Ranger Archive
Thread: Revised harvesting changes..
Dariane_Kamutsovy wrote:
Obata wrote:
Dariane_Kamutsovy wrote:
You are wrong there.... Use mathematics for the calculations done as it is programmed as well... Easy as that. All proof can be done mathematically/logically, wether to proof it's faulty or correct.
Simple example:
MRanger CHB=100
Ranger0040 CHB=90
MRanger Grouped with Ranger0040 gets 20%= 100 *1.2 = 120
Ranger0040 Groupted with MRanger gets 40% = 100*1.4 = 136
Ergo Ranger0040 gets MORE harvest then MRanger in group.
Final.
Can be done for the rest as well. Leave it as a school example to the rest of you.
You made a few mistakes here. The master ranger grouped with a 0040 range get's a 30% bonus, not a 20, making the mod with bonus +140. Also your Ranger 0040 calculation should read 40% = 0.9*1.4=1.26. If we just used theoretical calculations, instead of testing (and did the math right
), we'd assume that a master ranger still harvests more, even with the group bonus.
Give me a break... it's 2am here
Even tough i made a mistake in writing down you made one too:
The master ranger grouped with a 0040 gets a 30 bonus instead of a 20% (agreed) but then it is a mod bonus of 130 (not 140). Still proofing that a Ranger0040 grouped is better ofthen a MRanger
Point stays
But i'm glad someone else is taking it up on mathematics (referring to your other post I just saw
As for the hard data part: no.. I don't need to see the numbers as I already expected the formula to be found to be in effect to determine how much anyone gets. You only derived it from the hard data, that's fine.
If that formula was NOT in any way related to the CHB factor from the skills, then something BASIC would have been terribley wrong in either application design or in implementations (sorry, but as a bachelor in cs i cannot let this one pass)...
Ergo, CHB factor can be used in combination with the given bonus numbers (20, 30 and 40%) to determine what the impacts would be.
Point stays.
The point you missed is that, until the true formula was derived, we would have all assumed that the harvesting mod is used as a simple multiplier. We would have all been wrong, and would have done a bunch of beautiful math that would have had no root in reality. Deriving the formula by using the hard data is the only way it could be done, barring one of SOEs programmers looking it up in the code for us.
Yes, I did make a typo on the master rangers bonus, it should have been 130, but that's still higher than the 126 for the 0040. That means, had we just acted on those thoertical numbers, we would NOT have expected to see the 0040 ranger harvest more. It's only after doing some testing that we not only know that the 0040 ranger does harvest more and why that happens. With the formula in hand, less actual testing is now needed. But, my formula is really just a new model that happens to explain everything we've observed so far. It could still be completely wrong.
Edit: I forgot to reiterate that you miscalculated the 0040 mod when grouped with a MR, it would be 126, not 136. That makes it less than the aforementioned 130 that the master ranger would get. Therefore, your point was wrong. You see it now?
Message Edited by Obata on 02-20-2005 01:34 AM
Dariane_Kamutsovy wrote:
Almagill wrote:
DaveG wrote:I'm not sure 'we' (as a community) should be testing this at all, by doing so we're validating an unfair system.
If we don't test it, who will?
It doesn't get tested it doesn't get fixed.
We can test and NOT validate, by showing what IS wrong.
We can't show whats wrong by not testing.
We don't test, it goes in like this.
It goes in like this, well...You are wrong there.... Use mathematics for the calculations done as it is programmed as well... Easy as that. All proof can be done mathematically/logically, wether to proof it's faulty or correct.
Simple example:
MRanger CHB=100
Ranger0040 CHB=90
MRanger Grouped with Ranger0040 gets 20%= 100 *1.2 = 120
Ranger0040 Groupted with MRanger gets 40% = 100*1.4 = 136
Ergo Ranger0040 gets MORE harvest then MRanger in group.
Final.
Can be done for the rest as well. Leave it as a school example to the rest of you.
Yup, I can do the math too, even put it in a nice little spreadsheet that lets me tinker with variables and all.
BUT it's figures 'from the field' that Tigg's is looking for, so she can then go back to whoever and go "Look, this is what they've gone and checked and found out..."
Any other way of doing it we need to use assumptions, assume that theres a creature density, that this or that affects the harvest, we build up a complex formula and it gives us a set of results, but at best it's an informed guess and, what's worse, it leaves an opening for the Dev side to say "Ah, but when they go out and actually harvest they'll not find that things are that bad"
The danger here is that we end up arguing with each other as to how to collect the data or do the sums and NOT arguing with the Dev's that they've managed to come up with something thats unbalanced.
They'll see sense eventually. Even if we've got to take them out to hunt with us and show them how the darned game works.
Owen-Lars wrote:Some great discussionsCheers for doing some great testing guys ive used alot of it in my report on the corr forums. JB has got on board in the thread and i expect the others to soon enough.DaveG Wrote:"To Owen: If all else fails, remind them of the old saying, "The customer is always right", and we're the customers!"lol yeah im thinkin of tatooing "The Ranger customers are always right" on Tigg's arm when she is sleeping/runasfastaslegswillcarryme
You can run as fast as you want mate, Tigg's can warp! (Where d'you want the flowers sent?)
I know it has been thoroughly thrashed out here, and I know that Owen et al have been lobbying like stink behind the scenes but it should be bug repped to make sure it doesn't slide into "nobody reported it inthe thread, so we didn't think it needed fixed" territory.
Message Edited by DaveG on 02-19-2005 08:06 PM
Vorpaks wrote:
Here are some numbers Dave, we did ungrouped too of course.
Yep, I read those, and just as I said a couple of posts up, it demonstrates the obvious result that an ungrouped hunter is out-harvesetd by a corresponding grouped hunter. I could have (and did) told you this would be the result, and is thus why I questioned the worth of testing.
Kudos on putting the work in to collecting the numbers none the less, not the most fun of exercises I imagine.
DaveG wrote:
Vorpaks wrote:
Here are some numbers Dave, we did ungrouped too of course.Yep, I read those, and just as I said a couple of posts up, it demonstrates the obvious result that an ungrouped hunter is out-harvesetd by a corresponding grouped hunter. I could have (and did) told you this would be the result, and is thus why I questioned the worth of testing.
Kudos on putting the work in to collecting the numbers none the less, not the most fun of exercises I imagine.
I think it is safe to say there are also three discussions going on.
Discussion 1: You should never offer incentives for grouping because it, by default, penalizes the solo player.
Discussion 2: You should offer incentives for grouping, but the percentage amount harvested should remain the same. For example, if a Master Ranger has paid the skill points to harvest X% more than a Ranger 0040, they should always harvest at least that much more, no matter what the group dynamics.
Discussion 3: A Master Ranger should always harvest more than anyone, grouped or ungrouped. For example, An ungrouped Master Ranger should harvest more than a Ranger 0040 who is grouped with a Master Ranger.
There may be more discussions, but those are the main ones I've noticed kicking through the thread.
DaveG wrote:I'm not sure 'we' (as a community) should be testing this at all, by doing so we're validating an unfair system.
How do I put this...
GIVE IT A REST ALREADY! You're completely missing the point. it's a multiplayer game and the devs are going to encourage grouping. Even more so when CURB comes. They do plan to implement a bonus for grouping somehow.
Whether you want to solo or group hunt is up to you. We definitely DO need to test this and it's absurd to think by refusing to test we're "validating an unfair system".
Fair or not, our main concern right now is how the bonuses factor in and balance out. We need to make sure we understand these changes exactly, how it affects us, and present the facts to our correspondent so we can figure out how to get this changed for the best.
As this change stands right now, it's very unbalanced with the majority of the grouping benefit given to scouts and novice rangers, but not master rangers. Unfortunately, the devs seem set on giving a bonus, so the best we can hope for right now is to make sure our profession isn't hurt by this bonus.
Grouping or not, that's your choice.. but the days of the solo ranger are numbered, whether we like it or not.