Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 21:27:16 GMT
We will be evaluating droprate vs playtime as well, so if you want to post Limbo and hardmode runtimes and offer suggestions, please do. Decided to make a new thread for this one. The issue with current canopic rates for each Limbo option is that the harder ones don't increase the rate of canopics dropped - they drop more, but not enough to counter the extra time that they take. Since Limbo does not have a notable tagging bonus or many desired Sets, the run's only hook is canopics (for XRs) and so the metric people care about is canopics per hour. Currently P1-Easy wins on this, which is why the majority of Limbo players just spam P1-Easy repeatedly - problematic because it is also the quickest and easier run which can ~trivially be completed by many 1-3 player parties of skilled multi-boxers. I think that the P1-Easy drop rates should stay the same. They aren't amazing but they're 'good enough' and we have gotten used to it over the last 1.5 years. This lets us use the P1-Easy rate as a baseline and improve the other ones. I think that they should first be corrected for average run-time, and then have a further 'effort multiplier' added to account for the hugely increased duration and difficulty of the tougher runs. Run-time is not the easiest thing to calculate, it varies a *lot* from group to group depending on player skill/knowledge, toon strength, party size/composition and so on. P2 data is also mostly restricted to UT guild-runs since it's only been completed a handful of times by others (once by a DT/UT group, 2-3? times by Nosce te Ipsum). I'll try and estimate for a party of 7 'solid' toons completing the run in a 'good' time - by 'good' time I mean one that standard Limbo parties of 7 (which don't include Raj/myself) will take a lot of practice to achieve, but will quite doable in the long-term with enough effort. As a yardstick, I'll say that a 'good' Nessus time is ~90 minutes. So at the very minimum, P2-Hard needs to drop 4.5x the number of P1-Easy's canopics for it to have an *equal* canopic rate - 225, instead of the current ~175. What should the 'effort multiplier' be? I'm not really sure, but it needs to be something juicy enough to convince players to attempt the harder Limbo options despite the significantly increased run-time and risk of failure. For discussion's sake, effort multipliers could be 1.3/1.6/2 for P1-Hard/P2-Easy/P2-Hard respectively (a slight bump in the increase for P2-Hard, since it is the hardest run in the game at the moment). In other words, 1 hour spent in P2-Hard should be worth 2 hours spent in P1-Easy. Right now, a 7-toon P1-Easy drops around 50 canopics on average. So our new canopic targets would be: (effort multiplier x time multiplier x 50 canopics from P1-Easy) Part of these gaps could be made up by increasing the drops on bosses. You could possibly make Guardian of the Stone/Ygorl/Ssendem drop a bunch more canopics (weighted more heavily for the later ones - Ssendem could drop 150 instead of 50, for example). These are just my suggested numbers, from my own observations as a player; feel free to share your own thoughts about run-times and what the effort multipliers should be.
|
|
|
Post by manuka on Dec 10, 2017 21:54:51 GMT
A 5 man limbo p1 runs drops 20 set canopics. Make a 10 man limbo p1 drop 40 set canopics, 4 canopic increase per player over 5. Hard mode set canopics would also increase by 50% and also scale with party numbers. Ie a 5man limbo p1 hard would drop 30 set canopics and a 10 man limbo p1 hard would drop 60.
Limbo p2 should also simply scale with numbers. If i recall it has 70 set canpoics. So 70 set canopics for 5 players and 140 set canopics for 10 players. A increase of 14 canopics per player over 5.
No need to go on about run time because the run will get shorter and shorter as more xr weapons come out.
|
|
|
Post by Raj on Dec 10, 2017 21:58:25 GMT
If i recall it has 70 set canpoics. 25 on Guardian, 50 on Ygorl, 50 on Ssendam. I'd welcome scaling p2/hardmodes reward to make those runs more palatable, and scaling it off # of players would go a long way to promote bigger parties instead of small greedy farming groups. Oh, did I say players? I meant bots
|
|
|
Post by manuka on Dec 10, 2017 22:01:25 GMT
Yeah i mean theres allways the bot problem. If u bot ur gna have more loot. Hard to balance drop rates around bots so i decided to ignore them as funky has
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 22:06:50 GMT
No need to go on about run time because the run will get shorter and shorter as more xr weapons come out. It's true that run time is dynamic, but it obviously still has relevance. The only real 'cost' of doing a harder run than P1-Easy is 1) increased time and 2) increased difficulty. I'm ignoring keys because those have been farmed many times by now. I specifically included run times in the discussion because that's what Funky's original request was.
|
|
|
Post by manuka on Dec 10, 2017 22:13:45 GMT
I mean i feel like run time just isnt a good way to go about limbo canopics.Because party size and skill change the time too much. We can run limbo p1 in 40 mins with a sl bc sorc bard and tank. Iv seen 2h 10man DT limbo p1 runs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 22:22:09 GMT
I mean i feel like run time just isnt a good way to go about limbo canopics.Because party size and skill change the time too much. We can run limbo p1 in 40 mins with a sl bc sorc bard and tank. Iv seen 2h 10man DT limbo p1 runs I understand. Run-time is not the easiest thing to calculate, it varies a *lot* from group to group depending on player skill/knowledge, toon strength, party size/composition and so on. P2 data is also mostly restricted to UT guild-runs since it's only been completed a handful of times by others (once by a DT/UT group, 2-3? times by Nosce te Ipsum). There is no perfect metric, but you can't deny that run-time is relevant when we are trying to discuss incentivizing P2 instead of P1. The first thing a group does when they finish P2 is estimate how many canopics per hour they've just earned, and decide whether they would have been better off running multiple P1's in the same time. You run P1 faster than the DT's, but you will also run P2 faster than them so the ratio of run-time will be similar for both groups (at least when you have practised both runs to a comparable extent). Similarly, getting more XR weapons will improve run-times for *both* P1 and P2 and thus roughly maintain the ratio. Or do you disagree with the rough estimate that with all else being equal, P2-Easy takes ~3x longer than P1-Easy (assuming competency in both runs)? There needs to be some sort of method to guide our target numbers. An equation involving estimated run times and an effort multiplier is nice because it can be easily tweaked. Your numbers are essentially just pulled out of the blue. Also (if I understand correctly) your numbers would apply the following edits to a 7-man party: +8 canopics for P1-Easy +22 canopics for P1-Hard +28 canopics for P2-Easy +46 canopics for P2-HardReally? I don't see how that is supposed to make P2 feel notably more rewarding than P1. How do I know that? Because I take run-time into account. FWIW I do agree that bigger parties should scale more, in fact in my original Limbo Changes thread almost 1.5 years ago that was one of my points (see Point 7). I didn't focus on it here because it is extremely difficult to design a fair model which is able to be explained and justified (that is, something more than pulling numbers out of the sky).
|
|
|
Post by manuka on Dec 10, 2017 22:35:42 GMT
Agreed atm p2 isnt worth it time wise for canopics atm. I think p2 will have the biggest speed increase due to xr weapons as they get through the dr. P2 loots maily broken so its hard to say if its worth it. But the weapons have potential to be insentive enough to run p2. From the p2 runs iv done it isnt much harder than p1. And many many more p1s have been run. The more i ran p1 the quicker it got.same for p2
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Dec 10, 2017 22:43:09 GMT
Right now I'm actually looking at putting a significant amount of additional canopics on the bosses, aside from other adjustments. I would like to see P2 as more rewarding, but with more risk.
Not sure if we should touch player scaling until we make a decision on bot scaling. To be clear, I'm not going to restrict botting, but we might consider diminishing returns to make real players count more than multiple connections on the same ip. Still not sure about that, but I've seen good arguments advanced concerning that aspect of botting.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by drunkenboastor on Dec 10, 2017 23:24:34 GMT
From my personal experience, a 5 or 6 man Limbo party is a whole lot faster and easier than a party of 10. The demigod multiplier is an exponential increase in difficulty when the spawn size is dictated by party size.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 23:36:37 GMT
From my personal experience, a 5 or 6 man Limbo party is a whole lot faster and easier than a party of 10. The demigod multiplier is an exponential increase in difficulty when the spawn size is dictated by party size. I absolutely agree that the demi-count multiplier causes an exponential increase in difficulty, and I believe that this is the main reason why small parties seem to perform better. With equal demi-count (via shackling) and player skill/power, a 10-man party is far stronger than a 5-man party, especially in P2. Player skill is the primary confounding element here since there is a very limited number of really experienced Limbo players; a group of 10 players will almost always have a bunch of people who are still learning the run and thus reduce the overall level of coordination (more double spawns etc). Conversely, the 5-man runs tend to be played by the most experienced players. I would definitely like to see much stronger scaling for canopic drops relative to demi-count (as posted in my original thread last year), I just don't know of a sturdy model to draw the numbers from. I tried sketching one up a long time ago but wasn't satisfied with the results. Having said all that, I would place it as a lower priority than a flat boost of P2's rewards at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by desocupado on Dec 11, 2017 0:28:50 GMT
Ive read once a rule o balancing like this.
If something feels too weak double it.
Such rationale could be applied to hard mode and or pt 2and their canopic drops.
About the demi count. Well.. maybe the number of enemies shouldn't scale at all... Making bigger party size always better. I mean oinos has the same issue - its way more efficient with less people.
|
|