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

[Bonghigs]

Gotta love responses to "trolling" with more "trolling".

The simple fact is that while the graphs may not be instantly eye-opening, they very clearly make a point that FC has a very linear progression and then that progression "breaks" at the end. The thing to take away from this is that there should likely be more drains to fill in those gaps.

Further, i would contend that there should be more drains after the existing ones as well for those who wish to use a nanoskill-heavy setup. This goes back to earlier discussions about the health drain and whether nanos that are "unreachable" should even exist, but to that i say that intelligent symbiants were "unreachable" for a few years and I don't think people want them taken out. Rather, smarter players took them and held them knowing a day would come when they would be "reachable". To me, this is a similar situation; so what that you might not be able to use the nanos in a configuration you think is "good enough", it hurts nothing to have them there and opens up more config options (which is only a good thing).

[ArienSky]

Thank you Gatester and Bonghigs.
I am indeed open for the view that there should not be more drain nanos, but that they rather should be distributed in another way eg. exponentially.

This indeed is the time to consider this.
I agree with Bonghigs that there should be unreachable nanos, the issue is how to balance it, as currently nanos in general(my opinion) are OP.
Whenever you can get to cast a nano you should, even sacrificing health and evades in many cases (lvling toons).

Having nanoskills or OSB & NCU are the diverting factors.
To me a leaver to adjust that is NCU costs. the composite nanos are laughable.. they should cost in the order of the single ones combined. 4 makes no sense. The same with the MP composite nano buffs.

So rather than nano costs being the factor adjusted, then what about NCU?

Personally I like the choice of "should I have this or this nano?"
rather than being able to stack them all in.
Do you recall the debate back when the fixers got the +500 NCU nano?
it was full of positive "mu-ha-ha-ha I be more powerfull thumbs up"-posts.
It removes choice from the game though..
Have a fixer, fill up the NCU, the nanos are all 4 hours anyways..

Thank you for your input Gatester and Bonghigs
Kind Regards
-Ariensky

PS. To the "oh no why only fix traders, giving them more nanos"..
Any logical thinking person should be able to rationalise:
"All professions need rebalancing"
It was mentioned that other professions have long gaps between their nanos, and that the forums for years has marked that as an issue at least for the pet and casting professions.

This is an example, as it is not my paid job to balance every nano, I can show a procedure that makes comparison easier though, and that should enable a small work force (2 people) to balance most of a professions nanos in a work day (8 hours).

[Obtena]

Gotta love responses to "trolling" with more "trolling".

The simple fact is that while the graphs may not be instantly eye-opening, they very clearly make a point that FC has a very linear progression and then that progression "breaks" at the end. The thing to take away from this is that there should likely be more drains to fill in those gaps.

Further, i would contend that there should be more drains after the existing ones as well for those who wish to use a nanoskill-heavy setup. This goes back to earlier discussions about the health drain and whether nanos that are "unreachable" should even exist, but to that i say that intelligent symbiants were "unreachable" for a few years and I don't think people want them taken out. Rather, smarter players took them and held them knowing a day would come when they would be "reachable". To me, this is a similar situation; so what that you might not be able to use the nanos in a configuration you think is "good enough", it hurts nothing to have them there and opens up more config options (which is only a good thing).

I don't understand what introducing more drains in that 'break' would accomplish other than providing more drains that have a very minimal usage for an endgame trader. From a gameplay POV, is that necessary? Is the second-highest drains not sufficient in the level ranges it targets?

I do agree that there is a place for higher QL nanos that would reward the nano-heavy setup if that's the direction FC want traders to be going on their equipment. I wouldn't be adding more drain in that case though, I would ask for extended durations on targets.

[Bonghigs]

I don't understand what introducing more drains in that 'break' would accomplish other than providing more drains that have a very minimal usage for an endgame trader. From a gameplay POV, is that necessary? Is the second-highest drains not sufficient in the level ranges it targets?

I do agree that there is a place for higher QL nanos that would reward the nano-heavy setup if that's the direction FC want traders to be going on their equipment. I wouldn't be adding more drain in that case though, I would ask for extended durations on targets.

The first point about filling in gaps is arguable and purely opinion based. Personally, i think it can't hurt to have more for when leveling players do fall into the gap area.

For the more advanced skill drains, i would expect to see improvements in amounts, duration and lowered resistances. Before people cry nerf over this, remember I am talking about nanos that are un-usable except in a heavily nano-geared setup; thus the user is choosing to gimp other areas to better cast. In such a case, where the caster is significantly more reliant on nanos, i think it is fair to say that they should not only land easier, but also be more significant to help offset the loss of offensive and defensive skills.

[sultryvoltron]

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.

Responding to "personal attacks" (if you could call it that) with name-calling. Good one.

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.

I agree with this analysis pretty much exactly. Effectiveness in a linear fashion makes perfect sense. The other stats do not.

Particularly, nanocosts currently show a linear progression. I agree they shouldn't be. At the very least, the graphs show correlations that should be adjusted. We've talked about lowbie nanopool problems before. Exponential increase would account for that.

[Obtena]

I think linear effectiveness only makes sense with linear progression. It's a nice ideal, but it's not the case in AO so you can forget that model right off the bat.

In addition, what makes the situation worse is the fact that a significant contribution of your 'progression' is equipment, perks and buffs, and as such, is further confounded by itemization and setups which can vary significantly from player to player as well.

No nano stat is going to be balanced when a caster or a target can significantly vary their stats from itemization and buffs. For example, the drain value of a nano might be in a range of less that 10% for one target, as much as 20% for another. Depending on your version of effective, I challenge anyone to balance such a variation in target values. Pipe dreams IMO.

The balance for drains isn't going to be made in playing with the drain values. It's going to be made on timescales and other attributes that are better controlled or have less variation. Duration for instance is a good one.

[Whealer]

One thing to take into account with the graphs is the fact that every shadow level could be considered the equivalent of about 5 levels. That said when factoring your graphs it would be prudent to place the player level cap as 300 as opposed to 220 to get a more accurate curve.

As far as nanos scaling I think that they should scales exponentially rewarding higher skills with a more effective nano. To this end I also feel that eliminating the MBS that was added to weapons would help to equalize this same effect out for combat professions though that is an entirely different can of worms to be worked out somewhere else.

[ArienSky]

I think linear effectiveness only makes sense with linear progression. It's a nice ideal, but it's not the case in AO so you can forget that model right off the bat.

In addition, what makes the situation worse is the fact that a significant contribution of your 'progression' is equipment, perks and buffs, and as such, is further confounded by itemization and setups which can vary significantly from player to player as well.

No nano stat is going to be balanced when a caster or a target can significantly vary their stats from itemization and buffs. For example, the drain value of a nano might be in a range of less that 10% for one target, as much as 20% for another. Depending on your version of effective, I challenge anyone to balance such a variation in target values. Pipe dreams IMO.

The balance for drains isn't going to be made in playing with the drain values. It's going to be made on timescales and other attributes that are better controlled or have less variation. Duration for instance is a good one.

A very nice post indeed.
and what I read is that we have yet another speaker for an exponential cost vs effect factor?

But that also means that the current AO-clasic (pre QL 200) needs an adjustment to that new exponential scale.
AND even with an exponential cost/power ratio, the nanos should be distributed with an (almost) equal amount of space between them, so we don't have the big gaps where leveling people use the same nano over and over again.

Granted, it will make less difference to the end-gamer how often there are low QL nanos, if they powerlvl in a medsuit, but for the new players it matters.
Also with an exponential cost/power scale, the "unreachable" nanos will be easier to put in.

I totally disagree on duration being the balancing issue for drain, first off the purpose of drains is drains, hence the main thing about them is draining, then the amount of draining of-cause is important.
The duration of 3 min is fine I think, 10 min is too much in my opinion..

Now that we have a balancing act, the time where we can get the nanos sorted out, put an exponential function on the cost/power ratio, spread them out evenly and made Ql 300 ("unreachable"/heavy nano setup) so nano progression is easier to understand, is here.

just changing the duration from 3 to 10 min. (less challenge) and multiplying the nanocosts with factor X is unacceptable for me.
You can see that the AO-classic nanos were not made with the same plan in mind as the new ones..

The re-balancing is the time to get that overall plan in place, that will also help in the future: if a nano line needs extension because of increased stat-inflation, the master-plan/formula of nano progression is right there

Obtena:"No nano stat is going to be balanced when a caster or a target can significantly vary their stats from itemization and buffs. For example, the drain value of a nano might be in a range of less that 10% for one target, as much as 20% for another. Depending on your version of effective, I challenge anyone to balance such a variation in target values. Pipe dreams IMO.."
I'll take on that challenge and complete it in 1 line
DONE
Seriously: if a Trader use 100 nanoskill to drain 20 points, that is his/her right.
Just as a doctor using 100 nanoskill to heal 30 point.
Just as an adventurer using 100 weaponskill to give 30 damage.
Just as an NT using 100 nanoskill to give 30 damage.
What you are saying in the above is that NTs are unbalanced as they might give 20% damage to one person with a lot of HP or 30% to one with few HP.
And your argument is that this makes a re-balance impossible.
Well please read these examples, and give it a 2nd though.

Unless you want everything to be % based, the argument fails.
and AO is a skill based game where HIGH skill should be rewarted.
If you have a % dam and % heal, you will not be rewarded for higher skill(HP).

That is my argument for it indeed being possible to balance
and not a pipe dream, as you describe it.


Kind Regards
-Ariensky

PS. "I think linear effectiveness only makes sense with linear progression. It's a nice ideal, but it's not the case in AO so you can forget that model right off the bat."
Has the same meaning as:
"I think linear effectiveness only makes sense with linear progression. It's a nice ideal, but not the case in AO. "
See in that second part there is no " you are wrong"-statement, but rather the argument of the merits themselves
"so you can forget that" is not an argument, but a negatively valued statement, some would call a personal attack.

Apart from that and a few other negatively loaded words overall a very nicely structured argumentative post, better than most others. I know you can when you want to make a good and logical post.

[Loufgl]

just reading the first page of this post, im old ingame whith my trader; i got many difficulty to build one endgame trader who have great difficulty to win against all endgame player whith all profession. As most post relate the difficulty for some prof to win some other profs etc ... all that to say that i think in my experience of pvp one against one i have find like one equilibre whith all professions except build pvp advies that i can kill if im full of divest plunder and if i can land one GTH in start ;------> whith soldier if i can shutdown skill and corporate protection (donned borrow reflect because hl soldier dont land ...); -------->etc... i dont want to pollued the post whith that all ppl knowing.
All that to say that I DONT UNDERSTAND why all this changes.

You great nerfed traders in begining of game 8 years ago because they win all fights.

After you gives something to compense the gift to other profs in pvp likes advies soldiers engis, etc

Game in pvp have actualy one equilibre between profs.

In dont whant to find my trader one pvm helper only.

Trader s difficult to play and to build.

I refuse the changes in the globality. They are too many . They are no good. No changes are really positive for the way of all traders are builded.

I think some other profs need to be nerfed before traders.

in conclusion because it is certainly a reason ..... Why ??

Louf trader 220

[Obtena]

and what I read is that we have yet another speaker for an exponential cost vs effect factor?

My vision of what a particular nano should cost is related to frequency and strength of that nano, as well as the total sum of nanos being used by a profession. It's more of the mile high view than a "should this nano cost 500 or 550 nano?" detail. I actually don't think those kinds of detailed questions make sense ... what is the baseline used to answer that question? It's pretty open ended so you can justify any cost you like on any model you want. IMO, 'effect factor' is a very complicated function of a whole bunch of nanoprogram attributes.

I would like to think that the costs and the amount of nano a profession is a balance between maintain enough nano and having so much, you don't need to IP pool (like enfos do). Some exponential cost vs. a complicated scaling of nanoprogramming attributes ... it's not worth the effort to think about it. A more reasonable and practical approach? How often do I want a profession to cast said nano and how much pool do they have. It's a more empirical approach but it's real and FC won't be able to adjust costs until everyone hits test with their characters anyways.

it's pretty 'fun' to think we can analyze all this stuff with graphs etc... but I really doubt it's how FC do things. If it was, I think you would need Actuarial Scientists and Cost Modelers on your Dev team to make an MMO because that's delving into the realm of complex probabilities and what it scenarios. I don't think AO has those kinds of people.

[ArienSky]

Thank you for your post Obtena
Where I disagree with you is that graphs are very easy to make, as the nanos are in excel already.
Secondly we have some quite bright people in the office.
and when I say bright I mean at least top 10% of the country, I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher..


I and others have by experience spotted "hey I use the same nano in a loooong time", but that takes endless hours of play.
Making a graph of nanoskill / QL shows the same
So I indeed think graphs are a valuable tool at the same level as play-testing.

You can easily adjust a number, or several values, put in a new nano and see how it looks -instantly- without playtesting.
So I indeed think graphs should be used over just trying things out.


But no matter what way you do it, you need a basic decision: exponential or linear progression?
Especially when you are adjusting an existing system.
Because the graphs show that we have linear + 2 points

Is that what we want? or do we want to change that?
That is pretty fundamental and comes before if the first point should be 20 or 25 nanoskill needed.
and making that decision will assist later decisions.
If you are in doubt if something should be 500 or 550, the graph will actually tell you

Draw an exponential function, even mentally or with hand, and you can plot in points for several nanos in one go

That is my go on it.
again my main focus is nanoskill, while your focus is nano cost.
I think graphs will be an assistant in both though, seeing as the existing ones likely were plotted in a graph or had a mathematical formula choosing the stats, as that distribution of points is very liniar.
(I should find the correlation the mathematical number for how liniar things are)

You state "it is complicated"
yes, but avoiding the issue will not fix it
the challenge of this board (balancing) is to get it fixed

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

[Obtena]

But no matter what way you do it, you need a basic decision: exponential or linear progression?

Is that what we want? or do we want to change that?

Well, just two things to conclude what I think about that:

1. A decision on a functional form isn't necessary. Even if it's insisted on, it's not necessarily limited to those two. An equally reasonable approach would be holistic in implementation and confirmed from empirical testing for each QL of nano. Efficient? NO, but works, YES.

2. If FC isn't thinking in this manner, the whole discussion is academic. I would love for game devs to think in a more model-based nature but I think the reality is that I haven't seen communications from the devs to suggest they are. We have to speak their language. They have to decide how it's implemented. Without some hints, we have to resort to the lowest common denominator. It's clear from the graphs they aren't doing anything more complex than picking some numbers that 'make some sense' which end up looking semi-linear. I don't think there is some rigorous analysis happening there.

[Shareida]

You state "it is complicated"
yes, but avoiding the issue will not fix it
the challenge of this board (balancing) is to get it fixed

Kind Regards
-Ariensky

No need to draw a graph.

- Duration of drains, increased by several 100%
- Nanocost, increased by several 100%
- Effectiveness reduced by 80%
- Self healing gone
- But hey, we get AC drains, because AC works well as protection.

- Effective defense vs fighting target: loss of 300 aad in pvm, 1500 in pvp.
(divest+plunder aao drain for pvm / divest+plunder+corporate skill/aao drain for pvp)

Loss of the ability to heal outside of fights (not counting treat kit).

Team pvm, lower crit chance for us, if we bother to follow our new predefined role as a crit monkey.

Horrific changes, and then, I see people arguing about if these changes are justified, fair, or balancing.

All I can say is, that I seriously doubt that there will be any fun factor left in being a trader.

[Shareida]

Guess who got our Divests and Special attack debuffs.

Good april fool. http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...d.php?t=588733

[Sunny-D]

i actually rolled a NT yesterday, maybe i had a premonition of the nano doc. . . at least i can use my CS on him in 210 levels

[SoapTarder]

i actually rolled a NT yesterday, maybe i had a premonition of the nano doc. . . at least i can use my CS on him in 210 levels

i think a lot of people are in that same boat. I have a 180ish NT i might delete and start over when rebalance/new starter area hits live, just because the dev's hit the NT doc square on the proverbial head of the nail. they took NT's and made them interesting, even if they scrapped nano-weaving and some other things.

for us traders.... well, its all been said in this thread quite thoroughly and aptly. no need to repeat the obvious.

[Kintaii]

So here's a few things to (likely) look for in the next release of the Trader doc:

• New critical increase buff, same values as MA buffs
• New init buffs for ranged/nanoinit
• Composite tradeskill buffs extended and available at same levels as Engineer
• Heal nanos have had their scaling adjusted - Traders are *the* best natural support healer* at this time. Note: Healing WILL be harsh on the Trader's health, and should make you nervous. :P
• Damage self buffs adjusted for mid-level and maximum buff is now equivalent to the same amount of damage add as an MA
• Skill drains now effect target's team, and also drain for the same amount as the positive benefit returned on the Trader

There's other stuff in there as well, but I'll admit that I'm not as familiar with this document as I am others we've released so my ability to comment is a little diminished. Figured I'd pop in and say hey regardless, though, so... hey. =)

*By this statement I mean that they will be the best non-Doctor healer *by default*. Adventurers in Healing Morph and MAs in Zazen will be better healers, but they're also sacrificing a lot to put them in that healing state.

[Obtena]

[*]Skill drains now effect target's team, and also drain for the same amount as the positive benefit returned on the Trader

If I understand this correctly, that means the value of the debuff is no longer dependent on the target's level? That was one of the few redeeming aspects of the new drains. It's unfortunate if my interpretation is correct.

[Kintaii]

No, no, the debuff is still dependent on the level. But when its cast on the target, the target's team is drained instead of just the target themselves.

... I feel like I should note here that the Trader doesn't get a stacking positive benefit from draining multiple people at a time. ;P

[nanoforcer]

Please tell us that the duration of the drains have been adjusted for pvm
Also, i really hope the whole issue with traders being able to drain whole teams by just picking on 1 person (i'de pick the one with lowest nr, unless there is an invidual check for that as well) won't make ppl NOT wanting to team when there is a trader in bs or whatever, that would be unfortunate.