourage people to play in smaller groups or just solo, if their goal is just to gain fame.To me, it kind of doesn't make sense that an even fight that involves more people would pay-off less than an even fight with less people.Here's what I'd like to see:If X is the number of friends in the fight and Y is the number of enemies in the fight, then your death would cost you X/Y, and your enemies would gain X/(Y^2).  Consequently, an enemy death would cost them Y/X and you would gain Y/(X^2).**One thing that you can notice from the 2 most right columns is that this allows people to gain much more fame from killing enemies when outnumbered, and also introduces a larger penalty for dying when you outnumber your enemy.  If this turned out to be a problem, then the fame gain/loss per kill could just be capped at 1 instead.</blockquote><p>Im tempted to agree with you though I'd want to spend some time checking the numbers myself.  The problem with this scheme however is the implementation.  </p><p>How does soe decide how many allies you have?  </p><p>Keep in mind that not all encounters are between two grouped forces.  You have to take into account every single person who does any damage/healing/buffing/etc related to the encounter.</p><p>The reason I proposed my solution is because it appears to be easy for soe to implement if they should decide to and is still atleast an improvement over the current system.</p>

[Aerlyn]

<cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerlyn@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ah, I think I see.  I'm not sure I totally like the idea, though.  If I understand, the total fame gain/loss for an encounter is always equal to 1, regardless of whether it's a 1v1 or a 24v24.Right now, if a person joins a x4 raid and let's say that raid kills another x4 raid (an even fight), then that person will gain 1 fame (24/24).However, with this change, then it sounds like in that same situation the person will only gain 1/24 fame.If that person just joined a group of 6 and killed another group of 6 (another even fight), then that person would gain 1/6 fame, which is better than raiding.The highest payoff for an even fight, then, seems to be 1v1.  I think it would just encourage people to play in smaller groups or just solo, if their goal is just to gain fame.To me, it kind of doesn't make sense that an even fight that involves more people would pay-off less than an even fight with less people.Here's what I'd like to see:If X is the number of friends in the fight and Y is the number of enemies in the fight, then your death would cost you X/Y, and your enemies would gain X/(Y^2).  Consequently, an enemy death would cost them Y/X and you would gain Y/(X^2).**One thing that you can notice from the 2 most right columns is that this allows people to gain much more fame from killing enemies when outnumbered, and also introduces a larger penalty for dying when you outnumber your enemy.  If this turned out to be a problem, then the fame gain/loss per kill could just be capped at 1 instead.</blockquote><p>Im tempted to agree with you though I'd want to spend some time checking the numbers myself.  The problem with this scheme however is the implementation.  </p><p>How does soe decide how many allies you have?  </p><p>Keep in mind that not all encounters are between two grouped forces.  You have to take into account every single person who does any damage/healing/buffing/etc related to the encounter.</p><p>The reason I proposed my solution is because it appears to be easy for soe to implement if they should decide to and is still atleast an improvement over the current system.</p></blockquote>I definitely agree with you there.  I alluded to that in my earlier post that determining the number of combatants in a fight could be very difficult, especially when it starts to involve multiple groups.

[Mildavyn]

Only people on your hate list, and their group members get a slice of your fame 'cake' so only people on your hate list, and their group members are counted. Problem solved.

[Norrsken]

<cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Only people on your hate list, and their group members get a slice of your fame 'cake' so only people on your hate list, and their group members are counted. Problem solved.</blockquote>so if you dont fight back, people cant gain anything off you? Ever?

[Mildavyn]

No, read what I said again.When YOU die, only people on YOUR hate list, and their group members, get fame. People get on YOUR hate list by hitting you or healing someone that you've hit.

[Aerlyn]

The hate list seems like a plausible idea for determining how many enemies you're facing.  However, I think determining your friends might be more difficult.Maybe you can count everyone in your group as a friend.But then, let's exclude them if they are not in the zone.What if they're really far away?  Ok, maybe we can exclude them as well.What if they're AFK and just standing there?  Maybe they're still counted as a friend.What about other friendly groups that happen to come by and help out?  I think this is where it gets more difficult to tell.  What if those friendly people only attack some of your enemies, not all of them?I.e. It's easy to know who your enemies are, but sometimes it's hard to know who your friends are.

[Mildavyn]

<p>There you go again, ruining my beautiful theories with your hideous truths.</p><p>Probably the devs had this exact same conversation <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Norrsken]

<cite>Paikis@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, read what I said again.When YOU die, only people on YOUR hate list, and their group members, get fame. People get on YOUR hate list by hitting you or healing someone that you've hit.</blockquote>So, basially exactly what we have now then?

[Armironhead]

<cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>grouping does split the reward -- status, money, and fame.  The only thing that doesn't get split is faction.</blockquote><p>I am quite aware of that and talked about it in my post.  Normally you have far more interesting things to say then simply a statement that clearly shows that you didnt read what I said. </p><p>The point is that the division of rewards is not equivalent to the effort and risk put into those rewards.  A group of 2 halves their rewards and more then doubles their chance of winning, a group of 6 divides their rewards by 6 but is far more then 6 times as likely to win.</p></blockquote>Personally I dont think you go far enough -- reward/loss of infamy should reflect the odds involved in the fight.  In addition to grp size, the color (con) and title of the parties should be taken into account in determining the amount of infamy gained/lost.

[Mildavyn]

As long as we agree that greys get nothing for killing reds. Or at the very least, reds should lose nothing from being killed by greys.

[Aerlyn]

<cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>grouping does split the reward -- status, money, and fame.  The only thing that doesn't get split is faction.</blockquote><p>I am quite aware of that and talked about it in my post.  Normally you have far more interesting things to say then simply a statement that clearly shows that you didnt read what I said. </p><p>The point is that the division of rewards is not equivalent to the effort and risk put into those rewards.  A group of 2 halves their rewards and more then doubles their chance of winning, a group of 6 divides their rewards by 6 but is far more then 6 times as likely to win.</p></blockquote>Personally I dont think you go far enough -- reward/loss of infamy should reflect the odds involved in the fight.  In addition to grp size, the color (con) and title of the parties should be taken into account in determining the amount of infamy gained/lost.</blockquote>I agree that those are things that determine the <b>real</b> difficulty of a fight.  One thing to keep in mind, though, is that when you add other factors to the equation, such as level differences, current fame (titles), then it becomes a much more complicated and less clear-cut calculation.  If we're talking about considering level differences and titles, then why not also consider equipment quality or number of AAs as well?You have a point, but I think it might be too difficult to come up with a real equation to calculate fame gain/loss based on all of those factors.

[Armironhead]

<cite>Aerlyn@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>grouping does split the reward -- status, money, and fame.  The only thing that doesn't get split is faction.</blockquote><p>I am quite aware of that and talked about it in my post.  Normally you have far more interesting things to say then simply a statement that clearly shows that you didnt read what I said. </p><p>The point is that the division of rewards is not equivalent to the effort and risk put into those rewards.  A group of 2 halves their rewards and more then doubles their chance of winning, a group of 6 divides their rewards by 6 but is far more then 6 times as likely to win.</p></blockquote>Personally I dont think you go far enough -- reward/loss of infamy should reflect the odds involved in the fight.  In addition to grp size, the color (con) and title of the parties should be taken into account in determining the amount of infamy gained/lost.</blockquote>I agree that those are things that determine the <b>real</b> difficulty of a fight.  One thing to keep in mind, though, is that when you add other factors to the equation, such as level differences, current fame (titles), then it becomes a much more complicated and less clear-cut calculation.  If we're talking about considering level differences and titles, then why not also consider equipment quality or number of AAs as well?You have a point, but I think it might be too difficult to come up with a real equation to calculate fame gain/loss based on all of those factors.</blockquote>U got to start somewhere.... But seriously, there is something wrong with a system that gives the same rewards/losses for a yellow killing a green vs a green killing a yellow.  the same problem exists with grp size.  last night a raid rolled over me.  I lost the same amt of infamy as if I had been killed by a single person.  How does that make sense? It took next to no effort for them to splatter me all over the place and the reward/loss should reflect that.

[Aerlyn]

<cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerlyn@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Taldier wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>grouping does split the reward -- status, money, and fame.  The only thing that doesn't get split is faction.</blockquote><p>I am quite aware of that and talked about it in my post.  Normally you have far more interesting things to say then simply a statement that clearly shows that you didnt read what I said. </p><p>The point is that the division of rewards is not equivalent to the effort and risk put into those rewards.  A group of 2 halves their rewards and more then doubles their chance of winning, a group of 6 divides their rewards by 6 but is far more then 6 times as likely to win.</p></blockquote>Personally I dont think you go far enough -- reward/loss of infamy should reflect the odds involved in the fight.  In addition to grp size, the color (con) and title of the parties should be taken into account in determining the amount of infamy gained/lost.</blockquote>I agree that those are things that determine the <b>real</b> difficulty of a fight.  One thing to keep in mind, though, is that when you add other factors to the equation, such as level differences, current fame (titles), then it becomes a much more complicated and less clear-cut calculation.  If we're talking about considering level differences and titles, then why not also consider equipment quality or number of AAs as well?You have a point, but I think it might be too difficult to come up with a real equation to calculate fame gain/loss based on all of those factors.</blockquote>U got to start somewhere.... But seriously, there is something wrong with a system that gives the same rewards/losses for a yellow killing a green vs a green killing a yellow.  the same problem exists with grp size.  last night a raid rolled over me.  I lost the same amt of infamy as if I had been killed by a single person.  How does that make sense? It took next to no effort for them to splatter me all over the place and the reward/loss should reflect that.</blockquote>True, just because it might be difficult to figure out doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about.  I didn't mean to sound like I was dismissing the idea.If you can define some sort of function such as F(x), where x is a particular character, which will return a "difficulty value" of that character, then we can build off of our earlier discussion.  So previously, I had mentioned that the fame loss per death could be calculated as X/(Y^2) and the fame gain per kill is Y/(X^2) where X is simply the number of friends and Y is simply the number of enemies.  However, let's incorporate this idea of having a function that will return us a "difficulty value" for all of the characters involved in the fight:X = Sum(F(fc)) for each friendly character fcY = Sum(F(ec)) for each enemy character ecUsing these definitions for X and Y, we can still use the same logic as mentioned above: (Edit: corrected my equations)Friendly Fame Loss per Death = X/YEnemy Fame Gain per Kill = X/(Y^2)Enemy Fame Loss per Death Y/XFriendly Fame Gain per Kill = Y/(X^2)In my previous example, F(x) would always have returned a constant value (i.e. 1) so that Sum(F(fc)) would always just be the number of friendly characters and Sum(F(ec)) would always just be the number of enemy characters.  Taking your suggestion, we can define F(x) to be more intelligent and return a better "difficulty value" for a particular character, which presumably takes into consideration a character's level.So I think now the only question is how to define F(x).

[Aerlyn]

Ok, here's my attempt to summarize this discussion in a mathematical form.  Please correct me if I got anything wrong.First, let's define a few things:X = Sum(F(fc)) for each friendly character involvedY = Sum(F(ec)) for each enemy character involved"Friendly Fame Loss per Death" means how much fame you lose if you die."Enemy Fame Gain per Kill" means how much an enemy gains from killing you."Enemy Fame Lost per Death" means how much fame an enemy loses from dying."Friendly Fame Gain per kill" means how much fame you gain from killing an enemy.Here's how the current system works:F(x) = 1Friendly Fame Loss per Death = 1Enemy Fame Gain per Kill = 1/YEnemy Fame Loss per Death = 1Friendly Fame Gain per Kill = 1/XTaldier's Suggestion:F(x) = 1Friendly Fame Loss per Death = 1/YEnemy Fame Gain per Kill = 1/(Y^2)Enemy Fame Loss per Death = 1/XFriendly Fame Gain per Kill = 1/(X^2)Aerlyn's Suggestion:F(x) = 1Friendly Fame Loss per Death = X/YEnemy Fame Gain per Kill = X/(Y^2)Enemy Fame Loss per Death = Y/XFriendly Fame Gain per Kill = Y/(X^2)Armironhead's Suggestion:F(x) = some value that takes factors such as character level into consideration