Scumbug is a Genius!

[____________Ejeckted]

*************************************************
EDIT: Please see my NEW revised formula on page 2 of this thread
or bump the new formula here (please)
http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...threadid=16027
*************************************************


reposting just this one from the BIG thread

re: overequiping



Gaute, Funcom, please take a look.
I have a much better formula for you.
One that will satisfy the majority
of players on both sides of the issue.


100% overequiped is twice your base skill level.
(eg using a QL200 gun when you only have the base for QL100)
so divide %OE'd in half and you've nullified the OE.

I still believe that extra effort should yield some reward however,
so I adjusted this scale slightly off the null point.


91%-100% OE = 40% total damage reduction
81%-90% OE = 36% total damage reduction
71%-80% OE = 32% total damage reduction
61%-70% OE = 28% total damage reduction
51%-60% OE = 24% total damage reduction
41%-50% OE = 20% total damage reduction
31%-40% OE = 16% total damage reduction
21%-30% OE = 12% total damage reduction
11%-20% OE = 8% total damage reduction
5%-10% OE = 4% total damage reduction
2%-4% OE = 2% total damage reduction

do the math. it's easy. it's simple. it works.

a higher QL weapon will never be worse than a lower QL
but the benefit to overequiping is small enough not to
imbalance the game or make it impossible for more
casual players to compete. what do you think?



just incase this is confusing to anyone else reading:

using a weapon twice your skill level
would reward you with approximately 10% more damage

using a QL150 gun when you only have the skill for QL100
would result in a benfit of approximately 5% more damage


other benefits to this scale:

debuffs no longer become a huge problem.
ATK rating and active buffs much more influential than OE'd QL.

in conclusion:

I believe this formula is much more elegant in that
it actually limits the effect of OE more than the
initial proposal, without removing the strategy
part of the game that the 'overequipers' enjoy.

[Chrononaut]

If only Cz/Cosmik cared enough to tell Gaute about this formula. IMHO its awesome, but Gaute is never gonna hear it cause Cz/Cosmik ain't gonna tell him.

[_______________Intra]

I like it, did you post it in the funcom talks about thread too?

this means that weapons becomes more reliant on attack rating, you get a buff for your gun and it raises your damage.

nice, I'm pretty sure Cz will see it if it is in the official thread

[Starboat]

Easy good and fair Formula,

to bad those in my eyes, not really competent Funcom Developers are doing their own thing anyways and i guess this comes to late


Funcom DEV´s > They are not playing the game but they change alot.

[Cz]

Originally posted by Chrono
If only Cz/Cosmik cared enough to tell Gaute about this formula. IMHO its awesome, but Gaute is never gonna hear it cause Cz/Cosmik ain't gonna tell him.

Why, thank you for your trust in us. It always soooo nice to get such praise. (Sorry, I just had to. )

Seriously though, if you really think we do not care, please send me an e-mail (community@anarchy-online.com) and let me know why, and I'll bring it up with the team. Our job is to care, after all.

Scumbug, I saw the formula in the original thread (I read every single post there, still), and have already copied it on my "Feedback collected March 14th" list for the team (including Gaute).

Btw, note that what you in your calculation call 100% OE, is what we we would call 50% OE. (We base the % on the weapon's requirements, you base it on the character's skill.)

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Cz


Btw, note that what you in your calculation call 100% OE, is what we we would call 50% OE. (We base the % on the weapon's requirements, you base it on the character's skill.)

Cz

thank you for the assurance someone is paying attention to me

and i see what you're saying
the scale should still be easy to apply tho.


edit:
for anyone who doesnt get what Cz means
it doesn't conflict with my formula in any way

it just means that they measure from the opposite side.

eg.

a player with 300 skill needs 100% more skill to use a 600 skill rifle

a player with 300 skill has 50% less skill than required for 600 skill rifle


/me keeps fingers crossed

[_______________Elria]

Something I like in your proposition is that the damage is decreased in small steps.

Now, in terms of damage reduction only, is your solution really different from FC's?

Consider the damage formula:
Damage_total = (1 + (ATK / 400)) * (Damage + Crit if any)
For non critical hits, we have
Damage_total = (1 + (ATK / 400)) * Damage
Reducing the Damage variable by p% is exactly the same as reducing Damage_total by p%. Your solution is somehow the same as FC's, except that you decided that "extra effort should yield some reward however", so instead of decreasing damage by 50% when a weapon is 100% OE'd, you only decrease it by 40% (since 100% OE for you is 50% OE for FC).
So, what you're really asking here is to change the percentages, not the formula. Oh, and make smaller steps, of course (a lot of people want that too).

I may be mistaken...

[_______________Omega]

Finnaly someone trying to come up with solutions instead of just whining and complaining i guarntee they will be ten times more responsive to a post like this then one where you just complain b*tch and moan.i have to add my support to this post at least for scumbugs effort

[Flexcuffs]

Yup I do think the sudden steps in damage reduction seem kinda ham-fisted...seems silly that 1 or 2 skill points could make all the difference between a zero and a 20% damage reduction...

I like the current OE situation just the way it is but as it seems inevitable that FC are gonna do something about it, a gradual decrease in damage, as you suggest, is a much more elegant approach...

[Chrononaut]

Originally posted by Cz

Why, thank you for your trust in us. It always soooo nice to get such praise. (Sorry, I just had to. )

Seriously though, if you really think we do not care, please send me an e-mail (community@anarchy-online.com) and let me know why, and I'll bring it up with the team. Our job is to care, after all.
Cz

<=== Pessimist

But seriously, I'm very glad this proposal is being discussed with the dev team/leaders, and I hope that you bring us the results of this discussion in a timely manner [i.e. before the patch ]

[Breaku]

/me laughs at the threads name!

haha too funny.. good post !

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Elria

Now, in terms of damage reduction only, is your solution really different from FC's?

It's very different in that

- it never puts you in a situation where a
QL121 weapon is significantly worse than a QL120 weapon.
a higher QL weapon will ALWAYS be better than a lower QL.

-It rewards overequiping in small gradual increments that scale.
the better you can overequip, the better the bonus.
(from 1% to start to 10% for a gun twice your level)
and there is never ever a punishment for using a higher QL.
this keeps the numbercrunchers happy. BUT the bonus is tiny,
which should be easy for the anti-overequipers to accept.
infact, they should like it better, because there is no 'free'
overequiping without a damage penalty.

- it means a single debuff can't knock you down a bonus
25% or more than it should.

[_________Deaddreamer]

*BUMP*

Once again, a bright idea with no whining! I love it!

/me hands Scumbug a kudos and a tiara.

[_________________Zuh]

I agree 100% with your post as I have also post a solution like that in the "big" thread (around page 35).


However, I would better see less penalty in the begining and more at the end. Because the more you would OE, the less damage you would get. So you would still be better with OEed gun but it would be harder and harder to gain bonus by OEing.

More than that, someone who would use exploit to have insane OEed gun would have only very small benefit from it. So in a way it reduces greatly exploits problem.


I hope FC and the players will hear us.

[__________Mindswayer]

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...threadid=15294

[assassimon]

Sounds like a very good idea that Scumbug have here, and it won't over power traders debuff so extreme that it will with the solution FC have.

Good post Scumbug.

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Zuh


However, I would better see less penalty in the begining and more at the end. Because the more you would OE, the less damage you would get. So you would still be better with OEed gun but it would be harder and harder to gain bonus by OEing.

More than that, someone who would use exploit to have insane OEed gun would have only very small benefit from it. So in a way it reduces greatly exploits problem.


I hope FC and the players will hear us.

I really want to keep exploiting and overequiping seperate issues.

fix exploits. period.
treatment one is finally fixed.
implant-stacking needs to go.

not using one implant/slot to help meet the reqs
for another implant/slot. that's fair/legal.
but the stacking of the same implant in the same slot
over and over again because the req.check is done
before the switch is a problem.
Force implants to be removed manually first
before another can be installed in its place
and this is no longer a problem. EASY fix.
(one chest implant shouldnt help you install another chest implant.
it only makes sense that you should have to remove one before
installing the other)

this is the last of the 'exploits' that help you get weapons on.
(comp-lit/tutoring/ncu issue is moot since FC diabled tutoring
devices, and implant stacking fix above would finally solve this)

I believe THIS is what's got people who don't understand
the legitimate methods of overequiping so pissed off.
QL90 implants and a 6slot belt at level10 is impossible
without this implant stacking trick.


with that out of the way,

my formula is linear.

i think what you're saying is that there should be a curve
as you start to OE higher, right?

that say 10% overequiped gives a 5% bonus
and then 20% overequiped gives a 7% bonus
and maybe a 40% overquiped gives a 8%
and maybe a 80% overquiped gives a 8.5% etc

so that it's not punishing you for overequiping
but the margin it benefits you decreases.

however that sort of curve really complicates the math
and my intention was to keep things simple so
hopefully the Devs wouldn't immediately disregard it.

[_______________Elria]

Originally posted by Scumbug

- it never puts you in a situation where a
QL121 weapon is significantly worse than a QL120 weapon.
a higher QL weapon will ALWAYS be better than a lower QL.

Actually, this is wrong. Suppose someone has a QL 120 support beam (req: 605 2HB) with the exact 2HB skill so that it is OE'ed by 10% (using your way of computing OE, that would be 2HB 550, since 550 + 55 = 605; using FC's way, that would be 545). Wouldn't there be a 8% damage reduction on this QL 120 beam, and a 12 % damage reduction on the QL 121 one? That would make the QL 121(weapon's max damage 284) beam worse than the QL 120 (weapon's max damage 294).
Anyway, with smaller increments you have decreased the probability of seeing a QLX+1 weapon worse than a QLX one. By doing smaller increments with FC's formula, you'd obtain the same result. That would yield something like that (with FC's way of computing OE):

60% OE = 75% damage reduction
50% OE = 62.5% damage reduction (<- would be 100% OE in your formula)
40% OE = 50% damage reduction
30% OE = 37.5% damage reduction
20% OE = 25% damage reduction
10% OE = 12.5% damage reduction
5% OE = 6.25% damage reduction
2.5% OE = 3.125% damage reduction
(They could do even smaller increments, of course)

So, just like your formula, it can be linear. The only other differences (besides the increments) that I can see are:
-> like Cz said, FC bases the OE % on the weapon's requirements, and you base it on the character's skill (note that basing the % on the weapon's requirements is more OE-friendly)
-> You wanted OE to still give some damage bonus: you use a different slope, so that when the weapon's requirements are twice the skills of the character, the damage reduction is 40% instead of 62.5%. (btw, I agree that FC's chosen slope may be a little too steep... It may not give satisfying results when % OE is huge)
So I still think that your formula is actually very similar to FC's. Many (all?) of the other advantages that people seem to discover in your formula can be obtained by using FC's formula with smaller increments.

Originally posted by Scumbug
-It rewards overequiping in small gradual increments that scale.
the better you can overequip, the better the bonus.
(from 1% to start to 10% for a gun twice your level)
and there is never ever a punishment for using a higher QL.
this keeps the numbercrunchers happy. BUT the bonus is tiny,
which should be easy for the anti-overequipers to accept.
infact, they should like it better, because there is no 'free'
overequiping without a damage penalty.

I think some anti-overequippers may still say NO to any form of reward to OE -- that would only be fair to nano users

Originally posted by Scumbug
- it means a single debuff can't knock you down a bonus
25% or more than it should.

Again, taking FC's formula with smaller increments will have the same effect.
Well, you also reduced the damage reduction in order to please the OE'ers, so logically with your formula weapon users will be even less affected by debuffs. However, I believe that weapon users should suffer (or benefit) from debuffs (or buffs) as much as nano users: a -211 debuff on a high level NT (with 900-1000 in MatCrea) can easily cause 20% damage reduction... If a trader debuff affects a weapon user and a nano user in the same way, then a fix to that trader NF will please nano and weapon users alike (except traders )

To conclude, I am FOR the more *gradual* decrease of damage. Now, when it comes to the % damage decrease per % OE, I don't really mind, because this will have to be fine tuned on the test server anyway so we'll have time to see that (but yes, the bonus for OE, if there is one, should not be too big).

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Elria


Actually, this is wrong. Suppose someone has a QL 120 support beam (req: 605 2HB) with the exact 2HB skill so that it is OE'ed by 10% (using your way of computing OE, that would be 2HB 550, since 550 + 55 = 605; using FC's way, that would be 545). Wouldn't there be a 8% damage reduction on this QL 120 beam, and a 12 % damage reduction on the QL 121 one? That would make the QL 121(weapon's max damage 284) beam worse than the QL 120 (weapon's max damage 294).
Anyway, with smaller increments you have decreased the probability of seeing a QLX+1 weapon worse than a QLX one.

yes, I confess there are 'sweet spots'.
I was going to see if I couldn't eliminate those
in a revised scale using funcoms terms of measuring.

It still doesn't discourage OEing the way FCs formula does tho.
(and doesnt create the huge problem with debuffs)

edit:
basically i just wanted to make sure a weapon that took
effort to get on was never worse than one that didn't.

[____________Ejeckted]

Just want to add some more math to your day.

I think the above % bonuses might be a little misleading
and want to clarify how this would work.
just saying a 10% bonuses isn't entirely accurate
because of the way the damage formula is multiplied.

for anyone who doesn't know, this is the current formula.

(1 + (ATK / 400)) * (Damage + Crit if any)
= damage total +added damage modifiers [like rings]
-minus armor = damage dealt.

the other thing that must be considered is where
in this formula the reduction should be made.

i've done some examples to show the difference,
and picked a weapon that is easily overequiped.

here are the stats
---------------------------------------------------------


QL 100 Stigma Rifle
Damage 7-172 (56)

Requirements rifle 430
aimed shot 216

---------------------------------------------------------

QL 200 Premium Stigma Rifle
Damage 12-326 (101)

Requirements rifle 859
aimed shot 430

---------------------------------------------------------


now take an agent with 430 skill,
conveniently exactly enough for a QL100 stigma.

lets play with some numbers...


---------------------------------------------------------

with QL100

(1 + (430 / 400 = 1.075) = 2.075) * (172)
= 357 -250(2500AC) = 107

---------------------------------------------------------

with QL200 (no reduction, with current formula)

(1 + (430 / 400 = 1.075) = 2.075) * (326)
= 676 -250(2500AC) = 426

---------------------------------------------------------

as you can see above,
there's currently a balance issue here.


now, look at results with my scaled reduction
added to various places in your formula.

---------------------------------------------------------

with QL200 (reduction placed after fomula)

(1 + (430 / 400 = 1.075) = 2.075) * (326)
= 676 -250(2500AC) = 426 -40% = 256

IMO, this provides too much bonus still. forget this one.

---------------------------------------------------------

with QL200 (reduction placed before AC deduction)

(1 + (430 / 400 = 1.075) = 2.075) * (326)
= 676 -40%(270) = 406 -250(2500AC) = 156

is this acceptable?

---------------------------------------------------------

with QL200 (reduction before multiplication with ATK)

(1 + (430 / 400 = 1.075) = 2.075) * (326 -40%[130] = 196)
= 407 -250(2500AC) = 157

note: doing it this way is more complicated
and has the same result as doing it before AC
(extra point of final damage due to rounding)

---------------------------------------------------------

so this agent (level 80ish) has the possibility to do 49pts
more max non-crit damage with a rifle twice his skill level.

now we have to get subjective. is that acceptable? or still too much?
think about the HP of players and mobs at this level.
and for you PvPers, half the bonus again.
so he's hitting you for 25pts more max.

now i want everyone to bear in mind that overequiping a weapon
twice your base skill-level (not character level) is not common.
after level 100, there are no more weapons twice your level
but i dont want to look biased so i used this severest-case scenerio.
most players/professions would be overequiping to a far lesser degree.