Scumbug is a Genius!

[__________Turbulence]

Originally posted by Scumbug



so what do you think all?
(am i a genius?)

Not really man, your system sort of removes the need for a system, what is the point of Equipping a ql200 gun instead of a self equipped ql100 gun when they for all intents and purposes are doing the same damage? With Funcoms system you can still overequip 20% at any level and its not that hard ot do the math...any idiot can figure out that if i have 430 rifle skill 10% of that is 43 x 2 = 86 pts I can overequip without a penalty. Took me all of 2 seconds to do that math...I mean how lazy are people that they would not be willing to do that?

No offense but if your not willing to take 2 seconds to do a little math in your head before equippin a weapon then you deserve what you get.

P.S. I just asked my 8 Year Old nephew what 430 divided by 10 was then asked him what 43 plus 43 was and it took him a total of about ten seconds to figure it out...LOL

[_________Rayfield...]

a pro NT PoV here

you failed to mention that NTs do depend on their INT/MC to see whether their nukes deal sufficient dmg. if i currently take on anything orange +, i almost always deal minimum dmg on my nukes. yes, nukes do have a max and min damage...and we do not get crits. so our OE of nanos means we have 1 or 2 nanos we constantly use that's usually dealing minimum damage.

the stable nukes (eg. Ol' Faithful, Burning Quartet, etc...) are the only spells we can reliably cast without worrying about this minimum problem, but do see that Burning Quartet for example have a Nano Resist of 105%, which directed to higher nano resist mobs, deal less than minimum damage. (several people mentioned before that Nano Resist is related to both damage output AND to hit probability). so in effect, we are already feeling the OE pain, whereas, weapon wielders do to a much less extent.

we also lose out on cost per cast, above ql125 nanos are hard as hell to find (that goes for everyone but NTs rely almost purely on nukes for damage output, docs for heals) when weapon wielders do not 'need' their nanos. they are better with it, but it's not a necessity.

what you said about those 'special caster items'? how easy are they to be found? you try tackling Mike 'Nugget' McMullet with a full team of anything less than lv100, or the rhino professor. even Nelebs because it's overcamped. How overcamped are <your choice of ql> missions that only you and your team have the keys for? How hard are mobs of <your choice of ql> missions you choose with AOMD? We have well paid our price to over equip that little extra we get. Yes, a nanomage NT with Shades of Lubrucation + Expensive Vest of Dr Jones + dualwielding ql200 Maharanee + Neleb's Cloak will be good, but at what expense? How many NTs have these items on either servers? Fixer's Grid Armor? NT's Nullity Sphere?

as opposed to an o-so hard to find ql200 beam or ql200 disaffiliation? how about OP Elite? we can't even buy our armor in stores and STR/AGI users get Flowers anytime they want? STR/STA users get Graft as well as Tank armor. yes, you might have to search a few more shops, but you have your choices.....without the need to find the items until ql125+. (for those who don't know, Flowers and Graft are both armor with only 1 type of AC that is lower than the rest, rather than stuff like Metaplast that has 4 bad AC types for example)

please put these into consideration before saying we don't feel OE, because we have felt it since this game was made public.

[____________Ejeckted]

to NTs,

"different strategys for different professions"

what is wrong with that?

if you wanted to overequip, play a weapon-based class.
if you'd rather find 'magic items' to help you, try an NT
if you dont want to bother at all, play an MA

and even if you don't agree with that arguement,
you would honestly rather see hundreds to thousands
of cancelations just to deny those who consider OE
literally a few points of extra damage?
even if you're a hardcore PvPer you can't tell me that
and extra +15points or something insignificant like that
is going to upset class balance.

I am attempting to find a solution that both sides can compromise on.

I agree that overequiping resulted in too much benefit
and was overpowered, but I do not agree that you we
should accept this solution.

think about this,
under Funcoms scale, you can overequip a weapon to FULL effect
under 20%. that's a significant damage increase. but then if you
cross this arbitrary 20% line to 21% overequiped, your damage
drops to under what a same-QL weapon would do.

that makes zero sense. it should be pissing off both sides.
it ruins the fun of overequipers who just like to see how high
a QL weapon they can squeeze into, and it still allows the old
overpowered bonuses during the first 20%.

what sort of problem-solving is that?

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Turbulence


Not really man, your system sort of removes the need for a system, what is the point of Equipping a ql200 gun instead of a self equipped ql100 gun when they for all intents and purposes are doing the same damage? With Funcoms system you can still overequip 20% at any level and its not that hard ot do the math...any idiot can figure out that if i have 430 rifle skill 10% of that is 43 x 2 = 86 pts I can overequip without a penalty. Took me all of 2 seconds to do that math...I mean how lazy are people that they would not be willing to do that?

my system does not remove the need for a system.
is balances the system from 1% to 100%.

allowing full OE bonuses up to 20% is still imbalancing.

and making a 21% overequiped weapon suddenly worse
than a same-QL one is retarded.

of course it's not hard to figure out what 20% OE is.
that's not the point. the point is the proposal is dumb.

overequiping bonuses should only give a slight advantage
that will not cause class imbalances; but at the same time
a higherQL weapon should never ever be worse than a lower QL.

that's the foundation of my formula. it is a rock-solid scale
that is fair to everyone across all levels and QLs, unlike
funcoms scale which is completely arbitrary and full of holes.

under funcoms method, debuffs can cause you to cross this
silly no-no OE line and the punishment from their scale
actually causes more penalty than the debuff does.
that doesn't happen with my method.

[locomdenom]

Scumbug - I think, personally, that your system makes a lot more sense than FCs. The gradual scaling is nice, although some sort of log curve might have been nicer, so that there's more benefit in the beginning than at the end. However, I understand why you chose not to do this.

However, I don't think that the extra 8 points of damage will be enough to keep the hardcore OEers in the game.

On the other hand, I could care less if they stay, so preach on Brother Scumbug!

[__________Turbulence]

Originally posted by Scumbug


my system does not remove the need for a system.
is balances the system from 1% to 100%.

Nah it removes overequipping altogethor, that was my point.

Originally posted by Scumbug

allowing full OE bonuses up to 20% is still imbalancing.

Not IMO, 20% is acheivable by the vast majority of players..it still gives the edge ot those that spend the time on their characters..it still allows a certain extent of overequipping and is IMO the middle ground for OE and non OE's alike.

Originally posted by Scumbug

and making a 21% overequiped weapon suddenly worse
than a same-QL one is retarded.

of course it's not hard to figure out what 20% OE is.
that's not the point. the point is the proposal is dumb.

overequiping bonuses should only give a slight advantage
that will not cause class imbalances; but at the same time
a higherQL weapon should never ever be worse than a lower QL.

To some extent yes, if you equip a higher ql weapon than 20% it shouldnt be worse than a weapon 19% overequiped however i tihnk from a programming standpopint ths is all Funcom can acheive at this point in time so you have to do a little math and make sure your not in the 21% plus OE category...to me its a good middle ground...but if anyhtign all OE should just cap at 20% so that a weapon at 21% to 100% overequipped will function the same at +20% damage. This would be the best solution...if Funcom could acheive this is another question altogethor tho.

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Kiryat
Scumbug - I think, personally, that your system makes a lot more sense than FCs. The gradual scaling is nice, although some sort of log curve might have been nicer, so that there's more benefit in the beginning than at the end. However, I understand why you chose not to do this.

I attempted to work on this for a while.
but because of the multiplication in the damage formula and
ever-increasing variables I couldnt come up with a system
that curved without at some point making a 'sweet spot'
where a lowerQL would be better than a higher QL.

maybe it's just because I'm a high-school dropout

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Turbulence


Nah it removes overequipping altogethor, that was my point.

no. it doesn't. im not sure why you see that?
an overequiped weapon will always be better than
a weapon the doesnt take any effort to equip.
even if it's only by a 5..10..20.. extra points of damage.

if im level80 with the skill for a QL100 weapon,
but i am able to get on a 130 gun instead,
that gun will be superior for the next 30 levels.

20% is acheivable by the vast majority of players..it still gives the edge ot those that spend the time on their characters..it still allows a certain extent of overequipping and is IMO the middle ground for OE and non OE's alike.

well, I think NTs and MAs etc will still have a problem with it.
20% overequiped is not 20% more damage.
it's significantly more.

To some extent yes, if you equip a higher ql weapon than 20% it shouldnt be worse than a weapon 19% overequiped <snip>...but if anyhtign all OE should just cap at 20% so that a weapon at 21% to 100% overequipped will function the same at +20% damage. This would be the best solution...if Funcom could acheive this is another question altogethor tho.

so go do some math and figure it out for them

[_________________Zuh]

And I still have a hope they will listen to players like you Scumbug.


I know I posted this already, but know the OE debate go one several threads. I am about to finish to write a big thread to sum up all my ideas in one and stop bothering people ; ).

I think my system is an extention of Scumbug one. Maybe the maths will seems to hard for some players but the result is a simple scale.

To answer some questions, you can't make a logarithm curve so easily, because it requieres a lot of time to calculate by a computer and anyway it is hard to make a log curve that goes from 0% OE to 100% OE ; ). I have think a lot about my formula, and the maths involved are rather simple at the end. The graph is also an nice curve (yes I have draw it ; ) ) so you gain less and less benefit as far as you OE. But you always gain benefit from OE, you don't have stupid caps and so on.

I let you watch the numbers (I made an exemple at the end). Please feel free to ask if you have any question about my system. Turbulence you are welcome to argue.

For other issues like pet user or casting class, I have also found some answers and will post them in my thread.


-------

I have finish to build a very good formula for OE. Clear, simple (for those who have basis in math) and works great. One single formula and easily modulable to adjust how hard have to be the scale.

I am currently writing a thread I will post probably this night. I have spend 4 days on this thread and hope FC will pay more attention than a simple Cz report to this and other good one like "Scumbug is a genius" ; ).


The basic formula is :

OE = 1 - ( playerSkill / neededSkill )

OEDamage = weaponDamage * ( 1 - OE ) * ( 1 + e * OE )


The blue part scale the weapon damage to the damage a weapon of your current skills would deal. I will consider than that you deal 100% damage.

The orange part scale your damage to the damage you will deal, considering your OE level. e is the OE factor. If you set e to 1 then a weapon 40% OE (166% skill requiered) will deal 140% damage, a 60% OE weapon (250% skill requiered) will deal 160% damage. To increase OE malus, you just have to decrease e.

This can be vague for some players, but the result of the formula would be quite simple and that's the most important. Let's make some exemple. I will set e to 0.8, because I think it is the best scale to deal with OEing, but it is very easy to change the scale of the formula as you wish.


So you can see here some exemple to make your mind about my formula. You can see the malus your damage suffer compare to your OE %, and then the damage you deal today compare to the damage you would deal with my OE formula applied. 100% damage is the damage you would deal with a gun that requiered exactly your current skills.

e = 0.8

    0% OE -> -00.0%          100.0% -> 100.0%
    5% OE -> -01.2%          105.3% -> 104.0%
   10% OE -> -02.8%          111.1% -> 108.0%
   15% OE -> -03.8%          117.6% -> 112.0%
   20% OE -> -07.2%          125.0% -> 116.0%
   25% OE -> -10.0%          133.3% -> 120.0%
   30% OE -> -13.2%          142.9% -> 124.0%
   35% OE -> -16.8%          153.8% -> 128.0%
   40% OE -> -20.8%          166.7% -> 132.0%
   45% OE -> -25.2%          181.8% -> 136.0%
   50% OE -> -30.0%          200.0% -> 140.0%
   55% OE -> -35.2%          222.2% -> 144.0%
   60% OE -> -40.8%          250.0% -> 148.0%
   65% OE -> -46.8%          285.7% -> 152.0%
   70% OE -> -53.2%          333.3% -> 156.0%
   75% OE -> -60.0%          400.0% -> 160.0%
   80% OE -> -67.2%          500.0% -> 164.0%
   85% OE -> -74.8%          666.7% -> 168.0%
   90% OE -> -82.8%         1000.0% -> 172.0%
   95% OE -> -91.2%         2000.0% -> 176.0%
   99% OE -> -98.2%        10000.0% -> 180.0%

So here it is. You can see there is no failure, you can also adapt the formula as you like by changing e value. You can increase the OE malus or decrease it. This work for any OE %.

So what do you think about it.


FC what do you think about this one ?

[_________________Zuh]

By the way, having a caps at 20% OE and make every weapon over 20% OE as good as a weapon just 20% OE is very simple. As well as decreasing weapon power slowly after 20% OE.

Anyone who want a good formula for this kind of stuff can ask me. Even if I find these solution ridiculous.



What the hell are they doing at FC ??!


NB: Same formula goes for armor.

[locomdenom]

Zuh... I think there's a problem with that formula.

If the player had exactly the skill needed for the weapon, you'd wind up dealing 0 damage?

Unless you just meant that OEDamage as a modifier to base, in which case it works as you intend.

I think SB's is probably an easier system for FC to implement, though.

Maybe I'll do some math (I *am* an engineer) and see if I can come up with a comfortable log system with no sweet spot.

[Cz]

Originally posted by Zuh
What the hell are they doing at FC ??!

Ignoring coloured text?

No, reading on this thread, and passing along that "many players would like to see a more scaled system." Now, Gaute explained in his second article why he would like the one we have proposed, so we'll see what happens.

Just don't claim that "no change = doesn't listen", as that is simply not true. The designers are all ears when we go talk with them. (They have no choice. )

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Cz

Ignoring coloured text?

No, reading on this thread, and passing along that "many players would like to see a more scaled system." Now, Gaute explained in his second article why he would like the one we have proposed, so we'll see what happens.Cz

nice to know you're still on this thread Cz.

I hope you've passed on my (new) scale specifically
rather than just saying "more scaled" tho.

re: Gautes 'reason' for not having a system that scales;
he said his was "easier to understand", which i found
rather insulting. noone here seems to have a problem
understanding this scale. and even the dumbest atrox
could comprehend "bigger number = better".

bigger number should always be better. period.
nothing less will satisfy the numbercrunchers.

and I've even solved the debuff problem for you.
so you won't have to nerf traders a month later.

[_________________Zuh]

Originally posted by Kiryat
Zuh... I think there's a problem with that formula.

If the player had exactly the skill needed for the weapon, you'd wind up dealing 0 damage?

Unless you just meant that OEDamage as a modifier to base, in which case it works as you intend.

I think SB's is probably an easier system for FC to implement, though.

Maybe I'll do some math (I *am* an engineer) and see if I can come up with a comfortable log system with no sweet spot.

I consider OEDamage as your final basic damage (before AR modification and so). Read again my post and you will see that "0% OE" mean you deal "100% damage", in other words the exact damage your weapon should deal : ).

Let's consider OE = 0% :

OEDamage = weaponDamage * ( 1 - 0 ) * ( 1 + e *0 ) = weaponDamage


Maybe my table wasn't clear enough (I guess). I wrote in a first row the malus your damage recieve compare to your OE level and in a second row your damage % you will deal compare to a 0% OE gun (so common people can see how the scale work).

You can try the basis formula as you like with any weapon or OE % or e factor. You should see better how it works and how coherent it is. Also as an engineer you can understand how it works, because I have not build this formula by luck ; ).


Thanx for asking because some people could have been confused too : ). I am french and I miss some vocabulary to explain my maths clearly.



By the way, how did you like my formula Scumbug ? : P

[_________________Zuh]

Originally posted by Cz

Ignoring coloured text?

No, reading on this thread, and passing along that "many players would like to see a more scaled system." Now, Gaute explained in his second article why he would like the one we have proposed, so we'll see what happens.

Just don't claim that "no change = doesn't listen", as that is simply not true. The designers are all ears when we go talk with them. (They have no choice. )

Cz

Sorry to have been harsh with you Cz, I don't want to ; ).


I wasn't saying "no change = doesn't listen". I apologize if you (or other players) took it like that. You surely have read some post of mine (as a moderator) and you probably saw I have even been against this kind of idea about FC.

BUT

What I was complaining about is that FC gave us a very poor formula for OE, with a stupid loop every 20% OE, while I can myself build a coherent scale without to much problems.

Gaute explained :

"8. Shouldn't the over-equipping scheme be working gradually, instead of in steps?

No, I would like the OE to have distinct states - not a gradual reduction in power. This is much easier to understand for most people, I think."

This is scary.


Cz, please think as a player and not a FC employee, and tell me, what is the easiest to understand, I don't even consider what is the most effective or logical, just what is the easiest to understand :

Proposition 1

Every 20% OE your damage will go back to the same damage a 0% OE weapon would deal and your damage will increase slowly to the same damage a 19% OE weapon would deal untill next 20% cap. Also note that OE % is not the percentage of skill you requiered above your current skill to equip the gun but the percentage the user's skills/abilities is within of what the weapon requieres.

Proposition 2

You will have progressive malus when you overequip a weapon. However a higher ql weapon will always be better than a lower ql one.


So.

Don't tell me that Gaute sentences where more clear than the one I used, because many people did not understand how OE works. Sad.

After that you can add the formulas and a representative scale, FC formula will just look more strange, complicated and incoherent. My formula might be harder to understand to a common player but the result are very easy to understand.


Thanks for feedback Cz

[locomdenom]

Nope.

Going back over it, SB's formula is much simpler to understand than Zuh's.

I do understand how yours works, Zuh - I just feel that it's unclear to people who don't spend the entirety of their life facing down equations, whereas SB's is a bit easier to deal with.

I've also decided I'm far too lazy, and will leave all formula-making to you two.

[_________________Zuh]

I am very sorry if you found mine unclear.


I am aware of it and so I posted a representative scale. When you look just at it, without paying attention to the formula, its quite easy to understand. The result is simple.

Also anybody who have some basis in maths should understand it very well, and FC programmers probably have more than some basis in maths ; ).

[_________________Zuh]

I will do simple comparaison so any player, would it we a 12old child, can understand clearly the problem with 14.2 OE rules.


You are walking on a street. So you are walking and then you meet a wall with a door. The door is closed. You cannot go through this door, however if this door was open you could continue walking. You would like to continue to walk, but you have to stop here because there is a wall. However FC consider you can open the door and then you are suddently teleported 100m back on your way and then walk again to the wall, you are then again suddently teleported 100m back and walk to the door, unless you give up and stop walking.

Do you see something logical here ?


There are several better option avaible.

You can consider that when you meet the wall you have to stop and give up walking. So you have a cap, you can't go through this cap. You have a 20% OE cap and any weapon more OEed would be unusable.

This solution consider weapon and armor as nano program you could use 20% OEed. Hmm...

You can consider that when you meet the wall you have to stop, but you don't give up walking, so if the door is open for some time you walk to the next wall. You have a 20% OE cap and everything equip over this cap would be as good as anything 20% OE.

Here is the formula for this solution:

OEDamage = weaponDamage * ( 1 - OE ) * 1.25

This solution is very close to FC one, and allows player to OE just to have full benefit of the buff. Also debuffs would reduce weapon and armor in a very logical way.


Maybe this is easier to understand.


Beside that, a 20% OE cap is not fair for nano users. You can't cast a nano 1% OEed. However, you have your nano formulas upload so you can easily switch between your nanos, and for several good reasons you cannot OE nanos program. So the solution reside in making add progressive malus to an OE weapon.

Look again at my formula, you can adjust how much you want to penalise OE easily. And even a 20% OE weapon would have some malus and this is fair. By the way even a casting class can OE armor and weapon..

OEDamage = weaponDamage * ( 1 - OE ) * ( 1 + e * OE )


I proposed 2 formulas, one to add a 20% OE cap the other to add a progressive malus on OE weapon. I am waiting to hear why these are worste than FC one. And in both cases the result is simple.

Thanx for reading FC

[____________Ejeckted]

Originally posted by Zuh

By the way, how did you like my formula Scumbug ? : P

opps. sorry for the late reply.

honestly, the problem with your formula is,
even if it works well, most players just
aren't going to understand anything presented
in that form, and it will be disregarded.

to be accepted, it's got to be easy for
the average 13year old to understand.
( and funcom to understand )

you've got to remember the age-range and education
range of the people who play AO and post here. .

i myself am a highschool dropout and noone
ever taught me what "malus" means.
(now when you use the word in context i can figure it out)

i think it's safe to assume most AO players dont have
a university education (yet) and that the majority of
the people ingame originate from the USA, which has
a terrible public education system. (i live in the US now)

basically, i would bet that most of the people who
post here wouldn't know the difference between
"malus" and "malice"

[_________Deaddreamer]

Originally posted by Scumbug
basically, i would bet that most of the people who
post here wouldn't know the difference between
"malus" and "malice"

Hay, ise gots me a good edyewkashun, i wnet to collidge and got a degry in drinkin everclere.