Discuss: 14.2 Player propositions about OE issue
Player propositions about OE issue
I strongly disagree with the new OE rules exposed in Gaute's last article.
So I decided to bring up a debate not about how good are 14.2 OE rules, but how can we make good OE rules. I will present here my own equations and scales, and please discuss them so we can bring up the best solution possible. I hope there will be some replies ; ).
In each part of my post, I will explain how 14.2 OE rules work and then I will present my own system so you can discuss it. My first part is very long compare to others and is more technical. You can read it quickly and focus only on my main ideas.
----------
The weapon issue
Current 14.2 OE rules:
5% malus every 20% OE means you will have some weapon with higher skill requiered doing less damage than a weapon with lower skill needed. This is clealry unacceptable : any player can one time equip a weapon that is 21% OEed without beeing an hardcore OEer. Especially at low levels. So you will have to make calculation to know what weapon you can use without malus. This is very unacceptable. The casual gamer will have to make calculations where he don't have currently.
I will consider you can do 100% damage with a gun that requiers exactly your current skills. I will always talk about your damage by refering to this value. When a gun deal 120% damage, it means you are doing 20% damage more than with a gun that requiers exactly your current skill.
The OE percentage is defined as the percentage you are missing to equip the weapon. For exemple if you have 80% of the requiered skill, you are 20% (100-80) OE. Note that 20% OE means you are using a gun that requiers 125% of your skill.
You will have to calculate each level how many skill requiers a gun that requiers 124% of your skill. I have made a scale to show how FC system work so you can see at what point it is lame. You can see a scale of the damage penalty in function of OE and the damage you would deal after OE damage reduction compare to the damage you would deal without any penalty.
Code:
FC's OE DAMAGE REDUCTION
0% OE -> - 0.0% 100.0% -> 100.0%
5% OE -> - 0.0% 105.3% -> 105.3%
10% OE -> - 0.0% 111.1% -> 111.1%
15% OE -> - 0.0% 117.6% -> 117.6%
20% OE -> - 25.0% 125.0% -> 93.7%
25% OE -> - 25.0% 133.3% -> 100.0%
30% OE -> - 25.0% 142.9% -> 107.2%
35% OE -> - 25.0% 153.8% -> 115.3%
40% OE -> - 50.0% 166.7% -> 83.3%
45% OE -> - 50.0% 181.8% -> 90.9%
50% OE -> - 50.0% 200.0% -> 100.0%
55% OE -> - 50.0% 222.2% -> 111.1%
60% OE -> - 75.0% 250.0% -> 62.5%
65% OE -> - 75.0% 285.7% -> 71.4%
70% OE -> - 75.0% 333.3% -> 83.3%
75% OE -> - 75.0% 400.0% -> 100.0%
80% OE -> -100.0% 500.0% -> 0.0%
85% OE -> -100.0% 666.7% -> 0.0%
90% OE -> -100.0% 1000.0% -> 0.0%
95% OE -> -100.0% 2000.0% -> 0.0%
99% OE -> -100.0% 10000.0% -> 0.0%
I am against these rules. Why ? Because the maths involved are stupid, the damage deal by your weapon becomes irrational.
Now I will present my own system. I will explain how it works precisely and then I will explain what are the result. If you feel you have not the basis in maths to understand my formula, you can go directly to my representative scale.
I will consider you can do 100% damage with a gun that requiers exactly your current skills. I will always talk about your damage by refering to this value. When a gun deal 120% damage, it means you are doing 20% damage more than with a gun that requiers exactly your current skill.
The OE percentage is defined as the percentage you are missing to equip the weapon. For exemple if you have 80% of the requiered skill, you are 20% (100-80) OE. Note that 20% OE means you are using a gun that requiers 125% of your skill.
The basic formula is :
OE = 1 - ( playerSkill / neededSkill )
OEDamage = weaponDamage * ( 1 - OE ) * ( 1 + e * OE )
The blue part scale the weapon damage you would deal with a weapon exactly of your current skills. 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 a good value to deal with OEed weapon
Here you can see a table with the penalty your damage would suffer in function of your OE %. This can maybe not be clear to everybody. So I have add a table with the damage you would deal after OE damage reduction compare to the damage you would deal without any penalty.
Code:
e = 0.8
ZUH's OE DAMAGE REDUCTION
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% -> 114.0%
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%
This is just a representative scale, because you can deal with any case with this formula. Also you can adapt the formula as you like by changing e value. You can increase the OE malus or decrease it. This work for any OE %. Note that in this system massive OEing is far more penalised compare to light OEing.
So here is my solution for OEed weapon. I give a very adaptable equation to make a gradual penalty for OE. This is logical, and FC can easily penalise more or less OE for game balance.
The armor issue
FC envision the same system for armor.
This is crap and I propose to use the same equation for armor AC I proposed for weapon damage:
OEAC = armorAC * ( 1 - OE ) * ( 1 + e * OE )
So this give a gradual scale, as I explained for weapon damage. FC could also choosed a different e factor to penalise more or less OEed armor compare to OEed weapon.
The pet issue
14.2 OE rules :
You loose the control of your pet if you are "20% OE" or more. This means that if your pet need more than 125% of your skills (like mat crea or others) you won't be able to control it (it goes in /pet behind). However your pet will always finish a fight before shutting down.
This rule is lame because you would loose suddently the control of your pet after a virtual cap set at "20% OE". Also your pet would always finish a fight, so debuffs are just here to make people wait after a fight. This is bad.
What do I propose ? A pet have 100% of chances to execute an action when you ask him (beside several bugs). So why not decrease this probability ? Each action of the pet would have a probability to be done. For exemple, a pet 20% OE would hit only 4 times on 5.
I would apply this probability only on action that use properties of the pets that increase with ql. For exemple a pet could always walk or hunt. The actions who would have a probability to not be executed would be attack or healing.
So we have defined a pet as OEed when you requier more skill to create it (or charm) than you currently have. Same definition for OE as for weapon:
OE = 1 - ( playerSkill / neededSkill )
Then we apply to each action as attack or healing a probability to be executed:
doAction = 1 - e * 0E %
I will consider e = 1 for easy exemple, but this can be change to balance pets. You can reduce e to improve OE pets.
doAction is the percentage of time the pet will effectively execute its action. For exemple when in a fight your healing pet is 30% OEed. So it would heal you only 70% of the time. Some times he would just do nothing (30% of the time). Also a very OE bot would strike less often, but a player would still benefit from his heavy damage and high HP.
This formula is easy to understand I think.
So here is my solution for OEed pets. You just have to make them not react from time to time in function of the OE %.
Conclusion
All these propositions are very coherent and easily adaptable. Anybody would still be better with higher ql weapons, armor or pets but would gain far less benefit from them. These formulas will allow players to OE but there won't be a so big difference between a player 20% OE and 40% OE. Anyway these rules are important up to level 120, beyond this level, no one is really OEed compare to others.
Also a cap at 20% OE like FC envision is unfair for nano users, because they have no caps.
There are also many other advantages and issues I would like to talk but I will wait your comments. Please discuss these ideas and ask question about them. I am french and have some trouble to use precise vocabulary, so feel free to show me my language mistakes.
I will update this first post regulary to make it as clear and good as I can.
Re: Discuss: 14.2 Player propositions about OE issue
Nice idea Zuh - I'd prefer a sliding scale just because it means I dont have lower ql guns doing more dmg than higher.
Quote:
Originally posted by Zuh
Also a cap at 20% OE like FC envision is unfair for nano users, because they have no caps.
What exactly do you mean by this? Nano users have an absolute cap - 0% OE allowed. If we (main char is NT) attempt to run a nano that reqs higher than our skill it fails, no dmg reduction, no higher failure rate, nothing.
For nano users a 0.000000000001% OE is too much under the current, and proposed, system. Thanks.
Re: Re: Discuss: 14.2 Player propositions about OE issue
Originally posted by Servivious
What exactly do you mean by this? Nano users have an absolute cap - 0% OE allowed. If we (main char is NT) attempt to run a nano that reqs higher than our skill it fails, no dmg reduction, no higher failure rate, nothing.
OK sorry for confusion.
Yea, nano users like NT have a 0% caps. So they have no caps higher than 0%.
Having a 0% caps for nano is logical, but weapons & armors should not be disabled as nano after a certain caps. I can explain more this sentence if you like.
So weapon should not have a 20% caps because of several reasons:
Nanos users have a 0% caps, so why weapons should have a 20% caps ?? Why having a caps for weapon ? You can switch nanos easily, you can't change weapon so easily. A nano is a spell, with specifics properties. A weapon is a tool you use.
So a caps for weapon, any %, is unfair for nanos users because it allows weapon user to be 100% effective even if they miss 20% of the requiered skills. However a weapon should not be disabled. So the conclusion is a scale like I proposed is the solution.
I hope this answer to your question.
Funcom's System is better.
I read your post, looked at both systems, and while your idea has been voiced by a few others as well, I like FunCom's better. It makes more sense to me, and has stiffer penalties. I also like the 20% increment rule, it adds a bit of challenge and strategy as opposed to a sliding scale while still addressing the underlying issues.
As far as your pet idea, lame. There would still be to much reward for buying buffs off other players to make uber pets for the casters level. Once again, FunCom's system makes more sense to me than yours does. If your big complaint is that debuffs cause you to have to stand around till they wear off, then why not just petition to have debuffs removed from the game? I mean sometimes when I get debuffed now I wait till they wear off before continuing on, why should pet users not have to do the same? Any class that depends on running nanos while they are fighting has to stop and wait for the debuffs to wear off before they can continue fighting. And if a Doc debuffs init a lot of players have to wait that one out as well before they can continue on.
Zwie
Re: Funcom's System is better.
Originally posted by Zwie
I read your post, looked at both systems, and while your idea has been voiced by a few others as well, I like FunCom's better. It makes more sense to me, and has stiffer penalties. I also like the 20% increment rule, it adds a bit of challenge and strategy as opposed to a sliding scale while still addressing the underlying issues.
The main problem with their rule is that your weapon damage will work step by step. So when a player OE a weapon more than 10%, he will suffer big penalties, even if he don't search to overequip a lot. This is important for low and mid level because in these levels players can OE more than 20% easily with some implants and buffs. I am not talking here about OE professionals, just a good player.
Also you should probably have seen that my system penalize OE a lot the more you overequip. So you would have 2 different kind of strategies: you could choose to wear the best weapon and armors you can, or you could choose to be able to switch weapons as you need.
Having a 20% OE caps brings no strategy. Because all you would have to do is to calculate what is the best weapon / armor you can use, untill you get in high level where anyway you can't overequip over 20% without major twinking.
So what do you get ? You have to be lucky enough to find the exact ql you need at low level, a new player would sometimes use an OE weapon without even knowing it. There won't be any changes in high level and only low / mid levels will have to make a calculation.
Also, weapon users could still have a weapon 20% OE, while nano users would still have a 0% OE allowed. To deal with OE you have to deal any OE %.
Debuffs will have illogical effects, and can bring your damage output down just a little, or a lot, depend if you become 19% OE or 21%.
As far as your pet idea, lame. There would still be to much reward for buying buffs off other players to make uber pets for the casters level. Once again, FunCom's system makes more sense to me than yours does. If your big complaint is that debuffs cause you to have to stand around till they wear off, then why not just petition to have debuffs removed from the game? I mean sometimes when I get debuffed now I wait till they wear off before continuing on, why should pet users not have to do the same? Any class that depends on running nanos while they are fighting has to stop and wait for the debuffs to wear off before they can continue fighting. And if a Doc debuffs init a lot of players have to wait that one out as well before they can continue on.
I don't get clearly your point here. You say a player should wait some time every times he is debuff ?
Currently no one needs to stop playing because he is debuff. Weapons still works, a nano user can have a second shorcut bar to use lower ql nano in the case he is debuff and pet users just continue fighting. Every class should be weakend by a debuff, not disabled.
I do not play to wait and do nothing. A debuff have to force nano users to user weaker nanos, to decrease weapon user damage output, to decrease pet users overall power. Not to force a player to wait 3 minutes.
and here i thought you could not
overequip using self buffs.
i think the very definition and problem zone is actively searching out traders and meta physicians to buff your relevant skills.
if you have the ncu to spare for a buff huge enough to push you over the 20% then there is not the slightest chance you do this by accident.
thus i disagree with the basis of your arguments.
the only beef with the proposed oe rules i have is that the monsters should be tuned down and or the critical buffs make self cast only to reduce the number of shotgun wielders.
i have no problem with the supposed changes apart from that because the few higher level people i knew said that monsters had ridiculously large health pools so they depended on teamwork, overequipping and critical hits to whittle them down.
well by my definition, as long as you ...
can selfcast whatever got you into the weapon you are not really overequipped.
that was what i meant earlier. it is unlikely you will have high nanoprograms or wrangles running that alow you access to REALLY high level equipment unless you precisly know what you are doing.
you need the correct implants, enough ncu and cash to pay the trader to do it - the combination is unlikely for a casual player to have for quite some time.
small wrangles wont hurt you either since there is a pretty generous margin left (20% of the target skill).
however, the issue about the debuffs is valid.
i fear trader mobs even now - i have no clue how nanotechs manage after being debuffed by a trader mob, nor do i know what i will do then after the oe fix when my weapons start to rust when i get debuffed.
to sum this up:
i doubt the impact of the oe in general will be as bad as people tend to portray it here IF mobs are made reasonable again and MAYBE debuffs get a shorter timer.
