Think of the Froobs

[Ocene]

Someone should quantify how much money froobs bring to the game, tbh I don't see it.

[Edta]

Those nanocosts are being changed for everyone. The costs aren't scaled to anyone. They are seemingly outrageous for even paid up endgame players as well. I can't help but think that is either a global mistake and it will be fixed in the second release or it's intended to make nano a more significant aspect of the game. Either way, nano scarcity will impact froobs and paid players.

From the documents I have reviewed (not all admittedly) I see that generally, there is a sharp spike in nanocosts for post QL 200 nanos. I do think the sub 200 crowd has been thought of in the revamp.

The difference is: if I raid with froobs half of the people ask for pnh/cost and at least some (I know about me as NT and pretty sure about docs) have to use nano rechargers/kits on top of that. At the start of a raid I see a lot of people requesting those buffs and other buff requests seem to be much less. But if I raid with TL7 nobody seems to want the buffs since they don't run out of nano anyway and they cap cost. Well, some TL7 docs have asked me for pnh, but I 'feel' it's much less important for them then it is for froob docs (and yeah I know: 'feel' is not proper science ).

[Obtena]

Yeah, that's now, not after re-balancing.

[Edta]

Yeah, that's now, not after re-balancing.

My point is: if nano's get more nano-expensive (to a certain extend) the effect on TL7 would be that they have to work for nano. The effect for non-TL7 would be that (even if they work for nano) they are screwed.

I have the feeling that the increased nanocost is meant to 'fix' the 'having plenty of nano without even IPing nanopool'-phenomenon. As far as I know this phenomenon is mostly present at TL7 and is mostly due to nanodelta. And it's different for different professions.

[Obtena]

No, it depends on how the costs increase with the nanos that froobs cast vs. the ones that non-froobs do. Look at the nano docs. Without doing an in-depth analysis, I believe the general trend is that the froob accessible nano costs aren't increasing nearly as much as the post-200 QL nanos.

[Edta]

No, it depends on how the costs increase with the nanos that froobs cast vs. the ones that non-froobs do. Look at the nano docs. Without doing an in-depth analysis, I believe the general trend is that the froob accessible nano costs aren't increasing nearly as much as the post-200 QL nanos.

Well, it's hard to judge. I took a quick look at doctor single heals (it is likely to be different for other stuff). The nanocost of the best froob heal will go from 201 to 808, but it will heal more then double as well. The nanocost of the best SL heal will go from 1553 to 2051, but this will heal about 25% less then it does currently.

Regarding nanocost it is not as you say for this case. Regarding heals: it's very nice of course, but probably necessary to compensate for the CH-nerfing.

Either way, devs probably don't play froob, so I think it's only fair to tell them that I feel nanocosts are pretty balanced for froobs and to a larger extend to most non-TL7. I don't feel this has been taken into account when setting new nanocosts. However, only extensive testing will show how broken we become .

[catdog]

Um, froobs generate revenue for Funcom, too. Via advertisments, that is. So technically, kicking us (yes, "us", because i count myself as a froob - even tho i pay) from the shelves might be a step in the wrong direction...

Besides, as the OP said: We did almost everything. There have been pure froob merc raids, Hezak gankage, HI Raids, Nirtox, whatever. A bit more challenge is gooood for us

As someone who played preSL and without the new Crypt weapons and other niceties that the current "froobs" have acess too I don't really feel sorry for froobs at all.

[Obtena]

Well, it's hard to judge. I took a quick look at doctor single heals (it is likely to be different for other stuff). The nanocost of the best froob heal will go from 201 to 808, but it will heal more then double as well. The nanocost of the best SL heal will go from 1553 to 2051, but this will heal about 25% less then it does currently.

Regarding nanocost it is not as you say for this case. Regarding heals: it's very nice of course, but probably necessary to compensate for the CH-nerfing.

Either way, devs probably don't play froob, so I think it's only fair to tell them that I feel nanocosts are pretty balanced for froobs and to a larger extend to most non-TL7. I don't feel this has been taken into account when setting new nanocosts. However, only extensive testing will show how broken we become .

I would say that's the important thing to note here because it's a fair assessment that's only going to be testable once the re-balance changes hit test server.

[Josephina]

Below is a snippet out of a longer post about the nanocost of the "balanced" doctor nanos. From the looks of it FC didn't balance these nanocosts with anyone in mind, but just put in a linear relationship with the nanoskill requirements.

The nanocost of nanos is always a function of the requirements to use the nano, dependant on the nanoline it is in.

Left is nanoskill = right is nanocost:

Init debuffs 1 = 1
Special effect Nukes 1 = 2
Base Nuke 1 = 1.5
Dot A & B 1.5 = 1
Dot C 1 = 2
LE Nemesis 1 = 1
Fear resist 1.5 = 1
Complete healing 1.5 = 1
Single healing 1 = 1
Teal healing 1 = 1.5
Short hot 1.5 = 1
Long duration health buffs: No direct relation since the current devs didn't meddle with the numbers yet. If there are changes in the future, it will probably be to 1.5 = 1 since all pre-combat buffs have that relation.
Short duration health buff 1.5 = 1
Str/stam buffs 1.5 = 1
Healdelta 1.5 = 1
SFA 1.5 = 1
D&P resistance 1.5 = 1
NR buffs 1.5 = 1
Init buffs 1.5 = 1
Gridding nanos 1.5 = 1

To me this gives the obvious problem that the nanocost goes up linearly with increasing skilllevels, while nanodelta increases exponentially till a hardcap is reached, same as do -cost/stims/rechargers (items, so no clear relation can be given, but imo these too are more exponentially than linear till they max out). Suppose that nano usage and nano recovery are in ballance at the level that the hardcap is reached, that would then mean that before and after reaching the hardcap, there will be a nano recovery shortage.

The above is a bit abstract, but put into a simple example it clearly shows that something is wrong:

• A level 1 doctor:
  
  • Basic heal has a nanocost of 7, recharge 4s = 1.7 ncps (nanocost per second)
  • Nanopool = 50
  • -cost : 0
  • Nanodelta : 3 every 28s = 0.107nps (nano per second)
  • Combined it will take the doctor 50/(1.75-0.107)s = 30.5 seconds before he runs out of nano, by only casting his basic heal.
  • Can use whatever stims+rechargers they can use.
  
  
• An approximation for a level 200 doctor:
  
  • Basic heal has a nanocost of 1087, recharge 4s = 271.75ncps
  • Nanopool = 9000
  • -cost : -50
  • Nanodelta : 150 every 2s = 75nps
  • Combined it will take the doctor 9000/(0.5*271.75-75)s = 148 seconds before he runs out of nano, by only casting his basic heal.
  • Uses ql150 stims and rechargers, genius 2 and has sheffy's nano proc.
  
  
• An approximation for a level 220 doctor:
  
  • Basic heal has a nanocost of 2051, recharge 4s = 512.75ncps
  • Nanopool = 15000 (no idea really)
  • -cost : -50
  • Nanodelta : 176 every 2s = 88nps
  • Combined it will take the doctor 15000/(0.5*512.75-75)s = 83 seconds before he runs out of nano, by only casting his basic heal.
  • Uses ql150 stims and rechargers, genius 2 and has sheffy's nano proc (gives the same nps as at level 200).

In short: with what is currently known about the "rebalanced" nanos, the early levels (and by expansion all froobs who can never reach 2s nanodelta) will have a way harder time to keep up nano than mid-level range. 220 doctors will also have a much harder time than that mid-level range, but they'll still have it a lot easier than the low levels and froobs. Hopefully FC will wake up in time and scrap this or entirely rethink nanodelta + tickrate. Certainly because nearly all new players start out as froobs ...

[Gridpain]

Someone should quantify how much money froobs bring to the game, tbh I don't see it.

Because you know how much money paying players bring to the game ? if yes, I m interested to know

[Manicmouse]

Because you know how much money paying players bring to the game ? if yes, I m interested to know

Exact amounts are impossible but it's pretty obvious there's a lot of revenue from paid players

[Gridpain]

Exact amounts are impossible but it's pretty obvious there's a lot of revenue from paid players

I have no idea how many accounts are active and paid for, nor how many froob players are passing in front of billboards nor how much is gain by this.

If you do, cool otherwise, it's pure speculation. And speculations are sometime right, sometime false

[Obtena]

There is no speculation: Froobs earn AO revenue.

[Cogline]

As a froob can I ask all trolls to work out which QQ they want to scream: We Hate Froobs or Not Enough Players. Just so we can be clear which sort of cheese to proffer with your whine. Thank you.

[Traderjill]

As a froob can I ask all trolls to work out which QQ they want to scream: We Hate Froobs or Not Enough Players. Just so we can be clear which sort of cheese to proffer with your whine. Thank you.

Actually those are two seperate issues. I'm not sure if you read my post in this thread but it is pretty rare that I team with froobs as I'm leveling a character.. unless I'm helping someone out. As a result, there could be 5,000 froobs on the server.. if they aren't able to access SL content and AI content (and then eventually LE/Xan instances) then they really serve me no direct teaming/playing purpose. Don't get me wrong.. I chit chat with a lot of froobs and think they are great but they are, in general, of no direct benefit to me or the characters on my accounts.

So saying 'we hate froobs' (which I don't think people should really say.. that's kinda rude.. but to each their own) while at the same time saying that there are "not enough players' is not necessarily a contridiction. For me, when I say 'not enough players' I really mean 'not enough paid players'.

[Cogline]

Stop making sense, damn you! If you don't others may follow your example and we run the risk of having intelligent debate! But seriously, I understand your point. There's a serious lack of bodies running around on RK so I can only assume it's worse on SL etc. Rebalance, for good or ill, could be the best chance of getting and keeping new blood. Transfusion is the only hope of this game surviving long enough for me to get things sorted out IRL and finally upgrade my account.

[Spartanx9]

Hopefully FC will wake up in time and scrap this or entirely rethink nanodelta + tickrate. Certainly because nearly all new players start out as froobs ...

Would be interesting to see having 2s ND at the start (possibly HD as well), possibly lowering the amount you get from skills so that you can have extra nano to plow through at the start to help you with limited means of regeneration, but you wouldn't be ending with a high value at the end of your leveling.

[Satisguard]

I hope this gets tested before it hits live, be sad to see tons of froobs quit due to needing doc's with sl/ai/le just to run an rk mission...

There's nothing wrong with being a froob, there is something wrong with hating people that may not at the time be able to afford to pay to play, or have the time to play a lot, if you take a minute to show them how nice a game it is, they wont be a froob for long...

[Traderjill]

if you take a minute to show them how nice a game it is, they wont be a froob for long...

Don't get me wrong.. I go way out of my way for a lot of people in AO but make no mistake.. it is not my responsibility to entice people to stay in the game.. that is Funcom's job.

[Ramany]

Don't get me wrong.. I go way out of my way for a lot of people in AO but make no mistake.. it is not my responsibility to entice people to stay in the game.. that is Funcom's job.

Very true, but Funcom will do that partly based on players' input, and if paid players feedback is "We could not care less about froobs", Funcom will tweak the game according to that, leading to a degraded froob experience, leading to less froobs to hang on and go paid, leading to a lower population, leading to more paid players leaving the game because of low population, and so on....
Let's not forget a lot (if not the majority ?) of the current plaid players started out as froobs and went paid later on : the trick is for Funcom to find the right balance between making the game attractive enough for froobs to stay on longer than Noob Island or ToTW , but make the gap between froob and paid game experience wide enough to entice as many froobs as possible to go paid...

Edit : oh, by the way, what you do for the community on RK2 is cool. Glad to have one of your alts in my org