Quickie Explanation of New Trader NanoSheet (Summary Open to Criticism)

[ArienSky]

I really hope FC are reading this thread

Work has begun in earnest on the MP document and the NT and Agent should not be far behind.
More work will be done to the Trader profession and we will be releasing a new version of their nano document before we make changes.

the posts by Kintaii should also have hinted you off

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

[Saetos]

the posts by Kintaii should also have hinted you off

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

I think what he means is, past the first page. There're some golden posts here that unfortunately would fill up the placeholder posts here past capacity.

[Sunny-D]

glad to hear that fc is taking into considertion some of our feedback. crossing fingers :P

[ArienSky]

Working on the graphs now, and making them dynamic, so they can be used when the next version comes out.

I will upload the excel document as well, when it is finished, so the devs can use it too, and have a look at it, so far:

Skill drains Combined comparison:
http://www.Arien-sky.com/AO/Trader/S...comparison.png
(took 1 hour 20 min to do, that is 2 complicated nano lines, scale that up with efficiency of repeated work/tools, and you can do A LOT of balancing in a work day of 8 hours)

I will update this post as more comes

17:11 Edit:
Looks quite clear to me that the two new skill-drain nanos are scaled rather badly, compared to all the others.
My suggestion still is to have a projection of the original power to requirement graph and populate the empty room with new nanos.

17:46 Edit:
The drains are done, now what?
The steal health?
Personally I like the AC steals, I might (hopefully) will do those also
Feedback is welcomed.

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

PS. The "nanoskill required is the sum of nanoskills, I think that is most fair in a skill-based game.

[ArienSky]

Trader drain power/cost graphs
The graphs are here, then the question is: are you people OK with it?
is it OK that there is a perfect line/scale of power vs nanoskill and power vs nano cost on the RK nano, while the nanite ones are -totally- out of proportion, allong with being very far in between as opposed to the RK nanos having few nanoskill points in between them?

My opinion is that the line of the RK nanos should be continued, and with these graphs it is pretty easy to take a ruler and plot new points(nanos) and directly see the what the QL, nanoskill, nano cost, drain and boost effect should be.
Sure, use the new drains and nano costs if you think, but let the power/cost ratio continue from the RK ones and extend at least past QL 250 with regular intervals.

Continue the lines till QL 300, following the original power/cost ratio and let AO be a skill-point game, where people are limited in their casting by the IP distribution, rather than reaching the final nano.

(on that note I suggest removing the breed and TL IP caps, if people want to min/max, let them do so, it makes them very weak to some offences, as AO (classic) indeed is balanced around nothing being perfect; AS vs evades, NT-nukes vs grid armor, roots vs superior melee DPS.

if someone is depended on having 6 laddered drains running, they are VERY vulnerable to an attack that removes said drains (new perk/nano), as it will leave them with an OE gun, having to re-ladder the casts, finding another hotbar with them, not being able to use the regular healing nanos etc.
I think that is pretty self-balancing.
The trader will be a vegetable, if (s)he relies on always having the drains running, on the other hand (s)he will be rather good when they are.

That is my take on how I would like traders:
Like in ToTW, having a ladder (lasting only 3 min) is fun and rewarding, just insta-casting the highest nano is not.

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

[Obtena]

I think that's a loaded question. By themselves the graphs are obviously a nerf. The question is how much of a nerf is acceptable based on other 'things' happening in the game.

For instance, graph cost increases of drains vs. other frequently used nanos for other professions. That's a relevant comparison.

[sultryvoltron]

I think that's a loaded question. By themselves the graphs are obviously a nerf. The question is how much of a nerf is acceptable based on other 'things' happening in the game.

For instance, graph cost increases of drains vs. other frequently used nanos for other professions. That's a relevant comparison.

It's not a relavant comparison. Other professions struggling with nanocost has nothing to do with Traders. A question that is infinitely more relevant, should Traders struggle with nanocost?

I say no, because no profession that relys heavily on casting offensive nanos should forced to recharge between every fight. It is a slow, annoying, and pointless mechanic to put into the game, and it is a constant struggle for low level casting professions such as Crats, Traders, and NTs.

[Obtena]

None of the comparisons are relevant really... we know that the game is getting a new face. The graphs don't show us anything more than how the game progresses. If there is some kind of valid comparision, it's some attribute in the same game state, which is why comparing nanocosts across profs is relevant under the new scheme. it's not relevant to traders? it's relevant to the WHOLE DIRECTION of the game, which traders are a part of.

[Gatester]

It's not a relavant comparison. Other professions struggling with nanocost has nothing to do with Traders. A question that is infinitely more relevant, should Traders struggle with nanocost?

I say no, because no profession that relys heavily on casting offensive nanos should forced to recharge between every fight. It is a slow, annoying, and pointless mechanic to put into the game, and it is a constant struggle for low level casting professions such as Crats, Traders, and NTs.

If offensive casters do not have nano cost issues then they will endlessly spam debuffs and nukes with no consideration whatsoever. If you want out of combat regain then you improve out of combat tools.

[sultryvoltron]

If offensive casters do not have nano cost issues then they will endlessly spam debuffs and nukes with no consideration whatsoever. If you want out of combat regain then you improve out of combat tools.

Granted, this doesn't apply directly to Traders, but take low level NTs for example. The majority of their damage comes from their nukes. If you single nuke a mob to death, and another mob aggros you during the process, you start the next fight low on nano, potentially running out. Recharging out of combat is not an option.

Tools that cripple the other opponent, and likely need cast very few times during a battle can have high nano-costs. Offensive damage nanos should have their nanocost adjusted to be manageable at any level. This potentially means there is a need for more nanos in these lines.

[Gatester]

Granted, this doesn't apply directly to Traders, but take low level NTs for example. The majority of their damage comes from their nukes. If you single nuke a mob to death, and another mob aggros you during the process, you start the next fight low on nano, potentially running out. Recharging out of combat is not an option.

Tools that cripple the other opponent, and likely need cast very few times during a battle can have high nano-costs. Offensive damage nanos should have their nanocost adjusted to be manageable at any level. This potentially means there is a need for more nanos in these lines.

NT's are probably a bad example, it only takes a few seconds to have enough nano to mezz an add so that the NT can quickly get out of combat. An MP would be a good example, and even in full CO and using a token board my 75 runs out of nano after about 20 seconds. However, my MP is able to rely on pets and I am not going to die without nano.

Enforcers will run out of nano and be unable to get out of combat or regain it quickly, which is not healthy for a casting dependant profession. Doctors are going to have very similar problems the minute they try to go on the offensive, and they lack ways of avoiding combat as well.

Our "offensive" casters are not the ones who will have trouble, its our other nano dependant professions that are more or less screwed in regards to their casting abilities.

[ArienSky]

the main thing the graphs are showing is that the 2 last nanos are out of scale with the rest and that there usually are few QLs or nanoskill inbetween new nanos, except for those last two.. (past QL 180ish)

so how Obtena comes to the conclusion they are irrelevant and -then- starts talking nano costs of other professions I do not get..

I thought most would be able to see the linear trend on all but the last nanos, I guess I was wrong..
The obvious point of the graph is (I apparently have to spell it out)
AO clasic nanos goes up to almost QL 200, then stops.
We (traders and other professions) are missing nanos being distributed evenly after that point.
At the moment there for many professions are big jumps between nanos, meaning extencive periods where people have to use the same nano over and over.

I thought it was generelly recognised that people want more nanos, more evenly spread out?
I have heard MPs, Doctors, NTs Traders complain abotu using the same nano forever, having to wait many lvls for a new..

But apparently from this talk, people do not care and finds that irrelevant compared with "oh no nano costs are going up"..

Unkind Regards
-Ariensky

[Obtena]

They are only relevant if you compare them to something else that is relevant. Just plotting some attribute vs. a control variable is alot of 'so what' for me. What is happening elsewhere for attributes across other profession in the game actually tells you something useful, like nanocosts for 'typical' endgame nanos.

I mean, I looked at the graphs and then you asked the question to traders "Are you OK with this"? What kind of answer did you think you were going to get? I don't think anyone is 'OK' with it unless there is some context there and they view it objectively and I doubt many people have that capability. The only thing the graphs tell me is that the general trends are being preserved which indicates new scaling is being applied. No one can say that's a good or bad thing until it's tested.

[sultryvoltron]

They are only relevant if you compare them to something else that is relevant.

There is no comparison needed.

Arien clearly points out that there is a linear progression for every stat of every drain, except the last two which jump sharply. Based on that, Arien contends that there needs to be more nanos between those outliers to straighten out the linear progression. No comparison to any other nano or profession required.

[Racatti]

You can't make such a comparison without taking various other factors, mainly the nano regain ability of traders into consideration as well, which isn't exactly linear either.

Following your logic, my 220 should have a heaps more probs keeping her pool up than my 126, which is just the opposite of reality.

[Manicmouse]

It is almost linear, the higher level you get, the easier it is to keep your nano pool filled!

[Obtena]

There is no comparison needed.

So what is the point of the graphs? Just to show some data? A linear progression that changes at some point? Big whoop!!! That doesn't mean anything without some comparison to SOMETHING.

Like I said, graphs are shown exactly what we already know ... rescaling. Nothing more. You can argue what you think the shape implies for the game all you want but if isn't some comparison or premise for changing something, it's just going to sound stupid. For instance, if their is an positively increasing slope on some graph and some game change introduced a positively decreasing slope, then you would have something to talk about. That's not happening here. There are some spikey points there, we already know what that is about.

tldr version: Nothing too revealing with these graphs.

[sultryvoltron]

So what is the point of the graphs? Just to show some data? A linear progression that changes at some point? Big whoop!!! That doesn't mean anything without some comparison to SOMETHING.

Like I said, graphs are shown exactly what we already know ... rescaling. Nothing more. You can argue what you think the shape implies for the game all you want but if isn't some comparison or premise for changing something, it's just going to sound stupid. For instance, if their is an positively increasing slope on some graph and some game change introduced a positively decreasing slope, then you would have something to talk about. That's not happening here. There are some spikey points there, we already know what that is about.

tldr version: Nothing too revealing with these graphs.

You could use a lesson in regression and data analysis.

[Obtena]

You could use a lesson in sticking to the topic and not trolling the forums with personal attacks on me. /shrug

If you think there is some profound revelation these graphs are giving us about re-balance, just say it. If you want to look like a douchebag by introducing whatever background you have in statistics and mathematics in your trolling, you go right ahead. I have no problem if you want 99% of the population to have NO clue WTF you are talking about. Besides, I don't really think anyone is interested in discussing my mathematical skills on the trader re-balance thread, other than you. Balls in your court.

[Gatester]

Linear progressions in effectiveness does not mean we should have linear increases in cost and requirements as well. If anything, tools should increase in effectiveness in a linear order while the costs and requirements increase exponentially. This allows for proper diversity and unique setups over everyone utilizing the so-called cookie cutter options.

A complete exponential style for tools would be the worst case, as this means the difference between bad, ok, good, and great is incredibly imbalanced.


Player abilities do not increase in a linear fashion, they get stronger exponentially as well, the curve just happens to be very shallow. Because it is so shallow and the delta is rather low, most players are able to do so much, possibly too much with a given profession and we have few meaningful choices or weaknesses. If the requirements actually increased above a typical player's growth rate, and forced players to begin making choices, then perhaps true Anarchy could be brought to this game.